Jenny Erikson worries that some parents aren’t doing promiscuity the right way, and as a result they are creating the wrong kind of chaos for their children:
Of course promises get broken, but how can you raise children in such chaos that no promise is ever even made, let alone attempted to be lived?
 | Woody on Message heard. |
 | Christmas in The Chr… on Mistaking fecklessness for… |
 | Quiet Desperation on Farewell (for now at least), a… |
 | whiteguy1 on Message heard. |
 | Vektor on Farewell (for now at least), a… |
 | John O. on Message heard. |
 | Iowa Slim on Message heard. |
 | wodansthane on Message heard. |
| wodansthane on Message heard. |
| wodansthane on Message heard. |
Dear Dalrock,
The deconstruction of the traditional family and classical conservatism was spearheaded by the Frankfurt School:
At some point, if one really wishes to save marriage and restore the traditional family, they will have to oppose the forces that are destroying the family, rather than embracing them and inculcating them in the Church and University, as Boxer commands us to do.
WOW……
This Jenny just keeps ‘doubling down’ on her bets.
The marriage expert has spoken.
She sees so CLEARLY the damage a 3rd partner would do to a child in they decided to “move on”.
Hello Pot, meet Kettle……….you are BOTH black.
What a hypocrite.
‘if’ they decided to move on.
$#$# auto correct.
Ms. Erickson:
How can she write this with a straight face? She herself was not committed, she herself destabilized her children’s home life by kicking out their father!
Jenny talks a good talk when it comes to wedding vows, and the agreement to ‘foresake all others’. In the end…….talk is cheap; and Jenny proves same.
She moved her husband to the trashbin at a time & place most convenient for herself.
A wedding vow from that woman means LESS than nothing.
She can’t possibly be expected to be taken seriously in this area.
I will not seek career advice from the chronically unemployed.
Ditto with relationship advice from this foolish woman.
I find it troublesome that so many people (this author obviously included) seem to see the ‘commitment’ of a marriage to be exclusively tied to sexual exclusivity. Commitments are whatever both parties to an agreement agree to do for one another. In my marriage, i place respect, making one another laugh, being emotionally there for the other in good and bad times, being good parents MUCH higher than being sexually exclusive.
Authors who claim to support healthy relationships would be well advised to start to allowing people to define the terms of their relationship to meet their own needs (not those of the church or overly judging ‘thought leaders’_
SSM
How can she write this with a straight face?
C’mon, SunShine, her rationalization hamster has it all scripted out. And when she shacks up with a new man, she’ll have that all rationalized as well.
Because of the Female Imperative, full stop.
mik1999 said:
Are you advocating nonsexual demonstrations of commitment above and beyond sexual exclusivity, or instead of sexual exclusivity?
Jenny Erikson asks Do you think open marriages are a viable alternative to divorce?
Hamsterlation: “Now that I’ve trashed my own marriage, does anyone out there still paying any attention to or lending any credibility to anything that I write think that I should consider this option as a fallback scenario?”
No such thing as an “open marriage”. They might as well give it a new name.
_________
Everyone here, if you have not repented as your sins as a guilty sinner do so NOW to Lord Jesus Christ. You MUST BE a BORN AGAIN BELIEVER to see the Kingdom of God (Heaven). Make sure you are BORN AGAIN in spirit.
Read only the King James Version (KJV) Holy Bible ALL others are corrupt. BEWARE of the Mark of the Beast (666) in that you could get in your right hand or forehead. Be WARNED the End Times are here. Troubling times ahend.
Dalrock, God bless your work and that you continue to be an inspiration and help to many wayward souls navigating these treacherous times. Keep in the faith and remember ONLY the HOLY BLOOD OF LORD JESUS CHRIST SAVES.
Note: (*****Most Important link!!!!*****: http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/how_to_be_saved.html)
Also see
*1. http://www.godlovespeople.com/
*2. http://www.jesusisprecious.org/
3. http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Basics/basics_of_christianity.htm
4. http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/1611_authorized_king_james.htm
5. http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Family/public_schools_are_evil.htm
We must repent and pray to God for forgiveness and do the best we can to live by His 10 Commandments just to get started if He be willing to tarry His Return (and make no mistake, HE IS COMING SOON.)
God bless and may we do right by Him.
She has to write it, and repeat it often and loudly, to keep away the fear. The larger and louder the lie, the more fear there is behind it.
You say that as if it’s a new idea. We’ve already been doing that for 50 years; how’s it working out?
I don’t think the polyamorous couple Ms. Erickson refers to are living a healthy or morally correct lifestyle. But would it be wrong of me to say that I think they are functionally superior to Ms. Erickson? After all, their son has a married mother and father in the home. Yes, there is also a parade of perverts passing through his life, but at least he has a mother and father together under one roof. Ms. Erickson complains that their female lover, who cares for the son part-time, may leave the family at some point and that this would be hard on the son, but really, is that so different than the nannies and daycare workers that many modern women rely upon to raise their children anyway?
Nothing like reading an article about what’s destroying the family by a woman who destroyed her family cause she felt like it.
Mrs. Erikson (remember her divorce is NOT for Biblical reasons; we must see her as still bound to “Leif”, no?) is a gift that keeps on giving. Kinda like herpes.
(sorry, Mrs. Leif Erikson–the Bible still stands, no matter what the magistrate says)
The way Erikson has written this piece, and the phrasing she’s used, are very important to deflect exactly the “hypocrite” point you’re making, SSM.
Erikson clearly intends to point up that commitment and sexual exclusivity are the hallmarks of a good marriage. All well and good as far as it goes. But the “commitment” part can be ended for “sufficient cause”; all that matters is that she intended to keep the commitment and tried to do so. But she had to end her marriage because she just couldn’t keep that commitment anymore. She was unhappy, the marriage ended by “death from a thousand tiny cuts”. It doesn’t matter that she didn’t have biblical cause to end the marriage; what matters is her intent and her efforts. She broke her promise to her soon to be ex husband; but what matters is that she “tried” (and by implication, her STBX didn’t). And so, because she tried but failed to keep her commitment; she’s now going to be released from sexual exclusivity.
But in reality, she didn’t “try” to keep her marriage together. In circumstances as Erikson described, her marriage is ending not because she didn’t try; it’s ending because she no longer wants to be married to her STBX. Erikson is “more moral” than people with open marriages, you see. Unlike those bad people staying married to each other and sleeping around; she did it the right way. She’s getting divorced first. This way, she can find a more attractive man to marry, and then sleep with him.
@The Bechtloff
Even better, if you like the article you are encouraged at the bottom to click on the button “I love my husband”.
Nothing like reading an article about what’s destroying the family by a woman who destroyed her family cause she felt like it.
Her guilt rearing its ugly head. She tries to atone by moralizing. This is what unrepentant people typically do.
Between this and the “things you didn’t know about divorce” article, we can see the wages of sin, and the beauty of repentance.
As painful as it would be to finally look in the mirror and see that “what’s destroying the family” is, in fact, herself, it’s far easier and better than spending the rest of her life trying to rationalize what she did. You may as well try to talk your shirt into not being stained with blood, as to try to convince your conscience that it’s clean by rationalizing.
It’s as though she accidentally shot someone, and as they lay gurgling on the ground she tries to convince herself that she was right to do it, or it just happened and it wasn’t her fault. Meanwhile she might be able to save them if she would recognize that it was a mistake and call for help. But she’ll stand there rationalizing while he needlessly dies, because calling for help would admit fault.
Dear Continental Op:
That’s correct. Freud called this process “displacement”. (As I know GBFM is as big a fan of Uncle Sig as I, I should say that he gave displacement a marvelous treatment in his 1946 book “Theory of Neuroses”).
In a strange way, this article is a good sign, in that it suggests that Mizz Erickson is feeling suitably guilty and ashamed about the fact that she blew up her family. Unfortunately, she finds the ethically correct process of apologizing to her husband and family, and trying to reconcile, to be too threatening to her ego. In its stead, she’s decided to shift her goal of reconciliation to something safer: demonizing others. This is a cheap trick that rarely works in the long term. We can hope that Ms. Erickson breaks down and finds the courage to be honest with herself, and make proper amends, but this is unlikely.
Regards, Boxer
“I find it troublesome that so many people (this author obviously included) seem to see the ‘commitment’ of a marriage to be exclusively tied to sexual exclusivity.”
This is an example of expanding a definition in order to eliminate the underlying concept (and thus its effects) from public consciousness, by making its label meaningless.
A committed relationship cannot actually exist, at least not by rational definition, without exclusive bonds that elevate it and distinguish it from other extended interactions.
Another example is how “heroic” is being redefined to include the most banal activities, thus reducing the visibility and significance of actual heroes.
@Continental Op
Ska-doosh! You nailed it.
In a strange way, this article is a good sign, in that it suggests that Mizz Erickson is feeling suitably guilty and ashamed about the fact that she blew up her family.
No, it just shows how her own guilt is rearing its ugly head. “Rearing its ugly head” I say to mean it’s popping out in unexpected and grotesque (and seemingly incongruous) ways.
It’s not a sign of repentance.
well, to her credit, she’s not alone in this belief. women all across the western world feel the same way.
Well, we’ll have to agree to disagree. Personally, I think it’s heartening and very good that “her own guilt is rearing its ugly head”. Many women would be patting themselves on the back, writing articles about how wonderful it is to be “an empowered single mom” and how “we sisters can do it for ourselves” and other such tripe.
Regards, Boxer
Some signs of womanly repentance wouldn’t be hand-wringing articles about how they were deceived, how they wasted their youth, or moralistic screeds against other sinners. It would start with the confession and repudiation of rebellion, sexual license, and mass murder.
SSM
I don’t think the polyamorous couple Ms. Erickson refers to are living a healthy or morally correct lifestyle. But would it be wrong of me to say that I think they are functionally superior to Ms. Erickson?
SSM, which is better, being bashed on the head or punched in the throat?
Here we see a certain Mrs. Scum considering such a choice:
Feeling bad is not the same as repentance. Judas felt bad and killed himself. We feel bad when we do ugly things. That’s normal.
I do find it odd that she is constantly suggesting some deep dark secret about the real reasons she divorced Leif, when she has said herself that the marriage was just kind of “blah.” She admits nothing really majorly bad happened, and her non-reasons become 8000 plus reasons or whatever. She is constantly defaming this guy, even putting his pic on her website and calling him soon to be ex and what not. How unnecessarily cruel and disrespectful.
Her smart-assery knows no limits and is very unattractive. I’m shocked she has so many male fans, and I find this quality the singularly most unattractive quality a woman could have.
Funny, I would think the man in this open marriage has his game on, right? Sleeping with other women which keeps his wife attracted to him.. nice gig ya got there..
“She is constantly defaming this guy, even putting his pic on her website and calling him soon to be ex and what not. How unnecessarily cruel and disrespectful.”
YES – I’ve only visited her site briefly, but the feeling I get from her posts is she is a cold and dismissive person. And I have to wonder if she was always like that, or if she became that way as she embarked on her mission to dump her husband.
The woman is just being the selfish woman she naturally is in the feminized world. Marriage means nothing to her it is the her place in the game is what she is concerned with. An open marriage is competition that she has with other women that involves her being pleasurable to a man beyond another woman. Imagine that a woman these days in competing with a woman in pleasuring a man for his attention. This is a generation of women that believe the it is empowering to be the biggest burden in every measure on society as possible.
@Boxer
Jenny’s problem is she has chosen the path of the lowest form of mommy blogger, the professional divorcée. Her signature twist is that she does this from the conservative, pro God, pro stay married perspective. So long as she charts this path she will be the gift that keeps on giving. It won’t end well, it can’t end well, unless she charts another course. But that would mean giving up the attention fix and her chosen identity.
@Dalrock
“Even better, if you like the article you are encouraged at the bottom to click on the button “I love my husband”.”
LOL wow, that’s freaking hilarious.
Many women would be patting themselves on the back, writing articles about how wonderful it is to be “an empowered single mom”
… at the same time that they’re stealing their ex-husbands’ assets and forcing them, at gunpoint through their surrogate boyfriend the gubbimint, to subsidize their lifestyles.
I guess it all depends on how you define “empowered.”
@Mr. Roach
I’m shocked [Jenny Erikson] has so many male fans
Why on earth would anyone be shocked at this? If anything, a cursory look and listen around you should lead you to wonder why she doesn’t have MORE male fans, given the rampant white knighting/manginism that characterizes contemporary society after five-plus decades of saturation with the feminine imperative.
@FH
Funny, I would think the man in this open marriage has his game on, right? Sleeping with other women which keeps his wife attracted to him.. nice gig ya got there..
I’m not entirely sure why, but the phrase “shitting where you eat” keeps coming to mind. At any rate, this is a lifestyle arrangement that I guarantee is NOT going to end well for anyone who is part of it – especially the child.
Dear TFH, Dalrock, et.al:
Here’s the thing: she’s not whining about how she feels badly, nor is she really bringing any attention to the fact that she wants to be excused. She is, instead, displacing her guilt into the condemnation of others.
This suggests, at least to me, that she actually does have some feelings of guilt and shame for what she did. At some level, she knows she made a horrible mistake (as opposed to thinking she’s the best thing since sliced bread, since she’s so “strong” and “independent” and such). This suggests that she does have a conscience, a healthy (albeit skewed) moral compass, and holds out some hope (however slight) that she might at least correct her current course, even though she can’t really hope to repair all the damage she’s done.
Personally, I find it a little surprising also. From the tone of her blog (and I read quite a bit of it), I assumed she was a stone cold psychopath. The fellas who are noting that she kept her husband’s photo up, and mockingly referred to him, are right on. I might be wrong, but it’d be nice to believe that was overcompensation on her part, rather than a transparent representation of her state of mind.
Best, Boxer
If you deal from the Prime Feminist Directive (towards marriage) that of course, promises can be broken then this logic (on Jenny’s part) is the next logical step. She is forced to come to this conclusion given the bedrock foundation from which her morality stems stipulates that serial monogamy (after a divorce) is a-okay.
The more you deviate The Bible and the root laws that God hath given us on how to live our lives, the more we need to make up our own morals as we go along. There is no third way.
GBFM,
This is entirely correct. The problem is, those of us who wish to save marriage and restore the traditional family are dramatically outnumbered politically. We live in a Constitutional Republic and as such, even the amoral have the right to vote for our collective representatives (let alone the immoral!) There is no party on our side, certainly not one that understands that you can’t have a Constitution of the United States of America when the majority of people who live here chose to live a-morally.
Yes you are right, to save marriage you need to oppose certain forces. But far too many in this nation are not the least bit interested in saving marriage. They reject utterly that marriage (a Biblical marriage, meaning NO DIVORCE) serves as a critical under-pinning to the foundation of a Constitutional Republic.
SSM,
She can write this with a straight face because the relationship with the father of her children ran its course. Those are her words Mary. She deals from the feminist imperative that you can end the marriage for any reason (or no reason) and this is right and just and moral.
That IS her moral, something that you and I regard as immoral. So she can write this.
And the world continues to go downhill: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/10486452/Child-taken-from-womb-by-social-services.html
@Boxer … yours have been some of the best posts up here. Hope you stick around and hope others go beyond opining and comiserating & self educate in the beneath-the-surface on what you write about. It would raise the level of discussion, broaden the base and improve the outcome. Other readers: I point you to the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy as a resource and as a start I recommend reading the entire section on action before ever so much as penning or peeping a word on “agency”, link here:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/action/
@GBFM, re: December 2, 2013 at 10:11 am …
You know, how about you come out and say what you really mean, really. State it is clear, plain simple language so everyone knows. No roundabout couldbegraffiti poetry, no links to sideways pointed YouTube blurbs. Just say it. Come out and tell us what you mean. Would save a lot of new readers a lot of time.
And meanwhile, while it is true that monist materialists ala Dennett, Dawkins, et all are wrong to conflate their monistic ontology with science (I.e.. it ddoesn’t have to be monist and materialist to be science) and they are wrong to subsume all of epistemology into science, it is nevertheless correct that we maintain that the determination of causality is the exclusive province of empirical scientific method.
Your attributions of social decline to the “Frankfurt school” put you in the same class of deductive dialecticism as Marx.
Pound sand.
‘if’ they decided to move on.
$#$# auto correct.
Strange how the mind works. I actually read the comment with ‘if’. I had to go back and read it again to catch the ‘in’.
BD,
No, on this GBFM is right. He got the history right.
They (at the Frankfurt school) wrongfully assumed that the protoliteriat would RISE UP against their capitalist masters in revolution the way they sort-of did in Russia. Where the Frankfurt school failed in their Russian Revolution reasoning is three fold: #1) religion #2) the family and #3) not properly arming their soldiers.
Even the poorest of the poor of Europe had religion (Marx comments that religion being the “opiate of the masses” didn’t dissaude those not in Russia.) The poor had a belief and fear of God and a love for Christ. That didn’t diminish simply because they were poor. They didn’t become socialist because they were poor. And in fact, many parts of Christianity (the RCC in particular with its support of organized labour) were socialist. So this would be a hard nut to crack for the Frankfurt school.
The poor also revered the family. They understood that the father was the head of the household (physical, financial, and spiritual) and the poor wanted that preserved. That ran entirely contrary to Marxist thinking where “the state” is whom all must serve first and foremost. You can’t have two masters and in a working family (even a poor one) the father is the master.
So in order to remake the Western world in the way the Frankfurt school wanted it to be, they had to do two things: destroy religion and obliterate marriage and the family. With those two things out of the way, they were in the position to rewire the Western mind. It appears they succeeded in rewiring yours bluedog.
The revolution in Russia was mostly a result of #3) the Tzar and the Russian Royal family not properly arming the Russian troops against the Germans. They were butchered on the Eastern front, absolutely butchered by the Krouts. This is what happens when only every three soldiers has a rifle in their arms and they are told to charge German trenches where the Krauts have machine guns. The people (and the army) revolt. WWI and the humbling beating Russia took from Germany pushed Russia into revolution. It is just the communists gave the unarmed soldiers and the starving masses someone to “join” against the Royal family. In the end, Anastasia and the rest were all murdered by the communists. The people didn’t care they figured they were dead either way.
Authors who claim to support healthy relationships would be well advised to start to allowing people to define the terms of their relationship to meet their own needs (not those of the church or overly judging ‘thought leaders’
I don’t know if you’ve noticed it or not, but people have been defining their own terms for marriage for sometime now. And then a little while down the road 50% or so marriages get redefined according to someone’s terms. The majority of those doing the redefining right now are women.
Back when and where biblical principles were actually followed, most marriages did quite well. Certainly much better than now where we have everyone defining the terms of thier relationships to meet their own needs.
Proverns 4:1
4 The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”
They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds,
there is none who does good.
Proverbs 12:15
The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, but a wise man listens to advice.
Proverbs 21:2
Every way of a man is right in his own eyes, but the Lord weighs the heart.
(please understand the word ‘man’ as used above refers to humankind)
Marcus,
Actually (after reading the article), I might agree with this one. She was bi-polar (probably bi-polar-1.) She probably attempted to kill herself as so many of them do. We don’t understand this as Americans Marcus, but the British have a better handle of mental health conditions and what people do when they are diagnosed (and what government MUST do.)
It is all about how you look at mental health. In the United States, if you are diagnosed with a mental health condition, you are respected if you go get help. In Europe, if you are diagnosed with a mental health condition, there is no respect, they are one step away from locking you up! It is a completely different outlook on people and the role of government for people who are f-cked in the head. So (of course, particularly given British LAW) deliver the baby forcibly and remove it from her. If she was married, give the baby to the father. There is no mention of that is there?
Even better, if you like the article you are encouraged at the bottom to click on the button “I love my husband”.
I once knew a woman who ‘loved’ me like that. And I’ve seen other woman ‘love’ their men in that exact same way. Tragic!
Come to think of it, before I was a Christian, several girl friends I had and parted with tried to keep tabs on me for years after our ‘relationship’ (regardless of who broke it off). And it boggled my mind until I came to understand the meaning of the saying ‘dog in the manger’.
American Thinker has a nice article… think about progressive Feminism, etc.
“Progressivism is the fear that someone, somewhere is behaving morally. As anti-morality flourishes, its mouthpieces become more abusive to anyone they believe typifies morality, as it becomes more difficult for them to repress their own sense of shame.”
“Morality, Anti-Morality, and Socialism,” by Deborah C. Tyler, American Thinker, 1 Dec 2013
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/12/morality_anti-morality_and_socialism.html#ixzz2mMfH0612
Dear Innocent Bystander Boston:
Oh LOLOLOLOL! I apologize for ever taking you seriously. I won’t make that mistake again.
For those who are continue to be amused at all this nonsense, I’ll point out that no member of the Frankfurt School was part of the “Russian Revolution”. A simple Wikipedia search would tell anyone interested that much.
I shall let you guys get back to wasting bandwidth with your conspiracy theorizing, talking about how Boxer is a Bolshevik, and otherwise slurping each other. I’m here to discuss current events and social trends, not paranoid fantasies by people who can’t even bother to read a brief overview of what they’re pretending to lecture about.
Regards, Boxer (honorary member of the Frankfurt School, internet Bolshevik, and object of your obsessions)
SSM: ‘How can she write this with a straight face?’
I’m guessing she has a little something or other in common with the person spoken of in the following passage:
This is the way of an adulteress: she eats and wipes her mouth and says, “I have done no wrong.”
~ God; Proverbs 30:20
That is correct. I never said they were. Stop errecting strawmen.
I said the Frankfurt school made a mistake in assuming the protaliteriat of Europe (those not already in Russia) would rise up in revolt the way they did in Russia. They found out (too late) that as long as the poor masses had religion and the family, they would not rise up in revolt. So they had to CHANGE THE FAMILY (destroy it) to remake Western Civilization.
Blue Dog has bought into this change. I don’t know or care if you did.
Don’t lump me into this. Just don’t say I don’t know what the Frankfurt school is when I know exactly what it is. You will note when I quoted GBFM and defended him to BlueDog, I did NOT include GBFM’s personal attack on you.
Facebook is the most annoying enabler of failed relationships. It’s almost cliché how many in my peer group get hit up by all those girls who LJBF’ed us back in high school. Apparently they hope we’re all still interested.
Oh boy, I lived next to an open marriage family about 2 decades back. The tales I could tell.
@Boxer
I don’t read it that way based on the context. She is a professional mommyblogger. Her signature in this incredibly crowded space is that she is a conservative Christian who places God first. It is literally in her tagline. Given her profession she has to constantly be writing. A certain portion of this is going to be the standard gossip about other women’s marriages and relationships, children, etc. But she also has to deliver the goods personally, about her own marriage, about her own kids, her own ex husband, about her own post divorce dating and sex life, etc. She also has to maintain her signature, which means writing conservative, pro traditional marriage pieces. This worked fine when she was a married mommy. But now she has announced that she is divorcing, and for no good reason (emphasis mine):
So she is stuck having to churn out divorced mommy blog postings or lose her status. She could drop the conservative/Christian trademark but that is what makes her stand out. The Stir would have to find someone else to fill her “conservative” spot on the roster. One day she will have to write about the pitfalls of sex and dating for divorced mothers, another she will have to write about how her divorce has harmed her girls, and then in the afternoon she will have to write about how important traditional marriage is to a moral society. Rinse, lather, repeat. There is no way out, short of remarriage, but this has its own challenges since every nice article she writes about hubby #2 will be an echo of the ones she wrote about hubby #1 before detonating family #1.
I think Jenny ought to consider changing that to “Spiritual, but not religious.”
Dear Dalrock:
If I understand your rebuttal, it holds that Mizz Erickson’s blog article of this morning (lambasting those who are immoral in ways other than she) is motivated not by genuine feeling, but by the shifted horizons of her new lifeworld.
Now that she’s divorced, she can’t very well criticize divorced people or single moms. Yet she needs to maintain the “conservative” cred her position demands, which leads to her finding ever more remote outliers to pillory.
This is really interesting and not something that I’d thought of — and, I’ll admit, it makes perfect sense. I’ll cop to the fact that I’m not much for reading “The Stir” (I suspect I’m not alone in that regard) and didn’t know, until I scanned your article of November 2012, what a “mommy blogger” was — much less a professional divorcée.
Incidentally: Thanks again for recommending Malinowski’s *Sex, Culture and Myth*. I got it last Friday, and am 77 pages in.
Best, Boxer
That’s so beautiful I almost teared up a little.
People don’t divorce specifically because they were cheated on. People divorce because in a monogamous committed relationship, cheating is the strongest example of fraud in a marriage contract. The act of sex with another matters far far less than the bait-and-switch of commitment to one, only to later break the commitment.
Mind you, I’m not supporting open marriage with that statement. Rather, I’m pointing out the fundamental absurdity of suggesting that simply being polyamorous is a solution to marital fraud. You don’t negate a broken contract with candy.
That’s why these morons who try to “solve” divorce with new cultural acceptance of perversion are so wrong, because they refuse to respect commitment.
I think that Dalrock, Boxer and others make a good point. Now that she is divorcing who can she criticize?
When she says don’t judge (or her “friends” do in the comment section the subtext is because I get to judge you.
The thing that I don’t understand is the people in this open marriage, are they Christian? Do they claim to be? If not than why try to hold them to Christian marriage?
Dear Ashley:
I am starting the magic countdown until her article, which will appear shortly, complaining about the parenting failures of that remote tribe in Papua/New Guinea, whose name I can’t pronounce. It’s in the works, I can feel it.
Regards, Boxer
“Yet she needs to maintain the ‘conservative’ cred her position demands, which leads to her finding ever more remote outliers to pillory.”
It’s like the second smallest kid in grade school, he was always picking on the smallest kid to validate himself.
“That’s why these morons who try to “solve” divorce with new cultural acceptance of perversion are so wrong, because they refuse to respect commitment.”
Your premise addresses a different population than your conclusion here. People who have been cheated on and consider “polyamory” of any kind are really just scrambling. They are emotionally frail and are looking for anyway to keep what they thought was a pretty decent life.
The people who promote that lifestyle as a solution to divorce are typically like that from the outset. They live their lives with a low-investment ethos and struggle to get others to adopt the same.
They don’t try so they don’t get hurt. And that outlook seems pretty attractive when you learn that your wife just let her boss take her to pound town, but it doesn’t last long.
What about people who are polyamorous from the start? I think that’s what the couple in Jenny Erickson’s article are. No cheating. Just a decision to be “open” either before they marry or shortly after. I googled them and here is their youtube page in all its glory.
http://www.youtube.com/user/blisscoach
I have never had pussy so good it was ok for it to fuck every body else. And the other way around if I was getting regular pussy why get married period. Make her a regular booty call.
Is it possible, in California divorce jurisprudence, for third parties to file amicus curiae pleadings?
Now is the time to make it IMPOSSIBLE for her to sail smoothly through court to the Cash&Prizes.
@IBB
Actually (after reading the article), I might agree with this one. She was bi-polar (probably bi-polar-1.) She probably attempted to kill herself as so many of them do. We don’t understand this as Americans Marcus, but the British have a better handle of mental health conditions and what people do when they are diagnosed (and what government MUST do.)
I find it very concerning that a government can literally order the removal of a child from a womb. China does that. North Korea does that. Perhaps other despotic countries do that. But not a liberal democracy. Or, rather, they shouldn’t be… there being my concern.
I also note the irony of abortion in the UK and this situation.
@ Bluedog:
Thanx for the link to the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Just in time as I just finished my current reading material.
One Mom Two Dads & A Baby.
Notice the despondent older husband who acts like a grandfather toward his wife’s and her younger, hotter husband’s child. The younger husband openly says he’s the alpha of the pack.
Marcus,
You should. So do I.
I think she tried to kill herself. If she had succeeded she would have murdered her own. They went in to take the baby out of her before she could murder it.
Apparently, its only okay to murder your own child if (and only if) you intend to LIVE through the procedure.
She’ll use her writing to go after alphas who pump and dump her, nice guys who won’t wife her up and all th other usual feminist targets
GBFM–
Thanks for posting that video. I’m having issues with not being “culturally sensitive” at work right now. Total crap.
@ SSM: How can she write this with a straight face?
I think this is what Shrinks call, ‘Cognitive Dissonance’.
Taco,
Never sh-t where you eat. There are ZERO people at my office that know I am part of the manosphere. They can guess that I am (and would probably wrongfully assume that I just hated women) but they can’t be for certain. At work, I do not discuss sex, politics, or religion. That is what this thread is for….
@Dalrock
Good Find!……..The tonality of the article suggests to me to me that Ms.Erickson is “weighing her options”………..Don’t count Jenny out of the Orgy just yet!
@ IBB
Me too. I wish I could though. But until it becomes more mainstream people’s prejudices will get in the way. This is not something I mind but when these people have the ability to effect me putting food on my table (so to speak) that’s when I have to clamp everything shut. Lucky for me I’m out of the corporate world but even as a self employed person clients might fire me and use someone else irregardless of my abilities. I sound like a pussy but I just can’t risk it. When people are on the sanctioned side of political correctness they will use it against you simply because they can irregardless if its factually right or wrong.
“Families with gay or polygamous parents have something these polyamorous people don’t — commitment.”
I’m pretty sure what she really means is ‘commitment from the man’. It’s nothing but female solipsism on display. Commitment for thee, but not for me.
Five successful men intentionally decide to become more emotionally available. They are being initiated into a lifetime celibacy http://www.facebook.com/ecachette/posts/10153539558535072
SSM:
I think there is some truth to this. Polygamous societies (Middle-East, Sub-Saharan Africa) have higher rates of violence than monogamous societies, but the most violent places on Earth are cities where children grow up without fathers. The reasons why polygyny causes violence are explained in this evo-psych article.
hoellenhund2 says:
December 3, 2013 at 2:18 am
“Families with gay or polygamous parents have something these polyamorous people don’t — commitment.”
I’m pretty sure what she really means is ‘commitment from the man’. It’s nothing but female solipsism on display. Commitment for thee, but not for me.t
==============================================================
Exactly so, H. Let the sap “married” to her be “polyamorous” with his wages and yard/vehicle maintenance time, and see how fast she unceremoniously pulls his chain (or the plug, at HIS expense, of course).
Pingback: Trapped! | Dalrock
” I don’t think the polyamorous couple Ms. Erickson refers to are living a healthy or morally correct lifestyle. But would it be wrong of me to say that I think they are functionally superior to Ms. Erickson? After all, their son has a married mother and father in the home.”
“I think there is some truth to this. Polygamous societies (Middle-East, Sub-Saharan Africa) have higher rates of violence than monogamous societies, but the most violent places on Earth are cities where children grow up without fathers. The reasons why polygyny causes violence are explained in this evo-psych article.”
Right but the people showcased in Ms. Erickson’s article are not just polygynous, they are polyandrous as well. That’s why its called polyamory. I’ve watched a few polyamory documentaries since I read Erickson’s article, and they come off as extremely peaceful people. They are middle to upper middle class professional first world betas. Their culture and society cannot be compared to the cultures and societies in the Mid East and Africa.
“Destroy the family, you destroy the country.” –Vladimir Lenin
How ’bout that sex-positive Feminism, eh?
Pingback: Lightning Round – 2013/12/04 | Free Northerner
You would never catch me in an open relatonship, the wife ALWAYS gets the better deal. For every secondary side piece you have, she gets 5!
Is Ms. Crazy upset about open marriages specifically, or just a husband enjoying side action as well as the wife in an open marriage? Given all the rationalizations Ms. Crazy has actively running, I wouldn’t be surprised if she only is against the idea of men getting any enjoyment from any marriage, but in order to moralize and rationalize, she pretends to be concerned about open marriages.
“You would never catch me in an open relatonship, the wife ALWAYS gets the better deal. For every secondary side piece you have, she gets 5!”
And if she doesn’t have more partners than you, you can be sure her partners will be better than yours, and even better men than you are! I’ve seen it with my own eyes IRL.
When I was working retail I remember working with a divorced coworker who worried he didn’t have enough to offer to women. Never stopped to think about what they had to offer him, and he was working 2 jobs to support his ex (he was also in the coast guard.) Still was more of a man than I currently am (I know what I want to be but I’m not even close) but was 40 years old and still letting women rule his life. Woman would take food out of the mouths of homeless men if it was expedient for them, I don’t have a compassionate bone left in my body for women
“…I take away reason and accountability.”
—Melvin Udall
Saying “in fact” is not a magical incantation that makes an obvious falsehood true. I don’t know about all of the tens of thousands of denominations of breakaway Christians but I guess you’ll be trying to snow me by claiming that those Catholic popes who wrote all those encyclicals condemning socialism were deliberately misleading the faithful. Yeah, sure.
Pingback: Recovering From Frivorce — Part I | Spawny's Space
Pingback: Usury is so gay | Zippy Catholic
Jenny Eriksson is just excusing serial extramarital affairs by women, which she calls “polygamy”. However, Eriksson condemns the case of another woman moving into the house, which she calls “open marriage”(*). So what Eriksson is doing is to defend the kind of cheating that involves the woman cheating with an external man, while at the very same time condemning the case of the man cheating by having, in effect, a second wife. This is so dishonest and disingenous that it takes a special kind of self-deluded and self-serving nihilist to argue for it.
According to my secret decoder ring, what Jenny really is trying to argue is that it is ok for a wife to use her sex-appeal to get extramarital sex, but it is not ok for a husband to use his provider-appeal to get same.(**)
In other words, she owns her husband, his body, his earnings and his wealth, but the husband does not own her in any meaningful way at all.
(*)It should also be noted that Jenny is (probably intentionally) adding confusion by having interchanged the definitions of “polygamy” and “open marriage”. Here are the correct definitions: Polygamy is an agreement to have multiple spouses. Open Marriage is an agreement to allow extramarital sex partners.
(**)This is a good example of Asymmetrical Marriage(TM), a form of marriage where the man provides everything but gets nothing.
By the way, I submitted the above also as a comment to the Jenny Eriksson article. After you submit, the website says non-member comments are “moderated”. What are the odds of acceptance?
“Of course promises get broken, but how can you raise children in such chaos that no promise is ever even made, let alone attempted to be lived?”
Plural marriage can work. I’ve seen it work. But not in this culture. In this culture plural marriage is just another excuse to indulge the 7 Deadly Sins, particularly LUST. In other cultures its a mechanism for stability, prosperity and extended family formation.