From the DFW megachurch that brought us the man site, I present ReEngage. If Fireproof didn’t make you a believer*, the video here will.
There is of course a twist; it wasn’t her fault after all.
*That a wife seeking an affair (not submission) has the awesome power to restore a marriage and bring the couple to God.
 | 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. |
I think the thumb ring is intended by her to exhibit her sexual openness e.g. bisexuality.
Could you maybe clarify a little more here, Dalrock? I watched the video and I’m not sure I understand your objection. I didn’t hear the husband say that the wife’s affair wasn’t her fault. He said that their problems didn’t start with her affair in 2008, but that they started with his affair in 2000. Neither of them went into repentance in the video, I’ll grant you that, but I didn’t hear the wife even once blame the husband for her sin.
Here is what it really looks like when a husband accepts the blame for his wife’s affair:
When husbands fail to protect their wives from committing adultery
I didn’t catch that kind of thing in this video, but maybe if you explained it a bit more, I’d see what I’m missing.
You knew there was trouble when a disaffected wife starts hitting the gym hard. I’m not worried about any “affair” from that video (What does “affair” even mean to them? Lots of history/details were glossed over heavily). But ye gods, narcissism still flows strongly through them—it’s clear they felt shame at their actions (why else make a video?), but neither appeared to feel any guilt in the aftermath of their actions (in 2000 and 2008, it sounds like).
@Sunshine Mary
I agree that this particular adaptation of the modern Christian narrative on marriage is more subtle than others, but it would be foolish to claim that this pattern is random. If it will help, I’ll spell out the narrative more directly:
I’ll add that the fact that this message/narrative is so difficult to spot is exactly why it is so insidious.
SSM, Dalrock:
And here’s the rest of it.
Whatever stupid thing the man did (in this video what is alluded to as his affair, in “Fireproof” it was just being an inattentive, uncaring man) is used as an implicit justification for her misconduct. Here, Roy was cold and distant (ostensibly because of his affair or whatever he did). She implies that her going to the gym and starting an affair was fully justified by his “not being there for” her. It’s not clearly stated, but that’s the message that comes through. “Husband, if you aren’t “there for” your woman, then you have no one to blame but yourself when she seeks solace and comfort elsewhere.”
I see him taking responsibility not only for his indiscretion, but for hers as well. It’s clearly suggested that if husband had not had his failings first, then she wouldn’t have failed later. Not once does she take full responsibility for her affair; but rather rests on his admission that, well, I was bad, but he was bad first. Well, I failed, but he failed first, and that caused me to fail.”
The woman’s affair is viewed as actually being a GOOD thing, a helpful event. It’s often phrased as “God used it for His will” or some such other statement.
It’s very subtle, but that’s what I took from it.
@ Dalrock
OK, thank you. I guess it’s more subtle in this video, which also seems somewhat different because they both engaged in adultery and apparently jointly decided to attend this church. I have to agree that the wife didn’t look terribly broken up when she talked about her adultery, which is a little shocking.
Maybe it just threw me because the husband said he was going to church to fix his wife, which seems like a new twist. Usually these kinds of stories are a horrifying display of mea culpa-ing by the husband, who goes to church to fix himself because he says it’s his fault his wife cheated on him (in my post that I linked above, the husband actually says that he accepted the full blame for his wife’s adultery because he was emotionally unavailable and looking at porn and so it was as if he had driven her to the other man’s house himself).
Yeah, after watching the video, my thought was, hey, maybe I can have an affair with one of the hot 20 somethings here in Mexico, and my wife won’t divorce me. Somehow I don’t think this is a good thought to have.
The kids are gone unload the bitch you are done carrying her water.
Hmm, gosh Deti, I didn’t really get that at all. I heard her say that she and he had grown apart, but I didn’t really catch her blaming him. I guess I didn’t catch him taking responsibility for her affair either. It’s hard to tell, but from the video it sounds like they started attending church when her affair came to light in order to “fix her” (that’s what he said anyway, but who knows) and that he kept quiet about his own affair for quite a while. It’s clear there were problems in this marriage from way back, that’s for sure. It would have been nice if they’d spoken a bit more about actually repenting of their sin.
SSM — I get it, both what Dal is saying and the point that never do you hear or even get the sense of ‘repentance of sin’ coming through in what she shares (and given the evasive nature of her story I am forced to wonder if per jf12, it wasn’t a lesbian affair. If it was, it might account for the husband’s relative placidity.
@SSM
I’m more interested in the message of the story to the target audience (Christian wives) than the sins of the husband and wife. This couple was chosen because their story was the story the organizers wanted to tell. Perhaps what clouds this is the story isn’t fiction. Is it easier to spot the same narrative in Fireproof?
I’d have to rewatch the video to catch the exact wording, but either way her lashing out/not submitting turned out to be the catalyst needed to make him a better man and fix their marriage. This is not really a new twist at all.
tbc:
I didn’t sense repentance from either the man or the woman, honestly.
I remember watching “The Descentdants” and that scene where George Clooney confronts his wife’s friends about his wife’s affair…
(Matt King) “…as a matter of fact there is I’ll tell you later. Who is he?”
(Kai) “…who is who?”
(Matt King)”…does she love him?”
(quiet… you can hear a pin drop, the two of them staring at Clooney not wanting to say anything when he KNOWS they know)
(Matt King) “I really hate to put you in this position but I’m not the one who put you there, am I?”
(Kai) “Matt you sound angry.”
(Matt King) “You have a keen sense of observation.”
(Kai) “Okay I think you just need to cool down…”
(Matt King) “Was it Tre, that f-clking neanderthal?”
(Rob) “You don’t know him.”
(Kai) “Rob DON’T YOU DARE BETRAY HER! SHAME ON YOU! SHE”S YOUR FRIEND!”
(Rob) “Yeah, well I’m Matt’s friend too and I’d want to know if I was in his situation…”
(Kai) “But don’t sit her and betray Amanda when she is not here to defend herself…” (looks at Matt with unfeeling emptyness) “…Matt you may not be able to hear this now but, it wasn’t her fault. Your marriage it..”
(Matt King) “You talk to me in cliches about marriage. Nothing is EVER a woman’s fault!“
Nothing is ever a woman’s fault. That is truly the way women think. They don’t even regard themselves with any moral agency, why should I?
Until this type of thinking changes, your scenario will continue to repeat itself in our culture. Movies have embraced it that’s for damn sure.
One more thought SSM: If this story had ended without the revelation that he had had the first affair, or without something similar blaming him for the unhaaapyness that she lashed out against, would the organizers have still chosen them as the couple for the video advertising the seminar? Without him being the cause of the original problem, step 1 in the narrative I outlined above isn’t satisfied. It would be a very different story.
@ Dalrock, He went there “to fix his wife” until they showed him the error of his ways and revealed to him that his beta passivity wasn’t going to make his wife haaapy and that made him a failure.
Oh my goodness, I didn’t catch that, but it makes total sense. The weird way she phrased it – she never used a pronoun in the entire narrative about the affair. She kept saying “This person” and using the pronoun “they” and “them”, where “he” and “him” would have been appropriate had her paramour been a man. No wonder the husband looked so laid back about the whole thing.
Oh yes, it’s very easy to see what you’re talking about with Fireproof. I’m still not quite catching that here; this looks like a different sort of dysfunction, but you’re right that it probably doesn’t matter what their details are. What matters is how the audience will receive it, and I’m sure you’re correct that women will see this as a wife lashing out in order to fix her marriage.
How cold the marriage had gotten? Listening to the “wife” it sounds like she had an addiction. Text, emails, “anything I could do to have contact.” Sounds like the often lamented “porn addiction.” I would venture out on a limb and say HIS infidelity was something akin to “porn addiction”. Consider that the manner in which she describes her problem (going beyond the pale of infatuation) may parallel HIS “infidelity.” Also her reaction to his full disclosure was strangely different from his reaction.
Swiss cheese version? So she is not even honest about “coming clean?” Here’s a pointer – when she says “she wants to be the one to tell him” she means it is her version that she wants him to hear. Notice how it did not take anyone threatening him for him to come clean? If the kids hadn’t caught her she would be riding her dark horse at this moment.
Not ready to divulge any of the truth at that point (open group)? I am sure HE was ready! But it was “safe” !?!?!? Code word for non-judgemental.
Whole video he is leaning into her. And she is cold as ice, not even a squirm when her actions are described.
I guarantee that man is wandering in the wilderness, and happy for any moldy rotten crumb that he accidentally falls into. No relations except on her terms and I would bet even that is cold as ice.
Good luck with that.
I see what you are saying, at the end her feminine intuition was right and her affair and Re-Emerge were the medicine. Both of these people seem to have the modesty of swingers, and they are the poster children? Wow.
i missed the part where he had an affair also… that sheds additional light on it. One of the key things he says, that is set up as a ‘turning point’ in the video, is that they started to go to ‘Re-Engage’ to fix his wife… which is a perfect climatic set-up to the ‘reveal’ later in the video, that he is one who needs fixing also. Just like Fireproof, but worse in a way.
Remember, pornography is cheating….
Ah, yes. I think I’ve got it now. That is the crucial difference.
Usually these stories are that the wife has an affair because her husband has done something like look at porn or be emotionally distant, so her affair is really his fault, thus he is the source of the problems in the marriage.
This story is different because she had an affair for reasons not fully specified, and her husband doesn’t accept the blame for her affair, but in the end his own affair – which happened before hers – comes to light, thereby making it look like, once again, the husband is the source of all the problems in the marriage.
OK, got it now. But I wouldn’t have gotten it without talking it through with everyone here, so how likely is it that the average Christian woman would catch the underlying message?
@En-sigma
Safe for the wife to seek annulment of her own sins, and absolution for her husband’s.
You knew there was trouble when a disaffected wife starts hitting the gym hard
Just like how Dalrock stage-managed it with Mrs. Erikson
lol, “i started going to the gym. met some”. lol. come on, Watch the video again and see how hard she is selling it. Does anyone believe here that without the “threatpoint” this guy would be going to beta reform school so that “god” could teach him how to make women happy? Once you see it for what it really is, then most churches arent worth attending. Most churches have set up the womens imperative as the diety. dont believe me? go to church and watch and listen to whats more important, feelings or actions. The bible clearly judges people by their actions.
It could have been a lesbian affair; and that’s what it sounds like. It’s not clear whether there was a physical affair either, though it IS clear there was an emotional affair. That can help explain why they are still together and why the husband seems laid back too.
My sense is that a marriage can recover from HER emotional affair, and perhaps even a physical affair with a lesbian. It’s very, very hard, near impossible, for a marriage to recover from a wife’s physical affair in which she has intercourse with another man. I suspect the reasons for it are that in her mind and heart, once she takes that step and has full on sexual intercourse with another man, she’s clearly replaced husband with another man.
Sex with another man just crosses a Rubicon that an emotional affair and even lesbian sex just don’t cross. On a primal level it’s a sense of ownership and staking a claim. An emotional affair with a guy doesn’t stake a claim on her. Even lesbian sex doesn’t “claim” her or “conquer her” in the sense that another man’s sexual conduct with her does. Sex with another man means she surrendered herself to him and let him claim her; meaning husband simply no longer can.
Deti— yeah that’s partially why I am wondering if its a lesbian affair, especially because he is so laid back. The way he even describes his reaction is far milder than what I would expect if she was sleeping with another man. That and her indescript language…’I met the other person’…. I was texting them…
Not that it makes it better, but certainly changes the dynamics of response.
@tbc pink shirt too.
@tbh “Deti— yeah that’s partially why I am wondering if its a lesbian affair” Im not so sure if u read the title again you will realize that its the “COX” Family Story.
@En-sigma
“Whole video he is leaning into her. And she is cold as ice, not even a squirm when her actions are described.”
Actually they both seem to be every so slightly turned away from each other. His hips and legs do seem open towards her but both their torsos and shoulders (especially hers) seemed to be turned away. Also notice how close their hands come to touching but never actually do. That marriage is not well.
The description of their marriage sounds like a HIPs (highly invested parents, i think) marriage that someone else posted an article about in another thread. As i predicted in that thread, these marriages might actually succeed (mainly because of financial/quality of life reasons) but their would be lots of cheating by both parties.
yay, now you are married to a lesbian. I am sure that marriage is solid as a rock now, cuz it don’t look like she is in that sharing mood.
I am not convinced on that aspect, but I will say she is in no way even warm towards him. It looks for a second or two that she might touch his hand, but I am seeing contempt when she looks at him. Her chair is positioned slightly different (either forward or angle slightly way), she has to crane around to look at him where he does not have the same problem looking at her…I would say she already cut hers from the heard, took him on a few test runs around the back 40 and found her current plowhorse lacking. But likes the lifestyle this beta schlub is giving her.
After watching the video and reading the comments I’m still not sure what the problem is. God often uses sin for good. What am I missing?
Dalrock is right. As this other version proves
Raeul was encouraged by the church counselors to blame himself for her affair by not pursuing her sufficiently well.
The beginning is key.
“Rol (not sure of his name) and I met in college: We dated, and–we did everything fast–we got married, and–right out of college–we, um, tsk! had babies–“
At that point, the audio is edited. The smart money says what was edited out was her a continued expression of surprise, dismay, and dissatisfaction that a wedding led to marriage and children.
What’s damning about the video’s producers is that they know where the smart money is too, and they followed it just…long…enough…to get intuitive listeners to empathize without thinking about it too clearly; without saying outloud that while they love weddings, they too are dismayed with marriage and children.
There seems to be a lot of introjection going on into the dynamics of the couple in this video. It was specifically said that ReEngage pointed them toward biblical principles that they could latch onto, and did latch onto. She specifically said that they learned to “vertically align” themselves with Christ, and that only in doing so did their relationship with one another begin to heal. They talked about the importance of accountability through other believers in the church who stuck with them to help them figure things out. And they say they are closer than ever.
“ReEngage brought to us the urgent need to follow Christ. It has put our marriage in a place where we understand oneness and what it means in Genesis.”
I’m not sure that there is an underlying message here, other than that their testimony of marital healing doesn’t follow the pattern others think it was supposed to follow.
For some reason, THIS particular story really sticks in my craw.
It literally is nauseating. Not sure why, maybe it’s:
1) The fact that SHE does all the talking while “BetaBob” squirms in his chair uncomfortably, and the camera carefully cuts out his obvious flashes of anger.
2) The emotionally manipulative music that tells you what you should be feeling at that moment.
and then.. GASP! All is not lost! (queue hopeful, uptempo strummy guitar track) They discover a place (notice it’s not going into solitude and seeking God’s face until He breaks your stubborness and sin), no, they find a PLACE where they (read “she”) feels good.
3) “this person” ??? why the choice of that word?
I think the main thing to keep in context is this:
No one can take responsibility for another’s actions.
You can apologize and say that your actions may have put them in a hard place, but that doesn’t absolve someone from making poor decisions.
The husband in this case is wrong because he is taking responsibility for her actions which is clearly wrong as it denies her moral agency.
The wife is clearly wrong because she looks (or is) unrepentant about the whole thing, and considers it justified because he had an affair first. One wrong does not justify another wrong before God.
Isaiah 5:20 Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!
@ Denise…
…yeah, many here are a little skeptical about what is really the message in this video. Shame on us for not simply taking it at face value.
hopeless cynics to a one.
Denise:
The reason there’s a lot of examination of the dynamics between husband and wife in the video is because it tells us a lot about whether there has truly been healing, repentance, and forgiveness. It also tells us a lot about whether these two people are truly “married” in every sense of the word.
To men, marriage includes sexual intimacy with a woman who at least acts like she wants to be sexually intimate. That’s not apparent from this video, from the words used, nor the body language between the two. Look – if not for the sex, the vast majority of men simply Will. Not. Marry. They won’t do it. She neither looks nor acts attracted to him. He doesn’t look like he wears the pants in the relationship either; which tells us a lot about what’s going on as well.
I am glad they are still married. That is a plus. Divorce is almost always the worse option, so I really can’t be critical on that point but the underlying subtle messaging is the problem. Not that I thing she should be weeping and wailing over her sin (though it is deserved) but the message put across is that the affair ‘just happened’ — as if she was carelessly crossing the street and was struck by a car. At least she does say that she chose to have an affair– that’s a good admission, but the overall tenor of things like this tend to follow the script of the Garden of Eden…’yeah, well I did technically eat the fruit but only because the mean ole serpent deceived me.
When my ex-wife, then wife, was running around cheating and what not, and the truth was out in the open(ish), well at church by the “marriage ministry” people, I was told that “This is probably the best thing that could have happened to your marriage…now you can work to have the kind of marriage you really want! You can rebuild it from the ground up!”
My then wife really liked the sound of that. It was like they were saying, “Hey sister! Boy you are in luck, we don’t tell everyone about this, but check it out, you’ve discovered how you can do whatever you want and have everyone at church fawn all over you with this one neat trick!”
Then I asked “So, is this something everyone should do then? So they can have a good marriage?” “Well of course not, but now you’ve been given this precious opportunity for healing and to change.”
“Who needs to change? I need to change?” I asked. “Yes, this is a time for you to become the husband your wife needs.” “What about her? Doesn’t she need to change?” I asked. “What she did was a cry for help. To let you know that she needs more from you.”
I quit going to church.
I divorced her.
I don’t regret either.
Maybe I misunderstood what they were trying to convince me of.
Don’t think so though.
Everyone is concerned with redeeming the sinner, not so much with cleaning up the wreckage of all the people they leave in their wake.
Hmm — if it was a lesbian affair, I’m not sure how that doesn’t trigger the same issues as other affairs when women engage in them. It’s hard to tell without knowing her sexuality, really. There are women who replace their husbands with women quite happily — I’ve seen it happen twice with work colleagues (at different employers), so I expect that it isn’t *that* uncommon.
The situation described in the video is messy. Nevertheless, it’s true that the cheatee spouse bears responsibility, in part, for the affair, by setting the circumstances in which the affair takes place. Normally unless one of the spouses is a total hoe/player, affairs happen when there is dissatisfaction in the marriage, and that generally involves both. That doesn’t justify the decision to cheat — that’s solely on the cheating spouse — but it does mean that the cheatee spouse did or didn’t do some things that led to the cheater spouse being tempted to make the decision to cheat. The cheatee is never responsible for that decision, but they are responsible for contributing to creating an environment in which it takes place. On this side, it’s likely that each contributed to the other’s affair, which means it’s basically a big mess.
DeepStrength,
That is par for the course. Women aren’t moral agents.
“This story is different because she had an affair for reasons not fully specified, and her husband doesn’t accept the blame for her affair, but in the end his own affair – which happened before hers – comes to light, thereby making it look like, once again, the husband is the source of all the problems in the marriage.”
A man having an affair isn’t a sin as long as the person he had sex with isn’t married. Any guy ever condemned in the bible for getting some on the side with an unmarried women? Continuing to accept a system were men having sex outside of marriage is the same as a women doing so is puritan foolishness.
@Denise
What she said was that her and her husband now have a great horizontal relationship. Marriage isn’t a horizontal relationship.
That being said: I think it is dangerous to read too much into spliced together footage of looks and body language and draw conclusions about what the couple is thinking and feeling. It’s better to look at each segment individually.
In the video that jf12 linked, the wife does seem interested in her husband, and he talks more. FOr other reasons it revolted me more than the one Dalrock embedded, but there you go.
It’s like Christian men are cuckolds by default, and it’s gotten to the point that other Christian cuckolds have banned together to form therapy / counseling groups in order to be better cuckolds.
I’m not familiar with these buzzwords, but I’m guessing that she doesn’t mean they aligned themselves with Christ at the top, her husband next, and her beneath him. I’m guessing it means Christ at the top with the two of them equal beneath Him, which as we all know means she’s in charge.
I don’t have much else to say about this one except that I love Dalrock’s headlines. These people would never quite say, “Have an affair to fix your marriage,” but that’s what they mean. And no, they’d never run an equivalent story where the man’s affair was just what the marriage needed.
“Yes, this is a time for you to become the husband your wife needs.” “What about her? Doesn’t she need to change?” I asked. “What she did was a cry for help. To let you know that she needs more from you.”
Hahaha. Switch roles — husband is the cheater. Now tell me the wife would be counseled about how your affair provided her a great opportunity to become the wife she should be.
Didn’t think so. Her counseling would have consisted of providing her with the contact info for the sharkiest divorce lawyers within a 25 mile radius.
Shocking example of unintended consequences: Mandatory domestic violence arrests raise death rate 400%, study finds
http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/03/03/shocking-example-of-unintended-consequences-mandatory-domestic-violence-arrests-raise-death-rate-400-study-finds/
They, being good journalists, were careful to not mention men.
The only reason this couple was selected to give testimony was because they could blame the man. That organization had obviously many couples where the woman was solely the cause. Can’t put them up front, can we?
Yes, if there are kids involved, do everything you can do to protect those kids from maternal custody. Even, gasp, tremble, try to ignore it.
We went though this last year, and it’s amazing how many men on this board seem to care very little for their kids. Let me say it again. MATERNAL CUSTODY IS NOT THE WORST THING THAT CAN HAPPEN TO A KID, BUT IT IS THE WORST THING THAT DOES HAPPEN TO MOST KIDS.
I wrote last year that early in my marriage my wife as acting funny, and I thought maybe she was having an affair. After some thought, I realized I was the only person who stood a chance of protecting my kids from maternal custody. And, in retrospect, neither of them would be alive today if they had been in maternal custody. And, both of them indirectly have admitted that fact.
I was stronger than any of them. Anything I could take on myself and spare my kids was right for me to do. I did not ask hard questions. Whatever it was, it went away.
Because of the most vicious attack I have ever experienced in 35 years of public activism, I for the first time did some serious thinking about the incident. The vicious attacker said my comments made him want to vomit. Why? Saving your kids from a horrid life or death is vomit material? Men like that give reason to women who say men can’t take care of kids, and don’t even care for them.
Most of you are technically cuckolds. The average first-time bride today has already had 11 lovers. When everyone is a cuckold, no one is a cuckold. It is time to put the Neanderthal stuff behind us until the Huns do what we failed to do. Our society is sick enough without us being unable to change and adapt to the modern reality.
Anyway, the conclusion of my first time ever serious contemplation was, SHE DID NOT HAVE A PHYSICAL AFFAIR.. Perhaps an emotional affair.
Why do I conclude that? Because it is virtually impossible for a woman to have one hot affair, then go another 35 years as a faithful wife. Leopards do not change their spots, and adulterous women do not stop committing adultery. In fact, all criminals escalate their crimes until they are caught.
And, the real way to deal with the horrors of wifely adultery is to accept reality and MARRY NO ONE EVER IN THE ANGLOSPHERE. That protects your non-existent kids from maternal custody and does so without you having to ignore your wife’s unfaithfulness.
I think Dalrock is a being a little hard on this particular video. The video errs in not emphasizing the need for repentance, but it doesn’t seem to me that it presents the adultery in a positive way, as if the adultery was the necessary step to start the healing process.
Dalrock seems to be saying that this sort of video leaves a woman with the impression that if she’s unhappy, then adultery might be just the ticket to shake things up and save the marriage. I.e., to force them both to turn to God.
It certainly could be taken that way, and perhaps they should have done more to prevent people from getting that impression, but I don’t think that is the intent. I think the video is trying to make the point that even a very bad situation can be healed.
I do not wish to argue with the viewpoints of men who may have much higher social skills than I do. But, I am not sure that couple’s conduct towards each other means what you think it means. Most of us if we were discussing our own adulterous sins in front of a camera for public display might well also wish we had a bag on our heads.
Of course, you may be right. I am just not sure.
What Rollo said.
She revealed her infidelity because she got caught. He revealed his infidelity because he felt awful about it.
@ Cane Caldo
After watching the second video from j12, I have to agree with you. Maybe I did over analyze the first video, but the narrative of that 2nd video is indeed more revolting.
Again, I happen to see a couple of BFFs who flirted with adulthood and reality and then went back to “BFF Jesus” so that they could be BFFs again … with benefits.
Ahahaha she got banged by a gym rat that smelled her middle-age desperation and sluttiness (Clearly she’s had a nose job, chin tuck, blepharoplasty, and dermabrasions). As a lifelong gym rat myself it’s amazing how many of these chicks are out there. On occasion, I’ll hit the gym in the afternoon instead of the evening. The place reeks of estrogen and the stench of a thousand dried up ovaries. If one was inclined to do so, they could sexually rifle through this gash like an SS Panzer division through Poland.
And that video is reason # 2,055 on why I can’t stand attending church these days. Woman good, men bad, blah blah blah. And if a man was truly in need of some tail, forget the bars, I’d hit up one of our several mega-churches in my city. A good portion of the ladies I see there dress like whores, appear to be just as superficial as most other women, and I’m confident they would put out easily with little to no effort required.
Dalrock, you once wrote a post about how shaming the men away from sex did not work because a few men would supply all the women with sex regardless of shaming while shaming the women away from sex would work and indirectly control the men. Could you link me to it? I can`t find it.
[D: I think this is the one you had in mind.]
@AA71
Looked up Susan Cox, the woman from the video. Since at least 2009 she has been the Women’s Director for this ReEngage program; which seems to have been started at a church called Watermark. This is her baby.
A word on churches: If they don’t state or strongly hint their lineage in their name (Baptist, Catholic, Lutheran, etc.), it’s probably the worst sort of church. Disassociation of their church family and history is a dead giveaway of the rule of rebellion. This rules out most of the mega-churches, and the strip-mall churches.
Hey Dalrock. I haven’t read the comments yet (that was deliberate on my part), but I have to ask:
Where do they say that he was to blame for her affair? I didn’t get that. She doesn’t seem terribly broken up (he doesn’t either really), but I’ve decided to chalk that up to their overwhelming relief that they salvaged what was left of their marriage before it was too late. It has been 6 years since all this happened, after all.
I’m going to read the thread now but I wanted to get this on record before I see if I was the only one who missed the “twist” where the husband was blamed or the wife excused her sin.
This strikes me as one of the better resolution stories, to be honest.
Pingback: The wake-up call. | Dalrock
@AA71
Apologies. She has been at Watermark since 2009, but Women’s Director of ReEngage since June of 2012.
ROFL! So the consensus is that she took up and had an affair with another woman? Huh. Now that’s what I’d call a twist.
And yes, I actually did note that they chose a couple where both people had been unfaithful and the way his affair was brought to light. Definitely makes it more palatable for the average woman. Wife gets to be both repentant and magnanimous at the same time. “What a godly woman!” That was not lost on me.
What was lost was where he was blamed for her infidelity. Even after reading the thread here, I don’t see that.
Pingback: Reflections on Phariseeism: Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit | Esprit
@Martel
“She revealed her infidelity because she got caught. He revealed his infidelity because he felt awful about it.”‘
That is true. Often the person who gets caught doesn’t feel bad about what they did as much as they feel bad that they have to stop, and they feel bad about the consequences to them, as in how their quality of life will be affected. They often don’t give much of a hoot about the damage they do to others, or kids caught up in the mix.
A lot of crocodile tears.
Almost like a chick trying to cry her way out of a traffic ticket. That was my impression anyway from my situation.
Dalrock didn’t say they claimed her affair was his fault; he just said the twist was that it wasn’t her fault. And if it’s not her fault, whose fault is it? It’s pretty common for people to act as though, once one spouse has an affair, the other spouse gets a freebie. It’s usually not put as bluntly as saying it’s the first one’s fault, but there’s definitely a sense of, “I wouldn’t be doing this if you hadn’t done it first,” which pretty clearly implies where the fault lies — he started it.
And if the “opportunity” here is for him to become a better husband, that also clearly implies that some lack or fault in him was what caused her affair, even if it isn’t stated that boldly.
And if a man was truly in need of some tail, forget the bars, I’d hit up one of our several mega-churches in my city. A good portion of the ladies I see there dress like whores, appear to be just as superficial as most other women, and I’m confident they would put out easily with little to no effort required.
From what I’ve heard from people who’ve attended Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church, this is indeed the case. Apparently there are chaps who go there with this purpose in mind. And the good Christian women comply.
@Elspeth, about halfway through the video I linked it is spelled out more clearly, although it is still implicit in the original: the counselors literally say Raeul was to blame for Susan’s affair because he did not pursue her well enough.
That organization had obviously many couples where the woman was solely the cause.
I would hazard a guess that the crowd had very few (if any) couples that would claim the woman was the sole cause of the problem. Even fewer if you were to ask only the women. I would go further and guess that there were far more couples that would claim the man was the sole cause of the problem, even if you were to ask only the men.
Men are far more likely to admit error (not likely, just more likely), and it’s been hammered into them early and often that they’re screw-ups married to saints.
Hawk,
If he cheated it would not have been an issue in church counseling.
She is there because she f-cked up and she need allies to make her feel empowered. Her lover does not make any money (or very little money) and/or is already married and/or wont marry her. So he is going “away” if she needs commitment for his resources. Guess I’ll have to make nice with my current husband if I need both a husband AND resources.
If he cheats, she does not need any allies, the court and judge and public opinion would all be her allies, she just gets cash and prizes. She doesn’t want him anymore, he wounded her. She doesn’t have a husband either way, and so just get his resources.
about halfway through the video I linked it is spelled out more clearly, although it is still implicit in the original: the counselors literally say Raeul was to blame for Susan’s affair because he did not pursue her well enough.
I watched it. Yes, I agree. It is worth noting that before his affair came out, the counselors seemed to be the ones who sailed in with the idea that she shouldn’t feel guilt and shame because they were counterproductive. It seemed as if she was actually in just the place she needed to be to move forward and THEY decided it was his fault that she strayed.
In that second video, all the *stuff* that Deti said was missing from the first seemed much more apparent. She looks at her husband with a true twinkle in her eye. I think that’s great but I also fear that what worked for them worked because they brought equal guilt to the table, if that makes sense.
In the cases where the wife alone strayed, they’ll say it wasn’t her fault. In the cases where the husband alone strayed, they’ll say it was all his fault. The result will be a smugly superior, self-righteous woman with nothing but a Herculean effort to veil contempt in her eyes.
I have to say it (I have seen the video): one of the less endearing qualities of Americans, indeed one of your more cringe-worthy characteristics, is your compulsion to wash your dirty-laundry in public – and then act as if that deserved a medal. Did we really need to know that Mrs Cox had been hanging out at the Gym for the purpose of being romanced by an unnamed friend of Harley Macbadboy or Fuckbuddy Rockdrummer, and then carelessly leaving the incriminating evidence for her two teenage daughters to find. This is only compounded by Mr Cox’ then entirely unnecessary – and in true Count Tolstoy fashion – evening up of things with his own (historical) indiscretions.
This is America however and with a visit to the hairdresser, the plastic surgeon, and a house of high couture, Mrs Cox (her friendship with Jesus renewed) is rebranded at ReEngage as an expert on Marriage – as if Casey Anthony (or the Doctors McCann) should appear at your local University lecturing on Child-care.
I predict that the love-affair with Jesus will ease-off at more or less the time she renews her Gym membership.
How fun it must have been for her daughters to have discovered her infidelity and how empowering for them to have needed to play a role in having their mother fess up to their dad.
Not much mention of them in either video.
She had ‘multiple orgasms’ oops I mean ‘multiple conversations’ with the man from the Jim, I mean Gym.
Dalrock:
‘One more thought SSM: If this story had ended without the revelation that he had had the first affair, or without something similar blaming him for the unhaaapyness that she lashed out against, would the organizers have still chosen them as the couple for the video advertising the seminar? Without him being the cause of the original problem, step 1 in the narrative I outlined above isn’t satisfied. It would be a very different story.’
Yes. Or, if they’d opened with the husband’s indiscretion, then led into the wife’s, it would carry a different message. I find the entire story as presented in the video rather odd.
Thanks Dalrock:)
They must love each other. She will run into hell just because he does.
If you desire to have the virtues of a saint, especially patience and fortitude, you are asking for someone who exhibits their fallenness and loving (agape) them anyway.
Socrates was a pagan, and married an uber-bitch, Xanthippe. (Xanth=red, I wonder if she was a red-head). Yet between condemnation and execution he asked for her, and had much to say about his love for her.
From his heavenly throne of forgiveness due to ignorance, he will mock those as they are falling into hell who could not tolerate their spouses.
(Side note – I find myself in a similar positon. I wish a holy mother, and even a hothead, pistol packing mama, or as I’ve said before, a wolf, she-bitch that would take care of and defend the den and cubs; yet I would be the alpha wolf and I can’t guarantee that I would’t bite, and I can guarantee that I am like Aslan from Narnia, not a tame animal; where is christiangamedating.com? As I’m getting on in years, I’m seeking a trophy wife with the above qualifications and adequate dowry, whom at the hint of divorce I would learn taxidermy).
On Aug 18, 1984, Raeul Cox, born in 1960, and Susan McDaniel, age 22, were married. They had two daughters, Kristen born 2 years into the marriage and Brittany 3 years later, who were both in college at the same time. That narrows the timeframe of the girls’ discovery of their mother’s affair to be in 2008. By 2009 Susan was already a director at ReEngage.
Anonymous age 71 says:
March 3, 2014 at 12:42 pm
“Anyway, the conclusion of my first time ever serious contemplation was, SHE DID NOT HAVE A PHYSICAL AFFAIR.. Perhaps an emotional affair.
Why do I conclude that? Because it is virtually impossible for a woman to have one hot affair, then go another 35 years as a faithful wife. Leopards do not change their spots, and adulterous women do not stop committing adultery.”
Three cases immediately come to mind where that could be possible (both presume an above-average amount of judgement on the wayward wife’s part).
1) His MMV/SMV goes up by enough not too long post-affair that she believes she’s doing well to have the husband she does;
2) alternatively; her SMV goes down by enough before so long that she gives in to the (otherwise recurring) urge to stray again, AND SHE KNOWS IT. Hitting the wall would do well, as would significant weight gain/pregnancy stretch marks/sun-blotched skin/etc. THAT IS BROUGHT TO HER ATTENTION BY SOMEONE ELSE (not hubby!) POINTING IT OUT.
3) Conceivably, she gets genuinely religously “saved” to the point that she repents of her solipsistic rebellious sinning (unlikely, yes, but hey, it’s probably happened somewhere before).
Listening to the video one gained the impression (in defence of their infidelity) that the marriage and children were somewhat rushed – yet jf12’s sleuthing shows that it is not really the case. As Snowy also observed she is still being cagey. Conversations are not adultery; screwing is.
I don’t mind much her adultery, so much as the rationalising that somehow it cannot recur. If that is the case it is only because she is well-past her sell-by date. Claiming Jesus as body-armour usually leads to spectacular hubris.
Pingback: The perfect wedding… | Moose Norseman
@jf12 & Opus
Yep. This is how we are introduced to the video and ReEngage by Susan Cox: ““Raeul and I met in college: We dated, and–we did everything fast–we got married, and–right out of college–we, um, tsk! had babies–””
I’ve matched the punctuation as close as I can to her starts, stalls, interruptions, and noises in the audio. She actually tsk-ed regretfully when she recalled that her children were born “right away”. According to jf12’s information, she had been married two years, and was 24.
As I said above: That opening remark is the key to understanding their whole situation. She regrets that the wedding ended in marriage and children; unexpected interruptions to her fun-filled plans of self-indulgence.
If I were Raeul, I’d never let that slide. I certainly wouldn’t let it go online. She’s vicious, and an embarrassment to Raeul, her daughters, Watermark, and Christians.
@Opus
Funny you should word it as such. Criminal conversation is an antiquated legal term in the US for adultery. But perhaps I have the legalese wrong.
@Cane, elsewhere Raeul said he was a year older than Susan, so she may have been 25 when Kristen was born even though she was not-quite 23 when married.
What amazed me was the rapidity by which an inmate (counselee) started running the asylum. It had to have been less than a year. I had to go to 2nd page google again.
He should never have confessed his own infidelity — it negated his potential to gain authority over her, and probably inverted the hierarchy entirely. Women scream and holler for the truth, but truth sends them into insanity. What they really want is leverage, and this from my experience. The pulpits and counselors will say you need to be accountable to your wife; confess all your lusts to her; get monitoring software on your computer where she gets the reports of what websites you visit, etc., etc. All women, from Eve on, at some level see marriage as a power struggle. But some knowledge is too wonderful for women and they need to be protected from it.
Re: Criminal conversation
http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/arz23&div=15&id=&page=
I agree with the lesbian affair theory too. But….(and, this is a big but) what if he’s just been so brainwashed into believing he was at fault for the affair and takes blame and ownership for it? If it was a straight affair that is.
@Cane Caldo
I am much reminded of Jenny Erickson: she is another who regrets marrying so young and also had two daughters (yet there is nothing specially young about marrying at twenty – when I was younger, half of all women were married before the age of one and twenty).
Justifying your adultery on the basis of not having fooled around through ones twenties (which is what both Cox and Erickson are, in terms, saying) seems to me to be deceitful – as if – had they waited until their late thirties none of this would have happened or as if pre-marital sex now has Biblical approval.
@Dalrock
The ‘Eye’ [Private Eye Magazine] always refers to adultery as ‘Ugandan Discussions’ or ‘Negotiations’ (when seeking to avoid a writ for libel) much as they refer to those who have had too much to drink as being ‘Tired and Emotional’. I am previously unfamiliar with the American legal Euphemism.
Re-reading Cane Caldo again, I do not think it is a case that, at the time, she regretted marrying and having babies – far from it as you can see from the photos, and anymore than Jenny Erickson did. This is her present rationalisation of her own youthful self which in pursuing what she wanted (marriage and children) prevented her from doing what she now sees young women doing and largely getting away with – namely, Carousel-riding through their twenties and thirties. It is thus a regret for lost youth and the sexual power that goes with it. That, I suspect would be the unspoken subtext to her Watermark ReEngage sessions where she advises on marriage (I am betting, cautioning against marrying young, before the woman has had the chance to discover who she is and what she wants – the stuff we are all too familiar with here). Under the guise of advising on marriage she will (I say) be advising against and in favour of cock-hopping – but of course not spelt out quite so directly.
Raeul is far too decent. It is also perhaps worth observing (as no one else has done so yet) that she is not (despite the peroxide-coiffure) nor was she when younger, exactly a looker; perhaps a weak 5 on a good day, at best. Fun to be with perhaps, but not (I’d guess) the sort of girl who recieved that much attention from boys, and thus did well to snag Raeul.
She was obviously pumped and dumped buy the Gym rat – hence the guilt.
Do youngsters in America still get pinned – as a sign of exclusivity – or has that gone the way of the Boyfriend and Fiancee in favour of the Hook-Up? Very popular in all the old American movies I watch. Whatever, it is I think an example of the female imperative where as Briffault said, the woman determines all the condition of the family.
Do youngsters in America still get pinned – as a sign of exclusivity
The names Frankie Avalon and Annette Funicello sprang to mind as I read this and Beach Party was released almost a decade before I was even born, LOL.
@Opus
Bingo.
Socrates was a pagan, and married an uber-bitch, Xanthippe. (Xanth=red, I wonder if she was a red-head).
A little nit-picky, and color words of those times weren’t quite as sharply defined as ours are, but xanthus is more yellow than red. Wouldn’t surprise me if Xanthippe came from a family of blondes.
Re: blamed him for her infidelity
Forget for a moment that the other video reveals that this was, actually, the case. I want to know why this was so much the focus of objection. It seemed to me that Dalrock’s post, while not much more than a link, in both title and asterisks centered around the way the wife’s affair was regarded, and didn’t even mention blame. The wife’s affair is seen as the catalyst for an ultimately better marriage. Thus, the wife’s affair is a good thing. That’s the poison Dalrock was pointing out, by my interpretation. Why are we talking about blame?
I recognize that the blame placed on the man removes the moral agency for the woman and thus is a necessary step in making her affair the morally good, or at least morally neutral, event that results in a better marriage. But I also noticed it was always female commenters homing in on the blame aspect. Is that because from the female viewpoint, all that matters is who’s to blame? Or, to put it another way, is it that the woman’s application of blame strongly indicates whether or not she has truly repented, which would indicate whether or not this couple’s story showed regained health or continued sickness, and therefore the women were keying in on the blame aspect to gauge the current state of the marriage in order to gauge whether the poison was being spread by this video?
@the bandit
My observation is that women’s sinful nature is continually chomping at the bit to blame whichever man is near them for anything that is bothering those women.
Dalrock has said many times that women crave leadership and men’s approval, but I don’t fully agree. Women need leadership and are satisfied by it like a body needs and is satisfied by wholesome food. After you eat it, you just feel better overall.
BUT: Condescension towards men is women’s giant doughnut. That’s what they crave. Whether it’s the bear-claw of ridiculing unsuccessful men, or the eclair of fawning over bad boys: Women can’t wait to stuff their faces with contempt.
Re: blame mentioned in post. “There is of course a twist; it wasn’t her fault after all.”
It’s not a logical necessity for something to be good or neutral in order for good to result eventually. The Fortunate Fall etc.
But I agree the issue is that *since* “good” resulted (a better marriage, supposedly), then the fallacious reasoning goes like this: “Something drastic like her affair was needed in order to shock him out of his complacency.”
@Cane re: women’s condescension. I agree.
Our giant doughnut this morn is King Cake. We got three delivered early to the break room. I got the baby from the first one.
The Book of Oprah…….what tha god damn mother fucking fuck????? this is some more fucked up ass bullshit! he cheated in 2000, she cheated in 2008. We all know how this one goes……….him cheat he bad…….her cheat it’s not her fault.
Only a certified RETARD would “put a ring” on it today what with the typical shit quality of the typical Ameriskank!!!!!
‘ridiculing unsuccessful men… fawning over bad boys’. Condescension is being patronising to inferiors and women perceive most men (but not I think the bad boys) as inferior and there to serve the purpose of the female imperative. Unsuccessful men are not even on their radar.
What, did she trip and fall on the other guy’s dick?
Did anyone notice near the end how she said that Re-Engage “allowed” God to move in their lives. I don’t think that God needs permission from the church. But it’s part of the inversion. The Bride of Christ decides where to go, and it’s Christs job to make it happen…ya know. That’s why it’s critical that the church understand marriage, because otherwise they try to do to Jesus what they are doing to husbands.
Pingback: Not listening. | Dalrock