Time magazine has a piece on Sesame Street selling divorce to children: D Is for Divorce: Sesame Street Tackles Another Touchy Topic. The article describes Sesame Street’s first attempt back in 1992 to convince children that divorce is something positive. In that attempt Snuffleupagus tearfully explained that his father was being expelled from the family home and that he didn’t know where his father would ultimately live. The whole thing blew up in testing when the preschoolers recognized it for the traumatic event it really is:
Viewers learn that sometimes divorce can be “for the best.” We are assured that Snuffy and his sister Alice will always be loved. And yet when Sesame Street tested the segment on preschoolers, just weeks before it was scheduled to air, it was nothing short of a disaster. The children didn’t know where Snuffy was going to live. They didn’t think his parents loved him. Some worried their own parents might get a divorce. They cried.
Since their intent was to paint a happy face on the demolition of families Sesame Street pulled the segment and scrapped the idea for twenty years. Recently they took another shot at it, and instead of portraying a character dealing with the news that their parents are divorcing they portrayed it from the perspective of a happy little girl drawing pictures of the two houses she lives in. They did get one part right; daddy’s house is tiny while mommy lives in a giant home. They also got something else right; this time the segment isn’t slated for the main show but is only available online where parents can decide if they want to play the segment for their children.
We hear the argument that children would rather their parents divorce than argue all the time. The reason children are going to bed crying when their parents are arguing is because they fear divorce will be a result of the arguing rather than from the arguing. The greatest fear children have growing up is their parents getting a divorce. So sad that so many children are experiencing it today and Sesame Street is trying to make it look like an okay event.
Lori, you nailed it. I can remember being about 10 and hearing my parents fighting as I was falling asleep. It was just a fight and OK unitl I heard my dad say “maybe we should divorce”. That was very friightnening to me. I am not so solipsistic as to think that the those thoughts and fears were unique to me.
The problem with children’s shows’ attempts to address serious subjects is that they mean well in trying to help kids understand it. The problem is that in sugarcoating and soft-pedaling the subject and trying to help kids make the best of it, they come across as advocates for the subject. In trying to put “a happy face” on divorce, they portray it as “normal” and “not so bad”.
It’s a difficult place to be in. Many kids don’t have anyone to explain to them in a meaningful way that what they have always known as ordinary life (mom and dad together) is changing and won’t ever be like it was before.
Better to let kids watch their screwed up parents muddle through the crap than to tell kids their parents’ blowing up their family and ruining their kids’ chances is normal or OK.
@Deti
No, they’re not. It’s training meant to desensitize, and normalize destruction; probably for some of their own children. It’s also likely that it’s personal coping process for the writers. “What I wish I had been like, instead of really sad and scared and angry.” Revision of history, broadcast to our homes. …Well, not mine.
No worries. Spain, Greece, Italy and Japan will soon give us a very clear lesson that the welfare state’s reign is not unbounded. When that happens, women will grasp at their betas like the their life and the life of their children depends on it, which it literally will…
I wouldn’t say they were selling it to kids, they are just trying to make the kids feel better about the crappy thing that happened to them. I am so glad that my parents didn’t divorce when I was a child, because I know my mother considered it.
They do not mean well. Cane nailed it, its about the preponderance of the women making the show and the fact that they are either divorced or want to keep the option righteously lathered up.
Assume malice and avarice before even considering the possibility of good intentions.
because I know my mother considered it.
Noooo waaayyyy.
This is what the Mayans predicted as the end of the world…….. when evil becomes normal……..
When a neighbor of mine divorced, I used to watch the three- and five- year old girls run screaming down the sidewalk after their father’s car as he pulled away after having them for “visitation”. Our daughters would watch in horror from the front porch.
The Sesame Street show is meant to make the parents feel better, not the children. Children know the deal.
@empathologism – stop being snarky about my childhood trauma. She had a good reason for a divorce, and she told me as an adult that if she didn’t have children she would have gotten one.
Didn’t work the first time?
REFRAME, REFRAME, REFRAME until you get it right.
“If you haven’t had fun sinning, then you’ve been committing all the wrong sins.” – Billy Graham
I have a license for open carry snark
@ SSM – “The Sesame Street show is meant to make the parents feel better, not the children. Children know the deal.”
Parents seem to spend a lot of time post divorce trying to make themselves feel better about what they’ve done to heir children. It’s why most divorced parents will claim that the failed marriage is their ex’s fault.
Sesame Street knew that this episode would be a sensitive topic, so those pictures of the houses would have been carefully planned and vetted. With that said, is the rainbow over Mommy’s house symbolic of the lesbian contingent driving feminism and divorce, or ironic in that she will have to turn to female companionship as she ages when men don’t want to invest in her anymore?
That article says:
No, children of divorce won’t necessarily be more screwed up than their peers with nondivorced parents, but they can be — if they don’t get the right support from the adults around them.
Look closely at that claim. First, they drag the kids of UNdivorced parents into the mire of “screwed up” with the word more. Making it relative takes the bite out somewhat.
Then they use the word CAN, which is another indefinite term.
If you take a population of random divorce kids and follow those who get support (whatever that means, and the are intentionally vague) and those who do not, it may show a slightly lower rate of dysfunction….I’m not sure about that, but it might. But the statement “kids of divorce are more likely to be screwed up than kids whose parents stay married” is not and cannot be refuted. That’s why they didn’t even try. They obfuscate and dissemble.
In something akin to the character in the 80’s comedy Better off Dead saying “I know about high school, Ive been here 6 years” I will say, I know about divorce, I experienced it as a kid, well, lets just say it was so many times you would be shocked….so “I know about being a child of divorce, I was one multiple times” (that’s my open carry snark license)
Never ascribe to malice when incompetence will suffice.
I still remember when the PBS show Zoom had an episode on divorce, most of the Zoom players’ parents had divorced
We were on vacation and my father asked me how I’d feel if my parents divorced. What!? What was I supposed to say?
Anyway, this is a mess. Way to many “experts” who don’t know what they’re doing involved w/ kids.
Looking forward to seeing millstones around their necks. And don’t have your kids watch PBS (except Cyberchase). There’s negative ROI for doing so.
gregariouswolf, that quote is a clever piece of propaganda. “Pay no attention to the malice behind the curtain.”
Divorce is nothing more the legalized child abuse.
@Matthew
I can’t agree. I don’t believe in malice aforethought on the part of the program directors at Children’s Workshop. They’re walled in by their cognitive biases to be sure. It’s an edutainment show not counseling or therapy. I think the topic should be left out for that reason alone and I think they understand why such a segment is controversial.
As Sunshine Mary already noted, the real audience for these episodes is the parents, not the children. To be unaware of the devastating effect divorce has upon children requires a level of obliviousness that even the most jaded hamster cannot maintain 24/7. Hence the need to rationalize. What Sesame Street really needs here is a giant hamster character telling the kids divorce is okay and fun and sunshine and puppies and rainbows. After all, if you tell them loud and long enough that what you are doing to them is not really abuse, you may come to believe it yourself, even if the children still know it is a lie.
It’s why most divorced parents will claim that the failed marriage is their ex’s fault.
Actually it’s like that for all divorced people. Every divorced person has a “story” about what happened to them, rather than what they did or did not do in the marriage. Basically, you can’t really ever trust a divorced person completely on terms of what they are saying about their former marriage. Even if they are not intentionally leaving stuff out (and most if the time they do), you’re only getting one perspective on what happened at best. It’s not always to make them feel better about the kids — all divorced people do this whether there are kids or not.
@okrahead:
What Sesame Street really needs here is a giant hamster character telling the kids divorce is okay and fun and sunshine and puppies and rainbows.
Hamsteruppagus. Hamster the Grouch. Big Hamster. Hamstero. Nookie Momster.
Meeee is for nookie. That’s good enough for me. Meee is for nookie. That’s good enough for me. Meee is for nookie, and daddy ain’t tingleeeeeee …. Oh nookie nookie nookie is for me.
To the tune of:
Nookie Momster. I love it. Sesame Street has been missing a trashy single mother. Glenn Stanton would be proud.
Parents seem to spend a lot of time post divorce trying to make themselves feel better about what they’ve done to heir children. It’s why most divorced parents will claim that the failed marriage is their ex’s fault.
T, people who are bluntly self-critical are a minority, whether or not they have children.
I still remember when the PBS show Zoom had an episode on divorce, most of the Zoom players’ parents had divorced
Yikes. That program was on the air nearly 40 years ago. I wonder from what suburban latrine in California they were recruiting their players.
@Zippy & Dalrock:
Sadly, I had the Limp Biscuit song pop into my head. I’m not too thrilled about that.
Oh, and I should say: the only people that don’t “get” the horrors of divorce are the women doing the divorcing. That probably tells us all of the information we really need to know.
The purpose of all of these shows is to make the liberal agenda to destroy families and keeping everyone in poverty possible. Study after study have been shown that this is the way to go if your objective is to increase poverty levels and make the largest number dependent on the government – the minimum of one woman and one child – probably more if there are several “fathers” involved.
I remember when I was a child and my father moved out. I asked my mother one question: “When will I have to move out too?” She gave me the nonsense one gives a child, but I kept wanting to know, “Where will I go when you decide you don’t want a child?” Now this was long ago, and it woke her up – my Dad was back and things were okay. She passed away after 50 years of marriage, and he passed less then a year later. But when I was an adult I got the real story of what was going on. My father was a good man, and to be honest, was a better man than I am. I would have kicked my Mom to the curb, but that is neither here nor there, he stayed because it was what was done. But it changed things. I found out he had put a large deposit down on a house in the country – my Mom rejected it to live in the city near her family, causing him to lose a lot of money. He never put himself in that position again – and I remember it from the eyes of a child.
Now, when they died I had a doctorate and several businesses – all because they stayed together. I have watched our society deteriorate over the years mostly because women are flaky creatures, subject to hormones and irrational actions due to those hormones. Men are logical and reasonable. That is the basic difference between the two. So the key is to never put women in the position of holding any power – in the US you can’t get around that. So in the US the family, and society is doomed. It is playing itself out – but the outcome is obvious.
My way around the above is to not play that game. I enjoy women in the US, but will never make the mistake of being subject to their whims. That is why I have my own businesses mostly overseas – too many women in management in the US these days, who are flaky and hormonal. How can you depend on someone who every month goes wonky? The key is to not depend on them for anything important. Some are pretty to look at – enjoy them for eye-candy and nothing else.
Sorry ladies – I call it like I see it. Wishful thinking isn’t in my vocabulary – wishing women were reasonable is like wishing a pig could fly without hitting the ground in a couple of hundred yards and making a mess. Women in a position of power, will make a mess of things. It is in their nature – and part of their nature. It comes with being able to give birth – you can’t have one without the other. It’s not their fault, but it is. So take it into account, and find a way to work around it.
Sesame Street is a show to indoctrinate children – recognize it as that, and teach your children accordingly. I learned long ago, everything has an agenda – figure out what it is, and apply the appropriate filters.
Brendan – Will the UMC liberal class and the liberated upper-class ever admit that changing the divorce laws to suit liberal lifestyles, has damaged extensively traditional conservative families?
It has damaged the families of the underclass, the working class and most of the middle-classes. The only people feminism is good is for rich liberal daddies like Bill Clinton and their daughters.
VAWA and other bad laws have sure destroyed the American family. Thanks a lot.
Also what is with Barack Obama trying to ban guns? And his despicable comments on rape?
Isn’t the USA more violent as a whole than other developed nations? It’s less violent than most developing countries though.
I can certainly understand the bitterness a lot of you have regarding wife initiated divorce. I am suffering through separation and divorce that was initiated by my husband…and I know several other woman who are in the same boat as me. Children are definitely the victims of divorce and I see no problem with someone creating a program that might help kids who are dealing with the issues that come from a broken home. I agree that an intact family with both mother and father remaining married and raising the kids together is ideal…but I don’t want to believe that my children are going to be irreparably damaged by the choice their father has made. I prefer to be optimistic and use all tools at my disposal to help them get through this. I have custody of the kids because my ex does not want custody…and yes, he lives in a “tiny home” compared to mine because he lives alone. I just wanted to offer a different perspective here and point out that there are some women who are betrayed and abandoned. I don’t see the Sesame Street program as something terrible…but merely a reflection of the culture we live in. Our culture celebrates and encourages personal happiness at the expense of the mental health and well-being of our children. It is a terrible state of affairs and I would like to see that change and more emphasis put on strengthening marriage and valueing loyalty. Until that happens, though, helping kids deal with the fallout of divorce isn’t necessarily a bad thing.
The way to help kids deal with divorce is to not divorce. That requires stigma. Since the largest part of the problem is female initiated divorce thats where the action needs to be. There are myriad man up programs in the churches. No more emphasis on that will do anymore than more cow bell did for Dont Fear the Reaper
Sesame Street is part of the Mainstream Media and as such we need to understand that it will have a liberal agenda. And since the liberals want to normalise divorce even more than it is in today’s society, this should come as no surprise.
What we need to do is to publicise at every available opportunity the findings from the Terman Longitudinal Study that children of divorced parents have a life3 expectancy of 5 years less than their peers when all other factors have been taken into account.
“gwen” said, “I don’t want to believe that my children are going to be irreparably damaged by the choice their father has made.”
1) Divorce with children is a FEMALE industry.
2) What you want to believe is irrelevant. You may not want to believe that if you get run over by a train it will hurt you, but guess what.
3) When you start talking about what you “don’t want to believe,” you are in engaged in public hamsterbation. Stop it, it’s obscene.
There are, by far, too many that think that the destruction of the family is merely a reflection of the culture, accept it, and roll with it. The reflection I see is pure evil.
All kids… ALL KIDS.. want one thing. Security and consistency of the family unit they grow up in.
Kids are too smart to let some social engineering sh!t try and pull a fast one over them, they react as they would naturally to the news that their parents are going to die of cancer in a few weeks. They crave stability even if it is turbulent. Lori nailed it at #1.
I know, i witnessed my parents fight for 15 years because of my grandmother, and the only thing i felt the entire time was unending fear that the family was going to be broken up.
@ gwen
“I agree that an intact family with both mother and father remaining married and raising the kids together is ideal…but I don’t want to believe that my children are going to be irreparably damaged by the choice their father has made.”
Sadly, this is going to shape and define them in some way, most probably in a manner in which they will abstain from entertaining marriage or any major relationships that could lead to one. They’ve seen the folly of marriage as not being sustainable or worth fighting for.
@ Okrahead
“1) Divorce with children is a FEMALE industry.”
No disagreement there considering everything we know, 67% cash n prize sweepstakes and all. But i take gwen at face value that her husband did indeed initiate divorce which does happen from time to time. I may be curious to the motivations but i wont pry. I’ll go out on a limb and say gwen would have tried to save the marriage for the sake of the kids.
By all means tho, correct me if im wrong.
@Empath
LOL.
“Listen, women: we’ve tried everything. We cooked out burgers; we went camping; we prayed over pancakes…we even yelled the men to stop looking at porn! This isn’t working. You’re going to have to do something to stop being who you are. Lead us out of this mess, will you?”
@ empath – “The way to help kids deal with divorce is to not divorce. That requires stigma. Since the largest part of the problem is female initiated divorce thats where the action needs to be. There are myriad man up programs in the churches. No more emphasis on that will do anymore than more cow bell did for Dont Fear the Reaper”
A woman filing for divorce doesn’t mean that the divorce is her fault. Sometimes she has perfectly good cause to divorce.
@T
Right on cue.
@Empath
Behold, the effect of preaching at women as a group.
Tada!
“Sometimes she has perfectly good cause to divorce.”
According to Christ unless it’s adultery there aren’t any other “good causes”.
“~gwen says:
I agree that an intact family with both mother and father remaining married and raising the kids together is ideal…but I don’t want to believe that my children are going to be irreparably damaged by the choice their father has made. I prefer to be optimistic and use all tools at my disposal to help them get through this. I have custody of the kids because my ex does not want custody…and yes, he lives in a “tiny home” compared to mine because he lives alone. I just wanted to offer a different perspective here and point out that there are some women who are betrayed and abandoned. ”
Your different perspective isn’t exactly missing from the cultural narrative. Everyone is familiar with the concept, and it’s usually the only one that gets reported in popular media.
But it’s a single anecdote. The fact that your husband was the one to leave does not change the fact that women initiate more often.
The fact that the odd rare individual divorce may be legitimately due to one partner’s grievous fault and the other’s filing does not mean that a majority of divorces are not frivolous.
Not all situations apply to you, and this conversation happens to be about a conversation that isn’t applicable to your divorce. That doesn’t mean anyone disbelieves the circumstances in which yours happened.
As for the outcome on your kids, reality doesn’t care what you ‘prefer to believe’. Yes, your children will be irreparably damaged because of what their father did. what isn’t specified is the degree of damage, and what other effects it will have. You can do some control there. It doesn’t mean that they have no chance of becoming happy, functioning adults – it just means they have an additional hurdle to get there. So you can do the best you can for them, and help them deal with that additional hurdle, and still be optimistic about their future chances without needing to delude yourself over the fact that this causes them harm.
@ Kai – “The fact that the odd rare individual divorce may be legitimately due to one partner’s grievous fault and the other’s filing does not mean that a majority of divorces are not frivolous.”
Is there evidence somewhere that the majority of divorces are frivolous. I’ve always thought that most of them were for good reason. Usually adultery.
@ Gwen – I think that protecting your children’s image of their father could go a long way in helping them to become happy adults. Children need to be able to respect and look up to their father even if he is flawed.
One thing I have noticed with my wife’s recent separation is her family “helping” her with the separation and even encouraging a divorce. It looks like “it takes a village” to blow up another marriage and family. If Dalrock hasn’t covered it already it will probably come up.
There is damage to the children in a divorce no matter what. You have to accept that as a divorced parent. What you need to do is work hard to mitigate the damage, but you cannot remove it completely — it’s still going to be there, even if you mitigate it a lot (which you absolutely should do).
One thing I have noticed with my wife’s recent separation is her family “helping” her with the separation and even encouraging a divorce. It looks like “it takes a village” to blow up another marriage and family. If Dalrock hasn’t covered it already it will probably come up.
This is totally normal — blood is thicker than water, as they say. It’s very, very common for the family of origin to circle the wagons on “their” side of a separation situation. There are exceptions to this, but they’re pretty exceptional by nature.
“This is totally normal — blood is thicker than water, as they say. It’s very, very common for the family of origin to circle the wagons on “their” side of a separation situation. There are exceptions to this, but they’re pretty exceptional by nature.”
Yeah I know but her “family” is one of those blended ones and her step-mom is the queen bee that she used to be so against because her dad was so caught up in his second wife’s kids instead of his family. Now I guess it’s no big deal anymore especially since she appears to be heading the same route.
Yeah I know but her “family” is one of those blended ones and her step-mom is the queen bee that she used to be so against because her dad was so caught up in his second wife’s kids instead of his family. Now I guess it’s no big deal anymore especially since she appears to be heading the same route.
Probably. It’s also something they have experience with so it seems more acceptable and normal to them. Sorry to hear you’re in that situation. It sucks when you’re in the middle of it, but it can and does get better regardless of where it goes eventually. I hope it works out for you both, though.
@ voxofreason – “One thing I have noticed with my wife’s recent separation is her family “helping” her with the separation and even encouraging a divorce. It looks like “it takes a village” to blow up another marriage and family. If Dalrock hasn’t covered it already it will probably come up.”
What reason is your wife giving for the divorce? If the truth is bad enough or if she made up a sympathetic story then her family helping would be understandable. My parents would pitch a fit if I divorced for no reason.
@ T:
No one believes they are divorcing for “no reason”. That doesn’t mean that their reasons for divorcing are valid.
“I hope it works out for you both, though.”
Thanks Brendan appreciate it. 16 years she stayed home as a homemaker but of course she tried to have her cake and it eat it too like all feminista’s. What I mean by that is she wouldn’t consider working outside the home for anything even if I was disabled which I was for a time. I still went to work anyway. It was like some bizarre condition, homemaker or I run to daddy. So much for a “helpmeet”. Though I can say some people tried to warn me, some very different people too. But she put on a nice sweet front coming from a Christian HS and I met her at a bible college.
“What reason is your wife giving for the divorce? If the truth is bad enough or if she made up a sympathetic story then her family helping would be understandable. ”
Yes, she made a “sym-pathetic” story. I am pretty sure at this point if I even looked at her sideways she would bail.
“I don’t want to believe that my children are going to be irreparably damaged by the choice their father has made”
Not about you and what you want.
Is there evidence somewhere that the majority of divorces are frivolous. I’ve always thought that most of them were for good reason. Usually adultery.
@T: Dalrock has already addressed your question. You need to read this post.
@T: looks like the link was suppressed. Try here:
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/12/20/is-frivolous-divorce-overstated-in-the-manosphere/
The reason I say all this is because the rationalization hamster can even pervert homemaking. I mentioned to her once early in our marrige this receptionist at work who helped me land the job there was working there because her husband got a back injury and was disabled. And my wife totally laid into her. And I’m thinking “what the heck? The receptionist was doing a noble thing”. So even homemaking can be manipulated. To women like her if your broken it’s time to discard.
Yes, she made a “sym-pathetic” story.
Yes, as I said above, everyone has a story, and that’s the story the family gets.
I hope you can work through the separation. It’s hard because you kind of have to be working on trying to fix it but also contingency planning in case you can’t. It’s a challenge, certainly. It’s a good time to reach out to your own family and friends.
@T, Random Angeleno already provided one good Dalrock article, but here’s another on frivolous divorce. Here. I tried to find statistics on commonly cited divorce reasons, but couldn’t find any from a reputable source – the top google results don’t cite sources, and seem to be mostly match-making sites and such which I don’t trust to not have an agenda. 😛
@voxofreason: Jeez. I agree with you, re: the receptionist and your wife’s ludicrous reaction. I am so sorry to hear about your situation, and wish you the best through it.
“@voxofreason: Jeez. I agree with you, re: the receptionist and your wife’s ludicrous reaction. I am so sorry to hear about your situation, and wish you the best through it.”
Thanks man. It was definitely a red flag. I came up with the idea she might as well stay home early in our marriage after I crunched some numbers, she worked outside the home at that time and it was no big deal and I got a good job after relocating. But later she used homemaking against our marriage and went on tirades against women who did work outside the home and of course was seriously jealous of me around female co-workers even though I had to explain repeatedly I don’t hire these people. It was a mess, it’s weird how something so good (homemeaking) was perverted.
T:
Most divorces are initiated by wives; or the wives engaged in courses of conduct which forced the man into filing.
A goodly portion of divorces are initiated by women simply because they don’t want to be married anymore, or they aren’t attracted to their husbands; or they aren’t in love with their husbands, or they believe they are “incompatible” with their husbands; or they “grew apart” from their husbands.
I really appreciate Dalrock and the other commentators ideas. Thank you. I just wanted to add another angle to the discussion because I hadn’t seen it yet and because my situation REALLY related to some of the posts here. The thing is I don’t believe if you even gave some Christians the information on this site it would make any difference. Well they can answer to the Lord for that.
“I hope you can work through the separation. It’s hard because you kind of have to be working on trying to fix it but also contingency planning in case you can’t. It’s a challenge, certainly. It’s a good time to reach out to your own family and friends.”
Thanks again. Oh yeah I am into contingency planning. I am selling stuff on Craigslist as I type. And thankfully an old friend I hadn’t heard from in years just got in touch.
lozozlzloz
i’m not sure why anyone is surprized?
the abolitoon abolitionz of the familiez is a plank of the communist manifesto, alongside the establihment of a central bank.
and so the central bank naturally fundz the bernnakifiatcion of womenz and the cruccificickzkzionz of the family and religionz lzozozo
the funny thing is how very few christians speak out against
communism
the central bank
the ebernakifiaction of their womenz
instead preading the gospel of “game.”
that is because it takes courage to speak truth to power
and game is far more fu and enjoyable
so they tellz themeelevses
that jesus died on the cross
so they could enjoy butthext
which is
a blasphemous lie
zlzozozozo
Adultery is not a good reason to divorce. The only good reason to divorce is financial abandonment, and even then one should avoid remarriage because the person could come back.
If a man initiates divorce then the wife should fight it with every fiber of her being and should absolutely refuse sole custody.
Assuming there are no nursing babies, if I were Gwen I’d drop the kids off with Daddy and not return for a week. She needs to show him that leaving her will not make his life easier.
“A goodly portion of divorces are initiated by women simply because they don’t want to be married anymore, or they aren’t attracted to their husbands; or they aren’t in love with their husbands, or they believe they are “incompatible” with their husbands; or they “grew apart” from their husbands.”
That’s it in a nutshell. And they”ll use any excuse and it doesn’t matter if they’re Christian or not. Though I am pretty shocked by the “Christians”.
“Adultery is not a good reason to divorce. The only good reason to divorce is financial abandonment, and even then one should avoid remarriage because the person could come back.”
Pardon me but what is “financial abandonment?” As for adultery that’s the condition that Christ laid down but if you aren’t a Christian then forget about it. Interesting that Judas the Betrayer was also keeper of the money bag? 30 silver pieces…
The thing is I don’t believe if you even gave some Christians the information on this site it would make any difference. Well they can answer to the Lord for that.
Indeed, this is why much of the manosphere refers to modern-day Christianity as “Churchianity” instead. Most first world people are spiritually vapid and more interested in “feel good” theology – thus, beta-orbiter Jesus and so on… This has been linked to the preponderance of female congregants – in the end, modern ministry is in a “business” of marketing a “product” – and preaching hard morality just doesn’t sell. That’s why MOST Christians wouldn’t pay any attention to even the cleanest, friendliest zones of the manosphere – because even a site as civil and empirical as Dalrock’s here comes down hard on sexual sin. This is in direct opposition to the feel-good theology of “Jesus will always love and forgive you, no matter how much unrepentant sin you indulge in! Shed a few crocodile tears and we’ll find you a nice beta-schlub to provide for you for the rest of your life, even when you get sick of him and throw him out!”
@ Gabriella
If financial abandonment is the only viable reason for divorce AND one assumes a belief in the traditional gender and marital roles, then:
1. Is a woman even capable of ‘financial abandonment’?
2.If not, are you seriously advocating a system where there is a single get-out-of-marriage loophole and it is exclusively for women?
I would appreciate a more thorough explanation.
Behold, the effect of preaching at women as a group.
T said:A woman filing for divorce doesn’t mean that the divorce is her fault. Sometimes she has perfectly good cause to divorce.
Tada!
——————————————————
Cane….tada! that’s the effect of NOT preaching to/at women as a group. Would you expect that years and years of zero sense of accountability would be reversed by reading what she no doubt writes off as a bunch of bitter men?
Come on man….ya gotta do better than that.
For years she has heard zip from the church that would hold her accountable to anything. Scratch that, there is one thing they are held to account for:
http://www.drurywriting.com/keith/Do.Women.sin.htm
They then get off in conferences and groups , churchian in nature, which are designed to address the grievous sin that is mentioned in the link.
Sorry dude.
@Gabriella:
,,,,
Huh?
Actually, Biblically, there is NO good reason to divorce. In circumstances of adultery it is ALLOWABLE, but even then should be avoided. I have to assume your position is secular, but even then, that only serves to reinforce the nasty, shrewish tendencies of a lazy woman by placing a burden on the man to provide while excusing her of infidelity or sexual refusal. It is, once again, re-affirming marriage 2.0 as a transfer of resources from men to women with NO BENEFIT for men.
I’m really not sure what kind of point you MEANT to make (how righteously justified a woman is to leave a husband who can’t work?) but I’m pretty sure you just made the MRA’s case and don’t even know it.
I can’t think of any reason why I would need to divorce other than if my husband left me and took all the money with him. Then I’d need to divorce so I could get financial aid while I search for a job that can provide for the household.
But I wouldn’t remarry, because that leaves out the option of reconciliation.
“we’ll find you a nice beta-schlub to provide for you for the rest of your life, even when you get sick of him and throw him out!”
Beta-schlub LOL everytime I see those “singles or divorcees” ministries or Christian Mingle.
The weird thing is my neighbor who is my dad’s age told me about his first wife straight rejecting verbally inside the church sanctuary in front of everybody and then divorcing him. He’s a nice guy too. Definitely not Alpha but didn’t deserve that. Another red flag.
“Listen, women: we’ve tried everything. We cooked out burgers; we went camping; we prayed over pancakes…we even yelled the men to stop looking at porn! This isn’t working. You’re going to have to do something to stop being who you are. Lead us out of this mess, will you?”
Cane…..the men man up and lead the women, guess what that means….it means they hold them accountable….which is what Ive been saying
Financial abandonment OF CHILDREN. Obviously, a woman can provide for herself..and even if she can’t she can go stay with family, friends, or a homeless shelter.
@voxofreason
How many Tv sets were in your house. Daytime talk shows are toxic. I was accused of “elder abuse” by my own mother whom I always thought I trusted. Somthing broke that day……….Thanks Dr. Phil you scumbag
Aha! Feminist/Liberal rallying cry #28! “It’s FOR THE CHILDREN GAIZ. THINK OF THE CHILDREN!”
@peoplegrowing
The MRA’s are right. There is no good reason to marry in this social climate unless you do so out of religious conviction.
I am not pedaling marriage to non-Christians. I am not really pedaling marriage at all. I think it is something you do because you feel called, not because it is the choice that will result in the most earthly happiness.
OK..If financial abandonment is not a reason to divorce then what should someone do if they are left penniless but have children to care for?
The only thing I can think of is to use financial aid..assuming that family is not available to help. What are the other alternatives? I’m genuinely curious.
I’d like to add that even though adultery is mentioned as a reason to divorce in the BIble..I dont’ see anywhere that remarriage is permitted. It says just the opposite.
Okay. I was pretty short because I was picking on the cliche. My apologies.
Nevertheless, this, I think, is the same as a discussion recently had on the blog re: what to do when women respond to 1 Cor 7 with “what does a man do if his wife won’t meet these obligations?”
In other words, this is a reframe of the topic by focusing on an uncommon worst-case scenario, and de-railing the topic to try to “find a solution.” The problem is that this misses the point. The problem is that a spouse who fails in their obligations is IN REBELLION to God, and while they have a moral obligation, there is little the other spouse can do to enforce that.
In Marriage 1.0 days, the man leaving his family high and dry was uncommon, and even in such circumstances, the community (family, church, etc) would provide support. I suppose these days “financial abandonment” would be as good a reason for divorce as any other in a secular marriage, but that doesn’t mean it’s GOOD, and in this secular world view, it’s nonsensical to raise any reason over another as a “good reason” for divorce. The secular marriage has already made it clear reasons don’t matter – that’s what no-fault divorce is all about.
So, basically, from a religious POV you are fundamentally wrong, and from a secular POV your line of reasoning is utterly immaterial to the matter (of divorce).
*Addendum: I can’t cite scripture (I am new in my faith, and still learning) but I believe a woman is forbidden to remarry, but a man is not (as men are allowed multiple wives, but women cannot have multiple husbands).
Luke 16:18 ESV / 43 helpful votes
“Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.
The reason I mentioned that reason for divorce is because someone else said adultery was a reason, and I did not see how that could be a reason to divorce if the person does not also abandon the family.
Oooops…didn’t mean to C/P the “43 helpful votes”
Personally, I’d love to see adultery punishable by jail time, but only because the Bible seems to frown on stoning.
There should be punishment for adultery, but it isn’t the kind of thing children should be punished for, and divorce punishes children. There is almost never a good reason to do that unless a divorce has already happened in practical terms (abandonment) and you just need that abandonment to be legally recognized for practical reasons.
Ahh, I thank you. As far as adultery being a reason for divorce, I do believe it many of us here would prefer people not divorce at all, but as Dalrock and many commenters are Christian, and Bible does make allowance for adultery and adultery alone, they also make allowance for it. All other reasons for divorce are generally categorized as frivolous. I would assume most here would likewise not characterize a divorce based on legitimate physical abuse as frivolous; but it is “lumped in” because the definition of abuse has been expanded to the point of meaninglessness in many cases. What is permissible is not the same as what is good or encouraged.
Christians seem to be stuck conflating religious and legal concepts of divorce. Christians need to stop putting so much stock in legal marriage from a religious standpoint, as it muddies the whole issue.
Personally, I’d like to see the word ‘marriage’ removed from legal partnership discussions, since the legal ‘marriage’ we know today bears little resemblance to what generations before knew as ‘marriage’ anyways, but until that should happen, Christians need to find a way to separate the two in their own minds.
I do know of a situation where there was severe physical abuse (prompted by PTSD symptoms) and the woman made the decision to separate but not divorce. After 3 years they were able to reconcile.
If that is an option then it seems much more preferable to divorce..which often leads to remarriage.
I think separation can be good..as it can provide time for people to get the help they need to be functional members of a marriage. It seems though that our current culture can’t stomach separation as I hardly ever hear of anyone doing it. Seems most people go straight to the nuclear option.
@Okrahead, loved the quote about public hamsterbation. I LOL’d
@ voxofreason – “One thing I have noticed with my wife’s recent separation is her family “helping” her with the separation and even encouraging a divorce. It looks like “it takes a village” to blow up another marriage and family. If Dalrock hasn’t covered it already it will probably come up.”
I don’t remember where I read it, but the gist of the comment was that when a couple is having problems, her friends and family(much less often is the man doing the same thing) is getting an earful of one side of the story. Eventually, they get tired of her bullshit and basically tell her to shit or get off the pot AKA divorce the bastard.
Interesting article here talking about how when women move into a space, the real power has already left it amongst other musings.
http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2013/01/no_self-respecting_woman_would.html#more
Plenty of states require a separation period prior to being able to divorce, in some cases if there are children involved, in other cases if it is a no-fault situation. It doesn’t really drop the divorce rate. Separations almost always lead to divorce because once you’re living in separate places you start living separate lives functionally — it’s like a pre-divorce, and frankly most people prefer the peace and sanity of their separate lives to the chaos and rancor of their pre-separation lives, and don’t want to go back.
Eventually, they get tired of her bullshit and basically tell her to shit or get off the pot AKA divorce the bastard.
In other words, she runs that empathy well dry. Then, to tap a new one she files a divorce, because there is fresh new drama to be squeezed for empathy.
Friends see her getting all dat, and they gotta get some, so they start the process, complaining and whining….ultimately divorcing.
Its the only virus known to spread by talking on the phone.
@ Deti – Most divorces are initiated by wives; or the wives engaged in courses of conduct which forced the man into filing.
A goodly portion of divorces are initiated by women simply because they don’t want to be married anymore, or they aren’t attracted to their husbands; or they aren’t in love with their husbands, or they believe they are “incompatible” with their husbands; or they “grew apart” from their husbands.”
I am going to have to look into this more. I am having a hard time believing that the majority of divorces are women divorcing faithful, nonabusive husbands. I understand the whole growing apart thing, but it seems like you’d try to rekindle your marriage instead of divorcing when there are children involved.
“We hear the argument that children would rather their parents divorce than argue all the time. The reason children are going to bed crying when their parents are arguing is because they fear divorce will be a result of the arguing rather than from the arguing. The greatest fear children have growing up is their parents getting a divorce. So sad that so many children are experiencing it today and Sesame Street is trying to make it look like an okay event.”
CORRECT
There are many children today who come from divorced households. So they’re trying to make it look okay. But divorce goes against every child’s natural conscience. And it’s wrong to push this into society as the new norm, even if to assuage the children. Because it only assuages the parents decision(s) about getting divorced.
Separation leads to divorce for another reason. It affords zero negative consequence to the woman immediately. Her life is the same…..minus the jerk
Churchian women even have the church “come along side them”…offering hot casseroles and rides to school for the kiddos, the men trim the shrubs and mow the grass and remove those pesky pictures of hubby off the walls.
T-do look into this thing. The information is there, look for it….REAL data, REAL counting, analytical data, not surveys. Its not hard to find.
I’ll bet you even know women who frivorced, but they used the abuse or porn get out free card effectively with you. Women reject this fact in the vein of “I don’t know a soul who voted Nixon”
The negative consequence would be less money, less help with the children, and none of the emotional comforts of companionship. Not to mention not having someone to mow the lawn, fix the sink, plunge the toilet, and kill the icky bugs.
Almost all the women I know with husbands who travel absolutely hate the periods of time that he is gone for the reasons i listed above.
So if a separated woman doesn’t have the same hardships as a woman whose husband travels then why would that be?
@T I am going to have to look into this more. I am having a hard time believing that the majority of divorces are women divorcing faithful, nonabusive husbands. I understand the whole growing apart thing, but it seems like you’d try to rekindle your marriage instead of divorcing when there are children involved.
Define abuse. My experience and observation is that abuse is code for he’s a disgusting beta and I can’t stand to be in the same room with him any longer.
As I work in IT, I’ve met lots of guys that fall under the faithful, nonabusive husband category if you define abuse by any reasonable standard. Guys, that did the vacuuming and the laundry, cleaned the toilets and took the wife out for date night.
It’s like a cliche, the upstanding backbone of society kind of guy kicked to the curb by his wife over some mythical abuse or infidelity, aka being a beta who gets off on internet porn because his STBX won’t put out.
I am having a hard time believing that the majority of divorces are women divorcing faithful, nonabusive husbands.
But you have no trouble believing that a quarter of the married men in the United States are beating their wives and/or whoring around on them, social survey research be damned.
Because she is living as if she is divorced already. Custody and visitation orders *already* kick in upon separation, as does c/s and, where applicable, alimony. It’s like being divorced in almost all practical respects.
Almost all the women I know with husbands who travel absolutely hate the periods of time that he is gone for the reasons i listed above.
Yes, but in most separations, he’s gone because she WANTS him to be gone.
T: It happened to me. I was a head Deacon. Loved our 4 boys (two were my stepsons) Made crazy money. Great sex. Huge fancy house and cars. We lived a fairy tale.
My main crime? Not understanding how to make her happy, after giving her everything I possibly could in this world and she was still discontent. Church advice: grovel more.
Too bad I didn’t get it until it was way too late. She took everything, and ruined everything.
Karma ruined her, after she ruined our family. Nobody won, everybody lost… and my last refuge, the church, was too immersed in lies to be able to speak the truth.
Truth may hurt, but it is our only hope, and today it is only shouted down as hate. It is infiltrated and diluted to the point that even Pastors can help no one.
I have no doubt that if women who proclaim to love Jesus can remorselessly slaughter a marriage and harm her own children, that it’s far more prevalent with those with a more fungible morality.
I’ll be curious to know what your findings are- but your disbelief will likely be replaced with grief when you discern the reality of how many stories out there are just like mine. Majority? What percentage will you have to see before it really sinks in? I don’t know the actual percentage.
I just know of the sorrow I saw in my sons’ eyes, and the abject confusion I felt- how did it ever go so badly, when I tried so hard…
You will never convince T. She’s utterly deluded to the scope of the problem. In her eyes the problem lies with you and with men. If you would just be uber attractive, earn a lot of money, forgive them their slutty pasts and the accompanied affairs, all would be well. Women would never be so low as to use the law in their favour and divorce faithful and loving husbands, never, not in a million years. Only stinking men do that, got it?!
Gabriella,
I only get three white knight cards for the whole year and already I’m using one of them. You don’t need to keep qualifying your view on divorce. You are serious about remaining married and I’ve never seen you vary on that.
@ Solomon – I’m sorry that happened to you. I realize that even one divorce like this is too many, but the idea that this is common is shocking to me. I come from a family where divorce is a last resort.
“I tried so hard…”
“Separations almost always lead to divorce because once you’re living in separate places you start living separate lives functionally — it’s like a pre-divorce, and frankly most people prefer the peace and sanity of their separate lives to the chaos and rancor of their pre-separation lives, and don’t want to go back.”
Yes. The way this almost always works is that the H and W enter a separation agreement or have the court do a legal separation order. That order or agreement almost always contains provisions for child custody, visitation, almony and child support during the term of the order. H and W live separate and apart, meaning one party (usually H) has to move out of the marital home.
My state has a long waiting period for a no fault divorce; I think it’s one or two years of continuous living apart. For “fault” divorce involving adultery, real physical abuse or other grounds, it’s immediate, meaning as soon as you can have your evidentiary hearing to prove grounds.
Most of the time, the H just wants it over with ASAP, so he will agree to admit “fault” usually extreme and repeated mental cruelty. H will often agree to admit fault or many other things, so long as W agrees to waive alimony. Often, H will agree to many concessions so long as W waives alimony and also agrees to give up the right to come back to court later and seek alimony, though in practice either party never really gives up the right to ask for modification of a divorce order. H can get out of alimony in a lot of cases, but he’s not going to evade child support.
Once grounds are “proven” by stipulation, they are divorced; and all that’s left is to divvy up the marital property and get orders for c/s, visitation and alimony (if applicable) entered. Most of the time the parties can (must) agree because c/s is a percentage and no upward or downward deviations are allowed, and barring the most extreme circumstances residential custody of the child(ren) is going to mom.
Divorce/bastardy is a race and class thing. Belmont vs. Fishtown. SWPL are doing better than ever, but as Charles Murray says, they don’t “preach what they practice.”
Matt
““we’ll find you a nice beta-schlub to provide for you for the rest of your life, even when you get sick of him and throw him out!”
This is so funny yet painfully true at the same time…
Once upon a time there was a skinny white guy in Los Angeles. He was (and still is actually) an electrical engineer at Boeing in Los Angeles. He was a skinny nerdy Christian and clueless about women. He was hired at 22 years old. 4 years later he mortgaged his first house in east Redondo Beach, at age 26, before the Real Estate bubble.
His pastor, noticing his single status, invited him to Christian singles meetings (where quality Beta’s meet single mothers, divorcees, and fat chicks. You know the deal). Shortly afterwards, he met the love of his life. A 30 year old single mother with 3 boys.
Now she owns the house. 😉
Once again, in divorces like this H is bargaining in the shadow of the law. Any family lawyer worth his/her salt will lay out H’s options. Depending on the circumstances, H’s biggest bargaining chip is his access to the money. He can try to limit ongoing obligations to her by paying lump sums; or giving her the house, or agreeing to a number of concessions to her in exchange for her waiving alimony. He can try for joint residential custody and depending on the kids’ ages and how close he lives to W he might get it in a rare case.
No matter how you slice it, if there are kids, H is going to get socked with big c/s payments garnished from his paychecks, like a FICA or 401(k) deduction. The money is taken from H before he ever sees it.
Yes. The way this almost always works is that the H and W enter a separation agreement or have the court do a legal separation order. That order or agreement almost always contains provisions for child custody, visitation, almony and child support during the term of the order. H and W live separate and apart, meaning one party (usually H) has to move out of the marital home.
My state has a long waiting period for a no fault divorce; I think it’s one or two years of continuous living apart. For “fault” divorce involving adultery, real physical abuse or other grounds, it’s immediate, meaning as soon as you can have your evidentiary hearing to prove grounds.
Yep, how it works in my state, too — 18 think the no-fault waiting period (mandatory sep period) is 18 months. It doesn’t stop divorces, because even if the couple waits it out, they’re living like a divorced couple during those 18 months and subject to the rules in the sep agmt or order for that time anyway — a lease is signed, new arrangements are made for this and that –> it’s living like you’re divorced already. The train has left the station in most cases. In a handful of cases, couples reconcile, but the stats on that are low once physical sep happens.
Now she owns the house.
It really is almost funny if it wasn’t so common. Well, at least he manned up, eh?
Perhaps some children are more insecure than others: I don’t know, but consider the following somewhat bizarre conversation I had three years ago. I had been invited to spend Saturday at the Conservatoire in The City of London, at the invitation of the mother of a girl – a pupil there – then just two days shy of twelve years old. Having not been in any Conservatoire since I was last a student, the idea appealed to me. We travelled separately. I arrived first but soon saw the twelve year old. I addressed her and this was (as best I recall) our initial conversation:
Child: What are you doing her?
Opus: I am waiting for your mother.
Child: No you’re not.
Opus: Yes I am, she invited me to join her here today.
Child: No she didn’t.
Opus : She obviously forgot to tell you.
Child: What are you doing here?
Opus I told you. Where’s you mum?
Child: She’s doing some shopping.
Child: You’re going to run off with my Mum.
Opus: Not I’m not.
Child: Then why are you here.
Opus: I’ve come to spend a day at the Conservatoire.
The child’s lives with her parents, who were not and have not separated, and I would be greatly surprised were they to do so. I need hardly protest that I have not and had no romantic interest in the mother. Sometime later I saw her protesting her love for her Father on her Facebook page, again revealing, I thought, an insecurity, probably, but I forget, as a result of some joke of mine to him, and misunderstood by her.
@T: did you read the links to previous Dalrock articles that discuss the prevalence of frivorce? To guess from your subsequent responses, you did not. Or you have chosen to ignore them.
So here are those links once more. Please read them before you comment again as they are excellent responses to the question you have been asking throughout this thread:
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/12/20/is-frivolous-divorce-overstated-in-the-manosphere/
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/03/11/why-so-many-wives-wish-their-husbands-would-cheat/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2266622/Jordan-Green-Final-words-boy-12-hanged-hours-expelled-school.html
Another one bites the dust for the cause of ‘Teh Wimmenz’.
While few people ever change from the religious denomination they were raised in, it sounds like a powerful number of Red Pill Protestants need to consider converting to… Roman Catholicism. Now there’s a Christian Church with a firm, unyielding, long-standing position on Abortion, Marriage, Divorce, Elder Care, Feminism, Slut Walks, etc. No Marriage 2.0 BS for them. Given the civilization-destroying gravity of those issues, quibbles over the more esoteric niches of church doctrine seem… small.
Oh sure, plenty of Catholic hypocrites in the pews, and even a few up at the altar (not nearly so many as The Marxist MSM makes out), but never is non-Christian behavior sanctioned or coddled in any official way, and that keeps it in check.
Throw in the world-class hospitals, universities, and high schools, and you’ve got quite the package.
While I highly admire the qualities and character of the European Protestants who founded these United States of America, there’s no denying that most of their branches/denominations/sects have become either corrupted, or watered-down to the point of useful only for bake sales. They have certainly ceased to be a dominant force in the ethical/cultural life of the USA.
I would LOVE to know the various vectors the Marxists used to corrupt them. Make no mistake: if your “church” (and its members) act way more like a Jerry Springer episode (or an LGBT Convention) than The New Testament, then that destruction was DELIBERATE. I’m guessing it was accomplished in whatever school trains your preachers… seminary? Bible College?
The Communist Manifesto is quite clear on the “obstacle” presented by organized religion, and real Marxists never forget that, so it requires constant vigilance to stop them at the front door… AND the back door.
[D: I wish it were that simple. The same issues exist on both sides.]
T all the women who frivorce come from families where divorce is last resort and even THEY divorced as last resort…..I forgot to add…according to them.
If, when you hear of a divorce, you are willing to ask tough questions you will either lose a friend or get a straight answer, and you will be shocked. Women do not do that. They do not hold one another to account. Once this set in, and after a couple of years of convincing my wife, you would be amazed how many times this has proven true. It happened very recently, yes this is one anecdote, a very close friend was going to divorce her non abusive faithful husband. She had cooked a rationale that would have you foaming at the mouth to throw the man out.
My wife agonized about how to handle it….worried herself sick to even do so much as encourage the women in marriage, for fear it would not be supportive. Finally, she sent the women some comments and scripture that to me seemed benign, and asked me multiple times to read it and make sure it was not harsh…..until you can step outside “I Feel” as a data point you really are living in a made up reality that is custom designed to buttress your pre-concieved notions.
Matt King references Charles Murray?
Priceless
I would LOVE to know the various vectors the Marxists used to corrupt them.
Read Mencius Moldbug for an interesting perspective on this issue.
@Hamster Tamer: as soon as I’m down with praying to statues and medallions and sinners, I’ll consider it.
P.S. Annulments are a joke.
Hamster Tamer….I see no church that is a consistent source for those forms of morality that women would break from specifically. The vast majority of Protestant conservative denoms preach hard against those same things, yet are still corrupt by conventional wisdom and artificial realities created by the women. Add that to the disproportionate angst reserved for birth control, and the comparison evens more, as the evangelicals rant over abortion lots of other stuff gets ignored. The local Catholics that write here flitter from birth control to BDSM fantasy writing. The “.orthagonalists ” seemingly more so then others.
No sectarian warring here….just observing
Solomon: you are incorrect in what you’ve been taught or told. Catholics do not pray to statues or any other inanimate object. Statues of Jesus and Mary and Saints are like the pictures you have of loved ones in your home. They are there to remind of our Lord and Savior, our Blessed Mother and the Saints. We ask Mary and the Saints to pray for us to Jesus, just as you might ask a close friend or relation to say prayers to God on your behalf. We can and do pray directly to God, Our Father, every day and at every Mass. We also have many other prayers specifically to Jesus. There are so many Protestant people who are being misled every single day by people they trust about the Catholic Church. Why not study the history of the Church and of the Church Fathers. Start with St. Augustine. The Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded.
@ Hamster Tamer
Trying to convert Dalrock is my job..though I suppose I can use reinforcements.
@Dalrock
Thanks, but I don’t think politely telling me to shuddup counts as White Knighting. I’d hate to think you wasted a card on that.
@Empathological
Your wife might be unusually empathetic. I’ve been known to tell my friends that getting a divorce would be f******* stupid. This might be why I have very few friends.
And disproportionate angst for birth control? Its only destroying civilization.
@Everyone else- We don’t pray to statues. We venerate objects. When you look at a photo of someone you love and you feel a strong emotion…maybe even going so far as to kiss it, that is no different than what Catholics do to objects. .
Lisa beat me to it.
I honestly don’t think sectarian debates are useful on this kind of blog. There are a relatively huge number of places on the internet where Caths, Prots and Orths can have at it and try to convince each other, usually unsuccessfully. The focus of this blog is a different one. I think, for example, almost every Protestant here (I am not one) has heard the standard explanations about statues and Mary and saints and so on and they are not convinced by them — it doesn’t really add to the conversation.
Yeah, if you are going to try and convert someone you should be stealthy about it. Like I am.
The Catholic and Orthodox Churches are good about their stands against feminism (I suspect the Orthodox Church is better in North America), but they have their own set of problems.And the RC in North America treats annulments like divorces now. No branch of Christianity is doing well at the moment, unfortunately.
Getting back on topic… given what Dalrock has demonstrated before about marriage rates in the US, I don’t think divorce will be as much of an issue, considering far less people will be getting married to begin with. At this point it doesn’t matter if this trend is noticed in the general discourse before the coming collapse, but rather if enough political will can be brought together to do something about it before we reach the event horizon.
Frivorce? Is this word copyrighted?
@ Alexander
I didn’t see your comment until now.
1. Is a woman even capable of ‘financial abandonment’?
Yes, sorta.. For instance..I am a SAHM but I provide financial assets to my husband. My duties would be expensive if he had to hire them out. Just because I am not providing literal money that doesn’t mean that abandoning my family wouldn’t be costly.
2.If not, are you seriously advocating a system where there is a single get-out-of-marriage loophole and it is exclusively for women?
That wasn’t my intent. My intention was to provide a loophole for when the practical reality matches a divorce, but the legal status doesn’t reflect that.
Also- I don’t believe traditional gender roles exclude women from providing financially for a family. While I think out-of-the-home full-time work is problematic in most cases, cottage industries and even part-time work can be appropriate (if it doesn’t conflict with the husbands career).
“A goodly portion of divorces are initiated by women simply because they don’t want to be married anymore, or they aren’t attracted to their husbands; or they aren’t in love with their husbands, or they believe they are “incompatible” with their husbands; or they “grew apart” from their husbands.”
http://thewomanandthedragon.wordpress.com/2013/01/17/advice-for-a-former-slut-married-to-a-beta-provider-to-whom-she-is-not-sexually-attracted/
@Brendan
Agreed.
Interestingly early on in the blog I was accused of being anti Catholic because I only pointed out Protestants being weak on divorce. I should have bookmarked the comment.
I am going to have to look into this more. I am having a hard time believing that the majority of divorces are women divorcing faithful, nonabusive husbands. I understand the whole growing apart thing, but it seems like you’d try to rekindle your marriage instead of divorcing when there are children involved
This is the very reason for the manospere.
“I am going to have to look into this more. I am having a hard time believing that the majority of divorces are women divorcing faithful, nonabusive husbands. I understand the whole growing apart thing, but it seems like you’d try to rekindle your marriage instead of divorcing when there are children involved.”
Alas, no.
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/07/31/trapped-in-a-not-unhappy-marriage/
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/06/03/the-ubiquitous-frame-of-hypergamy/
“A goodly portion of divorces are initiated by women simply because they don’t want to be married anymore, or they aren’t attracted to their husbands; or they aren’t in love with their husbands, or they believe they are “incompatible” with their husbands; or they “grew apart” from their husbands.”
Ducks in a barrel. . .
http://thewomanandthedragon.wordpress.com/2012/07/22/sunday-supplications-does-god-want-women-to-be-happy-in-marriage/
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/03/08/pathological-denial/
Seems like your female commenters here like the idea of divorce. “yeah divorce is bad but…….” TFH had it nailed, as long as women have artificial power they will use and want more. Women cannot get past how they feel not even for the sake of children ( that was a no brainer, see abortion) the sake of society and damn sure not for the sake of her husband. It is really neat watching the justification for this hell on earth spiral down of western civilization as it was them personally being blamed for the destruction.
Interestingly early on in the blog I was accused of being anti Catholic because I only pointed out Protestants being weak on divorce. I should have bookmarked the comment.
That’s funny on levels. From damned if do and don’t to a few other iterations of cliches and saws.
Gabriela
Yea my wife is on the hyper side of over thinking emotional things. So you can her cancel each other out. But I offered that not as a data point but as an example for illustration. I dont know the deep machinations of the minds that cause this reluctance women have to hold each other to account, when i write things like that you could image me saying “Its as if” in front of those musings. But this phenom happens corporately and individually if you watch for it.
~gwen says:
January 22, 2013 at 12:15 pm
I can certainly understand the bitterness a lot of you have regarding wife initiated divorce. I am suffering through separation and divorce that was initiated by my husband…and I know several other woman who are in the same boat as me. Children are definitely the victims of divorce and I see no problem with someone creating a program that might help kids who are dealing with the issues that come from a broken home. I agree that an intact family with both mother and father remaining married and raising the kids together is ideal…but I don’t want to believe that my children are going to be irreparably damaged by the choice their father has made. I prefer to be optimistic and use all tools at my disposal to help them get through this. I have custody of the kids because my ex does not want custody…and yes, he lives in a “tiny home” compared to mine because he lives alone. I just wanted to offer a different perspective here and point out that there are some women who are betrayed and abandoned. I don’t see the Sesame Street program as something terrible…but merely a reflection of the culture we live in. Our culture celebrates and encourages personal happiness at the expense of the mental health and well-being of our children. It is a terrible state of affairs and I would like to see that change and more emphasis put on strengthening marriage and valueing loyalty. Until that happens, though, helping kids deal with the fallout of divorce isn’t necessarily a bad thing.
———————————————–
I am getting used to this opening “I can certainly understand the bitterness a lot of you have…”. It always means the same thing: “Quit whining already, really, no one cares.”
Gwen, you tell us that your husband is divorcing you for no reason. But he is willing to
1) get divorced
2) lose his kids
3) lose most of his property
4) pay child support
5) pay alimony
just to be free from you.
(Please correct me if I am wrong about point #3)
So even if you are not the one who initiated, there is good reason to think that if your husband is willing to pay the price, that you are not exactly a saint.
(Sorry, it doesn’t work the other way… when women get divorced, they are not paying the price, so their decision to divorce tells us nothing about their justifications for divorce.)
“Children are definitely the victims of divorce and I see no problem with someone creating a program that might help kids who are dealing with the issues that come from a broken home.” The program is not even pretending to help children who come from a broken home. (funny phrase, by the way. Children come from healthy homes which get broken, or from unmarried mothers. This phrase tries to take our attention away from how the children got hurt, trying to protect… who?) The program is trying to say divorce is not so bad, but you like it (the “it helps the children” line).
” I just wanted to offer a different perspective here and point out that there are some women who are betrayed and abandoned. ” If it is true you were betrayed and abandoned, then your pain is legitimate, but you are not offering a “different perspective.” No one here has said that women who are betrayed and abandoned should be left without help, the whole discussion is about frivorcees. But you try to use your own position to “present a different perspective” on how we should see divorce universally. Sorry, your words betray you. You are trying to justify divorce in the name of the few women who are abandoned.
“I don’t see the Sesame Street program as something terrible…but merely a reflection of the culture we live in.” A very common attitude which tries to justify social breakdown by saying its already accepted and there is nothing we can do. You see, you are trying again to say divorce is ok, and not something we should fight against. Think for a moment – all the men here who were betrayed and abandoned by their wives recognize the horror of divorce and are doing what they can to fight against it. You come crying about how your husband abandoned you, but you completely fail to decry divorce – you would rather normalize it, almost celebrating it.
The sesame street program is not trying to help kids with the fallout. It is trying to lie to them about what they go through, and, as Dalrock nicely explained, kids don’t buy it. The program is trying to help women deal with their guilt about divorce, and I am guessing it does a good job for many of them.
“Our culture celebrates and encourages personal happiness at the expense of the mental health and well-being of our children. It is a terrible state of affairs and I would like to see that change and more emphasis put on strengthening marriage and valueing loyalty. ” ok, so maybe I misread you… or is this just lip service? Well, do you want to see women punished for destroying marriage and being unfaithful? So far, it does not sound like that. Do you think men who have been loyal and dedicated should be given preferential treatment in divorce settlements? Most importantly, do you think society should stress the evils of divorce rather that try to sugar-coat it? On this at least we have the answer, You do not want divorce to be shameful and you like to see society normalizing it. So I have to take this last assertion as meaningless lip-service to the ideals of marriage and loyalty, because they are meaningless as long as society.refuses to punish women who violate their husband’s dedication and loyalty, and as long as divorce is not seen and treated as a gross violation of the principles of marriage and loyalty.
Girls, out of respect for the Catholics here, I’ll not debate Catholicism.
But I do know very well what it is, and what it isn’t.
I did notice the apologetics didn’t address my comment about annulments. That’s probably for the best. Just tiptoe past that one.
I did notice the apologetics didn’t address my comment about annulments. That’s probably for the best. Just tiptoe past that one.
There are about 20 million practicing Catholics in the United States. About 0.4% are granted annulments every year. If you extrapolate from that, the lifetime probability of receiving one is just north of 15% for those attending Mass. Some are legitimate on their face as the previous civil marriage was defective of form. About a third of applications for annulment are denied, so the process is not a thoroughgoing sham. Annulment mimicking divorce is a problem in the American Church, but it is an atypical way of doing business for lay Catholics and part of a heap of problems the Church faces today.
The problem (of divorce) as I was alluding to above (at 05.33pm) is that its general frequency ends up adversely affecting even those who are not so directly and immediately affected, by making them fear divorce, and – even assuming that Sesame Street has the best will in the world – their new initiative only reinforces that fear as a possible or even probable event. I may be oversensitive but (from recollection) some of the stories told for the amusement of children, are very disturbing and thus inappropriate. If they are told for the purpose of toughening-up a child, then I would suggest that that toughening is premature and thus abusive. I imagine that many small children watching the Sesame Street divorce-rationalisation section, will (identifying with the sad-looking doll) take it too much to heart: I was as a five year-old terrified by listening to The Wizard of Oz read to us children in class – to me Straw men and Tin Mennot to mention the Wizard himslef seemed very scary. Adults often so misread children. I almost digress, but at about the same age I was once told that I was going to a concert to hear a violinist. The idea much pleased me for I would have wanted to hear a violin being played. The female violinist came on stage and managed to sit on and break the violin: I was bitterly disappointed. Only later did I of course realise that this was surely meant to be a comedy routine.
I know nothing of parental divorce personally but (as I must have previously mentioned) I was packed off to a boarding-school at a young age, and that is very traumatic: one knows ones parents love one, as they say, and that this school is the best that they can do for you (so they say) but if so, why is it that one feels so unhappy, and why does one feel so ungrateful for this act of kindness? One is thus horribly conflicted between wanting to run away from school – to avoid the ever present violence and threats of violence – yet one knows that if one does so one will face ones loving parents wrath (and be brought straight back). Being deprived (as was the case) of all clothing (save ones school uniform), all toys and other personal possessions as well as privacy is entirely unpleasant – one would not do it to an adult; why do it to a child? In divorce (in a sense) you lose one parent, but boarding-school – for a child – feels like losing two. Somehow, sad though the death of a parent may be (in war or otherwise) that at least has a finality and one does not, I presume, feel in some way deliberately abandoned.
I don’t think divorce will be as much of an issue, considering far less people will be getting married to begin with
The problem then will become, what sort of additional wealth transfer mechanisms will be conjured and enforced by the state to take the place of divorce? Child support collection, as Baskerville and David Usher study and explain, are self sustaining industries partly motivated to shift the burden of mommy off the welfare rolls. If there are less cases with a specific man to go after, imagine a day when the “best interests of the children” will be generalized into a male tax, where it takes a village intersects with the growing population of feral females with babies.
Men, we need you(r)(money)
They can still force c/s payments without people being married, of course, keeping the burden off the welfare rolls. Not alimony and property distribution, but it is something. I suspect this is a bug reason why the state will generally resist efforts at MPT, because while MPT can tell you who the father is *not*, it can’t tell you who the father *is* unless Mom identifies him — which would mean that some cases would end up with BabyDaddy State footing the bill, rather than the cuckold footing the bill.
Brendan
knowing misandry and the state. The cuckold onced named by the mother upon completion of paternity testing proving he is not liable will have the burden of finding who is placed on him. That way the state can satify the female need of no responsibility, they can claim to the male slave population that they are against paternity fraud and have it written in law, and in the best interest of the chiild every child has an ATM. A system like that also leaves the entire domestic relationship enforcement community in place. The courts,lawyers,county offices,and the child support enforcement offices etc.
@Art Deco
I was interested in what you wrote about Catholic Annulment – for what its worth, I rather approve of it – and the idea that it is easy to acquire is contradicted by the failure to do so of such high-profile characters as Henry Tudor (VIII) and Franz Liszt’s girlfriend Princess Caroline Sayn-Wittgenstein.
I also (in my divorce-lawyer days) had a female client, who, not merely satisfied with the State’s version of Divorce asked me to represent her in an Annulment by the Catholics, she being of that faith. I forget now what her grounds were, and the fact that all the documents were in Latin pressed into service a skill I rarely need. I forget the result, but I trust that the Church refused her application, as her marriage (in my not inconsiderable judgement) was with full consent and duly consumated so far as I could tell. It was not long before she was making overt passes at me, whilst alleging violence (no evidence thereof of course) against her husband. It has a happy outcome, however, as she was soon pushing a pram; so some hapless Beta must have fancied her and manned-up. I am just not that brave.
The “Who Started It?” aspect (who files) is something of a red herring under Man-Fault Divorce: if he files, it just shows what a cad he is; if she files, it just proves what a jerk he must be.
Michael – vanity plate seen on a Porsche: WASHIS
@gwen
“Until that happens, though, helping kids deal with the fallout of divorce isn’t necessarily a bad thing.”
Spoken like a true hamster. Maybe if you were a woman worthy of your husband staying married, we wouldn’t have to hear your statement of helping your kids deal with divorce fallout. As another poster said, he consciously made the decision to be rid of you. Either he’s just a man-whore and completely hates marriage, or you are a vile, execrable creature the likes of which no man would want to be around. Given how most Ameriskanks are as worthless as tits on a boar, i’m gonna go with the latter!
Regarding that vanity plate….true story
in about 2000 I had purchased a new set of irons. I am not an avid golfer, but I “invested” in these things, the newest technology at that time etc etc. I bought a nice Nike bag at the same time. These items were still in my care, with tags on them. I drove past a driving range daily and decided to stop and open my new stuff and try them.
I walked into the little shop and they sold used clubs. There, sitting on the floor was the same bag, and a set of the same clubs….for sale. The price was a fraction of what Id paid, and the bag was still wrapped in plastic and the clubs had price stickers on them and were shrink wrapped together.
“Whats up with this? ” I asked the guy. He told me that that morning a woman had come in and sold the whole package to him for 100$. She made some reference to having divorced some bastard, and walked out.
I bought them, and returned the ones I had. I still have them today, and I think of that poor “bastard” whose wife was selling his stuff in an emotional outburst.
My guess is that most husband initiated divorce involves homewrecking skanks. These women are very good at what they do. Middle aged housewives just cant compete with what the homewreckers are selling.
My guess is that most husband initiated divorce involves homewrecking skanks. These women are very good at what they do. Middle aged housewives just cant compete with what the homewreckers are selling.
I dunno about this. Divorce is awfully expensive for men. Homewreckers might have their charms, but what they’re selling isn’t that appealing, and can be got cheaper other ways.
Note that this rationale against divorce used to apply to women, too, before we as a society decided to make divorce as easy/cost-free (or profitable) for women as possible w/ no-fault, community property, default mother custody, chilimony, &c.
Middle aged housewives compete with homewrecker skanks nicely, thank you.
Both have high-level homewrecking skills.
I also just had an epiphany that Dalrock might have been right about something I had hoped he was not right about. Wow…. my mind is blown.
My guess is that most husband initiated divorce involves homewrecking skanks. These women are very good at what they do. Middle aged housewives just cant compete with what the homewreckers are selling.
The homewreckers I know best are one woman the same age as the discarded wife and another older enough to not be a contemporary of the discarded wife. The discarded wife in the latter case was separated from her husband when the mistress came along. I cannot say what she was like when she and her husband separated in 1980; she’s a piece of work now. The discarded wife in the former case is exceedingly nice; she has some behavioral problems she does not truly recognize (hoarding and attendant spending) which were rather damaging to her family’s welfare.
It has been a long time since I looked at survey research which asked husbands why they filed and I have truly forgotten the results other than there was some evolution in stated causes over the period running from 1948 to 1990. In 1948, troublesome in-laws were the top complaint, something which disappeared from later survey results. I suspect if you looked at it you would find that banal domestic discontent was at the bottom of most filing by men as well, just that there are proportionately fewer filings and the complaints somewhat more specific and distinct and involving behavioral quirks & c. (think “drama”, “high-maintenance”, “crazy”, &c.).
I’m Catholic and believe it’s the One True Faith, but this is an extremely rose-colored view. Yes, we’re better off in some of the ways you mentioned. But not only are there more than “a few” hypocrites up at the altar; there are more than a few outright Marxists there too. Some of them beat the MSM to the punch on that by years.
In fact, since you wondered how the Marxists infiltrated the other Christian churches, you might want to read up on Bella Dodd. She was a card-carrying member of the CPUSA who claimed to have gotten over a thousand communists and sympathizers into the Catholic seminaries and priesthood back in the 30s and 40s (which explains a lot about how radicalism “suddenly” exploded onto the scene in the 60s). I think her book, School of Darkness, is available for free online if you’re curious. We’ve got a lot of work to do on that log in our own eye.
In fact, since you wondered how the Marxists infiltrated the other Christian churches, you might want to read up on Bella Dodd.
Informed opinion is divided on Bella Dodd. Alice von Hildebrand maintains she was a serious and forceful repository of knowledge about a dark and obscure period in the Church; Sandra Miesel has maintained she was likely a master yarn-puller and her account of her activities between 1925 and 1945 just incredible. The last I saw an exchange between these two, it seemed to Miesel got the better of the argument.
“Spoken like a true hamster. Maybe if you were a woman worthy of your husband staying married, we wouldn’t have to hear your statement of helping your kids deal with divorce fallout. As another poster said, he consciously made the decision to be rid of you. Either he’s just a man-whore and completely hates marriage, or you are a vile, execrable creature the likes of which no man would want to be around. Given how most Ameriskanks are as worthless as tits on a boar, i’m gonna go with the latter!”
So when a man wants to divorce the woman chose badly or she is so terrible that he must get rid of her. Either way, it’s the woman’s fault. But when a woman wants a divorce then it is either frivolous or she chose badly. Still the woman’s fault. The manosphere is so entertaining.
So when a man wants to divorce the woman chose badly or she is so terrible that he must get rid of her. Either way, it’s the woman’s fault. But when a woman wants a divorce then it is either frivolous or she chose badly. Still the woman’s fault. The manosphere is so entertaining.
There is a reason for this which has been explained to you already, but let’s lay it out again. The reason for this base assumption is because men are THOROUGHLY punished for divorce – they lose all “benefits” of a marriage (sex, domestic help-meet, children) while still being expected to hold up their end of the bargain (money money money!) If a man divorces he is likely to pay alimony and child support for many years (perhaps life) and rarely will his visitation rights be enforced if there are children. Therefore, it is costly for a man to divorce and most men will avoid it if they don’t want their paychecks garnished for the next several years or life – which most men can’t afford, and risk going to jail for if they can’t afford it.
On the other hand, if a woman divorces, NOTHING is expected of her, and the gets money, often the family home, the kids if she wants them, and owes her husband NOTHING. So there are incentives for a woman to leave for any (or no) reason, whereas a man would be foolish to take on such a risk if it was not vitally important to him to get as far away as possible.
That is why the manosphere assumes that a man filing a divorce is justified more often than not, and woman filing divorce is at the very least suspect, if not outright frivolous. There are exceptions to every rule – NAWALT and all – but that doesn’t invalidate the overall trend.
“My guess is that most husband initiated divorce involves homewrecking skanks. These women are very good at what they do. Middle aged housewives just cant compete with what the homewreckers are selling.”
She said we were getting divorced. She started screwing a couple other dudes. I reached a point where my self-respect could no longer countance her shit. I sat her down and told her she had two choices, repent or I’d divorce her. I filed the papers. She did the divorcing.
Did she choose poorly? Sure. I was beta with a capital B.
Did I choose poorly? You betcha. She had flashing neon warning signs.
Even though I filed the papers and drove the process to what is quite likely a better outcome than I would have ended up with had I let her drive, I still consider what happened a frivorce. Her nominal reasons for what she did amount to being unhappily married to a beta.
T, i find your statement ironic. Female imperative. Basically, what you said is what we say but the roles are flipped. Lesson on empathy.
Michael
Frivorce? Is this word copyrighted?
Nope. Consider it “open source thinkware”.
Gabriella
My guess is that most husband initiated divorce involves homewrecking skanks.
I’m sure that makes sense from your point of view. However, you are not a husband…
These women are very good at what they do. Middle aged housewives just cant compete with what the homewreckers are selling.
As Solomon noted, many middle aged housewives can compete quite well with homewreckers.
I’ll add to that: middle aged women can be very competitive with what skanks are selling – especially in the course of having an affair with some man. Perhaps if more such women were willing to have an ‘affair’ with their husband, instead of some other man, there would be fewer divorces?
All:
Overall divorce rate in the US: 40%
Evangelical Christian divorce rate: 38%
Roman Catholic divorce rate: 30%
Pardon me, but I don’t see any “bragging rights” in these numbers, given that 50 years ago the picture was more on the order of 10% across the board, if not lower.
usually husband induced divorce starts with a couple years of endless nagging lack of hostages on the part of the nag. Going with out sex and wife leaving a tell that she will never have empathy for you ever.
Gabriella
let me tell something about men. Men are honorable and loyal. middleage house wives unless they were old cows on the wedding night to start with were young pretty and sexually desirable by her husband. A modern women with feminism and equality will spend the entire marriage trying to be happy with the first step being to rule the house hold. Causing animosity and stress for all. On the other hand a woman that chooses to be pleasant and loyal to her husband will have a man that will die for men. Men can see when they are being done right and are loyal to those who do them right. Modern women have no clue about it. You don’t either along with with many others completely oblivious to the fact of good men being divorced. I personally think women like it like that and would have it any other way even the “good” women that will say it is wrong.
A middle age wife that has left a path of kindness has nothing to fear from some skank.
You underestimate the appeal of a woman who devotes her entire existence to being sexier than her peers.
Not all men are honorable and even the ones that are can fall prey to weakness. Remember King David.
Almost all men will bore of their wives at some point. Men who are faithful despite opportunity to cheat are men of high virtue. There is no way to be so good a wife that variety is never appealing. Even Athol Kay admits that.
You underestimate the appeal of a man who devotes his entire existence to being sexier than his peers.
Not all women are honorable and even the ones that are can fall prey to weakness. Remember Queen Elizabeth.
Almost all women will bore of their husbands at some point. Women who are faithful despite opportunity to cheat are Women of high virtue. There is no way to be so good a husband that variety is never appealing. Even the main stream media admits that.
Dalrock, this video seems to be as much about “normalizing divorce to children” as selling it.
The emphasis seems to be on divorce as a thing that, well, just happens. Like a nosebleed. It’s sad, but it’s normal. It’s the new normal, for families, to just suddenly explode.
Of course, with 40% of the births last year to unmarried women, (50% of births to women under 30) Sesame Street is behind the times. Never-married choice mommies don’t divorce, because they can’t.
Given that demographic trend, we won’t have to wait too long for the next “new normal” video from the CTW….
@ Peoplegrowing – “There is a reason for this which has been explained to you already, but let’s lay it out again. The reason for this base assumption is because men are THOROUGHLY punished for divorce – they lose all “benefits” of a marriage (sex, domestic help-meet, children) while still being expected to hold up their end of the bargain (money money money!) If a man divorces he is likely to pay alimony and child support for many years (perhaps life) and rarely will his visitation rights be enforced if there are children. Therefore, it is costly for a man to divorce and most men will avoid it if they don’t want their paychecks garnished for the next several years or life – which most men can’t afford, and risk going to jail for if they can’t afford it.”
Alimony and child support laws vary widely by state. In some states men would be crazy to divorce, and in some the man might well be better off financially after paying a modest amount of child support. He can then have sex with other women, spend the rest of his money on himself, and slack off on his parenting responsibilities, knowing that his ex wife will do whatever necessary to make sure that his children are taken care of. Visitation may prove problematic with younger children, but teens and tween will be able to see their father if they want to, assuming of course that the neither parent moves out of the area. And if a man knows that his wife isn’t the spiteful type, he can count on as much or as little access to his kids as he wants.
On the one Gabs, I fully appreciate the point you’re trying to make about women my age not being able to compete with the young home wrecking skanks out there.
On the other hand, you assume a few things: the first being that a man stays faithful to his wife solely because he wishes to do the honorable thing. There are some men out there who are truly and devotedly in love with their wives, even after many years.
Does that mean they can not fall into temptation? Of course not. We are all made of flesh and blood. Is it true that all men bore of their wives at some point? It depends on the woman I guess. All couple reach a point of familiarity, yes. That’s not the same thing as boredom.
It would be easy to write my comment off as self-serving, given that I have been married 19 years next month. I get that. But you already know that I vehemently disagree with your thoughts on this particular issue. Not because you’re 100% wrong. I know full well that there is a grain of truth to what you’re saying.
I just happen to believe that there are men who weigh the full package their wives have to offer against the package the temptress has to offer and decide to remain faithful because what they have at home is worth more than what they have to lose (and I don’t just mean in the divorce, guys), and it has little to do with being faithful solely because it is the right thing to do.
That said, there aren’t that many wives out there that give their husbands something besides their integrity to be faithful for.
“Alimony and child support laws vary widely by state. In some states men would be crazy to divorce, and in some the man might well be better off financially after paying a modest amount of child support”
Do you have any evidence to support these claims? Any anecdotal evidence from any men who say they initiated divorces because they got bored, figured out they could get off light on a few child support bucks, and that would free them up to become players?
You gotta be kidding me.
I’d make a bet the average divorced guy is making a decent living, but is forking over a third of his after tax income to his ex W. He lives in a rented place. He’s balding, 20 or so pounds overweight, and is out of shape. He’s a standard issue beta schlub who’d be happy with a handjob from a chubby 4, but he can’t even get that. He is regularly rejected by even the divorcees.
And T thinks this average dude is going to become a player?
Ridiculous.
Gabriella
You underestimate the appeal of a woman who devotes her entire existence to being sexier than her peers.
Not at all. If more women would devote at least a part of their existence to being sexier for their husbands than their peers, many men and women would be happier. I am certain of this.
Not all men are honorable and even the ones that are can fall prey to weakness. Remember King David.
Suppose that a man is offered a juicy hamburger for lunch, to replace the sack lunch he brought from home, but he knows that there is an excellent steak in a marinade at home.
Suppose that another man is also offered a juicy hamburger, and he knows that at home there is a bologna sandwich on stale bread in the fridge at home for dinner.
Which man will be more tempted to take that hamburger for lunch and toss the sack in the trash?
Almost all men will bore of their wives at some point. Men who are faithful despite opportunity to cheat are men of high virtue. There is no way to be so good a wife that variety is never appealing. Even Athol Kay admits that.
Let’s rewrite that:
Almost all women will bore of their husbands at some point. Women who keep their vows, despite the whispers, the divorce industry, the cash and prizes, are women of high virtue. There is no way for a man to be so good that divorce is never appealing to his wife. Even Athol Kay might admit that, once in a while.
Now, why does the rewrite matter, Gabriella? Because 60% of divorces are filed by whom? Men or women? In the age bracket of 35 to 45, what percentage of divorces are filed by whom?
I believe that’s enough NAWALT and MDDT for now, don’t you agree?
@greyghost,
I was neither a nag nor did I deny my husband sex. I am not a “modern woman”, but one who has always had deep respect for my husband. Even he tell me that I was a good wife to him and didn’t deserve his infidelity. But he was tempted by a skank and left me for her. Not all men are honorable and loyal just as not all women are.
Alimony and child support laws vary widely by state. In some states women would be crazy to divorce, and in some the woman might well be better off financially after paying a modest amount of child support. She can then have sex with other men, spend the rest of her money on herself, and slack off on her parenting responsibilities, knowing that her ex husband will do whatever necessary to make sure that her children are taken care of. Visitation may prove problematic with younger children, but teens and tween will be able to see their mother if they want to, assuming of course that neither parent moves out of the area. And if a woman knows that her husband isn’t the spiteful type, she can count on as much or as little access to her kids as she wants.
Elspeth- I only disagree with you on the numbers. I think the number of men who stay inlove with their wives is probably less than 10%. The rest who stay faithful do so out of honor our lack of opportunity.
Statistics say that only about 7% of marriages are very happy.
@ Feminist Hater,
“Another one bites the dust for the cause of ‘Teh Wimmenz’.”
And on the same day, same country, same newspaper, I found another story in the same category.
This is getting frightening…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2267059/Jack-Wall-Hyper-sensitive-teen-18-threw-train-texting-friends-say-broken-decade-psychological-abuse-mother.html
This is really one of the few places where the root causes of this worrying trend is discussed with sense and reason, I must say.
Voxofreason, sorry to hear of your sad tale…
I just want to say, too, that I understand my situation is not the norm, I have great empathy for men who lose everything in the divorce process or I would not be reading this blog at all.
Alimony and child support laws vary widely by state.
Alimony varies by state, child support doesn’t vary that much by state. The percentages for c/s may slightly differ, but overall they follow federal guidelines for the most part.
teens and tween will be able to see their father if they want to, assuming of course that the neither parent moves out of the area. And if a man knows that his wife isn’t the spiteful type, he can count on as much or as little access to his kids as he wants.
That bolded part is a big assumption, and one that often simply does not hold true. The reason is that people do move around a lot today, and as a result of that courts typically do not restrict the physically custodial parent from doing so. It happens quite often, actually, that the physically custodial parent moves away from the other parent.
@thepatriotblogspot
Maybe if I were a woman worthy of my husband…? Wow. That’s kind of an awful thing to say to a woman you do not even know. I’ll just leave it at that.
@Gabriella
Where does the 7% very happy statistic come from?
Read it in a book years ago. Ill try to look it up later.
@Art Deco- I ran into something like that, the “mistress”…
My ex-wife kicked me out of my own home, because after countless demands over the years that I get out, I finally got the hint. I could not withstand the cruelty one more day. I leased a townhome nearby and went forward. Divorce papers followed, filed mutually, as I bargained in the shadow of the law, seeing it as a better avenue than an all-out battle I could only lose.
About a month before the divorce was final, I started seeing another girl. The wife took up railing endlessly about my “mistress” LOL (never even slept with the chick)
I was sexually faithful to my wife for every moment of 10 years.
Then she kicks me out, files for divorce with me, and then months later accuses me of having a mistress. Priceless.
Maybe she just used the term to supplement the hamster that had been accusing me of being a bad guy all along but had been starved by all the evidence to the contrary.
“Whatever you have to tell yourself, sweetheart” =)
I only know of two cases where the judge ruled regarding the parents taking the kids out of the area. A FoF’s ex remarried a guy in the Navy and when his next assignment was across the country, the judge gave the OK despite the dad’s arguments and boom, away they went.
I also know a woman who remarried and moved to another state a couple hundred miles away and the judge told her no, that she in fact could not relocate her son. Now, the boy lives with his dad and mom visits when she can.
I wonder what the numbers look like nationally, how many times the judge says no to a relocation request?
Elspeth
you said that very the legacy you leave makes you valuable. It is like the military,football team bond. Two people working for a common goal bigger than what personal goodies they are getting will create an empathy and loyalty for each other that is off the chart. If some house wife spent her marriage rationing sex to her husband treating him as a pet then she may have competition from from a sexually arousing women. (someone pleasant to be around and makes her husband feel good about himself instead of constant critisism and stress)
Gabriella
When I use the term honor I mean it as a show of respect for good deeds of honorable behavior. Just because you have hostages and the law and public opinion backing you up does not mean you are entitled to a mans honor and respect. A good man the boring beta chumps we all laugh at will always honor a woman that does him right. An honorable woman makes a man proud. In other words he isn’t with you out of duty or some legal power you have he is there because he finds you attractive as a comeplete woman period. Woman are so fucking stupid and full of feminist hatred they won’t allow that to be seen or known. For that will take away from their empowerment . You need to quit playing dumb.
~gwen says:
January 23, 2013 at 12:30 pm
I just want to say, too, that I understand my situation is not the norm, I have great empathy for men who lose everything in the divorce process or I would not be reading this blog at all.
————————-
No empathy for their wife leaving them for no reason, and no empathy for having their family destroyed for noreason, but at least you have empathy when they lose everything.
You seem to not even be able to sympathize with someone who (from what I understand) is in exactly the same situation you say that you are in – their marriage broken up despite their best efforts.
So when a man wants to divorce the woman chose badly or she is so terrible that he must get rid of her. Either way, it’s the woman’s fault. But when a woman wants a divorce then it is either frivolous or she chose badly. Still the woman’s fault. The manosphere is so entertaining.
It would be entertaining if that was what was stated. Your comprehension is Hamst(e)rung.
@gwen
“Wow. That’s kind of an awful thing to say to a woman you do not even know. I’ll just leave it at that.”
Sorry gwen……that’s the reality that feminism has created for you and ALL WOMEN as far as men are concerned. Y’all take full advantage of no-fault divorce just because you wake up one morning and your “gina” doesn’t tingle anymore. And in your bailout of the plane that is flying along with no problems whatsoever and no signs of trouble you take cash and prizes with you. SO WHAT they don’t serve Dom Perignon in coach class or greet you with a 16 oz. ribeye when you board the plane. Hypergamy tells your narrow-minded brain that it’s ok to go shag a worthless unemployed alcoholic or outlaw biker and nobody should judge you for it. Doesn’t work that way in the manosphere. And until you and a bunch of other like-minded women unite and tear down the walls of feminism you can expect to hear comments such as the one above……and rightfully so!
Greyghost
You are basically saying a man will never sin without just cause. You underestimate the power of temptation.
In our current cultural climate women are worse than men but it simply isn’t the case that good wives never have to fear.
T says:
January 23, 2013 at 12:13 pm
Alimony and child support laws vary widely by state. In some states men would be crazy to divorce, and in some the man might well be better off financially after paying a modest amount of child support. He can then have sex with other women, spend the rest of his money on himself, and slack off on his parenting responsibilities, knowing that his ex wife will do whatever necessary to make sure that his children are taken care of. Visitation may prove problematic with younger children, but teens and tween will be able to see their father if they want to, assuming of course that the neither parent moves out of the area. And if a man knows that his wife isn’t the spiteful type, he can count on as much or as little access to his kids as he wants.
——————–
I was not going to feed the troll, but enough other commentors are, so I will also.
This is actually a classic response. It was explained that since men generally have a high cost of divorce there is an assumption that they had a comperlling reason, while women, having somewhere between low cost to cash and prizes, cannot benefit from that assumption. The response? “Guys, it’s really not that bad. Look, just live in the right state, and get divorced from the right women, when your kids are the right age, and its no big deal at all”. Which is quite a ridiculous response, and it in no way addresses the point which was being made. T seems to be trying to prove that women are incapable of empathizing with men. All of the issues raised here are not really relevant for understanding the issue, because, after all, if men would have done it just a bit differently, there is not reason the divorce should have bothered them at all.
Brendan is right on c/s not varying much by state. The federal guidelines cover things like the average annual cost of caring for a child, including food, shelter, clothing, medical care, insurance, etc. The policy reason behind the legislation is to make sure that a custodial parent has the financial resources she needs post-divorce to care for child(ren) without burdening the state’s welfare rolls.
Medical insurance for dependents is a big expense, because medical insurance and medical care in general are both astronomically expensive. Breadwinner dads are almost always required to carry their kids on the dad’s insurance until the kids are fully independent. With Obamacare that will almost certainly be until the kid(s) reach age 24.
Where does the 7% very happy statistic come from?
Doesn’t matter. This is not data. Surveys are not real data, they are opinions at a moment when the box is checked. (ok, technically these are data, I hope folks know that I understand that and still see the point I’m making)
The only data that matters on marriage and divorce is the rate at which they occur, and who files, and other countable objective things. Yes, or No….sorted into two piles, count the total and divide. Things countable as such are meaningful measures of marriage and propensities.
This kind of statistic (the 7%, or if its higher or lower, doesn’t matter) is what feeds the hamsters. These things are published over and again in women’s magazines and on Oprah type shows and can be utilized as needed for self rationalizations. It would seem that most women never tire of reading these things based on a snapshot of the covers in the supermarket line.
Imagining that only 7% of marriages are happy serves to lubricate the mind, even the soul, about frivorce. It is data like that that informs the T’s of the world , and sadly most of the rest of us into being too lazy to consider that reality has been papered over with surveys. Like Solomon, the men who have the paper ripped off by force become red pill, double down on stupid, or commit suicide.
until the kid(s) reach age 24.
Sorry to nit pick…..its 26
Art Deco, Dodd’s claims seem pretty fantastic to me too. On the other hand, we do know that the Communists worked hard to infiltrate other powerful entities like the US government and Hollywood, and the Catholic Church ranked right up there in influence and likelihood of opposing them, so it would have been strange had they not tried to undermine her. It’s easy to see the fruits of those attempts in the next generation, though I assume many didn’t have to have their arms twisted, socialism in general being pretty popular back then. But whether Dodd herself was responsible for so many….yeah, that I wonder about.
If that’s her goal, she’s doing a fine job of it.
The Exceptional 7 Percent by Gregory Popcack
In our current cultural climate women are worse than men but it simply isn’t the case that good wives never have to fear.
Now on this friend, we agree completely.
I’m seeing yet another meme creeping in here, from T and to a lesser extent from ~gwen. That meme seems to be that the manosphere condones douchebaggery and assholery. There seems to be a sense that this blog/the manosphere has no problem with jerks marrying women, screwing them over, and then leaving them with pittances in c/s payments so they can all go out and become little Roissys. There seems to be an argument that the manosphere hates all women, and that all women who get divorced because they married a douchebag are getting what they deserve.
This is preposterous.
Dalrock himself has said there are men who aren’t fit for marriage. The challenge for women is to be smart and filter for them, don’t marry them and for God’s sake don’t have a kid with them.
I call out douchebags all the time here. Who can forget our good friends Alpha McGorgeous, Harley McBadboy, F**kbuddy Rockbanddrummer and Frank Fratboy?
The point in calling them out, albeit in a satirical way, is that these are the archetypes women almost universally tingle for, but at the same time are poor marriage risks. I for one don’t condone what cads and players do. But I don’t condemn them either. They have simply made the risk-benefit calculation and are proceeding in a way that they believe works for them. Marriage minded women should steer way clear of them. It behooves women to learn to see them, spot them and avoid them.
Medical insurance for dependents is a big expense, because medical insurance and medical care in general are both astronomically expensive. Breadwinner dads are almost always required to carry their kids on the dad’s insurance until the kids are fully independent. With Obamacare that will almost certainly be until the kid(s) reach age 24
Indeed, Deti, and it is even a bit worse because many employer-subsisdized health plans do not permit the non-custodial parent (read: the Dad) to have their child covered under the employer-subsidized plan. So you need to take out your own separate private insurance to pay for this (which as we all know is very expensive) unless you get the court to waive it by having the custodial spouse include the kid on her employer health plan. It’s a circus, really. And, yes, I’d expect that this will now be moved to the mid-20s and that C/S, which now generally goes to 21, will be moved up to match in the coming years.
women can’t empathize it is normal.
Greyghost
You are basically saying a man will never sin without just cause. You underestimate the power of temptation.
In our current cultural climate women are worse than men but it simply isn’t the case that good wives never have to fear.
This comment here is want playing dumb looks like. Without looking I bet for every abandond bitch there is about 50 boring loyal dudes. it is a good thing Dalrock has millions of followers reading this and are getting an understanding about female nature on this subject.
Make no mistake about it: If a woman’s husband cheats on her and leaves her for hotter/younger/tighter, then he’s in the wrong and he is the cause of the divorce. He has no excuse for cheating even if she is a fat, lazy bitch.
If a woman marries a known douchebag, and he cheats on her and leaves her for another woman (as could have been predicted), he is still in the wrong and he is the cause of the divorce. But, both of them were the cause of the marriage. She has responsibility for choosing poorly; but not for blowing up the marriage.
@deti
“Marriage minded women should steer way clear of them. It behooves women to learn to see them, spot them and avoid them.”
But if they avoid those guys deti then they are left with none other than Joe McBeta who doesn’t make their “gina” tingle. Then of course we get to hear from Cat McHamster how there are no good men out there and that men need to man-up!
Women are their own worst enemy when it comes to relationships. It’s a very interesting and entertaining dichotomy: they want a “bad boy” who doesn’t treat them like crap.
Fellas,
DO.
NOT.
EVER.
GET.
MARRIED!!!!!!!!
Deti that is not a new meme, you know that. It may not even be a meme per se. Its a necessary emoto-rhetorical trick to discredit the information being shared. It is just a tiny twist on us being bitter divorced losers.
A little fear for a wife is good. Keeps the gina tingle healthy. Confident and fearless women are bitches to every one around them, kids, dogs and all.
Patriotblog:
I half-jokingly tell my daughter: Rich. Hot. Nice. Pick two.
I half jokingly tell my son (when he’s old enough): Hot. Nice. Sane. PIck two.
It is true: a woman wants an alpha man who gives her the beta comfort. The problem is that many times, he is beta when she wants alpha; and alpha when she wants beta.
I actually do empathize with men, but I also empathize with Gwen.
The danger is so many men have no idea when they are being seduced. Seducers capitalize on the white knight reflex. They will seem weak andhelpless til they work their way into their heart.
Took me years to get my husband to recognize a woman on the hunt but now he sees the signs.
The normalization of divorce to children matters for the same reason normalization of babymommas matters. In both cases, actions and behavior that are bad for people are being painted as either good things, or things that may not be so good but are necessary.
Children’s Television Workshop is engaging in a mild form of social engineering. We should all recognize this and be prepared to call it what it is, whenever we encounter it:
pro-divorce propaganda.
kids, dogs and all.
Cat absence in comment is conspicuous
For all of those who do not believe that frivorce happens, Dalrock ran a previous post https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/03/11/why-so-many-wives-wish-their-husbands-would-cheat/ which included a link to the article in the Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/monique-honaman/i-just-wish-he-would-have_b_1297919.html?ref=divorce
I know of one man whose wife persuaded him to move out of the matrimonial home because he had previously been using the computer for porn surfing. As soon as he had been apart for the requisite period, despite him coming back to do repairs and see the kids, she filed divorce papers, swearing that there was no-one else, and when the mobile phone bill arrived he found she had been in contact with another bloke even as they were waiting for the case to be heard. His then ex-wife the following weekend posted pictures of new boyfriend on facebook, wearing some of her husband’s clothing while in the house that he was paying for. He was granted visitation rights to his children, but ex-wife promptly moved two states away so that he could not afford to exercise those rights.
There is a case in real life I know of where the wife denied the husband sex for fourteen months. The husband did not move out because he believed, rightly or wrongly, that the wife would make his having access to his children impossible or as near as makes no difference.
@Voxofreason You have my sympathies in your present situation. I can understand how your wife is getting sympathy, though. I know one retired medical practitioner who has said that there are three stories in evcery divorce, His story, her story, and the truth, which may or may not bear any relationship to either of the other two stories.
“His then ex-wife the following weekend posted pictures of new boyfriend on facebook, wearing some of her husband’s clothing while in the house that he was paying for. He was granted visitation rights to his children, but ex-wife promptly moved two states away so that he could not afford to exercise those rights.”
*clutches pearls*
ukfredu and any others I might have left out. Thank you for the encouragement. I relocated to this city for a job and the area is very leftist and I’m coming from a conservative leaning area. Most of her relatives are here. I have emailed them 2 or 3 times already to see if she went to the “hospital” yet or if they have any other info. No replies going on two weeks now. So I am getting the house in order, packing and throwing out stuff and selling other stuff. God is with me. That’s what matters. Got some bites from Craigslist, keeping my chin up.
@ deti – “I’d make a bet the average divorced guy is making a decent living, but is forking over a third of his after tax income to his ex W. He lives in a rented place. He’s balding, 20 or so pounds overweight, and is out of shape. He’s a standard issue beta schlub who’d be happy with a handjob from a chubby 4, but he can’t even get that. He is regularly rejected by even the divorcees.
And T thinks this average dude is going to become a player?
Ridiculous.”
You’ve painted a very pitiful picture of the average man. Perhaps this is the below average man?
No, that’s pretty average for older divorced guys, for sure.
T:
No. This is the average late 30s early 40s divorced guy. You just don’t see him because you don’t notice him. You don’t notice him precisely because he IS average. It’s axiomatic that by and large, women only notice the men who are attractive to them. Those are by definition the above average men.
So, women’s definition of the “average” man slides up the scale one to three SMV points above where true “average” is. Thus, T’s “average” man is a true 7, but she thinks is a 5.
The ‘true” average 5 is to T and most other women, somewhere between a 2 and 4.
Interesting. I will start paying attention to this. Do men notice average women?
T:
“Do men notice average women?”
We notice ALL women. We size them up, assess face/hair/breasts/legs/bodyshape/ass, assign each a sex rank or sexual market value, place them in one of two categories:
1. Yes, I would have sex with her; or
2. No, I would not have sex with her
and then file the mental image away.
One man can do this with the efficiency of a thousand supercomputers.
TO most men, at least half of all women would be attractive enough to have sex with. I work in an office. Seated not more than 30 feet away from me are three women who I would consider attractive enough to have sex with.
Here’s a little gem for you all. Sry if its off topic…
http://kirkcameron.com/2013/01/hear-me-roar-musings-on-womens-history/
open for comments if you guys want to have some fun.
By the way, T, all men do this. Married men, single men, divorced men, alphas, betas, gammas, deltas, sigmas, omegas. Virgins do it. Men who have had sex with dozens of women. Men who are pornographic film actors. Black men, white men, rich men, poor men, college students, professionals, lawyers, doctors, plumbers, X-ray techs.
If you have a teenaged son who’s been through puberty, he does it. His friends do it. With you, your daughters, and all other women they see.
Your husband does it. He has since he was about 13 years old and he does it every waking minute of every day of his life.
@T “Interesting. I will start paying attention to this. Do men notice average women?”
Interesting question. From the CDC – http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/bodymeas.htm
Women: 5’4″ 166lb
Men: 5’9″ 196lb
@ deti – “TO most men, at least half of all women would be attractive enough to have sex with. I work in an office. Seated not more than 30 feet away from me are three women who I would consider attractive enough to have sex with.”
I should call your hr department to report sexual harassment. I’m pretty sure that looking counts as harassment these days so eyes on the screen.
Things would be easier if women found men as attractive as men find women.
@ deti – “Your husband does it. He has since he was about 13 years old and he does it every waking minute of every day of his life.”
I’ve noticed him doing this sometimes.
I’d say that mens standards of what is sexy decrease as they age. For instance- a typical 20 year old man probably only finds 1/10th of women sex worthy, while a 50 year old man probably finds half sex worthy.
This is probably because age is so relative. A 40 year old woman seems old as dirt to a 20 year old guy.
@T @Deti
In fact, after scanning a woman, a (single) man classifies her into three categories:
1. I would have sex with her and I am open to have a relationship with her (5% of cases).
2. I would have sex with her but I won’t have a relationship with her (60%).
3. I wouldn’t have sex with her (except if I am very drunk or I am in a dry spell lasting five years). (25% of cases).
It is not that men are not picky. They are not picky about sex but they are picky about commitment.
Every woman is scanned. It is nothing cultural. I am European. I live in Latin America. Every man does it.
For instance- a typical 20 year old man probably only finds 1/10th of women sex worthy
Haha. Gabriella, you don’t know what are you talking about. 10% of women sex worthy? The percentage is far bigger. You are projecting the behavior of women into men.
I guess my percentages don’t match. Please change them to 10% – 65% – 25%
@Deti, I don’t know about that. For me, it’s highly age dependent. I’d probably gladly sleep with half with women between the ages of 18 and 25, less than that for those between 26 and 30, fewer still between 31 and 35, and so on.
@imnobody, I know guys like that, but I also know men for whom the numbers are much much lower and you’ve missed out on the fourth category, the I’d rather jerk off to internet porn category.
@UnicornHunter
Yes, I forgot the fourth category. I guess I was thinking about young women. But yes, this category exists and it’s true.
I am astounded at how poor women’s understanding of men is.
T: “I’ve noticed him doing this sometimes.”
T, he does it ALL THE TIME. He’s learned to conceal it so he doesn’t have to explain it. He’s also become more proficient at it as he’s aged so he can actually think, work, function and get things done.
Gabby:
“I’d say that mens standards of what is sexy decrease as they age. For instance- a typical 20 year old man probably only finds 1/10th of women sex worthy, while a 50 year old man probably finds half sex worthy.”
“This is probably because age is so relative. A 40 year old woman seems old as dirt to a 20 year old guy.”
No. A typical 20 year old man finds well over half of women sexworthy. A typical 20 year old man also thinks about sex constantly because he is absolutely overflowing with testosterone. In today’s day and age, that 20 year old man is also pretty sexually frustrated so he’ll take what he can get.
A 50 year old man also finds well over half of women sex worthy. Figures range from between 50 and 80%.
Age is not irrelevant, but it’s not as important as looks. To a 20 year old man, a 40 year old woman is sex worthy if she is good looking enough.
Unicorn: Yeah, men have standards below which they absolutely will not go for sex. There are women that, if given the choice between no sex and sex with an unattractive woman, I’d choose no sex.
Speaking from experience- I struggled at 20 to attract other 20 year olds because most my peers were more attractive than me. But at age 30-something I would have a much easier time because 30-50 year old males by-and-large only have one major qualifier and that is “not fat”. As my peer group gets fatter my relative SMV improves.
“This is probably because age is so relative. A 40 year old woman seems old as dirt to a 20 year old guy.”
The more I think about it the more ridiculous this is. There are 17 year old teenage boys having sex with 35 year old married female teachers. The UK Daily mail reports on a new allegation just about every other day. While some of those teachers are not gorgeous, they’re not ugly either and are quite serviceable sex partners, really.
Gabby:
The idea that the average, typical 20 year old man can be sexually selective is patently absurd. You were paying attention to the 20 year old men YOU WERE ATTRACTED TO, which is a tiny subset of 20 year old men.
Deti- I just don’t think you are right about that. I only found about 1/5th of 20 year old men unattractive. Most the 20 year old men seemed to be pining over the top tier girls…the 7+.
@deti – “T, he does it ALL THE TIME. He’s learned to conceal it so he doesn’t have to explain it. He’s also become more proficient at it as he’s aged so he can actually think, work, function and get things done.”
I never ask for an explanation when I catch him. I retaliate by making eye contact with one of the better looking men checking me out and smiling. They always smile back and look a little longer. Getting caught checking out other women is rude and he should know what it feels like.
T:
Nice. Your husband does something he’s hardwired to do and simply cannot help doing.
You retaliate with open flirting.
You openly and publicly disrespect your husband. If you were my wife, I’d call you out on it right then and there.
You really don’t know anything about men at all.
Gabby:
Those men were pining over the 7+, but they would have sexed a 5 any day of the week and twice on Sunday. They would have sexed a 4 if they were really hard up.
For instance- a typical 20 year old man probably only finds 1/10th of women sex worthy, while a 50 year old man probably finds half sex worthy.
No — not even close. I remember at 20 — many more than 10%, more like 60-70% on an age-blended basis. And the number goes *up* as you age, not down, because as you age there are even more women who are younger than you as the total pool, relative to women who are much older than you (and there are plenty of guys who are 20 who find attractive 40 year olds hot, despite what some in the ‘sphere say — that’s why there are cougars –> hot for sex, of course, not for marriage).
T:
If you really want to learn, you should spend a bit more time reading and a bit less time commenting.
Deti’s right: I was, if anything, less selective at 20 than I am now 20+ years later. At 20 I saw at least 50% of women as doable, especially since more of the women I came into contact with were young. But plenty of well-preserved 40-year-olds fell into that category, and I never failed to notice them too. A 20-year-old guy just doesn’t often hit on a 40-year-old woman (unless his eyes have been opened to the cougar scene) because he thinks she’ll see him as a boy.
Essentially, the same women who looked good then look good now, regardless of age. The difference is that I’m less hormone-driven and more knowledgeable, so the conversation with myself is more likely to go, “Hmm, niiiice, but…..no.”
I struggled at 20 to attract other 20 year olds because most my peers were more attractive than me. But at age 30-something I would have a much easier time because 30-50 year old males by-and-large only have one major qualifier and that is “not fat”. As my peer group gets fatter my relative SMV improves.
It’s more complex.
At 20 almost no-one is married, so everyone is on the market. In that circumstance if your SMV is on the low side, yes you will suffer for it as a woman, because the rest of the girls are still on the market –it’s a huge market, and therefore hugely competitive.
At 30, many people are no longer on the market, including many of the choicest market participants physically, especially among the women. So that is a significant factor that improves your position — that is, as the numbers of competitors go down, your position is improved. The relative appearance of your peer group matters, of course, but what matters the most is what that is among the peers that are still on the market.
It flips again in the mid to late 30s when the divorce wave hits, because quite a few of the more attractive women who were off the market from, say, 27-35, are now back in the market, and so it becomes more competitive again for women in that age group because the ex-hotties who went earlyish into marriage are now divorced and are still pretty good looking in many cases, and are now back on the market. Now, they are retreads, but they’re competing also with other women in that age range, who are either also retreads or relatively late never marrieds, and so no ideal cases really, and it again comes down to physical coming to the fore.
This eases again in the mid to late 40s as the number of newly divorced women coming into the market trails off (as Dalrock as pointed out, women divorce quite a bit less after 45 than before, probably because their market value is lower).
Ok..so I think what you are saying is that my experience is because men just were not as forward in their early years?
A 30 year old man is more likely to say “Hey, come to my house and we can have sex”, while a 20 year old never said that to me, leaving me with the impression that they just are not interested.
A 30 year old man is more likely to say “Hey, come to my house and we can have sex”, while a 20 year old never said that to me, leaving me with the impression that they just are not interested.
It’s also that the number of your competitors is lower, so the girls he’d be otherwise hitting on are married by then, meaning you’re getting hit on now.
Gabby:
Most 20 year old men are on the market but they are very accustomed to rejection. It was bad when I was there in the late 80s; it’s got to be much, much worse now. A typical 20 year old man has little sexual experience and has been rejected dozens of times.
“A 30 year old man is more likely to say “Hey, come to my house and we can have sex”,”
No man is going to proposition any woman that way without a lot of ETOH courage.
Well, I am married too but I don’t wear a ring so I guess it wouldn’t be obvious if I am alone.
Well, yeah, if you’re not wearing a ring you’re assumed not to be married.
Of course married women *also* get hit on, too, in this culture, but that’s a different submarket — the affair/adultery market — that has its own special characteristics.
Gabriella: a typical 20 year old man probably only finds 1/10th of women sex worthy, while a 50 year old man probably finds half sex worthy.
This is an accurate description of FEMALE selectivity. You’re projecting female selectivity, and its age-related decay, onto men. a typical 20 year old WOMAN probably only finds 1/10th of MEN sex worthy, while a 50 year old WOMAN probably finds half sex worthy
Men’s filters are lot wider. For a man the number is about 50% of the women he meets, regardless of his age; assuming a random selection of women. In an environment that artificially selects for women of a specific age range, the percentage may be much higher (eg, college), much lower, or even zero (eg, a nursing home.)
ETOH?
ETOH = Alcohol. Ethane with a hydroxy group on it. Liquid courage.
Divorce is awesome kids! You’ll have two homes even if you never *feel* at home in either. You’ll get to be hauled back and forth between two homes like a plow mule being shared by farmers. You’ll get to always be at the home where the stuff you want to play with or use isn’t so you’ll get to learn the value of living with frustration! And, you’ll get to be the therapist for two people who seem to have no one else to vent to. Ah yes, it’s good to be a child of today’s trendiest trends: divorce. Now be sure to thank your mom kids!
“I see them everyday
We get along so why can’t they?
If this is what he wants
And it’s what she wants
Then why’s there so much pain?
So here’s your holiday
Hope you enjoy it this time, you gave it all away
It was mine, so when you’re dead and gone
Will you remember this night, twenty years now lost
It’s not right”
T:If you really want to learn, you should spend a bit more time reading and a bit less time commenting.
Not just reading, but comparing what you read with the reality that is seen in the world. Nothing like validation of the model.
You retaliate with open flirting.
You know, I really don’t think T’s marriage is going to last.
Women don’t understand cause and effect very well.
Perhaps the Four Hamsters of the Apocalypse will change their minds. What cannot go on forever, will not.
@deti- “Nice. Your husband does something he’s hardwired to do and simply cannot help doing.
You retaliate with open flirting.
You openly and publicly disrespect your husband. If you were my wife, I’d call you out on it right then and there.
You really don’t know anything about men at all.”
I thought that he could control it. In the very least he can look so that I don’t notice, because ever since he called me out on it and I pointed out that it wasn’t my fault that the people I looked at looked back, I’ve rarely caught him doing it.
I have never claimed to be an expert in men.
@tfh – I have learned a lot since I’ve been reading in the manosphere and it has only been short while.
In no particular order –
Men find most women attractive for sex while women find very few men attractive for sex. Most men are struggling to get sex in the current sexual market place. Women are delaying marriage and so men are not working as hard as they would be if they thought that sex and marriage was likely for them.
Men look at every woman to evaluate her sexual attractiveness.
Some women ( don’t know how many) divorce for no good reason and you cannot trust what they say about their reasons for a divorce.
Feminism is not all its cracked up to be.
Women file for most divorces, men rarely file for divorce.
A lot of married women don’t like sex with their husbands.
Being turned down for sex is incredibly painful for men and feels like a rejection of them.
Husbands want more blow jobs.
If you are extra flirty,feminine and happy then your husband will hang up your crown molding. ( and he claims that he will start Saturday, so yay)
@T
Perhaps you have learned that women can be very manipulative.
This is off topic. I just thought this readership might enjoy this joke.
Three couples,one elderly, one middle-aged, one young and newly wed apply for membership in a church. The pastor informs them that the requirement for new parishioners is that they abstain from sex for two weeks. The couples agree and go their separate ways.
After two weeks, they return. The pastor asks the elderly pair if they were able to abstain for two weeks. “No problem at all, Pastor,” replies the old man.
“Congratulations!” says the pastor. “Welcome to the church.” He turns to the middle-aged couple and asks if they were able to abstain for two weeks. “It was difficult,” replies the husband. “By the end of the second week, I had to sleep on the couch, but we did it.”
“Congratulations on overcoming temptation,” says the pastor. “Welcome to the church.” He then turns to the newlyweds and asks if they were able to abstain for two weeks.
“At first it was no problem,” says the husband. “But one day my wife was reaching for a can of corn on the top shelf, and she dropped it. When she bent over to pick it up, I was overcome with lust and took advantage of her right there.”
“You understand, of course, that this means you will not be welcome in our church,” says the pastor.
“We know,” says the young man. “We’re not welcome at the supermarket anymore either.”
Regarding divorce and children from experience, children will always hold on hope for the family to be restored. The second marriage can be about as devastating as the divorce was because some hope is lost. My parents, after my mom’s second divorce decided to get all friendly again. Dad would spend weekends at our home doing repairs and maintenance. Hope was restored once again until another blow – they wouldn’t be getting back together. I often thought, as a child, it would have been less painful if one of them had died.
My Dad’s second wife would never love me. She had to put up with my mom calling to get his advice and just to chat. I didn’t stand a chance with my stepmom. Then, when my mom did die, my dad sobbed at the funeral like I’ve never see a grown man do – while sitting next to my stepmom.
Sesame Street can attempt all they want, there is nothing that takes away the pain of divorce for a child. They innately know it’s wrong.
The benefit, I vowed early in life to never do this to my own children. When I was in my height of rebellion to RLB, I would think of my children having to go through what I did. It made me cry out to God for help.
And help He did.
@GT66, thank you for that link to the Blink182 video. What a graphic and powerful representation about how kids really feel about divorce and the selfishness inherent in it.
Good comment Sarahsdaughter. I remember wishing my mother had died instead of frivorcing. Children love their parents so much that each time you have to leave the non custodial parent and go to the other it is like the divorce is happening all over again. Particularly in my case as my parents lived far apart and visitation wasn’t frequent. I believe my ability to love was harmed by this.
And stepmothers – well there is a reason they are wicked in all the fairy tales. Has anyone ever been yelled at for bleeding everywhere? It messes with a childs head because they tend not to judge adults. I was in my 20s before I realized how f’ed up that was.
Christian women need shaming for their lying and deceit just as much as frivodivorcing. Because lying is at the root of alot of the observations made about modern women concerning things like frivodivorcing. There seems to be a nonchalance when it comes to women lying like lies are just innocuous little things that don’t really harm anyone. The bible says “Don’t lie to one another”. Colossians 3:9. It doesn’t add “unless your a woman then it’s no big deal we know you’ll do that sort of thing.” The bible also says “He who lies hates” and “God hates the lying tongue”. and the “godly hate lies”. Lying is not to be taken lightly among Christians.
There is far too much pro-divorce rhetoric on this thread, and not just from our poster-girl T. May I remind you all therefore, that ‘whom God hath joined together let no man put asunder’. I thus fail to see any ‘wriggle-room’ for either man or woman, deriving from the behaviour or purported behaviour of his or her spouse. The fact that the pair may be happier apart is not the point: once divorce becomes socially acceptable, it really becomes nothing other than ‘a lease for a thousand years terminable on one days notice’ – what in certain asian countries is known as ‘short-time love’ or to put it less delicately, ‘love you long-time big-boy’. The only acceptable ‘divorce’ is that which is not divorce, namely annulment by reason of some inherent failure in the process or in the parties thereto.
There are those who will doubtless say that this is pretty rich coming from me – a one time facilitator of divorce, and openly doubtful of the existance of the Almighty, but I say, that that is not the point, and in any event it was just what I had to do for a living and further it is enshrined in our constitution that our Head of State has been appointed by God to micro-manage things on his behalf, and so I merely reflect the way things are – and frankly surveys consistently reveal that women (and men) are much haaaapier where divorce is not available on demand, for no matter who you marry they are bound to disappoint you in some way and sooner rather than later. Divorce is thus self-defeating – of course, if people prefer being single and wish to play the field, that is a different matter, but then they should openly say so, and not pretend that they are anything other than studs and sluts, and as it is much more difficult to be a stud than a slut, the epithet slut is the more likely. So be it.
I was once told of marriage in the following analogy: that it is like a pair of shoes; at first they are bit tight and hurt a little but after a while they become increasingly comfortable. The same goes for being single.
Thus endeth the lesson.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/1482371/If-you-dont-take-a-job-as-a-prostitute-we-can-stop-your-benefits.html
The perfect job for single stay at home moms. Its not like they have any moral objections to having sex outside of marriage. They might as well get paid for what they do.
Today i saw my father standing in the graveyard
looking very somber looking for his mom
when he finally found her he said that it was different
everything is different nothing’s really changed
my brother would remember sitting in the hallway
waiting for my father both of us were scared
when the doorknob turned we took off for the stairway
looking for some cover trying to get away
a guide dog had to serve the role that you would not let
the mother of your children every really play
the office was a dungeon where you hid your fears of
what would really happen if no one ever came
i wonder if you blamed yourself for when she left you
Find More lyrics at http://www.sweetslyrics.com
by closing up the garage door and turning on the car
your father must have lost it your sister couldn’t help you
but dad if you were lonely you had no where to turn
of father can’t you see the pieces that have fallen on the ground
when you and mom decided nothing could be saved inside this house
everything has changed
everything has changed
last night i had a dream that i was in the graveyard
looking at my father buried in the ground
i’d swear that i could hear him tell me he was sorry
and everything has changed
You think William felt good about his parents divorce?
sorry, try again
Some women ( don’t know how many) divorce for no good reason and you cannot trust what they say about their reasons for a divorce.
You have to take anyone’s self-evaluation with a grain of salt. With regard to the population of adult women, there are some supplementary problems which interfere with constructive self-criticism. One is the kultursmog we breathe (a problem manifest in the last forty years); the other is the education provided by family life and peer culture and how that influences the capacity of individuals to comprehend personal agency. That may be a somewhat older and more abiding problem in human relations.
More precise formulations than ‘for no good reason’ would be ‘for no very compelling reason’. Terms like ‘discretionary divorce’ or ‘expressive divorce’ might be applicable. We live in an age where people’s hierarchy of values does not give pride of place to honor (or a regard for appearances) and we live in an age where people do not comprehend that their personal circumstances are commonly the occasion of their dissatisfaction rather than the cause of their dissatisfaction. You can look at the machinations of the family courts and see the results.
Feminism is not all its cracked up to be.
Well, what is it? I will offer a definition (courtesy Helen Smith and others):
A disposition toward mundane life and public life which incorporates the following assumptions:
1. Women have options; men have obligations.
2. Notions of personal responsibility as a commonsensical observer would understand them are invalid. The sophisticated observer understands that the social and cultural matrix in which women make decisions is such that bad acts are attributable to the big He. (N.B. as far as the Anointed are concerned, their ‘mascot groups’ are never responsible. In any case, what is the function of intellectuals, but to tell us that things are not as ordinary people perceive them? See Thomas Sowell’s Vision of the Anointed on these points).
3. This being the case, men are not entitled to judge women for anything. Women are entitled to judge men for everything.
Clare Boothe Luce was an achiever and an advocate of feminine achievement. She has been of no interest to the purveyors of journalistic and academic feminism since 1963. Ever wonder why? You think it might have had something to do with her emphasis on personal agency and responsibility?
So, what’s it cracked up to be?
Women file for most divorces, men rarely file for divorce.
Men file about 30% of the time. If children are involved, perhaps 25% of the time. About 10% of filings are joint filings.
Hm, I wonder if this man’s tactics would work, i.e. crush this divorce? (I assume he is doing this to stop the divorce happening, and not really to punish the woman just for the sake of it).
I would be interested to see how this case pans out.
If it works, (i.e. the divorce doesn’t go through), then of course it would be a good move for many men who are ‘surprised’ by their wives filing for divorce without a mutual agreement to do so beforehand.
I will be watching this one closely. I don’t think I have come across many cases like this one. Usually, the man is totally unable to fight back (correct me if I am wrong on this).
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2267521/Bethenny-Frankel-s-estranged-husband-requesting-primary-custody-daughter-s-revealed-s-going-fight.html
Cordell and Cordell, a law firm specializing in men being frivorced, runs ads where I live. They have offices all around the mid south, and the radio bits have tips for the man who finds out his wife “wants out”. The advice is good, but I often wonder about the real futility of any firm or man, regardless their moxy, against the leviathan of gubmit and conventional wisdom (see any comment by “T” for conventional wisdom)
@Art Deco
Your three points are summarized like this:
Women are treated as a minors when it comes to duties but as a grown-ups when it comes to rights.
@SSM
When a neighbor of mine divorced, I used to watch the three- and five- year old girls run screaming down the sidewalk after their father’s car as he pulled away after having them for “visitation”.
My step-son begged his Mom to not blow up the marriage.
There must be something in the water in that city of yours, SSM. You could say that she figuratively threw me and her son under your bus.
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/01/22/selling-divorce-to-children/#comment-69572
@Brendan:
The period of separation pre-divorce is actually better financially for the woman typically insofar as she’s still on the husband’s health insurance, saving her considerable $$ in the interim. Also my attorney advised that the temporary orders are typically slightly more generous than the final ones, at least in my jurisdiction.
I’ve heard the theory proffered that a separation can help the parties to see the light, so to speak. This may apply to the man (as he’s typically the one who is still paying the bills and living on a friend’s couch), but it gives the woman an entirely false sense of what’s coming eventually. Like empath said, her life is unchanged with the exception of the nasty man being out of the house.
Then the decree is issued, and the reality that was once a decent albeit not extravagant existence is now in the rearview mirror for all involved as it becomes glaringly obvious that two (or four) can live nearly as cheaply as one. The frivorcer then amps up her vitriol for the misplaced object of her hatred (her husband) instead of directing it to the people she either paid to support her choice (attorneys, counselors) or the cheerleaders who wanted someone to join them in misery.
Children are permanently harmed from divorce from nearly every angle. Whatever they manage to accomplish in life in spite of the divorce they would have attain and then some. All of that social capital is lost forever.
~gwen – ”… he was tempted by a skank and left me for her. Not all men are honorable and loyal just as not all women are.”
Arriving late, but much as I try to resist doing so, I’m going to have to stick up for ~gwen here.
Some men are complete A-holes when it comes to their wives and families. I have one very close example of a former friend, who no one would have picked as a douchbag, who never-the-less went from (by all appearances) dedicated husband and family man, hard working provider, who was very much involved in his children’s lives; to leaving his wife, children, nd home to take up with his personal assistant.
I feel as if ~gwen is being rather forthright on this forum. And I believe she deserves at least a bit of our collective sympathies. I doubt anyone here believes that no men are ever completely in the wrong in such situations.
I must apologize not only for my blatant “white knighting” here, but for repeating the same old (and surely tired) anecdote.
But, on the other hand, the reason I use the same anecdote over and over is that, frankly, out of all the many people I’ve known over my nearly 50 years, it is the one-and-only example of any man I’ve known leaving his wife and children.
The prevalent (still) Pop cultural meme has long held that men routinely do this sort of thing, but in my personal experience, balanced against the one single example of a man doing this, I personally know of 5 women who have also done so (that my statistical sample is meaninglessly small not withstanding, seems to me as though women are much more likely to engage in outright abandonment of spouses and children).
In three of these instances, the wife had been a stay-at-home, who, it seems (based on what others have stated about the circumstances) simply became unhappy, and wanted to find something more exciting. All three had multiple children who they abandoned as well. The one wife who worked would actually make for a good MAndrosphere dissection, as she made nearly twice as much as did her husband, and (upon being confronted about a long-running affair) simply walked out the family home, filed for divorce, and requested only weekend and holiday visitation with her 2 children. She didn’t even fight having to pay CS. She was very much like the worst-of-the-worst scenarios that popular culture force-feeds us about men.
And, just for fun, the 5th example of a woman abandoning her family to go off and find excitement is that of my 2nd cousin’s daughter, who left her son with his father (her boyfriend of some years) to go out of state to try her hand in the “adult entertainment” industry [and, Gawd, I wish I were making it up. It’s one of those ugly family secrets no one wants to talk about]. Anyway, after about a year, she return to the state, and (which is unlikely to surprise anyone here, save perhaps T) files for sole custody and child support.
I’ve never met this relatives (ex)boyfriend, but I did know the other 4 guys, 2 from churches, one a relative of my wife, and the one who’s wife made more than him is a lawyer who used to work with my wife. I personally know the great emotional paining these men have had to deal with – good, hard working men who’s wives summarily dumped them. I can only imagine that ~gwen is facing much the same. And, as such, I can only sympathize with her (irrespective of any imperfections on her part in her marriage. None of the guys I know was perfect, but they certainly did not deserve what their wives did to them).
Anyway, sorry to drone on. And sorry to anyone offended by my “White Knighting”. Although, in my defense, it was largely motivated by my direct personal knowledge of what 4 men and one women I’ve personal known have gone through after being blind-sided by abandonment.
@slwerner:
There are women who have needed to divorce their husbands for very legitimate reasons. The problem is that most of them that divorce their husbands don’t have them. Around these parts, it should be assumed a divorce woman wasn’t in the right and needs to demonstrate that it was necessary. (Rationalizations don’t count)
I know of one story, through my mother, of a woman that was put in a position to defend herself & her children due to the husband’s drug addiction, that no one saw coming. Serious injury and a sudden addiction to Opiates will ruin any family. But that’s one of the few instances I know of, directly, where the consequence of the Divorce was less severe than the risk of staying in the marriage. But the consequences are *never* removed. Which, even in the rare, legitimate cases, it always needs to be remembered.
The one wife who worked would actually make for a good MAndrosphere dissection, as she made nearly twice as much as did her husband, and (upon being confronted about a long-running affair) simply walked out the family home, filed for divorce, and requested only weekend and holiday visitation with her 2 children. She didn’t even fight having to pay CS. She was very much like the worst-of-the-worst scenarios that popular culture force-feeds us about men.
I know of a similar case — a woman lawyer I know (not a colleague, but someone I know through work) left her SAHD husband several years ago and also left the kids with the ex-h and requested only the two weekends a month deal. She complained to me once about paying c/s to her ex-h and that he would “spend it on his new GF”.
Hurting
I was an exception. I was separated for 18 months and reconciled. Its a lot of story but the details are not that different than most. My lawyer told me his female clients almost always either attempt to extend the drama or reconcile near the final date because they will finally have consequences manifest in their lives beyond the jerk be gone.
Mine went that same way, reconciliation, but not so easy and fast because by 18 months the man usually is saying HELL NO I have zero interest in going back up in the plane I was just pushed out of.
Three-fer….I know a woman who walked from marriage and left everything, home, kids, all of it.
Its not a punch line….she ran away with her salsa dance teacher and joined a touring amateur dance group. Too stupid to be made up.
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/01/22/selling-divorce-to-children/#comment-69586
Technically my state is not no-fault insofar as incompatibility must be proven unless both parties stipulate. I bring this up under the ‘bargain under the shadow of the law’ theme, however. At the very first hearing following my response to my wife’s suit (wherein I had stipulated nothing, including incompatibility), the presiding judge proffered a target alimony which for all intents and purposes became the floor for future negotiations.
Men are totally hosed in today’s domestic relations courts.
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/01/22/selling-divorce-to-children/#comment-69698
@Art Deco
Do you have a source for you statement that 1/3 of annulments are denied?
@ empath – why did she want to separate in the first place?
To join the chorus:
I know of two men who left their wives. Both men were high status men married to women whos SMVs were quite a bit below theirs. The first was an in-shape, physically active, athletic man married to a frump. Kind of a David and Holly Petraeus situation. They had been married for at least 15 years, had one kid. One day he simply announced he no longer wanted to be married anymore; they promptly divorced.
The second was a physician married to a classically trained dancer. He kept in shape; she didn’t. She got flabby; he was beta in personality but had all manner of women young and old hitting on him. He made good money; she dabbled in work here and there and didn’t really need to work. They tried and failed to have kids. He did pretty much the same thing the first guy did: he announced to her that he was leaving and moving out of state. He signed over the house to her and took most of the cash; closed his practice and took another job practicing medicine in a more temperate climate; and that was that. He blew up a 10 year marriage.
The lessons I learned were:
Women married to men who keep in shape must themselves keep in shape.
Women married to high status men, good looking or not, must keep themselves physically attractive.
But most of the marriages I know of that busted up were not over men having affairs. Most of them ended because:
1. The wife was unhaaaaappy; or
2. The wife was attracted to hubby at first but lost attraction; or
3. The wife was a young virgin and found out later how attractive she was; falling for the sexual charms of an alpha douchebag; or
4. The wife had an affair.
5. The wife no longer wanted married life.
Ach no. IIRC, it was cited by either Edward Peters or Peter Vere some years back. Both are canon lawyers who have worked with these tribunals. Peters is the one more inclined to defend the work of these tribunals.
Kind of a David and Holly Petraeus situation.
Mrs. Petraeus is 60. She is perfectly pleasant looking – for a woman of 60. You get older, she get’s older, and that’s the deal. (It has been remarked by critics of the General that being the wife of a flag-rank officer is a vocation of its own, rather like being the wife of a minister. She was a participant in his career, not just the superintendent of his home).
Empath:
I’m pretty familiar with your story and that of others; and yeah, I’d say you are the exception. Most marriages I know that went as far as filing and legal separation are pretty much over by that point. Most men whose wives kick them out or separate and move out eventually reach the point where they are simply finished with it, mentally and emotionally “move on”, and resign themselves to the end of their marriages.
One friend divorced after 16 years of marriage. She moved out because he was terribly beta and held low-paying jobs. They always struggled financially. She became miserably unhappy. For a year he hoped against hope that she would come back. He talked and cried to me about her leaving. But one day he woke up and looked back on all the shit she put him through. He was sick of hearing how he was to blame for everything wrong in her life. He took responsibility for his part in the end of their marriage but rejected he was fully to blame. He simply said to himself that he was just done with her, and that he hoped to accelerate the divorce process. His then STBX asked him if he would consider reconciliation and that she thought they might get back together; he replied that that was simply out of the question. She was taken aback.
The final order of dissolution came through a week later.
Farm Boy wrote:
Their children’s needs and wants seem not to be important to many women. This is possibly the most shocking thing to me that I have learned in the manosphere.
Oh, it’s a loony bin around here alright, but in terms of divorce, this county has one of the lowest rates in the state. High SES has a protective effect on many marriages.
Mrs. Petraeus is pleasant looking for being 60. That said, she’s married to a high profile man in a high powered career whose SMV is much higher than hers is. He was tempted and succumbed. This happens frequently. It’s just reality.
Women married to men who keep in shape must themselves keep in shape.
This applies to men, too.
In this I very much agree with Athol in that a key thing in any marriage is to keep the SMVs in the same relation that they were in at the time of the wedding. Unilateral deviation from that ratio, whatever it is, is a sign that trouble is likely coming, because it changes the nature of the “deal” from the physical attraction perspective, and makes one spouse feel cheated. This works both up and down — it isn’t deterioration or appreciation that is the issue, rather it’s the changing of the relative SMV ratio of the couple that is the issue. If two middling people (5s, say) marry each other, and a few years later she works out and makes herself over into a 7, you can rest assured that unless the H does the same, exit visas are in the offing.
Off-hand, I can recall four men of my acquaintance who ditched their wives. One was an attorney who walked out on a 28 year-long marriage about four years after their youngest child completed high school. Another was an attorney who walked out on a 40+ year marriage thirteen years after their youngest child completed high school. One was an engineer who walked out on his wife of 24 years while they still had adolescent sons in residence. Another was a college teacher (with two adolescent children) who abandoned his 47 year old wife (to whom he had been married for ~20 years) and shacked up with a poopsie half her age.
You will notice that all of these men were married for 3 or 4 times as long as the usual husband entering a legal separation and that all had professional-managerial employments. Three of the four women were slim (if that interests you). The fourth was the same shape as her husband and had been the same shape on the day they were married. The engineer’s wife had a bad hoarding problem; not sure what was going on in the other cases. I can verify that at least three of these women were badly wounded by being treated in this manner, and perhaps all four. I can also say that at least one (case 4) had no warning whatsoever. The professor’s name was for some time a punchline on that particular faculty, and perhaps still is.
I forgot one other case, a computer programmer married 15 years who commenced an affair with a spinsterish family friend. He had three children, ages 11, 6, and 4. She discovered the affair after a year and he moved out while they went into counseling. After a few months, only she continued with the counseling. He insisted on the divorce.
A few weeks before he moved out, she attended her high school reunion and had a pleasant conversation with a bachelor engineer whom she had known and had had some interest in her ca. 1968. After her divorce was final, she married Dilbert and they remain (by all accounts pleasantly) married 21 years later. Her husband married his mistress, who (in contrast to Dilbert) had a whale of a time building a relationship with her step-children. She insisted he leave after six years. He then ran through another marriage (ended on his initiative). The children are closer to an more agreeable with and about their step-father than their father. Even the paternal grandfather came to favor Dilbert over his son. Just a sad mess.
Mrs. Petraeus is pleasant looking for being 60. That said, she’s married to a high profile man in a high powered career whose SMV is much higher than hers is. He was tempted and succumbed. This happens frequently. It’s just reality.
deti, I am not chowing down on this. That woman did nothing to provoke her husband. She just got older, as we all do.
In this I very much agree with Athol in that a key thing in any marriage is to keep the SMVs in the same relation that they were in at the time of the wedding.
It is prudent to look after yourself best you can, but honestly, this mess is just offensive. The writer Joseph Epstein put in the mouth of one of his characters a piece of Jewish wisdom we ought to remember, “Get a look at her mother, ‘cuz that’s what your gonna get”. Loyalty to your wife is a categorical imperative. There are circumstances when you respond to transgressions with a certain economy. However, age and attendant deterioration are givens. For richer for poorer and all that.
“If two middling people (5s, say) marry each other, and a few years later she works out and makes herself over into a 7, you can rest assured that unless the H does the same, exit visas are in the offing.”
Yep, seen it happen. Fortyish W goes on a health/fitness kick, drops a bunch of weight, becomes a wannabe Bowflex grandma. Has guys 10 years younger than her hitting on her (wanting to f**k her). H remains schlubby. She’s doing it because she’s sick of being married to H the pudge and is readying her body for a new man.
I think the difference between the W who becomes Bowflex grandma and the H who becomes a P90X sensation is that the H is more likely to remain married to the frumpy W than the W is to remain married to the pudge. The H has much more to lose in money and status. Even if Mr. P90X could get more women (he probably could), he has to undertake the cost benefit analysis of dumping the frump.
Bowflex Grandma, on the other hand, can easily get out of her marriage with cash and prizes, and quickly snag a string of men for pretty much whatever she wants.
@ Art Deco:
“That woman did nothing to provoke her husband. She just got older, as we all do.”
Agreed. The general was in the wrong. He was tempted. He should have resisted and remained faithful to his wife. He didn’t. He was wrong. She got older and less physically attractive; he aged but remained attractive due to factors other than his physiognomy. I didn’t say she provoked him. According to what we know publicly, there is no evidence she did.
I was simply pointing out the reality of the situation that the general’s SMV considerably outranks his wife’s SMV. This is simply a fact apparent to any objective observer. When one knows those facts, one can view them through whatever prism one likes to determine appropriate conduct.
Also take into account the social optics of Mr. P90X dumping the frump and compare it to Bowflex grandma dumping the pudge.
Grandma is empowered, strong, independent. She’s getting in shape and improving her life. The pudge didn’t keep up. She’s awesome and hot. By dint of her will and self-discipline, Grandma is entitled to a vibrant, robust, hot sex life, and she can’t get that with pudge. She should now be free to cougar it up with the Jersey Shore guidos with washboard abs and moussed hair.
Contrast that with the following:
Mr. P90X has improved himself for the benefit of his wife and family. He’s getting in shape to live a long healthy life. What’s that? He’s divorcing his sweet, good-natured yet (ahem) a bit on the generously proportioned side wife who watches Oprah and eats bon bons all day? He says he’s tired of being deprived sex because she won’t sleep with him because she’s embarrassed at her looks? How DARE he!! He must stay by her side and support her through her dysfunction! Take that guy to the cleaners and take him for all he’s worth!! He’ll pay alimony until he dies!
Ok, so I want to say a couple things along this current vein of the thread-
Art Deco- I think many of those guys who left their wife of many years likely had a certain factor going on- mutiny. A woman who acts poorly/rebellious towards her husband often thinks she gets away with it, and often gets her way as well. Men often allow this as the lesser evil compared to the hell they will pay if they defy her. (If not prison, then some other form of misery from her) This often brings about men putting her on the Ticking Clock. The one where the guy says to himself “x amount of time, then I’m out” either because of the kids, or because of financial reasons that prevent him from walking on the spot. As we all know “just leave” is never so easy, esp with a marriage cert and/or kids.
It is usually a long string of offenses of disrespect she has committed towards him, with a few occasional highlights. She piles them up, and piles them up on the hapless beta, and he knows he is bested and must relent… and yet- he puts her on that clock, and once he crosses a certain threshold, he need merely to wait until her next offense, and checks the hell out. Those guys have often been saving/hiding money, and even downsizing and slashing debts in preparation. I can’t help but think that alimony exists so that instead of women having to act in an acceptable manner to her man in order to secure his provision, now she can act anyway she wants in a marriage, knowing she owns him either way.
Those men kept a secret about their intentions, but those intentions were probably there a long time, and were probably because she was insufferable and he couldn’t figure out how to get her to be happy or treat him well, leaving the Ticking Clock as his only option, and the only way for him to preserve his self-respect whilst allowing her to dog him daily.
_______________
I also want to make a point about the white-knighting of backing up the girls here a little who really may have gotten a bad deal from a guy-
First of all, I’m fine with it. I saw my mom leave my dad, and I get the “why”, as well as many other scenarios I have seen. I want to illustrate a particular one, and get your thoughts-
There’s a Christian woman I know who was married for 20 years to a hopeless beta. Whiny, insecure, vindictive- a textbook case. Predictably, he is also hard to villainize- he is a decent guy, works hard, has skills, people like him. You know the drill. Well, eventually, they split up. The man had not done any key thing to get ejected, such as adultery- but he was seriously insufferable. Zero social skills, zero alpha, whiny, playing the victim, following her around the house, deferring all decisions to her, accusatory, lame sex, the works.
So, we could all point to this and say “Frivolous Divorce!” because she didn’t have a concrete reason. Or we could say that he had it coming for being weak. We could try to place blame.
But who is to blame? They got together young, and came from badly dysfunctional families. Is it ultimately the fault of their parents, for not teaching the guy how to be a MAN, or for not teaching the woman how to be content, or a good wife?
One thing I know is this: If a woman is discontent with her weak beta husband, he IS going to get the boot, scripture or not. I think that women do rationalize their choice to bail all sorts of ways, but when you come and try to tell her she should have stayed put, they really don’t give a damn about your pontificating. They know that their situation was unacceptable, may or may not be able to explain it, but they know damn well they had to go.
Could we say that the woman was in the right after all, because he wasn’t much of a man, anyway? Could we say that he had it coming for being weak?
If we say that women need to obey scripture and stay with their husbands and be grateful, are we forgetting the exhortation to men to be MEN? Men need to obey the scripture by attaining wisdom, knowledge, and understanding. If they do this, they may very well have a content wife, and if they fail and rebel by NOT studying and gaining wisdom, is it perhaps the man’s failure, after all, when the divorce comes around?
There’s only so much willpower you can ask a person to have when you ask them to stay in a situation that is fundmentally (and even rightly) wholly unacceptable. I’d regard it unacceptable to stay with a woman who disrespects me. Perhaps women find it unacceptable to be with guys who don’t have the understanding or the courage to master themselves, and master their woman?
Shall we shake our fists at women, for being stupid enough to choose that lame beta or alpha cad, when seriously- no one has EVER dropped the proper wisdom on them that they need to choose better? Even if every example she ever saw was bad?
I can get behind the idea that women do some sinister and harmful stuff to men and even their own children. No argument there.
I’m just of the mind that if a man gets it right from day one, he has very little to fear, because the woman will exist in his frame, and will love it there and never leave.
Maybe that’s my own ego, for presuming that about myself. Maybe it lets the girls off the hook when they shouldn’t be let off the hook.
If the teacher doesn’t teach his student the required material, and is a poor teacher in general, how shall we rail at the student for failing?
If a man doesn’t set the tone and rule his family well, how can we expect anything less than for the women to wipe out? Whose fault is that?
Sorry for the white-knighting and stuff. Open fire.
@ empath – why did she want to separate in the first place?
What difference does it make?
She didn’t want to separate, she filed divorce. It falls under frivorce for reasons I am not about to blather on about. Suffice that I could have done EXACTLY the same and didn’t. But the infection did spread, the woman who ran away with the salsa dancer, and another woman down the street filed and jettisoned good husbands. No affairs, no abuse, no addictions.
I’m just of the mind that if a man gets it right from day one, he has very little to fear, because the woman will exist in his frame, and will love it there and never leave.
Entirely too much evidence to the contrary.
Art DecoArt Deco – ”That woman did nothing to provoke her husband.”
True. She didn’t deserve to be cheated on just because she let herself go.
But, I suspect you are simply trying to obfuscate the point about diverging SMP values leading to such marital troubles.
You might not be aware of it, but for a time, pro-adultery service Ashley Madison ran an add depicting a “couch potato” husband who appeared to have “let himself go” and a much fitter, well dressed, active and attractive wife; with the message that wives who have higher SMP values than their husbands OUGHT to be cheating on them.
It’s something that definitely cuts both ways. And, although you seem to have been careful to only cite examples of boorish behavior on the part of husbands you’ve known, it seems you must know of a similar number of wives who’ve elected to blow up their marriages and families (although, when women chose to do so, they typically do not abandon custody of/contact with of their children).
Earlier I gave examples of the specific behavior of electively giving up custody and or contact with children so as to move on without having them as an encumbrance. I could, like you, simply go through a list of all the divorce situations I’m familiar with, which would entail both the men and the women doing destructive things to their marriages. But, while I would (in my estimation of the circumstances) assign blame on many of the men, I’d have to assign it more often to the women (who, more typically, did go after custody). And, in those cases that I have some knowledge of, it seems to me that the men involved have been more aware of the damage being done to their children.
Even in the case of my ex-friend who ditched his wife, he did not wish to lose contact with his 4 teenaged children (they were simply to pissed at him to want to have any contact). He was an ass, to be sure. But, unlike the examples I know of in which it was the mother abandoning the family, he would not have wished to lose contact with his children.
In the one example of the relative of my wife who’s wife walked out on him and their three children, nearly 15 years later, she has never so much as written to nor called any of her children. That’s a far cry from an “empty nest” husband deciding he no longer wished to be married to the mother of his children.
Wouldn’t you agree?
He simply said to himself that he was just done with her, and that he hoped to accelerate the divorce process. His then STBX asked him if he would consider reconciliation and that she thought they might get back together; he replied that that was simply out of the question. She was taken aback.
A friend reports similar. His wife filed for divorce while he was in boot camp. She freely admitted she couldn’t justify the divorce before God (she was a “Christian”), but she said, she just didn’t want to be poor all her life… and this rich guy was interested. Good hub did everything in his power to win her back, despite her open adultery and other outrageous conduct… until…. one day he’d had enough.
The next time they spoke, he told her that if she tried to return now, he would no longer take her back. She was shocked and hurt. WTF? She was living with, and fucking, some other guy, berating hub for being “poor”, taking away his daughter, and filing for divorce… why would she still care how he feels?
Fast forward. He got remarried, he had a new family, he got rich. Exwife was dumped by the rich 2nd hub and now — only now, all these years later — admits to 1st hub, “I was wrong to divorce you”. Yep.
FWIW, the daughter’s life was ruined. She was a good Christian til her late teens, when, true to her mother’s example, she went off the rails and became a slut.
@Empath- there is no evidence that I know of that established that these guys who get wrecked by a woman were “doing it right”
In fact, most people, including myself, will tell you that yeah, they got dogged out- but they know it was their own fault for being beta. (aka NOT doing it right)
Bowflex grandma + P90X sensation…..Sham Wow!
Solomon….Let me come half way. Very often even a filed frivorce can be stopped by handling it in an alpha way. Too many men, myself included, wallowed and begged for some time creating even less chance of reconciliation.
Bootstrapping in response to a frivorce filing is the best response.
The church has a twisted version of that, one that fails. They say, don’t try and win your wife back, work on yourself and your “walk with the Lord”….which is as you know church speak for polish your inner beta. The effect of this is actually the very worse thing. The wife doesnt even have to face a crying begging man, PLUS he is doing nothing to demonstrate aloofness. Worst of both ideas.
Well, Solomon, I am not interested in manufacturing apologias for people who engage in discretionary divorce.
I have some familiarity with the domestic life of two of these couples, and, no, the wife was not mutinous. Case 3, as I have said, had and has a serious problem with hoarding behavior and left a trail of financial wreckage behind her. That sort of thing is just adjacent to alcoholism in the level of provocation; I do not blame her husband for being furious with her (though she is a dear, for the most part). Case 5 had the usual rough edges that real flesh-and-blood people do, but there was not anything so wrong with her that an ordinary man could not put up with it without too much effort. She is a capable parks department official where she lives (like the fictional Leslie Knope, but older and with a good sense of irony) and has been a decent wife to a different man without such a complicated inner life. Her 1st husband has made a mess of the rest of his life (there is more to that story, terribly embarrassing). As for the other three couples, I tend to doubt there was anything out of the ordinary about the wife in each case, but that is speculative.
Solomon:
Great comment.
I think a lot of men can put up with a lot more in a bad marriage than a woman will tolerate. I agree that Art’s examples of long marriages busted up by the men were probably a result of being married to harridans or nags or spendthrifts or complainers.
I agree there are a lot of women who never learn to select well, and a lot of men who are hopeless, hapless betas who couldn’t lead a baby. But I have to be careful here that I don’t remove a woman’s agency and free will. Beta men know something’s wrong; many times they have never had anyone sit them down and force feed a red pill to them.
On the other hand, sluts intrinsically know what they are doing is wrong. Way down deep, they know it’s wrong.
Art Deco: Loyalty to one’s wife is indeed a categorical imperative. Even if she’s a fat, lazy bitch.
By the same token, a wife’s loyalty and submission and respect to her husband is a categorical imperative.
Even if he’s a hapless beta.
Even if he’s not worthy of submission (he isn’t by his own hand, but only by God’s placing him in the position of husband).
Even if he’s not worthy of her respect.
Even if he’s fat and ugly.
Even if she settled for him.
She didn’t deserve to be cheated on just because she let herself go.
1. Ordinary men should be expected to learn tolerance.
2. She did not let herself go. That is what 60 year old women look like. There are a few oddballs like Barrie Chase* who are handsome into old age, but that is not what you are going to get. Get used to it.
*[Barrie Chase in 1963:
Barrie Chase in 2009:
Art Deco:
“1. Ordinary men should be expected to learn tolerance.
2. She did not let herself go. That is what 60 year old women look like.”
This is tedious. AD, we could go back and forth like this all day.
Ordinary women should be expected to learn not to cheat on their husbands. Ordinary women should be expected to know that having sex with 20 men before you get married is probably not a very good idea. Ordinary women should be expected to be thrifty and to lower their standards for marriage.
Ordinary women should be expected to see their husbands’ hairlines getting thin and their waistlines getting thick. Yet it seems ordinary frumps expect to marry George Clooney.
Art Deco: Loyalty to one’s wife is indeed a categorical imperative. Even if she’s a fat, lazy bitch.
By the same token, a wife’s loyalty and submission and respect to her husband is a categorical imperative.
Even if he’s a hapless beta.
For the record, one of these women is naturally muffin shaped, and has been all her life: short, buxom, and kind of cute that way. The remainder are slim. I tend to doubt any would qualify as ‘lazy’. One birthed and raised five children; one has been variously a librarian, an anthropology professor (who did fieldwork in Mexico), and an institutional apparatchik; one has had a long series of wage jobs in addition to mothering three children (usually working two jobs since her divorce); and one is an office manager turned parks official who has not had too many years out of the workforce since she was 1st married, even when she was still nursing. They have had less demanding employments than did their husbands, but they are not slackers.
Ordinary women should be expected to learn not to cheat on their husbands. Ordinary women should be expected to know that having sex with 20 men before you get married is probably not a very good idea. Ordinary women should be expected to be thrifty and to lower their standards for marriage.
None of the people who post here, including ‘T’, are suggesting it is just ‘reality’ when women do these things.
It is prudent to look after yourself best you can, but honestly, this mess is just offensive. The writer Joseph Epstein put in the mouth of one of his characters a piece of Jewish wisdom we ought to remember, “Get a look at her mother, ‘cuz that’s what your gonna get”. Loyalty to your wife is a categorical imperative. There are circumstances when you respond to transgressions with a certain economy. However, age and attendant deterioration are givens. For richer for poorer and all that.
I think you’re confusing “should” and “is”. I don’t think anyone here disagrees about the “should”. However, the “is” situation is actually quite common, and it goes *both* ways. If you start to see SMVs diverge in a way that radically differs from the ratio at the time of the wedding, trouble is coming. Note this isn’t “normal aging” — normal aging wouldn’t alter the relative SMVs of the spouses. This is one spouse getting hotter than they were at the time they married, or one spouse deteriorating in a way that their spouse is not. That sort of thing leads to trouble in marriages.
@Empath- we fully agree on the Church (and society even) telling the hapless beta to be MORE beta, and it being the exactly wrong advice.
This is the centerpiece of what fires me up in the Mandrosphere- These marriages could be SAVED, the sins of the H and the W both avoided by subscribing to God’s REAL order. Their children would be spared this suffering as well.
They are giving the wrong advice to both husband and wife. It’s not just misguided, either, but LIES, and defiance/perverting of scripture as well. Since lies are at the root of the disorder we have today, we can point to the father of lies as the ultimate culprit we rail against. I think maintaining that focus will lend the girls here a modicum of balance as to what the problem really is.
Men got tricked, and the girls got tricked. Both need help. Both need truth.
@Deti- agreed- I think, though, that these days when a man demonstrates far more patience and tolerance for a disagreeable spouse than women do, I’d speculate that it is just as much (if not mostly) because of the sword of Damocles rather than their great benevolence. Or perhaps their deep love for their children, even whilst simultaneously tolerating the contentious wife in despair.
“None of the people who post here, including ‘T’, are suggesting it is just ‘reality’ when women do these things.”
I said that it is reality that Gen. Petraeus’ SMV is higher than his wife’s. That in no way excuses his alleged infidelity.
As for your other post, please tell me you agree that a wife has an absolute duty of fidelity, submission and respect to her husband, even if he is grossly undeserving.
@ Art Deco – “2. She did not let herself go. That is what 60 year old women look like. There are a few oddballs like Barrie Chase* who are handsome into old age, but that is not what you are going to get. Get used to it.”
I am glad to read someone being sensible about this. Most of the sixty year old women that I see look something like that. My mother is a very slim, fashionable woman in her sixties, and even among her UMC friends she is an exception.
The worst divorce story I know of to date is that of a (former) close friend of mine from childhood. She was a SAHM and he is in the military. She and I would have long talks about God and the Bible. She was from divorced parents and desperately (for a time) wanted to not repeat the cycle. New orders, new city, new friends, they start spending time with other couples who like to play strip poker. Then she decides with young ones at home that she should do an accelerated nursing school so they can keep up with those Joneses. New orders, new city, new friends, she gets to know the neighbor well and they decide that a threesome would be fun. Her husband devoured that apple and turned out he wanted more. He continued to have sex with the neighbor behind his wife’s back. And a few other women to boot.
Oh she was devastated. Called me for support. Told me everything he did but left out the threesome bit. Cash and prizes galore. Her husband got all of the debt, including her student loan debt, pays child support, and will only receive half of his military retirement (10 year rule), she’ll get the rest.
She’s now two years in to a lesbian relationship fighting for those equal rights.
T, Art Deco:
“I am glad to read someone being sensible about this. Most of the sixty year old women that I see look something like that.”
Strawman.
No man here expects to be married to Sophia Loren or Lena Horne. It would be nice, but we live in the real world. No man wants to be married to a Twiggy who then gains 100 pounds, especially if he stays in shape. Nor did anyone here say that this excuses a man’s cheating on his wife.
@empath – “What difference does it make?
She didn’t want to separate, she filed divorce. It falls under frivorce for reasons I am not about to blather on about. Suffice that I could have done EXACTLY the same and didn’t. But the infection did spread, the woman who ran away with the salsa dancer, and another woman down the street filed and jettisoned good husbands. No affairs, no abuse, no addictions.”
No offense meant. I’m just curious about the reasons that a woman would do such a thing, The only woman frivorce that I can think of involved her getting tired of being poor, packing up her kids and moving back in with her parents. Her parents watched her kids while she went back to school and worked. Later she married a man who could actually support a family but she still kept working herself. I guess it was frivolous in that there was no abuse affairs or addictions, but I can certainly see why she got fed up with him making little money and then managing it badly.
ARt Deco:
“As for your other post, please tell me you agree that a wife has an absolute duty of fidelity, submission and respect to her husband, even if he is grossly undeserving.”
I’m waiting for your response to this. Anything less than enthusiastic, whole-hearted agreement will tell me you’re a hypocrite who expects unswerving fidelity from husbands while demanding considerably less from wives.
Still waiting.
What say you, Art Deco?
Art Deco – “She did not let herself go. That is what 60 year old women look like.”
Um…even if there were legitimate reasons why she could not have kept herself in better shape, as the wife of a general, she surely could have afforded to get a decent hairstyle. And, I’m not trying to be snarky with that comment. I’m being serious. There was no reason for her to have such a frumpy hairstyle, nor to dress like Hillary Clinton.
Certainly, there should be some allowance for the aging process. Still, some people (both men and woman) seem to put so little into their appearance that they seem to project the attitude that they just don’t give a damn.
Holly Petraeus knew that Paula Broadwell was around her husband quite a bit, and she must have known that he could be tempted by her. And while she could never have competed with Broadwell on the sole basis of looks, (http://www.thedailybeast.com/galleries/2012/11/12/when-the-mistress-meets-the-mrs-paula-broadwell-holly-petraeus-more-photos.html#ab8f5223-26e3-41ce-ade6-db1a964ce251) she seems to have taken a tact similar to that which was ascribe to Hillary Clinton, being that she simply decided to look the other way, and not try to hold her husbands attraction.
But, this but a highly selective and not particularly representative example of a high status man with a low status wife. No one is giving David Patraeus any kudos for cheating on his wife. However, in those situations where the wife is much higher status, there seems to be plenty of cheer-leading for her to dump the guy, with the aging dinosaurs of the Orthosphere sating what, exactly? That such men should have acted more manly to keep their wives attraction?
@ deti – I wasn’t making an argument. I’m just saying that no matter what a woman looks like at 20 at about sixty she’s going to look kind of like HP. She didn’t let herself go so much as she didn’t fight the signs of aging tooth and nail. The women who look fantastic at sixty have a combination of great gene and a huge amount of time and effort put into maintaining their appearance. It isn’t common.
It’s not as simple as that sometimes. This is the scenario I have witnessed many times:
Husband works in a high status/high income field. He works insanely long hours and makes a lot of money. Wifey likes the lifestyle, but she is lonely because he’s never home, and when he is home, his phone is always ringing with important work calls. He’s away for work all the time and she’s quit her job to stay home with their children and she doesn’t feel like a wife, she feels like a high class nanny. She knows she can’t complain because he gives her more than she needs financially, but every time she has to go to a kids’ dance recital alone or he doesn’t show up at some event he promised he’d get to this time, she sits and seethes.
She becomes increasingly cold toward him because she’s upset that he’s never home, and furthermore it upsets her that he doesn’t seem to mind never being home. She’s unfriendly to him, and he doesn’t understand why she’s so hostile when he is home. She starts withholding, which makes him angry and they have nasty, hissing fights after the kids are in bed.
Husbands starts keeping a cute nurse or two for sex and romance on the side, plus the odd two or three trashy single mom medical techs for blow jobs in his car after work. Home life is cold but he isn’t there much.
Eventually he gets caught. What happens next can go one of two ways. One, she doesn’t divorce him because she either doesn’t want to hurt the children or she doesn’t want the loss of status or both. Two, she’s really pissed at his philandering and divorces him (an acquaintance of mine did this recently and is getting 130K in yearly child support plus the 850K house), but oddly she is more miserable as a late 40s divorcee than she was married to a cheater.
I can think of multiple acquaintances who roughly fit this scenario. What I can’t quite suss is exactly whose fault it is.
The church has a twisted version… one that fails. They say, don’t try and win your wife back, work on yourself and your “walk with the Lord”
Typically such a man always has worked diligently on himself and his “walk with the Lord”. Unfortunately, godliness simply isn’t relevant to attraction — and attraction is the problem.
This is the post marital version of the stupid dating advice given by church and indeed our whole society. All of the relationship advice given to single men — self-improvement, spiritual growth, communication skills, etc — will make definitely you more compatible, in the unlikely event you ever do get into a relationship. But attraction is not compatibilty, and all the compatibility in the world will never get you a relationship without attraction. (“Let’s just be friends!”) The advice isn’t wrong, it’s just irrelevant in most cases.
Along the same vein, I wonder how many divorces / frivorces are ultimately attempts to LJBF the man, post wedding. This might explain why many a woman, after divorcing in a way that is experienced by the exhusband as hideous cruelty and the vilest of treachery, afterwards is shocked and hurt to learn that her ex now hates her with all his heart. I even heard of a case where a woman filed for divorce, and yet grieved when she realized exhub would no longer meet her for lunch every day as was their custom when married — “But he’s my best friend, I don’t want to lose the friendship!” (WTF?)
She didn’t want the exhub to be an enemy. She just wanted to LJBF him.
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/01/22/selling-divorce-to-children/#comment-69754
T,
Your post below deserves some measured feedback. I am one of those guys to whom deti refers above and can and will give you some feeback point by point and beg you to disabuse yourself of some pretty faulty notions via independent research.
Alimony and child support laws vary widely by state. In some states men would be crazy to divorce, and in some the man might well be better off financially after paying a modest amount of child support.
There is practically no mathematical way anyone involved in a divorce can not suffer a major loss in standard of living and/or wealth status unless one of the parties were already contributing $0 to household income and were to cede all wealth accumulated and forego any ongoing income stream from the other party. In all likelihood, all are going to be far worse off with typically the man suffering the greatest injury on a relative basis. Yes, alimony does vary widely by state, but is is not officially formula-driven and is therefore hard to predict (judges typically have pretty wide latitude) whereas c/s is pretty standardized. C/S awards per the formula are typically far in excess of the marginal cost of raising a child and therefore constitute hidden alimony to the recipient.
He can then have sex with other women, spend the rest of his money on himself, and slack off on his parenting responsibilities, knowing that his ex wife will do whatever necessary to make sure that his children are taken care of.
Deti has pretty well refuted your assertion about the SMV of the likely divorced dad, but I would add that a great many of them don’t see the end of the civil marriage as empowering them to yuk it up with the chicks as they still view themselves as married sacramentally. I assume that the second half of the statement about a man knowing that his ex-wife will ‘do whatever is necessary’ to care for the kids is a misinformed joke.
Visitation may prove problematic with younger children, but teens and tween will be able to see their father if they want to, assuming of course that the neither parent moves out of the area.
Others have dwelt on the likelihood that a court would change custody assignment in the case of a geographical chnages on the part of the custodial parent, but I would add that part of the big divorce lie rests with the idea that visitation is sufficient to compensate for a father being forcibly removed from his children’s lives. It patently does not. Children need their father in their lives every single day to parent them. Indeed a single parent of either gender is so far deficient relative to the optimal two-parent arrangement that produced western civiliation as we know it that it does not merit serious consideration as an viable alternative. Notwithstanding that, if it had to be one or the other, far better that the father-as-primary-parent model be adopted than the current mess.
And if a man knows that his wife isn’t the spiteful type, he can count on as much or as little access to his kids as he wants.
Divorce engenders animosity and spite. there is simply no way around it.
“oddly she is more miserable as a late 40s divorcee than she was married to a cheater.”
I don’t think it’s odd at all. She was married to an attractive high value man with options. She was attracted to him and so were a few other women. He has gone on with his philandering, I would bet; while her only options are pudgy mid-50s sad sacks and 25 year old douchebags looking for a quick cougar fix. She’s well off; which means Sad Sack is out of the question; leaving only the d-bags as playthings and distractions for her.
SSM:
“I can think of multiple acquaintances who roughly fit this scenario. What I can’t quite suss is exactly whose fault it is.”
Both of them. Hers for being ungrateful, bitchy and not understanding the sacrifices he undertakes to give her what she wants. His for cheating.
Here’s what a highly paid, hardworking man with SAHM thinks when she bitches about him working hard and earning good money:
“Once again, I can’t win for losing. I do what she asked. I give her what she wanted: to be an SAHM. She got to quit her shitty job that she hated anyway. I’m breaking my ass and carrying boatloads of stress to do this for her. And what do I get in return? Ingratitude, complaining, and no sex to boot.”
I’m screwed either way. If I take a lesser paying job, she’ll have to go back to work and she’ll think less of me, and she’ll be unhappy.
If I take a higher paying job, she can quit work but has to do all the housework and I’m never here. She thinks less of me, and she’ll be unhappy.
I can’t win for losing.
I even heard of a case where a woman filed for divorce, and yet grieved when she realized exhub would no longer meet her for lunch every day as was their custom when married — “But he’s my best friend, I don’t want to lose the friendship!” (WTF?)
Oh that’s common. I got that from my ex, too, when we were going through the divorce. It’s very much “WTF”, but you see, to women that just means she doesn’t hate you, she just doesn’t want to fuck you anymore (“I love you, but I’m not in love with you” — that’s what it means). Most men aren’t very interested in being friends with women they are not fucking regularly — at least not very close friends (yes, there are “workplace spouses”, but look out when one of those is happening — look very out!), whereas for women this isn’t the case — a man can offer things as a friend that are very useful and valued to a woman, even if that man is her ex-h.
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/01/22/selling-divorce-to-children/#comment-69887
@Sarah’s Daughter
I have lost a lifetime of accumulated wealth and have seen the person I promised to love forever put me and her children through the wringer. I would give what remains of my earthly possessions just to have someone share your observations with my wife.
Some day one of us (my wife or myself) will be in the congregation at a funeral mass for the other. Perhaps then it will hit home for her.
Unhappy marriages is why God made booze. Its right there in Proverbs.
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/01/22/selling-divorce-to-children/#comment-69934
empath…
They advertise heavily in my area (Midwest), too. I intrepret their pitch with a very big grain of salt, too, and wonder if they ever represent women (I can only assume that they do.). There may be rare exceptions in every jurisdiction, but I am very skeptical that it matters a great deal the quality of representation unless it is patently incompetent. The deck is simply stacked too far in favor of women as evidenced by the filing ratio.
“she doesn’t hate you, she just doesn’t want to fuck you anymore (“I love you, but I’m not in love with you” — that’s what it means).”
It’s basically the wife saying LJBF to the husband and putting him in the Friend Zone.
It’s basically the wife saying LJBF to the husband and putting him in the Friend Zone.
BINGO. That’s precisely the dynamic. Just like becoming one of her ex-boyfriends. It’s the same dynamic. Of course it’s a decision that takes longer to make, due to the technicalities of being married and the kids and so on, but the mental/emotional dynamic is identical.
“godliness simply isn’t relevant to attraction”
Actually, it is.
Perhaps not the gentle nature stuff, or the deference to God’s word, or the faithful hard work-
But if Men would be godly in this way: Operating with authority, leading, guiding, teaching, loving, challenging, requiring obedience, offering rebuke- which is Christ’s example to men- THAT godliness translates to attraction nicely.
They advertise heavily in my area (Midwest), too. I intrepret their pitch with a very big grain of salt, too, and wonder if they ever represent women (I can only assume that they do.). There may be rare exceptions in every jurisdiction, but I am very skeptical that it matters a great deal the quality of representation unless it is patently incompetent. The deck is simply stacked too far in favor of women as evidenced by the filing ratio.
Mostly, yes. Some variables are whether you have some very bad facts (like my family lawyer at the time quipped to me “your wife has to basically show up at the hearing with a crack pipe in her hand, the smoke wafting up towards the judge” kind of fact and the evidence to back it up) or the wife has a very conflict avoidant personality and just wants to get it over with (which sometimes means you can get a better deal) — unfortunately that isn’t very common in divorce situations.
@ hurting – “Children need their father in their lives every single day to parent them. Indeed a single parent of either gender is so far deficient relative to the optimal two-parent arrangement that produced western civiliation as we know it that it does not merit serious consideration as an viable alternative. ”
We are in complete agreement here. Many women don’t understand this. I saw women wishing themselves happy Father’s Day on Facebook and posting about how they are both mother and father to their children. In fact they can only be mothers and are probably worse mothers for not having the support of the child’s father.
godliness simply isn’t relevant to attraction”
Actually, it is. if Men would be godly in this way: Operating with authority, leading, guiding, teaching, loving, challenging, requiring obedience, offering rebuke
Need some authority to actually do that. This is why most pastors are automatic Alphas in the church realm, even though they may be Betas everywhere else.
Not everyone can be a leader. Not every soldier can be an officer, not every Indian can be chief. Most of us will be faithful followers, and that’s okay. Except when it comes to dating.
“Operating with authority, leading, guiding, teaching, loving, challenging, requiring obedience, offering rebuke- which is Christ’s example to men- THAT godliness translates to attraction nicely.”
It CAN translate to attraction, but that kind of godliness has to be very precisely calibrated, and directed to the right type of receptive woman who “gets it”, for it to be attractive.
This kind of godliness is attractive to the Michelle Duggars of the world. It really isn’t sexually or physically attractive to the “unchurched”. To those women it comes off as creepy, controlling, and demanding. Men like this are routinely portrayed in Lifetime movies as petty, vindictive, passive-aggressive tyrants.
Perhaps timely.
The governor of my state, John Hickenlooper (aka The Dorkinator) in discussing with Frank Bruni of the NY Times the subject of his wife having kicked him out, gushed on and on about her:
“There was just always somebody interrupting. She’s someone who just thinks so deeply and feels so deeply — it was just so distracting for her. I didn’t appreciate that properly.”
He was the mayor of Denver, and now the governor of Colorado, but he was “distracting” her – from her freelance journalistic work? Her authorship of obscure and unread books?
Total beta, he says that they are still “close friends” and that ”… she remains a beacon of light to me and Teddy.” (their, or at least her, 10 year old son)
His wife has dumped him into the “Friend Zone”.
But, if he’d take some good old fashion Orthosphereian-type advice and “man up” more, he might still have a chance to avoid the frivorce meat-grinder:
My Wife Offered to Stay With Me Had I Run for President”.
“If you want to run for president, I’m in. We’ll stay married. I’ll figure it out and I’ll be fine.”
@Solomon
I have no intention of complaining about your white knighting. Too often in the Manosphere all of the blame is placed on women and none on men when the real picture is much more nuanced. I think we would both agree that the blame lies with the institutions of society, especially the churches who fail to teach the real implications of God’s Word. It is like the person who claims that we should always whenever possible interpret the Bible literally until he/she comes to Song of Sons and says, “Oh no! This book is completely allegorical.”
@Empath I wish I could count the number of times I have seen someone move away, psychologically from their partner following rejection, only to find that the partner then comes after them. I have a friend IRL whom I referred to above, whose wife left him sexually isolated for 14 months. When his eldest left home for university, he moved into his child’s bedroom, and then wife got upset, because the younger one would see something was wrong, I believe they negotiated strongly before the husband moved back into the marital bed.
Sharing another one…new one….a colleague tells me his wife is traveling home with her best friend because the best friends husband had died. Sounded off, but I let it go. He said that the best friend “kept a place here”, and muttered something about her work, so I assumed she had to work both here and back there where the husband is.
The tale got detailed, the man died a couple days ago in his sleep, two kids 13 and 15 home when it happened, “wife” was here….a couple states away.
Only today, I was having lunch with him and asked about the situation, when would his wife return after helping, etc. He tells me how hysterical and distraught the woman is and she was having much to sort out.
Then he says they were divorced and that she has zero legal linkage into the whole thing, nothing….its her ex who she divorced and she moved here from there.
Art Deco:
Ach no. IIRC, it was cited by either Edward Peters or Peter Vere some years back. Both are canon lawyers who have worked with these tribunals. Peters is the one more inclined to defend the work of these tribunals.
Not an answer to the same question, but according to Robert Vasoli’s 1998 book more than 90% of the defective-consent annulments granted by US Catholic tribunals but appealed to Rome are overturned. I conclude that Rome takes marriage seriously, even if the American hierarchy doesn’t.
ukfred: Thanks man. I think we all gotta own our stuff, (and insist that others do) no matter who is to blame for the mess.
@slwerner: we are in the same state. I’m no Hickenlooper fan either =)
Drop a line if you’re down for a beer sometime
@deti & anon- quite right. It’s extremely tricky to implement it correctly, especially with the shadow of the law leaning the way it does. The ‘authorities’ do NOT back up our authority as men, and women all know it.
Deti, I know these guys are badly portrayed- its a shame too. Meanwhile, romance novels all feature a bad-ass Alpha hero (until he needs the girl to save him somehow at the end re: Pretty Woman/FSoG) Because of this, the presentation of Dominance often has to be somewhat clandestine at first- still there, but something she can’t put her finger on. Only once she is invested in him can he introduce his modus operandi specifically.
Unless, of course, she is a submissive, specifically looking for a good Dom =)
Funny thing is, for all the feminists who rail against teh evil patriarchy, those dear submissive girls with a good Dom are the most joyous in the world.
All of the relationship advice given to single men — self-improvement, spiritual growth, communication skills, etc — will make definitely you more compatible, in the unlikely event you ever do get into a relationship. But attraction is not compatibility, and all the compatibility in the world will never get you a relationship without attraction. (“Let’s just be friends!”) The advice isn’t wrong, it’s just irrelevant in most cases. (anonymous)
The way to handle such unsolicited advice is just to advise them to put it in writing, have it signed and notarized, and only then will the offer be considered.
BTW, Opus – we’re not sluts ‘n studs anymore, we’re now bimbos and bimbo wranglers.
Yee ha – giddy Up!
Badger had a great post a while ago on attraction vs. compatibility. He correctly noted that men are trained far, far more in compatibility than they are in attraction; trained far more to recognize and pursue compatibility factors than attraction factors, and simply understand compatibility better than they understand attraction.
However, the “is” situation is actually quite common, and it goes *both* ways.
Brendan, I do not think you find many 60 year old men rutting on women 2/3 of a generation their junior, even if they are in shape and their wife is ordinary. We can check the survey research if you care. (I no longer have access to Sociological Abstracts, so it would take me some time). Women in their 60s have their signature vices; sexual transgression is not one of them. The elderly generally know how to keep their noses clean. The manner in which it was stated by ‘deti’ was to excuse people who do this. Not buying it.
Pingback: Divorce – Don’t Punish the Children | Jeannine K. Vegh, M.A., I.M.F.T.
Solomon – “we are in the same state. I’m no Hickenlooper fan either =)
Drop a line if you’re down for a beer sometime.”
Are you in the Denver area?
And, although you seem to have been careful to only cite examples of boorish behavior on the part of husbands you’ve known
At that portion of the thread, people were offering examples of husband-initiated divorce (30% of the total). Those are my examples. Since four of the five men are of the professional-managerial bourgeoisie (characteristic of 13% of the workforce), since four of the five were over 45 at the time they filed, and since all were married and cohabiting with their wives somewhere between 2.5x and 9x as long as the median for men heading into divorce, they are obviously an unrepresentative set. It is a reasonable wager from the descriptive statistics that the phenomenon of divorce in our time is one driven largely by trouble wives have in adjusting to the usual friction and disappointment in adult life and the encouraging feedback they get for being capricious and self-involved. I suppose if you do drill down farther with survey research, complex analyses, ethnographic research, and case studies, you might qualify this portrait; I do not think you will materially alter it much. It is just that the kultursmog is so thick that we cannot acknowledge what is right in front of us. It would mean treating the distaff side as responsible agents. Lots of people balk at doing that.
In the one example of the relative of my wife who’s wife walked out on him and their three children, nearly 15 years later, she has never so much as written to nor called any of her children. That’s a far cry from an “empty nest” husband deciding he no longer wished to be married to the mother of his children. Wouldn’t you agree?
Yes that is a far cry. Story is unusual, though not totally unfamiliar:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0048028/plotsummary
Yep. Click my name and go to the ‘contact me’ thing to fire off an email.
A good red-pill friend would be welcome!
Art Deco – ”Brendan, I do not think you find many 60 year old men rutting on women 2/3 of a generation their junior, even if they are in shape and their wife is ordinary. “
”The elderly generally know how to keep their noses clean.”
Yes, the 60+ crowd is not representative of subsequent generations. Most examples of 60+ men “rutting” with much younger women involve high status men, who often find the younger women pursuing them.
So, why do you belabor the Petraeus poor example? It was only ever brought up as reflective of the issue of diverging SMP values in married couples. The fact that he and his wife are of an older generation is not really at issue. He simply stands as a very obvious example with which to more easily explain another marital breakdown situation:
” Kind of a David and Holly Petraeus situation. “ (deti, January 24, 2013 at 11:03 am)
And, as far as I can tell,deti has never indicated that he was excusing any such behavior, by anyone. Perhaps you could point me to the exact quotation wherein you believe that he has done so?
And the other side of that is, if a man is refused sex by his wife regularly, she is likely going to get replaced — if not in the marriage, at least in the marriage bed. He may be content to stay married to her for the sake of the kids and their social life, as long as he can get satisfaction on the side without her knowledge — or her objection.
Both are wrong, but the difference is how they’re treated. A woman who says she’s divorcing because she fell out of love with her husband because he just wasn’t the man she married anymore will get sympathy, if not outright applause. But a man who says he’s divorcing because his wife has had a headache for the last eight years will get condemnation, except maybe from a few close male friends who will make sure no women are listening when they sympathize with him. Same scenario, but very different reactions from those around them.
By the way, I’m thinking my first paragraph is probably why man-initiated divorces seem to take longer to happen: it takes a while for the sex to wane, for him to get fed up with enforced celibacy, struggle against temptation, give in to temptation, get away with it for a while, get caught, promise to turn over a new leaf, be more careful, get caught again and given an ultimatum, etc. We guys are pretty easily satisfied — feed and sex us daily, and we’re probably not going anywhere. We avoid the drama (not to mention the cost) of something like divorce for as long as we can, until it just seems like the only way out. A woman, on the other hand, can find the drama of a breakup enticing, whether she realizes it or not.
As for your other post, please tell me you agree that a wife has an absolute duty of fidelity, submission and respect to her husband, even if he is grossly undeserving.
Infidelity is a mortal sin. What constitutes “submission” and “respect” are pretty fuzzy around the edges, so invoking an ‘absolute duty’ is inadvisable. I should note in this case that the Catholic Church has a strict marriage canon, but the legitimacy of separation to protect one or another party to a troubled marriage is recognized. (Divorce and re-marriage are not given sanction).
Art Deco – “Yes that is a far cry. Story is unusual, though not totally unfamiliar”
The synopsis of “East Of Eden” does seem somewhat similar. However, in the case of my wife’s relative, no one believes that she is dead. He had to hire a private investigator to track her down after she left. She refused all contact, and continues to do so – last that I heard, anyway (it’s been a few years since I heard anything more about it). Other relatives report that his oldest son is now quite dysfunctional, but that the younger two seem to have been less affected by their mothers abandonment. If memory serves, they were just 2 and 4 at the time, while the older boy was 7.
Deti
It’s basically the wife saying LJBF to the husband and putting him in the Friend Zone.
Brendan
BINGO. That’s precisely the dynamic. Just like becoming one of her ex-boyfriends.
Then, in that case, “marriage” is simply a longer term version of “dating”, circa whenever the two were 20-somethings. Dating / breakup / makeup / breakup /change partners / repeat of the 20-something scene years ago, moved forward in time. That suggests to me that people tend to form habits when they are young that they will repeat – not necessarily consciously – as they age.
People who play that game are not “practicing for marriage”, they are learning to divorce. Going gets tough? Eject! No longer happy? Detonate!
Having learned how to be part of a couple, until it isn’t fun anymore, at an early age, where do people learn at the age of 30+ how to stick through a difficult time?
And this kind of slow-motion square-dance that tromps all over children, this is what Children’s Television Workshop is working to further normalize, let us not forget.
All the more reason for men to have a great deal of caution about women that they marry.
(Dalrock, still need a sidebar with links to “interviewing a prospective wife” for new arrivals
and casual passers by. IMO. FYI. )
I’m afraid this suggests that future “marriage” for a lot of people is going to look like “hooking up” has looked like for the last 10 or more years. Oh, wait – the 40% bastardy rate tell us the future has already arrived.
Again, I can’t wait for the CTW Sesame Street episode where some babymomma comes to the neighborhood. I’m sure it will be very sensitive to the needs of the intended audience…
Art Deco – “What constitutes “submission” and “respect” are pretty fuzzy around the edges, so invoking an ‘absolute duty’ is inadvisable.”
Nice dodge there, Art.
Kimberly Hahn made that exact point in a CD talk she did on courtship: dating, as it’s normally done today, is practice for divorce.
Once more around the bloc (concerning Gen. Petraeus, to whom I bear no animus):
T, deti, Brendan, et al:
A remark of David Mills some years ago: men are liable to louse up their lives in pursuit of sexual thrills while women do so in pursuit of emotional ones. There is a great deal of complaint on these boards (justified in substance if not in mode of expression) about the latter phenomenon. That phenomenon is a social malignancy. It is rather rum to complain of that phenomenon, the antidote to which is personal discipline and an adult detachment from one’s dysfunctional inner life, and then to call it ‘reality’ when Gen. Petraeus fails to have such detachment from the troubles derived from his inner life. The fact that his problems are more physiological than emotional is immaterial. We have no reason to believe that Holly Petraeus exiled her husband to the living room couch. She just got older.
I hope the General patches it up with his wife. The person who married you is the person who knows you and the best situated to love you. (You being you and not your self-concept).
Art Deco
Women in their 60s have their signature vices; sexual transgression is not one of them. The elderly generally know how to keep their noses clean.
If you look into that a bit, I believe you will find that is no longer nearly so true as it once was.
Divorce amongst the over 60 is not has high as in the 35 to 45 age group, but there are growing anecdotal reports of increase. A few more years and we’ll have the data in quantity. Baby boomers have had higher divorce rates than other cohorts since the 1970’s, it appears they still do today. The increase in STD’s among the over 60’s suggests that there’s other things than noses that are getting a bit smudged up.
Just because men like BJ Clinton and women like Hillary are now over 60, it doesn’t mean they have magically morphed into anyone’s dear old grammy. Far from it.
The boomers didn’t create no fault divorce, but they certainly have practiced it. Practiced it a lot.
A woman, on the other hand, can find the drama of a breakup enticing, whether she realizes it or not.
Empathy fount
Slewner
Couldnt what happened to gwen be that he realized that his SMP is higher than hers? This is all kinds of F’ed up for guys. Women have no way of properly assessing the situation. If women have their peak SMP while young while their male pears peak when women have already hit the wall and on the decline, then i can understand how a man can “abandon” a family.
I mean, its not fair to the guy. To get locked in when you are just about to peak, only to be locked in to something that is declining rapidly? The only way this is fair to men who peak later is to have a damn good woman when she is young (and highest value is virgin).
Just saying, its not fair and even though I am christian, i cant help but have my tactically leaning, secular mind point out the mechanics and factors that make it unfair to me.
Art Deco – “What constitutes “submission” and “respect” are pretty fuzzy around the edges, so invoking an ‘absolute duty’ is inadvisable.”
slwerner: Nice dodge there, Art.
deti: Heh. The bible says that wives are to submit to their husbands and that wives are to respect their husbands. Christians take it as axiomatic that the bible is the inspired word of God.
Sounds like an absolute duty to me when God, through St. Paul, says wives are to submit to their husbands; and wives are to respect their husbands.
The bible does not say that wives are to submit and respect sometimes.
It does not say that wives CAN submit or MAY submit.
It does not say that wives are to respect their husbands if they feel like it or if they want to.
It says, “Wives, submit to your husbands.”
It says, “Wives are to respect their husbands.”
“Wives, submit to your husbands” and “wives are to respect their husbands” is MANDATORY. It is the language of command, of imperative (heh), of requirement.
It isn’t “fuzzy”, nor is it difficult to understand.
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/01/22/selling-divorce-to-children/#comment-70010
Brendan,
I’d add for the benefit of the unitiated that jurisdiction matters even within the state in which you live. Per casual conversations I’ve had with attorneys other than my own, the presiding judge in my county at the time of the divorce has materailly differing views on certain matters such as alimony than judges in adjacent counties. This makes a huge difference especially in an already murky area.
Also, the degree to which the system is set up for the benefit of the regular participants (e.g., the judges, attorneys, support enforcement agencies) can not be underestimated. Toward the end of my ordeal I conceded a few things to try to expedite the process (it really does wear one down physically, emotionally and financially). In hindsight this was a bad move as it still took three months from final hearing for the judge to issue the decree, and it has been another nine months and to date there are still assets to be divvied up.
@AR
It is possible to predict where the difficulties will come if you have sufficient pre-marital counseling , such as that required by Marriage Savers http://www.marriagesavers.org.
I think part of the problem is that we are an instant generation, and are not prepared to work through about three months worth of marriage preparation, as required to properly review something like the Prepare/Enrich inventory.
I should add that this organisation believes that if 10% or more of the candidates for pre-marital counseling do not decide not to marry, the the counseling is not being done properly.
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/01/22/selling-divorce-to-children/#comment-70019
For my fellow Catholics here with a serious interest in maintaining the sanctity of the sacrament of marriage, the Vasoli book is absolutely required reading.
@ deti – “Wives, submit to your husbands” and “wives are to respect their husbands” is MANDATORY. It is the language of command, of imperative (heh), of requirement.
It isn’t “fuzzy”, nor is it difficult to understand.”
What does submission look like in a marriage? If the wife thinks that she is being submissive and respected but the husband doesn’t feel respected then is he? In application it can be fuzzy.
hurting:
For my fellow Catholics here with a serious interest in maintaining the sanctity of the sacrament of marriage, the Vasoli book is absolutely required reading.
Specifically this book.
Brendan, I do not think you find many 60 year old men rutting on women 2/3 of a generation their junior, even if they are in shape and their wife is ordinary. We can check the survey research if you care. (I no longer have access to Sociological Abstracts, so it would take me some time). Women in their 60s have their signature vices; sexual transgression is not one of them. The elderly generally know how to keep their noses clean. The manner in which it was stated by ‘deti’ was to excuse people who do this. Not buying it.
Where did I talk about people in their 60s? In the post you were responding to, I specifically said I was not speaking about normal aging, because normal aging does not alter the relative SMVs of the couple — they’re both decreasing at the same time. I was talking about divergent SMVs in marriages that occur other than for aging — I expressly said that.
@ Cail Corishev,
“Kimberly Hahn made that exact point in a CD talk she did on courtship: dating, as it’s normally done today, is practice for divorce.”
This point was also made by Joshua Harris in his book ‘Kiss dating goodbye’.
@ UK Fred,
“It is possible to predict where the difficulties will come if you have sufficient pre-marital counseling , such as that required by Marriage Savers…”
I won’t be allowed to marry until I attend a pre-marriage course and 6 months have passed since the date of engagement.
I am beginning to see the wisdom of the Catholic Church on this, after reading the scary stories here.
@ hurting,
I looked at excerpts of the Vasoli book online. Incredible stuff.
@Anon Reader
I’ve only skimmed it, but you may be interested in this working paper on the topic. It sounds like much of the increase for the over 50 age bracket is due to more late marriage and the higher divorce risks associated with remarriage.
Josh Harris penned a misnomer.
Hypergamy means most young men are among the 80% that women do not find attractive.
Those men dont get to date, less alone kiss it goodbye.
Particular understandings of what is meant by the the quality of ‘submission’, ‘respect’ , and ‘completely unworthy’ are fuzzy around the edges. That, sirs, is a pastoral problem. The boundary conditions of infidelity are a good deal easier to spot and describe than are those of disrespect, &c.
Pingback: Link Love Thursday | Adventures in Red Pill Wifery
Art Deco
Particular understandings of what is meant by the the quality of ‘submission’, ‘respect’ , and ‘completely unworthy’ are fuzzy around the edges. That, sirs, is a pastoral problem. The boundary conditions of infidelity are a good deal easier to spot and describe than are those of disrespect, &c.
Hmm. Are you certain of that? Let me expand my question via a roundabout tour of p0rn.
Men’s p0rn tends to be visual, and yes, I’m ignoring for the sake of this argument the p0rnographic novel / short story / letters to the editors of certain magazines. Feelthy peectures are what men seek out, as a substitute for real women.
Women are less visual, and more emotional, and as I have tirelessly pointed out, a visit to the local B&N will reveal to anyone who cares to look that emotional p0rn, often with cover art of Lord Rod flexing his pecs on the deck of a pirate ship / balcony of a stately manor / battlefield / whatever right before his alphaness is tamed by the femme next to him. The emotions created by this p0rn are obviously of importance to the women who buy it.
Now then, one of the concepts that I am indebted to Athol for is of the “emotional affair”. This is a situation with plenty of sexual tension, that is not consummated (or at least, not for a while). Consider a married woman who works for a dynamic man, in some sort of business where she is his subordinate and must defer to him, obey him, and respect him. Consider how he likely is in some ways superior to her husband; if not right away, then perhaps after a few years of 8 hour days spent in his presence, when he’s at his best, in contrast to the 14 hours spent with whats-his-name when he’s not necessarily at his best.
Is it infidelity for a woman to come to prefer the company of her boss to the company of her husband? With no hanky-panky of any kind, mind you – all above board, no ambiguous gifts, no long, lingering lunches in private. Just, oh, a bit more overtime here, going on an out of town trip there (separate rooms, no hanky panky), extra work on weekends because He’s The Boss.
Is it infidelity, Art Deco, for a woman to prefer a work associate’s presence to her husband’s?
I’m not asking a rhetorical question, I’m genuinely curious. Because we as a society have decided that visual material created to induce sexual fantasies for men is porn, and we insist it be sold far away from children. I’m fine with that, by the way. But we have also decided that textual material created to induce sexual fantasies for women is “romantic fiction”, and we have no problem with it being sold in chain book stores right next to the Young Readers section.
So given our obvious societal double standard on “materials designed to induce sexual fantasies”, perhaps we also have a double standard on what constitutes an “affair” as well?
None of the above is intended to give anyone a pass for adultery, please note. I’m just wondering if our definitions are a bit skewed by certain common premises, such as “women are naturally monogamous” and “hypergamy is a manosphere hallucination”.
Dalrock, thanks for the pointer. It looks interesting, but I do not have time to deeply analyze right now.
“What constitutes “submission” and “respect” are pretty fuzzy around the edges”
No, it really is not. Not to the woman who is in submission and respects her husband in all things. There’s a language involved. Her words ask, they don’t tell. Her words edify, always. All of her husband’s needs are in the forefront of her mind, “Would you like something to eat?” “Can I get you anything?” etc. All decisions that haven’t previously been made may be discussed but she defers to him, always. If he needs her to purchase something, find something, do something, whatever, she pauses what she’s doing or requests a minute to finish up what she’s doing and then does what he has requested. She teaches her children that their father’s word is final. She shows them by example how to be meek. And she feels love while doing all of the above. There is no apprehension, cynicism, or begrudging attitudes. A servants heart is a heart overflowing.
A man knows when he is respected as surely as a woman knows (feels) she is loved and treasured. He knows when contention and strife has left his home. He knows when his wife is in a gentle spirit even when she wrestles with moods and hormones, she is cognitive of her behavior and does what must be done so her mood does not upset the tranquility of the home.
Sarah, you are being stupidly prescriptive about the banal interactions married couples have.
@Spacetraveller
Whoever typed the DM’s story about Bethenny Frankel made a Freudian slip.
“Jason is asking to remain in their martial home, as is Bethenny”
It is in those banal interactions that it is so important. Today while we were at the library, I checked out my book and waited quite a while for RLB to finish what he needed to do. I realized he might not know where I was and didn’t want him to have to search the library for me. I rewrote a text to RLB several times in order that nothing would be implied other than my intent. I didn’t say, “I’m waiting for you in the entry way,” I said, instead, “when you are finished, I’m in the entry way.” It’s really in the little everyday things the heart is revealed.
Art Deco- Sarah’s Daughter has it exactly right.
There are no fuzzy edges at my house either.
Also known as a D/s relationship. It is truly wonderful, and truly works. For a woman with her approach, she can sustain and succeed in a relationship indefinitely.
It behooves her man to respond to this by tending to her as well, and I expect he does. It’s nearly impossible NOT to respond well to that, as a man, and a woman like that actually deserves his best.
Bonus: it is highly erotic as well.
@Sarah’s Daughter:
A man knows when he is respected as surely as a woman knows (feels) she is loved and treasured.
The only problem with this statement is that it relies on feelings. And, as Dalrock has pointed out before, wives can be very much loved and not “feel” loved. Likewise, a wife can be trying to be respectful but make the little slips of language that you pointed out you were so careful to avoid that might lead a husband to feel otherwise. In both cases, ideally all that would be needed would be a little discussion/minor reproof that gets everyone on the same page, but unfortunately that’s not often the case.
I think this is a somewhat minor quibble about terminology, but I still felt it ought to be out there.
And, I also admit that because of the whispers women are probably less likely to recognize an earnest (if faulted) attempt at being loving than a man would be to recognize an earnest (if faulted) attempt at respecting.
Isnt it ironic, the ONLY intellectual pursuits women seem to pursue pursue are to destroy their childrens semblance of a childhood, while robbing & stealing & learning to beg … all from the hard working backs of men
The irony isnt lost on all the innocence lost of the children, these frivorcing women inflict on their kids …
Not surprised women stoop this low, feral women are evil
Talking of crazed feral women …
Im also sick of idiots like Elspeth & T spouting physical abuse, like crazed knee jerk fembots …
This articles about the damage YOUR attitudes do to their children, try quitting your ignorant self-centred attitudes & give a damn about the DAMAGE your feminist infected idiocy does to your children & your family
DONT WOMEN LIKE ELSPETH & T GET IT, THIS ARTICLES ABOUT YOU
THIS IS THE RESULT, THIS IS THE CULTURE you get when you spout your feminist stupidity about abuse & rape & all the rest of the victimisation BULLSHIT YOU WOMEN buy into on a daily basis
Dont you understand, a victim creates the bed of her own destruction, a victim NEVER learns or matures as a person, which is WHY because you spout your feminist cries of abuse, rape & unhaaapiness, YOU NEVER MATURE as a woman
Dont YOU UNDERSTAND, your taking the responsibility away from women, when you spew your feminist vile about rape & abuse
Dont you understand, your creating the scenario, the storm, for frivorce, when you spew your feminist drivel about rape & abuse
Dont YOU UNDERSTAND, HOW MANY FRIVORCES YOU’VE SET IN MOTION, how many marriages youve detonated, PRECISELY because of your viles & false posturing on crap like rape & abuse & the rest of the feminist BS you spout like idiots
Where is your comprehension women
Dont you understand a goddamn thing
Playing the victim is THE detonator
Playing the victim is HOW WOMEN RATIONALISE abusing their children
Playing the victim is HOW WOMEN RATIONALISE the evil they DELIBERATELY commit on their own families, your feminist viles & insanity about rape & abuse
STOP FROTHING AT THE MOUTH & PLAYING THE VICTIM at every goddamn turn
Where is your comprehension women, where is it?
It sure as hell isnt in your freaking posts …
Isnt it ironic, the ONLY intellectual pursuits women seem to pursue pursue are to destroy their childrens semblance of a childhood, while robbing & stealing & learning to beg … all from the hard working backs of men
This is hardly intellectual. Although, one could argue that insistence on the “COLLEGE” feminist merit badge, with the incumbent debt is at least psuedo-intellectual, and very often lower their family/children’s standard of living thereby – and once the husband has paid that debt off, well, that’s all he was needed for really, right?
@ Peoplegrowing – “The only problem with this statement is that it relies on feelings. And, as Dalrock has pointed out before, wives can be very much loved and not “feel” loved. Likewise, a wife can be trying to be respectful but make the little slips of language that you pointed out you were so careful to avoid that might lead a husband to feel otherwise. In both cases, ideally all that would be needed would be a little discussion/minor reproof that gets everyone on the same page, but unfortunately that’s not often the case.”
Exactly! A man may be respected without feeling it, and a woman can be loved without feeling it. I was reading the peaceful wife’s blog and there was a long list of things that her husband said made him feel disrespected. While some of them were obviously rude, some of them were things that a lot of women (and I suspect a lot of men) wouldn’t think of.
@ peoplegrowing
The only problem with this statement is that it relies on feelings
I know, I’m not doing a good enough job expressing this. It’s like explaining the color red. It really is more than feelings. It is something that is visually evident to those around you as well. I saw it in my in-laws, and I saw it in my brother-in-law’s parents. There is a air about these couples that is inexplicable but it is good, right, and praiseworthy.
You’re absolutely right about the whispers. There are very few women I’ll associate with for any length of time. And even then it is with great discretion. I’ve said before, I’m a bitch about it, I will call out a disrespectful nagging wife to her face (never in her home…but then again, I’m never in her home). I will not entertain gossip from friends. It is not because of judgement alone, it is to protect myself from the whispers.
But, these shields are a long time in the making.
I think the best way to know if you are submissive is to ask your husband. That is what I do because my husband idea of submission is different than some men’s. He really really hates a person who says yes all the time, and he prefers that I let my opinion be known if it differs from him. I’ll ask him to rate his marital satisfaction and if it isn’t a 10 I’ll ask for specific things he would like to see changed.
Sarah’s Daughter, I understand what you’re getting at, and I think you are right in that, when the wife respects her husband as she should and the husband loves his wife as he should, this is something that is generally self-evident and clear to onlookers as well as insiders. And, when this is generally the case, both husband and wife are much more comfortable in easily accepting “rough periods” with grace. Perhaps some of the men here can state it with better justice than we can. ^-^
I would also wonder, when the relationship is mutual in this manner (Husband is loving, wife is respecting), if it doesn’t tend towards a self-reinforcing positive spiral. That is to say, a husband’s loving actions reinforces a wife’s demure submission, reinforcing the husband’s loving actions, ad infinitum. Of course, the passing of seasons may upset the balance here and there, but…. I would imagine the overall effect to remain more or less consistent. I’m still very young, so I posit this as a hypothetical, but what I’ve read from you and other women in this part of the internet seems to reinforce the notion.
Interesting dilemma regarding him knowing he is respected and her knowing she is loved.
One thing to note is that being respected and feeling respected is not a fickle thing, not dependent as much on mood and daily flux, on hormones, and even on emotions. The things that make a man feel respected are like Sarah’s writes above and they set a mood. A man who grows increasingly stresses about external things may grow more sensitive to deviations from those respectful things, but that is not a fickle thing, its a normal thing and quite reasonable to expect.
Feeling loved and feeling safe> are part of a boxed set of moving targets that comprise what it means to feel loved, and the things in today’s box were never meant to be put in there for the most part.
Juxtapose that a man who daily comes home to a low stress environment, de-cluttered, kids content and occupied so as to not ambush, etc., the man will sense that as part of the overall being respected. Contrast that with the man going to work, slaying the dragons, traveling, handling heavy consequential things, maybe the IRS, a foreclosure…whatever….these are out of vogue as things that make the women feel safe and loved. Why?
Here is an example….its a weekend in a busy multi kid home, its a mine field of kid clutter, no room to walk nor place anything on the kitchen table, and it doesn’t happen often, so the man starts organizing, maybe sweeping, putting away dishes, whatever, while his wife reads. Later, his wife asks him to work on something. Lets say its a tiny light bulb in the vent hood over the stove, Its not an essential thing because its one of several bulbs. The wife mildly grumbles that she never knows when its OK to ask because he is reluctant to do things.
He says, “I just cleaned the entire ground floor”
Her answer, and the point its taken so long to make, “You did that for yourself”
There it is, she didn’t FEEL the love.
I have come to dislike the tools of the churchian couple that are supposed to help marriages, but I recall one remark from many years ago when I listened to cassettes of The Love Languages where the guy is telling of a wife who groused that her husband spent Saturday mornings washing HER car. He asked her, “you got a problem with clean cars?” I do not endorse the stuff from that program at all but liked that example.
Showing respect works because men receive it more easily. Showing love is a crap shoot.
Women divorce over not feeling loved, some even calling it emotional neglect. Nuff said.
Crap, didnt close my italics after “safe”
T wrote, and others agree:
Exactly! A man may be respected without feeling it, and a woman can be loved without feeling it.
Giving love and respect are meaningless if the other side does not feel it. They are somethings we do for the other half of our relationship, and not something we do as a formality to satisfy some expectation others put on his. If the husband does not feel respected, there is no value to his wife’s feeling like she respects him, and if she does not feel loved, it will not help anyone that he loves her.
This is really the reason most of us are here. We thought we were doing it right, but something was wrong because the other side was not accepting our love or respect. The men are here to learn how to show love in a way which makes the woman feel loved, instead of turning her off. Many of the women commenting here are trying to understand how to respect and submit in a way which their husband appreciates, instead of respecting him in their minds while he feels rejected.
Athol Kay wrote recently about consciously and unconsciously relating, and that is what it is all about. When we love or respect someone without making sure they feel loved or respected, we are not consciously relating to them, and not really respecting them as a partner in the relationship. When we learn how to make sure our feeling have the desired affect we form a conscious relationship.as we are forcing ourselves to be consciously aware of our partner’s feelings.
Art Deco- Sarah’s Daughter has it exactly right.
No, she doesn’t.
Married couples have their deals and modes of interaction. Some have vigorous verbal arguments; some communicate with artful silence. Some have a high degree of specialization of tasks; some do not. Some couples are physically affectionate and passionate; some are not. It is important the union be abiding and the business of the household be accomplished within the bounds of virtues that are imperative. The rest has to be worked out between the couple. Neither my father, nor my brother, nor myself would have had any need for what “Sarah’s daughter” is peddling over and above what the women of our respective households provided. Marginal utility = 0.
Is it infidelity, Art Deco, for a woman to prefer a work associate’s presence to her husband’s?
No.
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/01/22/selling-divorce-to-children/#comment-70053
@Spacetraveller
The Vasoli book is definitely worth a read; I wish I’d read it a long time ago. He pretty well vitiates the arguments of the “liberal annulment based on defective consent” crowd. Sadly, though, the horse is out of the barn.
Yes, a woman needs to feel loved. But even if she doesn’t feel loved, it doesn’t mean her husband does not love her. If she does not feel loved then she needs to speak up and tell her husband what she wants or needs from him in order to feel loved.
I think more often, the wife’s complaint of “I don’t feel that he loves me” is a cover, a ruse, a disguise, for her nagging sense that SHE does not love HIM; that SHE does not respect HIM. I suspect this is a reason why the wife saying “I don’t feel loved” is often the offered explanation for her affairs, her infidelity, her divorcing an unwanted husband.
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/01/22/selling-divorce-to-children/#comment-70083
@Sarah’sDaughter…
The shields you describe are ones that I, as a husband, erected in my own life to protect my marriage, albeit not all at once (I, myself, was maturing as well.). I specifically dissociated with certain friends and acquaintances, including some of long duration, where those relationships did not serve to further the ends of my marriage. I instead attempted to cultivate relationships with other couples whose example and way of life would bolster my marriage but found my wife to be resistant. Every woman to whom my wife is close is divorced; being around a lot of divorced people normalizes the idea just like CTW is trying to do with the segment that is the subject of this thread.
The company we keep (or perhaps more importantly don’t keep) affects our marriages in a very significant way.
@ Lemuel of Masa “Giving love and respect are meaningless if the other side does not feel it”
I don’t think it is. These things are supposed to be done because th Bible says so. Obviously you want your spouse to feel it, but some people won’t. Someone made the point in another thread that men can’t let themselves becomes slaves to their wive’s emotions by spending all of their time making their wives feel loved. I thought that this was a good point. I also think that men shouldn’t be slaves to their own emotions and whether or not they feel respected.
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/01/22/selling-divorce-to-children/#comment-70132
Art,
Allow me to side more with Sarah’s Daughter on this one. It is preceisely the banal interactions and the disagreements related thereto that do cause the grief and angst in marriage and give rise to the regular sh*t testing prevalent in so many marriages. These difficulties then become the pretext for frivorce.
She is making the clear point that there can only be one leader of the unit, and that is the husband unless his leadership is proximately driving the couple to sin.
Just bcause your convenience sample of three doesn’t see any value in it doen’t mean it’s not a valid proposition to set forth. Moreover I’d guess that the marriages of you and your brother and father are characterized by a lot more submission, if only latent, than you recognize.
@Art Deco –
“Married couples have their deals and modes of interaction. Some have vigorous verbal arguments; some communicate with artful silence. Some have a high degree of specialization of tasks; some do not. Some couples are physically affectionate and passionate; some are not. It is important the union be abiding and the business of the household be accomplished within the bounds of virtues that are imperative. The rest has to be worked out between the couple. Neither my father, nor my brother, nor myself would have had any need for what “Sarah’s daughter” is peddling over and above what the women of our respective households provided. Marginal utility = 0.”
I have a friend whose husband practically needs her to bow and scrape in order not o feel disrespected. He is sensitive to her every word and action and easily sees disrespect where there was none intended. I suspect that this because he is not very successful in his professional life, is insecure and feels a lack of respect at work and among his peers.
Successful, secure men seem not to need a lot of displays of respect. My husband is very successful in his field. I make a point of having a pleasant attitude and generally being happy to be with my husband and avoid outright disrespect. He seems to feel respected most of the time. However if my husband were to lose his job or suffer some other set back that was a blow to his pride I would step up the displays of respect a bit to reassure him because he might need it.
You’re absolutely right about the whispers. There are very few women I’ll associate with for any length of time. And even then it is with great discretion. I’ve said before, I’m a bitch about it, I will call out a disrespectful nagging wife to her face (never in her home…but then again, I’m never in her home). I will not entertain gossip from friends. It is not because of judgement alone, it is to protect myself from the whispers.
Griping about and discussing the faults of one’s husbands is a favorite lunch time sport for some women. When we got engaged my wife determined not to discuss my faults with anyone other than me. She has been to lunch a number of times with women who insist on doing this. On two occasions women have point blank asked her to start sharing the “dirt” on her husband. I am sure she has lost future social interaction because she has refused to go along.
My wife came up with this determination and committment on her own. I did not discuss or prompt her on this.
Art Deco,
I’ve read through all of your comments in this thread and have seen a common theme. You may be right in expecting tolerance in a husband and you may be horribly wrong. What if you’re wrong? What if the very thing that keeps a wife from a relationship with God is her husband’s supplication?
You’re confused as to what submission is. It has NOTHING to do with the husband. It is obedience to God and a commitment to His command. Of course it can look different in different women with different personalities what remains constant is the knowledge within a woman that it is something she has chosen to do out of obedience to God.
A husband can tolerate various slights and disrespectful behavior (chastisement, unsolicited instruction, eyes being rolled, slight indignation etc.) But, does God tolerate it? And can a woman involved in these behaviors truly know in her heart she has been in obedience to God’s command?
I lived a very agreeable life with my husband prior to submitting to him. He tolerated a lot from me. He is kind and patient. A very pleasant delta. Had he only known what was ahead on the other side of my surrender to obedience to God’s commands his priority would have been to get me there earlier. And, when he needed my obedience the most, it was not there. When it mattered the most (quite literally, lives on the line) I failed. Because my heart had never been in obedience to God’s commands. It was imperative, out of love (AGAPE) for me that he risked losing me in order that I would seek God for rebuke and restoration.
This situation may never arise for you or the men you know. The change it has made in my spiritual and physical health alone is enough for me to implore men to grasp how important that obedience to God’s commands is for their wives. Regardless of what that man can tolerate.
@ T —
“I have a friend whose husband practically needs her to bow and scrape in order not o feel disrespected. He is sensitive to her every word and action and easily sees disrespect where there was none intended. I suspect that this because he is not very successful in his professional life, is insecure and feels a lack of respect at work and among his peers.
Successful, secure men seem not to need a lot of displays of respect. My husband is very successful in his field.”
This. As much as we may repeat basic concepts, it yet bears repeating: a strong alpha frame is not shaken by this. The frame isn’t for the wife, it’s for the husband. If my wife is disrespectful or shit-testing, I deal with appropriately within the alpha frame (same for a coworker at or below my level).
I don’t do it because I “need” her to do anything (much less bow and scrape*), but because the frame is: I am respectable (and successful/well-paid at work, etc.). I say we work out at 7pm. When it’s time to leave and go workout, and I don’t wait or look back at her–I just go. It would be a silly DLV if I wait and whine about how she’s not respecting my by being ready to go at the time given, etc.
It’s in her best interests–her husband would be openly getting more muscular and lean while enjoying the delightful Forest of Yoga Pants (a hostile environment to any wife with clearly lower SMV). So she respects, and goes.
SD:
Your comments continue to impress me.
I’ve been exactly where your husband RLB was with you. “Lives on the line” essentially means “Wife, your inability or unwillingness to submit is about to ruin your life, your husband’s life , and the lives of your children. Your husband isn’t going to stick around and watch you blow it up. He’ll instead stand back, remove the children as best he can, let you demolish yourself, and hope for the best for himself and the children. He’ll instead let you blow the marriage to smithereens and go on without you, and live with the temporal and eternal consequences.”
@ Deti —
Agreed about SD, also SSM. Thank God for them.
Thank you Deti.
You’re right “lives on the line” does mean all of that. Ashamedly, however, I must admit it was a literal statement about the 10 men in RLB’s charge in sub-Saharan Africa with bands of Al qaeda lurking. There are times that in order to keep your men safe, you must go with them into the ugly (bars teeming with prostitutes). Because, like children, if you forbid it as their superior, you lose loyalty and honesty. Being three hours away from an embassy and a three hour flight away from your Battalion, loyalty and trust with your men is imperative. I was an idiot and could not understand. From the other side of the world, I attempted to tell my husband what he should do in order that I may feel secure. Now I know, many women would never do that…I couldn’t imagine doing it either six months prior to that. “The Whispers”, Dalrock…they got me. Hook, line, and sinker.
@Art deco: “marginal utility”
wow, man.
As a husband, the “banal interactions” SD describes in which the wife respects and defers to the husband in the small things, are exactly what makes husbands love wives.
These things are exactly what produce in a husband the strength, the motivation, the steely resolve, and the tenderness she says she wants, and that he wants to give her and only her.
Those “banal interactions” are the day to day adhesive that glue her to him and melts his heart for her.
If she is submitting to and respecting him in the big important decisions but is otherwise at war with him in everything else, life is a constant hassle and battle.
A wife who respects in matters large and small is so, so easy to love.
A wife who does these things will receive a husband’s devotion even unto death. He’ll gladly open his life, his heart, and his wallet for such a woman. He’ll move heaven and earth to get her what she needs (but not all she wants). He’ll stay with her until one of them is dead and never, ever complain for a minute about it to anyone, ever.
These banal interactions are what extract the very best from a man as a husband, a lover and a warrior.
No, it really is not. Not to the woman who is in submission and respects her husband in all things. There’s a language involved. Her words ask, they don’t tell. Her words edify, always. All of her husband’s needs are in the forefront of her mind, “Would you like something to eat?” “Can I get you anything?” etc. All decisions that haven’t previously been made may be discussed but she defers to him, always. If he needs her to purchase something, find something, do something, whatever, she pauses what she’s doing or requests a minute to finish up what she’s doing and then does what he has requested. She teaches her children that their father’s word is final. She shows them by example how to be meek. And she feels love while doing all of the above. There is no apprehension, cynicism, or begrudging attitudes. A servants heart is a heart overflowing.
Ordinary human relations in a domestic setting incorporate conflict. People in small societies – including the family – have to develop strategies to ameliorate and adjudicate conflicts. When you wear down someone’s veneer in a domestic setting, you very seldom find someone inveterately cheerful and diplomatic. No real human being is without words of reproach thickening on her tongue. If I expected someone whose words ‘edify, always’, I would almost certainly be disappointed. If I expected to never get lip from my children, I would almost certainly be disappointed. If I expected the space inside my wife’s head to be continually pre-occupied with my appetites, I would be disappointed. And a jackass.
I live in a world that is and (I hope) with people attempting to cope with what is and give due deference to their responsibilities. Most of my parents’ contemporaries managed that, with the usual rough edges; they were somewhat bewildered by the mess many of their children made out of their lives. They neither spoke like you nor thought like you. You want to imitate the characters in The Stepford Wives, that’s your deal. It is not imperative.
you are missing the whole thing entirely, Art Deco. You are clearly poorly informed about D/s and I would encourage you to refrain from commenting on it with so much unawareness.
Besides, I’m sure your women are thrilled at being a “marginal utility”. Maybe they’d love pet names like “Mop Bucket” too.
That’s hot.
Art Deco,
How unsurprising that nothing you wrote has anything to do with God and what His word has to say on the matter.
I once read somewhere that common courtesy is far more important between husband and wife than among strangers. Yeah, it’s banal, heck, most interactions between husband and wife are banal. But keep the common courtesy in them and you will often find a relationship capable of enduring.
There can only be one party wearing the shorts in the relationship and the vast majority of the time, it’s better if the man is that party.
“He really really hates a person who says yes all the time,” (Lol though pain). My ex ALWAYS said no to EVERYTHING. Red flag for any guys out there when you approach your wife about decisions you need to make and it’s like the Capital One credit card commercial, you know what’s next.
And I don’t mean the ones with the Vikings but the commercials with David Spade. Perfect example.
Ordinary human relations in a domestic setting incorporate conflict. People in small societies – including the family – have to develop strategies to ameliorate and adjudicate conflicts. When you wear down someone’s veneer in a domestic setting, you very seldom find someone inveterately cheerful and diplomatic. No real human being is without words of reproach thickening on her tongue. If I expected someone whose words ‘edify, always’, I would almost certainly be disappointed. If I expected to never get lip from my children, I would almost certainly be disappointed. If I expected the space inside my wife’s head to be continually pre-occupied with my appetites, I would be disappointed. And a jackass.
-emphasis mine.
We are human, and fallen, so yes, even with every attempt, the family will occasionally come to conflict. But you suggest families need a “strategy” to deal with this, as if SD has not suggested a strategy: respect and submission to the husband and the Bible. You don’t need something else.
Also, you make the common mistake of “expectations.” It’s NOT about what the husband (or wife) expects of the spouse – it is about what God expects of the individual. SD, SSM myself and others may be thinking of our husbands when we choose to serve them in the normal course of things, but when conflict arises, and it is difficult to feel respectful to our husband, then we behave submissively not because our Husbands expect, or because we are no better creatures than to continuously fancy him, but because of obedience to God.
You are clearly poorly informed about D/s and I would encourage you to refrain from commenting on it with so much unawareness.
Oh, shut up.
How unsurprising that nothing you wrote has anything to do with God and what His word has to say on the matter.
On the matter of what? The Church teaches the indissolubility of marriage. The Church teaches adultery is a mortal sin. The Church teaches that commandments regarding ‘adultery’ apply to the whole of human sexuality. The Church teaches to honor your father and mother (though what that means in practice can be murky). The Church teaches the following:
27. This subjection, however, does not deny or take away the liberty which fully belongs to the woman both in view of her dignity as a human person, and in view of her most noble office as wife and mother and companion; nor does it bid her obey her husband’s every request if not in harmony with right reason or with the dignity due to wife; nor, in fine, does it imply that the wife should be put on a level with those persons who in law are called minors, to whom it is not customary to allow free exercise of their rights on account of their lack of mature judgment, or of their ignorance of human affairs. But it forbids that exaggerated liberty which cares not for the good of the family; it forbids that in this body which is the family, the heart be separated from the head to the great detriment of the whole body and the proximate danger of ruin. For if the man is the head, the woman is the heart, and as he occupies the chief place in ruling, so she may and ought to claim for herself the chief place in love.
28. Again, this subjection of wife to husband in its degree and manner may vary according to the different conditions of persons, place and time. In fact, if the husband neglect his duty, it falls to the wife to take his place in directing the family. But the structure of the family and its fundamental law, established and confirmed by God, must always and everywhere be maintained intact .
— Casti Connubii (1930)
The Church does not teach that in going about her daily business, a wife needs to be contemplating her husband’s intestines.
then we behave submissively not because our Husbands expect, or because we are no better creatures than to continuously fancy him, but because of obedience to God.
Peoplegrowing, why you do what you do is not my concern. Sarah’s daughter presented as imperative a view of human relations that cannot even be dignified with the term ‘idealistic’. The rest of us have to deal with our own messy selves and those around us, best we can. And, no, ‘respect and submission to the husband’ is not a strategy, but a general admonition that can have an uncertain appearance in practice.
Besides, I’m sure your women are thrilled at being a “marginal utility”. Maybe they’d love pet names like “Mop Bucket” too.
“Marginal utility” referred not to any set of persons but to “what “Sarah’s daughter” is peddling”, which is an abstraction. They are satisfied with the pet names they already have, as am I.
Art:
It might not be sexual infidelity for a wife to prefer the company of a work associate to that of her husband.
What if she were having an emotional affair? These can take on a lot of qualities, but usually what you see in EAs is: limerence for the EA; a clear preference for the EA’s company over the spouse; the person’s thoughts often preoccupied and distracted from the spouse to the EA; transference of favorable thoughts and feelings from the involved’s spouse to the EA; the involved person’s investment of time, emotion and attachment to the EA.
Though it might not be physical, it is quite telling, though, on the condition of her heart. Clearly, in an emotional affair situation, the wife has devoted her time and emotional attention to the EA and not to the husband. And Scripture makes very clear that our heart conditions determine our relationships — for out of the overflow of the heart, the mouth speaks (and the body acts).
These things are every bit as destructive to a marriage as a full blown physical sexual affair. If a wife is having an EA, the marriage is in very serious trouble and full on adultery probably won’t be far behind. In her mind and heart, hubby is on his way out.
Peoplegrowing, why you do what you do is not my concern. Sarah’s daughter presented as imperative a view of human relations that cannot even be dignified with the term ‘idealistic’. The rest of us have to deal with our own messy selves and those around us, best we can.
I would argue that the why explains the how, and you seem principally preoccupied with “how” we resolve a conflict.
you seem principally preoccupied with “how” we resolve a conflict.
Not especially, so long as the durability of the marriage is unimpaired and the manner of resolving the conflict (or containing the conflict) does not implicate mortal or venial sin.
—
deti,
I cannot say what is as destructive as what. That depends on the individuals involved. I think a pastor would tell her to put a fence around things and find another job. You asked if it met the boundary conditions of ‘adultery’. Absent sexual misbehavior, it does not. Covetousness can also be a mortal sin, however.
“I cannot say what is as destructive as what.”
Perhaps you cannot, but God can, and He does through Scripture.
See the 9th and 10th commandments. See Christ’s admonition against lusting after a woman which is adultery in one’s heart.
Why is Daddy calling Mommy a dirty whore?
What does “I love you but I’m not in love with you” mean? Huh?
Why is Daddy broke and we can’t see him all the time now?
Why is Mommy on Facebook all day and going to bars at night?
Why is Mommy having naked hugging parties with my three new uncles in her room?
Why is Daddy throwing Mommy’s clothes all over the front lawn?
Oh jeez, holy– as Cookie Monster has already put it–
@LemualofMasa
You said “No empathy for their wife leaving them for no reason, and no empathy for having their family destroyed for noreason, but at least you have empathy when they lose everything.”
When I said “lose everything” I was referring to *everything*…the emotional loss, the psychological loss, not just the material aspects. I empathise with anyone, man or woman, who has had a spouse betray them in this fashion.
Listen, I see that almost anything that I say in this forum will be painted in a negative light by some of you. I read this blog and others like it because I am appalled by what I see in the world as a direct result of the scourge of feminism. I hate feminism and I am very vocal about my feelings about that with the people I meet. Perhaps I made a mistake by posting my perspective on here and I apologize if I offended any of you by my comments. My husband left me for another woman and perhaps some of you are right…maybe he left because I’m “not worthy” of him and he found something better. Maybe I deserve the abandonment for not being young anymore like his new paramour. Maybe he was right to leave me since, afterall, I did have a mastectomy and he was less attracted to me as a result of it. It seems that some of you believe that there is no way a man could be dishonorable or shallow…that there is no way a man would ever leave his wife for any “frivolous” reason. My husband is very wealthy so his leaving me and the children has not been burdensome on him financially. He has only gained in the sense that he has greater freedom to live a bachelor lifestyle. It seems that some of you believe that because this happened to me that this must mean that I am a bitch, or a nag, or unsubmissive, or obese, or a total prude. I am none of those things. But *even if I were* I still don’t believe that divorce is the answer. I don’t believe that there is any legitimate reason to divorce other than *severe* physical abuse (meaning violence that threatens lives). I would have done anything to save my marriage…and I still would. My pride is not so great that I wouldn’t take him back even now in order to give my children the two-parent family that they deserve. I would reconcile, too, because I still love and respect my husband despite what he has done.
“I still don’t believe that divorce is the answer. I don’t believe that there is any legitimate reason to divorce other than *severe* physical abuse (meaning violence that threatens lives). I would have done anything to save my marriage…and I still would. My pride is not so great that I wouldn’t take him back even now in order to give my children the two-parent family that they deserve. I would reconcile, too, because I still love and respect my husband despite what he has done.”
Oops forgot to add my comments. That’s very commendable Gwen. It’s refreshing to see a woman with the right perspective on marriage. Don’t let what others say bother you. You get it. Sorry to hear about your husband, and no he wasn’t right to leave you, he sounds like a selfish dirtbag and he’ll get his. Comes around goes around. Keep your chin up.
“No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.” – Eleanor Roosevelt
Though I would add that my views on divorce are it’s only allowed when the spouse commits adultery as per Christ’s command. As for *severe* physical abuse I believe that separation in that context is allowed though it has to be real physical abuse and not some frivation (new word?) by some opportunistic spouse looking for an easy out of a difficult marriage.
@~gwen
Perhaps I made a mistake by posting my perspective on here
…
It seems that some of you believe that because this happened to me that this must mean that I am a bitch, or a nag, or unsubmissive, or obese, or a total prude. I am none of those things. But *even if I were* I still don’t believe that divorce is the answer. I don’t believe that there is any legitimate reason to divorce other than *severe* physical abuse (meaning violence that threatens lives).
…
My pride is not so great that I wouldn’t take him back even now in order to give my children the two-parent family that they deserve. I would reconcile, too, because I still love and respect my husband despite what he has done.
—————–
You did not make a mistake to post here. We all benefit from sharing experiences and open discussion. But we will call things a we see them, and this is not the gentlest place to hang out, if you are looking for emotional support.
A common theme here is that women want to get married, but they often do not want to be married. The impression I got from reading your comments is similar, that you do not want to get divorced, but you do not mind so much being divorced.
I agree with you that nothing in your marriage justifies your husband abandoning you and running off with a younger, prettier woman. (I would debate the details of what is justification for divorce, but that is not relevant here. From what you wrote, there was no justification.) But asking if it was justified is the wrong question, because your beliefs on what justifies divorce are irrelevant. The question is what, on your side, let the situation come to this. It is not a question of blame, but of looking for personal responsibility. Many of the men here were beta providers and got divorced because of it, and they came here to learn why doing what they thought was right leads to divorce. None of the men here will ever justify women getting divorced because they are bored – that is what this whole blog is about – but we do recognize that this is how women work, and is something we have to learn to deal with. You have to learn how men work, and how you can turn that to your advantage. Right or wrong is the wrong question.
You have my respect that you are willing to get back together with your husband. You can probably get him back, because you can offer him one things that his skank cannot, which is his family. If you want to get him back, you need to figure out what you did not provide him, and how you can re-ignite his attraction for you. I am hardly an expert in this area, but here are some suggestion based on my readings:
Do not try to talk with him directly about getting back together. Arrange a meeting for some other issue (plans for the children), and tease him. Slowly escalate. You know what he likes. Be suggestive, but leave more to his imagination.
Talk about his cheating openly, but briefly. Tell him that you understand he was bored, and if he needs something occasional on the side, you would look the other way.
Read http://theredpillroom.blogspot.co.il/2012/07/girl-game-gfe.html .
If things go well, at some point you will want to introduce him to the manosphere, probably starting with Athol Kay.
Good luck, however you go.
Pingback: BD #2 – The Damage of Divorce On Children | The Society of Phineas
Pingback: Links #4 and Comments | The Society of Phineas