At first glance it may seem strange that feminists like Claire Cain Miller and Justin Wolfers would go to such lengths to convince the public that high divorce rates are a thing of the past. One might expect that feminists in their hostility to marriage would be more likely to celebrate high divorce rates. Isn’t each new divorce a woman saved from the terrible fate of being trapped in marriage? Why do feminists simultaneously celebrate divorce as a tool of empowerment for women while claiming that no fault divorce doesn’t really lead to many divorces? Don’t they want as many women as possible to experience the profound spiritual growth and personal empowerment that Elizabeth experienced in Eat Pray Love? Why are feminists arguing that no fault divorce is safe, miraculous, empowering, and rare?
We can find the answer to this paradox by looking at a paper Justin Wolfers authored with his wife Betsey Stevenson, Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law: Divorce Laws and Family Distress
Unilateral divorce changed the bargaining power in marriages and therefore impacted many marriages…
The mechanism examined in this paper is a change in divorce regime and we interpret the evidence collected here as an empirical endorsement of the idea that family law provides a potent tool for affecting outcomes within families.
Wolfers and Stevenson were delighted to find that no fault divorce and the accompanying biased family courts encouraged wives to destabilize their families with threats of divorce. Divorce itself isn’t the intended outcome, but having all husbands live in a state of at least a low level and constant fear of divorce is the goal. Keep in mind that it isn’t just husbands who now live in fear that their families will at any moment for any or no reason be torn apart. While they aren’t the intended target, children also now must live in this fear.
This is the system Wolfers and Miller are defending when they claim the public is unaware that high divorce rates are a thing of the past. Ironically they are complaining about people experiencing the very fear the system is designed to instill. More accurately they are trying to fine tune the amount of fear the population feels about divorce. They want husbands to greatly fear divorce so they will follow their wives’ every whim. But they don’t want prospective husbands to fear divorce so much that they don’t marry in the first place, and they don’t want policy makers to become afraid enough of divorce to reduce the legal encouragement for women to divorce. Once we understand the goal of no fault divorce the schizophrenic message around divorce suddenly makes sense.
It is critical to note that it isn’t just overt feminists like Wolfers, Stevenson, and Miller who are selling this message. Modern Christians have adopted the same posture with incredible enthusiasm. This is why the Director of Family Formation Studies for Focus On the Family has spent so much effort sharing the triumphant news that only 38% of the most devout Christian marriages end in divorce. It is also why Christians around the world were so excited to hear Shaunti Feldhahn make the same case as the NY Times about the sustainability of no fault divorce.
If only modern Christians were as faithful to biblical marriage as they are to their marriage with feminism. If anything, modern Christians have gotten out ahead of feminists on this issue. Modern Christians embrace the power of wives threatening to divorce, depicting it as a miraculous tool to transform marriages in accordance with God’s will. But to modern Christians threats of divorce are only one of many ways a wife can transform her marriage and assume headship. In addition to threatening divorce, modern Christians encourage wives to use emotional outbursts, acts of insanity and destruction, denial of sex, and leaving the home (preferably with the children) as tools to gain and maintain primacy in the home. This new feminist Christian doctrine is what I have dubbed the wake-up call narrative, and it is coming from the conservative wing of modern Christianity. That all of these things are sinful doesn’t stop modern Christians from embracing them, because what they are trying to create is a sort of theological gender bending.
The primary difference between feminists like Wolfers and modern Christians is that feminists are less deceitful about their actual goals. But whether you get your feminist embrace of the wondrous power of divorce from the New York Times or the conservative church down the road, the ultimate source of the wicked message is the same, and the damage to children and families is immense.
Pingback: Celebrating divorce by denying it’s existence. | Manosphere.com
So its sort of a “Goldilocks” thing with divorce rates then?
They want divorce rates high enough to frighten men into obeying their wives, but not so high as to frighten men into not marrying at all?
How lovely.
If only modern Christians were as faithful to biblical marriage
The term “biblical marriage” is silly, because each person interprets the bible differently. It’s just a faux term attempting to bolster one’s particular views.
In fact, the most common interpretation of “biblical marriage”, the most historical interpretation of “biblical marriage”, and the most intelligent and educated interpretation of “biblical marriage” is simply no remarriage after divorce, period. But most modern people don’t like this. Hence, the canard of “biblical marriage”.
Most of your modern churches went hook, line, and sinker with this ideology when they accepted using contraceptives.
“This is why the Director of Family Formation Studies for Focus On the Family has spent so much effort sharing the triumphant news that only 38% of the most devout Christian marriages end in divorce.”
“Only.” My word.
The Feminist mynah birds talk out of both sides so that marriage doesn’t sound as bad as it truly has become, and then to fool men into going through with it so that it’ll be too late when they realize firsthand just how bad it truly has become.
and
There is no such thing as biblical marriage. Lets talk about birth control instead!
To those who would doubt how deeply held the embrace of the wake-up call narrative is to modern (conservative) Christians, note how the immediate reaction to any challenge of it is always to change the subject. This is reflexive, and nearly universal.
“One might expect that feminists in their hostility to marriage would be more likely celebrate high divorce rates. ”
Yes, if feminists possessed honesty and integrity.
Wait, devout Christians get divorced at 38% whereas non devout Christians get divorced at a rate of what 55%? So they are preaching that Christianity is 30% effective? Doesn’t that seem like a pretty big miss if you are offering up salvation?
I suppose the fact that they are trying to hide it is a good sign. Most people that have already won don’t bother trying to convince you of anything.
There is nothing wrong with the term “biblical marriage.” You’re welcome to your opinion, but batting things around as you do does not denigrate the term. That people are inconsistent is to be expected.
Also, you have a problem with the passage in Matthew as well as your take on the word porneia. Here is the entire passage,
3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? 4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. 7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? 8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. Matthew 19:3-9
IN both KJV and NKJV the Greek word porneia is translated fornication. In Elizabethan times the word fornication had a different meaning, it was a state of sin, and not an act. The lexicons I’ve seen have harlotry as another translation. In other words, it is unrepentant sexual immorality. Such a life style sunders the covenant, and, using the situation described by the pharisees, the husband becomes an enabler of the sin of the woman. It is significant that Christ places the word porneia in the passage in the way He does. Being part of the same sentence where Christ deals specifically with the act of divorce itself, says that porneia is the legitimate reason for divorce. Adultery, for example, can be a single act. Porneia, however, is long term and ongoing. The question placed before Christ included remarriage, and Christ did not forbid remarriage in the Matthew passage, and He would have if, given the understanding of what Divorce meant, it were actually forbidden.
Marriage between two Christians, with no porneia involved, does allow divorce. That is a situation in 1 Corinthians 7 that Paul is dealing with. The other situation in the same passage is abandonment of a believing spouse by an unbelieving spouse. The believer is not bound in such an instance.
There were problems in the early church with remarriage in its entirety. One man was suspended when he remarried after his wife died. He was not readmitted until he divorced her. The early church was not without its extremes, and they could be wrong, and do wrong, as they with the case of the widower.
The exegesis found at “Shameless Popery” is not a complete exegesis of the passages in question. Porneia is not just marriages forbidden under Levitical law, although it includes them. Porneia is, however, a very narrow and exclusive basis for divorce, and Christ narrowed things dramatically in comparison to both schools of divorce in Christ’s time.
As a short aside, I do not accept the sacramental view of marriage. It is far more important than that. The sacramental view is a relatively recent view of matrimony. It actually goes back much further, all the way back to the creation of Eve from Adam. It is a covenant involving three parties, one man, one woman, and God. That is the reason for the form of Christ’s answer to the Pharisees.
OT: a video found in the comment section to the recent “Sexodus” article:
@ Quartermaster
Someone posted this on Donal’s blog a couple days ago about porneia — fornication vs adultery view… it’s 110 pages long and covers pretty much every possible angle including tradition and multiple lines of Scripture.
http://www.danielrjennings.org/except_for_fornication_version_1.pdf
Brief summary: divorce is only allowed if the spouse was engaged in fornication prior to marriage. Once you are married, the marriage is indissoluable. This unites the passage in Matthew with Mark and Luke’s version (which have no qualifying divorce statement), as well as explicates Deut 22:13-21 in that covenants are formed with blood (specifically in this case, the blood from tearing of the hymen).
The general misunderstanding stems not from feminists but from you or I. Feminists hate Traditional Marriage, with responsibilities for both men and women but with a man in the headship role, but love the new modern marriage that allows women to rule or to leave with cash and prizes. They will now defend this form of marriage with the rigor we could have only hoped for from “Conservatives” 60 years ago..
Make no mistake about it, feminists realise the power marriage gives women.
Okay so, you’re not allowed to sleep around before marriage but within marriage you can do so to your heart’s content and your spouse cannot divorce you? Yeah, no.
No sleeping around before and if your spouse cheats you have permission from Jesus himself to divorce. Sleeping around in marriage causes one’s heart to harden, keep trying to peddle that it doesn’t and thus divorce is only granted in such a case.
You defined this perfectly. The celebrate divorce (and the threat point gained by threatening unilateral divorce to keep husbands in line) while at the same time, work very diligently to set and reset the narrative that the divorce is rarely used to try an encourage men to marry.
feministhater catches this perfectly. Marriage is a device for the control of men. Its existence and acceptance is exceedingly important for the purposes of feminism (all flavors). If marriage fails, feminism fails. Hence, they will defend their exploitation to the death. It is important, therefore, to recognize that the whole battle against feminism (all flavors) is wrapped up in the acceptance rate of marriage. As long as marriage is accepted as valid, feminism rules and men will continue to be exploited.
Dalrock said:
“If only modern Christians were as faithful to biblical marriage as they are to their marriage with feminism. If anything, modern Christians have gotten out ahead of feminists on this issue. Modern Christians embrace the power of wives threatening to divorce, depicting it as a miraculous tool to transform marriages in accordance with God’s will.”
JF said:
If only that had been absolute worst thing about that abomination of a “Christian” movie called FIREPROOF: It’s message of “empowerment” to “Christian” women to first anti-scripturally shut your legs to punish your husband, and then to threaten divorce.
Stunningly, though, the “acting” of the “actress” who played the female lead was even worse than that. It was so bad, those “Christian” “moviemakers” would have been better off getting a two-dimensional cardboard cutout of like Richard Nixon or something, and had some guy hiding behind and underneath it, Muppet-style, mouthing the dialogue in falsetto. I have never seen such a wooden “acting” performance in all of my life, including high school plays.
Then of course there was the scriptwriting that was abominably, ludicrously stilted. There was one guy, the fat blonde guy, that one sidekick fireman wanna-be funnyman supporting character–he kept trying to be funny according to the stilted, scripted churchianity-written schlock he had to stick to. It failed miserably and he too was another wooden character. But then, if you take the actual trouble to check out the extra features on the DVD (don’t ask me why I would torture myself so), then you see a behind-the-scenes, impromptu moment with this same blonde fat guy where he was standing in front of the mirror just extemporizing, and he WAS GENUINELY FUNNY when he was given the freedom to ad-lib and not confine himself to that straitjacket of horrible, mechanical dialogue. A good director/movie maker would have recognized this ad-lib talent and harnessed it; a talentless churchianity evangelical stultified marshmallow man would have it go right over his wooden head, and kept plodding on according to the lousy script.
Just a nightmare of a stinker of a rotten tomato of a propandized churchianity hellish pit of a bad motion picture.
Oh, have I ever told you guys I hate that movie? It’s true. I hated it. I honestly hated it. Go figure.
Excellent post.
No fault divorce is a brilliant device as it simultaneously caters to several economic strata without causing intra female competition. They’re not defending monogamous marriage, they’re defending serial polygyny marriage.
Elite women get the choice of strict monogamy.
Upper middle class get the threat point to force male economic output and serial polygyny.
Working class get serial polygyny to improve social mobility.
Lower class/ economically subsidised class get serial polygyny that facilitates serial alpha sex.
A recent and interesting paper by economist David de la Croix shows that we are transitioning to a serial polygyny marriage structure. His premise is based on ‘female choice theory’ (as espoused by Kanazawa) and economic distribution patterns, economic ecology and optimally efficient resource extraction mechanisms.
His theory maintains that economic ecology (wealth ownership,technology, specialisation and division of labor etc.) determines the distribution of wealth among males (and females) and that women choose marriage structures that provides optimally efficient resource extraction (whether material or social). Effectively females drive the marriage structure based on economic factors and he shows how we transitioned from polygyny to monogamy and now to serial polygyny (serial monogamy).
It’s a bottom up rather than top down theory.
David de la Croix
From Polygyny to Serial Monogamy
http://perso.uclouvain.be/david.delacroix/pdf/delacroix-mariani.pdf
Kanazawa
Why Monogamy
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Satoshi_Kanazawa/publication/41793239_Why_monogamy/links/00b7d51830633d0ad9000000
Interestingly Monique Mulder shows that economically independent women (where there is low male economic output) benefit from serial polygyny and tend to optimise serial alpha sex when there is no net material resource gain. Although the paper is of a very narrow scope (there’s not much out there on this topic) and based on an unusual and small sample, it is interesting nonetheles.
Monique Mulder
Serial Monogamy as Polygyny or Polyandry.
http://anthropology.ucdavis.edu/people/fzborger/profile_and_papers/BM_Hum%20Nat_2009.pdf
It seems that economic ecology is the most important factor here and wealth distribution is the driver of marriage structures. Conservatives may inadvertently be driving serial polygyny while the trend of men dropping out may be driving serial alpha sex. It’s a difficult topic and there seems to be no easy out.
No wonder Christ admonished the money changers over the whores, Isaiah the haughty daughters of Zion and Amos the cows of Bashan, economics is important in the bible. Goes to show we truly are our ‘brother’s keeper’ and assigned not ‘to cause one to stumble’, if the littlest falls we all fall.
So single dads are bad huh? All kids need both parents a father and a female threat point right. Makes for a happy enriched Christian child hood. MGTOW/family man use a surrogate and raise your child in peace.
It’s not overt, but you will notice that the plot winks at infidelity between wifey and the hunky physician she works with. This is expected to be shrugged off by Kirk Cameron’s character, who accepts the role of cuckold as though it were some sort of Christian duty (having read the text, I don’t see that commandment in there, but I’m not a believer, so I try not to judge). If we are to believe the film, then having intimate moments with your co-worker is less problematic than an occasional gander at internet pr0n.
Not to worry. Kirk Cameron’s character “does the right thing” by bankrupting himself, denying himself even the most minimal indulgences, funding all manner of things for his wife’s extended family members (who are apparently not expected to be self-sufficient… maybe this is where wifey’s entitlement comes from) and meekly pledging to keep loving his wife in spite of being bent over the desk at work.
In its twisted sexual psychopathology, this collection of characters have congealed to create a “so bad it’s actually entertaining” piece of cuckold fetish cinema. I’m not personally into that sort of thing, but I can understand why loose women and the men who put up with them would find it redeeming.
Boxer
It’d be great if someone could ask all these people, “What do you think would be a healthy rate of divorce?” I doubt you’d get a straight answer out of any of them, but I get the feeling most of them think it should be around 25-35%. They really believe that 1 of every 3-4 marriage is “bad” or “abusive” in some way, so those wives should be allowed — no, encouraged — to get out. So a divorce rate of “only” 10%, for instance, would mean to them that millions of wives are staying in unhappy or harmful marriages, which can’t be tolerated.
I, for one, am well aware of the wake-up call action in the threat-point marriage. My wife has separated from me four times in 23 years and in each of the first three I did everything and anything I was told by counselors and preachers and elders to win her back and it was the most humiliating thing imaginable, finding myself confessing to attitudes and actions I never held or committed just to keep my family intact (we have four sons) and to prove my worth to the wife I love. All of her marriage abandonment acts have been over vague and shifting non-disprovable claims. It nearly drove me off the edge on several occasions where I struggled with depression, anxiety attacks, and other emotional and spiritual health problems. Those abandonments lasted only a couple months at most before she was willing to step back into relationship armed with more power and me being more submissive. I thought I was being Godly because this was the church and Christian counseling world that was feeding me my information and advice. I am so angry now that every single person where I sought help would hold to this frame of me needing to be better and more supplicating to earn her love. She also took total control of the sexual relationship and rationed it very sparingly and merit-based. She separated from me the fourth and last time about 18 months ago and I refused to yield to her demands and confess to her accusations. She had agreed in our previous round of counseling that leaving the marriage and separating was not healthy and that she would never do it again. I put my foot down and declared I would not yield one inch. If there were problems she saw in the relationship and things she wanted to improve on then we would do it together from a point of oneness and unity and that she must honor our marriage. She refused. She shut down all sexual relations, affection, communication, moved to the guest room, quit doing my laundry and quit cleaning the master bed and bath where I reside. I started doing my own research and found Dalrock along with some other great resources and it has completely opened my eyes. I always knew and felt the truth inside, but I did not have any validation. The church has gotten very involved in this ongoing separation she has forced on me. We are part of a large church body that has many branches throughout the region where we live. I was very involved in the church and know several pastors and elders quite well, counted them as close friends. My own head pastor declared right in the beginning that he and I would have figure out how to “win her heart back” and I have been in utter shock over his attitudes and advice since then. I am also closely and very actively involved in my kids’ school (classical Christian school) and have so many families there that are close friends with ours, also accountability brothers, prayer partners. I coach three sports at the school and have been well-respected and trusted by many to lead and train-up their kids in Christ through sports and fellowship. Every last one has turned on me as my wife casts a bigger and bigger net over how unworthy I am as a man and a husband. I learned long ago that it is easy to make somebody look bad and yourself look good. You just unabashedly share every bad thing you can about the person, exaggerated of course, while withholding anything about yourself. It is a twisted thing and it is a flagrant betrayal as well. I have steadfastly refused to speak poorly of my wife, but have declared her actions and behaviors as sinful to her and to our pastors, which is my duty and right to do as a Christian man toward another professing believer and a husband to a wife. You can visibly watch them all squirm and backpedal and spin everything to the new churchian beliefs. She has shrinks who have diagnosed me now as a misogynist (of course) and also a narcissist. Keep in mind I have never even met these supposed psychologists. Her last “Christian” shrink drew up a separation agreement that he devised hiself and sent her with it for me to sign (!) which is straight against scripture. He declared we were to have no sexual relations, straight against scripture, that we would all meet in six months and he would assess if we were ready to have sexual relations, straight against scripture. He declared that I would move out of the house, straight against scripture. Oh, his plan also had us spending a combined 39 counseling sessions with him over the course of the separation. I called him up and declared him a false teacher and further told him that he was an extreme enemy of my family and if I ever came across him I would kick his ass. I like to think that within the realm of possibilities when considering “what would Jesus do” that fashioning your own whip and going after some fools is one of the options. It did not make headway in my struggle, but he discontinued seeing her. Another “Christian” counselor glowingly declared my wife to be a “feminist mystic” with a great purpose and my wife boasted in this to all her friends for awhile and doubled down on her efforts to bring me into submission and surrender to her will and deepened her rebellion. One of her friends, who was more my friend than hers when this started, was helping my wife arrange meetings with divorced “Christian” women to discuss how they did it and how they justified it and get some lawyer recommendations as well. I declared this “friend a Jezebel and banned her from ever setting foot in my home as another enemy of my family. The stories go on and on and one by one all of our friends have moved to her side and don’t understand what my problem. Pastors will not address her sin or her rebellion, but just have endless suggestions for methods and counseling and programs which are all just postmodern feminist puke. A counselor called me at the suggestion of my pastor and he wanted to get me and my wife in for a visit and I interviewed him. He actually used the old line “You may be right, but do you want to be right or have sex with your wife” to which i replied that I want to be RIGHTEOUS. He also owned that my wife was in sin but telling her so would not make things change or make her stop, to which I replied that he must tell her anyway as he is called and let God worry about the rest. I know for sure that I will NEVER darken the doorway of a therapist or counselor office again. All this is to say that I am wide awake to the truth of the situation, but what good is it really? Dalrock and others write wonderfully on the issues, but nobody seems to have any solutions. Are we just comforting one another and saying and affirming our beliefs, or is there something to be done. If so, I just can’t see it. I have been preaching it and living my faith and declaring the truth for a year and a half now and it has only left me utterly alone and alienated. One of my favorite preachers once gave a sermon about the pendulum swing in this depraved age and said that with culture, as far as the pendulum swings one way, it swings just as far back the other. So, are we just waiting?
There are going to be many many “Christians” who will be horrified and surprised when Christ comes to claim his own. (Disclaimer: I am not claiming to be one of the “claimed”. Actually, I will be astonished if I am.)
I will say this if it can be a help to husbands who have not been nuked: Pay close attention to what your wife reads and listens to. It may have a Christian theme and be marketed as such, but it is very likely the opposite. Dalrock has named names and I will repeat and add a couple. These are your enemies and will brainwash your wives: Steve Arterburn, Henry Cloud, Dennis Rainey, Gary Smalley. I will list more as I think of more. A good clue is to listen to their voices and if they sound like a total soothing whimp trying to gain women’s trust for their own popularity and profit, then bingo. Also, beware of her own words and language. If she says she has “trust issues” tho you are an honest man, if she doesn’t “feel safe with you” tho you are noble and true, if she calls you “controlling” tho she has more liberty and freedom than anybody thanks to your provision and patience, if she speaks of “maintaining her boundaries” tho this be unbiblical, or if she uses any pop-psych terms like “codependence” or “enabling”, or if she ever ever ever refers to your healthy and Godly desire for her as “sex addiction”, then you better start taking some drastic steps right now.
Very, very good article Dalrock – divorce and Christian complicity in the feminist model of “marriage” is your best subject.
May I point out one little interesting factoid? Justin Wolfers and Betsy Stevenson are not actually married. (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betsey_Stevenson#Personal_life) Mr. Wolfers is a do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do male feminist, apparently, since he doesn’t want other men to worry about the divorce rate, but strangely he himself isn’t in any hurry to “make it legal” with the mother of his children. Probably just concerned about taxes or some such…yeah, right.
Just because there are fewer official divorces does not mean that everything is peachy. One day after this “news” was released, I found out that two middle aged couples in our social circle were kaput – both initiated by the wives of course. Couple 1 are only officially separated, and not likely to divorce since their prospects for remarriage at 53 (her) and 68 (him) are pretty grim. She has moved out of the marital home and into her spanky new apartment complex by the lake. Their youngest moved out of home over a year ago. Couple 2 are catholic and only emotionally, not officially separated. They still share the same home, but have not had marital relations (at her behest of course) for some time. They stopped sharing a bed some time ago, but it is only now that he has had to move his clothing and personal effects out of their “shared” bedroom and into the room their youngest son recently vacated. She doesn’t want a divorce because they are catholic so they remain in this sham marriage.
patchasaurus:
I am sorry for your plight. Were I in your shoes I would stand firm in my faith and pray continuously and seek guidance from the Lord. I would not participate in the rebellion of my wife nor the sin of those enabling her. My main concern would be how to help my kids understand what is happening and try to live an example for them to follow through the midst of it all.
patchasaurus:
Another thing I would do is start looking for bible believing Christians to fellowship with, ie: those who take the whole council of God and do not ignore the parts of scripture that isn’t popular with contemporary society (feminism).
Dear Peeps:
If there’s a reason I read here so often, it’s little gems like this.
Literally *laugh out loud* funny.
You go girl, divorce that hardworking husband! There are old, broke, openly gay foreign dudes who need green cards. True romance with such a prize catch of a man is right around the corner.
Oh LOLOLOL! From the link…
They are unmarried partners for tax reasons,[2] and have frequently publicly discussed being a Shared Earning/Shared Parenting relationship.
Gee, that sounds like a hella good time. I’m gonna get me some of that “Shared Earning/Shared Parenting” action. What more could a healthy man want?
Regards, Boxer
I guess this causes just a shrug in me and little else. You can rightly fault no-fault divorce but that is not the only thing that distinguishes modern secular marriage from biblical marriage. In fact, it isn’t even the most important thing. Biblical marriage is not egalitarian. The husband is the head of the household and the wife is subject to him. Virtually all Christian Churches and all mainstream denominations are engaged in the denial of THIS, no matter how good a game they talk about the rest (abortion, same-sex marriage, divorce, etc.). Yes, it is of the essence of a Christian marriage that the wife consent to obey her husband (almost no woman today does, which is why most “Christian” marriages are shams). And without this, “marriage” is simply legally sanctioned cohabitation. I don’t see why I, or anyone else, should care about how long relationships of legally sanctioned cohabitation should last.
Just My 2Cents – marriage is like the ocean, continuously rising and falling. One of the aspects of Catholic marriage is this, stay together during the lows, and eventually Grace will lift you up again. People seem to forget that marriage is not about happiness per say, but about living in Grace, which is far more fulfilling then mere happiness.
As an aside it is interesting that genuine polygyny has been shown to increase delayed marriage formation for males (but not females) and it seems to be the case with serial polygyny.
Unlike genuine polygyny where females are permanently wedded to high ranking males, serial polygyny provides that high ranking males temporarily sexually monopolise females and as a result increases female marriage age.
The difficulty seems to be that since there is no official record of sexual monopolisation (recorded legal documents) the inter marriage period is simply conflated with being single rather than being viewed as serial polygyny. As the sexual status of females wane they seek more permanent (though still temporary) and legal relations with lower status males to ensure resource extraction.
Delayed marriage formation for both sexes seems to suggest we are entering a stage of serial polygyny with the differences of the variants being the social strata of the females involved and unfortunately reinforces Rollo’s famed alpha fucks beta bucks.
BrainyOne says:
December 6, 2014 at 11:56 pm
Oddly I don’t remember often agreeing with you, but I do here. I especially concur with the following:
Biblical marriage is not egalitarian. The husband is the head of the household and the wife is subject to him. Virtually all Christian Churches and all mainstream denominations are engaged in the denial of THIS,
There are pockets here and there where you will find groups of Christians who take serious the whole word of God, but for the most part churches bearing the name of Christ are seriously denying essential teachings for the sake of relevance in the world. Terrible seeds are being sown.
Even worse, mainline denominations have gone apostate. Some are to the point where they can no longer be considered Christian in any biblical sense of the term. These denominations typically deny the reality of sin, the need for repentance, the need for a savior, and the resurrection of Christ. They have in effect become “left wing” social clubs with traditional window dressing. In each denomination it started with questioning the authority and trustworthiness of the Bible.
I’m surprised this is little discussed in the manosphere: The lopsidedly disproportionate number of feminist leaders who are lesbians.
Feminism is destroying male/female relations? Well, why should lesbians care? If fewer women can marry men (because the women wait too long), or want to marry men (because men can’t find lucrative jobs), or are divorcing men in greater numbers — so what?
I don’t think there’s a secret conspiracy. But lesbians did shape much of feminist theory and policy, and thus feminism largely coincides with lesbian interests.
Marital betrayal
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=926473
To only date a catholic?
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=926629
Ave Maria singles (“As with any dating site, most men are “window shopping””)
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=926448
patchasaurus
The only thing you need to worry about is getting your boys in your legal custody and be rid of your wife she has out lasted her usefulness. Do not waste energy on the church just put faith in God and know you are alone with God on this one. Get those boys under your roof in your house. No matter what happens get those boys. The wife can be dying in the street, take care of those boys. No matter how much of an asshole the church and everybody says you are ,get your sons.
BTW that church by the way is the number one reason for the growth of atheism. Screw them you owe them nothing any fellow ship you had there was a lie. By law there is no wife and by church there is no wife. You never had a wife and there is no wife to be had by law and culture. Get your sons and make sure they understand the truth. Just the way it is
To add to GXcX
Never step out of your bed she steps. Never leave the house period. If you don’t have kids with her get rid of her for thinking of trying that shit.
“They want husbands to greatly fear divorce so they will follow their wives’ every whim. But they don’t want prospective husbands to fear divorce so much that they don’t marry in the first place”
Like roller spurs, instead of prickers?
Yippee-ai-ay! Buffalo gals, won’t you come out tonight?
Well done for refusing to be bullied by these weirdo “Christian” counselors and trick-cyclists sniffing round your wife, Patchasauraus. I can’t understand why the even exist (I’m foreign).
Who voted them into your family? Do they take fees? How do they differ from some random bum on the street supping from a bottle of wood-spirit in a paper bag? (My preferred source of wisdom). Any recognisable qualifications (not postal “doctorates”)?
Absolute no-brainer
Although I imagine the American Way is to go after them with lawyerweilers.
GXcX: shove a comma in after “bed”, you’ll be crystal. I read GG’s posts in a ree-eall slowww drawl. WIth mah bootheels on the hitchin’ rail, an’ mah ten gallon hat pushed reet back.
“They want husbands to greatly fear divorce so they will follow their wives’ every whim. But they don’t want prospective husbands to fear divorce so much that they don’t marry in the first place”
D – Just with this statement alone you have knocked it out of the park again. You really are decoding the insanity these people live under.
‘There are going to be many many “Christians” who will be horrified and surprised when Christ comes to claim his own.’
Indeed.
“Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ “And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’
Matthew 7:22-23
D – but as you have also noted, the younger generation of men are now becoming aware of this, unlike those of us who the system changed against us ‘in flight’. I really do wonder if the end goal of this onslaught is full collapse of family and all churches. It is really becoming apparent that is what it is.
Off topic. America, ever the land of opportunities. This guy literally makes a living repackaging post-wall women for betas to date and marry.
‘There is no such thing as biblical marriage. Lets talk about birth control instead! ‘
You talk divorce stats…well why not bring in the major culprit into the room.
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/wils/wils_01naturalfamilyplanning2.html
I don’t want to shift focus to me personally on this post. Thanks for the advice and encouragement. I’m not offended by harsh and direct language. I was clouded by emotion for a long time, but once love is dead and hope is gone, I have settled down quite a bit. Maybe writing about it worked me up. Regarding custody, I don’t see how that comes into play when there has been no divorce filing. I cannot initiate a divorce. I don’t believe in that. I agree that she has outlasted her usefulness and the likelihood of her turning her ways around is very slim. I have entertained fantasies where she gets through this “phase” which is midlife crisis/menopause/cultural brainwashing and whatever else and becomes once again my loving and devoted wife, but that was only temporary anyways between separations, so who am I kidding. Anyway, are you suggesting I initiate dissolution of my marriage? Try to force her out of the house? Do I claim her abandonment of her vows and forsaking the “marriage debt”? I have always read and heard to keep the kids in the dark regarding the issues and the blame and that it is important they don’t take sides and they continue loving both parents. I know this is not totally possible and I have always been confident that as my sons grow older they will know the truth as it is obvious. I have one in college and he already has acknowledged what he is seeing and is very distant from her now. I know that my sons would choose to remain with me in divorce and they are of age where they can have input into that since they are all teens and up. I tried to go dread to a strong degree, divided the bills and made her pay her share, cut off all discretionary money to her, which in the beginning was because it was going to shrinks and I will not fund that. She works part time and earns very well for the time she puts in and the money she makes she has always been allowed to keep, which was probably a big mistake to begin with. She let the water get turned off once and let the electric get turned off once when she dug in and refused to pay, but the boys and I took showers at the gym for a couple days and I made no effort to remedy the situation. She paid the reconnect charges and is covering her share now, but I have experienced HUGE backlash and verbal beatdowns from friends and pastors over this. The tables are turned and I am apparently in sin for not loving my wife and laying down my life for her. What you seem to be suggesting is complete shutdown and removal from relationships across the board that I have been in for over a decade, some of them much longer. I am not scared of this, but worry about my boys. I have held a stable and secure home for them for a very long time. Now she and I are just distant roommates in the house with no relationship or interaction. I take the boys on vacation and invite her if she will rejoin her marriage and act like a wife, which she refuses to do and so stays home and she will be alone for Christmas when we go snowboarding, another matter the church and churchy friends are hollering at me about.
The purpose of my original comment was in response to Dalrock stating that we are not cognizant of the widespread acceptance of the threatpoint/wake-up call marriage and I wanted to declare that some of us are very aware. In fact, I see it all around and in the marriages of the friends who are supposedly trying to help me. This is the new normal and they accept it and wonder why I don’t.
“He actually used the old line “You may be right, *but do you want to be right or have sex with your wife*”
Oh the old Dr. Phil trick. Either-or choices.
@patchasaurus:
You might want to keep a set of lines in your head to utterly destroy, via rebuke, any time anyone gives you flack for actions. Things along the lines of:
“Why should I accept Sin, hers or yours?”
“A Christian should know what rebellion to God looks like: I suggest a mirror, if you’re having problems with the concept.”
Need to get ready for Church, but a few like that. Never let the frame be set that this is your Sin: it is not. If anyone attempts to frame it as your fault, rebuke them, harshly & clearly. Christians are far too accepting of Sin.
Granted, I’ll read anyone the riot act that needs it. These are Life & Death (eternal) issues: we are strong in the Lord, and we need to remember it.
@earl
You are either being disingenuous or are amazingly unsophisticated when it comes to Protestants and Catholics. Both of these comments were perfectly tuned to create a rift amongst Protestants and Catholics. They are naked attempts to sow discord, because neither is the focus of discussion. You and several others have a bizarre compulsion to go to mixed groups of Protestants and Catholics and try to steer the topic onto something which will divide them. Why do you fear unity so much?
Both Catholics and Protestants on this board generally agree with the definition of marriage and the problems with modern Christian culture. Perhaps you are unaware of what you are doing. But you should knock it off.
@JF
It is fortunate that Fireproof was so poorly put together, because this makes it easier to see that modern Christians were incredibly eager to hear the message it preached. If it were a compelling production, Christians could say it was popular not because modern Christians want theological cross-dressing, but because the movie was just so darn good they couldn’t help but overlook the atrocious theology.
@Boxer
There is a scene of triumph which brings great pride to fans of Fireproof, where the husband (Caleb) finds a love letter from the doctor while cleaning his wife’s bedroom (he isn’t welcome in the marital bed and has taken over all of the housework). He doesn’t confront his wife about her (somewhat vague) infidelity, but instead rushes to the hospital to tell the doctor he knows what they are up to and that he will fight for his wife’s heart. This is the scene where the audience understands that Caleb is finally a heroic Christian man.
I can’t find the Fireproof scene in youtube, but here is the dialog from script-o-rama:
At this point Caleb thanks the doctor for treating his hand earlier in the movie. To emphasis that he is going to fight for his wayward wife’s heart, Caleb makes a fist. This gesture shows that he is wearing his wedding ring and that he is serious about competing with the other suitor for his wife’s affections.
@patchasaurus,
“I thought I was being Godly because this was the church and Christian counseling world that was feeding me my information and advice. I am so angry now that every single person where I sought help would hold to this frame of me needing to be better and more supplicating to earn her love.”
I am sorry for what you have had to go through. I am very disappointed in the wimpy advice church leaders and counselors have been giving you. Unfortunately, it is very common.
Dalrock says:
I can’t find the Fireproof scene in youtube, but here is the dialog from script-o-rama:
l know what you’re doing.
l have no intention of stepping aside
as you try to steal my wife’s heart.
l’ve made some mistakes,
but l still love her.
So just know
l am going after her too.
And since l’m married to her,
l’d say l’ve got a head start.
At this point Caleb thanks the doctor for treating his hand earlier in the movie. To emphasis that he is going to fight for his wayward wife’s heart, Caleb makes a fist. This gesture shows that he is wearing his wedding ring and that he is serious about competing with the other suitor for his wife’s affections.
JF: And, as always in our misandric society, the male husband and the male doctor bear all the blame for the pseudo-almost-infidelity between the doctor and the husband’s wife.
The wife’s bears no culpability whatsoever in the matter.
Welcome to the one-half of Isaiah 3:12 living.
hey dalrockasz!! the afterlifesz is not so badz even dough u can’t get mysteries youtube vidoes up here, so live it up down therez! i made it 2 heavenz and put in a good word for youz! i told da management dat when you said “christainsz need gamesz” it was more of an ironic satrizization saying “ok you win” to all da fmeinsinsts paleo “consertive” pro-diovirce buttzhz chuirchiansz. but dat u didnt relaly mean it.
da management said, “YAH! WE KNEW DAT GBFMZ! WE KNOW ALL! DUHH”
so even withoutz me putting in a good words youd still get inz!
congratsz on datz!
now i’m off 2 learns how to use dese wingsz and play da harpzzlzolzoozolzozo
gotta watch my mouth up herez outta repsectz!!
It’s all very well to refuse to leave your bed or bedroom, but what if she tries to force you out? Even if she initiates pushing, and you only resist her pushing, resist too hard and she can claim you were physically abusing her.
It’s very easy for women to call the cops and lie about domestic violence. The cops generally “take no chances” and assume the woman is the victim, shifting the truth-finding onto the courts. Which likewise assume the woman is the victim.
I’d just work quietly on the sons, letting them know the truth. If all five of you guys give the wife the silent treatment, letting her know you’re a united front against her, she’ll like fall into line.
Earl:
‘There is no such thing as biblical marriage. Lets talk about birth control instead! ‘
You talk divorce stats…well why not bring in the major culprit into the room.
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/wils/wils_01naturalfamilyplanning2.html
First of all, correlation is not causation. I have no doubt that the Catholics that practice NFP are more conservative than those that do not. The fact that they do not use birth control might have a small contribution to them staying together (although arguably the pill make a woman appreciate her beta husband more than when she’s off it), but this almost certainly has more to do with their general attitude towards all things in general, including divorce.
This is a symptom not a cause.
And quite frankly, from how the catholic church hands out annulments (watch it happen repeatedly) and celebrates single motherhood, and denigrates men, boys and fatherhood. I have gone to father day and mother day sermons for every domination I can find, and several catholic churches, and what do I hear:
Mother’s day: How much all our mothers are like Mary, we need to celebrate and cherish them more.
Father’s day: Joseph was the perfect father, and you all come up short you miserable human beings.
Children sermons: I have heard priests talk about the good child and the bad child that both went to church, but the good child is ALWAYS a girl, and the bad child is ALWAYS a boy. I have watched as the priests asked all the children which they wanted to be the boy or the girl. And have all those boys raise their hands saying they wanted to be the girl.
I have heard the catholic priests (plural) all say women are the spiritual head of the household (not the heart, the head) that women are more spiritual, more in tune with God. That men just don’t “get it” in terms of love, sacrifice, religion. As a manospherian noted, women are equated to the Holy spirit now.
So no, birth control is not the major problem (I am willing to accept its sinful) but it is the open apostasy of the protestant and catholic churches.
The catholic church gives lip service to divorced and remarried women taking communion, but they don’t stop them if they walk up for it.
They have all drank the feminist communist Kool-Aid.
Focusing on birth control, is like complaining that the titanic has leaky pipes
The message is really the whole point behind Fireproof and why it got the favor it did. A good case in point is Kirk Cameron’s new movie. It’s as abysmally bad as Fireproof, but people see that the message behind it (they’re hating on and wanting to kill Christmas!) is garbage, so it’s getting its just due. IMDB rates it as the worst movie of all time (1.5). By contrast, Fireproof is IMDB rated at 6.5. It’s not the movie that they’re selling in either of these cases, it’s the message that’s being sold to the sheep. The same ones that are in love with the Personal Jesus. The ones that follow after men, the ones that don’t think. The ones that check their minds at the door.
Hey Patchasaurus, you have hit a great story we would love to discuss over at http://www.reddit.com/r/marriedredpill. I am writing a book on using Dread in marriages and am very interested in the question of whether it is too late for Dread game in your case and more generally at what point is it too late.
Dalrock, you really hit this one home. Thanks so much.
“”to modern Christians threats of divorce are only one of many ways a wife can transform her marriage and assume headship. In addition to threatening divorce, modern Christians encourage wives to use emotional outbursts, acts of insanity and destruction, denial of sex, and leaving the home (preferably with the children) as tools to gain and maintain primacy in the home. This new feminist Christian doctrine is what I have dubbed the wake-up call narrative, and it is coming from the conservative wing”””
BPP: Every time I read this from you my blood pressure shoots up to about 340/290. I can still barely get through your wake-up call post. This- PLUS they don’t tell guys how to deal with it, they deny that “Shit Tests” even exist! I call this Equalitarian Gaslighting and almost everybody in the world and academia bought it (or they “got it” in the Rollo-ian sense) and never bothered to tell us.
“”””They want husbands to greatly fear divorce so they will follow their wives’ every whim. But they don’t want prospective husbands to fear divorce so much that they don’t marry in the first place, and they don’t want policy makers to become afraid enough of divorce to reduce the legal encouragement for women to divorce. ”
BPP: It’s almost like a bunch of the power elite- the Bildeburgers and the Trilateralists perhaps- sat together at a round table in 1960 and decided how this was going to happen. We are going to destroy marriage as a patriarchal institution. Now who wrote about destroying marriage as a patriarchal institution from which modern feminism is derived? If you guessed Vladimir Lenin then go to the head of the class. I imagine 95% of marriages today are Blue pill, weak men with overbearing wives who transactionalize and usually drastically limit sex in order to control the man. Both parties are tense around each other- the man could not imagine Kino-ing his wife during the day and she is cold, angry, and running nowhere at 100 miles an hour. Both of them are miserable. That is the Hell modern feminism has created and yes, I think it is and was DELIBERATE. The KNEW what would happen. All of us knew what would happen. But you have to crack a few eggs to make an omelet, right? Sure- our omelet already has condoms baked in, which makes me wonder what other nasty stuff is going in.
Poor Mr Cameron: I’ve seen the trailer, and surely it is just another rehash of Dicken’s Xmas Carol. Worst film of all time? – and not a single ragged pan – no that cannot be right. And talking of Xmas Carols do you Americans (I assume you don’t) have to endure – whilst walking round the shops such horrors as Saint Bob of Geldof’s tiresome tune with the dreadful lyrics, or Slade’s equally tired effort. If you do not know what I am referring to you will surely answer in the negative. The best of them is probably Blue Xmas or Santa Baby (written by a Jew). Personally I prefer the old ones. The Sally Army Brass section (as with Santa one has to wonder what they do the rest of the year) were, as I walked past, playing ‘See amid the Winter Snow’ John Goss’s (1800-1880) beautiful melody. I think its Nine Lessons and Carols for me.
“the schizophrenic message around divorce suddenly makes sense”
Bingo! that explains why BaptistChoirBoySurvivor™ and F*ckBuddyRockBandDrummer reside within the same Highwasp…
Great post – thanks Dalrock.
The priest in my Catholic church is theologically & socially pretty conservative, but he’s from Nigeria. Third World priests (both Nigerian and Mexican born priests have served in my church) tend to be more socially conservative than American homegrown ones.
JDG @ December 7, 2014 at 2:00 am:
“…for the most part churches bearing the name of Christ are seriously denying essential teachings for the sake of relevance in the world.”
Relevance isn’t the right word. It’s more like churches consider themselves tax-exempt charities and believe it isn’t their place to confront evil or be the public conscience. They support frivorce because anything else would require participation in society… they want to NOT be relevant.
Bragging about having a “better” divorce rate is how they self-justify non-involvement. They’re making a difference just by existing so there’s no need to endanger the Separation of Church and State. They can simply… continue existing.
…
Red Pill Latecomer @ 12:41 pm:
“It’s all very well to refuse to leave your bed or bedroom, but what if she tries to force you out?”
Make her try. Call her every threat. Agree & Amplify. Act, don’t react.
Never live in fear. Never be afraid of “What if? What if?” Solve the problem and fight the battle; that way, win or lose it’ll be over quickly and you can get on with life… and respect yourself in the aftermath.
Same is true of “yes means yes”. Conservatives love it because it makes men afraid to have sex outside of marriage. Feminists love it because it gives them carte blanche to destroy men when they don’t get what they want or when they themselves make moral “mistakes”. Both want to restrict men from having sex outside of commitment and to give women immense power over men’s lives. Gynocentrism is all about power and control. Always has been – always will be. Remove men’s rights to presumption of innocence and due process and you create a class of virtual slaves who live in constant fear. Make no mistake – this is the goal.
The way out for men? (1) Never get married. Getting married gives women complete control to manipulate and destroy you when they don’t get what they want. Men give away any power they have over their own lives and futures when they get married. (2) Never have any private interactions with women unless you can record the event. Women have proven over and over that they’ll falsely accuse men of rape, harassment, molestation and domestic violence. They will do this to get out of taking tests for which they failed to prepare, for revenge, to get custody of “her kids”, to get out of being late for work, to punish their current partner for another man’s actions, to get out of having affairs/cheating, etc. If I had a son, I’d burn these rules into his brain.
“It’d be great if someone could ask all these people, “What do you think would be a healthy rate of divorce?” I doubt you’d get a straight answer out of any of them, but I get the feeling most of them think it should be around 25-35%”
This is an interesting question, because if you start with the premise that 15% of the population is abusive/destructive (a high figure), the theoretical maximum rate on divorce is 30% with a likely mean around 22.5% if you are pulling blind. However, there is the whole courtship process, which should substantially reduce the chances of divorce as people are able to determine those with destructive behaviors, and avoid them. Anything higher than the percentage of destructive/abusive population should therefore be consider too high of a divorce rate.
“I’m surprised this is little discussed in the manosphere: The lopsidedly disproportionate number of feminist leaders who are lesbians.”
Its well documented that throughout history that prominent feminist leaders suffer all sorts of mental illnesses, not just homosexuality. And feminist have spent a fair amount of resources attacking the DSM as a result.
Link to a source?
Norteamericanos are lazy degenerates, who have spent the last few generations riding the coattails of their great grandparents. They are generally shielded from the worst consequences of their actions, and have never faced any true hardship, struggle or strife. As a result, most of them remain psychological children throughout their lives.
People from poor countries think we’re all a bunch of total idiots. We have all these advantages, but don’t appreciate them. For better *and* for worse, this might all change soon. We’ll see how the spoilt bra burners and social justice warriors get on in a more realistic society, as the economy continues collapsing. (heh)
patchasaurus says:
December 7, 2014 at 8:47 am
I wouldn’t worry too much about allowing focus on your situation; sometimes it’s in the midst of the statistical analysis (that this crowd is quite capably of digesting) that an object lesson such as yours can really drive home the point. Indeed your story prompted me to write in for the first time in some time. My story is quite similar to yours, although I’m a little further down the track so to speak.
1. The comment from your counselor about whether you’d rather be right or have sex with your wife really resonated with me. I knew my marriage would be over when I heard the last counselor we saw ask me a comparable question (Would you rather be right or be married?). It was prima facie evidence for me that all marriage counseling, perhaps even putatively ‘Christian’ counseling, is nothing more than, at minimum, a lever used to heighten the threatpoint a wife exercises and more likely a fullblown cover for divorce for the woman.
2. Ease up on the civil divorce talk unless and until you’ve investigated the likely outcomes for you in your jurisdiction. The courts will not listen for two seconds to any reference to the tenets of sacramental marriage, and unless you are in an atypical situation (e.g., your wife is the sole primary breadwinner and you’ve been the stay at home dad), you are going to get killed. There are a lot of keyboard warriors in the manosphere who’d advocate a scorched earth policy on your part – I say tread very lightly. Divorce will devastate your sons, far more so than even your suboptimal marriage.
Keep praying and hang in there.
Gunner Q
Relevance isn’t the right word. It’s more like churches consider themselves tax-exempt charities and believe it isn’t their place to confront evil or be the public conscience. They support frivorce because anything else would require participation in society
From what I’ve seen churches like this want to show the world how accepting they are, and they support female initiated frivorce because they believe a woman should have options. They tend not to support men divorcing even for serious reasons.
More like it is because the churches are tax-exempt charities. Doing that requires that they tow the line with the State and the Federal. Part of that is that they support the laws and public policy of these agencies. Standing public policy is female-domination / male-submission in marriage, and free frivorce. See How to Destroy The Church for more details.
@Opus From what I remember, you are not from the US, so you might not know/understand what Saving Christmas is trying to key into. In the American conservative/Christian media, there’s been a concerted message that there’s been an “attack on Christmas” which a small minority believes in hook, line, and sinker. Basically put, they feel butthurt when:
1. Someone says something like “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas”.
2. Nativity scenes are either not put out or disallowed.
3. Someone writes X-Mas instead of Christmas.
4. Someone discusses the true (red pill) origin of Christmas.
This kind of stuff is what Saving Christmas is tapping into and is NOT a remake of anything specific.
Ok you have my permission to call them trad/so/cons. I forfeit.
Solid first principles post….
elevance isn’t the right word. It’s more like churches consider themselves tax-exempt charities and believe it isn’t their place to confront evil or be the public conscience
Except when the thing they oppose gets them lots of positive conservative attention from the Karl Rove Stepford-wife-like shallow thinking conservative types. Like, say, when Alise Parker demands the sermon texts from Houston pastors…..they were apoplectic….in between counseling sessions with the newest crop of victims….er….women who filed divorce
@Balista74
Thanks. I had perhaps not fully appreciated the nuance. It is certainly not an issue over here where Her Majesty is God’s appointed and anointed representative so we can have as many Nativity scenes as we can handle and also as much Handel (Messiah) as we can stomach.
Lead story in one of today’s better papers: The Archbishop of Canterbury has said that he is now more concerned that the People of Walmart near where Tam the Bam lives are not getting enough to fill their stomachs, indeed he is more concerned about them than he is about Africans; I nearly choked on my mince-pie.
In future, I will, so as to avoid any unintended offence spell Christmas in full.
@ patchasaurus:
Brother, don’t threaten anybody else as that might wind up in court and hurt your custody of your sons. Also, stay close to your sons, even if they take the mother’s side. When they get older they might become more open minded as their life experiences increase. I suffer as well. I am divorced and have a son who I totally love. Most often everybody sides with the woman whether she is right or not; just our sick culture.
@ Patchasaurus
Your story sounds very similar to mine. My wife did most of things you wife has done to you, except for separating the finances. One difference that I see, is that my wife actually believed (believes?) that she was being a good holy Christian wife while doing so.
Several good men on this thread have offered advice, but none of them seem to see what I see in your marriage and mine.
Marriage is under attack by all the demons of Hell. My wife got involved in a Catholic lay organization that purported to restore tradition, and help its members grow in holiness. There is an order of priests associated with this movement. Scandal has been uncovered in this movement, and action was taken by Pope Benedict.
This movement is satanic. I, like you, “thought I was being Godly because this was the church and Christian counseling world that was feeding me my information and advice”. I eventually came to the conclusion that God hates Christian husbands, and that as such, we deserve nothing but hellfire. I was depressed for years, turned to porn as a source of intimacy, and was drunk every day. Temptation to suicide, and opportunities for adultery were regular occurrences. One Good Friday, my wife told to go f*** other women and get out of her life. I pushed back and she fought it. She has a heart condition and I thought she was going to die. I came to the conclusion that a Christian wife who would rather die, than admit that her husband should not f*** other women was under satanic influence.
The evidence that your marriage is under demonic attack is based on your comments. Your wife has abandoned the marriage and is proud of being a “feminist mystic”. A Christian counselor offered to “assess if we were ready to have sexual relations”. To claim control of the sexuality of another man’s wife is adultery, spiritual adultery, but adultery none the less.
Now for my free advice. If you do not think it is worth what you are paying for, feel free to disregard it.
We as Christian men cannot fight demons, and there is nothing we can do under our own power to persuade our wives to return to the marriage and the faith. “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.” I started praying the Memorare, asking that my wife either leave the satanic organization she was in, or else to give me a sign that that it was not satanic. Within two weeks, my wife actually apologized for the first time in 31 years of marriage. I could feel anger and bitterness draining from me like pus. Patchasaurus, as a Protestant, you may balk at praying for the intercessions of Mary. I recommend, therefore, that you meditate on Ephesians 6:10-18, first thing in the morning and last thing before going to bed. Use this as your prayer to protect your wife from the snares of Satan, or else for the Holy Ghost to show if you are wrong.
Another thing I did was go to Confession, to confess my sins, and no one else’s. I held dark thoughts, anger and bitterness against my wife and those who enabled her. Your anger, frustration, and loneliness are occasions of sin, as were mine. Whenever you feel the anger, resentment, and depression coming on, say to yourself the passage of Ephesians I mentioned. You do not have sacramental Confession, but examine your conscience and confess your sins to God, and ask for his Grace to keep you from temptation.
You have been told to love your wife as Christ loves the church. Well you do! You have steadfastly refused to speak poorly of your wife, you cannot initiate a divorce, you refused to allow spiritual adultery, and you continuously offer her the opportunity to rejoin the marriage, even Christmas vacation as a family. Jesus does not let us do what we want, but will always be there when we wish to return. You are a better Christian, a better man, and a better husband than I was when I was sunk in depression and despair.
You feel utterly alone and alienated. So did I. I thought there was no other husband going through what I was going through. The other husbands of women in this “Catholic” cult did not seem to be going through what I went through. They all have cold dead eyes, though.
If you wish to discuss further, I give Dalrock my permission to share my email with you, if you request it.
Althought the Brummy myth of “Winterval” has only recently been scotched (some holdouts on the wireless late-night argy-bargy programmes (Beeb) were jabbering about it only the other night as though it was a true thing). Bishops were askance!
I, and no one I can think of at the moment, certainly have no difficulty filling our stomachs, so fret not. Although more of it ought to be food, I grant you.
“Link to a source?”
Robert Stacy McCain at the other McCain regularly has posts about this or that feminist. And the idea that feminism leads to lesbianism is advanced by him. He is for my mind a masochistic because a couple months ago he started a journey where he went to read the great works of feminist leaders along with analyzing them as people.
Here is one of his articles.
http://theothermccain.com/2014/08/25/sex-trouble-feminism-mental-illness-and-the-pathetic-daughters-of-misfortune/
But just generally, Gloria Stienem’s mother was insane, she had no normal upbringing on her own. Shulamith Firestone was schizophrenic. Kate Millett’s sister Mallory came out discussing how insane her sister was. And then the number of lesbian feminist leaders are legion.
patchasaurus
If you are one of those guys that cant divorce a woman In route to robbing you of your sons unless it is adultery or abuse, then you are going to have to take action. First off do what ever it takes to get custody of your kids. Find somebody to come over and fuck your wife. They don’t even need to know why they are around. another stroke of luck would be to have her hit you in front of the kids or in public. Better yet video record it on the cell phone. Get rid of her if you can get your boys. The longer you stay together the more damage she will cause .
‘First of all, correlation is not causation.’
Correlation is a correlation. Birth control willfully holds back fertility in a marriage. If you can hold back that…who knows what other things spouses hold back from each other.
The other positive I’ve heard from people using NFP…they communicate with each other better.
@earl
During the fertile phase of our marriage we used NFP. As to after menopause, see my comment above.
You may be correct, but you are off topic. This is not an apologetics site.
“The other positive I’ve heard from people using NFP…they communicate with each other better.”
And NFP does this how, because they know the state of her mucus so magically they “communicate better” whatever that means.
I believe there’s also a correlation between NFP and birth defects if we want to go down that road which would tend to make women want to stay with their husband and we know they’re the ones that drive divorce. Correlations can mean lot of things and not necessarily what we want them to.
@Ras al Ghul
I think what it means is the wife decides when the couple has sex and when they can’t. In modern times, this definitely means “better communication”.
Note also that like with the chart Earl showed earlier, NFP is presented as a good in itself. Twice he has implied that NFP is better than simply having frequent sex and welcoming many children. This is not to my understanding RCC teaching on NFP, but it is practical when trying to get a mixed group of Catholics and Protestants to stop agreeing and divide into factions. I’ll welcome a Catholic reader setting me straight with a link to RCC teaching, but as I understand it RCC teaching is that NFP should only be used in its contraceptive/abstaining form when conceiving another child would place a great burden on the family.
@SSM
Thank you.
@Empath
Ha! I didn’t even think about that. I was trying to clarify that I am not talking about the churches everyone would normally think of here. But either way, thank you.
Dalrock says:
December 7, 2014 at 8:31 pm
Sorry, I have no link at hand, but your shorthand representation of NFP as to be used in exceptional circumstances is substantially correct. Of course, like so many other provisions of RCC teaching, it is usually vastly oversimplified (or sometimes purposely misrepresented) to mean that Catholics can in good conscience practice NFP for any (or no) reason.
mdavid says:
December 6, 2014 at 12:43 pm
Dalrock says:
December 6, 2014 at 1:21 pm
mdavid [top] has a valid point. Many people use the term ‘biblical marriage’ to appeal to an undefined sentiment. Most on this site understand how badly feminism has destroyed marriage but there is little or no agreement on what the term [biblical marriage] means.
I have no interest in more endless debates on the meaning of the word ‘porneia’, but is there any consensus that a woman has no biblical grounds for divorce?
Patchasauras wrote “Every last one has turned on me as my wife casts a bigger and bigger net over how unworthy I am as a man and a husband.”
There is your problem. You let your wife set the narrative. You have a 100% blue pill attitude about women, that they are holy, that your wife must be protected, that you cannot bring yourself to criticize her…….all out of fear. Spare yourself your rationalizations, you need to look in the mirror and admit that all your actions are motivated by fear.
Fear of what others will think of you.
Fear of losing your sons.
Fear of losing status in the church.
Fear of losing your wife.
Fear of never finding another mate.
Fear of the church leaders condemning you and taking your wife’s side.
Fear of what your sons might experience at their school and church.
Let me tell you something. Even wimpy churchian “christians” admire a man with two functioning testicles who does what is right. You are living in a make-believe world that hasn’t existed for over 50 years. It isn’t your wife who is sick in the head. Or rather, your absolute fear of her and the above list has made her into a psycho.
God hates divorce. He also hates the lying behavior of psychotic gossips (read the book of James again). You’ve already lost as long as you keep beating your chest about how you don’t believe in divorce. Foolish wimp behavior. Fear again. That is your fear talking. You fear what will be done to you in a divorce. Fear. Fear. It is the constant thread in your life over the last 2 decades.
And now I will add one for you. Your behavior is teaching your sons that fear is the way to go through life.
A little harsh, JC, wouldn’t you say? The woman closest to him has morphed into a Jezebel, and his fellow parishioners seemed to have taken her aside.
Until you’ve walked a mile….
Patchasaurus,
you’ve only got one option. Nuclear threat game.
In front of the most honest (and courageous, if they even exist in those organizations you are a member of) elder or pastor, tell your wife something like the following:
I have read in the Bible that perfect love casteth out fear.
I’ve been living in fear of you and your behavior harming our marriage and our sons.
God has taken that fear from me, and so this is what I am telling you in front of witnesses:
You will not speak ill of our marriage to anyone else, EVER, from today.
You will share our bed in our bedroom or you will sleep on the couch.
God hates divorce, but what He condemns is ADULTERY. If you disobey these very short and simple ultimatums, *I* will initiate a divorce that will be EPIC! Your name, your reputation, will be slandered in every possible venue, I will fight you using every penny I can spend and borrow in court, I will use every single legal trick in the book. I will be merciless. I will drive you be a suicidal outcast in every community.
And you know what? I will win, because God will be on my side, not yours. You will have nothing. You will be outcast, scorned, ridiculed, HOMELESS, and ALONE. Our sons will despise you.
I have my plan spelled out in this booklet here (show the outside of a small, used, notebook), which I will keep in a secure place. (Do not show anyone what is in this notebook. Instead, drop her off at home, drive somewhere, and dispose of it). I no longer fear using the power of truth to expose you to everyone.
Your choice, wife. Decide tonight, right now.”
You know, women are almost completely dominated by their feelings of fear. If you can deliver the above ultimatum without flinching, she wouldn’t dare risk finding out if you truly mean it.
But, sadly, I think you’re going to continue a life of quiet desperation, living in constant fear. I feel for you, which is why I took the time to write the above.
Approaching a girl at Church?
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=926833
Contraception, NFP, and Converting
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=926648
Point of using NFP to avoid pregnancy
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=926624
RICanuck,
Your compassion is well felt and your advice Godly and sound. I especilly like your point about others having superior influence over my wife, especially the counselor attempting to control her sexuality. I will heed your advice and go to the Lord in prayer with the scripture you have outlined. I am deeply sorry for your own struggle and will pray for you and when I say I will pray you can be assured that a fellow believer is interceding on your behalf and that means something in the heavenly realm.
JCclimber,
I admire your passion. You state much truth, but I am not as soft and desperate from fear as you seem to think. Your own berserker mode and manner of speech makes me think you might be drunk and that’s good by me. I will declare that I am going to implement a manner of nuke dread as you suggest as early as tomorrow or whenever I can soonest get a witness. This has gone far enough. I will dispense with the secret phony notebook though because what the hell is that? Thanks for the liberating-hard-core-halftime locker room talk in any case.
God help us all.
Regarding RICanuck comments on the spiritual/demonic apsect of things, this is very real and if believers do not see the hand of the enemy at work in the nature of modern women then there will be no way to overcome it. The spiritual battle is real and raging all around us. Marriage is under attack and females, the weaker, are especially under attack and the devil is winning right now. All of the disorders and mental illnesses discussed here are spiritual diseases; Borderline, Bipolar, all of it. Read Neal Anderson on this. RICanuck was wrong in stating that we cannot do battle with demons. We are equipped to do so and it is clear in scripture that we are. I know this is getting a little far out for some readers, but Christ followers need to get on board.
Marriage is God’s foundation for humankind to His glory. Satan hates marriage and is threatened by Christian families more than any other thing. Marriage is being attacked now by churchians and government and homosexuals and feminists and satan s a roaring lion.
OH, and greyghost;
“Find somebody to come over and [have sex] with my wife” ??? Honor, integrity, virtue, character, righteousness are words that have personal meaning to me. scumbag, whoremaker, sleazeball do not.
Dear Patchasaurus:
I don’t really worry about God or demons, but that aside, much of the advice you’re getting is pretty good. Bear in mind that the dread game thing works, though I find the theatrics described here way over the top.
Try this. This week, don’t let your wife upset you or shake your frame. If she stays out all night, pretend not to notice. If she says she’s going out, simply smile and say “have a good time”. If she tries to start a fight, simply smile and say “let’s talk later, OK?” Keep your anger inside.
Another thing this week: start wearing fragrance (cologne/parfume/edt) on your way out the door. Don’t overdo it or advertise this. It’ll be more convincing if you look like you’re trying to hide it.
Little things like this cause women to go insane. They start to lose their power to control you, which often opens up opportunities to get them behaving correctly again.
This is really dirty, shitty business. I’m not a Christian, not married, and don’t care to put up with any of this shit myself. I’m also the type of asshole who would, otherwise, just tell you to file on the ho’ and be done with her. I dig the fact that you’ve got kids though, and think this stuff might work if you don’t overdo it. Start small, and do things differently (the old ways clearly haven’t worked so far, and different is your best shot, I think).
Be well,
Boxer
I often disagree with Grey Ghost, but he’s right on this time. He’s often pretty strong as a writer, and that can be off-putting, but try and see what he’s actually saying in the subtext.
Bear in mind that you don’t actually have to go fuck some other women. In fact, that would be counterproductive. You only have to make your wife aware that you can fuck some other women if you want to. Everyone needs to be reminded of their place, once in a while, in the grand scheme of things. This includes wives. It’s dirty, but necessary, for you to remind your wife that she is not a special snowflake. She is replaceable, and she should shut the fuck up and quit causing trouble if she wants to continue to enjoy the benefits of your company, protection and provisioning.
Best, Boxer
Patchasaurus:
There is no escaping the following truth. We can only try to figure out what it means.
God knew what Eve would do to Adam. Yet he created her anyway.
Then, there is Jesus speaking: “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.” (Matthew 7:13)
For the terms “few” and “many” to mean anything, “many” must be more than 50%; “few” must be less than 50%.
Both of these points are foundational Biblical truths, and they define the boundaries of our lives. They are true before anything else spoken above in this topic comes into existence. But I have yet to see either point discussed seriously on the internet. We grow up expecting our wife to be our “help”, because the model is God creating Eve to be Adam’s help. But in what way did Eve actually help Adam – with her behaving in such a way that he would need to live the rest of his life without her unless he followed her lead? God knew that Eve would force Adam to make this choice. Yet he made her anyway. Why? Focus on that question. You are now being forced to make the same choice Adam had to make: follower her lead (do what she wants you to do), or not. How will you choose? And consider how many are actually going to find that narrow path that leads to life (hint: not very many). This is the life we were given to live. Paul, with all his talk about “washing with the word” cannot change the truth of this (few/many). And – loving your wife the way Christ loved the church? The church is not made up of people who are in rebellion against Christ. Christ spews the lukewarm out of his mouth; how much more the rebellious? The rebellious are not part of the “church” that Christ is loving. If the rebellious repent, Christ can restore them to his love. But only then. That is how Christ loves the church, and is the pattern we are to mimick.
Your most important job here is letting your sons see you live as normal a life as possible. Seeing that normalcy is the only way to truely counteract any negative image about you your wife may be putting into their heads. Let them hear what she says, but see how you actually are. If you behave in such a way as you are removed from their lives, they will not be able to see this. In this season of your life, you must live your life without a wife. Just as Christ must live his life without those who are in rebellion against him. But you still have your sons. Cherish them. Protect them. That is what dads do. That is what men do. That is what Christ does for those who love him.
“In this season of your life, you must live your life without a wife.”
Not calling for divorce here. Just stating the obvious. You are not divorced. But neither do you currently have a wife, in the true sense of the word.
You expect church to be a bastion of alpha. . The last remnant of patriarchy. I did when i started church two years ago. . Churches are nothing but beta make factories. . I asked for help and was called lazy and stupid. I heard pastors say single mom’s were sinless. I’ve heard of men’s brigades that only help single. Mom’s move and fix things. The church literally gives half its money to single mom’s, whores who had sex with bad boys. I’ve been asked why I’m not married countless times as if I’m evil. I’ve seen men get yelled at and called a loser for being unemployed. I’ve seen mothers day get a huge service with all the bells and whistles, while father’s day was a joke. . On father’s day the pastor basically told. Men to man up an give single mom’s a chance. I’ve seen men get kicked out of rooms they had reserved for small groups because a woman wanted it. A man’s sexuality is evil. To churches while a woman is free to be a slut. Pastors know their female members are sluts and refuse to speak on it. . I’ve had men’s group. Refuse to. Help. Me since in not. Married. . Single. Men are pure. Evil. To. Them. I respect a feminist more than a trad con. At least a feminist attacks head on, a trad con pretends to value men and families and then attempts to shame and blame men after they walk in the door. No wonder men account for only 39% of church members
Patchasaurus
The point of my comment was to let you know you are of this world. An maybe you need to rely more on faith than deeds. You have no duty to make your wife happy. Take action to get your sons and get the hell out of that crap church you are in and she will come running tell her no and allow her visitation. Your boys will learn they do not have to tolerate shit from a woman and still learn the value of fatherhood and maintaining a Christian household that is the lesson you have for your sons and this world. Pleasing a woman is a stupid irresponsible move and is the foundation of misery and the root of the failings of the Christian church and your church.
@Don Quixote
This is nonsense. What you (and mcdavid) are arguing is we can’t discuss the massive problems with both secular and Christian culture regarding marriage and divorce until/unless we agree on everything. If half the readership believes that there is never any valid reason for divorce, and the other half believes that 90% of divorce is invalid, we can’t focus on our common ground. Every discussion must start with a call to division into RCC and Protestant corners. Until half of us convert, I must stop writing this blog about the issues we agree on.
If that is your take, simply state it and then move elsewhere, because I will not be held hostage to bringing all Christians into perfect unity before we can discuss the issues we generally if not perfectly agree on. I’m not saying you can’t hold firm to your beliefs in this respect, but if you don’t want to have the conversation I’m leading, then go. Have your own conversation with those who want to participate in that one and not the one I’m leading. I’m fully serious about this. Go to WordPress and start your own blog, and get off of mine, anyone who wants to challenge me as a Protestant every time I reference the Bible instead of RCC or Orthodox teaching, or who wants to do the same from the other side. Be gone. Get out.
This doesn’t mean issues of disagreement are off the table. If you’ve been around the comments sections here you will have already found that there are very often vigorous discussions about these things. I am in the debt of both my Catholic and Orthodox readers for what they have taught me. But constantly redirecting the conversation to areas of division, especially in the very beginning of the discussion, does not reflect an honest desire to discuss these issues and educate others. It is, as I stated in the beginning of thread when I called mcdavid and Earl out, a tactic to stifle discussion by spreading discord.
Dalrock,
“I think what it means is the wife decides when the couple has sex and when they can’t. In modern times, this definitely means “better communication”. ”
Oh, I am sure you are ‘sticking your tongue out’ at Earl here (metaphorically speaking, of course!), and if so, sorry for being ‘thick as two planks’ and not getting the joke. But if this is not the case, then in all seriousness, the following defence of NFP should be made ( a dirty job, but I hereby volunteer myself to do it 🙂 :
The role of the wife in NFP is purely to inform the husband when she is fertile, or not, as the case may be, depending on what the NFP is being used for at that particular time. She does NOT dictate to him when they are to get intimate. She merely *informs*. It has to be this way because pregnancy occurs in *her* body, that’s all. This does not mean that she controls anything. Yes I know that some women abuse their position here, eg. being dishonest about their fertile window, but the *spirit* of NFP is as I describe it above.
If he wants to go ahead and have sex anyway, (or she does – it goes both ways!) knowing she is fertile at that time, then the two of them accept the ‘risk’ of having a baby, thus accepting both the unitive and procreative functions of sex. This is what I remember from pre-Cana classes.
NFP is to be used *all the time* in a Catholic marriage which is in accordance with Church’s ‘rules’. So you are either trying to avoid a pregnancy, cause a pregnancy, or you don’t mind either way.
NFP of course becomes unnecessary once the woman hits menopause, but otherwise, it is used for the entirety of the fertile time of the woman.
I see that it is slightly ‘off-topic’ to mention contraception when you are talking about divorce, but from Earl’s perspective (which is the same as mine), the two are irretrievably linked, which is why it seems ‘on-topic’ to us. This includes both married and unmarried contraception.
Fair enough, it is your blog, if you don’t want to talk about this (related) subject, on *this* particular post, because you specifically want to look at divorce from another angle, (eg. how it is viewed by feminists, christian conservatives, tradcons, etc.) then fine, of course. I certainly shan’t bring it up again. Your blog, your rules!
If anyone else has another angle on NFP though, as relates to how you interpret its aims, I would appreciate it (of course that is if you allow this).
The ‘F’ of family (being one of the 4 Fs a woman ‘brings to the table’ of marriage) is largely ‘in the woman’s realm’, so to speak, but this does not mean that it is under her control, because both parties need to cooperate, whatever the goal is (pregnancy, or not, as the case may be).
It is this need for cooperation that increases the communication between husband and wife. This is what Earl refers to. Having to be communicative on this (intimate) level (‘I am fertile today, shall we try?) spreads to other parts of marital life (‘You seem tired/upset, tell me what’s bothering you’) perhaps because it is habit-forming.
I don’t fully understand everything about this NFP business yet, but this is where I have got to so far in my education on the subject, and it seems like a positive thing to me. If done correctly by both parties, it is a good thing. It should never be used by the woman to ‘control’ sex, for example. That it happens does not mean that this is how it is designed. It just means that that particular woman is doing it wrong.
@GeminiXcX and Richard P
“God knew what Eve would do to Adam. Yet he created her anyway.”
This is an interesting conversation. Regardless of the outcome of this question would you both agree that Woman’s first sin is rebellion and Man’s first sin is cowardice?
From that a postulate could be drawn that nearly all sins a man can commit are derived from cowardice.
And all women’s sins are derived from rebellion.
“I think what it means is the wife decides when the couple has sex and when they can’t. In modern times, this definitely means “better communication”. ”
This.
About a year ago, when i was considering converting to RCC (I have ended up right where I started as an infant– now fully Serbian Orthodox) my wife and I attended an NFP class.
It creeped me out so bad I almost ran out the door screaming. I couldn’t figure out why and with this one sentence, you nailed it. For that I thank you, sir.
The husbands were so squishy and obsequious. Staring longingly and nodding at their wives while she described how much better the “communication” was.
Shudder.
Move one. Thanks again.
I mean “move on.”
@ballista74, you should look closely at this:
” Marriage is a device for the control of men. Its existence and acceptance is exceedingly important for the purposes of feminism (all flavors). If marriage fails, feminism fails. Hence, they will defend their exploitation to the death. It is important, therefore, to recognize that the whole battle against feminism (all flavors) is wrapped up in the acceptance rate of marriage. As long as marriage is accepted as valid, feminism rules and men will continue to be exploited.”
I understand your comment, but its interesting that the first feminists actually said almost the exact same thing you did (just replace the word “men” with “women” and you have the main REASON feminism began. They thought marriage was to control *women*, oppress *women*… they said that men used it to exploit women… they thought the battle against women’s rights was the acceptance of marriage and therefore worked really hard to make women second guess the benefits of Christian ethics and marriage as a whole.
Maybe the point is mute… since the attitudes around marriage (or in marriage) is so different now anyway. I just wanted to point out how strange it was to read your comment and see how close it was to what the first feminists thought concerning marriage. Overall, I think marriage can still be wonderful and biblical – many people who post here do have good marriages, I’m sure Dalrock’s marriage is solid also. Don’t go too far… throwing it all in the trash 🙂 There’s always hope, there are many in my generation that are doing it right!
@Girl with tattoo
“Don’t go too far… throwing it all in the trash 🙂 There’s always hope”
No there isn’t hope, not in, or for this world.
You claim to support the bible, allow for these verses:
ROM 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
ROM 3:10 There is none righteous, no, not one
ISA 64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags
All of Isaiah 24…….
That’s because you don’t understand feminists, or you do, and try to hide it very well. Feminists accuse their enemies of doing exactly what they WILL do, given the power. Which they have now been given.
@Spacetraveller
I am not objecting to RCC teaching on NFP. As you noted, my response is more specific to Earl and what he is doing.
This is probably a matter of wording but this doesn’t fit with my understanding of RCC teaching on NFP. My understanding is that NFP is permissible always as a tool to enhance fertility, and in very limited situations as a tool to avoid it. It is not something which “is to be used”. As one priest explains (with references to Catechism):
But again, I strongly suspect this is more of a matter of wording than an actual disagreement between you and me.
Just to clarify, I’m not declaring birth control or NFP as out of bounds, even when they aren’t directly on topic. I tend to allow a far ranging discussion, especially after the first 50-100 comments or so. This more extended discussion can be very fruitful and interesting. What I was objecting to was jumping in immediately after the post was published, and reframing the issue in a way calculated to start Catholics and Protestants arguing. Both mcdavid and Earl essentially dismissed the subject at hand and invited a Protestant/Catholic food fight. Protestants can do the same thing on the other side, and it is in both cases a tool to disrupt conversation. Again, this is different than wanting to discuss areas of disagreement, especially as the conversation progresses. But there is a way to do this respectfully, and a way to do it simply to cause division.
For another example of what I’m talking about, see TZ2026’s comment here. I wrote a post about how modern Christian culture was turning traditional Christian teaching upside down. Nothing in what I described as being perverted is to my knowledge in disagreement with Catholic teaching. Protestants may turn to Scripture and Catholics may turn to Sacred Scripture and Catechism, but we both agree that the husband should be the head and the wife should submit, not the other way around. Not only was I agreeing with RCC tradition, but I was calling out a film made by Protestants as the prime example of where our modern Christian culture is going wrong. TZ2026 refused to accept this agreement, since the argument was made by a Protestant, and tried to steer the discussion to a Protestant/Catholic food fight. Fortunately nearly all of my Catholic readers aren’t like this, but from the small minority who are like this the constant agitation to create dissent for the sake of dissent is tiresome (and it is no less tiresome when Protestants do it).
“My understanding is that NFP is permissible always as a tool to enhance fertility, and in very limited situations as a tool to avoid it. It is not something which “is to be used”.
This would be the most consistent position with everything else the church teaches about unitive, “open to life” creating sex within marriage.
Otherwise, NFP is just birth control accomplihsed “naturally.”
@Tam the Bam
I would just like to say (to add to our digression) that happily the Archbishop’s christian concern for those who are unable to afford food has now been addressed by one of our Noble Lady Peeresses with her excellent suggestion that if they can’t afford to cook they should eat cake. The Tories outdoing #Rochester.
@girlwithadragonflytattoo
Do you really think there’s anything wonderful, biblical, and holy about marriage today? That’s the real problem, it’s not, it’s a counterfeit directly from the mind of Satan. The folly that is missed is that people think they can define the terms. “Marriage” has been made into the feminist image as a device to control men, therefore what I write is completely true, even more so than the reverse statement ever was.
The modern feminists are rebels against the Godly order who decided to upgrade the rebellion from a proxy one (traditionalism) into an open one, recreating marriage as a tool to facilitate it. The folly that gets really interesting is that they got their enemies to defend it and preserve it!
There’s no fixing anything that is wicked, especially wicked idols. All you can do is separate yourself from it until the day that it be destroyed.
Don Quixote @ 11:09 pm:
“mdavid [top] has a valid point. Many people use the term ‘biblical marriage’ to appeal to an undefined sentiment.”
Flat wrong. The Bible’s definitions of marriage and sexual morality are crystal clear, in fact, they’re even shared by Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Shintos and many atheists and animists. It is only the foundation of every stable society in human history.
…
GeminiXcX says:
December 8, 2014 at 4:38 am
RichardP says:
December 8, 2014 at 2:18 am
“God knew what Eve would do to Adam. Yet he created her anyway.
Adam and Eve were both created perfect; the fallen nature that persists to this day came after she (both) chose to disobey. If you are suggesting that God had foreordained the rebellion in Eden, and that Eve’s tempting of her husband was unavoidable (and that she was created to test him), you are quite mistaken.”
So God DIDN’T know what Eve would do to Adam? Or did God fail despite His best efforts?
God does bad things to good people. He invented disease, sanctioned the destruction of Job and so on. He promised suffering to everyone who follows Christ and eternal damnation to everyone who doesn’t.
I don’t have any specific advice for patchasaurus but can offer this observation: this is as close to Hell as he will ever get. All of God’s favorites go through the Valley of Death. Our unjust suffering is part of God’s plan; that’s why the Christian symbol is the Crucifix. People forget that.
“Celebrating divorce by denying its existence”
What’s going on here mainly is that the old biblical model of marriage (indissoluble except in a very limited number of circumstances) has been completely jettisoned in favor of hedonic marriage.
The purposes of marriage were essentially threefold:
1. Give men a sexual outlet so they aren’t chasing poon all the time and otherwise raising hell;
2. Give women a means of support so they aren’t impoverished and have a way to care for their children; and
3. Give children security, stability and predictability.
Everyone wins. He gets access to her body; she gets access to his dough; the kids make it through relatively unscathed and go out to repeat the process. Hopefully, they kind of like each other so as to make it a bit more tolerable; but if not, at least you’re being obedient. Lather, rinse, repeat.
We don’t have that model anymore.
Now we have hedonic marriage, in which the purpose of marriage is to make everyone “happy”. Marriage doesn’t exist to allocate benefits and make the best use of everyone’s resources and talents. It now exists for personal self-actualization, fulfillment and happiness. Everything else is secondary. So if a marriage ever fails to meet those objectives (and they all do at some point and on some level), then whoever wishes to end the marriage is justified in doing so, because the marriage doesn’t “work” as it should. And there are no duties or obligations in hedonic marriage. There are only benefits and entitlements.
The reason we’re having this discussion is that, as Dalrock has pointed out, even the church has adopted the hedonic model of marriage. We now have Christians expecting marriages in which there is no fighting or disagreement, everyone is blissfully happy all the time, and everyone is self actualized and fulfilled. But marriage isn’t like that; people disappoint us and fall short; and people and priorities change.
And so even the church has adopted the mindset and belief that if someone is “unhappy” in the marriage; then it is a “bad” marriage. That’s where the “divorce as safety valve” theology has come from. “Divorce is bad, but we need it Just In Case.” It’s also the source of the notion that divorce can be used as a threatpoint to get the husband to do what the wife wants him to do. “Divorce is bad. If they get divorced, it is because she tried to save the marriage, but he wouldn’t do what she wanted. She knew what was best. He wouldn’t listen.”
Patchasaurus:
The advice you’ve been getting here is pretty good. My two cents: If you had had no children, I would have advised you to get a good lawyer, file for divorce, and get out with the best deal you could (probably a year or two of alimony, then done). I wouldn’t advise a man in a childless marriage to put up for even one minute with shit like you’ve described. But then, I wouldn’t have advised him to marry in the first place.
Since you have kids, be governed by the following:
1. Married couples are supposed to have sex. You’re entitled to it; she’s required to provide sexual access freely. Her marriage to you means standing consent to sex. That doesn’t mean you can take it by force. It does mean that if it is withheld, you should immediately impose consequences. Dread helps. Tightening control over the finances helps. If all else fails, divorce. A marriage that is sexless because she is withholding is not a marriage. Her withholding is tantamount to marital abandonment. It cannot be fixed.
2. Married couples are supposed to live together. If she separates by moving out, she’s declaring she no longer wants to be married. Give her a time by which she needs to be back and living in the marital home. If she fails to meet that deadline, then you have your answer – she does not want to be your wife. She has abandoned the marriage
Just my $ .02.
Patchasaurus: “Do not resist one who is evil.” A woman risks nothing by disobedience; rather, she is often rewarded for it. In obedience a man risks everything, even his life. If it gets as far as court, the divorce court will have its way, which is her way. Their rules, their terms. Let her know now that you will not voluntarily support the destruction of your household with one penny, i.e., you will go to jail instead. Without the assurance of a continual revenue stream (courtesy of you), no attorney will want her case.
Meanwhile, amass as much cash out of her reach as you can, and hide your passport.
Dalrock,
Thanks for your further input on NFP. I shall look closer at the link you provided. Had a brief look already, and I already learn something new. Thanks…
I can see why some husbands will be against NFP if it is just another tool (amongst many) that are used against men. Already, some men have commented about this, in this thread. See, if it is a legitimised way of Catholic women rationing sex against the husband, then I agree that this is unfair on men.
This was never the Church’s original intention, of this I am pretty sure. But like everything in modern times, it can be used in the wrong way.
Thank you also for your explanation with what is going on with Earl, Mcdavid, etc. I missed the specific issue you had with them. Sorry for that.
Marriage as God intended is good. What is commonplace now in Western society is a cruel and despicable mockery of marriage as instituted by our Creator.
What the rebellious women who made up the early feminist movement objected to was a God ordained institution that maintained God’s order in the family as well as society. I think (for most) what is being objected to now is the mockery and distortion that is either masquerading as that institution or has supplanted it.
hey dlaorckasz! now dat i have passedz on and gone to heavenz, i am hanging out with great knwoeldge and wisodm of he GODS !!!
and dey have enlighetetneded me: MARRY DA COMPLICTAED GIRLZ!!!!
http://elitedaily.com/dating/marry-complicated-girl/858579/
“A simple girl has a simple mind. Things won’t be so hard when you are with this girl; it will be calm seas and smooth sailing. This is the type of girl you probably imagine yourself marrying, not the one who is opinionated and smart, who doesn’t always agree.
But, if you want to be the best you can be and expand your mind and capabilities, marry the complicated girl.
Marry the girl who tells you exactly what she expects and follows through.
Marry the girl who demands your respect.
Marry the girl who can talk politics, even if her opinions are different from yours.
Marry the girl whose eyes flicker with passion about a number of different subjects.
Marry the girl who won’t let you get away with slacking on your talents.
Marry the girl who pushes you to be better every day.
Marry the girl with whom you sometimes fight.
Marry the girl who is your equal or greater.
My dad always says the thing that attracted him most to my mom was the fact that she was smarter than him. Only a real man can say that and know it’s good for him.”
http://elitedaily.com/dating/marry-complicated-girl/858579/
MERRY XMASZ!!!! lzozozoozoz
lzozozoozolz
@Girlwithadragonflytattoo
In case you are interested I wrote a guest post over at the Orthosphere on the topic some time back.
Dear GBFM:
Sorry about your passing, but glad to see you are getting your Ritalin fix in that great beyond.
Of course! There’s nothing that makes me want to get married so much as the prospect of arguing about political nonsense in bed. So hot!
Regards, Boxer
The early feminists sold men on the idea that women merely wanted a greater share in the decisionmaking, and they promised to pull their own weight financially in return. If you read some of the old literature, this is the meme that is repeated ad nauseum.
The insidious part is that most men would be fine with a woman making some of the decisions in the marriage, and most men would be glad to have their wives work part time and bring home some dough. Most men back then thought it was a fair trade too, which is why it all got passed over, legally and socially, with no real opposition.
Of course, it didn’t work out that way. What women really wanted was absolute authority, and they got it. The irony is that they’re less happy now than ever. Funny how that works.
Boxer
Christians’ views that divorce isn’t allowed, that it is allowed only under certain conditions, and/or that remarriage after divorce isn’t allowed, represent churchianity, not Christianity, and are based on English translations of the Bible. If the applicable verses in Deuteronomy and Matthew are read in Hebrew and Greek, respectively, they say something different. If a wife displeases her husband, the husband is free to put her away, but if he does so, he must give her a certificate of divorce. One who is with a put away woman who has not been divorced commits adultery. Adultery means having sex with a married woman, or desiring and planning to have sex with a married woman. “Lust” is a deliberate mistranslation. The Greek word translated as lust does not have a sexual connotation and is elsewhere translated as “covet,” including in the Septuagint. This is an example of how churches have made subtle changes in translations and come up with rules for members that are un-biblical. In the Matthew verses, Jesus was merely clarifying Old Testament law by saying that coveting a married woman was adultery just as much as actually having sex with her.
Right on cue, or Susan Walsh rebuilds the mound:
“www.hookingupsmart.com/2014/12/08/politics-and-feminism/egalitarian-marriage-is-driving-down-the-divorce-rate/”
The subheader is:
“It’s just love now. We marry to find our soul mate, rather than a good homemaker or a good earner.”
As I said upthread, it’s really all about what kind of marriage you want, and what you think marriage is. Susan obviously endorses hedonic marriage, or “marriage to make you happy”. The problem with this, of course, is that such marriages are inherently unstable. They last only as long as both participants are “happy” with it. Those marriages will end, or will deteriorate into abject misery, when one of them (usually the woman) becomes “unhappy”.
Such marriages are also reserved only for the upper middle class and up, or college educated, or both. Of course, that’s Susan’s target demographic, and we know that most women in that position marry eventually. As for middle class women and below, and men who aren’t college educated, well, they’re just out of luck. But it’s all good for her target demo (UMC and up college educated women). So anything that helps them is good for society.
But this isn’t a good solution for everyone else, i.e., the bottom 80% of society. Typical, really. It’s all about the elite educated telling the rest of society “just be like us, and you’ll be fine! Just get married for love, and you’ll be fine! Just get an education and a job, and you’ll be fine!” The problem, though, is that the rest of society isn’t “just like” them, for a lot of reasons.
It’s an endorsement of hedonic marriage for the elite UMC and up, and everyone else can go pound sand.
@Entropy… “No there isn’t hope, not in, or for this world.
You claim to support the bible, allow for these verses:
ROM 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
ROM 3:10 There is none righteous, no, not one
ISA 64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags
All of Isaiah 24…….”
There will always be hope. Yes, we all have failed miserably at being who we are called to be at some point, and you’re right that our world is very dark and full of evil, but to say that there is no hope is to give up the good fight that we are still called to fight (for goodness).
To say that there is no hope is to allow evil to win and have the last word… I’m sure you don’t truly believe that evil has, or will, ultimately win.
Maybe you’ve had your hope dashed against the rocks and brick walls of this world, the Bible says that when you have your hope deferred like that, it makes your heart sick. You end up not wanting to believe in, or have hope in anything ever again. I understand :(. But the Bible doesn’t tell us not to hope anymore, but to still have hope, and to put it where it belongs, in God.
We often put our hope in other things without even realizing it… our material goods like our cars or homes, our jobs, our children, our family… possibly the worst thing is to put our faith and hope in other people (people are just so fallible).
“And hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured out into our hearts through the Holy Spirit, who has been given to us.” Romans 5:5
“And our hope for you is firm, because we know that just as you share in our sufferings, so also you share in our comfort.” 2 Corinthians 1:7
“For what is our hope, our joy, or the crown in which we will glory in the presence of our Lord Jesus when he comes? Is it not you (Paul speaking to the wonderful people of Thessalonia)?” 1 Thessalonians 2:19
“Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment.” 1 Timothy 6:17
“***But Christ is faithful** as the Son over God’s house. And we are his house, if indeed we **hold firmly to our confidence and the hope** in which we glory.” Hebrews 3:6
I hope these Scriptures bless you, it blessed me just reading them & posting them.
I wanted to comment about Paul also… wow was he ever incredible. I used to really dislike him – his opinions on women really got to me as a teenager, but now I understand more of the background and who he was. He had so many horrible things happen and yet he NEVER let his hindrances hinder him from accomplishing such amazing things – things people just don’t usually ever do. I mean, this man had SUCH perseverance and endurance, and coupled with this, his attitude was incredible!!!! He had such purpose, such joy, such HOPE that the good and important things he was working for really had a purpose in this world.
His actions (when you look at how many disasters he went through to accomplish all that he did) can only – and I mean only – be attributed to the fact that he never lost his hope. He kept his heart open… and I feel so ashamed at how much I misjudged him.
oh I should’ve added 😉 my husband was the one who really pointed out how much I was misjudging Paul… lol… I let a sarcastic or mean comment out about him last fall when that Bible series on the history channel was airing, and he actually got mad (and surprised) at me for how much I judged Paul. He called me out on it…. So … men really can (and do) have marriages where their wife listens to them, and is open to correction/guidance etc. lol.. there is always hope!
unfortunately, my 10 minute composition gotten eaten before posting. So shorter version follows:
I wasn’t drunk while posting to Patch, I was multitasking and I guess it shows.
I will be praying for you as you work on your confrontation. May you head by armored by the helmet of Christ’s salvation, and your heart by the breastplate of His righteousness. Know that your ultimatum is biblicly sound. Don’t let the witness try to soften your points, nor get into an argument. Don’t let your wife negotiate with you. Keep it simple and short. Write it down and bring it with you, nothing wrong with referring to notes when it is important.
And additional comment/advise – don’t let anyone call you a nice man again. Nice means wimpy, will compromise or compliant with others, won’t stick up for himself, won’t defend others.
Kind, loving, generous, meek, humble are all fine and excellent character traits,
Nice is a completely different word with a completely different meaning behind it. Never accept it again. Actively reject it being applied to you. Women do not want a nice guy, and men do not respect them. If you had a solid father and mother team who raised you to be a nice guy, well, it could be much worse but it also isn’t biblically okay. Jesus, Moses, David, Peter, Paul – none of them were nice guys.
Be confident as you daily align your will to your Lord’s will (but make sure you align and stay aligned). He will not let you down. Ever.
If you don’t do this for yourself, or for your wife’s sake (although she would be the biggest beneficiary), do it for your sons.
dragon girl,
that reaction to Paul is very common. thank you for copping to that and I’m glad your husband still retains his testicles. I think a lot of women in the church have that reaction to Paul’s writings.
His writings clash with the worldly culture on many many fronts, but especially so for women who have been raised in a deeply embedded feminist culture.
I wanted to comment about Paul also… wow was he ever incredible. I used to really dislike him – his opinions on women really got to me as a teenager, but now I understand more of the background and who he was.
I hope you realize that Paul’s teachings concerning the roles of women are not just opinion. It wasn’t only his background or who he was. Paul was setting up church doctrine. He was explaining how husbands and wives, women and men are to function in the family and the church, according to God’s design.
@girlwithadragonflytattoo
I wouldn’t put the offensive (to our feminist sensibilities) passages off on Paul even in this way though. The Bible is shockingly antifeminist. It is downright… patriarchal! Paul is no more responsible for what is offensive to our feminist sensibilities in the New Testament than Moses is in the OT. Check out Numbers 30 if you want to see some OT that would make any good feminist explode. In the NT, also check out 1 Pet 3:1-6. Note that the Apostle Peter tells us that wives should not only submit to their husbands, but call them lord! This isn’t just “worthy” husbands, but unworthy ones as well. Peter explains that a submissive quiet spirit is what God finds beautiful in a woman. Since God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, this is timeless. But should anyone question this, see also that Peter explains that it has been this way since Genesis. He offers Sarah as the example for Christian wives to emulate. Abraham was a righteous man, but twice he passed Sarah off as his sister to powerful men he feared. He told her to say she was his sister, and she obeyed. She very nearly ended up being raped at least once because of it. See Gen 20 for the astounding story of one of these incidents.
Most men would be very surprised to learn how much their opinion matters to the women in their lives. It (men’s approval or disapproval) is a powerful tool but feminists have done an excellent job in convincing men it doesn’t exist. The problem for feminists of course is the moment men figure it out, the “progress” in this area goes away instantly.
@WHS:
Christians’ views that divorce isn’t allowed, that it is allowed only under certain conditions, and/or that remarriage after divorce isn’t allowed, represent churchianity, not Christianity, and are based on English translations of the Bible.
How then do you explain Mark, where Jesus instructs his disciples “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”?
When Jesus tells them that, “anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” Has he not set down certain conditions for divorce?
His disciples found this to be a difficult teaching: “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”
Awww,..Giggles still ♥’s Dalrock.
Still committed to the bad information trail:
http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2014/12/08/politics-and-feminism/egalitarian-marriage-is-driving-down-the-divorce-rate/
She is persistent in her misguided ego-investments, I’ll give her that.
I have seen my own influence in my wife’s life first hand Dalrock. It can be dangerous at times, especially if I am just venting something. I have to ultimately control my own speech to not lead her away, something that many fail to take into account.
She still has her own challenges, but the fact that I am more educated on the issues now and have a naturally stubborn attitude means she will almost always follow, even if she is initially reluctant to do so.
Aunt Giggles should really stick to fantastical narrative, hard data and HUS haven’t been mixing too well over the past month.
New here! Just found this blog. Good stuff. One thing though, I’m a Baptist who’s afraid of marrying someone with a past. I’m afraid that I’ll get married, only to find that a woman has slept with a lot of men. What are some tells? Is the grapevine very accurate?
Thanks,
Chuck
Just ask her “how much dick have you had? I’m not interested in a slut to make a wife.”
There’s no real way to test for virginity any more, so you should just assume whoever you’re marrying has had a mile of cock. With that in mind:
1. DNA test every kid at birth. No exceptions.
2. Do not take any shit from your wife, period. The minute she starts getting mouthy, you pull away. The minute you suspect her of fucking some other dude(s), she probably is, so react accordingly (coldly, with extreme prejudice, and no regrets).
3. Pre-nuptual agreement. And yes, it means less than you think, but have one anyway. It sends the right message.
4. Do not co-mingel monies. You can have a joint checking account, but it’s not your main account, and its at a different bank entirely from your main account.
5. Accounts across the border. Mexican and Canadian banks will open accounts denominated in US$. Yes, the tax man can still find them, but they’ll be harder for her to break into and you’ll be less likely to be surprised.
These things sound sorta paranoid, but if I had a brother (which I don’t) and he was getting married, that’s what I’d hope he lived by. Keeping the wife on her toes seems to head off serious problems down the road.
Best, Boxer
Chuck L,
It’s good that if you decide to marry you want your bride to be a virgin. “Virgin” is the correct default setting for first-time brides, it is not some weird Christian or misogynist thing. In the age of the internet you can do some pretty good research, and you ought to. Of course one place to start is by just asking. A “yes” may not be definitive (depending on how she says it), but a lot of girls will admit to premarital sex, and if she does then there’s no need to keep looking for more evidence unless you want to find out how just how experienced she is. If she claims virginity and you’re going to proceed, you have the option of telling her that if she turns out to not be a virgin bride, you will consider the marriage to be fraudulent and will promptly divorce her in accordance with Matthew Chapter 19 – no matter when you find out.
And/or you could mention this story and ask her what she thinks. It’s about a 99-year-old man who discovered that his 86-year-old wife had an adulterous affair in the 1940’s (he found love letters in their attic). He confronted her, she confessed, and he filed for divorce. If your intended has a problem with that, you may want to think long and hard about wifing her up – anyone who thinks a man should just “let-bygones-be-bygones” when he discovers his wife has lied about her sexual history is waving a red flag in my estimation.
Lyn87 says:
…anyone who thinks a man should just “let-bygones-be-bygones” when he discovers his wife has lied about her sexual history is waving a red flag in my estimation….
How about anyone who discovers that his intended spouse does not really believe in the permanence of marriage? It is disappointing to say that this is where I am with my intended.
We had a conversation yesterday about the movie “Fireproof”. Though I have not seen the movie, I have a fair idea of the plot; she has seen it, and her views were rather unacceptable, to me at least. She felt that it was justified for the wife to divorce her husband, because, by his involvement in pornography, he had “ceased” behaving like a husband.
I challenged her to show me a passage of scripture to back up her claims. She responded by quoting the passage in Matthew 18, where Jesus said to treat the unrepentant brother as a heathen and a tax collector.
I countered that you don’t treat a heathen by cutting them off, but by praying for them and trying to win then to Christ. At least, that is how Christ wants us to treat heathens, and Paul specifically said not to divorce an unsaved spouse if they don’t want divorce.
I went further to ask her if, in the movie, the wife ever prayed for her straying husband, or asked her church leaders to do the same? She said No. But then she went ahead to claim, quite incorrectly, that the movie was meant to show the “husband’s perspective”, not the wife’s. In other words, the emphasis was meant to be on the husband’s actions, not the wife’s.
I wasn’t going to buy that, so I argued that it was impossible to show the husband’s actions without showing the wife’s responses in a movie.
I went further to argue that pornography could be an addiction, apart from it being a sin against God, against the man’s spouse and against the man himself. How come she ignored the other aspects of the act and only focused on the wife’s displeasure? How about God? How about the fact that fat that the man could be sick—-ie addicted to pornography, and in need of deliverance or rehab of some sort? Who should support him the most—his family, or strangers?
To make it easier for her to answer, I asked what she would do if her kid had an addiction. Would she help such a child, or cut him/her off from her life? She said she would cut of the child.
Really?
I have been scratching my head since yesterday and thinking of the way forward.
Now, this woman was brought up in church and is otherwise decent. But this exchange has raised my red flag so high up I cannot ignore it.
dave
Red flag is right. In fact she is only good for booty calls. Do not wife her. Somebody will but not you. I would say you have been blessed by God. Remember the old joke about the man of faith and the flood. The water ankle deep and a man with a 4X4 truck pulls up and asked him if he needs a ride out of the flood. He says “no thank you God will take care of men” The man drives off. The water is now chest high and a guy pulls up in a boat. He says “no thank you God has me covered” Now the water is over his head and he is sitting on his roof and a helicopter flies over. He sends them away letting them know god is going to take care of him. The water rose up over the man of faith away killing him. His soul somehow makes it to heaven and he ask God why he let washed out. God told him he sent him a truck, a boat ,and a helicopter.
Dave your conversation was a truck pulling a trailer with a boat and a helicopter on it. Just because a woman goes to church doesn’t mean she is anything special because of it. Just like every thing else it is about her getting the title of Christian church going woman not about serving the lord. And it is for damn sure not following any of that misogynistic scripture. Even your own description of her spoke of being a brought up in the church was seen as a positive just as she wanted.
greyghost says:
Even your own description of her spoke of being a brought up in the church was seen as a positive just as she wanted.
That was what initially attracted me to her. She was so decent and spoke of her love for the Lord. However, the more I dug, the less decency I found. I have to rethink the whole relationship now.
That all of these things are sinful doesn’t stop modern Christians from embracing them, because what they are trying to create is a sort of theological gender bending.
Again, I really think we all need to be much more judicious in our use of the word “Christian,” since in 99.9999 percent of cases when we use this word, we really mean “churchian.”
I think it has become painfully obvious to most of us, whether we care to admit it or not (and most of us clearly don’t) that genuine, Christ-following adherents of the Scriptures in their entirety are so few in number –and so conspicuously absent within those state-licensed bodies known as “churches”– as to be statistical non-entities.
“By their fruits ye shall know them.” Unfortunately, the mature trees are found only as one at a time among thousands of dead stumps, in orchards that are hundreds of miles apart.
I suspect that Paul’s claims in Corinthians about being content as a single, celibate man tend to drive women crazy.
As a life-long Red-Piller, I can attest to the fact that a man who thinks with the bigger of his two heads is oftentimes a challenge, if not an outright threat, to many women.
Rollo:
You have to remember who Susan Walsh’s audience is. It’s White women between ages 18-30, college educated or in college, working or preparing for a career, politically moderate to liberal, sexually active or looking to become so, middle class on up, and who have thus far proven unable to secure commitment from high status men. THat’s why she gloms onto reports like Wolfers’ — because it puts a scientific sheen on her claims and gives a little hope to her niche demographic. She doesn’t care about Ellen Elementary School Teacher (too prole) or Rosie the Riveter (too poor) or the Stay at Home Mom (too provincial) or Sally Sunday School Teacher (too Christian, too conservative). She isn’t interested in minority women’s dating issues — those faced by Black women or Latinas (too many cultural differences).
She doesn’t care about working class women, or noncollege bound women, or women who left the workforce to marry or raise kids. She cares about her niche demographic. She figures that they’ll get married anyway. Stats show she’s more or less correct about that — these women are marrying pretty much when they want to, even in their late 30s. Her role is simply to get them there while avoiding the usual pump and dump pitfalls, and give them some hope along the way.
Dave:
Grey Ghost is absolutely right on this.
She has just given you permission not to enter into your definition of marriage, and she has told you what kind of woman she is, so what is it about this that you don’t understand?
Never mind all that bullshit about how committed she claimed to be to “the Lord” or the teachings of Jesus and the church fathers. She has just invalidated all that nonsense.
You should explain to her that her definition of marriage, as a temporary arrangement, is fine with you, while you continue to play the field and look for a woman worthy of a permanent commitment. She can keep giving you that ass, in other words, until you are through with her.
Women like this one exist as temporary stop gaps, until a worthy brother like yourself finds an equally worthy woman to enter into marriage with. Don’t fall for her tricks or think you can “change” her. You can’t. In biblical terms, she has taken up the calling and vocation of harlot. You should respect this, use her as she is best suited, and discard when you’re done.
Regards, Boxer
Another thing, Rollo, is that Susan Walsh’s idea of “marriage” is just that — “Marriage”. Her idea of marriage is Marriage 2.0 — terminable at will of either participant, having whatever features and parameters both parties agree on, and sexual access only at the wife’s enthusiastic, proven consent.
This is not marriage. It is state sanctioned boyfriend-girlfriend status, giving her all the rights with no responsibilities; and burdening him with all the responsibilities and no rights.
@Rollo Tomassi
Her obsession is a bit creepy.
I just poked over there and am surprised at the extent of her transformation. When I first started blogging she was an antifeminist. On one post she was proud of being denounced by NOW. Perhaps the post has just moved but it isn’t there any more and I can’t find it via google. Now HUS is a feminist blog with a tag dedicated to Politics and Feminism. Now she writes lovingly about the Yes Means Yes law. She fell hard for the Rolling Stone UVA story (while she claims she didn’t really), and removed a post about the “drunk girl” after it was found to be a hoax. In the post you link to she celebrates that feminism has saved marriage. There is a Game saying that women can change entirely after they break up with you. Evidently this is true in the blogosphere as well. Susan broke up with the manosphere and turned into a raging feminist.
Dave says:
December 9, 2014 at 1:25 am
Dave says:
December 9, 2014 at 7:27 am
Huge red flag. I’ll bet she has others too. If you are still determined to pursue this you would do well to make her good and mad at you. Don’t listen to what she says, watch what she does.
Susan broke up with the manosphere and turned into a raging feminist.
I think she was always a feminist. Now she’s just more so (raging if you will). I’ve read things from “anti”-feminists who are all for the accomplishments of the early feminists. Many of them are egalitarian and some are pro-abortion.
Roissy Maxim 12:
When the love is gone, women can be as cold as if they had never known you.
These kinds of women mistake tingles for love. Love isn’t something that just shows up and then one day disappears. Love is a choice. It’s something someone chooses to do. Silly women.
Dave, despite what Boxer said, never explain why you’re breaking up.
Seriously. You are only giving her ammunition to kill you and your reputation. Have you learned nothing from Spreadsheet man and more recent story of the man who gave explanations of his breakup?
She is excellent churchian marriage material. But horrible christian marriage material. You cannot change her, and it sounds like she refuses to let God change her too. Disengage, just tell her it won’t work out long term between you and that you both need to focus on finding happiness.
Pingback: Ethereal Communications from da GreatBooksForMen(TM) | Lucius Somesuch
Dave, I am uncomfortable with all the advice that you Next this woman which seems appropriate to The Red Pill/Reddit but not to this blog.
My take is…AWALT. ALL women think like this when exposed to the herd mentality. However, a strong man can lead her away from this perspective.
When we saw Fireproof, my wife KNEW how I would react. She tempered her response and probed me to confirm what I thought, and then immediately backed off. I know she thought it was just peachy, just like all other women but I was pissed even before I discovered the manosphere.
THEY LOOOOVE Divorce Pornography- especially divorce porn where she ends up getting remarried, or bends the husband to her will.
All Women Are Like That.
Dave next that chick and lead in her replacement
The thing that really pissed me off was how she taunted him mercilessly and then gaslighted him how it was all his fault because he was jerking it to porn. The conversation is burned into my brain:
Catherine Holt: Oh, yeah, but what do you do around here other than watch tv and waste time on the internet? You know what; if looking at that trash is how you get fulfilled, that’s fine, but I will not compete with it!
Caleb Holt: Well, I sure don’t get it from you!
Catherine Holt: And you won’t! Because you care more about saving for your stupid boat and pleasing yourself than you ever did about me!
A marriage is about TWO promises- not just ONE that all the Churchians, including many on this thread- seek to impose.
The marriage promises are:
1. To had and to hold (an explicit sexual reference).
2. Forsake all others.
If the marriage contract is broken by a rebellious and unpleasant woman refusing to have and hold, why is the husband required to “forsake all others.”
Jesus said divorce is only for grounds of adultery. He NEVER prohibited taking a 2nd or 3rd wife to satisfy your sexual needs. I believe the Lord’s prohibition on divorce was to prevent poor women from being cast onto the streets to beg, NOT to chain men to the feminine imperative for all time. Almost ALL of the patriarchs were Apex Alphas with multiple wives and this was not prohibited by Jesus or any place in the Old or New Testament. Yes Elders of the Church can only have one wife, because if they had more than 1 it could affect their duties to the church (plus make for lots of gossip when the wives start to fight).
TLDR: If there aint no having and holding, then there aint gonna be no forsaking all others. THAT is Old Testament law, AND New Testament law and the churchian interpretation is extraordinarily damaging and totally wrong.
Plus, Dread is one of the only ways to reestablish desire and a sexual relationship with your wife who is in Rebellion and has lost attraction. Read the Song of Songs for an Alpha prophets take on Dread. I don’t care what they concluded in the 3rd century at the Counsel of Nice, The Incel Paul was not Alpha, nor was he a prophet. Solomon was, and he explains in graphic, vivid detail how to make a woman drip to the floor begging to drain a man’s fluids (hint, it is NOT by whining, complaining, or buying her mother a boat. It is by at least acting like you don’t give a flying frack and demonstrating that you are in demand, have other options, and are not chained to her whims).
Dave, what she has said is important. The minute she doesn’t find you to be a suitable husband, and at some point with Evangelical Feminism raging around you and her this is a virtual certainty she will use divorce as a threatpoint and put you on the good Churchian man-up treadmill to perpetual misery and divorce.
Bluepillprof, I think it’s important to add that while Solomon may have been plenty alpha that his tangling with all those women didn’t do a thing for the terrors that befell him in the night. They didn’t satisfy him and they didn’t make him pleasing to God. He wound up a wreck. I’d rather be “incel” Paul by far and away than quaking Solomon.
Here’s another link for the Denial tag: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/12/sperm-donor-life-partner/383421/?single_page=true
Just because women can create and raise a baby alone doesn’t mean they want to. An increasing number of women and lesbian couples are seeking an involved father for a donor.
…
Adams and other lawyers recommend that families decide whether a sperm donor will be a co-parent or just a donor, and sit down with a lawyer to draw up an agreement.
All the benefits of marriage, without the icky stuff. Are male unicorns really that common?
Bonus Glen Stanton quotes: If women don’t find a man they feel they want to marry and raise children with, he said, they should think about the child’s welfare before deciding to have a child. After all, humans often desire a number of things that they sometimes can’t have, he added.
It’s true that sometimes people marry and have children with the best intentions and then split up, but they raise their children “doing the best they can in spite of the curveball life has thrown them,” he said. “The idea of putting yourself intentionally in that situation is a whole other matter.”
See, if divorce “just happens” it’s not nearly as bad for the kids as when people choose to create a family without creating a family.
Another great post, Dalrock! Thanks.
There is a Game saying that women can change entirely after they break up with you. Evidently this is true in the blogosphere as well. Susan broke up with the manosphere and turned back into a raging feminist.
FIFY?
Eh. Maybe it’s just “once a feminist always a feminist”. Wal$h said some years back that she was somewhat embarassed by the slogans she said back in the early 80’s. Well, now she’s back with her college chums.
I wonder if she’s getting ready to divorce her whatshisname?
Pingback: Four Hundred Pounds of Killing Fury Locked In A Box | The Society of Phineas