Commenter Trust asked if I would give my thoughts on a post by Willard F. Harley, Jr., Ph.D. titled When to call it quits (Part 1). Dr. Harley explains that up to 80% of divorces are caused by what he calls “neglect”. He states this in a gender neutral way, but he makes it clear that he is talking about wives losing attraction for their husbands:
On the subject of neglect, I’ve chosen to feature a marriage that isn’t all that bad from most people’s perspective, but isn’t good either. L.R.’s husband hasn’t abandoned her physically, leaving her to fend for herself. Instead, he’s only abandoned her emotionally. They probably even have a friendship of sorts. It’s cases like these that leave a wife struggling to know what to do.
As it turns out, most of these women divorce their husbands. In fact, research I’ve personally conducted in the archives of government statistics on the causes of divorce lead me to believe that as many as 80% of all divorces are caused by neglect. Women like L.R. suddenly call it quits with little warning, leaving her husband, family and friends scratching their heads wondering what’s wrong with her.
Harley explains here that his fundamental approach is to focus on restoring the wife’s feelings of romantic love and attraction to her husband:
The difference between my approach to saving marriages, and the approach of most other therapists, is that I focus on building romantic love (being “in love”) between spouses, rather than simply focusing on conflict resolution. As it turns out, I also address conflict resolution, but I do it in a way that builds love between spouses.
Aside from his deep hostility to marital commitment (more later), this isn’t a bad secular approach. Feelings of attraction and romantic love are a sort of all purpose lubricant. When the attraction is there it is easy to overlook other issues. When it is gone the smallest issues often seem gigantic.
Correction: This wouldn’t be a bad approach if Harley understood the mechanics of attraction. The foundation of Harley’s work on marriage is a concept he has dubbed the Love Bank. The Love Bank is a sort of ledger of warm fuzzies and cold pricklies. Build up enough warm fuzzies while minimizing cold pricklies in the ledger, and sexual attraction suddenly appears:
We like those with positive Love Bank balances and dislike those with negative balances. But if an account reaches a certain threshold, a very special emotional reaction is triggered — romantic love. We no longer simply like the person — we are in love. It’s a feeling of incredible attraction to someone of the opposite sex.
Since he makes it clear that this is a problem of wives not feeling attraction to their husbands, what this really means is the key to men becoming sexually attractive to their wives is to do more nice things for them. This is what Rollo calls negotiating desire, and not only does the approach not work when men try it, it makes the problem much worse. Harley claims this approach is revolutionary, but it is simply (deeply flawed) modern conventional wisdom. This kind of thinking is everywhere, which is the reason for the uncanny resemblance to the movie Fireproof with it’s accompanying Love Dare.
Getting back to When to call it quits (Part 1), Harley’s advice to wives who don’t feel the tingle anymore is his own special flavor of the wake-up call. He sets this up as a two part system. In part A the wife does everything she thinks the husband wants for 30 days. Before she does this however she secretly prepares for part B, where she ambushes her husband by either kicking him out of the house (if they have children) or moves to a new apartment. Long time readers will see the strong resemblance between Harley’s “Plan B” and what Joel and Kathy Davisson call lowering the boom. The strategy in both cases is to crush the husband with threats to destroy the family, in order to get the husband to buy the authors’ products and start doing what the wife demands. In both schemes once the husband grovels enough the wife will regain her attraction for him.
Harley gives the example of a Christian woman named Ellen who had lost her tingle and found herself tempted to cheat on her husband:
Her husband, Ken, was not abusive, but didn’t meet her intimate emotional needs. She is a Christian, but told me that she was very tempted to have an affair or divorce her husband.
Harley’s advice on how Ellen should handle her strong temptation to cheat and/or divorce was to bring these temptations much closer. Following his advice, she moved out of the marital home to a secret location:
Sometimes, especially when an unfaithful spouse refuses to end an affair, I recommend no contact at all for plan B. If he wants to contact her, he must talk through a designated mediator. But in this case, I didn’t feel that a mediator was necessary and that Ellen could talk with Ken by cell phone. He didn’t know her address, however.
Harley also suggested that Ellen offer a reward of sex if her husband went to a counselor and purchased one of Harley’s books:
I had explained to Ellen how her husband would probably react at first: He would throw a fit. And that’s precisely what happened. He told her that he was filing for divorce, and that she was now on her own. I also predicted what might happen next: After he had a chance to cool off, he’d want to have sex with her. That also happened right on schedule after two weeks had passed. My advice to her was that she should agree to it only after he saw a counselor with her that would take them through “His Needs, Her Needs.” Since her husband hated me after he learned that I was the architect of this plan, I suggested that she find a local counselor who was familiar with my books and methods, which she did.
This is how these systems almost always work. The threatpoint of infidelity and the brutal family courts is subtly or not so subtly used to sell the author’s books & workbooks, DVDs, home study courses, coaching services, etc.
But wait, there’s more!
Harley closes by warning wives that they really need to lower the boom Plan B their husband to get him to buy and follow his products. If they don’t they risk being stuck in a loveless marriage or forced to not honor their marriage vows. In fact, by crushing their husband with the threats of the family courts they will be doing their husband a favor:
If you want to be among the 20% that are happily married, you may need to do something drastic-like follow my plan. Or you will become one of the 20% that live together unfulfilled (like you are now), the 20% that stay married, but eventually separate for the rest of their lives together (like you may end up), or the remaining 40% who throw in the towel and divorce.
I strongly encourage you to be among the 20% with a very fulfilling marriage. While your husband may not like my plan at first, especially if you separate from him, if it succeeds, he will be a much happier man. He will come to recognize, as you do, that a great marriage requires a mutual effort. Both spouses must take their marital responsibilities seriously by meeting each other’s intimate emotional needs.
Harley’s claim is that unhappy marriages only get better if wives take over and crush their husbands. He tells us outirght that his plan often leads to infidelity and/or divorce, but he positions it as the only viable option (emphasis mine):
There’s the possibility that your husband will not want you to return. He may be happy that you’ve left. Separation is always a dangerous step to take because it often leads to an affair or divorce. But what are the alternatives?
Some people wait and hope for a change of heart. But as I mentioned earlier, time can go by very quickly. Before you know it, 20 more years will have passed without any improvement.
It’s sad to consider how many people put up with a loveless marriage and simply live independently. In fact, about 20% of all married couples die having been separated for many years. And while another 20% continue to live together, they don’t have much of a relationship — it’s like your marriage. Only about 20% have a romantic relationship throughout marriage-they meet each other’s intimate emotional needs.
This won’t help Harley or others like him sell their wares, but the reality is that simply sticking to it and honoring your marriage vows when times are rough is a very effective plan. From Does Divorce Make People Happy? Findings from a Study of Unhappy Marriages:
Two out of three unhappily married adults who avoided divorce or separation ended up happily married five years later.
Yes, call it lowering the boom, Plan B, giving him a honey-do list so he can be a better servant-leader — whatever a woman can do to force her man to raise himself to her higher, more spiritual and moral level, she should do it for his own good. Unless she doesn’t want to, of course, in which case she should (reluctantly) leave him, and somehow that will be for his own good too. But either way it’ll be for her good, which is what matters most.
We’re so lucky to have women to be our spiritual and moral superiors, and enlightened men like Harley to encourage them to share their beneficence with us.
And again – “Love is an act of Will”
It is not only about intimate feelings, it is so much more.
And I say that contentment is a far superior goal to “romantic love”!
He’s like the L. Ron Hubbard of marital advice. What he says sounds nice, but it is completely impractical in the real world, and all roads ultimately lead back to giving him more money in exchange for more impractical advice.
Harley is just operating from false premises. Those premises may have seemed plausible back in the 1970’s, when he was actively working in Minnesota to try to patch up marriages, but we know now that they are false. The problem with Harley is pretty simple: there are things he doesn’t know, and there are things he knows that are just wrong. However I seriously doubt that anyone could convince him to consider new information, new science, etc. because he got his PhD in the 60’s, and all but certainly is “stuck” in his 1970’s – era thoughts.
Harley’s “cure” for sick marriages is sort of like the 18th century medical technique of bleeding sick patients – plausible under a false premise, but ultimately quite harmful. Because he won’t, probably can’t, examine his premises – starting with the notion that “Women are Wonderful”.
It would be better to grind up one of those new FDA approved lady pills and put it in your wife’s mimosa for brunch. Problem solved.
Probably the most regrettable part of your Declaration of Independence, Mr Jefferson, was your inclusion of the pursuit of happiness, (clearly not attainable under the jackboot of the King) as if it was a noun as easily observable as Life and the slightly more uncertain Liberty and thus as an entirely subjective state achievable under narcotics as much as under a system of taxation with representation, America has set perhaps unintentionally, itself to catching will-o-the-wisps. How much better when enquired as to ones health or indeed the state of ones marriage to grudgingly reply ‘Mustn’t grumble’. Even the masochist as he labours under the whip gains moments of jouisance from the knowledge that his pain is being obtained at the expense of forcing someone to do his will and The United Nations has invoked a general Happiness Day (and given that day also celebrates my birthday I certainly feel a sense of well-being on that day) though how much better things were when one could relate any particular day to a Saint and reflect on his or her moral qualities rather than the amorphousness of not being miserable. Happiness, I note, is not generally condusive to the creation of great art or any other sort of achievement.
As it says in the good book ‘what was lost will be found’ – and seemingly by accident.
The basic problem is that he buys into the “marriage is about perpetual romantic love” idea which has repositioned marriage conceptually. No longer covenant/duty/bond and rather “voluntary extended romance”.
The problem with this repositioning (apart from the fact that it isn’t the Christian understanding of marriage) is not that romance in marriage is bad per se (it’s good, when it’s there, because it helps), but rather that romantic love is *fleeting*, is subject to ups and downs (as with all emotions) and ebbs and flows (as with all emotions). That is — it is fickle and fragile and changeable, as is the case with ALL EMOTIONS. This is why having “emotional fulfillment” as the core basis, the fundament, of marriage makes no sense — it is basing what is supposed to be a lifelong commitment, and a critical social institution for familial and, by extension, social stability, on a basis which is fickle, fragile and changeable — it’s like building a skyscraper on sand, it makes no sense.
Again, this is not to say that romance in marriage is bad, or that one should ignore the emotional needs of one’s spouse. However, when one claims that the lack of either of these is a basis for blowing up a marriage, one has made them the basic foundation of marriage itself, such that when they lack, the marriage should be blown up because it no longer has substance. This development, and the mindset it represents, is by far and away the main driver of high divorce rates. The reason is that it sets people up to be disappointed in their marriages in most cases, because in most cases the marriage isn’t one, long, non-stop bodice-ripping romance from start until death do us part — it may be for some small percentage of couples, but it isn’t for most couples, even for most couples who do not divorce (as this guy himself notes). Setting this standard as “the only marriage which is worth having”, which is basically what this guy is saying (you want to be in that 20% and not like the other ones), is basically setting up MOST marriages for *failure* by giving people an unrealistic standard that most will not be able to meet or sustain.
The sad part is that none of this is necessary, because the old idea of marriage as covenant and commitment — as something you just see through, in good or bad, etc. — is still available to us. It clashes, however, with the “marriage as vehicle for self-fulfillment” approach to marriage, which is closely related to the general societal approach of radical individualism and its emphasis on continual self-actualization and fulfillment. In its essence, the latter has swallowed up the former and redefined it as an extension of the latter, rather than as a covenant and commitment which may, in some cases, go against the latter yet is nevertheless an absolute personal and social good.
People like this guy are a part of the wrecking crew. They’re a part of the main culprit behind the rise of divorce rates, wittingly or unwittingly (and it doesn’t matter much which it is, in the end), because of the way they have twisted the meaning of marriage and therefore the expectations that couples have of it. It’s literally self-destructive, but because they are so possessed themselves by the demonic cultural hegemony of radical individualism and self-actualization, they cannot see this, and instead see the repositioning of marriage as an extension of this as a *good* thing, even if there are high divorce rates — because, per this crowd, the only marriage worth having is that 20% lifelong hot romance marriage, and everyone else either should get in that 20% group or get divorced. In short, THEY DON’T CARE ABOUT THE DIVORCE RATE IF YOU ARE NOT IN THAT KIND OF MARRIAGE, and the social impact of divorce can just be damned.
Destroyers. Not just charlatans. Destroyers. Evil. Possessed by demons. There really is nothing else to say about them.
I wonder if part of this is that some beta guys do seem to stumble into a happy, stable marriage with a wife who seems content despite the fact that he wouldn’t know Game if he tripped over it and there’s not a lot of physical attraction. I do think there’s a subset of women who have naturally low libido and really don’t ever have fantasies about being captured by pirates, who really are content with a “best friend” husband to share a nice home and a pleasant social life.
If a woman like that gets hooked up with an equally low-libido man, then maybe the platitudes about having hobbies in common and being each other’s best friend really do come into play. Sex really can be a secondary thing which they do for occasional closeness or fun or duty, but neither of them feels pressured to have it or denied it. They’re kinda like an elderly couple living serenely together after 50 years of marriage, except that they almost start out in that phase.
The kicker is that, because it does seem to “just work” for them without the drama and flirting and so on, they’re exactly the sort of people whose friends will say, “Hey, you should write a book about how to have a successful marriage!” But because they’re so atypical, their advice, such as “be nicer to each other” or “find common interests,” will be useless to normal couples at best, and probably destructive.
I see that mental health ‘healers’ are still ahead of even the most venial of doctors. Treating symptoms gets a lot more money from the patient than curing the problem, but this method of making the problem worse while declaring a fix is even more devious.
After blogging for almost 5 years with women who repeatedly put money in Ellen Fein and Sherrie Schnieder’s bank, and trying to convince them of how fruitless their endeavor was, this post of Dalrock’s brought back bad memories.
Dear Jesus. It’s almost like this guy is TRYING to blow up marriages. There is a special place in Hell for people like this guy, making his living conning gullible women into frivorce. He’s somewhere between tow truck drivers and George Soros, who turned his neighbors in for deportation when he worked for the Nazis
40something divorced man, two teens and no desire for additional kids. Good job, decent house, and money for “extras” if I want them at my sole discretion. Remind me again why I’d ever put a loaded firearm into the hands of a toddler by remarrying?
Cail, the couples you speak of, I know a couple of them. They ARE best friends and have a real contentment in their lives. The serenity and peacefulness that emanates from these couples is surreal.
Unfortunately, they are the minority of minorities. Most people would like to believe that these couples have no fun in their life, they are boring, etc. Wrong, they are content and enjoy a joy that is beyond most humans grasp.
His advice wasn’t correct in the 1970s either, we just didn’t realize it as clearly then.
Yeah BradA, somewhere in that time feminism lost it’s mystique.
@Novaseeker
Your comment on June 5, 2015 at 9:49 am: Great post! Most excellent!
“They ARE best friends and have a real contentment in their lives. The serenity and peacefulness that emanates from these couples is surreal.”
Yeah, I believe there are some of these, but like DeNihilist says they are a minority.
The other marriages I’ve seen that really seem to work are the ones where the sexual attraction was mutual and intense from the very beginning of the relationship. There are a couple of these relationships which have been advertised as such here in the sphere, and those relationships have been thoroughly dissected and analyzed.
In real life I’ve seen these folks too, and they are also a small minority. These marriages are characterized by:
1. Both partners were above average physical attractiveness
2. Both partners are assortatively paired, i.e. of roughly comparable physical attractiveness vis a vis each other
3. He is of slightly higher attractiveness than she is when the “overall package” is considered (i.e. in addition to his good looks he has a good job, he has money, he has a larger than life personality)
4. They occupy traditional sex roles (i.e. he is the breadwinner; she is a housewife or works part time)
5. They have children.
6. She was age 23 or less at marriage.
7. They have retained some of their physical attractiveness into middle age.
In all of these relationships you can tell there was intense sexual attraction from the get go, and it is still present, albeit to a lesser degree. He still feels attraction because of wife goggles. For her, the sexual attraction waxes and wanes, but the important part for her is that it was there from the very beginning, and that she felt it more intensely than with other men.
The problem is that most marriages don’t even meet the first criteria, so today, most of them are doomed from the get-go.
When I have taken the time to voice the incredible misandry I encountered through my divorce, in the police, in my friends and neighbors, and in the family courts, or spoke about how the family courts used threats of child abuse against my children to extort more money from me, to the people in my church the response was less then Christ like.
After I tell them why I will never get married again and why I actively tell the young men to never get married they will occasionally listen to me explain how the laws encourage family destruction and child abuse by rewarding the woman’s bad behavior. They do not care. The only response I’ve heard is, “you just haven’t found the right one.” The magical “one” who won’t fall into temptation… And they if they do only a man and his children will suffer, never a woman, so it’s all good.
When I explain to them that the laws actively engage bad behavior in men as well as women they seem perplexed. Men are afraid of being divorce raped so surely they will be on their best behavior, right? Perhaps those poor man suffering under a controlling abusive wife, which appears to be every man in my church. But for those of us who aren’t under the threatpoint? Why would we be good? We’re going to be punished if we are good or bad anyway so why not be bad?
When I told my neighbor, whose wife has been using the threatpoint to control him for a decade, about how he may as well be bad since he’s being punished anyway I started to open his eyes. He hasn’t cheated on his wife yet but as he’s moved that way suddenly she’s started respecting him and hence loving him more. His shattered backbone is starting to be repaired. Unfortunately it’s too late as I’ve been helping him plan his future divorce for two months now. After a decade of living in fear from the woman who was supposed to love him he’s now done.
Of course my bishop is very upset because I’m teaching men to not become slaves for women. But what’s he going to do? The church is already 75% women.
Something that often gets overlooked is that sexual attraction in a marriage at the beginning is a given for a man. A man never, ever marries a woman he doesn’t want to f*ck. Never. For men, sexual attraction is “yes” or “no”: “Yes I do want sex with her” or “Hell no I wouldn’t touch that with another man’s dick”.
This isn’t true for women. Women will marry men they are “kinda sorta” about, “meh” about. Women’s sexual attraction is more like “Hell yeah”, “um, ok sure” and “no way”.
“Ok sure” comes into play when marriage is being considered. After going through all the “hell yeah” guys and not getting commitment from any of them, she gets to the “um, Ok sure” guys. She is willing to have sex with them as long as they start investing and committing — $100 steak dinners, weekends away, and then marriage.
Most women are married to “um, ok, sure” guys. Most women (except for a couple I can think of off the top of my head) are not married to “hell yeah” guys.
And, there’s a huge, huge difference in female sexual response between
“Hell yeah I want to have sex with you!”
and
“um, yeah, ok sure, I’ll have sex with you, as long as you have other things that I will get out of the relationship”
The first is WANT. The second is WILLING.
I think the important point to take from this: Dr. Harley tags, by his own research, that 80% of marriages are blown up wholly because of the Wife. That number keeps rising! Though I believe it’ll top out around 85%.
Opus @ 9:32 am:
“Probably the most regrettable part of your Declaration of Independence, Mr Jefferson, was your inclusion of the pursuit of happiness”
He meant it in the classical sense, happiness as in virtue. Language didn’t evolve in a good way for his choice of words. “Pursuit” doesn’t mean quite the same thing today as then, either. I would state “pursuit of happiness” today as “the practice of virtue”.
…
Cail Corishev @ 10:02 am:
“I wonder if part of this is that some beta guys do seem to stumble into a happy, stable marriage…”
I lean towards the orthopraxy explanation: he was taught this and either never used it himself or was sufficiently Alpha in other ways to avoid the consequences, therefore he doesn’t realize this advice is bad. Sort of like a rock star whose songs are very Beta. It doesn’t drag him down because he personally is a rock star and could be sexy while eating a messy burrito.
If you want to be among the 20% that are happily married, you may need to do something drastic-like
follow my planfollow God’s plan.Fixed it for him.
1 Cor: 10 To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband 11 (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.
There’s the possibility that your husband will not want you to return. He may be happy that you’ve left.
LOL now there’s an admission. How is it that he can see this and yet still not see that the wife may need to change HER behavior? Oh that’s right, feminist rules numbers 1 and 2:
1) Women can do no wrong
2) It’s always a (the) man’s fault
Separation is always a dangerous step to take because it often leads to an affair or divorce. But what are the alternatives?
Oh I don’t know, how about not separating?
DeNihilist says: And I say that contentment is a far superior goal to “romantic love”!
Yep!
Phil 4:12 I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want. 13 I can do all this through him who gives me strength.
“When I explain to them that the laws actively engage bad behavior in men as well as women they seem perplexed.”
Women are human too, with all of their flaws and inclinations:
“… we know most women aren’t evil. But they are human, and therefore prone to take advantage of situations and persons to the extent that they can operate outside the standard rules of conduct. And as Dr. Stanley Milgram showed in the 1970’s, completely normal persons will inflict pain on others as long as someone in authority tells them to or assures them that it’s all right. This is just human nature.”
This quote is from page 10 of the book:
“How Women Manipulate: Essays Toward Gynology” by David C . Morrow.
When women in divorce are backed by the State in a heavily lopsided legal advantage compared to men, they feel entitled and even justified to do, and get anything they can, from the man, as long as the State enables them. Women are already highly susceptible to envy, greed and vindictiveness – and the State encourages and incentivizes their worst inclinations.
To modify a well often cited quote:
“Hell hath no fury like a women scorned [and the woman has the full force of the State backing her up, and encouraging her every whim].”
(By the way, isn’t this thinking how Nazi concentration camp guards justified and excused themselves in their jobs? – they were “just following orders and doing their jobs”?).
Brilliant.
Along the same line as “Women will break all rules for an Alpha, but create more rules for a Beta when it comes to her intimacy.”
She: “He is not meeting my emotional needs”
He: “OK. Threaten him. If he doesn’t comply, blow up your marriage.”
He: “Oh – and spend the rest of your life single, without getting your emotional needs met.”
Me: Yeah. That’s a really good solution. Spend the rest of your life not getting your needs met, without a steady man in your life to take care of the things you can’t or won’t take care of – like food on the table, roof over head, car and health insurance paid for, someone to kill the spiders.
Blow up your marriage. That’ll get your emotional needs met. Not.
I know several women who are in the middle of learning this. Unfortunately, in all cases there are innocent children involved whose lives are much worse off alone with mom than they ever were with dad.
Where does the One who made us ever say that He made her primarily so that the man could be required to meet her emotional needs? And if he didn’t, she should go find some other tree to eat from?
“Women will marry men they are “kinda sorta” about, “meh” about. Women’s sexual attraction is more like “Hell yeah”, “um, ok sure” and “no way”.”
So true.
Most men do not fully understand just how mercenary women can be when choosing a man to marry. Women can be absolutely cold-blooded in evaluating a man for a relationship and marriage. Men really are the true romantics. Women will indeed marry a man they have absolutely no physical and emotional attraction towards if he has high enough status and/or wealth.
@Beeker: “Women can be absolutely cold-blooded in evaluating a man for a relationship and marriage.”
And then comes the reckoning:
Late at night a big old house gets lonely
I guess ev’ry form of refuge has it’s price
And it breaks her heart to think her love is
Only given to a man with hands as cold as ice …
[Eagles]
The idea of a Love Bank is a fundamentally flawed concept. All Harley is doing is institutionalizing the idea that the more a man invests himself in a relationship the more ROI he can expect. This is a categorically false premise in intersexual relationships and only highlights in bold his own ego-investment in an egalitarian equalist belief set about how individuated sexes should approach one another.
This Love Bank is just a formalization of the fallacy of Relational Equity:
http://therationalmale.com/2012/05/21/relational-equity/
Hypergamy doesn’t care about what you put in a Love Bank. No amount of investing in a
Love BankRelational Equity will amount to any real, visceral arousal for a woman. Harley doesn’t get this because he mistakenly believes the egalitarian idea that men and women’s concepts of love are based on a model of mutual agreement and identical objectives.Women’s concept of love stems from Hypergamous optimization and the opportunism necessary to optimize it. Men’s concept is founded in merited idealism – love for the sake of love alone. Harley doesn’t consider that men will selflessly invest themselves in their wives’ Love Bank based on the idealistic hope that what he does will be appreciated and rewarded with intimacy and sex. He doesn’t understand the dualistic nature of women’s sexual strategy and that she’ll gladly accept his idealistic sacrifices up to the point that he grovels and prostrates himself to her.
He doesn’t understand that the guy she bangs after the divorce, the guy who gave her tingles and genuine desire won’t need to make a fraction of the “deposits” her ex made for her.
So this man is selling women the hope that they can have a passionate, romantic and emotionally fulfilling marriage by following his program but really they need to find a way to be content with whatever kind of marriage they’ve got.
Some of the emotional needs can be met outside of the marriage instead of expecting the spouse to be everything.
@Novaseeker
I once read an article in Reader’s Digest (late 70s or early 80s??) in which a RC priest, a rabbi, and a Protestant pastor or two gave their opinions as to why divorce rates had become so high in modern life. The only thing that I can remember about the article was that the rabbi said that he always groaned inwardly when the young couple insisted on writing their own wedding vows, because those were the couples whose marriages failed soonest. Accepting the religious vows as written by the elders of the church/temple is positively correlated with accepting marriage as an institution, while insisting on writing your own vows is positively correlated with a high level of romanticism which will be badly shaken by the first year or so of marriage. It is undoubtedly highly correlated with narcissism as well.
@Cail
Some women are just naturally agreeable, accommodating, giving, submissive, etc., and if these personality traits are combined with strong religious beliefs about the sanctity of marriage and the wrongfulness of divorce, then many of these women could be successfully married to a wide range of different men and make a success of it because they are fundamentally happy and optimistic about life. A lot of men stumble into marrying this type of woman, and then fail to have any sympathy for the men who have stumbled into marrying a completely different type of woman. They may be inspired to write marriage manuals by their own excellent marriage, without understanding that the dynamics of their own marriage are not applicable to the troubled marriages of others.
@Novaseeker: “…romantic love is *fleeting*, is subject to ups and downs (as with all emotions) and ebbs and flows (as with all emotions). That is — it is fickle and fragile and changeable, as is the case with ALL EMOTIONS. This is why having “emotional fulfillment” as the core basis, the fundament, of marriage makes no sense.” Very well put.
I’d go further and compare marriage to finance – a “Knock Out” option vs an “Asian Option.” Where an Asian Option compares the average of a fixed number of observations vs. a “Strike Price,” a “Knock Out” option is struck if a threshold is attained. For example…if you flip a coin 100 times, you expect to get between 40 and 60 heads 95% of the time. It is very possible that you might get a “Streak” of 5 tails in a row on your way to between 40 and 60 heads. If the “Game” ends the moment you observe 5 tails in a row, then the probability of getting between 40 and 60 heads obviously drops off a lot when compared to the “Asian.”
The likelihood of a lifelong generally happy marriage is dramatically lower than it should be because women are incentivized to pull the ripcord the day they get 5 tails in a row. They get a cash settlement and assume that dating will be as much fun as it was in their early 20s. Further, women, especially those who have been married for years and who married near the peak of their SMV often confuse SMV and MMV – so many strangers hit on them all the time, and they have often not noticed that their gawky 23 y.o. husband has become a “Silver Fox” executive many women would be proud to own.
I’m glad to be single.
Rollo nails it. The kindest thing one can say about Harley is he’s using out of date premises such as the equalitarian (2nd stage feminism), blank-slate notion of men and women.
I wonder how many “saves” Harley has over the longer term? How many of the “saves” worked for a while, then blew up anyway?
There are so many twisted things in Harley’s advice that I can’t help but wonder if he’s really one of those blow up human shells that’s operated by a demon, like something out of the movies.
The flawed assumptions, the advice, and even the perverse warning that his advice may destroy your marriage…it all is diabolical.
Opus @ 9:32 am:
“Probably the most regrettable part of your Declaration of Independence, Mr Jefferson, was your inclusion of the pursuit of happiness”
If I remember my civics correctly (the textbooks have been adapted to current needs) it was originally life, liberty and property, but was changed to avoid giving additional weight to slavery. Good intentions and all that.
“Two out of three unhappily married adults who avoided divorce or separation ended up happily married five years later.”
Does that mean they stayed married and became happy? I guess I’m thrown by the “ended up.”
That’s what I was taught too, Cautiously Pessimistic.
Laura
Some women are just naturally agreeable, accommodating, giving, submissive, etc., and if these personality traits are combined with strong religious beliefs about the sanctity of marriage and the wrongfulness of divorce, then many of these women could be successfully married to a wide range of different men and make a success of it because they are fundamentally happy and optimistic about life.
This is a good point. Some of the trad-cons I’ve read over the years describe how they deal with contentiousness from a woman and I either sigh or snicker. “She gets a little argumentative, and I have to remind her of Ephesians 5, she grumbles a bit then complies”. That’s the big rebellion I recall one tradcon dealt with from his otherwise compliant wife. No broken property, no half hour long screaming sessions of verbal abuse, etc.
It’s like listening to a little boy who has been allowed onto a pony ride at a carnival, the kind where the animals are fastened to a big wheel that goes in a circle under total control of the operator, and that little boy claims to be able to ride any horse. “I rode a pony! I could ride a bronco!”. But the reality of a real horse, even a mare, is an animal that weighs hundreds of pounds. A animal that can break a man’s bones in a few seconds without even trying hard. A beast with a mind of its own that may well decide to scrape a rider off with a tree branch at the canter. Keeping a horse under control is a far cry from a pony ride and can require a lot of determination, skill and tolerance for pain. (Note to slow readers: this is an analogy, some braggert going on about his manly horsemanship won’t be very illuminating or useful.)
Any woman who can be brought back from a screaming, fighting condition merely by mention of Ephesians 5 or any other Bible quote is not really all that contentious. Real contentiousness has many faces, some quite ugly, some even physically dangerous. Bible quotes may have zero effect whatsoever, at least in the short term.
Yes, Rollo has accurately described the fundamental flaw in Harley’s approach. The man’s doing things for the relationship is supposed to be done while SHE is ALSO doing things for the relationship. And whatever both are doing, that doesn’t create or sustain sexual attraction.
But that doesn’t detract from Novaseeker’s accurate rendition of what a long term relationship really is and how they work over the long term. Attraction is important, but it’s most important for it to have been present and intense at the beginning because it bonds wife to husband and helps keep her there when attraction fades or changes focus, as it always does, or when the bloom is off the rose, as always happens.
LTRs and marriages are at their best in the covenant/mutual rights/ mutual obligations model. Both bring things to the relationship; both get benefits out of the relationship. You do the best you can at the time with what you have, and you make the best of it as time goes along. That’s been stood on its head now — the man brings everything he has and gets nothing; the woman withholds or puts conditions on everything she has and gets the man’s everything.
This is why “um, ok sure” used to be good enough for a marriage, because she was getting “other things”. The man was getting sex from a woman he wanted sex from, so he’s more than happy to give her pretty much everything else. Before, she didn’t consider herself entitled to it – she understood she had obligations and she met them, or she would soon find herself without a husband. That’s not the world we live in now, of course.
Where Harley goes wrong is in saying that the more nice things a man does for her, the more sexually attracted she will be to him. He’s saying that his kindness and relational investment will create or sustain sexual attraction and create feelings of romantic love.
The problem really gets back to a fundamental issue Dalrock noted a while ago: It used to be that marriage was the proper place to pursue romantic love and sex. Now, sexual attraction is king — sexual attraction is considered to be the only appropriate situation in which romantic love and marriage can ever take place.
Separation is always a dangerous step to take because it often leads to an affair or divorce. But what are the alternatives?
Sammich making therapy?
I know a man who is a big proponent of the “7 love languages” book. He likes to cook for other people, and freely admits that food is one of his “love languages”. He’s credited the book with saving his marriage. Well, ok, saving his second marriage. I suspect that his MMV and his SMV is higher than that of his 2nd wife, so something else is involved besides determining “love languages”.
It’s not a bad book per se, if both a man and a woman were to honestly read it and be introspective and honest. The problem is, of course, women’s sexuality has covert aspects, and as Rollo makes clear, women want a man who Just Gets It without a lot of explanation. So in some, or many cases, books like this may be helpful for men to read (with a grain of red salt on the side) but pretty much pointless for women, because mostly they’ll just roll around in confirmation bias, “Yes, that’s obvious, why can’t he see it? I shouldn’t have to tell him, he should Just Know!”.
AR, I would argue that sticking to your “Bible quote”, not just by quoting it but in exemplifying it with a strong frame with commitment beats “game” every day of the week and 3 times on Sunday.
@Cautiously Pessimistic
I have checked my copy of the Declaration which conveniently includes both excisions and amendments, but it would seem that you are mistaken, as the phrase Pursuit of Happiness is unamended. Even so, I had this vague idea that you were correct so I looked a bit further, but cannot see it amongst the discussions held in Congress the previous month although I do recall that the holding of slaves by Colonies in the South caused some ill-feeling north of the Mason-Dixon line.
deti
Where Harley goes wrong is in saying that the more nice things a man does for her, the more sexually attracted she will be to him. He’s saying that his kindness and relational investment will create or sustain sexual attraction and create feelings of romantic love.
Sure, because the underlying premises in his head include “strong previous attraction”, “low female N”, “sole male breadwinner” and so forth. Things that were mostly true among married people in 1967. A modern women who rode the carousel in her 20’s and thus has an N north of 20, who was “ok, I guess” attracted to the man in the first place, and who earns nearly as much money as he does – provider / choreplay simply isn’t going to work.
Plus as Rollo pointed out, Harley’s operating from the egalitarian, men-and-women-are-the-same model, so he expects that kindness on the man’s part will generate attraction in the woman. He also expects women to be able and willing to negotiate dispassionately and honestly, rather than just demanding fried ice, right now.
His premises are wrong. They were wrong 30 years ago but it was not obvious at the time. Now it is obvious, but I doubt there’s any chance to get him to re-examine his premises at this late date.
The problem really gets back to a fundamental issue Dalrock noted a while ago: It used to be that marriage was the proper place to pursue romantic love and sex. Now, sexual attraction is king — sexual attraction is considered to be the only appropriate situation in which romantic love and marriage can ever take place.
Well, sure, because that’s what women are taught from girlhood – tingles uber alles – and they are rewarded for 10 years or more by pursuing that strategy. The danger of a high N count is in part that every time a woman breaks up a relationship that “just isn’t working” she’s teaching herself how to divorce. Not consciously, but the teaching is there nevertheless: once the tingle is gone, it’s done.
AR, I would argue that sticking to your “Bible quote”, not just by quoting it but in exemplifying it with a strong frame with commitment beats “game” every day of the week and 3 times on Sunday.
I’d rather discuss Game with you at Empath’s, than drag this thread off topic.
“sticking to your “Bible quote”, not just by quoting it but in exemplifying it with a strong frame with commitment beats “game” every day of the week and 3 times on Sunday.”
OK, GIL, but the question then becomes: How does a man do that when
1. He’s never been taught how to show or even create a strong frame
2. He’s never learned how to commit to showing a strong frame
3. The laws are against him
4. The culture is against him
5. The media tells him he’s a sexist pig
6. His own church will side against him and with her, will blame him for any marital problems, and will shelter her when she detonates the marriage
7. Items 2 through 6 will encourage, empower and support her every step of the way and will discourage, denigrate and decimate him every step of the way
8. Her friends and family, and even his family and friends, will side against him
9. Even if he does stick to his guns, she will end the marriage, take half the marital assets, take his children, and leave him impoverished and a wage-slave
“I do recall that the holding of slaves by Colonies in the South caused some ill-feeling north of the Mason-Dixon line.”
Eh. The issue was less about slavery and racial equality than it was about the federal government’s role in the individual’s life; individual sovereignty; and states’ rights.
“He’s like the L. Ron Hubbard of marital advice. What he says sounds nice, but it is not only completely impractical in the real world, but toxic and destructive as well. And all roads ultimately lead back to giving him more money in exchange for more impractical and toxically destructive advice.”
FIFY.
Remember when the first advice new couples got was, “Don’t go to bed angry”? The whole point was that no problem was so big that a committed couple couldn’t deal with it, and you’d better, because ’til death do you part, and if you let it fester it would only get worse. But if you hashed it out together, however long it took, you could come to an understanding if not a solution, and go to bed together as one flesh — if not with some makeup sex, then at least with a sense of teamwork and accomplishment.
I’m not sure that was always the best advice; sometimes the best thing a man can do with an irrational woman is to leave her alone. But the concept was sound. Now it seems it’s been replaced not just with, “Go to bed angry,” but with, “Go to bed angry in a separate, secret apartment.”
Yeah, that seems like an improvement.
Thanks for taking Harley on here. I am sad to say to I once read a couple of his books uears ago, and I certainly see them in a much different light today. Some of the “real world examples” of at-risk couples in his books (and the horrible counsel he gave them) have to be read to be believed.
I am a young man (well maybe not that young) who is thinking about courtship with a girl at a church I have been going to. However, during a men’s retreat, I talked with the head pastor about marriage. Basically he said (paraphrasing) that if a man and woman argue about something and cannot resolve it then the church is brought into the argument. I said I disagreed with this, and cited C. S. Lewis’s idea that if two people have equal vote the boat goes nowhere, and one of the two needs to have the final say and experience has shown it should be the man. He didn’t agree but we parted amicably.
At the same time this church has another soon to be pastor who is known to be flirty. I am not bad looking myself but I don’t have the same status as him. Since he is on the track to be a pastor, he leads many events, and anytime he is reprimanded for his actions, he gets a slap on his wrists. I have brought it up with the head pastor and he simply says “he repented” which I do not really see.
Now the girl I want to court, and who wants to court me, has been a part of this church longer than I have. I do not want a situation where if we argue, she goes to the gates of the church to hide from me, and rally against me. This is also compounded by the fact of the flirty pastor being there. I do not want to feel as if I am always on the guard against another fellow Christian. It is weird that I almost feel safer out in the world that in the church with him, and it is not a place I would want to raise any family. Am I being unreasonable here?
I do like this girl, but I cannot be sure if she wants me as her husband or she just wants a husband. Nor do I trust this specific church environment, there are lots of stories (one of which is your original post) where the pastor turns the wives against the husbands financially, psychologically, and even sexually. I do not want to punish this girl because of things she did not do, but at the same time I do not want to walk into a pit. What should I do to determine what is right?
Sorry last paragraph should be:
I do like this girl, but I cannot be sure if she wants me as her husband or she just wants a husband. Nor do I trust all church environments, there are lots of stories (one of which is your original post) where the pastor turns the wives against the husbands financially, psychologically, and even sexually. I do not want to punish this girl because of things she did not do, but at the same time I do not want to walk into a pit. What should I do to determine what is right?
For that matter, where does it say that He gives two hoots about anyone’s emotional needs in the first place? Especially when “emotional needs” is really code for “yearning for more tingles” in most cases.
The basic problem is that he buys into the “marriage is about perpetual romantic love” idea which has repositioned marriage conceptually. No longer covenant/duty/bond and rather “voluntary extended romance”.
This.
Unfortunately, one of the central and indispensable tenets of modernism (of which almost everyone is an adherent, consciously or not), is hedonic marriage, which is itself based entirely on feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelings, a.k.a. “romantic love.” The idea of covenantal, binding marriage is fundamentally at odds with modernism and is thus simply not even a consideration for the majority, including the majority of so-called “Christians.”
Between women who refuse to stop rebelling and gelded men who cannot and wiil not lead (both of these being by-products of the modern “progressive” age), the odds of a major reversal of pernicious trends encouraged by the Willard Harleys of this world are, also, not favorable.
“Harley also suggested that Ellen offer a reward of sex if her husband went to a counselor and purchased one of Harley’s books: ”
So, Harley is pimping out Ellen to her husband, in Jesus name? lol
“Hey buddy, nice wife you got there. Tell you what, you swing some money my way and I can hook you up.”
Right. Most men would be thrilled if marriage could be negotiated down to a specific set of quid pro quo acts of kindness. She does A, B, and C; he does D, E, and F. If she’s not happy with the arrangement, she can ask to renegotiate and trade E for B, or offer to add G for H, but in the end it’s all down in black and white. Men would love that, because we like to know exactly where we stand and what our obligations are. And every time a wife fulfilled one of her obligations, her husband would feel loved and more loving towards her, because in a man’s eyes, fulfilling your obligations toward someone IS how you show love.
But women don’t work that way at all, and the idea of defining a relationship as a concrete trade of services would be a nightmare for them. They’d say it destroys the romance. (Ffor a man, it wouldn’t destroy the romance; it would guarantee it. Women claim that men doing housework makes them hot, which is a lie. But watching a woman do the dishes really does make a man hot for her, because he sees it as her showing love.)
So he’ll be able to sell this idea to men who like the idea for themselves and think their women will respond accordingly. And in many cases, it probably will seem to work for a while, because there will be some low-hanging fruit. He’ll start picking up his dirty socks which she’s been nagging him about for years, and she’ll think, “Wow, he really is trying,” so she’ll respond with some niceness and he’ll think they’re on the right track. (It might even work longer-term for couples whose marriage is actually pretty solid and they’re both just trying to make it better.) But for the woman who’s already decided he doesn’t “meet her emotional needs,” the improvement will be temporary, because her unhappiness isn’t about his actions at all. They’re partly about who he is, but mostly they’re just about her. He can’t negotiate that away.
Thank you so much for this article. I hope that more people will someday come to recognize these vultures for what they are: not devoted religious types who are sincere in their convictions, nor kindly father figures who want to help a troubled couple rebuild their relationship, but shysters and hucksters who are motivated by greed and who have no problem making children bastards to turn a few extra bucks.
I don’t know what the proper punishment ought to be for such people. Everything seems too kindly…
Boxer
@Deti
I obviously do not claim expertise in the founding of your country (they tended to skip over that bit when I was at school) and there were surely, as always many competing views, but I quote from the Autobiography of TJ: The Declaration of Independence, and which commences a few pages earlier with ‘In Congress Friday June 7, 1776’
“The clause too, reprobating the enslaving the inhabitants of Africa, was struck out in complaisance to South Carolina and Georgia who had never attempted to restrain there the importation of slaves, and who on the contrary still wished to continue it”.
It has long puzzled me, by the way, why certain American states and certain counties, in say, Maryland, are still named after British Royalty.
“women who refuse to stop rebelling and gelded men who cannot and wiil not lead (both of these being by-products of the modern “progressive” age)”
I’m convinced that the answer for a lot of these men is going to be preemptive divorce. For many of these men to have any semblance of a life, they will just have to end these toxic marriages and divorce their wives. It’s the only way they’ll have any freedom.
There’s a big downside for sure — a lot of these men will be divorce-raped to beat the band. They’ll have to go to war just to keep from losing everything. Their STBX wives will pound the “victim” drum and the judges and lawyers will listen. The ex-wives will take these men for everything they have. some of these men will pay with their relationships with their kids. The only thing these men will have is their freedom.
The upsides are as above-he is no longer married to a woman who hates him and who will never care about him anyway. After a time he won’t have to support her anymore. She will be someone else’s problem. He won’t have to justify himself to her anymore, and he won’t have to be responsible for her. He won’t have to work endlessly at a marriage to a woman who seethes at him with every effort he puts forth. He might have a chance to afford a hobby or two.
If Harley actually has the gall to call himself a Christian and is getting away with it unscathed, we have a very serious problem on our hands.
@ Deti, my faith in God seems tangential to many of those temporal problems and it’s very hard to root down to where it does good on the ground, I’ll give you that. That is really the nature of faith, God is right and the braying asses on every street corner are wrong. Just realizing that is the start of a decent frame. Realizing that most of our advisers were pathetic vagina pedastelizing castrati helps us start tuning them out. Realizing that the constituents of this dreck empire are categorically unhappy and discontent starts giving us the ammo to convince others to tune out the garbage. Our culture is about veracity, Truth in the form of a Person and NOT a popularity contest. If you want to win a popularity contest you’re on the wrong side.
Also, how does “game” resolve those questions? I don’t think it does, or even adequately have a means of addressing them.
“I have checked my copy of the Declaration which conveniently includes both excisions and amendments, but it would seem that you are mistaken, as the phrase Pursuit of Happiness is unamended.”
Yeah, I’m not prepared to back up the idea that pursuit of property was ever in the original. In fact, my understanding is that it got cut before the original (leading to the question, “How did they know, apart from hearsay?”). My only assertion is that this is what I was taught.
@Tim J Penner
I don’t think he presents himself as a Christian, and I don’t see him presenting this as a Christian approach. This is confusing because what he is selling is from the same toxic script Christians are using as well, and the one example is of a Christian wife.
Hilarious.
“It has long puzzled me, by the way, why certain American states and certain counties, in say, Maryland, are still named after British Royalty.”
Because they have always had those names since colonization. No reason to change them.
@Fawn
I’m not sure if you are being deliberately obtuse here or not. Either way:
1) His solution to the problem of waning passion is the exact opposite of what generates desire. Women don’t fantasize about a man who slavishly does nice things for them. They fantasize about a man who is a powerful leader. Following a man’s lead is sexy. Submission is sexy. Harley is selling the opposite of sexy while (of his own admission) creating a great risk for families.
2) Marriage either has moral meaning or it does not. If the goal is to stay together so long as the tingle lasts, there is no need to pretend to marry.
@Pod- You’ve given at least 2 reasons that you’re uncomfortable at that church, so why do you stay?
The real issue here is not the courtship, but your willingness to seek righteousness. You must challenge yourself to do the uncomfortable thing and leave that church.
I hope that you’ll find an appropriate reward, either that young woman will follow you, or you’ll find a better match somewhere else. But I can’t promise that to you.
I can promise, that if your descriptions are accurate, pursuing romance in that environment will lead you to misery.
Looky there its back to a fundamental lack of contentment.
The greatest sin in this era is telling a woman to “settle”. To be content.
Many years ago when I wanted to learn how to fix my horrible marriage, prior to beginning my own divorce rape, I spent a considerable amount of time on marriage forums. One thing that had become common knowledge was that marital therapy will actually make your marriage worse 98% of the time. Men were told to avoid it.
You know what worked? You know what people suggested you do? They called it doing a 180 or the 180 technique. Basically you start ignoring your wife, you never instigate any activities with her, you even stop telling her that you love her. You just ignore her. And then you start lifting weights, exercising, and finding a hobby. Reconnecting with a passion. You try to find a mission. And whatever you do you do not talk to your wife. You just let her wonder about you.
Even if it doesn’t fix your marriage you’re now much better prepared to move on.
This is what standard blue pill marriage forums discovered, through much trial and error, as the only way to fix your marriage.
There really aren’t many women on these forums. There are a few but it’s overwhelmingly men who seek how to fix their marriages. I imagine the majority of women are busy thinking about their cash and prizes and wondering when they can start Eat, Pray, Loving it up.
Sad that the men who are supposed to lead us into happy marriages are more concerned with pimping our own wives back to us. Cause this is hilarious!
“Hey buddy, nice wife you got there. Tell you what, you swing some money my way and I can hook you up.”
@Fawn
“they need to find a way to be content with whatever kind of marriage they’ve got.”
How about NOT being content with whatever kind of marriage they’ve got but instead thanking God every waking moment for what they have (including their marriages). That way lies PEACE (that transcends understanding).
I would add to what GiL wrote to Fawn that finding a way to appreciate and grow the marriage they have is likely to make it more compelling, not just tolerable!
AR,
Any woman who can be brought back from a screaming, fighting condition merely by mention of Ephesians 5 or any other Bible quote is not really all that contentious.
Where have you heard that work? I am likely going to write a book on the topic soon and I am trying to find anyone who actually preaches Eph 5 the way it is written, instead of pushing the “mutual submission” idiocy.
Good point BradA
@ John Galt said: “Remind me again why I’d ever put a loaded firearm into the hands of a toddler by remarrying?”
This precisely the analogy I used when describing women who attempt to lead anything. They are not psychologically equipped for the task and it is irresponsible of men to behave otherwise.
Late at night a big old house gets lonely
I guess ev’ry form of refuge has it’s price
And it breaks her heart to think her love is
Only given to a man with hands as cold as ice …
[Eagles]
His hands are no colder than her heart.
Yoda says:
June 5, 2015 at 12:13 pm
Sammich making therapy?
Yes! Good call.
Basically, this is what Michelle Weiner-Davis recommends in her Divorce Busting books and website. She is not Christian but she is pro-marriage. Perhaps it works for some.
In refreshing my memory on her, I found the website of the Coalition for Divorce Reform (http://divorcereform.us/). It looks like the articles are good quality. For example, the article An Unspoken Fact About Sex-starved Marriages by Michelle Weiner-Davis.
For that matter, where does it say that He gives two hoots about anyone’s emotional needs in the first place?
Exactly!
“Emotional needs” is another of many terms that after being invented by psychiatrists in order to do away with accountability for sin became a tool for feminists to enable the rape and pillage of a husbands assets by unfaithful women using the assistance of a corrupt and decadent state.
God is Laughing,
AR, I would argue that sticking to your “Bible quote”, not just by quoting it but in exemplifying it with a strong frame with commitment beats “game” every day of the week and 3 times on Sunday.
I would argue that doing that in a proper manner would be using game principles, at least in the context of what Vox Day writes about. I don’t know enough others and certainly oppose the PUA stuff, so I wouldn’t ever advocate that.
Doing things to get your wife to value your approval can enable or even enact a form of dread in a good manner. I would liken it to the way Christians should not want to displease God. They shouldn’t walk in fear of Him, but they should have “dread” of not doing His will. Many do not today, which is a good reason many Christian women do not have the same proper view for their husbands.
Opus, I don’t know if the accuracy, but a related site on the “life, liberty, property” issue is:
http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/46460
If Harley actually has the gall to call himself a Christian and is getting away with it unscathed, we have a very serious problem on our hands.
Adulteresses, homosexuals, and people who do NOT believe in the resurrection are openly calling themselves Christians and getting away with it. We are definitely in serious trouble.
The danger of a high N count is in part that every time a woman breaks up a relationship that “just isn’t working” she’s teaching herself how to divorce. Not consciously, but the teaching is there nevertheless: once the tingle is gone, it’s done.
I advocated against dating for just this reason. It isn’t as bad as pre-marriage sexual activity, but it has the same principle. Josh Harris may get a lot of flack, but the principle is completely valid in spite the advocacy of some here that expecting chastity is unreasonable.
Only if we co-identify as “Christian” JDG.
BradA, a strong frame is dependent on God, not “good” psychology.
Are you saying that “game” requires psychology?
I can respond, but let me validate that first.
What is “psychology” to you as well?
@Dalrock
1) His solution to the problem of waning passion is the exact opposite of what generates desire. Women don’t fantasize about a man who slavishly does nice things for them. They fantasize about a man who is a powerful leader. Following a man’s lead is sexy. Submission is sexy. Harley is selling the opposite of sexy while (of his own admission) creating a great risk for families.
Submission fantasies are getting a lot of attention now and have always been prominent in romance novels. Submission is sexy to the right man and under the right circumstances. Notice that the hero is always an incredibly good looking, usually wealthy, emotionally intuitive man who is obsessed with the heroine despite having a lot of other options. Of course that’s sexy.
In real life submission often means having to peacefully help execute plans that you don’t agree with made by a man is probably not incredibly good looking or a billionaire. A husband overruling the wife’s desires for educating their children or buying a house or whatever the day’s issue is, isn’t sexy. Submission is still her obligation but it isn’t necessarily going to be a turn on. And that’s ok as long as she submits anyway.
2) Marriage either has moral meaning or it does not. If the goal is to stay together so long as the tingle lasts, there is no need to pretend to marry.
I completely agree. Sexy is great, but it isn’t the point.
@Pod
Below is my 2 cents.
Regardless of which church you are attending, if you’re going to marry ANY woman in the US, the UK, or Canada you need to do some very serious vetting. 1st, forget about how you FEEL about her. If you are attracted to her, then 1st consider the list below BEFORE recognizing her as marriage material. If she isn’t marriage material, DO NOT marry her regardless of attraction. Also, to the extent that it is at all possible, keep the government out of the union (in the 1st place the State does NOT recognize God in a marriage and in the 2nd place I am unaware of any law requiring a marriage license for unions not recognized by the state).
Important items you should confirm before considering marriage:
For best results she should be:
– a prayerful Bible believing Christian woman.
– submissive to her parents (especially her father).
– firmly believes that a wife MUST submit to her husband.
– the product of a good relationship with her dad.
– a virgin or of a super low N count.
– NOT a divorcee.
– NOT a single mother.
– the product of a culture/environment that truly looks down on divorce.
– able to accept responsibility and apologize when she is wrong.
– able to at some point SEE when she is wrong.
– able and willing to cook, clean, AND make SAMMICHES for her man.
– not looking for a “soul mate” but for a husband (implies that she knows the difference).
– debt free or close to it.
And then (***this is important***) you need to make her good and mad so that you will get a better idea of what she will be like after she has the government’s gun pointed at your head. You won’t have to do anything crazy. Usually in the US all you have to do is disagree with her.
BradA, in a nutshell I would say psychology is a Godless, secular knowledge of how our sin natures work.
Long answer:
Testing this I would suggest looking at the pragmatic side of game, how does it work? Does it work on the female sin nature (specifically her lack of contentment)? Does it take any Godly virtue to work?
From what I’ve seen it works on the deterministic principle that our sin nature/psychologies (specifically women’s) can be “lifehacked”, and I don’t see much difference between this line of crap and Dobson or Minirth/Meier garbage in this regard.
The answer Jesus demonstrated to us was the Cross. Death to the old self, not diddling with it in ourselves OR our wives. This death to self message was one of the first things the Evangelical Feminist ejected, with reason. You can’t SJW without being a victim, and you can’t scream how you’ve been wronged when the wronged is dead in Christ’s death and raised in His life (with forgiveness).
Psychology (in practice) is a human effort to fix something that Jesus had to come and die to fix.
@Fawn
With your attitude, no, submission isn’t sexy. Mind frame has a great deal to do with this.
On the other hand, even Sheila Gregoire manages to find being lead by her husband sexy sometimes.
What if his needs not her needs were the focus; It might read something like this:
———————————-
“On the subject of neglect, I’ve chosen to feature a marriage that isn’t all that bad from most people’s perspective, but isn’t good either. L.R.’s wife hasn’t had the law remove him from his home, leaving him to fend for himself – yet!. Instead, she’s only abandoned him sexually. They probably even have a friendship of sorts. It’s cases like these that leave a man struggling to know what to do. She vowed to let him have and hold which means unrestricted sexual access, she vowed to respect and obey him – yet she use passive aggression and emotional manipulate him to submit to her perceived desires she calls needs. She doesn’t desire him or respect him only tolerates him for appearances and money.
As it turns out, most of these women divorce their husbands. In fact, research I’ve personally conducted in the archives of government statistics on the causes of divorce lead me to believe that as many as 80% of all divorces are caused by a wife’s neglect. Women like L.R.’s wife suddenly call it quits with little warning, leaving her husband, family and friends scratching their heads wondering what’s wrong with her. ”
———————————-
I prefer “His duties – her duties”. “Needs” is such a touchy feely word with no real meaning except that wives use it thier girlfriends and counselors. As in “He is not meeting my needs” and I need to feel validated emotionally”. Duties on the other hand have concrete aspects like husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave Himself for her or Wives be submissive to your own husbands, that even if some do not obey the word, they, without a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives, when they observe your chaste conduct accompanied by fear.
Needs leads to defrauding and divorce while duties lead to a life lived for a purpose greater than one’s own personal happiness. Harley and his ilk have been fleecing the flock of God with their feminist sheers long enough. It may be time for the men of God to tell him to STFU, he has done enough to destroy marriage already.
Just curious, is dying to self “sexy”?
Pod says: “I do like this girl, but I cannot be sure if she wants me as her husband or she just wants a husband. … What should I do to determine what is right?”
If you ‘cannot be sure’ if it’s you or the ring she really wants, that may be a sign you already have your answer. Your best bet is probably to start going to another church (preferably one more trustworthy), and invite her to meet socially. If she doesn’t care enough to follow you outside her comfort zone, what more indication do you need?
Only if we co-identify as “Christian” JDG.
But I AM a Christian (Christ follower), and I’m pretty sure they are not. Or did I misunderstand you?
4:01 pm was for GIL
Dalrock,
I am heading into work and apologize for not having the time for a more thorough comment. I am a long time lurker who appreciates many of your opinions!
I am surprised by your reaction to this author you cited. If you read his top ten emotional needs I believe he captures some truth there. He recommends women stay thin, dress nicely, wear some make up, be physically affectionate, not nag, try to share pass times with their man.
I would think you would agree with most of his ideas, perhaps I am way off. I don’t know all of your opinions on divorce but it is my impression that he is against it and offers some sound advice, I’m sure he has a few stupid ideas like most of us.
Do you completely disagree with him or just believe that divorce is never an option?
Respectfully,
some guy
@Fawn: “Submission is still her obligation …”
If you read the first five chapters of Genesis, you will not find the word “submit” spoken anywhere by the One who made us. Look closely there. The One who made the first wife made her to be a help, proper for the first husband. You seriously think your husband is about to make a very bad decision? How are you doing what you were created to do by the One who made us (help him), if you avoid any engagement on the issue because your were taught to submit, rather than help? To be the helper they were created to be, wives need to have an informed opinion on many things. Submission may be a part of helping (you are submitting to assisting with his vision rather than yours), but helping is more than just submitting (avoiding any input to his thought processes). Helping may involve assisting him with developing a more proper vision – before you get to the part where you help him bring the vision to life. Give him the final say. (He is the helped after all, and God created you to be the helper.) But help him. If you think he is in error on something, give him an informed opinion of why you think that. Call in other rescources if you can and if you need to. You will know in your heart if your behavior reflects the behavior that the One who made us made you to perform. You will know whether your desire is to genuinely build up your husband, or tear him down. By definition, only behaviors that are designed to build him up and help him win qualify as “help”. You will know the difference in your own heart. Please don’t let the uninformed opinion of others scare you away from doing what God created you to do.
@JDG, whatever they claim to be I am not. They are the eternal entrants and defilers, whatever else they may claim to be. Let one claim to have laid down their life for Jesus Christ their Lord and Savior and that they no longer live but Christ in them. I bet we won’t have any takers and I’m okay with that. If by co-opting the term Christian makes me better define the new creature I am in Christ, they are doing the Lord’s work (in the same way Satan is).
Oh look, right on cue.
@Dalrock
With your attitude, no, submission isn’t sexy. Mind frame has a great deal to do with this.
On the other hand, even Sheila Gregoire manages to find being lead by her husband sexy sometimes.
I figured that your response would be some version of “You’re doing it wrong.” Submission can be sexy sometimes but it isn’t always, nor is it always meant to be. Not finding it sexy doesn’t mean that you are doing it wrong.
Pod @ 2:44 pm:
“I do like this girl, but I cannot be sure if she wants me as her husband or she just wants a husband.”
The best indicator of the future is the past. Currently, is she happy to let you make decisions on what to do? Does she do things specifically because you asked her to? Do you hear her repeating your opinion to other people? (not meaning gossip, of course)
One particular example: tell her to wear something on her head on Sundays as a sign of submission. It’s a safe bet nobody else is asking her to do that even though it’s Biblical. Does she do it because you tell her to, or does she complain and refer to other mens’ opinions?
If all she wants is Beta Bucks then, once she realizes you’re making demands of her, she’ll back out herself to find an easier mark.
“It is weird that I almost feel safer out in the world that in the church with him, and it is not a place I would want to raise any family. Am I being unreasonable here?”
Sounds like you’re in the third stage of grief: bargaining. You want to be a part of the church, realize it’s got junk leadership and are wondering if you can get things to work out regardless. You can’t. Like was said just a few posts back, if the pastor isn’t fighting the current then he’s going along with it.
I’m stuck on fourth-stage grief because I can’t accept the Church is dead.
@Pod, does her mother submit to her father? Is her mother a drama queen or is she content. Does her mother appear affectionate towards her dad? Does dad seem like a patriarch or a miserable slave? He is a bit of a window into your possible future with her and her mom is what she may likely be. Would you be happy married to her mother in 25 years (her without the looks)?
@Pod. Gunner Q’s advice on the headscarf is a good suggestion.
@Gunner Q. You can’t accept it because you know the gates of Hell have not prevailed. Look east.
Gunner Q, I assure you the body of Christ is alive and well. What passes for it is not.
I’m stuck on fourth-stage grief because I can’t accept the Church is dead.
Good! Don’t accept it. We have a God of the Living, not the Dead. His Church is alive, not dead.
Those who abandon sound teaching will be refined or removed like dross, but God will keep His Own. That is our Hope, that is our future, and that is the Truth.
@ Richard P
Yes, I agree that helping is more than just submitting. You did a beautiful job explaining that.
@Fawn,
I’ve also seen some of the Christian wives and red pill women talk about what I’ll refer to as charm on their husbands as an effective method of helping. Rather then nag or boss around rather use charm or seduction. There was a rather big tiff about using the word seduction but I think that was mostly coming from a troll. Or possibly a feminist entryist.
I think that one of the biggest effects of feminism is debasing the feminine talent of charm. To weaken women. The young women I’ve met have no idea how to charm me, rather they use increasing displays and statements of extreme sexuality. I’m not sure why women don’t see it but feminism, and being indoctrinated that it’s a bad thing to do for a man, even your own husband, reduces the natural feminine power further towards base sexuality.
Then women are distracted by being encouraged to strengthen their natural masculine strengths.
It’s too bad that due to our biological reality women do not have as much time to wake up as men. Still I have to wonder how did my grandparents generation fail so badly to teach us about our own nature? It seems like after WW2 they just said, “well fuck it, we’ve done our part. Let’s rob the future so we can embrace as much hedonism as we can get.”
Any woman who can be brought back from a screaming, fighting condition merely by mention of Ephesians 5 or any other Bible quote is not really all that contentious.
BradA
Where have you heard that work?
Men claim all kinds of things on the web. Some of them may be true.
I am likely going to write a book on the topic soon and I am trying to find anyone who actually preaches Eph 5 the way it is written, instead of pushing the “mutual submission” idiocy.
Good luck with your book.
@Fawn
You are correct that sexiness is not a biblical litmus test. Yet, it remains true that you are almost certainly doing it wrong. Your attitude here is a constant attempt to reframe and be contentious. I find it hard to believe your attitude is different elsewhere.
If you read the first five chapters of Genesis, you will not find the word “submit” spoken anywhere by the One who made us.
What this again? “Submit” IS found in several NT passages in regards to wives (as stated many times before). It is assumed in Genesis as well, otherwise Peter and Paul would not have taught this.
How are you doing what you were created to do by the One who made us (help him), if you avoid any engagement on the issue because your were taught to submit, rather than help?
Another straw man example. No one is saying wives have no input and zero engagement.
To be the helper they were created to be, wives need to have an informed opinion on many things.
Informed by whom? Sheila Gregoire? Paula White? Joyce Meyers? Gloria Steinum? Betty Friedan? Does the opinion of their husband (you know, the guy the Bible instructs wives to ask if they want to inquire about something) count as informed?
Submission may be a part of helping (you are submitting to assisting with his vision rather than yours), but helping is more than just submitting (avoiding any input to his thought processes).
Absolutely agree, but I have yet to read anything written here that has indicated otherwise. I think you are referring to your straw man above.
Helping may involve assisting him with developing a more proper vision – before you get to the part where you help him bring the vision to life. Give him the final say.
This is whats wrong with feminist thinking. Feminists actually believe the “final say” (like other patriarchal responsibilities) is a woman’s to give. It is not.
If you think he is in error on something, give him an informed opinion of why you think that.
Who is against this?
Call in other resources if you can and if you need to. You will know in your heart if your behavior reflects the behavior that the One who made us made you to perform.
Why are you counseling women to follow their hearts rather than the Word of God? Do you actually believe that women are inherently good and, unlike men, can trust in their hearts and lean on their own understanding (in spite of scriptural admonitions not to do so).
You will know whether your desire is to genuinely build up your husband, or tear him down.
Really? How is it that SHE will know whether her desire is genuine and building up (ie: not in error), but HE does not know when he is in error (ie: not building up)? I know, I know, feminist rule number 1*.
You will know the difference in your own heart.
Doubling down on the wisdom of man.
Please don’t let the uninformed opinion of others scare you away from doing what God created you to do.
By all means, don’t let those people pointing to the writings of God’s chosen holy men in the Bible detour you from following the “informed opinion” of those who choose to disregard the Word of God. /sarc
*Feminist rule number 1: A woman can do no wrong.
The problem with RichardP’s discussion of being a helpmeet is that it must be viewed in the modern context where many think the wife is the Holy Spirit in her husband’s life. She is the one who must correct his errors and wrong direction. She must keep him out of stupid decisions. Etc.
That is also a complete error in focus. A wife should generally speak up when the husband is headed a really bad path, but words in that context will be much less welcome if he is always being told he is doing it wrong. That then becomes nagging, not helping. She may even be right, possibly even much of the time, but she is not helping if she is merely a nag. Her husband will either stop trying to lead or will always have to battle for any decision.
How would an officer in the military handle it if a senior sergeant always “helped” by disagreeing with everything (or even most things) he said? That would not be useful in the slightest and would instead undermine the husband rather than build him up.
That kind of sergeant is what most Christians encourage wives to be these days. Ironically many of those same individuals will complain that sitcoms make men look stupid, yet they do the same thing!
Women are not more spiritual than men, even if they are more emotional. The latter can be a huge detriment in spiritual things and is something many Christian leaders completely overlook.
@ncummings
I don’t doubt that I could find areas where I agree with him. As I wrote in the OP, I agree with the value of focusing on restoring attraction over mere conflict resolution. The problem there is he is prescribing more poison as the antidote.
Dr Harley is by his own numbers advising 80% of women to threaten the destruction of their families. In part one he tells us he is speaking directly to women who have good husbands but have lost the tingle. In part two he reinforces this:
He tells us that following his advice often results in a broken family and/or infidelity. He wants to create havoc in 80% of married households, households he tells us the husbands are generally quite good, so the husbands will agree to buy and follow his products. Marriage is under assault, and he steps in pretending to help but instead throws gasoline on the fire. Can you not see why this would be evil even if he weren’t profiting from it? Can you not see why doing this in an effort to sell more products is all the more evil? How many kids are suffering because Dr. Harley wants to sell the tingle to mommy? How many millions more would be suffering if every wife he wants to kick the father of her children out of the home followed his instructions.
What would this man have to do to lose your support? How evil would he have to be? If wreaking havoc on 80% of marriages isn’t bad enough, would 85% be the limit for you? 90%? Would 95% be too far?
Aw, Fawn has a White Knight. How cute.
If your bible stops after the fifth chapter of Genesis, you really should take it back for a refund. You’re missing a few pages, and some are kind of important.
Yes, get some people who agree with you to gang up on your husband and put him in his place. Democracy!
We come back to the same old unanswerable question: when my heart disagrees with other people’s hearts, how do I know my heart is right and theirs are wrong? How do I know God is speaking in my heart and the devil is speaking in theirs? Well, because it’s mine, of course, and I am I, who am the center of my universe, so my heart rules here. Pure narcissism.
Thing is, Christians do believe in such a thing as being led by a sort of “voice from within,” via reason and the Spirit. It’s called the conscience. However, it has to be formed, taught and trained and practiced and tested throughout one’s lifetime, and it’s never infallible. Anyone who claims, as Richard does on Fawn’s behalf, that his or her conscience is always trustworthy and could never be tricked or swayed by temptation or emotion, is making a claim that none of the Apostles nor any of the great saints would have made about themselves.
The answer Jesus demonstrated to us was the Cross. Death to the old self, not diddling with it in ourselves OR our wives. This death to self message was one of the first things the Evangelical Feminist ejected, with reason. You can’t SJW without being a victim, and you can’t scream how you’ve been wronged when the wronged is dead in Christ’s death and raised in His life (with forgiveness).
Psychology (in practice) is a human effort to fix something that Jesus had to come and die to fix.
Then this is where we differ. I see game as nothing more than principles that are valid (for the most part) in life. I don’t pray seriously to figure out how to wire a room addition (which I have done), I use solid principles of not crimping the wire, properly connecting the leads, etc.
In the same way, I am working on implementing the principles of good relationships to my relationship with my wife. The one I am working the most on now is to not let myself get angry enough to yell. I may act appropriately in response to foolish action, but keeping my cool is a key part of what I see in game. It is also effective in many parts of life, including a husband – wife relationship.
Psychology may try to use such things without any reference to the spiritual, but that does not negate the principles. It just means they are only acting on a partial principle. Should I stop working hard, treating people well, etc. because someone preaching worldly success uses that principle? That would be idiotic.
I think you are reacting to “game” without really knowing what it is, or at least only responding to a parody of it.
========
I would note that my own marriage was saved in large part when I finally got over feeling sorry for myself when all 4 of my adopted children bailed on me as their father. I still hate that and it is an ongoing sore spot, but I have made a choice I will not gripe and moan about it or otherwise let it keep me down. Should I fall back to that because “we are all sinners” and justify it with some Biblical BS?
My wife had her own serious choices to make in our marriage, things we will continue working out as long as both of us are on this earth, but I had to fix my frame and actions, especially since I couldn’t make her different. I don’t do things to manipulate her in the sense some do, but I do push for what I see as right an proper and I would walk (and be in sin) if it came to living with continual strife or living a mostly peaceful life.
This makes me a practitioner of a kind of dread, but it is built in. I was born with a very strong will. I imagine I am similar to many of the strong willed ones here. It may be why I also bump heads and “confuse” many. I seek the truth and will conform my life to that. I will not go the wrong way for almost any reason. That is a key part of game, operating under a firm conviction.
All of us have to “fake it until we make it” to a point, enough of that is ingrained in me that I will still follow that path. I have long sense gotten past blaming God for the way He made me, I just do my best to funnel it to carry out as much of His will as I can and regularly repent of things I do that go outside that.
How am I varying from game? How am I incorrect?
A general note: Part of the curse on Eve was that her desire would be to rule over her husband (just as sin desired to rule Cain, same word). That was in the first part of Genesis and lays the foundation for what we have today.
@ Dalrock You are correct that sexiness is not a biblical litmus test. Yet, it remains true that you are almost certainly doing it wrong. Your attitude here is a constant attempt to reframe and be contentious. I find it hard to believe your attitude is different elsewhere.
Ouch! I’m sorry if I come off as contentious. It isn’t intentional. The reframing is just because I see things differently. I didn’t realize that it was offensive.
@ StringsofCoins
Some women are naturals at charm and seduction but most women have no idea how it’s done. I try my best, but I’m certainly no expert. Blatant sexuality seems like an effective but cheap way of getting a man’s attention. Charming women are unique as each is charming in her own way, but extreme sexuality is all the same. Feminism has a few benefits and a lot of drawbacks.
@Brad A
I’m also interested in your book. Please do keep us posted! 🙂
Some women are naturals at charm and seduction but most women have no idea how it’s done
LOL… do you seriously expect someone to believe this?
Blatant sexuality seems like an effective but cheap way of getting a man’s attention.
It comes natural (sin nature) in most women and is almost as old as the human race.
Feminism has a few benefits and a lot of drawbacks.
Thank you for once again showing us your cards.
Feminism has
a few benefitsZERO benefits and a lot of drawbacks.FIFY
I’m also interested in your book. Please do keep us posted!
I expect to self publish it and probably give it away for free. I planned on posting a link to it here to get everyone to tell me how I was wrong. I can then fix any of that which I agree needs adjusting.
“I planned on posting a link to it here to get everyone to tell me how I was wrong.
I anticipate you will get varied opinions 😉
StringsofCoins @ 5:31 pm:
“It’s too bad that due to our biological reality women do not have as much time to wake up as men.”
I think God did this deliberately to emphasize how our mortal life matches up to eternity. In this world we are free to do as we will, yet the best thing for us is to deny ourselves and force ourselves into submission to Christ. If we give our “peak Spiritual Market Value” to Christ then, completing the pattern of traditional marriage, He will share His peak value with us–when He returns to rule.
Or, we can ignore Him until the carousel stops and see if Christ died for sloppy seconds.
This is supported by God’s use of divorce/unfaithful wife analogies throughout the Bible to illustrate humanity’s disobedience to Him, for example Hosea.
BradA, I have been looking for a positive aspect of pairing psychology (as a base of knowledge) with the Body of Christ for quite a while and have really yet to find one. The part I get stuck at is where we become new creatures and old things passing away. What does the pyschologist fundamentally study……secular attitudes as they reside in the brain/behavior set of the jaded modern human. Do we need to understand those things? Certainly, I’ll agree to that extent. Do we turn to them for answers because they “work”? “Working” is not as highly impressive to me as it is to others, color me idealistic.
Wrapping a gum wrapper around a burned out auto fuse “works” too.
I’ve read tons of comments and links around here and have grown to respect many of the opinions. I’m wondering what your reaction is to coming to an understanding of marriage?
I’ve been married. My wife was cheating on me the entire time and it was brief so I honestly don’t feel like I was married. But knowing about what the laws are and the ways they are enforced in family courts (domestic violence lies included) I have to wonder how anyone can actually expect me to get married today.
I just gain nothing. There’s nothing I gain. Even if I meet a woman and she wants to sign some type of Marriage 1.0 contract, pre-tender years, she can’t. The government won’t allow her to because, as far as I can tell, the government basically owns all of our children. And feminists don’t believe women are smart enough to make that choice.
I’ve been fighting with my bishop about this as sex outside of marriage is a big no no and he’s got so many “reformed” sluts looking to cash out, or settle down and make babies. I’m not sure why these people think I’m going to do that. To marry these horrible women. And they started trying to set me up immediately. 30+ year old single mothers for the most part. Gag. I nexted three perfectly good plates so I could meet my baptismal covenants are the end of last year. And the best one was a 21 year old non single mother. And less used up. She was fun to be around and had gone to school for massage therapy. Still she’s a modem women at the very idea that she should submit to me she found offensive. I wouldn’t let that girl even be my girlfriend. Even with her trying to demand it in her womanly fashion.
Why would I ever sign a slave contract for one of these women?
In fact I can’t see signing it at all. So I’ve been looking for a woman who isn’t as horrible that I may be able to bring into my church. This isn’t going so well. Modern women are all having sex with someone and if it isn’t me then I’m just in orbit. I’m not even sure how to bring a woman into the church without breaking my covenants.
And I just can’t support any man getting married under today’s laws. It’s far worse then just no one in church telling women what their duties are, because that does happen in my church, it’s that the laws take so much from men, require so much, but for women they give nothing in marriage.
I’d like to see a church openly support abstaining from state marriage and supporting a biblical marriage through real church officials. That’s not happening so instead I’m thinking I may just have to convince a decent girl to accept my own version of such a marriage. I’m not really sure what else up do.
What are you guys, who aren’t already married, planning on doing?
In contrast, a book that particularly helped my wife and I is “Love & Respect” by Eggerichs. The central thesis of the book is that wives desire love and men desire respect. My wife picked this idea up and ran with it: she wants someone unconditionally committed to her well-being (love); is she willing to reciprocate with *unconditional* respect?
At the same time, I started thinking seriously what it meant to lead in the marriage and household. This meant working against my natural passivity, and instead to take initiative, to actively be involved in the household, to create an environment where everything that happened “smelt” of me and was done for the good of the family.
The difference this made in our marriage was noticeable. Between us, we talked more, we had sex more, we prayed more. Often because I made it happen. Within the house, we both felt stronger. She felt stronger and more confident, because she was following my lead and could feel my strength, and I because I was actually leading and being honoured for it.
Now, I probably have it easier than some. I’m married to a very wise, intelligent and motherly woman who’s willing to face her hang-ups directly. I’m also not very affected by emotions nor hold grudges so I’m mainly struggling against my own passivity and not nursing pains. But for us, it works.
(It’s also Christian. Look at any scriptural passage where it says “Husbands X your wives” and “wives Y your husbands”, or words to that effect.)
—–
To Pod: start things on the correct foot. Fretting in your mind is the wrong foot, badly. Instead, start leading her. For example, “I’m going to the movies on Thursday to see X, can I pick you up at 7?”. Not necessarily this exact example, but notice how it:
– puts you in the position of leader
– assumes that this is good for her too
– puts the question as “let’s do this?” rather than “do you want to do this?” Don’t encourage a woman to doubt when you are concerned.
Then continue in that vein. If she follows, you’ve made an excellent start and just need to keep it up for the next half-century or so. If not, then you’ve saved yourself lots of pain.
“What are you guys, who aren’t already married, planning on doing?”
Stay single, never marry or cohabitate with a women nor have children. A rational man has no other realistic option. Knowing what I know now about marriage and divorce laws, and female nature, I could never get married. The best that a man could hope for is an FWB, life-long casual dating or serial monogamy.
thedeti
> A man never, ever marries a woman he doesn’t want to f*ck.
I sure think you are wrong. I have seen even young men with obese wives. Do they really find that attractive?
I think they had low self-esteem, thinking they did not deserve a decent, mature, self-controlled wife.
BradA
> I am trying to find anyone who actually preaches Eph 5 the way it is written, instead of pushing the “mutual submission” idiocy.
I did hear it in a recorded sermon. The girl playing it was from a Full Gospel (Brethren?) church, so likely it was from there.
Sorry, no idea of who it was. But it does happen.
Cail
>Thing is, Christians do believe in such a thing as being led by a sort of “voice from within,” via reason and the Spirit. It’s called the conscience. However, it has to be formed, taught and trained and practiced and tested throughout one’s lifetime, and it’s never infallible
This made me think of Romans 12:2:
Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.
We will be able to know God’s will AFTER being transformed / trained.
Fawn: Some women are naturals at charm and seduction but most women have no idea how it’s done
JDG: LOL… do you seriously expect someone to believe this?
YES! I see clueless women all around. They have no idea how to be feminine, so they use sexual provocativeness instead.
They have no idea how to charm to get their way or are far too lazy to be charming, so they nag instead.
You can claim they have the knowledge but choose not to use it. But I see little femininity. And for myself at least, a non-feminine woman will be little capable of effective charm. Shit on a plate, regardless of the presentation, is still shit on a plate.
GunnerQ said ” If we give our “peak Spiritual Market Value” to Christ then, completing the pattern of traditional marriage, He will share His peak value with us–when He returns to rule.”
I think that is a great insight. Certainly a good exhortation to have the correct priorities now while we have the opportunity.
StringOfCoins:
>Even if I meet a woman and she wants to sign some type of Marriage 1.0 contract, pre-tender years, she can’t. The government won’t allow her to because
This is something I have stated here before, and still believe. Others here will argue with you, but you are in fact correct.
Society of Phineas has an article basically asking, “Why do we tolerate people trying to force a counterfeit upon us?” “Marriage”, as it is currently, legally available, is completely wrong from a Biblical basis. It is counterfeit. It is not marriage.
And I know of no way to force the government to accept that these two people made a Biblical marriage covenant over which the government has no veto power.
You asked what I am planning to do.
I vacillate between saying:
– screw it, a Biblical marriage is impossible. And the women I see, with only 4 exceptions I currently know, are not desirable anyway, so it’s not like I have any options anyway. (Those 4 include married and inappropriate for me.)
– I will go back to a old/traditional culture (such as Anabaptist or eastern Europe) and see if I can find a good woman from there, and then plan as best I can (e.g. Family trust, if it can work. Splitting income from my company so that we have the same official income levels.) and hope for the best. But then reality, like your comments on our laws, interfere with this optimism. I still may pursue this path anyway however.
It is very easy to find a woman who is feminine, at least on the outside, in eastern Europe. So it is at least possible to start to think of a relationship with them. If she is obedient to the Bible, at least in visible ways (Deut 22:5, 1 Cor 11:14-16, 1 Cor 11:1-12), then maybe she will be willing to accept other Biblical requirements.
No claim to have bright ideas on solving the marriage situation.
No mention of the obesity epidemic at all. Certainly not from Harley as that would dilute his snake oil but also no mention in the ever so erudite commentariat. I just can’t take this stuff seriously anymore. The foundation of every manosphere issued is dominated by female obesity. It is the root of everything.
I agree that female obesity is a huge problem (pardon the pun), but it’s hard to say it’s “the root of everything” when even very obese women are generally able to find men to marry once they decide they want one. Men are still thirsty and willing to marry if that’s what it takes to get sex. Women, even fat women, are delaying marriage and blowing up their marriages. How is their obesity causing that? How is it causing them to be bossy and aggressive? Do you think it’s a hormonal and/or emotional thing, that a woman gets fat, which makes her unhappy, so she takes it out on men?
Andrew: the Eggerich book looks very interesting. Thanks for pointing to it. Here’s a Wiki entry on it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_%26_Respect
I’d like to see a church openly support abstaining from state marriage and supporting a biblical marriage through real church officials. That’s not happening…
But It may be happening in the not to distant future:
http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2014/11/a-time-to-rend
http://hushmoney.org/MarriageLicense-5.htm
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/tonyjones/2010/01/04/a-call-to-clergy-stop-performing-legal-marriages/
thedeti
> A man never, ever marries a woman he doesn’t want to f*ck.
Dale
I sure think you are wrong. I have seen even young men with obese wives. Do they really find that attractive?
I think they had low self-esteem, thinking they did not deserve a decent, mature, self-controlled wife.
You aren’t contradicting Deti. I met a young pastor the other week who was pudgy, nerdy, and his wife is fat. They also have a 6 month old child.
Do not underestimate “thirst”.
The best that a man could hope for is an FWB, life-long casual dating or serial monogamy.
These aren’t options for a Christian man.
Dale – You can claim they have the knowledge but choose not to use it.
Yep! You watch these charmless women around a man that they are hot for, then tell me about what women don’t know.
I don’t think the Eggerich book is perfect by any means, but for us it was helpful in reframing the differences between husband and wife and starting us on more healthy ways of relating.
Another technique I’ve found helpful is “these are my plans, how does that work for you?” (response, maybe further discussion) “OK, let’s do this then”. This makes her feel both led (you’re setting the agenda and taking responsibility for it) and listened to (you welcome her input and adapt accordingly). In contrast, there are VERY few times when the correct response to her asking “what do you want …?” is “whatever you like”. If she’s asking the question, it’s because she feels the need for leadership and a non-committal response tosses it back on her, which is healthy for neither of you.
Late to the party, but,
StringsofCoins:
What are you guys, who aren’t already married, planning on doing?
Planning? Nothing. If I find a woman who I think would be good marriage material and who also thinks the same of me (with all that entails), then I’ll ask her to marry me.
If I don’t find somebody, I won’t.
You don’t need to entirely MGTOW to be reasonable. It’s not even a happy medium, really. It’s just a different framework. If you really can’t find anybody you want to marry, or if you really think it’s a terrible idea…then don’t get married.
(Incidentally, your bishop is quite right to be upset with you if you’re helping men prepare for divorce. Good for him, and shame on you.)
I’d appreciate Scott’s two cents here… but one of the fundamental rules of my trade — which is being a doctor in mental health — is you don’t talk about cases. Yes, we have case discussions. Behind closed doors. With the patient anonymized. Usually with the patient’s consent. If we write them up, we HAVE to both anonymize and get consent.
And if challenged in public about a case — frequently when things have gone horribly wrong — all we can say is that we cannot talk about it. It takes a judicial directive to do otherwise. These rules are to protect the vulnerable.
Secondly, we don’t see stuff. We don’t sell our therapy or our method: I’ve been involved in developing programmes and they are the intellecutal property of my university. And I am not giving them away or promoting them until they have been tested. Controlled, single blind trial tested. If we become a TV huckster (such as Dr Z) we get caned at best or struck off at worst.
Thirdly, we try not to do harm. Sometimes we fail in this goal, abjectly. Anyone who has seen the ten thousand or so people it takes to become competent has seen things go wrong and learned to manage these things.
I see none of these in Dr Harley’s website. He claims to be licensed. He claims to have run CMHTs. I note that google scholar cites his various books and some psychology papers involving hypnosis from the 1980s. He is pushing ethical boundaries that I would stay well away from (admittedly we have tighter rules in NZ) and I don’t think he has an authoritative academic track record.
What he is, however, is added to my fairly short list of shonky psychologists I monitor. Along with John Read, and some over very stupid Foucaultians, i think he causes more damage. He would be better to leave people on a wait list.
We don’t sell stuff. We see stuff. Do we ever see stuff.
Every psychiatrist I know needs mind bleach, including me.
Let me get this straight: Harley acknowledges that women are responsible for 80% (at least) of marriage break-ups.
He then gives women the tools to go ahead with said break-up with a well-worn technique of crushing the husband.
The hypocrisy is breath-taking.
“He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” Matthew 24:51.
Cautiously Pessimistic: If I remember my civics correctly … it was originally life, liberty and property, but was changed to avoid giving additional weight to slavery.
The way I heard it, Jefferson borrowed the phrase from John Locke, who wrote “life, liberty, and property.” The Founders considered that, but many were wealthy. And they were trying to stir up a revolution that only a minority of Americans supported. It was bad PR to suggest the revolution was about protecting the wealthy’s property, so they substituted Lock’s “property” for “pursuit of happiness.”
Nova,
“not that romance in marriage is bad per se”
In Christ, we do not live per se, but per fidelis. Christ himself lived in Rome, but conspicuously did not do as the Romans did.
In these remarkably similar times, if we are to avoid Rome’s fate it would behoove us to follow His example, not just per se, but also per circumiacentia.
Can anybody give any good advice to help this miserable married man?:
“Marriage is my life’s best and worst decision
This blog is a warning to those contemplating marriage from a man who has been married since early 2008.”
http://marriageispurgatory.blogspot.com/2011/04/marriage-is-my-lifes-best-and-worst.html
@everyone,
Thanks for the comments. I’m really not sure how to move forward without breaking my covenants. I’ll take a look at those links provided and see what kind of real marriage is out there. I do not consider state marriage to actually be marriage at all. It’s just a contract to give women power over a man. The man gains nothing except now he’s finally free to have sex without violating the scriptures. Since I can not sign another state created slave contract and pretend like that’s a marriage I need an alternative. Otherwise I’m just going back to spinning plates.
My church officials apparently have no desire to fix straight marriage. Rather they are investing their time and money into fighting gay marriage. They don’t realize that they already lost that battle when they supported a feelings based definition of marriage. If feels are all that matters and marriage is no longer about children then why shouldn’t we let anyone who has feels get into this joke we call marriage?
And the man whom I’m helping plan his divorce? His wife has been using the threatpoint against him for a decade. She’s now threatening to move out to Eat, Pray, Love her way around Colombia. This is what she’s been threatening him with for a year now. Again. She’s fat and ugly and old as well. If he can come out of this less scathed and not be reduced to a shell of a man living in a studio apartment he has a chance to find a woman who appreciates what a good man he is. I do not see how it is wrong for me to help him plan to divorce her when she’s the one who won’t stop threatening him.
I don’t even consider marriage 2.0 to be a valid contract. How can it be? The man doesn’t get anything in this contract. Not even fidelity. How can marriage 2.0 be considered a valid contract when there is no actual exchange?
I really don’t know what to do about all of it. I’ll read through the links provided and thanks for that.
And the reason my bishop is upset with me is not for helping a man plan his divorce, from his wife who won’t stop threatening to divorce him, but because I openly and actively tell the young men to never get married. Not this fraudulent state slave contract.
@Pod
If you see a woman you want, go get her. Don’t be paralyzed by fear of the pastor-in-training, just take courage, lead, be a man of confidence, be able to make a decision, be intriguing, become knowledgable, have interesting hobbies, experience life, learn how to tell stories, build friendships with interesting people. In other words, live a full life. Girls will take care of themselves.
Do not live in fear of anything but God. Do a search in the Bible on courage. Even Moses had to be reminded to take courage as did Joshua, then he reminded the people to take courage. Even David told Solomon to be strong and courageous. Be bold, be strong, be courageous and the girls will take care of themselves. You are operating in fear of some punk pastor boy. Let it not be so.
@Cail Corishev,
The reason obese women find a man is that most women are obese. Men have no other choice. I lived in Seattle long ago at age 24. Classic beta in every way. I got to the point where I was so freaking physically needing flesh that I nearly took the whale ride. I almost just gave in to it. I left the country instead. Years later I see that most friends are simply into whales. Like, “She’s a cool drinking buddy and her mouth is warm. Fuck it.”
Back to the issue;
The SMV of 190 lb. women is, meh, not bad (in America). Women are blowing up their marriages because the market allows them to. If a woman stays at 150 lbs. then you bet she will divorce and roll the dice again, since she is HOT in our culture, compared to all the fatties, so you see there that obesity has EVERYTHING to do with divorce. The obesity of other women, that is. “Bossy and aggressive”? Inflated SMV allows women to dominate marriages. A 180 pounder knows she can still get men and if she wants to drop 20 pounds to get to 160 (maybe by cutting down from her 3 pounds a day sugar habit to one pound a day) then she will become a serious player and she knows it. In a nation full of thin, attractive women, a woman doesn’t dare become a harridan because her competition is too keen.
Yes, I think fat/obesity absolutely slaughters the already precarious hormonal balance of women. Most of them are getting through life as sugar addicts. It’s always upcoming.
It is all such a freaking disaster. All the beta/supplication/oneitis/thirst/pedestalizing doesn’t happen in countries where the women are uniformly thin. That’s because female sexuality is a given in places like South Asia, Eastern Europe, Central/South America. Every guy gets his. I saw absolute slobs (poor too) walking around with Penthouse caliber tail in Brazil.
I honestly think that I can make a correlation between any manosphere issue to obesity.
The balance of power is just so skewed. The more unattractive a gender becomes, the more powerless the opposite gender is. In countries where one gender outshines the other in terms of SMV (Asian women outclassing Asian men, American men outclassing Am. women) the outclassed gender becomes more powerful. Very ironic but that’s what happens.
Can anybody give any good advice to help this miserable married man?
I did leave that guy a bit of advice and it was basically to not become a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you read his blog, you’ll see that his marriage has improved a lot. He’s now passing shit tests regularly, there are no fights, there is regular sex (2-3 times a week), his wife does the housework without complaint, etc. He has worked to make his marriage work better, and it is working better as a result. That is success. I know he is looking at it as a countdown to being rid of his wife, and he may still end up with that decision at the time he thinks is appropriate for that, but that time is not close, and given that his marriage has improved as much as it has, he ought to be open to the possibility that it continues to do so, rather than locking himself in mentally to an outcome that, in the future, may not be justified, and doing it anyway due to pride, etc.
I mean, very bad circumstances to marry in, making it a low odds marriage to begin with, but now that he is actually married and has a kid and his marriage has improved and seems to be continuing to do so. At some point you kind of have to get on with life, rather than acting as if the future is a foregone conclusion, or pining for the life you do not have. No way to live, really.
@SoC:
Marriage 2.0 (realistically, we’re approaching 4.0) is a valid contract. Minus that it should be a 13th Amendment violation. (Involuntary Servitude, not quite Slavery.)
“I mean, very bad circumstances to marry in, making it a low odds marriage to begin with, …”
Marrying due to an “oops pregnancy” is usually never good, and does not bode well for a good marriage.
It’s the height of disrespect from the woman towards a man when she tries to force marriage on a man this way (My definition of an “oops pregnancy” is actually an intentional pregnancy by the woman, irrespective of the mans’ desires or rights).
That’s a good point; when all women are fat, the average one’s relative SMV is higher, raising her expectations. But aren’t fat women divorcing too? The dating sites are full of women over 40 years and 200 pounds who still claim to be picky. I guess one would have to break down those numbers somehow to see, but I get the impression that fat women’s perception of their own SMV is even more inflated (pardon the pun again) than slim women’s. But maybe that’s because fat is now normal, so they don’t think of it as something that should hold them back anymore.
I think you may be onto something, so I hope you develop the idea more, making direct connections to other manosphere issues as you say.
I could easily see your theory being used as a way to shift the blame back to men, by the way: men aren’t attracted to fat women (because of porn and beer commercials, of course, not because of biology and health); so see, it’s men who are really driving delayed marriage and divorce! There’s always such a strong impulse to put the responsibility for things on men somehow, even in the manosphere, that I find myself alert to how everything will be framed that way — because it will if it can be.
Opus et al.,
Jefferson’s sources included the Virginia Declaration of Rights, originally written by George Mason and adopted at Williamsburg in June of 1776. This document had, inter alia,
“That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.”
Mason didn’t make any of this up, either, as these were simply principles being summarized that were already well understood and well hashed-out, all facets of the same thing. Happiness in the context is related to safety, suggesting something like freedom to mind one’s own business.
Yours,
Caspar
Thank you for taking the time to do this, Dalrock.
It’s been said that women are not very good at giving advice because they usually don’t understand what pushes their buttons. I’ve also come to believe that men who have good wives also give questionable advice. The reason is they tend to credit themselves with the quality of their wives and marriages, not seeing it likely has more to do with their wives efforts than their own. Which is why emulating them doesn’t help men, unless the men already have wives who have already surrendered to their role and God directed duties.
Most marriages can be improved dramatically and quickly if the wife simply resolves to be kinder, and the husbands will usually respond accordingly. This dynamic doesn’t work for men.
God bless.
Deti said:
OK, GIL, but the question then becomes: How does a man do that when
1. He’s never been taught how to show or even create a strong frame
2. He’s never learned how to commit to showing a strong frame
3. The laws are against him
4. The culture is against him
5. The media tells him he’s a sexist pig
6. His own church will side against him and with her, will blame him for any marital problems, and will shelter her when she detonates the marriage
7. Items 2 through 6 will encourage, empower and support her every step of the way and will discourage, denigrate and decimate him every step of the way
8. Her friends and family, and even his family and friends, will side against him
9. Even if he does stick to his guns, she will end the marriage, take half the marital assets, take his children, and leave him impoverished and a wage-slave”
—–
BINGO! This. Full stop. How the hell is a man supposed to enforce the rules when he has no rights, not even in his own house and when the culture is so anti-male? Being single is bliss. 🙂
I’d like to see a church openly support abstaining from state marriage and supporting a biblical marriage through real church officials.
If a “church” is a 501C3 corporation, it’s a vassal of Caesar and won’t do anything overtly contrary to his dictates. Even if it’s not a 501C3 corporation, most of its leadership and membership is so terrified of or in such awe of Caesar that the first thing out of its collective mouth when this subject is broached is the usual perverted distortion of Romans 13 so popular these days.
In other words, the odds of any typical “church” today standing up in defiance of Caesar, or the destructive worldly practices he advocates are just about zero.
Maybe I have a low sex drive, but I find it easier to be celibate than try to get it up for an obese, pierced and tattooed woman. Most of whom also have loud, obnoxious personalities. Many of whom are single mothers to boot. For me, such modern American women have zero sex appeal.
I do not see how it is wrong for me to help him plan to divorce her when she’s the one who won’t stop threatening him.
We know it’s wrong to divorce because of this:
1 Cor 7:10 To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband 11 (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.
Two wrongs don’t make a right and planning to do wrong is not a good thing. Were I in his shoes I would stand strong and do my best to obey the Lord. I would not bow to her threats or let her bully or nag me. I would rebuke her in the name of the Lord and remind her what a wife’s responsibility to her husband is.
If I was sure of impending doom, I would make preparations for the worst, but I would not participate in the divorce. She would have to do it without my consent and without my signature. God hates divorce.
Signor Farfalla
> female obesity. It is the root of everything.
Two thoughts. First, I think female obesity is a symptom, rather than the root. It is a symptom of unchecked contempt for men. It is not unique, but rather similar to any other deliberate choice to reduce their marriage value that is unchecked by consequences. These include deliberately postponing marriage until they have lost their peak value, dressing in a masculine manner, having masculine hair, being “difficult” in personality (“b.”), etc.
The root is contempt for men. Obesity is merely one of the easily recognized manifestations thereof.
For your later comments (8:36 am) that this obesity makes them less valuable, and thus individuals of that sex more powerful in the SMV, that is an interesting proposition. It would apply equally well to any manner in which women deliberately lower their value however, not just obesity. E.g., since most women will not marry until about age 27/28, it will give extreme value to the 19 year old woman who is wise enough to be open for marriage.
One item specific to obesity would be the hormonal changes you mentioned.
AR
>Do not underestimate “thirst”.
I desire sex almost every morning, but still I did not find it too difficult to resist inappropriate marriage. Sure, I have a strong desire for marriage. But when I see the women available, I am not attracted to (most of) them.
Any man capable of understanding that there is no point to buying a car that does not run, regardless of how badly he wants a car, should find it easier to resist an inappropriate woman. Which unfortunately is most of them.
Thanks for reminding of those tips Andrew (re giving leadership). Many say this is important for keeping her attraction up.
StringofCoins
>I don’t even consider marriage 2.0 to be a valid contract. How can it be?
Yeah, I am not convinced it is wrong to tell a man to leave a marriage.
God not merely passively “left” Israel, but actively forced her away, into captivity, to Babylon. The difference here is that God’s intention was to permit Israel back, after a time of separation/punishment AND after she repented. And note that of the million or whatever people who were removed, I think only about 70,000 came back. The rest apparently did not repent and thus did not come back to the land of Israel.
Technically, it was their children and grandchildren who came back, but still, it was far less than the whole remaining group.
The problem comes when a Christian man is advised to leave a wife and then marry another woman.
Mark 10:10-12:
10 When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. 11 He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”
1 Cor 7:10-13:
10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.
12 To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13 And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him.
The above does not say a man cannot leave. That may be necessary for righteous living, or for training. Similar to God forcing Israel away. One may argue that getting a civil divorce to protect himself from her financial foolishness is also acceptable; not sure if I can promote this. But divorcing and feeling free to pursue another woman? That is a problem.
Although, if the wife commits adultery, God’s law says to put her and the adulterous man to death (Lev 20:10). In that case, the husband of course will be free to marry another woman, since the first wife is dead. Our nations do not follow God’s laws, but in the case of adultery, I think it is valid to think the former husband is to be free to remarry under God’s law, since the first adulterous wife is supposed to be dead, under that same law of God. To apply only part of God’s law while ignoring the other part you do not like is foolish. So if we applied all of God’s law, he would be free to remarry. Others may disagree with this reasoning however, and in the end, only God’s view counts anyway.
And I think it is good for you to advise men to not sacrifice themselves needlessly on a bad marriage. Good for you 🙂
@Red Pill Latecomer
>Maybe I have a low sex drive, but I find it easier to be celibate than try to get it up for an obese…
No, you are not unusual in this. Many, I think most, men are unable to be sexually attracted to an obese women. If I had sexual arousal, but then saw an obese woman, I would very rapidly lose the arousal. Which would make sex in marriage impossible. (Maybe with the lights off, so I could not see the disgusting image???)
I think this is a massive part of what drives Viagra. If wives were healthy, they would be attractive, and therefore the man would naturally respond positively to his wife.
Instead, he naturally and correctly responds negatively to the unhealthy and disgusting image.
JDG, one question: StringOfCoins has a friend whose wife is threatening to go EPL on him, right?
What if she already has? That threat doesn’t just pop up out of nowhere. A woman doesn’t threaten to commit serial adultery for no reason.
What if she’s already having sexual affairs on the side? Does that change your opinion?
pukeko60
I see none of these in Dr Harley’s website. He claims to be licensed. He claims to have run CMHTs. I note that google scholar cites his various books and some psychology papers involving hypnosis from the 1980s. He is pushing ethical boundaries that I would stay well away from (admittedly we have tighter rules in NZ) and I don’t think he has an authoritative academic track record.
But, but, he has a PhD! From back during the Viet Nam War! And a book written when Reagan was President! Plus some papers from the same time! So how can you say he doesn’t have an authoritative, academic track record, when it’s apperently only been 30 or so years since his last publication?
Man, you Kiwi’s are harsh. Just plain harsh.
I’m probably late to the comment party, but I would like to add that is that it is really important to know the root of a woman’s problem with her husband before administering marital advice.
There are many men who are cold, indifferent, selfish, and domineering (too alpha) in their relationships, and the woman married to them long for “good beta.” The love bank theory would work well for a man in the above situation (but he probably wouldn’t give a shit).
Of course on the other hand, if a man is too pliable and passive, adding more beta, even the “good” kind, is going to make things worse.
I think the men in this group easily forget that there are men who are great at attracting women, but are terrible husbands, and their wives often end up leaving them too, but for different reasons.
@Dale,
Good points. I have often wondered how women manage to be sooooo overweight and now it comes so early too. I am a long term expat. I live in Asia now where one must walk all the time and the food is good but just not the kind of food and/or lifestyle that would lead to eating a lot. It’s hot outside, the food is spicy etc. Yet, the young Western women still waddle around with an excess 100 pounds sometimes and none of them shed any weight either. I simply don’t understand how they can maintain their excess fat. Seriously (not that it’s hard to believe). My point is similar to yours;
—-They have to seriously WANT to be overweight. The over 40’s okay, different story. That’s twenty years of gluttony etc, children, low metabolism etc (it’s still inexcusable but it’s within the realm of believability). But how in the heck are 20-30 year olds so overweight? They would have to want to be that heavy given their youth and metabolism. How much sugar can you eat before you’re just sick of it? Can’t you cut yourself off at one solid pound of sugar? Doesn’t it just get boring? They must insist on three pounds a day. Like a commitment; “I don’t want to eat this extra 1/2 pound of Haagen-Dazs but I have to stay empowered!” They just keep shovelling it in. The amount of effort it would take to drop 60 pounds when you’re 100 pounds overweight is so miniscule. It’s mind boggling. Go for a walk maybe? “Nah. Can’t have that, gotta stay empowered and we can’t have any happy men out there.” So I agree with you that there is a lot of hostility involved in female obesity–Combined with high fructose corn syrup. But you have to want to be that overweight, especially at a young age.
@ Cail,
Of course it will be blamed on men after this or that amount of hamster work. It will get there for sure. And don’t overlook how easy it is for a 240 pounder to grow her hair out long. That would get her all kinds of omega dick. Not to mention young white idiots trying to emulate their Af-Am idols by becoming chubby chasers.
I am actually losing interest in the manosphere with all due respect. I admire the elocution or Rollo, Heartiste, Dalrock etc. but the fat thing just runs it all over imo. There’s too much analysis that isn’t necessary. If all the women were thin, which would put about 85% at a “can be seen in a bikini” status would absolutely change everything. The extraordinary PUA vulcan mind tricks etc would not be necessary at all. It would be a level playing field. I’ve been both a laughable, hometown omega legend as well as a very high SMV young man in Rio, blonde, buffed and fluent in the local language. I’ve been on both ends of the spectrum, really and I don’t think that happens often. I know how much difference it makes when the women are competing too. This was Rio too. I was with some big-time women back then, not to be confused with a Western schlub in a South Asian, third world slum. I wasn’t a P4P guy in Rio. I was legit in big-time clubs getting my share of attention. They are healthy women in Rio. The lower class girls are out in their bikinis too, pressuring the upper class girls. It’s a world of difference when the girls are competitive enough to go for walks on occasion and competitive enough to NOT eat like unattended four year olds in a candy store. And that’s why I’m nearly done with the manosphere with all due respect. All this eloquence, logic and insight. It’s all so amazing but I’ve got three words; THEY ARE FAT.
“I think the men in this group easily forget that there are men who are great at attracting women, but are terrible husbands, and their wives often end up leaving them too, but for different reasons.”
Those kinds of men don’t frequent this corner of the internet. They don’t need to. If they lose a woman they can easily get another one, and they do.
Most men here can’t do that because they aren’t naturals, or aren’t attractive, or never learned how to be attractive, or want to keep the wives they have for religious, familial or other reasons. Most men here have problems with their marriages because they are TOO nice, too kind, too deferential, too interested in their wives’ feelings and emotions. They are this way because people like Dr. Harley tell them that such things will make them sexually attractive, when such advice couldn’t be further from the truth.
And, if you’ll notice, Harley tells them exactly that — being nice to a wife and doing nice things for her will generate sexual attraction, will cause her to tingle for him. It’s just false — his doing nice things for her might make her reciprocate with her doing nice things for him (like maybe having sex with him), but it will not make her tingle for him; will not make her sexually attracted to him. The mere fact that she is nice to him, or that she is having sex with him, does not mean she is sexually attracted to him. Kindness and sexual attraction are two different things.
Signor Farfalla:
“I am actually losing interest in the manosphere with all due respect. I admire the elocution or Rollo, Heartiste, Dalrock etc. but the fat thing just runs it all over imo. There’s too much analysis that isn’t necessary. If all the women were thin, which would put about 85% at a “can be seen in a bikini” status would absolutely change everything. *** THEY ARE FAT.”
That’s part of it. The other part of it is unattractive men who put up with entirely too much shit from women, who marry women unfit for even short term relationships, and who don’t care to improve themselves at all (even to the point of learning basics of female nature).
@KateandLuca,
Hilarious.
Here are your adjectives describing (therefore impugning) men;
cold
indifferent
selfish
domineering
too alpha
‘he wouldn’t give a shit’
pliable
passive
too beta
‘make things worse’
terrible
Yet your adjectives criticizing women;
(crickets)
And… women have sex all the time with men who they aren’t really all that attracted to, for many different reasons, not the least of which is attempting to lock the guy in to a marriage. So the mere fact that a woman is having sex with a man, even regular sex, doesn’t translate into sexual attraction for him.
@thedeti – yes i agree with what you said. My point is just that it is important to diagnose properly.
Many men, though, are a hybrid and maybe don’t realize it. They might be “too beta” but at the same time leave their socks all over the floor and not help with kids effectively, and their wives might be resentful about these kinds of things.
@Signor Farfalla – I didn’t mean to imply that only men are at fault and women are perfect. I just thought this particular subject was men and whether or not their wives like being married to them.
@kateandluca
His advice is a disaster all the way around. Overly alpha husbands as you describe would benefit from generating more comfort. But remember, Harley’s Love Bank advice to wives comes in the context of an ambush separation. Like he says in the post, these men tend to simply walk once their wives pull this stunt. But if they don’t, and they grovel as Harley teaches the wife to demand, they have killed her attraction anyway. Harley’s Love Bank theory uses her tingle as the metric of his goodness as a husband, so according to Harley she should then follow through and divorce her crushed into compliance alpha husband.
In countries where one gender outshines the other in terms of SMV (Asian women outclassing Asian men, American men outclassing Am. women) the outclassed gender becomes more powerful. Very ironic but that’s what happens.
It’s the other way around.
When one sex gains hegemony in terms of social power, it’s no longer under pressure to adjust to the expectations of the opposite sex, therefore it pigs out completely and the opposite sex starts to outshine it.
Russia is a perfect example. Russian men are the laughingstock of the entire world, derided as drunk, impotent, chain-smoking, ill, useless cannon fodder, whereas Russian women are pretty much the most sought commodity on the planet. Western men are willing to actually travel there and pay huge amounts of money just to have sex with them.
@kateandluca
I get your point now. You should have come out and said you liked Harley’s approach on feminist grounds.
I wonder how many of the comments were written by people who have actually read his books. It seems that there are a lot of people talking about the flawed logic and his desire to sell his books, but how many have actual real life experience with anything he is suggesting? I do. I only found his books after divorcing my husband and my marriage was practically written into the pages of his book. Had I read his book sooner my marriage may have been saved. His plan is like a diet it won’t work for everyone. But it certainly will not work if it’s never whole heartedly attempted. So to all the people that want to trash him without even trying his approach…good luck. Perhaps you should write a book and fill the pages full of your grand ideas about love.
“I only found his books after divorcing my husband and my marriage was practically written into the pages of his book. Had I read his book sooner my marriage may have been saved.”
So… you’re saying that had you found Harley’s books and forced your husband to do the things listed in his advice, you could have saved your marriage? You’re saying that had you moved out or forced your husband to move out, your marriage could have been saved?
Dear “Happy”:
In other words, you’re a) a wimminz and b) a divorcée. We can live with your scorn, and you’ll forgive me for not taking your review too seriously.
A great many of the men around here have gone through divorces, and some of these seem very familiar with the scam-artist in question.
There are some pretty good books available. Athol Kay’s “Married Man Sex Life” is one, off the top of my head. One brother named Rollo has a couple of books out also.
Regards,
Boxer
Truly shocking to read that men leave their socks all over the floor. Sadly that level of spousal abuse is what routinely fills the pages of the average Divorce Petition. It usually goes something like this:
AND THE PETITIONER prays that the said marriage to Hopeless Beta Loser be dissolved on the grounds of his unreasonable behaviour in that the said Beat Loser, did:
a. leave his socks in unconnected pairs on the floor [next bit is most important] to the considerable distress of The Petitioner.
Add something about forgetting the Petitioner Wife’s Mother’s birthday and no self-respecting Judge will fail to place the matter in the special procedure list (i.e. grant the divorce no questions asked) and if you ask for it, with costs against Beta Loser to be assessed.
What could be fairer and more equitable than that for I am convinced that men deliberately hide their sock-abandoning habits until after the marriage has been entered into. No woman has to my knowledge ever been known to leave her underwear in anything other than in neat piles and certainly not on the floor, at least such accusation has never yet (I am sure I can confidently state) been found in any Petition for Divorce.
The Harley lemmings are coming out…. *chuckle*
AR – JDG, one question: StringOfCoins has a friend whose wife is threatening to go EPL on him, right?
What if she already has? That threat doesn’t just pop up out of nowhere. A woman doesn’t threaten to commit serial adultery for no reason.
I find that women do all kinds of things for no reason, at least none that make any sense. I’ve seen women threaten all kinds of things, mostly to get their way. In my experience (as one who has participated in this kind of ministry on and off for several years), most of the time if she is going to cheat she will just do it, not talk about it beforehand. In fact, they usually try to hide it until they’re sure they want to change horses.
What if she’s already having sexual affairs on the side? Does that change your opinion?
It changes my tactic, not my opinion. God still hates divorce, but as Dale so effectively explained above, a biblical argument can be made that the adulteress has broken the marriage covenant and is spiritually dead, thus freeing the husband to marry again. I’m not saying I subscribe to it, but I do recognize that it is there.
If I were married to a woman whom I KNEW (not merely suspected) was already cheating, I would prayerfully confront her and insist that she repent and show signs of genuine repentance. If she refused, I would prayerfully separate from her. If it became necessary for reasons that currently escape me to legally divorce her, I suppose I could do that too. However, I would still consider her my wife, or more accurately my estranged wife, and I would not pursue another relationship.
I think I have heard all the marriage divorce arguments. I’ve even read the opinions of the Church fathers (who also disagree here and there about this subject). So far the approach I’ve laid out is the one I think is best, but I am open to correction.
Pod says:
June 5, 2015 at 12:43 pm
“I do like this girl, but I cannot be sure if she wants me as her husband or she just wants a husband. ”
If you have to ask you already know what the ugly truth/answer is.
kateandluca says:
June 6, 2015 at 12:53 pm
Instead of setting herself up as judge and jury over her husbands behavior (socks and kids), a wife should metaphorically and ofttimes literally be in the kitchen making him sammiches and focused on how to better help her husband.
As a feminist, you could use a stint in the kitchen yourself. I like to say “a sammich a day keeps the hamster at bay”, but we could also word it: “a sammich a day keeps the feminist away.”
I only found his books after divorcing my husband and my marriage was practically written into the pages of his book. Had I read his book sooner my marriage may have been saved.
Are you saying that if your husband had cow towed properly to your demands you wouldn’t have left him? That poor man, if only he had known had he changed his behavior his unfaithful wife would have remained faithful. It’s funny how men make women do things like divorce and get violent when they don’t behave “properly”.
His plan is like a diet it won’t work for everyone. But it certainly will not work if it’s never whole heartedly attempted.
Putting a loaded gun to your head and pulling the trigger will most likely end your head ache, but I still see no reason for you to try it. There are much safer solutions.
In summary, “neglect” is basically that the husband “neglected” to be a much
better man than his wife deserves.
Glad to have cleared that up.
Haley says wives should do everything they think their husbands want for 30 days, while secretly planning to separate? Then hope he comes groveling back?
Unbelievable!
There have been many fine comments, and some not so fine, on this thread. There is one idea I have not seen stated explicitly.
Haley is a PUA. Not a PIV, PUA like Roosh or Roissy, but nevertheless a PUA. He seduces women to blow up their marriages. And telling women when they should make love to their husbands? Any wife who surrenders her sexuality to a man other than her husband is an adulteress, even if there is no genital contact involved. At least Roosh and Roissy get a wet wick out of their seductions. Haley has only the nihilistic pleasure of destroying lives and marriages.
Haley calls it the ‘love bank’, but the evil that looks good, is always more evil than the evil that looks evil. At least Roissy admits he is immoral.
JDG, thanks for explaining your reasoning regarding divorce of an adulterous woman.
Actually, it’s not necessary at all, because the advice should always be the same: suck it up, stop whining like you’re the first person ever to have problems, remember your vows, and do your damn job.
Granted, getting back to doing the damn job will require different things from different spouses, but it should always start there, and usually should stop there too. The idea that every marital problem requires deep analysis is just an attempt to give the wife plenty of opportunity to frame it as the husband’s fault. The more complicated she can make it sound, the more other people will throw up their hands and say it’s beyond salvaging, which is what every woman thinking about divorce wants — permission to exit.
Bob Newhart did a great comedy bit where he’s a therapist and a woman comes in for counseling. She’s delighted to find out that his sessions only cost $5 and take 5 minutes. It turns out that his advice for every problem she brings up is, “Stop it!” About 99% of marriage counseling should be like that: “I feel like blah blah blah…” “Stop it!”
@Justdoit
Even worse. It means he neglected to give her gina tingles. Luckily Dr Harley has a plan to help her find Harley McBadboy.
I’d like to meet one of these men someday. I know what they’re like because I’ve seen them on TV, like Bigfoot or the moon landing, but I’d like to see one for myself as proof. As far as I’ve ever seen, when a man is “too alpha,” his wife might get frustrated with him, but she won’t leave him. She might wish he were a bit nicer (or think she does), but it doesn’t bother her enough to live without him. Her family and friends can drag her away, and she’ll go running back the first chance she gets. If he’s also the abusive sort (real abuse, I mean), she might call the cops if he gets really bad, but she’ll end up defending him and making excuses for him.
The truth is, if you want your wife to divorce you, don’t beat her, don’t cheat on her, don’t demand sex or food or anything else. Odds are that’ll never work. Just make her life comfortable, be unrelentingly nice to her, and do everything her way. It’ll do the trick in no time.
kateandluca
Many men, though, are a hybrid and maybe don’t realize it. They might be “too beta” but at the same time leave their socks all over the floor and not help with kids effectively, and their wives might be resentful about these kinds of things.
Women have the ability to become resentful about anything when they decide a man is no longer good enough for their hypergamy. On the other hand, women will put up with amazing things so long as a man is meeting their hypergamy.
Story time:
Back in the last century I knew a man who ran some apartments. These were typically one-bedroom student dumps, with a few two-bedrooms. He had a reduced-rent deal with a man who lived in one of his units in exchange for some basic maintenance work as needed, because the tenant was good with tools. That tenant was also a motorcycle rider, and had a fairly regular rotation of women in and out of his place, sometimes they lived there for a while. Because he rode older bikes, he owned more than one. Typically one was working for sure, one might be iffy, and one was always being worked on. Not the same bike was worked on, it would depend on what had busted lately.
This man lived in a one bedroom apartment with a cheap tile floor, and there were two things that could always be found in there: a motorcycle in the living room at least partly disassembled, and a fairly decent looking woman in the kitchen, living room, or bedroom dressed kind of like Daisy Duke. Apparently motorcycle parts, random oil, his beard and average-at-best hygene was not enough to generate resentment in any of his little rotating stock of girlfriends. Probably in part that was due to the fact that he could apparently replace any given woman with another one in short order, and I suspect everyone involved knew it.
So, kateandluca, forget the socks, forget “the kidz”, and consider a torn down motorcycle in the living room, with maybe a couple of piston connecting rods on the kitchen table. And little bleached-blonde Daisy Duke asking the man of the house if he wants a beer with his sandwich…
Here ends the story and the lesson.
In both schemes once the husband grovels enough the wife will regain her attraction for him.
Gotta call complete BS on that. In my experience the ONLY way that women ever regains attraction for a man is after she’s lost him. Over the years I’ve come to the conclusion that women do not value what they have, only what they DO NOT have. So in marriage it’s pretty much a done deal that she’s going to start looking elsewhere almost from day one, and everything I’ve experienced and used to my advantage is based on that simple fact. This is one of the reasons I’m staunchly against marriage – not only due to its tax implications, or the fact that divorce is stacked so much against you, but because in the end the entire reason you bought into it from the beginning is flawed. You are MUCH better served having several women seeing to your needs and competing over your attention – that way they never “have” you, and are always competing for you. (Sure they will complain – women always do, pay it no mind. It is the nature of women. Just like it is their nature not to value what they have.) You don’t have to believe me, you can just look at your own experience to see it in your life.
So this guy is spouting BS, plain and simple – but then he IS selling something – NEVER trust someone who gains from you believing them. Check what they are saying against your own experiences and see if you can see examples in your life. Me? I am who I am. I enjoy women, married, single, whatever – because I understand them and use that understanding to enjoy life. You can use it to improve yours – or not. Really makes no difference to me… If you use it, your woman won’t be spending the night in my bed, but there are a lot of other women out there, so I can afford to tell everyone – albeit quietly. And there are more than a few guys out there that will double down on their failed logic – which just means that when their woman comes to my bed (if she’s still attractive), she’ll be more open to new things, because women have zero respect for men who are pushed around by women, and a lot of them see having sex with a different man as a way of “getting even” with their husband for being such a pushover.
If I were contemplating an affair, I’d get an apartment where my spouse couldn’t find me, and give the affair a test run while playing my spouse like a fiddle. Then I’d use Dr. Harley’s advice as proof I was just trying to save the marriage. Thanks, Doc, I like having my cake and eating it too!
Also, I love the advice about moving out, but making him leave if there are kids so it doesn’t look like mommy is abandoning the kids. Best to make it look like daddy is leaving the kids. Plus, kids must always be better off with mommy.
I still can’t believe what.he wrote.
Hi Anon.
Harsh fact: if you are a psychologist and you want an academic job you better have an H-factor of at least 10, have some grants, and be still publishing. I have a medical degree and a fellowship (think Boards) and a research Masters… and needed a current research track record to get an academic job.
At least where I live and teach — not in the top 100 universities (in the world), but in the top 500.
That is not harsh. That is the market.
If you are not making research, you are a consumer of research. And being active for your PhD 30 years ago does not count.
pukeko60 – all my questions were rhetorical. Thanks for the comprehensive answer anyway.
Happy says:
June 6, 2015 at 1:30 pm
“I wonder how many of the comments were written by people who have actually read his books. It seems that there are a lot of people talking about the flawed logic and his desire to sell his books, but how many have actual real life experience with anything he is suggesting?”
Actually many of us here HAVE had plenty of experience with women who attempt to crush us, humiliate us in public, abuse their positions of power, demand that we grovel for many reasons – sex, access to our own children, to continue our jobs, if you have a female boss. That’s why we’re here. We know it doesn’t work. We know that if you attempt to appease the beast/negotiate with the terrorist, they just up the ante in the next round.
If you think Dr Harley’s tactics are right, then I suggest you apply the Empathy Test: swap the word “husband” for “wife”, and see how it reads. Pretty soon you will see that it is sick in a psychopathic way.
@Hoellenhund,
You’re talking about the issue once there is some cross cultural mobility and you’re certainly right. If there was a massive earthquake and the Pangaea returned (while SMV’s stayed intact) then all bets are off. Western Anglo men would have their pick of the world’s best women. American women would be stuck with New Guinean tribesman. Russian males would have to go for fat British women or something.
But my point is talking about cultures in which the genders are somewhat walled up with each other. Korea, Brazil etc, a combination of geographic and cultural isolation. Russian men may be the world’s laughingstock but so what? Look at how keen the competition is amongst the women for the men there. Fat American women are the world’s laughingstock too and they routinely shoot down international 9 males while being international 3’s themselves. That’s what I mean. Once a gender in a country outclasses the other side, the reward is only that the superior SMV gender has to compete EVEN harder. Look at American males jumping through hoops while the women guzzle ice cream like it’s oxygen.
@Deti,
Yeah, I agree that too many men are naive about what they are internationally. Almost willfully naive. For all my faults and mistakes in dealing with women, at least there was some core inside me that resisted my apparently pre-ordained role as a beta with a fattie. I resisted that, kicking and screaming, spent my life overseas instead. I cannot understand how a man could ever endure handing his life over to a fat woman. There is so much out there in the world that is better. With the internet, the manosphere, easy international travel, there is no excuse for a man these days not to know what his options are; and choosing like a man. Strong, self-interested, brave. A guy should pick up his 20 year old Indonesian at age 50 and walk down the street proudly, not get shamed into bailing out the 190 lb 48 year old divorcee just to duck cultural shaming.
Sad! I love his book… and his other book on Love Busters or something. 😦 I understand in a way… “negotiated desire” ya-da-ya-da-ya-da… but I still think his core “needs” that men and women feel are true in this book.
Also, Dalrock… what really drew me to Dr. Harley almost 8 years ago when I was newly married was how he backed men’s needs against all kinds of shaming and criticism. He unashamedly thinks men need sex, and also that most men need an attractive wife (and you can imagine how well that goes over with feminist women).
I wrote one of my first posts on that particular need for men… quoting his book here. I’ve had men email me thanking me for validating that they aren’t just shallow for wanting their wife to keep her body up, or look a certain way.
http://girlwithadragonflytattoo.com/2014/02/19/men-need-an-attractive-wife/
I wonder how many of the comments were written by people who have actually read his books.
*waves his hand*
I’m curious, with the talk of ‘ledgers’ et al, and trying to talk about love in marriage as if it was an economy… does Harley ever (ok this is rhetorical, because I’m almost certain this mindset is presented in vague, fuzzy, everyone-is-different talk) list exchange rates? Because Harley’s whole interpretation of love/attraction/etc. (as presented here) doesn’t have a leg to stand on if either spouse can move the goal posts.
Nor does it have a leg to stand on if everyone has fixed but differently located goal posts. Then it goes back to personal accountability on the part of both spouses both in their actions and in their GRATITUDE towards their spouses actions.
(p.s. I’m pretty sure gratitude is code language for patriarchy in the minds of feminuts ha ha)
Pod says: June 5, 2015 at 12:43 pm
“I do like this girl, but I cannot be sure if she wants me as her husband or she just wants a husband. ”
ace says:
June 6, 2015 at 4:18 pm
“If you have to ask you already know what the ugly truth/answer is.”
Let me add an echo to that. DO NOT settle for being a place holder. In my experience, the girls who want place holders tend to reach a bit in the men they want as the place holders, so I’m guessing you’d be settling rather than getting most of the things that you’re looking for in a wife.
@Happy
“g e n u i n e
d e s i r e
c a n n o t
b e
n e g o t i a t e d”
~Rollo Tomassi, happily married for almost 20 years (and his wife still loves and desires him)
Please understand that we write these comments because we care about your well being.
These words matter:
“IF SHE’D JUST TELL ME WHAT I HAVE TO DO TO MAKE HER LOVE ME I’D DO IT!” not realizing that their very verbalization of that, and a belief in open, rational communication, is the very thing that’s killing (or killed) their woman’s desire for him
A cardinal truth of the universe is that genuine desire cannot be negotiated
The moment you tell your wife, your girlfriend, that you will exchange a behavior or attitude or belief or any other compromise for her desire you fundamentally change her organic desire into obligation
~Rollo Tomassi, from his book The Rational Male (Volume 1)
@Happy
“g e n u i n e
d e s i r e
c a n n o t
b e
n e g o t i a t e d.
The moment you tell your wife,
your girlfriend,
that you will exchange a behavior
or attitude
or belief
or any other compromise
for her desire
you fundamentally change
her organic desire
into obligation.”
~Rollo Tomassi, from his book “The Rational Male”
@ Opus
” No woman has to my knowledge ever been known to leave her underwear in anything other than in neat piles and certainly not on the floor”
Guilty!
I’m the sock dropper in our house. My husband looks aghast as I fling things in the general direction of the washing basket.
The most effective lie is one that’s wrapped up with truths, like putting medicine in a spoonful of sugar. That’s why we have to talk about guys like this, more so than blatant feminists: ideas like his will be able to infiltrate Christian circles where obvious anti-man, anti-marriage feminist concepts would be recognized and rejected.
Also, if you’re going to get into the marriage-advice business, you have to do something to set yourself apart from all the other authors on the shelf. You need a hook. Since 99% of marriage advice is focused on the wife’s “needs,” an easy hook is to say, “What about the husband’s needs?” It’s guaranteed to get attention, and even negative attention is good when you’re trying to distinguish yourself, especially if it comes from a group that your target audience hates.
It’s simple economics, though I don’t know if he consciously planned it this way: all the other authors are trying to please wives, so you’ll sell to the husbands — an under-served niche market — and if you can get feminists to bash you, that can only help by giving you man-cred.
If my wife gave into my every whim for thirty days and then left me, my reaction would be twofold:
1) Crack open can of beer.
2) Contemplate my good fortune.
… but I still think his core “needs” that men and women feel are true in this book.
*Sigh* //*facepalm*//
Off topic, but too disgusting not to share…
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/06/06/hold-for-rk-abortions-count-for-27-per-cent-of-all-deaths-in-england/
This is the state of Western Civilization.
>@Upthread: “You know what worked? You know what people suggested you do? They called it doing a 180 or the 180 technique. Basically you start ignoring your wife, you never instigate any activities with her, you even stop telling her that you love her. You just ignore her. And then you start lifting weights, exercising, and finding a hobby. Reconnecting with a passion. You try to find a mission. And whatever you do you do not talk to your wife. You just let her wonder about you.
>Even if it doesn’t fix your marriage you’re now much better prepared to move on.
>This is what standard blue pill marriage forums discovered, through much trial and error, as the only way to fix your marriage.”
Amazingly enough, this is what Married Red Pill has discovered as the EXACT SAME SOLUTION. My post Dread lays out the plan one step at a time:
http://www.reddit.com/r/marriedredpill/comments/2lpafb/the_12_step_plan_of_dread_book_excerpt_from_my/
It usually works and we rarely see a woman file for divorce when the man is improving as recommended. We DO see men deciding to leave the marriage after improving and leaving their frumpy, entitled, nasty wives in the dust. This happens if they have been lifting for several months and are on Level 7-8 Dread (Learning PUA and cold approaching young hotties) and their wives still haven’t noticed and are STILL taking advantage of their husbands like the entitled brats they have learned to become. Turns out that when men finally realize they really CAN do better than the bitchy, sex denying, Jezebel screechtard they married, that those women suddenly do their own 180 and become tolerant and reasonable wives. The problem is that sometimes it is just to late for that. The men check out and it is game over….
@God is Laughing (and Dalrock too!): “how does “game” resolve those questions?”
By restoring sexual attraction with your wife. Women are run by the tingles (see the blindingly obvious metaphor in Genesis Chapter 3 for more). When you generate the tingles your wife’s behavior changes towards you and game does indeed resolve all those questions.
It is significant that both Dr. Harley and Joel & Kathy Davisson focus their efforts on empowering women to fix or blow up marriages. I understand that in our upside down culture women have the leverage and the power. But, for Christians the husband is to lead and manage his household, and that includes his wife. Therefore, true Christian marriage counseling would focus on empowering the husband to lead and manage.
“He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity 5 (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?),” I Timothy 3: 4,5 (NASB)
@ Bee – I’ve noticed a general focus on what women should do to change their marriages. Aside from our culture, maybe its because men don’t seek help for relationship issues as often. How often do men seek out advice for being a better husband? If they seek out advice at all it seems to be advice about how to get more sex.
Fawn, that’s the shame card. Of course men want the relationship they have chosen as their one and only for life to include a love life. Do you really think men marry because they have a burning desire to be a work horse to a woman who won’t touch them?
Almost all the relationship advice women seek out is not for a better relationship, but to get more out of their husbands. Plan b and lowering the boom as are women’s voting patterns to keep the gravy coming even if they move out and start shagging the pool boy.
Go to any church doing a seminar on marriage. Men are much more open to taking blame and adjusting their behavior than women are.
@just_sayin,
I totally agree with you. When I finally dug through my wife’s multiple secret lives I discovered that she didn’t appear to cheat on me for the five years prior to marriage where we cohabitated but she started trying to cheat on me literally one week before our wedding. She called this her “on again, off again” affair. I have an explanation I can now give you this phenomenon through red pill language but, basically, the moment she had caught me in marriage was the moment I completely ceased to matter in her life. Only the money I produced for her mattered.
I honestly feel very bad for every single man I know who is married. Women just don’t care enough to treat their own husbands right. I hope any woman who bothers to read the manosphere can realize just how awful and borderline abusive women have become.
@bluepillprofessor,
When I finally found the red pill from talk about marriage through Rollo’s blog I immediately recognize dread game as a further evolution of the 180 technique. Now red pill theory has mostly taken over talk about marriage. Because it works and men are desperate to save their marriages. Meanwhile women basically no longer seem to care about their vows or their biblical duties. They’re just broken.
I have to temper my time spent over at TAM though. I tend to try to contact the guys who have just found out that their wives, by which I mean whores, have been cheating on them. I do what I can to talk to them and keep them from eating a bullet. It doesn’t always work. And each man I speak with drains much from me.
Spending time doing damage control with these men, these good men, and then trying to have a civil conversation with these horribly solipsistic and, frankly, evil women is impossible. Every time someone bemoans the anger phase I wish they had enough empathy to have any idea of the incredible pain these men are drowning in.
And what can I really tell them? Don’t kill yourself guy… Just wait. Soon the government will come turn you into a child support slave for children you will barely see and who will be raised to hate you….
JDG, any examples where a marriage was saved after a wife was sexually unfaithful?
I am skeptical that it has much chance to succeed regardless of what is said.
I will bet Happy is not very happy.
I don’t think anyone has mentioned Briffault’s Law. Its first corollary (I am not sure whether this itself is by Briffault) asserts that:
“Past Benefit provide by the male does not provide for continued or future association”. If that is correct then no matter how much you deposit in the love bank the deposit is instantly worthless.
JDG, any examples where a marriage was saved after a wife was sexually unfaithful?
I am skeptical that it has much chance to succeed regardless of what is said.
I think so as well.
I once discussed this with someone who works with lots of couples in these kinds of situations. Basically the issue is that when the *wife* cheats, she’s already done with the relationship. She may or may not leave the marriage (that depends on her calculus of whether she can do better realistically for another committed relationship, and how tolerable the current marriage is — high vs low conflict, etc.), but she’s done with the romantic relationship with her husband. The person told me that it’s possible for the marriage to continue, but the relationship has to start over again, as if from scratch — i.e., dating, wooing, falling in love again, building a new relationship — because the old relationship is finished and is not coming back.
Now, how many people want to actively date and woo and romance someone who just cheated on them? Not many. So it really is a low odds thing.
“The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.” – Proverbs 18:17
“He who gives an answer before he hears, It is folly and shame to him.” – Proverbs 18:13
It’s unbiblical to advise one to blow up their home without hearing the other side of the story.
Brad @ 11:30 am: JDG, any examples where a marriage was saved after a wife was sexually unfaithful?
None that I can think of. I remember hearing a story or two, but nothing that I can follow up on to see if they are still together. On the other hand, in every case that I can recall the marriage was over once the female was sexually intimate with another man. Some were over after the man cheated, but some were also saved.
Some might say that the women were more forgiving, but I found the opposite to be true. In the cases where the woman cheated it was usually her who would not reconcile, though sometimes the man (and sometimes it was both). In the cases where the man cheated I was left with the impression that he was not forgiven so much as she did not want to lose him (but maybe that was just me). I’ve had the impression more than once that the woman actually enjoys playing the victim.
There is one case I remember where it was suspected that the wife was cheating. Many of the signs were there. She did leave her husband but returned within a week at least in part because their daughter would not stop screaming for her father. At the time I would have put my money on her having played the harlot, but they’ve stayed together for over a decade since then (which I find to be unusual if the woman is defiled).
If a woman cheats, its because she is emotionally/spiritually dead to her husband. That’s almost impossible to rebuild….and why men are so upset about the physical aspect of a wife with another man. The “It was just sex” excuse doesn’t wash with a cuckolded man. He knows the true implications.
If a husband cheats, its often because he wants physical release, not that he’s emotionally dead to his wife. The wife is then more concerned about whether the husband is “in love” with the other woman, rather than the physical act. This is an easier situation to rectify.
@ BPP, So your wife having tingles changes the law, culture, and media? It stops a husband from being a sexist pig? I don’t see it. If it is inoculating the wife from those influences how much more would Godly contentment do so? Those are substantially different tracks.
@Stringofcoins: “I’d like to see a church openly support abstaining from state marriage and supporting a biblical marriage through real church officials. That’s not happening so instead I’m thinking I may just have to convince a decent girl to accept my own version of such a marriage. I’m not really sure what else up do.”
Let me provide you some intellectual cover even if it is not in accordance with scripture according to some here and elsewhere- because I believe that it is.
I believe that the entire institution of Marriage 1.0 does not exists and there is considerable agreement on this point. Now we have Marriage 2.0 which is an entirely different institution that legally and socially completely favors the woman. There is wide agreement on that point.
Where some of my fellow Christian brothers (and yes I call you that even as you call me a Heretic!) differ is the effect of the Lord’s words when he was commenting about Marriage 1.0. Basically He said “Don’t divorce except for adultery.”
If we agree Marriage 1.0 no longer exists, and that the Lord was commenting on Marriage 1.0, NOT the Satanic and Frankenstein Marriage 2.0, then there is no proscription from the Lord about divorcing, cheating, or whatever under Marriage 2.0. Simple logic.
The prohibition on divorce was more about keeping used up women from being thrown on the street by heartless and fully empowered 1st Century men rather than commanding 21st Century men into serving the feminine imperative as slaves. If you don’t have game, and frame, and seduction, and Alpha/Beta and attraction trigger awareness AND the willingness and ability to divorce your wife if she does not behave like a wife and opposes you at every turn then you have NOTHING. Nothing on which to bargain, no power. Zip. Zilch.
Women control sex. They control the divorce. They control the birth of children. They control the conception of children. They control the marital assets. They control the social milieu. In short, a wife controls almost everything in the marriage by law or by social custom as grown up since the 1960’s.
Men control 1 thing and 1 thing alone. Men control COMMITTMENT. You Christian literalists eschew Game while even Dalrock the mighty himself eschews Dread Game which is by far the most potent form of game when used correctly! Game, especially Dread Game depends on the man being willing to take his marbles and go elsewhere. Sometimes that, and more are needed to wake up a sexually withdrawing, 21st Century Marriage 2.0 empowered Drama Ice Queen colloquially known as “wife.”
Dalrock, I just realized that his suggestions for wives are similar to our suggestions to husbands on Married Red Pill. There are several differences, however, For example, running “Dread” like this on a woman spurs competition anxiety and tingles a woman, making her more likely to be sweet and screw her husband while the same tactic on a man makes him anxious and miserable making him LESS likely to be kind and generous with his wife (thus less likely to lead to sex). Most important, Dread used by men is consistent with Scripture- let me go check, did the Lord abandon his people when they turned from him? Why yes that is exactly what he did, over and over again in the OT as I recall. Other than that inference the NT gives very little guidance on how to deal with a rebellious wife. I am guessing the 1st Century solution was so obvious Paul did not need to advise the husbands- something like flog her until she is cooperative again.
Dear Dalrock and commenters,
My husband constantly criticises me and calls me worthless, and although he is not physically abusive he often leaves me in fear of it (punching the wall above my head, telling me that one of these days I’ll make him do something he regrets etc.). I admit that I am not without sin myself: I frequently deny him sex because the thought of doing something so intimate with someone who seems to despise me is too painful, and ever since some of his financial decisions resulted in us losing our home and having to stay in emergency homeless accommodation a few years ago I have refused to submit to him in any big decisions. Recently my children, who are in their late teens, admitted to me that they wish he and I would get divorced. He has been away from our home on business quite a lot this year, and they say that it has made them realise how much more calm and pleasant to be in our home is when he and I are not there together. My daughter even said that she hates family meals because she can’t bear the way my husband speaks to me and the constant tension. When I pointed out that I made a vow in front of God and my community to remain with him until death, they implied that I was stubborn and idealistic, and said that there is no point in suffering just for the sake of it or allowing something I said aged nineteen to determine the rest of my life.
I am truly torn- obviously, as a Christian, I know that there are no biblically licit reasons for a woman to divorce. On the other hand, I have always done my best to put my children first throughout their lives, and the idea that I could be actively harming them now by remaining in an unhappy marriage is a terrible one. Of course, I would be lying if I said that my motives were purely altruistic- I admit that I am sorely tempted by the thought of a better life than this (and no, that doesn’t mean dating or marrying again, i.e. adultery). I don’t even know what my husband thinks- he has shown little sign of enjoying being married to me for the last fifteen years or more, and for all I know he would prefer to be divorced as well. Should I broach the subject with him?
Many thanks for reading,
Elizabeth
@dragonfly
> I still think his core “needs” that men and women feel are true in this book
For men, I agree, and from what little I know of women it also seems correct… as far as he goes.
The big problem is that Harley seems to assume:
– women have no need to feel safe behind the wall of her husband’s authority, physical safety and emotional stability.
– women have no need to feel safe, knowing that their husband cares enough to firmly lead the family, presumably in a way that will provide for the safety and well-being of the family
– women and men are all logical, rational beings, who are willing to regularly sacrifice with short-term pain where they intellectually see that things are going to get better or be better in the long term.
I admit I was really happy with the idea that if I just worked hard enough to effectively fulfill a woman’s desires, she would act in a similarly mature manner toward me. Although to be fair, Harley’s book does have examples where one spouse tries but the other does not. So he at least subtly admits that this “plan” is not guaranteed.
If he put the authority/leadership into his book, it would be much more effective.
@Happy
>I wonder how many of the comments were written by people who have actually read his books.
As should be obvious from this and my prior comments, I also can wave my hand.
I attended a Harley seminar in the 90’s. Train wreck, epic fail, so forth.
Today I was crestfallen at church. This church has been for over two years safe from the things that prickle those of us that are Christian men. Mainly because the teaching is a bit more intense and in depth than sermons on marriage and feelings etc. tend to be (which is the staple of modern evangelical churches….”How to handle Anger”….”How to find joy in daily living”…..one or two scriptures and a pop psych message. Not here. Nor did that come into play today.
What did come into play was that there is a marriage seminar coming, which my wife and I will not attend ironically because we will be in Antigua celebrating 25 years of stick-to-it-ive-ness. Not bliss, not simply -of marriage-, but of really ultimately reaching the point where we are family in the permanent sense and we’d no more divorce the other than we would one of our parents or siblings. I recommend our program…..it has 100% efficacy. it just wont get women all weepy and furrowed at the brow.
I digress.
We don’t usually have the obligatory video opener, but alas, today, a couple gave testimony to a saved marriage. It can be summarized as :
Him: “I had secrets. I was addicted to drugs and alcohol but hid it well”
Her: “He had secrets and was addicted and I was trying tom fix him instead of trusting God”
I wrote to the pastor and asked, are marriage ministries designed to hold men accountable about the big sins and meanwhile to help women put up with them and keep the women gospel focused? We know each other well enough that he will realize the sarcasm isn’t directed at him, but for illustration purposes.
I corrected him on one thing. As he closed he referenced the video saying that the wife in the video realized with the help of another women from the church that yes, she was a sinner but there was fruit there as well. I told him that in absolutely no way did that wife express or imply any sort of realization of her sin or that she even contributed discord in the marriage through her own sin. Neither did she claim to not have sin in the marriage. It was the masterful passive aggressive voice so perfected by church women which she used to communicate that tiny area of need for accountability which was that she needed to trust God to fix her husband not herself.
@Dale I admit I was really happy with the idea that
if I just worked hard enough to effectively fulfill a woman’s desires,
she would act in a similarly mature manner toward me.
Although to be fair
Most men are happy with that idea,
and,
for too many men,
this leads to their destruction.
“to be fair” …
Is there a “fair” when a morbidly obese “man”
has influence over so many “committed relationships” by being
like a “christian-ese” version of author John Gray?
To his credit, at the pinnacle of his influence,
at dinner,
John Gray was,
compared to the author in question,
in relatively good physical shape,
which,
to some,
might indicate a healthy sex life,
making him more believable.
The answer to the Dr. Harley (and Dr. Gray) dilemma…
is Rollo Tomassi’s “The Rational Male”
All other modern ‘relationship self-help advice for men’ texts are duodenary.
Most of them should be placed in the
Literature & Fiction > Genre Fiction >
Loosely Biographical >
Humor > Parody
section.
I read a good quote from Dr. Emerson Eggrichs aa while back. He said women don’t get that respect is as important to a man as love is to a woman, so they think disrespect is like flicking a noodle in his face to get his attention, when to him it feels like they are bashing his head in with a brick bat. So, he asked, “could it be that wives do more damage than they think they do?”
BPP, so Jesus was referring to marriage as it existed in the 1st Century, not as a universal concept that symbolizes His relationship with the Church. How is that different than the baloney being served up at Our Lady of Jezebel, Universalist Congragation of Churchianity?
I’m wondering if you have interpreted Harley correctly. I have not followed the links you provided and never heard of him until I read this article. all I know about him is what you have quoted, so I could be wrong. However, you state “he makes it clear that he is talking about wives losing attraction for their husbands.”
However, you quote him as saying “L.R.’s husband hasn’t abandoned her physically, leaving her to fend for herself. Instead, he’s only abandoned her emotionally.”
This sounds to me as if it is the husband that has lost attraction to his wife and the wife does not know how to get him re-attracted. Harley’s suggestion is that she begin by “[doing] everything she thinks the husband wants for 30 days.” This would be consistent with a belief that it is the husband, not the wife that has lost attraction because what he suggests is an attempt to re-interest him. Plan B would be her response only if he does not respond by regaining his attraction to her.
This is not to say that I agree with his methods. I think he is just plain wrong which is why I won’t waste my time following the links. I also don’t care much for therapists who use their advice to sell more books, etc. But perhaps you should take another look.
Based on my experiences and observations the biggest reason for the high divorce rate is the promiscuity of women before they married. I fault western men for this. In their quest for easy sex they have accepted non-virginity as a factor to consider when vetting a woman for marriage. In fact, many western man publicly do say that they would rather have a woman that is slightly slutty since that turns them on.
What men need to do is go back to where we say NO to women that have slept around before marriage. This would put an end to what we are now seeing. Decent women also need to shame those women that are slutting around. After all, do they not want their future husbands all to themselves?
At present I don’t see any difference between women in the church and those in the world. The only difference is that that churchians hide their immorality better. They do not feel any less shame than those in the world.
Yes, they’ll occasionally say that women sin too, but you can tell they don’t really believe it. Maybe little sins like gossip, but not serious, intentional, life-destroying sins like bailing out of a marriage. Women just don’t do that.
When they do (carefully) bring up women’s sin, it’s like when a job interviewer asks you about your faults, and you say, “Well, sometimes I just get too focused on a project and don’t want to quit.” It’s always something like you heard: “She tried to fix him instead of trusting God more.” That still makes her look good for trying and makes it clear that it was really his fault for needing to be fixed; while the man’s sin is something straightforward, with no suggestion that it came from any good motives or could be blamed on anyone else.
“If a woman cheats, its because her husband is emotionally/spiritually and physically ead to her.”
I’m assumed that this is what you really meant to say.
Trust, if you could provide a source or better still a link to that quote from Eggerich it could be very useful.
Do you really think men marry because they have a burning desire to be a work horse to a woman who won’t touch them?
I, for one, have no doubt whatsoever that Fawn truly thinks exactly that. Or, perhaps more accurately, she, like most other women, believes that it’s a husband’s obligation to shut up, roll over, castrate himself, and then thank her for even deigning to allow him to breathe the same air she does.
@Empathologism Why do you support that “leader” that has such disdain for one gender? Why not insist on a “The Rational Male” conference instead?
Well, there’s no slick marketing video, and there would be no money in it for the “non profit” entity, or spellbound trough
Cail Corishev
Yes, they’ll occasionally say that women sin too, but you can tell they don’t really believe it. Maybe little sins like gossip, but not serious, intentional, life-destroying sins like bailing out of a marriage. Women just don’t do that.
Or murder. I’ve heard some pretty powerful sermons on abortion as murder, but somehow it’s as if abortion is some sort of outside, alien force that just happens to a woman, like the chest-punching parasite in Alien. Either that or she’s forced into it by an evil man. Neither of which matches up with the actual women I have known who had abortions of their own, free, will.
One can only imagine what sort of tiptoeing around, walking-on-eggshells, goes on in sermon writing for those churches with babymommas in the congregation. Well, ok, I don’t have to imagine, I’ve been in a few churches of that sort, and there’s most likely chunks of the Bible that are just not necessary to preach out of. Ever.
Anyone ever heard a sermon on anger where women were mentioned? I haven’t, although I’ve heard some mention of anger as a sin, and men’s anger was of course focused on, as well as “parental” anger.
While the upstate ballots are not yet counted, it sure does look like women are immune.
PokeSalad says:
June 7, 2015 at 2:14 pm
“If a husband cheats, its often because he wants physical release, not that he’s emotionally dead to his wife.”
A good analysis, although I’d say a husband cheats because his wife is emotionally dead to him. Women’s sexual games – going through the motions sex, high-stakes sex (“bomb-defusing” foreplay), witholding sex, “starfish” sex are all signs she has emotionally checked out of the relationship.
A man’s world is often harsh and cruel, based on productivity. He wants, and expects, some degree of sanctuary and warmth in his home. Yet wives are frequently cold, uncaring, bad-mannered – any woman that tells her husband to “Get over it” or “STFU” or “You think YOU had a bad day! I….” is selfish to the point of downright evil.
I once looked at cheating in black and white terms. Now, knowing and understanding the nature of women, I agree that it isn’t just the man’s fault.
Dale,
I did hear it in a recorded sermon. The girl playing it was from a Full Gospel (Brethren?) church, so likely it was from there.
Sorry, no idea of who it was. But it does happen.
I would agree that it sometimes happen, but I am more looking for widely publicized instances of that. I do often hear preachers talk about men “beating their wives with submission and Eph 5:22,” but I have not heard such beating much myself. I was curious if you or anyone else had.
GiL,
have been looking for a positive aspect of pairing psychology (as a base of knowledge) with the Body of Christ for quite a while and have really yet to find one.
I certainly would not pair Christianity with psychology, especially with the modern variant of it. I will use principles psychology might also use though. They probably argue for good hygiene as well. Should we stop using deodorant because they advocate it, to push things to the extreme?
I use the parts of game (frame, leadership, not falling to pandering/arguing/etc.) to be stronger in my marriage. It still doesn’t make things perfect, but it is somewhat meaningless to try to say “just be reborn” as a solution to the husband-wife issues I face on a regular basis. I have been married almost 27 years and I can tell you that a lot of it happens outside direct Scriptural guidance, at least in the context of what you seem to be saying.
Hillsong church CANCELS visit by controversial US pastor Mark Driscoll who once described women as ‘penis houses’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3114050/Hillsong-discuss-different-possibilities-controversial-pastor-referred-woman-penis-homes-ahead-upcoming-visit-Australia.html#ixzz3cQoka88P
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
That’s funny, but completely unsurprising, that a church would cancel a Driscoll appearance because of one thing he said that offended women.
I do often hear preachers talk about men “beating their wives with submission and Eph 5:22,” but I have not heard such beating much myself. I was curious if you or anyone else had.
I’ve also heard that line from different preachers over the years. I’ve yet to see one living example of this being the case. I’m guessing that if it comes up some where in a sermon or even in a conversation it’s “beating them with submission”. Maybe it’s a self fulfilling prophesy because after being lied to for so long I have NO problem “beating” a woman over the head with “wives submit” passages.
I am reminded of all those “fire and brimstone and legalistic” churches I heard about for years on end. It may be just where I have lived most of my life, but I haven’t seen one of those yet either. What I’m finding out is that the people that talk about such things are talking about churches that teach all the scriptures (repentance, hell, women’s roles, ect.) rather than skipping/smoothing over the unpopular parts) and referring to people that take their faith seriously enough to change their ways and give up things that are not edifying.
That’s funny, but completely unsurprising, that a church would cancel a Driscoll appearance because of one thing he said that offended women.
And an egalitarian church to boot.
It’s a ridiculous claim, for one obvious reason: no husband can enforce Eph. 5:22 today. If a man tries to beat his wife with it and she’s not on board, she’s just going to go to her pastor, or Catholic Answers, or any other mainstream Churchian source, come back with a bunch of quotes about “mutual submission” and “servant leadership,” and tell him to shut up and take out the garbage. By trying to “beat” her with it against her will, he’ll only be exposing his own powerlessness when she refuses.
So the only man who would have anything to gain by “beating” his wife with submission would be a man whose wife already accepts the scriptural requirements, in which case he has no need to beat her with it. Remind her once in a while, maybe, but not beat her with it against her will.
BradA, Game uses truth (as does Satan). I don’t advocate throwing out the truth just because the enemy uses it to sugar the pill of is deceit. As believers we are taught that we have an old man we are told needs to be crucified. I don’t see game address the new creature in Christ at all. Do you? Instead we see comments like some. Instead we see comment like “women are women and they always will be women, and thus discontent”. That doesn’t strike me as putting faith in the divine enabling grace of God, or His ability to save with His blood. Women need to repent, I don’t see game accomplishing that.
Also, I’m not against strong frame, leadership and masculinity. Those things are all Godly. I don’t accept that they didn’t exist before game. I give game credit for helping me understand their application better. Beyond that, meh.
Just in… FDA’s approved “female Viagra” (aka “the little pink pill”)– watch the “deposit” husbands have to make (as well as the divorce rate) increase so she’s not “not haaapy”.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/04/health/female-viagra-sex-drive-drug-flibanserin/index.html
First its was “The Pill,” now it’s “the little pink pill”– better destruction of civilization through chemistry, eh?
P.S. About the Pink Pill and hypergamy… just sayin’:
BradA
> I do often hear preachers talk about men “beating their wives with submission and Eph 5:22,” but I have not heard such beating much myself. I was curious if you or anyone else had.
No, I have never seen an actual man “beating his wife with Eph 5”. I suspect this claim is the result of projection. Some women (and men) use any excuse to be evil, and expect others to act the same way. Thus expecting that a man would seek to use an authority passage as an excuse to be cruel and domineering.
@Anonymous: That is a fantastic video. +1!
@Anonymous
I looked up some information on the first sets of testing: short answer is that a glass of wine is probably more effective.
@JDG:
The Fist-pounding, Fire & Brimstone preachers are mostly a Strawman. And have been since the Great Awakening. Dull & monotone is a better description of most Preachers. While I recommend Pollyanna (the movie) to most people, especially for watching the Doctor deal with Ms. Harrington, the preacher is a complete caricature. I’m sure one idiot like that existed, at some place & some time, but the congregation probably tossed him within a Month. [People forget that the Deacons don’t want to be yelled at, either.]
I think a better capture of local Preachers comes from an odder place: Nathaniel Hawthrone’s The Scarlett Letter. Arthur Dimmesdale was weak & pathetic, but with just enough Stature to have an affair. That describes more pastors than we all like to admit.
Yeah, I’d put that in the same category as women leaving their husbands for being “too alpha,” and men cheating despite having an attractive wife offering plenty of enthusiastic sex at home. Possible in theory, and in a country of 370 million people you figure it’s probably happened at least once; but I’ve never seen it, and it’s certainly not common enough to be a “problem” that explains anything.
Note that my use of “beating” was not meaning physical, but with words. I would agree with Call that it would not work today, which is one reason it bugs me so much when preachers say that.
GiL,
What would be different in a women if she is truly a Christian? I am married to one and she is definitely a women and does not always control herself the way you seem to imply. Neither do I for that matter. We must still walk things out.
I do not buy the common line here that AWALT in many of the areas we discuss, but they do seem to all have to wrestle with common things and using the permissible ideas of game remains effective even with a born again woman/wife.
@Trust,
“It’s unbiblical to advise one to blow up their home without hearing the other side of the story.”
That is an important, wise, Biblical principle and Dr. Harley is sinning against it.
The thing about the obesity effect is that men in North America are also quite obese, percentage-wise. It’s true that physical attraction isn’t as dominant in selection when women are selecting as it is when men are selecting, but it also isn’t irrelevant, and has become more important since women have become financially independent. Due to this, I don’t think it’s accurate to say that American men are like the Maserati class of men, and that therefore women are free-riding and becoming obese. Men are, percentage-wise, just as prone to obesity in the US at least, and many men are also, in other ways, underperforming in the rest of their lives — the typical beta, blue-pill AFCs, really.
I think more than obesity, the reality is that both sexes in North America are now very self-indulgent, although in different ways. I think this is what happens when you have a culture which is radically individualist on pretty much all levels and which actively promotes narcissism of every sort. It doesn’t lead to many people being attractive to the opposite sex, or to people trying hard to be so, when it comes to both men and women.
Right. The claim they use as a scare tactic is that Christian men are using Eph. 5:22 to force their wives into unwilling submission. But there’s no such thing, especially today when she’s not bound to her vows by any legal or societal restrictions. It might have been possible in an era when a woman was likely to starve if her husband cast her out, but forced submission is slavery, not submission, and that’s not on the table today anyway.
The only way a wife can submit is willingly, as her own choice to follow God’s commands, and the real goal of these scare tactics is to keep women from doing that.
“Nathaniel Hawthrone’s The Scarlett Letter. Arthur Dimmesdale was weak & pathetic, but with just enough Stature to have an affair. That describes more pastors than we all like to admit.”
Well, it’s all relative. Prynne’s sugar daddy was even worse. Either way, a far cry from Vronsky or Karenin.
@Elizabeth – is your husband a Christian? Do you have a church where you might be able to get help with this situation? Do you have family members that might speak to your husband about the threats he made?
Due to this, I don’t think it’s accurate to say that American men are like the Maserati class of men, and that therefore women are free-riding and becoming obese. Men are, percentage-wise, just as prone to obesity in the US at least, and many men are also, in other ways, underperforming in the rest of their lives — the typical beta, blue-pill AFCs, really.
I would agree with you. By and large, western millennial men are not as attractive as their predecessors. There’s obesity, for sure, but there are also other issues. There’s a large “neckbeard” nerdy subculture that isn’t sexy to most women, too. But I think the biggest problem is that the smart, handsome, and successful men were by and large raised to be Mike Stivic. He was funny as a counter balance to Archie, but he was still seen as a joke. He was arrogant, lazy, and so incessantly weak and unmanly. Now, young men embrace this sort of “enlightenment”. Exhibit A: Hipsters.
obviously, as a Christian, I know that there are no biblically licit reasons for a woman to divorce
What are the biblically licit reasons for this:
I frequently deny him sex because the thought of doing something so intimate with someone who seems to despise me is too painful, and ever since some of his financial decisions resulted in us losing our home and having to stay in emergency homeless accommodation a few years ago I have refused to submit to him in any big decisions.
Why are you hung up on the divorce but are able to do (not do) these things?
Elizabeth,
There’s no need to answer my questions from above, you know there are no biblically licit reasons for the sin and rebellion you are already in. What you are doing is looking for justification for future sin, fear of consequences of future sin, and are attempting to make a deal with God and would like for him to allow this future sin for what you believe would be the betterment of your children and yourself.
Instead, God wants you to stop resisting him. The rebellion you are already in is rebellion to God (independent of your husband and his behaviors). You are making decisions already that result in pain and separation from God. Adding further sin to it will not bring you closer to Him. Focus on God’s Word. His very specific Word for you, a married woman. And in prayer stop resisting him with your earthly rationalizations and justifications. He knew women would be in your situation and He still has said what He has said. Might there be a reason for that?
Elizabeth
I have always done my best to put my children first throughout their lives … I don’t even know what my husband thinks- he has shown little sign of enjoying being married to me for the last fifteen years or more,
These two things might be connected. Consider it this way, if you in essence “married” the children years ago, that means you may well have stopped being married to your husband in several ways. A woman who is “MOM” 24/7 is not a wife, and men don’t generally like being treated like a child by the woman who is married to them, at least on paper. If you truly transferred your loyalty from him to the children, then in his mind you divorced him years ago.
He’s possibly working long hours in order to recoup from the financial disaster of years ago, but that appears to mean nothing to you. It appears that there’s nothing he can do that would ever be “good enough” to earn even the most grudging morsel of respect from you. That likely will look to him like contempt, unending contempt. Couple that with your utter loyalty to the children & your disdain for him, and he’s in a no-win situation. He has no choice – legally, morally, religiously – but to work as much as he can to support you and the children, but you can and have chosen to refuse your side of the marriage contract.
Lastly, women have many, many ways to display contempt. It can be rather subtle, with enough deniability to enable a woman to flutter her eyes and say, “What? Why, whatever do you mean? I didn’t say that!” when she knows perfectly well what she just said and did. His moments of anger just might be triggered by displays of contempt on your part, subtle or otherwise.
Not to worry, you hold all the cards. You can divorce him whenever you like. Your church will surely stand behind you, as will most of society, no matter what you’ve done. On the other hand he will be friendless, and every hand will be raised against him.
So cheer up, Elizabeth, you have the whip in your hand.
“the biggest problem is that the smart, handsome, and successful men were by and large raised to be Mike Stivic. He was funny as a counter balance to Archie, but he was still seen as a joke. He was arrogant, lazy, and so incessantly weak and unmanly.”
Heh. “The Meathead” from “All in the Family”. Not only was he arrogant and (Kind of) lazy, he was liberal, Democratic, feminist, progressive, egalitarian, equalist, forward thinking, and therefore “right” and “correct” and “enlightened”. This “Sensitive New Age Man”, like Phil Donahue and Alan Alda, was supposed to be emblematic of the “dawn of a new day” in life and in intersexual relationships.
Archie Bunker was the “real man”, the everyman beta who worked hard and clung to “traditional American values”. He was portrayed as a knucmpkle dragging, backwards thinking, conservative reactionary Neanderthal, living “in the dark” and representing “the bad old days”, in liberals’ and moderns’ opinion rightly consigned to the ash heap of history.
Truth was, women eventually found the Meathead to be unattractive. The sensitive man “in touch with his feelings” and sympathetic to women’s issues married and had kids. Then his wife cheated on him and frivorced him. His ex wife raised her son to be just like her ex husband, because that was “good” and “right” and “Forward thinking” and “progressive”. It didn’t work out with her ex husband because they just “grew apart” and she got “unhaaaappy” and “it just didn’t work out”. She couldn’t see it was because she didn’t respect him and just didn’t want to have sex with him anymore.
Elizabeth,
I would bet you are leaving some huge factors out of the equation, including the true impact of your own behavior. A woman can make a marriage very intolerable herself. That is why we have the saying, “If momma ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy.” It is misused today to make life all about making momma happy, but it is a valid principle.
How happy have you been in your marriage, especially leading up to the increased tension? Your husband would greatly benefit by controlling his own emotions and using other ways to respond to a challenge, rather than doing something physical he will regret. Fixing a wall wastes effort he could use for other things, even if he can do so completely on his own.
Trusting a teen, especially a daughter, on the best peace-seeking path is also very dumb. Teen girls are not too bright in many cases in my experience, especially in cases like this. Having your parents split up is just as bad as having strife like you note, even as an adult. I can vouch for that from personal experience.
How much could you change in yourself to make your own approach different? Your husband may have plenty to work on, but nothing he does will change things if you are in an attitude of undercutting what he does, especially based on past actions that he can no longer change.
I would also bet some of the things that you complain about in him were fully visible before you married him. That seems to be the case quite often in my experience and the principle of living with the situation you created to be very applicable.
Or just give it up and quit pretending to follow a godly way when you are really undermining that. A woman can almost always make a man do something that will make society and government think the man is the one at fault, especially in today’s environment.
deti
“The Meathead” from “All in the Family”.
Ironically, there was a short-lived spinoff in the 80’s, Gloria, in which Archie’s daughter (Sally Struthers) was a veterinary assistant after her divorce from Meathead. So the spinoff inadvertantly proved that Archie was right…
I was young during “All in the Family” and “Maude” and other Norman Lear shows. But I remember what we were told, what feminism told us.
Women are equal to men in all respects.
Women are exactly the same in all respects to men, except for genitalia and reproduction. Otherwise, women are the same. They want the same things, think the same, have the same desires and goals, talk the same, act the same, and do the same things in the same ways as men.
Feminism is good. Sex outside marriage doesn’t hurt anyone as long as you love the person. If you don’t love the person, you stop having sex. It’s OK. No one gets hurt that way.
This means more men will get to have more sex because more women will be willing to have sex outside marriage.
This means no one has to stay in a loveless marriage. if someone is unhappy in the marriage, they can end it. Because happiness is a good in and of itself. No one should ever be unhappy. If someone is unhappy, this is morally bad and society must correct it.
If you oppose any of this, you are a bad person. Because you are against people being happy. And you are against people being equal. And you obviously hate women. And no one will ever want you or love you.
“western millennial men are not as attractive as their predecessors … smart, handsome, and successful men … arrogant, lazy, and so incessantly weak and unmanly” .. and all disinclined, even if able, to “support” women, therefore a blatant instance of Weak Men Screwing Feminism Up®
Oh the Shame.
Not your problem Princess, you obviously deserve only la creme de la creme of masculinity, so quit worryin’ yore purty little haid.
When a marriage ends, the children must go with mother, because she is just a better person than the father is. She is more moral, more spiritual, kinder, gentler, more in touch with her feelings and emotions. He is amoral at best, harsher, more brutish, harder, tougher, and less emotional. This is bad for children. Therefore, they must go with mother.
This means that the money must go to mother as well. He must pay large amounts of child support to the mother. Because feminism. And because “it’s for the children”. And if you disagree, then you are an evil brute who hates children and wants them to suffer.
When a marriage ends, it is because the man was unkind to his wife. She would not have cheated on him if he had been kinder to her. She would not have wanted a divorce if he were kinder to her. We believe this because she says it. And women don’t lie about relationships or sex or marriage. We know women don’t lie about such things because they are more in tune with their emotions, and they understand how they feel, and are very well able to express how they feel, because they are just better communicators than men are.
If a man is more moral, more spiritual, and in touch with his feelings, then he isn’t a real man. A man who wants to raise his children and wants custody of his children after a divorce is not a real man. A real man is supposed to be working to earn the money to pay for the children. How can he have time to parent if he is working all the time? IF he wants his children, there is something wrong with him. He’s probably one of those Christian men; probably a fundamentalist. (He’s probably molesting his daughters and beating his sons.) He must be defective, so the children must go with mother.
A man’s world is often harsh and cruel, based on productivity. He wants, and expects, some degree of sanctuary and warmth in his home. Yet wives are frequently cold, uncaring, bad-mannered – any woman that tells her husband to “Get over it” or “STFU” or “You think YOU had a bad day! I….” is selfish to the point of downright evil.
It has really become a lose-lose situation on that front for most married men of the western world. They’re either married to spoiled, obese bitch-princesses for whom nothing they do is ever good enough, or they’ve hitched themselves to SIW career women who view their husbands as mildly retarded, second-rate competitors rather than as spouses, constantly challenging and undermining their authority as husbands. For the man it all ultimately comes down to an unfortunate choice of what flavor of domestic discord is the least toxic and destructive.
Oh, and Elizabeth? Your use of the word “my” as in my children is a tell. How long have you been referring to them as your children rather than our children?
BradA, how is this for a title: “Everything I Know About Godly Marriage I Learned From a Pick-Up Artist”? It doesn’t sit well with me either. The PUA’s exposed the details of the glaring problem in our societies women, I’m not holding my breath to see a legitimate answer from them. Ascribing Godly virtues to what motivates that set is frankly disgusting to me.
@ Trust
I’m not shaming anyone, nor am I faulting men for wanting sex in marriage. However I can’t help but notice that it is usually women who are seeking relationship advice, not men. Now a lot of the advice that they receive is bad advice but they are at least making an effort to improve their marriages. Men don’t usually do this. I can’t say if it is because they care less about it or because seeking relationship advice is seen as something that women do.
Fawn,
Women are more discontent in general than men, are far more inclined to complain, and have serious problems with commitment (hence the extremely lopsided divorce rate). You are spinning this into a virtue. It isn’t. Yes, there is a whole industry dedicated to pandering to women who are looking for ways to “fix” their husbands. No, this isn’t proof that women are better than men.
I’m not shaming anyone, nor am I faulting men for wanting sex in marriage. However I can’t help but notice that it is usually women who are seeking MORE, not men. Now a lot of the advice that they receive is bad advice but they are at least making an effort to improve their HUSBANDS. Men don’t usually do this. I can’t say if it is because they care less about it or because seeking MORE is seen as something that women do.
FIFY
@ Fawn:
“I’m not shaming anyone, nor am I faulting men for wanting sex in marriage. However I can’t help but notice that it is usually women who are seeking relationship advice, not men. Now a lot of the advice that they receive is bad advice but they are at least making an effort to improve their marriages. Men don’t usually do this. I can’t say if it is because they care less about it or because seeking relationship advice is seen as something that women do.”
If you really believe all this, you’re not paying attention.
I think more than obesity, the reality is that both sexes in North America are now very self-indulgent, although in different ways. I think this is what happens when you have a culture which is radically individualist on pretty much all levels and which actively promotes narcissism of every sort.
Male narcissism is actively discouraged in various ways, and is treated as some growing social problem.
@ Dalrock
If women are more discontent and leaving marriages as a result then shouldn’t men be the main ones seeking marital advice? Shouldn’t they be trying to figure out why women are leaving them? If I was married to a person who was miserable and wanted to escape I’d certainly be interested in finding out why. The answer might be that she’s just a discontent whiner, but I’d sure be checking to see if there was anything I could do before I drew that conclusion.
Yep. While obviously there are exceptions, when a woman says her husband lost interest in her 15 years ago, I picture a typical progression:
Year 1: They’re both hot for each other. She has sex enthusiastically and initiates it sometimes. He buys her gifts and does other nice things to show her loves her, besides working to take care of her.
Year 5: She doesn’t loathe him, but she’s not really hot for him anymore either because he’s just a regular, decent guy; so she’s still willing to have sex but not especially interested in it. She never initiates, doesn’t show a lot of enthusiasm, and increasingly avoids it with kid-based excuses or busy-work. He still does nice things for her, but now it’s less out of love and more a desperate attempt to make her happy and get her motor running again.
Year 10: She feels no physical attraction for him (there may still be affection and friendship), so she avoids sex as much as possible, maybe caving in once a month/year out of duty or pity. He’s getting used to it, and his resentment over being trapped in a sexless (and thus from his perspective, loveless) marriage builds and begins to show in how he acts toward her. Gifts are now only obligatory and he avoids her much of the time.
Year 15: She starts to notice that he doesn’t seem to like her anymore, but it can’t be because of anything she’s doing, so she doesn’t know why or what to do about it. She begins to think about counseling and/or divorce. She may make some halting efforts to reconnect with him, but she can’t maintain him because she just doesn’t want him anymore.
Year 20: Her attempts to “fix” him haven’t worked, and she starts to realize he really doesn’t like her at all. She now “remembers” that he’s despised her for 15 years, because that’s the only way he can be responsible for the Year 5 cutback in sex that started the downward slide. His emotional withdrawal must have come first, or she might be responsible for something.
Few have such a way with words as Deti. LOL
You’re assuming the female method to get advice is the only method to seek or obtain advice. I see no reason to get advice from a stranger and have little respect for psychologists (years of interaction with many). I used personal, trusted contacts for advice.
I suspect women prefer more public expressions of dissatisfaction and seeking advice because they know they can get a group of feminists (all stripes, including those in the church) to gang up on the man.
My ex tried this a number of times. We’d go to a counselor and she’d air the problems. We’d sit until the counselor got some movement from one of us. Once there was movement, the counselor wanted to capitalize on the momentum and “make progress.” I always went first I’d explain my side. The counselor would list things for me to do. I did them of the next few weeks. We’d report back and the counselor would suggest things for her to do. Sessions ended. This repeated three times.
The outsider would say, “The woman wanted to fix the marriage because she initiated the counseling.”
She had no interest in substantive changes. She simply wanted someone else to get me back in line.
Why would a superior member of the species pay attention to a bunch of inferior specimens and one superior one who’s obviously been brainwashed? She’s here to enlighten us, or at least get us to shut up, not to listen to us.
I don’t want to play into any attempts to shift the blame to men, but really…what’s with the neckbeards? Can’t they look in the mirror and see how bad that looks? I’m a D&D-playing computer programmer too, and a neckbeard isn’t actually part of the uniform, guys. Grow a beard or don’t, but keep the hair off your neck. Riker kept his beard trimmed off his neck, and so should you.
Cail,
That was the script with mine, except it ended after ten years. She saw an opportunity to gain the upper hand in custody and she took it. I suspect that’s the only reason she waited that long (she’d been pushing divorce since Year 6).
Nothing to add to Cail Corishev’s timeline except this minor detail: Year Five often corresponds to their child becoming old enough to be able to go to day care, take care of him/her self. It’s known that when the youngest child becomes 4 or 5, the mother tends to get restless and often starts acting badly towards the father. There’s various explanations: evo-psych in terms of genetic variability, hypergamy not being served, discontent (“Eve’s daughter”), etc. Pick one or more, the observed data still stands.
+1 on this statement by CC: He’s getting used to it, and his resentment over being trapped in a sexless (and thus from his perspective, loveless) marriage builds and begins to show in how he acts toward her.
It’s interesting that for all of the study done into “love languages”, somehow the notion that “sex IS love” remains controversial. It’s almost as though nobody wants to really listen to what men have to say…
Yes, neckbeards are nasty. I can only assume that neckbearded people don’t care about how they look. It’s not like it is something that requires a lot of effort.
“If women are more discontent and leaving marriages as a result then shouldn’t men be the main ones seeking marital advice? Shouldn’t they be trying to figure out why women are leaving them? If I was married to a person who was miserable and wanted to escape I’d certainly be interested in finding out why. The answer might be that she’s just a discontent whiner, but I’d sure be checking to see if there was anything I could do before I drew that conclusion.”
Again: You’re not paying attention.
If the neckbeard crew made six figures, women would start finding it sexy enough to sleep with them. Fawn included.
“Sexy” to women is so subjective that it’s largely pointless to categorize physical features constituting “sexy.”
There are two, and only two, reasons why a woman breaks up with a man or ends a marriage to a man:
1. Either she no longer wants to have sex with him; or
2. She no longer respects him.
Or some combination of the two.
It all breaks down to that.
Your first faulty assumption is that “marital advice” would help, or that men would have any reason to believe it would. Many men are becoming aware that most marriage counseling is simply “Beat up on the husband” hour. Husbands and wives both know whom the counselor is working for.
But also: a man sees a problem — an unhappy wife — and thinks, “How can I fix this?” A woman sees a problem — an unhappy wife — and thinks, “How can I get someone else to fix this?” One is more likely to lead to seeking outside “advice” than the other.
Anchorman:
Your comment above on counseling is spot on. Marital counseling is not really about fixing the marriage and its participants. It really serves two purposes:
1. For the wife to get the husband to change; so that he will do or be things she wants, or not do or not be things that the wife doesn’t want.
2. For the wife to gather evidence to use in the later divorce proceedings.
The counselor is not neutral at all – the counselor invariably sides with wife, because she’s “more in touch with her feelings”. The husband is a brute and a jerk, and they wouldn’t be in therapy if he were doing things he was supposed to be doing.
I see Elizabeth Jane is getting a lot of flak, but frankly, being able to identify with her children and having had the misfortune to live in a house where my Mother was routinely verbally mocked in a manner similar to what Elizabeth Jane describes, I think you are being a tad hard on her. Having said that, marriage lasts a lifetime and by the end my Father would have been lost without my Mother – and by that time I was long flown the nest.
a man sees a problem — an unhappy wife — and thinks, “How can I fix this?”
And is given the authority from God to do so. My favorite “who bitch this is?” moment of the Bible: “Abraham, why did Sarah laugh”
IOW – Fix yer bitch, Abraham.
“How can I get someone else to fix this?”
“How can I get someone else, who is not my husband, to fix this” – Eve’s curse.
The counselor is not neutral at all – the counselor invariably sides with wife, because she’s “more in touch with her feelings”.
Also, and this cannot be forgotten:
Counselors have no set of ethics forbidding them from “taking sides” in divorce court proceedings.
None.
They may indicate an unbiased, “I won’t get involved,” but will drop that “code” if they are paid a full day’s work, per diem meal, and transportation cost for one hour of testimony.
They do not have an unbreakable code or suffer any professional backlash from breaking agreements made in counseling.
At least in one Northeast state.
Secular counseling is another bit of insanity men walk into and expect a fair shake or for words/commitment to mean something.
A counselor is not a psychiatrist. I’d trust a psychiatrist with professional discretion, but not a counselor, no matter what the counselor says. Psychiatrists have licenses worth far more and don’t play the same games counselors do.
I don’t want to play into any attempts to shift the blame to men, but really…what’s with the neckbeards? Can’t they look in the mirror and see how bad that looks? I’m a D&D-playing computer programmer too, and a neckbeard isn’t actually part of the uniform, guys. Grow a beard or don’t, but keep the hair off your neck. Riker kept his beard trimmed off his neck, and so should you.
I apologize if it sounded like I was trying to “shift blame”. In my mind, it isn’t really about blame. We have a generation if very confused people. It’s no secret that the qualities that men find attractive on a primal level in a woman are becoming more and more scarce, I was just pointing out that the opposite is also true. There are so many guys in the younger generation who don’t know how to stand up for themselves, much less for a family. They haven’t been taught to lead, and many don’t have a real desire to do so. A traditionally feminine woman just isn’t going to be interested in men like this. Even feminists are wondering where all of the “real men” have gone.
Men aren’t attracted to rebelliousness. Women aren’t attracted to complacency. Unfortunately, society nurtures both.
Anchorman:
Actually I think the problem with joint counseling is that the confidentiality requirement applies only to the counselor. There’s no reason to think counselors are out there breaching confidentiality requirements all over the place. That’s not the problem.
The problem is that since confidentiality applies only to the counselor, there’s nothing to keep the wife from repeating all that’s said in joint sessions. So, the wife will repeat all the admissions, all the mea culpas, all the “bad stuff” the husband says. She’ll tell the lawyer, the court, the judge, the CPS people, the kids’ teachers, her friends– anyone she thinks she can enlist to pressure husband.
The second problem is that the “advice’ is always feminine in nature. There’s a “communication problem” so they need to “communicate better” meaning that he has to “share his feelings” and “get in touch with his emotions” and “share his emotions” with her.
Or she is frazzled and overworked, so he needs to “do more around the house” and “help her with the chores” so she will “be more up for sex later”.
Or he is working all the time and is never around and the kids don’t see him. So he needs to “work less” or “work smarter” or “not spend so much time with the guys” because “she needs help around here” or “he’s a crappy father” or “the kids really need him”
All this is held out as promising to improve their sex life, because she will “Feel more attracted” and he will “be more attractive”. Because doing chores is “attractive”. Because guys who feel and feel and feel are “Sexy”. Because guys who pray and do devotionals and read the Bible are “Sexy”.
@Elizabeth: I believe your story is truthful as you see it but it is full of sin. Pride, arrogance, disobedience all come to mind.
You hamster about your husband losing his temper and punching a wall yet he has never hurt you in many years of marriage. WHY is your husband losing his temper?
>I frequently sexually deny him…
Yes, I could have predicted that with 100% accuracy. Your husband made some poor decisions and bad things happened so now I am in charge and I am the head of this family. I get to control the sex and watch my husband become more irate and angry as I deny him sex and flaunt his helplessness. I get to poke and nag and bitch and complain and THEN I get to use the anger that this generates against him! Win Win!!
You will pardon me if I don’t rush to your defense M’Lady, but you are totally in the wrong and will have to answer for it on judgment day.
Read “Me? Obey Him?” and “The Surrendered Wife” before you do anything else. Also, just for laughs, try reading Ephesians, and Corinthians, and 1st Peter if you really are a Christian wife. There is a well characterized way revealed in scripture and in the other readings I suggest to get a man to become loving and caring and you my dear are not following it.
deti,
I had a counselor flat-out break the confidentiality agreement and testify for the ex.
Her testimony really didn’t do the damage they anticipated because my lawyer took the counselor’s knees out on cross-exam. The counselor’s testimony fell apart in about five questions.
I’m not suggesting it’s common. I am saying it is foolhardy to place total trust in the confidentiality of counselors.
@Deti:
“1. Either she no longer wants to have sex with him; or
2. She no longer respects him.”
A clever backhanded joke from one of the great manosphere icons. Of course he knows there is no difference between these concepts, but I just bet Fawn doesn’t.
The simple answer is she has lost respect for him and so no longer wants to have sex with him and is looking for hamster bites to justify her rebellion. Finis.
anchorman:
I suppose that could happen, and I don’t know all the facts in your case.
I’m willing to bet that one of the following happened:
1. There was fine print in your joint counseling agreement saying the counselor could testify about his opinions relating to the counseling, the marriage and/or the participants if a legal proceeding arose. The counselor could be a material witness in the event of a divorce or child custody proceeding.
2. The counselor was subpoenaed to testify and the court ordered the counselor to testify, over the counselor’s confidentiality objections.
@Elizabeth,
So your husband made a bad decision several years ago and in return as his loving wife you have spent the years, years you say, after that refusing to submit to him and I’m sure you have sought to fitness test the crap out of him. So right when he needed the most support he received less then the least. Rather then support he received condemnation from his own wife.
And now here we are today. Where he basically despises you because he knows you don’t love him. And so now you want a divorce. You could try to submit to him and offer him the support he believed he had. Maybe you can convince him that you don’t despise him and he’ll stop being so unhappy with a rebellious wife.
Bluepillprofessor:
Much respect for your work at reddit/r/marriedredpill. I’m a fan of your work.
Actually I didn’t intend it to be a joke. I think it’s two different things.
1. She doesn’t want to have sex with him: He’s gotten fat and out of shape; he doesn’t push for sex; he doesn’t take control of and lead their sex life.
2. She doesn’t respect him: Pretty much everything else. He’s a pussy; he doesn’t stand up for himself; he’s made some poor decisions; he’s depressed and anxious; he’s struggling in his personal or professional life, etc. (But then, because of all of the above, she doesn’t want to have sex with him.)
If the neckbeard crew made six figures, women would start finding it sexy enough to sleep with them. Fawn included.
“Sexy” to women is so subjective that it’s largely pointless to categorize physical features constituting “sexy.”
If the neckbeard crew made six figures then women who value money enough to tolerate ugly and have no better options would be willing to have sex with them. But no one thinks that’s sexy. I am not one of those women.
@Deti
With each new round, I’m more and more convinced that she is merely playing dumb.
deti:
It was #1. The testimony fell apart because the counselor’s personal feelings and the law didn’t jive. So, while she felt compelled to testify in the best interest of X (subject), it really only amounted to her opinion and the law didn’t support the claims. She came off as a bit batty and hyper-vigilant. She had to admit she knew the law, so it really undercut the motivation for her testimony and the “compulsion” to break confidentiality.
QUOTE: L.R.’s husband hasn’t abandoned her physically, leaving her to fend for herself. Instead, he’s only abandoned her emotionally.
Translation: SHE has abandonded HIM emotionally. She does not feel anything about him. No tingle.
Another example of Female Backward-Speak (FBS). They reverse cause and effect, or simply say exactly the opposite of what is true. It is very effective, but we are catching on fast.
I think men’s physical attractiveness, men’s looks, is becoming more important in women’s assessments of men’s attractiveness. This is because women are more financially independent and can be more selective. I don’t think women necessarily separate it out like men do; but I think men’s looks, “hawtness”, is taking up more and more of the equation, the “total package”, as women become more financially and legally independent.
Another example of Female Backward-Speak (FBS). They reverse cause and effect, or simply say exactly the opposite of what is true. It is very effective, but we are catching on fast.
FBS, very good and useful. One of my favorites, heard in a coffee joint, She to He: “You keep withdrawing and it makes me SO ANGRY!”. No, dear, your nasty temper tantrums make him want to be anywhere else, you have reversed cause and effect.
FBS also could stand for something else…
StringsofCoins says:
June 8, 2015 at 12:46 pm:
Cosigned.
Also, I wonder if Elizabeth has stopped to consider that the risks her husband took that ended so diastrously were steps he took with her and their children’s long-term best interests in mind, something he would never have dreamed of doing for himself. I can tell you based on firsthand experience (and painful lessons learned therefrom) that men will go to extremes and do foolhardy things in the quest to better protect and support their families. Sometimes, with the grace of God, we succeed. Many other times we miss the rung and fail spectacularly. I recall the old maxim “success has ten thousand fathers, but failure is a bastard orphan.” Obviously the average husband and father can expect “bastard orphan” to be his default status more often than not.
Not meaning to “pile on” here, but I suspect that if Elizabeth’s husband had succeeded in whatever it was that had ended so disastrously, a,success that in some way significantly ikproved their lot, that she would be worshipping the ground he walks on. Or then again, she would probably only grudgingly acknowledge his sacrifice while nagging him for not having done it the way SHE would have done it.
I think men’s physical attractiveness, men’s looks, is becoming more important in women’s assessments of men’s attractiveness. This is because women are more financially independent and can be more selective.
Yes, and as the various entrenched feminist forces continue to push men out of college, this will accelerate because “provider game” is mostly dead outside of some cultural niches. So more men will have to become PUA’s to some degree in order to compete at all; the alternative will, of course, be incel. The alternative will be to try to fit into one of those niches. Not every man will be able to do that.
Mayo clinic has “cracked the code” to happiness.
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/06/05/researchers-cracked-code-happiness/
Who knews?
AR:
Yeah, provider game is pretty much dead. Guys are not going to be able to get and keep a woman’s interest long enough for marriage with a good job and churchgoer bona fides. Hell, a $50K a year job aint enough even to get a guy a date. A girl out of school can pull down a 40K a year job without breaking a sweat. So a guy with a job? Most women will sneer “That ain’t shit”.
I think it is going to go to that extreme of “PUA” or “incel”. I think most guys will look at that choice, throw up their hands, say “not worth it” and go the beer/bong/bros/Xbox/BigBoxRetailStore route.
If I recall the numbers properly, it’s $160k per year to make people (read: Women) “happy” in their life. So Provider Game starts at $100k. At least in the West. Not that most Wives these days understand the concept of “Gratitude”.
To flesh that out a bit:
I see a lot of men going the “slacker” route in their lives. these are guys who will get out of high school, maybe go to community college. They’re living kind of on their own, in a house or apartment with maybe two or three other guys. They have a job at Best Buy or Home Depot or Lowe’s or Wal Mart or Meijer. They earn just enough to cover their bills and maybe buy a beater car, save up $50 a month. They work full time, but not enough for “benefits”. If they’re lucky and keep their noses kind of clean, in 2 or 3 years they could become department supervisor, maybe assistant manager in 3 years after that (if they want the responsibility). Or maybe they learn a trade – HVAC, electrician, plumbing, carpentry, etc. They earn a little better than the BigBox guys. Most of their free time is spent getting drunk/high, playing video games, road tripping, and hanging out with their roommates and guy friends.
They might hook up with a girl three or four times a year, if they’re lucky. But things never work out, or the girl becomes too demanding, or he screws it up somehow (said or did something wrong; or didn’t say or do something she wanted), so it ends.
Earn a bachelor’s or other advanced degree? Not happening. Too much time, too expensive, and the rewards don’t match the costs in time and money. Military? Nah. Not worth it; probably can’t get in anyway because of drawdowns, and it’s all a cesspool of PC Bullshit. Marriage? Absolutely out of the question. They don’t make enough to get married, and they don’t want to anyway. They might live with a girl, but they wont’ make it legal, and she’ll have to pull her own weight, do her own thing, earn her own money, and contribute to the bottom line. She can’t quit working because he doesn’t earn enough to support them both and has no intention ever of even attempting to do so. Children? No way, never, ever, never. He does not want to become a dad. They all saw what happened to their dads (assuming they have any kind of relationship with those men)
@Fawn,
You’re simple minded questions make your appear child-like. You need to get yourself a husband to lead you quick if this is the extent of your cognitive abilities.
Women are destroying families like dominoes falling because the misandric laws give women total power in every marriage. Even drunk ex felon meth addicts get their children if they have a vagina. It doesn’t matter how good of a husband or father you are. And women feel entitled to all of this. And more! HeForShe! Women feel entitled to *even more*.
It is men who seek to fix their marriages and not women. Women seek to exert control over their marriage. They don’t seek to fix it. The red pill sub has over 100,000 men trying to figure out wtf woman want. Red pill women? Like what 2000 members? Talk about marriage forums are 90% men. The entire manosphere where we try to figure out wtf is wrong with marriage and how do we fix it? It’s called the manosphere for Christ’s sake.
Really you think men aren’t en mass trying to figure out how we can possibly get married to the horrible HORRIBLE massively entitled sluts that surround us? When we’ve been raised by single moms in a feminist man hating culture from birth, had any drop of masculinity drugged out of us, have women openly rebelling in church and church just surrendering. Hell my bishop works for the feminist rebellion. He doesn’t even need to surrender. And ever law that exists is enforced in incredibly sexist man hating ways.
And you think the solution is for men to just do even more? Lol.
And…. I think the above, the slacker culture, the beer/bong/bros/Xbox/BigBox route, scares the holy hell out of women today.
@AR:
Actually, there’s one brilliant quote from that article: ” “Complainers are never going to be happy,” Ketchian said. “Happiness is a decision.” ”
One nice part about being a Christian: none of the reality of the world is exactly “new”.
Actually, I didn’t think you were, but I knew some would jump on the opportunity to put down men instead of women. Ah well. The neckbeard thing bugs me too much to let it pass, because it’s so unnecessary for guys to do that to themselves. Also because it’s usually the gammas, who are annoying anyway. The other day, some sci-fi author was being a typical gamma asspie atheist on another site, and I looked him up on Wikipedia just to test my theory — sure enough, pudgy neckbeard. It’s like a rule.
Some physical features are objective pros or cons, though they aren’t absolute. Tall is sexier than short. Buff is sexier than skinny or fat. Hair is better than not-hair. Sure, you can overcome those things with enough Game or money (though I’m having trouble thinking of a wealthy neckbeard with a hot wife; the wealthy, well-married nerds I can think of off the top of my head all seem to be clean-shaven), because non-physical attributes matter more, but why handicap yourself when you don’t have to? If you’re 5’4″, there’s not much you can do about that, so you just have to raise your Game. But you can shave your freakin’ neck.
Of course, if you don’t want women bothering you with their attentions, that’s different.
“Hell, a $50K a year job aint enough even to get a guy a date.”
But that’s plenty enough to afford an escort.
Women are nothing but legal and financial liabilities to men. Marriage is a heavy milestone yoked around a mans’ neck, affording him no benefits, and nothing but obligations, debts, responsibilities, liabilities, lack of freedom, and stress, and rendering him forever under the Sword of Damocles of divorce destruction. Oh, and I should mention the likelihood of a marriage with no sex or very little sex if at all, and with an aging, fat and unattractive woman. Women can easily get a man kicked out of his own home and jailed with false DV and child abuse claims. More and more young men have direct experience with divorce and its’ damaging effects on men, their fathers mainly. As knowledge about womens’ true nature and the anti-male legal system spread with the internet and blogs like this, less and less men will bother with relationships with women.
The children of some relatives of mine endured a childhood with Mr. Know-It-All as a father. He ruined every family meal with his sarcasm and ridicule. By the time the children were in junior high they were eating as many dinners as possible with other relatives who lived nearby. When both children moved off to college, Mr. Know-It-All announced that he was divorcing their mother and moving to Florida with his new lover as soon as the divorce was final. The children (rather hardcore Catholics) refused to meet the new woman, and refused to visit their father at his new apartment, and told him that they were never going to visit him in Florida.
Once Mr. Know-It-All realized where he stood with the children, he broke up with his lover and moved back in with his wife. My brother-in-law visited their home a few months after the reconciliation, and he said it was the first time in twenty-five years of visits that the man had behaved decently at the dinner table.
My own family was far happier and more relaxed when my father was on business trips because he had a hair-trigger temper that he made no effort to control, but no one EVER said this out loud. When he was home, everyone walked on eggshells because of his anger, hostility, and extreme moodiness. He was dissatisfied with how his life had worked out, and blamed others for every misfortune. He died in middle age after a lengthy illness, mellowing somewhat toward the end. My mother took very loving care of him until the day that he died even though he had never treated her very well, and would not have done the same for her if the situation had been reversed.
Maybe Elizabeth Jane deserves to be treated badly by her husband for holding out on him sexually, but that doesn’t begin to fully explain why the children don’t like being around him.
How many marriages would survive a stint in a homeless shelter? Not many, I would say.
@Elizabeth Jane: It sounds as though your children are almost grown. If you have stuck out the marriage this far, try to keep going. Are you still in the homeless shelter? It sounds as though your husband is back in the workforce. Financially, things will get easier when the kids leave the nest, and once they are gone, if both you and your husband have even basic employment, you may be surprised at how quickly your pre-disaster standard of living can be rebuilt, although this will depend to some degree on what part of the country you live in. Best wishes to you.
@ StringsofCoins – the manosphere/redpill seems to be mostly men seeking advice on getting sex without commitment, not men seeking marriage advice. I am not at all surprised that there are large numbers of men seeking women to have sex with. Marriage can also be a bad deal for women so I get why you would hesitate to marry.
@ Laura – the children not wanting to be around him is a pretty clear sign that he is the problem. I was also raised in a house where we tiptoed around my father’s moods and were happier when he was on a business trip. He’s mellowed out a bit with age. My mother ignored his bad moods for the most part and didn’t let it effect her own happiness. That was hard to do as a child but as an adult it comes naturally. The grass is green, the sky is blue and my father is angry about something. My siblings and I realized a while ago that it isn’t personal. That’s just how he is and there’s no point in getting worked up about it. Maybe Elizabeth can take that approach in her own marriage. My mother is very happy inspite of my father.
“Grow a beard or don’t, but keep the hair off your neck. Riker kept his beard trimmed off his neck, and so should you.”
To be fair there was a reason for it in Ye Olden Dayes. Ever tried shaving your throat with a straight razor, on f. ex. the heeling deck of a three-master rounding the Horn? But had to shave a bit, because you wanted to stop your facewhiskers becoming matted with lobscouse and grog. Or having them foul the flint or firing-pan of one’s musket, possibly even setting them ablaze, Blackbeard-style.
@Fawn. You are making a category error. Dalrock is one of the main places where Christian men — who are commanded to either be in a faithful marriage or be celibate — discuss things. Including the hellish state of marriage. We do get some trolls from the PUA community (those who want to just increase their notch count) and people reciting the feminist kool aid that we are evil misogynists.
Me? I don’t want to fornicate. At times I am tempted. Go look up temptation. Then go look up fornication.
And I am very cautious about marrying: one run thtough the living hell of the family courts was enough, thank you. Oh, ahd the kids live with me, by choice, …
@Beeker. Not going to pay for it. It is not worth the real cost, which is my soul.
@Cail. Agree on the need to be fit. Not as much for sexual selection (I am old. The ugly stick has hit me too many times) but for the fitness and because physical training has a utility .
Yes, because children are such excellent judges of character and right and wrong. That’s why the voting age is 5 and all juries are staffed with middle-schoolers.
StringsofCoins is right: you need a husband to put limits on your public behavior and keep you from embarrassing yourself like this.
I think men’s physical attractiveness, men’s looks, is becoming more important in women’s assessments of men’s attractiveness. This is because women are more financially independent and can be more selective. I don’t think women necessarily separate it out like men do; but I think men’s looks, “hawtness”, is taking up more and more of the equation, the “total package”, as women become more financially and legally independent.
And a lot of women would rather go it alone then marry a man who is unattractive now. A friend passed on a well off man because he was unpleasant to look at and her mother was horrified and said that girls had better sense in her day.
@Laura: “How many marriages would survive a stint in a homeless shelter? Not many, I would say.”
What a desperately sad thing to say. Marriage makes you a family. Family is a fact, it doesn’t go away. A stint in a homeless shelter wouldn’t, couldn’t, make me not my child’s mother. Nor could it make me not my husband’s wife. We’re kin.
I despair at understanding the world as you describe it. I wouldn’t try, except that as a mother I need to understand for my child.
I don’t think anyone would call them nerds, but a couple of the Duck Dynasty clan have wives that look hot to me. They did marry before the beards, though. I suspect they have both money and Game. If they can do it, I would think a nerd could, too.
@Siobhan
When a family ends up in a homeless shelter, they have reached the end of the road. To end up in a family homeless shelter, you have to be completely broke, and have no further credit at all.
The fact that extended family members were unable to help, or refused to help would tend to indicate that there is a long-term problem like alcoholism or gambling and the extended family has helped before with no lasting improvement in the situation. The fact that there was no church or other group to help indicates social isolation, or the family’s inability to work in a mature manner with community organizations that might help. Or, once again, perhaps these groups have helped the family in the past but the underlying issues keep recurring and the church and social welfare agencies are burned out on helping.
I have no direct experience with any family homeless shelters, but my understanding is that they push you into taking the first available job, control most or all of your earnings for you (no booze or cigarettes, etc.), force the parents to take all sorts of budgeting classes, etc., and often the whole family lives in one room with no privacy, which means no sex. It generally takes families six months to a year to save up the money that they need to move into an apartment, by which time the children have lost all their old friends, and the family has lost nearly all of its home furnishings. Many of the families may end up with Child Protective Services involvement, which will only add to the family’s distress. And most of these shelters are in scruffy neighborhoods with dreadful schools, so the children are making new acquaintances (and new habits) amongst the underclass.
Even if you, as a wife and mother, would not feel completely humiliated by this process, I can’t imagine that very many men could handle it well because the ability to provide is often a central part of their identity and self-respect. The children as well as the mother may blame their father for landing them in a homeless shelter, the father may blame the wife and kids for being too demanding, etc. Endless opportunities here for anger and resentment to build up and fester.
When you consider how many people get divorced over cost overruns incurred while remodeling a kitchen, it should be no surprise that life in a family shelter could be a deal breaker.
Fawn says at 11:32 am
@ Dalrock
If women are more discontent and leaving marriages as a result then shouldn’t men be the main ones seeking marital advice?
Only if we lived in a world where men and women think, prioritize, and solve problems the same way, but we don’t.
Shouldn’t they be trying to figure out why women are leaving them?
Again, you do not understand how men think, or women for that matter. Men are problem solvers. They are being told everywhere that they are at fault and they need to do X, Y, and Z to keep their women happy. So men do X, Y, and Z, but it doesn’t work. Why? Because most of the time the problem is with the woman’s attitude and lack of appreciation, not with X, Y, or Z.
So you see, many men ARE trying to fix things, but women like YOU are blind to it. You are blind to a lot of things (like your narcissism, selfishness, misandric dispositions, and more).
***The answer most likely is that she’s just a discontent whiner, but I’d never know it because everyone else is always telling me that as a man it’s MY FAULT.***
FIFY
And a lot of women would rather go it alone then marry a man who is unattractive now.
Maybe so, but a lot MORE women would suddenly find that unattractive man quite desirable (and marriage worthy) if he won the lottery.
Great choice. Men are learning the same thing, it’s better to be single than be married. It’s great for us men too. Better to be single and unwanted than in a marriage to a woman who only wanted you for your utility.
Ah, I see the problem; “neckbeard” has more meanings than I realized. I’m not talking about a full mountain-man or Amish beard. That doesn’t seem terribly attractive to me, but it does show a certain manly confidence.
I’m talking about the guy who doesn’t have the guts to grow an actual beard, but he’s too lazy or indecisive to shave, so he ends up with patchy stubble down to his shirt. It makes him look like he can’t make a decision, or like he’s trying too hard to seem like he doesn’t care.
This guy, for instance: http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/butthurt-dweller-gordo-granudo
He’s not getting a date without chloroform.
@JDG – maybe someone would marry the lottery winner, but if he was unattractive broke he’s probably unattractive rich. He’s just got enough money so that a woman will tolerate him.
@TFH – why do I need to internalize that chart? It reads like something that men wish was true but doesn’t match up with reality. Especially since a lot of men here are complaining that their spouses and other members of the opposite sex don’t find them sexually attractive. It is rare to meet a woman of any age with that problem.
Fawn says:
@JDG – maybe someone would marry the lottery winner, but if he was unattractive broke he’s probably unattractive rich. He’s just got enough money so that a woman will tolerate him.
Fawn, let me introduce you to the female part of yourself you haven’t met yet:
She also enjoys negative attention enough that I’m starting to wonder if she hasn’t been here before under other names. In any case, until Dalrock inevitably has to show her the door for making every thread about herself, she’s like a screaming confirmation of everything we’re saying.
Especially since a lot of men here are complaining that their spouses and other members of the opposite sex don’t find them sexually attractive.
You are horrible. Just like the others, don’t they ever teach you in troll school to mix it up a bit?
Fawn at 6:13 pm: … It reads like something that men wish was true but doesn’t match up with reality. … It is rare to meet a woman of any age with that problem.
LOL… I’m still laughing after reading this. Fawn are you being deliberately obtuse?
Women have one real, specific complaint about men, namely that high-earning, college-educated, urbanized men in their early 30s are in absolutely no rush to marry their female peers “assortatively”.
Every other complaint they make about men is just BS, with no purpose other than to give women a pretext to vent and moan, to shit on men and proclaim them to be inferior, which is their innate psychological tendency and favorite pastime. They don’t actually have any desire to do anything about these various male behaviors that supposedly irritate them to death, and they wouldn’t actually give a damn if men made any tangible effort to change these behaviors.
Picture the computer programmer office drone who happens to have a neckbeard. Let’s suppose he shaves it, or grows a normal beard. Did he increase his attractiveness? No.
Now picture a biker guy who’s popular with women. Will a neckbeard erode his status? No.
A neckbeard is just a neckbeard. It has no effect on your height, testosterone level, sperm count, bank account, salary, wardrobe, muscle mass, skull shape or anything else. The one thing we surely know about it is that it’s practical if you’re the kind of man who gets razor burn from shaving his neck, and that it’s a popular feature in some European cultures like the Amish.
@ Fawn I know this sounds like “Beat up on Fawn Day”, but you’re asking for it.
Fawn said, “I think the men in this group easily forget that there are men who are great at attracting women, but are terrible husbands, and their wives often end up leaving them too, but for different reasons.”
NO. They leave for ONE reason. Their refusal to honor their vows to their husbands.
@ Fawn
My mistake, I misattributed a quote from Kateandluca to you. My apologies.
Guys, I think it’s time everyone put Fawn on “ignore.”
You are horrible. Just like the others, don’t they ever teach you in troll school to mix it up a bit?
Pointing out incongruity isn’t trolling.
Opus,
It is possible Elizabeth’s husband is scum. It is also quite possible that a scenario like what Cail (or was it deti?) laid out took place. Either would explain why he was distant and cutting.
Yes, he should still control himself, but we rarely expect a wife to be perfect, though the man is not given that same pass.
Also remember that she is holding her husband’s past errors against him, something he can never escape. That lack of respect has to eat at him significantly. How would she like it if they moved to government housing and he stayed home and played games all day instead of working. Would she really like his lack of effort? Yet she seems to be cutting it down now instead of building him up for it.
You aren’t pointing out incongruity, Fawn, you are lying.
Saying that chart isn’t reality is lying? Nice try, but no.
Maybe Elizabeth Jane deserves to be treated badly by her husband for holding out on him sexually, but that doesn’t begin to fully explain why the children don’t like being around him.
Yes it does. She almost certainly created a hostile atmosphere in the house, one which regularly undercut her husband, perhaps in deniable ways, but it does happen.
My own children blamed me for most of their problems in the house, but I was the one keeping things from falling apart, often because of my own very strong will. They would have run over my wife otherwise and we would not still be married. What endangered us more was when I complained a lot and withdrew as our adoption (of all 4 of them) was blowing up around us.
Blaming the man is quite the easy thing to do, but you are idiots if you want to follow the script that claims the women is inherently better because the man must be the problem.
That is the kind of thinking that is infecting so many churches today and is destroying the very marriages they claim to value.
It may be idealism in me, but I doubt the view of the man being the problem was as widespread before the modern errant theology became the norm.
Call me slime if you wish, but I have been on the wrong end of such accusations and reality bears me out, even though a few relationships will likely never change on this earth. Start supporting fathers a bit more and see how quickly many of these things fix themselves.
How many older women are in Playboy Fawn? Are you still going to stick with the idiocy that women’s attractiveness doesn’t plummet with age? Right.
And women are never attracted to older men, because they go downhill faster, right?
Note that the fantasy is a millionaire hunky handyman, not just a hunky handyman!
@BradA – I am not denying that women get less attractive with age. I’m denying that the curve is as dramatically different for men and women as that wishful thinking graph would have me believe.
@Fawn
The chart is for Sexual Market Value, not attractiveness per se. Because the Sexual Market Value of a man rises as his income and wealth rise, up until the point that he definitely moves into middle age, his Sexual Market Value increases throughout his 20s and early 30s. Because MOST men are not as interested in a woman’s income/assets, a woman’s Sexual Market Value is based almost entirely on youth and beauty. Otherwise, I would say that a 16 year old girl is at the height of her beauty, while a 16 year old boy can be very attractive, but is not at his peak attractiveness, because he isn’t fully grown, voice is not as deep, musculature is not as developed as it will be later, etc.
A quick summary of the reality that feminists refuse to acknowledge:
1 – Most western women in their 20s reject all but the most attractive and powerful men.
2 – Many of the previously rejected men go on to become more attractive and powerful in their 30s and 40s.
3 – When those women turn 30 and see the approaching wall of infertility, they they start looking to settle down but have become less marketable and are surprised to learn that the top men don’t want them—because they’re chasing the young women they used to be.
4 – Feminists hate this like roofers hate gravity.
@ Elizabeth. The commenters here have noticed (correctly) that in our culture women often get to skate free of consequences and moral opprobrium. As a result, they can face a temptation to overcorrect and come near to suggesting that women, in all our imperfections, bear all of the blame for marital problems.
I believe you that your husband is really struggling and has been for some time. I know it does not feel this way, but you have been given a great opportunity to work on your own Christian discipline, to love even when someone appears unlovable. I know this is so hard, and so much easier to say than to do. But there are some good qualities of your husband to focus on, including whatever drew you to him in the first place. Focus on these, on your gratitude for what he has done well and what he has tried to do, on the children he has given you.
Next, read about Monica, the mother of Augustine. She had, according to Augustine, a terrible husband, and in her perfect submission she modeled the Christian life. There is so much to learn from her.
Next, remember how terrible it feels to behave badly. Every time a person, male or female, sins and treats someone they claim to love poorly, they are ashamed (or else they are seriously disturbed in spirit), and this can encourage them to behave even more badly. (This is why the lack of consequences for women is particularly corrosive in our culture; there is no release, no sense of redemption, except for the cultivation of self-control, which is not a virtue our culture encourages.) It is a cycle that is hard to correct when for someone who is deep into depression and self-loathing as your husband seems to be. Think of how terribly he must have felt about his financial failures.
My advice, go to him and tell him how grateful you are for everything. Tell him how terrible you feel about the ways you have let him down. And then, reform your behavior to be as good to him, as Christian, as you possibly can. When he is angry, admit fault. Treat him like the prize that you wish he were. When he expresses doubt about himself, reply by making the best argument you can for why so many things were stacked against him. If he becomes really repentant, tell him that everyone falls short of the glory of God and you are so happy to have him.
This is perverse advice, but it worked for me in rescuing my own marriage when my husband had some difficulties. It requires a heroic virtue, loyalty, fidelity, Christian love, all the things that our culture is bent on telling women they should avoid.
@ Laura – I understand how SMV works. The chart is still mostly crap.
Excellent advice, Mulier.
What a blessing it would be to have more women like you commenting here.
@TFH – the sexual market place is still a market and there is still competition to consider. You can claim that there is a huge difference in SMV of men and women all that you want, but reality tells a different story. What this chart claims men can “buy” and what they actually buy are two different things.
@Deti: You would probably be surprised how much your kind words mean to me.
If you would be willing to review my book and offer your comments I would be very pleased. Send me an email at don.petros@yahoo.com if you are interested in critiquing an early copy of the 55,000 word masterpiece:
Saving a Low Sex Marriage: A Man’s Guide To Dread, Seduction and the Long Game”
“You can claim that there is a huge difference in SMV of men and women all that you want”
That’s not what the chart is intended to demonstrate. The point is to show that men and women peak at different ages–women earlier and men later. Also, that women’s SMV declines more quickly than men’s.
Disagree if you want to, but at least get the interpretation correct before you do.
@Fawn — The chart seems realistic and straightforward to me. What specific aspect of the chart seems incorrect to you?
@Mulier — You appear to be the first person to offer Elizabeth Jane any concrete advice on how she might possibly restore her failing marriage. I hope she returns to read what you have written.
“I understand how SMV works. The chart is still mostly crap.”
Taking bets on Fawn’s age but the house gets 34 and a reasonable over/under.
You can claim that there is a huge difference in SMV of men and women all that you want, but reality tells a different story.
Put up or shut up. Please list some real life (non-anecdotal) examples that back up your claim as TFH did to back up his.
JDG says:
June 7, 2015 at 9:33 pm
That’s funny, but completely unsurprising, that a church would cancel a Driscoll appearance because of one thing he said that offended women.
And an egalitarian church to boot.
JDG: The Australian Press is all over Hillsong about Driscoll. The main point of his controversy: His statements about women. Yet it is well known on this Blog that it is his fawning over women and his statements about the uselessness of modern men which undermines Christian men, and therefore Christ’s cause, more than anything.
But we don’t at all live in a misandric society with a feminised Press at all, do we?
@ BradA –
Hookingupsmart.com/2013/10/31/relationshipstrategies/conclusive-data-male-vs-female-sexual-market-value/
It is a series debunking that chart. Please read all three posts as she links to lots of data and saves me the trouble.
As far as THF’s examples go – I’m not sure why you think that Hollywood movies and egg donation validate that chart. Those situations don’t have much to do with men and women dating.
But we don’t at all live in a misandric society with a feminised Press at all, do we?
Those of us in western countries do, but I have some relatives and friends who do not, not yet at least.
@Laura,
Your anecdotes do not ring true. I will not reveal what the problem is with your tales, but suffice to say that I see through them. I’d rather not teach you how to write more convincing lies.
In the bigger picture, what is the point of your anecdotal propaganda? That the existence of two bad men negates the experience of hordes of men who have bad wives?
Fawn, I would bet that everyone here is familiar with that analysis of the chart. It was hashed over thoroughly at J4G a while back. I recommend you go back and read what they had to say. They pretty conclusively debunked the debunking.
@Escoffier – I googled J4G and got nothing. Link please. I’m open to being wrong on this, but that chart doesn’t seem at all realistic and I think that hookingupsmart explained why pretty well. It is also incredibly incongruous for this blog to be full of men comaining about not being able to sexually attract women (including their wives) and complaints about how women marry men that they aren’t attracted to while men do not and then claim that male SMV is dramatically higher for longer. Not buying it, sorry.
I’m a guy, and I don’t think that Rollo’s chart is particularly accurate.
The column is supposed to be SMV – sexual market value. I’m sorry, the average female’s sexual market value is higher than the average male’s sexual market value is ever going to be. Throughout history, men have to pay for sexual access some way or another. Very, very few men are so attractive where they can readily find women who will sleep with them purely out of sexual desirability. So unless you are considering the presumptive cash/provisions that exchange hands as part of sex, the chart doesn’t make sense.
If you take away men’s provisioning power, which we seem to be doing, bad things happen. Most of the guys are going to go PUA or slacker, as has been mentioned.
Another thing I disagree with is that men do not or should not take the career of the women into account. This does not square with all of these political couples, doctor couples, lawyer couples that exist. I’m told in the manosphere that men don’t care about that, that the doctor is going to and should marry the hot nurse or secretary instead of a woman who makes more.
The reason you marry the financial peer is in case she divorces you, you can be kept whole. Despite claims in the manosphere, if she comes into the marriage with money and assets that are similar, and keeps earning at that level, if divorce happens you can be kept whole, maybe even come out ahead on the deal. Whereas if you marry the poor hottie, divorce can still happen and you can lose your shirt, because she has no income or assets coming in. In today’s world, you want the wife that makes money. If any of them can divorce you, it’s simply less risk. Any man that doesn’t consider how much the future wife may earn is a fool. DO NOT LET YOUR WIFE BECOME A SAHM. Encourage her career, encourage her to put the kids in childcare and get back to work. Even offer to take care of them yourself if “her career is going better.”
The other thing not mentioned in the chart is the impact of the women getting to “go first” with high SMV. It is not a level playing field for one gender to have the advantage for an extended period, even if the other gets a turn later. It’s like having an older sibling of the same gender. They will always have a natural advantage on you because of always being bigger, better, smarter, whatever. Yes, it’s possible to overcome that, but studies show the first born excel the best on average. So with so much riding on SMV, SMV becoming a commodity, and the women having such a long head start in having the advantage, it’s no surprise that the presumptiveness that a particular woman is still “all that” in her own mind even though the tables have supposedly turned. It’s like old money looking down on new money even if there is more of the new money.
Fawn, just to start, the foundational assertion of that “critique” (from an alleged statistician, no less) is that the areas underneath the lines _must_ be equal to each other for the chart to be valid.
That’s bollocks. It’s a price chart, nothing more, nothing less. Just as there is no reason why the areas underneath the lines that chart the prices of two different stocks over the same time period–even adjusting for market cap, EPS/ROA/ROE, etc.–must be equal, there is no reason why these areas must be equal.
The chart simply shows that, on average, the price that women can demand for their sexual/relational attention peaks earlier than the comparable price that men can demand, and then declines more quickly.
Also, if it helps, I would note that a bit later the same author of that critique endorsed a different chart that said almost exactly the same thing.
But be that as it may, forget the chart for the moment. Focus rather on what the chart is trying to convey. If you truly disagree with the chart, then you would deny the following to statements:
1) Women’s SMV peaks earlier than men’s, on average. That is, the typical woman is at her most attractive in her early 20s, whereas the typical man is at his most attractive in his early 30s. This is true in part because woman’s attractiveness is weighted by physical looks alone more so than man’s (because men care about looks to the exclusion of other things more than women care about looks to the exclusion of other things).
2) Women hit “the wall” sooner and more suddenly than men, who tend to decline more slowly and later. This is in part where the meme that men become “distinguished” with age, whereas women merely age, comes from.
So, leaving aside the chart, if you want to deny those things, by all means do so. But be forthright about it.
Striver, if the chart has a flaw, I would agree that the flaw would be that it places the peak of each sex at the same height or peak. This is a quibble in the grand scheme, but the truth is probably more complicated. The average woman’s peak is higher than the average man’s peak. A non-fat female 5 at 22 can command a higher price than a fit male 5 with a good income at 32.
On the other hand, the peak value of the relatively rare apex alpha males is higher than the average female peak, and probably even higher than the top females at their peak.
That said, I wouldn’t know how to capture that in one chart. For what the chart illustrates–different average ages at the respective peaks, different rates of decline–it does so quite well.
I’m not sure why you think that Hollywood movies and egg donation validate that chart.
Finding work in Hollyweird connects directly to attraction and thus directly to SMV. Egg doantion deadlines connect directly to fertility. Both are evidence towards men having more attraction and fertility than women in later years.
Here is a take down of Susan’s attempted take down of Rollo’s chart.
@justdoit
Opus says:
June 8, 2015 at 12:10 pm
I see Elizabeth Jane is getting a lot of flak, but frankly, being able to identify with her children and having had the misfortune to live in a house where my Mother was routinely verbally mocked in a manner similar to what Elizabeth Jane describes, I think you are being a tad hard on her. Having said that, marriage lasts a lifetime and by the end my Father would have been lost without my Mother – and by that time I was long flown the nest.
Does Opus’ description of his own father’s verbal bullying seem far-fetched to you? Are you going to say that he is a liar?
Lots of people have dealt with verbal abuse within their families. Many times, the verbal abuse continues until death. I actually related two situations known to me where the verbal abuse abated after a lengthy period of time. My hope was that Elizabeth Jane would see that others have suffered what she is suffering, and that she might gain enough strength to make it through her current troubles, which seem to be overwhelming her.
Elizabeth Jane could easily have gone to a feminist website and gotten “You Go Girl” advice to dump her husband, but she has instead come here to the Christian Manosphere where the only man saying anything supportive to Elizabeth Jane is Opus, a non-Christian. The only actual marital advice that Elizabeth Jane has received was from Mulier, a female.
You don’t have psychic lie-detector powers, justdoit, My anecdotes may not interest you, but they are perfectly true.
None of us will ever meet Elizabeth Jane’s husband, at least not in this life. But that man’s marriage is hanging by a thread. If you or any of the other men here have any serious advice or encouragement for Elizabeth Jane then why not offer it? If you save a female’s marriage, you have also saved a male’s marriage. Or, at least that was true until very, very recently.
Sheesh, I never thought I’d be defending Rollo.
@Striver
Very interesting comment. It reminded me that I heard someone say, back in the 90s, that with first marriages, men marry for looks, and women marry for money, but with second marriages, BOTH parties marry for money.
Too many viewings of “How Stella” and “EPL” for Fawn……
In the story of David and Bathsheba, who do you think is desired more? David is the ultimate apex alpha, but do you really think Bathsheba looked at him with hot lust? Or she looked in the mirror, liked what she saw, said “I can do better than Uriah”, took a naked bath in convenient view of the king, and “it just happened.”
Beautiful woman >>> apex alpha.
Women’s SMV in toto is higher than men’s SMV in toto. That is why men need to toil. Men and women are not equal. There is too much equalism in that chart.
“Women’s SMV in toto is higher than men’s SMV in toto”
I agree with that. But I do not think it follows that that apex alphas are priced lower than female 10s. The Bathsheba story seems to me to illustrate the opposite of what you assert. She pursued him in a calculated way.
Laura –
Historically, I think there is more history of first marriages being for status on both sides. That is a common form, and we may be heading back to that. The high status males can then take a discreet lover if some sexual urge is unmet, but the wife remains the wife for reasons of appearances and status. High status males usually have high status relatives, and many don’t want to pay the price for bringing home someone the family will reject. Marrying for pure sexual desire has usually been the exception, I think.
“I agree with that. But I do not think it follows that that apex alphas are priced lower than female 10s. The Bathsheba story seems to me to illustrate the opposite of what you assert. She pursued him in a calculated way.”
The chart refers to SMV, not MMV. I do not think that Bathsheba looked on David with hot lust. There may have been many other women that did, but I don’t think that she did. David looked on Bathsheba with hot lust, and Bathsheba was opportunistic. Bathsheba likely was capable of lust. For all we know, she lusted for Uriah as much as David but her opportunism trumped her lust. I think even with the powerful men, when they couple up the woman is still more opportunistic and less lustful. Yoko Ono was never even attractive, but she was still opportunistic in that relationship. Men can be opportunistic as well; I think both of the Clintons are opportunistic. But even apex alphas are still going to be manipulated by women because of SMV. Not because they “go beta”, but because of women’s higher SMV in general.
A Carousel rider’s story (which ends in getting her eye gouged out for the sake of Alpha pining)
http://www.city-journal.org/2015/25_2_tina-nash.html
@Striver:
If you look at the details what what Bathsheba was up to, it was really about an opportunity to get sex from David. She ended up his wife because she got pregnant after a one-night stand and David couldn’t get it covered up.
But it’s also important to remember that she was married to an Apex Alpha. Uriah wasn’t a joke. He was one of the Mighty Men. (So was Bathsheba’s Father, meaning that David banged one of his good friend’s hot daughter/another good friend’s hot wife.) But in a Monarchy: the King is always at the top. And he was the only Man in the kingdom that was above her Husband.
@ZeroHour:
Thanks, Theodore Dalrymple is always a great read. He’s also has great insight into the destruction of those in the lower classes in Britain. And that story is horrific. Though the closing paragraph sums it so well:
“In her book, Tina Nash describes how she tried bravely to get on with life after being blinded. After she finished the book, she found a new boyfriend. He has just been sent to prison for assaulting her. O brave new world, that has such people in it!”
Does Opus’ description of his own father’s verbal bullying seem far-fetched to you? Are you going to say that he is a liar?
Yes I would Laura. Though I would say it is because he didn’t see the whole picture rather than because he is intentionally telling an untruth. He could be telling the truth, but I know that I have been accused of such and I know myself and I know that I am not the bully people claimed. I just have a VERY strong personality and it was drawn out even more with a very rebellious set of 4 children (sibling group) we adopted.
Kind of funny how I went from being a “great dad” to being “scum” in the eyes of many in a very short time, all due to lies my children told everyone. A strong father is anathema to even those claiming to follow the Scriptures today. It should not be, but that is what it is.
We overlook the passive-aggressive undermining such a wife can do most of the time, holding the husband accountable for it all.
I have been whacked by this and I know it was lies. Perhaps Opus really had a bad dad, but I am guessing he was not a perfectly perceptive child and easily could have missed many things.
JDG,
Sheesh, I never thought I’d be defending Rollo.
This stuff makes strange bedfellows….
TFH,
Men should hold out until a much later time than what ‘tradition’ tells them to. Men age 40 should see women age 23-25 as absolutely suitable for them, and should tune out any shaming language that tells them otherwise.
That would not be true for a Christian man. You can’t marry the “wife of your youth” at 40. You also have to be celibate until then, which is a lot harder than you think.
This assumes an obedience to the Scriptures of course. Living your own way means you can sample the goods and participate in the ruin of others (impacting your own bonding ability at the same time). Payday will eventually come for that, in the next life if not in this one.
====
I almost wonder if Elizabeth was not a sock puppet of someone here. No further discussion from here.
====
Fawn,
The name of your debunking site should be all you need to know as a Christian. You cannot “hook up” smart!
====
Striver and Escoffer,
SMV is not defined purely by “raw lust.” It is defined by how much of a price can be demanded for sex with such individual. Looking from the other way it is how much others will want to have sex with them.
See the female groupies around famous figures, especially rock stars and your view doesn’t hold up. A hot woman may get a few beta orbiters, but is unlikely to have any hot sex orbiters. The reverse would be true of a hot male.
@Striver High status males usually have high status relatives
Really?
We were reared in a tiny town. My brother and I did it without family status or family connections.
Further, I do not see this as true in most cases in real life.
Most of my ‘high status’ male friends did it on their own.
They’re not working for corporations, they are the founders, the seed stage investors with exits and so on. Their relatives did not follow the same pattern.
@Striver if she comes into the marriage with money and assets that are similar, and keeps earning at that level, if divorce happens you can be kept whole, maybe even come out ahead on the deal.
This is comedy, right?
Please show the statistics on this.
Dear Peeps:
I really enjoy the story of David for many reasons. It’s one of the biblical narratives that approaches the classical greats (Odyssey, for example). David started out as one of the greatest men, and it was that damned hubris that ruined him in the end.
Truth. The story can be read as the first noir tale, with a femme fatale in the leading role, taking out what ought to be the protagonist.
Best,
Boxer
@JDG Sheesh, I never thought I’d be defending Rollo.
Why would that be?
The real man behind the name Rollo Tomassi has the life and the marriage/family the most of the men reading these words do not have. Rollo Tomassi, in my view, is the living demonstration of a Christ follower.
Rollo is clear that he is intentionally not hurling scripture because he wants his work to be accessible to the largest possible audience that needs the truth.
I don’t specifically focus on religious topics on The Rational Male unless some aspect of religion is directly related to Red Pill relevant intersexual relations. That, and because if I did it would probably come very close to reading like what Dalrock has been making available for over five years on his own blog now.
If you have religious reservations about the ‘morality’ of the Red Pill Dalrock is the best at handling that awareness in a religious context. His blog is the best of what I call the Christo-Manosphere.
He’s also a consummate, well-researched statistician with regard to modern marriage and divorce trends and their social implications. I highly recommend him to any Christian who discovers the Red Pill. ~Rollo Tomassi from his book “The Rational Male – Preventive Medicine (Volume 2)”
Also…
It’s my opinion that red pill awareness needs to remain fundamentally apolitical, non-racial and non-religious because the moment the Red Pill is associated with any social or religious movement, you co-brand it with an ideology, and the validity of it will be written off along with any preconceptions associated with that specific ideology. ~Rollo Tomassi
Rollo Tomassi intentionally doesn’t communicate in Christian-ese. Interestingly, Jesus didn’t use Christian-ese either. Check it out in John 2:1-12 (KJV). The ‘governor of the feast’ wasn’t exactly Mr. Christian. Like Rollo, Jesus hung with cool people and knew how to get the message across.
The “Christo-manosphere” has no reason to have any fear or shame associated with absorbing the awe-inspiring, life-changing writings of Rollo Tomassi. He’s not writing against scripture, he’s teaching males how to be the Man with the tools to handle things as a Man.
Do you believe you would have ever gotten married if you hadn’t had premarital sex?
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=964038
I have enjoyed a great deal of thought-provoking commentary here, but this latest bit of debate has caused me to think long and hard about my own life and the choices I need to make in it. After much consideration and soul-searching, I think that it is time to take the next important step in my life’s journey.
I have decided to grow a resplendent neckbeard. Thank you everyone.
Rollo is clear that he is intentionally not hurling scripture because he wants his work to be accessible to the largest possible audience that needs the truth.
Just to be clear, are you saying that Rollo in no way what so ever promotes fornication?
Laura was doing quite well until she decided to debunk Rollo’s chart. Hollywood (with its close-ups) is so revealing. I was recently watching a Tony Curtis movie – I always enjoy watching him – and at the time of the movie he was fifty-five, yet his dalliance with a nineteen or twenty year old actress seemed entirely realistic. Who can forget The Quest, a very watchable Jean-Claude Van Damme movie, where Roger Moore, then aged seventy, (rather than Van Damme) gets the girl; but what of older women I hear you protest. I much like Witness for the Prosecution where fifty-six year old Marlene Dietrich – great legs in a ‘how-come-she was-not-Oscar-nominated’ performance – cannot hold forty-three year-old playboy Tyrone Power. Can Hollywood (or Miss Christie – always so good at judging people) be so wrong.
Which brings me to George Clooney. Now I don’t know what can have possessed him to marry that Amal Aladin – she’s not even Irish – but no one doubts that he is essentially out of hers or anyone else’s league; and that had fortune passed her by she would have been yet another aging female counsel with too much make-up, bright-red nail varnish and a very bad temper. Hollywood leading men are always more desirable than their identikit female love-interests – all of whom are nines and in the case of Elke Sommer a perfect ten – at least as she was when she made The Prize – not the age adjusted Seven she was when aged thirty-five or so she made Carry on Behind. I suppose, now, she is a bag-lady. We will go to the movies to watch Mel Gibson but we cannot recall the names of his female co-stars. The evidence here seems so overwhelming that to argue against it would surely be perverse.
I do not doubt that Brad A is both a good father and a good Christian.
I have decided to grow a resplendent neckbeard. Thank you everyone.
I grow one every couple of days without even trying.
Thank you all for your comments- your frankness is appreciated.
What I perhaps didn’t make clear in my original post is that I *did* submit to him in the decisions that lost us our home (I told him several times why I thought it was a bad idea and what might happen, but when he said that he had made up his mind I supported him in that), and have continued to do so in many lesser ways since. The reason I won’t submit to big decisions now is out of a desire less to control or punish him and more to ensure that I never have to watch our children pick fleas out of their clothes, afraid to leave our single room because of the heroin addicts in the corridor, and know that I did nothing to stop it. The denying sex isn’t for control or punishment either but because I can’t cope with it. I know that doesn’t make it less sinful, but you try having your body intimately penetrated by a man who called you a b*tch only moments before, or who turns you over and says “let’s see if you’re still useful for anything” (and on both of those occasions I did submit).
@ Sarah’s Daughter- your final question is exactly what has been the crux of my struggles with faith for many years. If there is a reason, I have not yet found it. As you say, I am in rebellion, and cannot stop if it would put our children at risk. I never could make sense of the story of Abraham and Isaac- if a parent was prepared to sacrifice their child because God demanded it I’d call them a psychopath. And maybe that means I will never receive God’s grace. I don’t know.
@Anonymous Reader- your comments about my being a mother are insightful; I don’t know if that is part of it. There was a time long ago when I realised that he was criticising me a lot more than he used to; I took it to be washing me in the water of the word, but it got worse and worse until I felt afraid to say or do anything in case it was somehow wrong. It’s not true that nothing he does will change my views of him though- not spending money on extravagant things while we are still in debt would help, and just being a bit kinder would definitely help (I don’t mean supplication, but just not calling me a worthless b*tch or teling me that he hates the way I sit/speak/laugh/have sagging skin/”can’t hold one intelligent thought in my brain” etc. would be a start).
To others who have shared their experience and advice- thank you. We are thankfully not in a shelter anymore, although our living situation is still somewhat insecure. I have spoken to my vicar about the threats of violence, but he just pointed out that he has never been actually violent before and told me to trust God to give him self-control. To be honest, though, in some ways the verbal abuse seems worse. I have been badly beaten up before (by a mugger) and it was terrible, but it never destroyed my self-worth or my love of life in the way that this has.
When he comes home I will do my best to show gratitude to him for the work he does. For those who say that I should show complete submission, I ask- in light of the fact that he is still making poor financial decisions (I apologise that I can’t give more details, but I think most people would agree that they are poor), should I still go along with them without protest?
I wrote in to this forum because I wanted reasons not to divorce. With my faith floundering, my own children saying that they wish I would and my own wicked thoughts that sometimes say I would rather be dead than remain married to him for the rest of my life, it is not always obvious. You have all given me much to think about.
P.S. @Sarah’s Daughter again- you are insightful in saying that I am trying to make a deal with God. I must admit that part of me did hope for people to reply that I should indeed divorce my husband. On the other hand, as Laura points out, I could have easily got such responses by going to a Feminist website. I want to do what is moral.
Why do any of you bother replying to some dumb broad who uses HUS as reference, of all websites?
Don’t you have any self-discipline? When I read blogs, I just skip through comments that are written by posters who openly claim to be women, or comments that are clearly written by women, because it’s obvious it’s all just worthless nonsense written by trolls and/or ideological enemies.
Is that really so hard to do?
I’m talking about the guy who doesn’t have the guts to grow an actual beard, but he’s too lazy or indecisive to shave, so he ends up with patchy stubble down to his shirt. It makes him look like he can’t make a decision, or like he’s trying too hard to seem like he doesn’t care.
The pimples make it bloody obvious he has some sort of skin ailment, which may be genetic or not. I’m pretty sure you’ll get razor burn and suffer other forms of skin irritation when you shave while having a condition like that. But yeah, obviously that’s just a fantasy, right? Let’s instead go with the kind of explanation that snarky feminist shitbags would come up with.
It’s comical how men like you seem to occasionally feel some sort of compulsion to push de facto feminist narratives even on ‘sphere blogs due to some twisted sense of impartiality and fairness.
P.P.S. @ BradA- Of course there is a lot I am leaving out- my comments seem overlong already! I don’t know if some of these traits were visible when I married him- I was still a teenager, and possibly not the most discerning judge of character (although my parents also approved of him). It has definitely got much worse over the years though. I think he is resentful that he could have achieved more in his life had he not married and had children so young. He often tells me that he could have got a better class of wife by waiting.
Opus,
I want to make it clear that I was not trying to attack you in my post. I have no idea what drove your dad. I do know that I can understand my own father a whole lot better after what I have gone through. He and I would probably still not get along well as he could never accept me as an adult and he was very much a blue pill individual, believing God for restoration of his marriage to my stepmother until almost the end of his life, when metastasized cancer took him about 15 years ago.
I am definitely not perfect, but I try to follow the Lord’s commands as best I can and He connected me with Himself when I was younger. I am sure we could bump heads on some issues, but I will let you figure out your own truth in that matter, I just couldn’t stand it being used to justify slamming a husband in the way I was slammed.
Elizabeth,
I find it very ironic that my own mother accused me of calling him a saint last summer when I was expressing some concern over these issues at that time. We never did resolve that as she died in December, due to cancer she probably knew she had over the summer but did not expose to anyone else.
She told me she left him because he “wasn’t spending enough time with my sister and me.” As if that “concern for the children” really helped us. I was limited to every other weekend, which I did faithfully until I went to college (with one brief year living with him). My sister turned out far worse and crashed her life, even though she knew better and knew the Lord.
I would encourage you to ponder that some of your “for the children” focus may really not be what you intended or could even be driven by other things. You are likely not focusing on them as much as you may think. My mother certainly was not, even though she sacrificed a great deal for us. The one thing she apparently could not be was a submissive and supportive wife.
Did your marriage vows include a “as long as you don’t lose a house in bankruptcy” escape clause? I haven’t heard of such in any marriage vows I have seen. You made a commitment you should follow, with a much more cheerful attitude if you are truly a follower of Christ. You have it far better than most of humanity since Jesus died, even with your bankruptcy, and your focus is on the dumb things he did.
He may be a complete and total idiot, but your trust is only in yourself, and perhaps him if he “shaped up” in your view. How are you following the Lord you claim to serve? Where is your trust that God will not see “the righteous forsaken”?
Yeah, life sucks at times, but so what. At least you still have children around who consider you their parent. Most of them will still have feelings for their father, even if they complain about him now. My father and I got into some large and noisy arguments, especially when I started raising my own children, but he was still my father.
I get to live with being rejected by all my children to one extent or another for the man who let them being in such abhorrent conditions that foster care was really better. One does call me father now, but I am clearly second place. Another has expressed gratitude, a huge change for him, but is still very distant. None really follow my core beliefs and ways. I would gladly take living on the street for a few years to really have children that were “mine”. And you complain about attitudes that I will bet are stirred up greatly by your behavior. (I know that from experience.)
Your husband could probably learn many things and may need a good many to help him master some things, like his emotions, but he is unlikely to get or even seek that from your response to him, with the passive aggressiveness you have bubbling under the surface, based on your posts here.
I am sorry if this is harsh. Ignore it if you think I am off base, but I have been realizing how much my mother stole from my own life when she kicked my dad out many years ago. He was bad at the time, but she made a marriage vow she broke (through divorce). They got along better than most and I am fairly sure that $80 every other week was not taking him to the cleaners as many do today (though perhaps it was as that was early 1970s dollars), but it still impacted my life.
Yes, constant strife is bad, but that can almost always be controlled by a wife who has her head on straight, per what Peter writes in his epistle. It will be tough though, especially with all the bad feeling between both of you.
He often tells me that he could have got a better class of wife by waiting.
Many who married young probably could have done so, but that is not the point. Is it possible that such comments are driven from an ongoing lack of respect from your side, especially since his financial failures? That can eat at a man and one lacking wisdom can say things that are not helpful.
You do need a godly older woman to help you focus on what is really important. Your children will eventually grow and may not be there when you really need them. You may have burned things enough that true restoration with your husband is very tough, but it is possible if you could find someone with true Biblical advice to get you straightened out. You can’t change your husband, but you can change yourself and that is the only one you should work on. Too much Christian advice will be destructive here though, making that even harder than it should be.
Imagine your own son telling you this years from now. Would that I could have talked my mother out of her plans in the past. She was not better off, nor were my sister and I. The bitterness remained years later, even though she was quite cordial most of the time. Where you are may suck, but you can only go forward and that should be with a godly path for a follower of Jesus. Don’t be like my stepmother who lived with a “God will forgive me” attitude that excused any need for her to not avoid intentional sin. I greatly appreciate some things she did in my life, but the way she treated my dead in divorcing him really sticks in my craw now that I have a better perspective on things.
TL;DR: Who really is your Lord? Why don’t you believe in Him and follow His advice and commands?
Dear Brad,
Many thanks for taking the time to share your advice. I am sorry for your difficult experience with your parents and family. You have given me much to prayerfully reflect upon.
@ Elizabeth Jane. Yes, you have been given a real test of faith here. And you’re a good example for this blog because these are the more typical kinds of challenges to submission that women face. It’s not usually that a man asks you to sin; it’s more often that it seems like there’s a better way to do something or you’ve lost your trust in him.
God does not promise us happiness and wealth here. He allowed his own Son to be crucified; what will he permit for the rest of us? Christ warned his disciples about the terrible afflictions they would face after he was gone. Blessed are the poor and those who weep, after all. So God is giving you a chance to be poor, to weep, to throw yourself entirely on Him—and to prove that you love Him even more than your children, just as He asked.
What a shocking suggestion. My point is that it seems like the good of the children is a legitimate reason not to submit. In your thinking you cannot risk letting them down. But even this, although completely sympathetic, is worldly thinking.
Now imagine the other side. Your husband screwed up. He must have felt terrible, to lose his home. But rather than having his helpmeet reassure him that he would be back on his feet soon, that this was some bad luck, that they would collectively prevail against it all, instead his wife—the person who should always have his back—has decided that he can never be trusted with big decisions again. This is not forgiveness but it is emasculating him. Imagine how worried God could be about your husband, a beloved child of God, made in the image of God, and who is struggling in many ways. Are you going to take care of this man for God or not? Are you going to build him up again or just nurse your disappointments in him? You are allowing a few mistakes to ruin his life.
Give him back control of his household. Find ways that you can sacrifice things you love in order to secure your children’s future. When he insults you, tell him he is right and that you have let him down. Think about everything that is good in him and then initiate sex.
I know this is so hard. It is the way of the cross, the path of self denial, and it is what God has given us in this world.
“I have decided to grow a resplendent neckbeard. Thank you everyone.”
If it’s good enough for the other Tom, T.J. Jackson ..
@Fawn:
It is a series debunking that chart. Please read all three posts as she links to lots of data and saves me the trouble.
That’s the magic note struck. The lack of depth. The immediate “Just read someone else’s thoughts that I’m sure I agree.”
She can’t (not won’t, but can’t) verbalize a defense of the article in question because she’s taking things at “Story headline” depth and running with what feels good vs what can be proven.
I think she’s less of a troll and more of the type of “thinker” we get from your average liberal arts program, saying this as a guy who went through one and met this type all the time.
Remmeber, all the facts and logic won’t make a dent in those minds. They’ve reached opinions based on emotion, not facts. Trying to change using facts is travelling north-south on an east-west road.
Did your marriage vows include a “as long as you don’t lose a house in bankruptcy” escape clause? I haven’t heard of such in any marriage vows I have seen. You made a commitment you should follow, with a much more cheerful attitude if you are truly a follower of Christ. You have it far better than most of humanity since Jesus died, even with your bankruptcy, and your focus is on the dumb things he did.
Modernism, to which nearly everyone (unconsciously) subscribes, doesn’t believe in vows as any kind of binding commitment. Those words everyone utters at their wedding ceremony? Just ceremonial ritual, with no more seriousness or importance attached to them than is attached to the words “have a nice day” urtered at some random stranger. Hedonic marriage, a key tenet of Modernism, not only doesn’t require, but indeed scoffs at the idea of permanent, binding, and unbreakable marriage vows. The moment the marriage becomes “hard,” “painful,” or inconvenient,” it’s time to end it (just like the Modernist view of pregnancy).
He may be a complete and total idiot, but your trust is only in yourself, and perhaps him if he “shaped up” in your view. How are you following the Lord you claim to serve? Where is your trust that God will not see “the righteous forsaken”?
I think forgiveness –or more accurately, lack thereof– is a factor here. It seems clear that Elizabeth still nurses anger towards her husband over the past. This is certainly understandable, and I’m hardpressed to think of anyone who would have an easy time letting that anger go, given the catastrophic fallout that resulted from her husband’s actions. But forgiveness on her part, no matter how terribly difficult, is absolutely necessary for moving on, for looking ahead, for fulfilling her commitment to doing God’s will toward (hopefully) making her marriage and her life better.
Yeah, life sucks at times, but so what.
Indeed. Over the last year I’ve been in the process of learning that without “suck” and pain in life, you don’t grow spiritually as a person, value God’s love and guidance, or reap many blessings worth having.
It’s sad that one of the most destructive aspects of Modernism is the attitude that one deserves an easy and pain-free life and that one should take the easiest possible path to such a life, at all costs.
@Striver —
Another thing I disagree with is that men do not or should not take the career of the women into account. This does not square with all of these political couples, doctor couples, lawyer couples that exist. I’m told in the manosphere that men don’t care about that, that the doctor is going to and should marry the hot nurse or secretary instead of a woman who makes more.
The reason you marry the financial peer is in case she divorces you, you can be kept whole. Despite claims in the manosphere, if she comes into the marriage with money and assets that are similar, and keeps earning at that level, if divorce happens you can be kept whole, maybe even come out ahead on the deal. Whereas if you marry the poor hottie, divorce can still happen and you can lose your shirt, because she has no income or assets coming in. In today’s world, you want the wife that makes money. If any of them can divorce you, it’s simply less risk. Any man that doesn’t consider how much the future wife may earn is a fool. DO NOT LET YOUR WIFE BECOME A SAHM. Encourage her career, encourage her to put the kids in childcare and get back to work. Even offer to take care of them yourself if “her career is going better.”
Upper Middle Class professionals do this, yes. In lower SES segments, not so much, because there isn’t as much money on the table to begin with, which also accounts for higher divorce rates (not the same hit). A power couple where each earns 200k+ will each take a big lifestyle hit upon divorce — live comfortably, yes, but not like you can with 400k+, and you also have double expenses. So there’s a “golden handcuffs” effect for power couples as well, at least until the children are grown and out of college and the “big child related expenses” are paid for.
The other thing not mentioned in the chart is the impact of the women getting to “go first” with high SMV. It is not a level playing field for one gender to have the advantage for an extended period, even if the other gets a turn later. It’s like having an older sibling of the same gender. They will always have a natural advantage on you because of always being bigger, better, smarter, whatever. Yes, it’s possible to overcome that, but studies show the first born excel the best on average. So with so much riding on SMV, SMV becoming a commodity, and the women having such a long head start in having the advantage, it’s no surprise that the presumptiveness that a particular woman is still “all that” in her own mind even though the tables have supposedly turned. It’s like old money looking down on new money even if there is more of the new money.
It doesn’t work like that, because it isn’t a perpetual advantage. You’re describing it like it’s a head start, and you have to catch up. That isn’t what it is. It’s a substantial advantage that later declines and, in almost all women, becomes a disadvantage at some point in their 30s vis-a-vis “peer” men. After that, the women can’t catch up to the men easily. So, it’s not like a head start that gives them a perpetual advantage (like old money), but the case of having a high value asset to start with, which is declining, as compared with a lower value asset to start with, which is increasing. The lines do cross, and afterward, it’s the women who can’t catch up.
The real burn, I think, for men on this reality is that they are at their biggest disadvantage vis-a-vis women as a group when they are at their horniest ages, and gain an advantage later on when their libido is beginning to decrease. That makes the advantage women have before 30 very hard for men to stomach, but that’s life — it isn’t supposed to be fair.
“Striver and Escoffer,
SMV is not defined purely by “raw lust.” It is defined by how much of a price can be demanded for sex with such individual. Looking from the other way it is how much others will want to have sex with them.
See the female groupies around famous figures, especially rock stars and your view doesn’t hold up. A hot woman may get a few beta orbiters, but is unlikely to have any hot sex orbiters. The reverse would be true of a hot male.”
The famous males get more of a multiplier than famous females, that’s true. It kind of works both ways. The SMV of the average groupie is probably not all that high. Most famous women are not going to be interested in their orbiters, anyway, just like non-famous desirable women.
@SamBotta:
“@Striver if she comes into the marriage with money and assets that are similar, and keeps earning at that level, if divorce happens you can be kept whole, maybe even come out ahead on the deal.
This is comedy, right?
Please show the statistics on this.”
That is the law as it applies to my ongoing divorce case. You are not going to pay alimony if her income is the same or higher than hers. You may get it if hers is higher. Same with child support. Her working and out of the home helps your arguments for custody as well. If you want protection, do not let your wife become SAHM.
Also, men will do better in a liberal jurisdiction. The conservatives will favor women more as “traditional role.” This is my real life experience.
@Anhorman –
Remmeber, all the facts and logic won’t make a dent in those minds. They’ve reached opinions based on emotion, not facts. Trying to change using facts is travelling north-south on an east-west road.
This is essentially the reason that I won’t bother. I’ve noticed this about many of you. Reading through past discussions here and my own experience in the debate about following sinful commands from a husband showed me that I’d be wasting my time to try and convince most of you of anything. If the plainly written word of God won’t change the minds of supposed Christians then I doubt that anything that I say will make a dent.
This chart gives you the feel goods so you believe it despite the fact that it doesn’t line up with what most of you report experiencing in real life. A bunch of men on a blog complaining that even their wives don’t want them, much less other women, and claiming that this situation is common, yet they also believe that men are more attractive than women in such a dramatically different way. Comment after comment about how women will marry a man that she isn’t sexually attracted to for money or because time is running out and she wants kids and then refuse to have sex with him yet you still believe that chart. The feel goods are powerful.
Fawn:
WRT The HookingUpSmart “analysis” by an alleged “statistician” of Rollo Tomassi’s SMV graph:
http://www.justfourguys.com/fun-with-numbers-graphs-and-phds/
Read carefully.
Point 1. It is absurd to claim that the graph has no validity because the pink and blue shaded areas are not exactly equal. The graph represents a peak SMV for a typical man and a typical woman.
Point 2. Every man hits a peak SMV. Every woman hits a peak SMV. The graph does NOT mean that every man is a 10 or that every woman is a 10. Not everyone hits “the top” relative to everyone else. But everyone does hit their own peak.
Point 3. Women peak earlier than men do. And women have a steeper slide in SMV than men do as both age.
Point 4. The graphs are representations. They don’t contain absolute values. They also don’t “measure” anything, and were never claimed to. This is because female SMV is based on different factors from male SMV.
Fawn:
You should also review these by Vox Day:
http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2013/10/savaged-by-statistical-sheep.html
http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2013/10/savaged-by-statistical-sheep-ii.html
It’s really quite easy to debunk Susan Walsh’s “debunking”.
@ Elizabeth Jane – Kudos on making it this far with your husband and on being willing to keep going. A lot of women would’ve left long ago and you’ve stuck it out. Maybe the worst is behind you!
I would try to stop refusing sex immediately. You probably won’t enjoy it, but if you can manage to be neutral or pleasant during even if you hate it that would probably go a long way with your husband. Also make sure that you are looking your best. Shallow as it sounds, being pretty helps a lot.
Same with child support.
Actually it doesn’t impact CS. The reason is that although CS is described as income share, which would lead one to think that a more balanced income would lead to paying less in CS, the reality is that CS is a flat percentage of total parental income that is divided among the parents by proportional income — so basically you end up paying that percentage of income regardless, if you do not share residential/physical custody.
Examples:
H earns 60k, W earns 30k. Total income is 90k. 15% support amount is 13,500. H has 2/3 of total income, so H pays 9000 in CS to W, while W “bears” the remaining 4500 herself. That 9000 is equal to 15% of H’s income.
H earns 90k, W earns nothing. Total income is 90k. 15% support amount is 13,500. H bears 100% of this and pays W 13,500 in CS, which is … 15% of his total income.
H earns 30k, W earns 60k. Total income is 90k. 15% support amount is 13,500. H pays 4500 to W in CS, which is … 15% oF H’s total income.
Basically, while the actual dollars go up and down depending on your income, the percentage of your income that is paid basically stays the same (I am oversimplifying a bit, but the changes in percentage of income are very small as between different income levels). So in essence it’s a tax on your income of about the same rate regardless of what you are earning.
Alimony is different in that if the woman earns a par salary she won’t get any. But CS is just an income-based tax, in effect.
This is essentially the reason that I won’t bother.
Swing and a miss.
You are running from all debate as others debate you, not just some.
Look, sweetie, we’ve met the headline-informed, skim til enraged type before. Heck, I married one. You’re no snowflake. You’re an average intellect, armed with snippets and emotion. Somewhere, there’s a pintrest waiting to be squeeled over.
I do feel like I’ve written you off before under a different name, as well.
If the plainly written word of God won’t change the minds of supposed Christians then I doubt that anything that I say will make a dent.
Says the woman who has completely disregarded direct quotes from scripture repeatedly on this very thread.
This chart gives you the feel goods so you believe it despite the fact that it doesn’t line up with what most of you report experiencing in real life.
In summary:
1) men’s wives don’t want them, much less other women
2) this situation is common
3) women will marry a man that she isn’t sexually attracted to (for money or biology)
and then refuse to have sex with him
and this list is supposed to be evidence that the chart is inaccurate? I’d say instead that someone doesn’t understand the chart.
yet they also believe that men are more attractive than women in such a dramatically different way.
Men and women are attracted by different things, so why wouldn’t they be attractive in different ways? The plain fact is that men peak in attractiveness at a later age than women do, which is exactly what the chart says.
The feel goods are powerful.
Perhaps something in line with a character from Star Wars won’t fall on deaf ears:
“The hamster is strong in this one. She must unlearn what she has learned. Better off in the kitchen would this one be.”
@Opus, I told Fawn that the chart in question seemed realistic and straightforward to me. You must have me confused with someone else on this very long chain of comments.
@Novaseeker, @Striver, et. al.:
When two professionals marry, you also get Dalrock’s bonus points that come with having a wife with an IQ > 130. According to Dalrock, if the female has an IQ > 130 the divorce risk is very, very low. In addition, a female doctor or dentist is likely to be in her late 20s or early 30s at the time of the wedding. By the time that she has completed having two or more children and has gotten them out of diapers, she is probably well past 35 and unlikely to believe that she can “trade up.” If she is already married to someone who earns as much as she does, then she has already done pretty well as far as marriage partners go. Also, I would say that a big part of the “IQ bonus” involves the fact that the brighter the woman, the more likely she is to have the highly desirable trait of being able to defer gratification. And, in real life, dual career couples are VERY concerned with the children’s education and upbringing, and if you are paying $18,000 per year for elementary school per year per child and expect to pay double that or more for high school, you need to stay married until the children graduate from college.
@BradA
I don’t doubt the reality of your experiences with family life, but my mother, a very sweet, loving, submissive woman, has been married twice: once to my selfish, narcissistic, bad-tempered father for over twenty-five years until he died, and once to my very hard-headed but fair and even-tempered stepfather. The second marriage has now lasted in excess of twenty-five years as well. My stepfather is very generous to my mother, although he isn’t known for being generous to anyone else. My mother never let her unhappiness show during her marriage to my father. My elder brother once asked her (while my father was hospitalized) if she would have married my father if she had known how it would all turn out. She said, “I don’t know” which, in real life, is a “no.” My mother has been GENUINELY happy during her marriage to my stepfather, although her life is very restricted now due to his ill health.
In short, if the husband is behaving badly he needs to clean up his own act. It is possible that his wife is misbehaving in some way that is not visible to those outside the family, but his behavior is still his behavior.
@ Fawn. What Rollo’s chart best illustrates is the power differential between a single man and a single woman of the same age. When they are 23, she has much more power than he has. When they are 36, he has much more power than she has.
The chart can convey some inaccurate impressions. In the past, women tended to have a higher peak: she usually got more power at her peak than the average man would get at his. This factor may be changing now with cultural shifts. Also the chart seems to suggest that a 23-year-old woman at her peak will find a 36-year-old man most attractive because he is at his peak. That’s not true and it is not what the maker of the chart is trying to convey.
feeriker,
I do agree that anger and bitterness can play a role, but I still see a lack of trust in God as the ultimate one. All of us can handle much more if we really believe He is looking out for us. That requires some trust that is largely outside the modern experience, which is what complicates it. It goes beyond women, but is quite applicable for the marriage relationship.
All of us do much better (in general) if we don’t feel helpless.
Laura:
A couple of things;
1. How many female professionals (physician, dentist, lawyer, business) do you know who are working full time, earning six figures, married, and have two or more children? I don’t know of any — not a single one. Most such women I know have one kid. A few have two, but no more. And even those women take a year or three off while the kid(s) are infants. For these women, motherhood is a decided afterthought, a box to be checked off (have child — check), a feminist merit badge to be earned.
2. The reason the UMCs divorce rate is so low is not because wife thinks she can’t do better. It’s because she, and her equally well-earning husband, are future time oriented and thinking about their children. They are less likely to want to waste assets in a divorce, and more likely to want to preserve them for the benefit of themselves and their kids.
Striver,
The SMV of the average groupie is probably not all that high.
I doubt the high SMV men have sex with frumpy groupies. Their SMV is not high if they don’t pull attractive ones and enough have been
Fawn,
I’d be wasting my time to try and convince most of you of anything.
The context of the quote you used was that your mind is colored, not that ours are. I would agree that most here are fairly strong in their positions, but it is likely most of us have already done a lot of thinking and investigation to come to the position where we have and you are unlikely to sway us with a one off post and especially a link to a post on HUS that we have already debunked long ago.
I also do not recall you posting any Scripture to back up your claims, just assertions and a link to HUS. Though you are the relative outsider here and coming in, telling us we are all wrong and expecting us to jump is not a recipe for success.
We don’t agree amongst ourselves all the time, but you managed to hit one of the areas most of us do agree on. Consider that it may be you who is out of sync with things.
@Elizabeth Jane
My ex-husband was very bad with money and was ALWAYS heavily in debt. Toward the end of the marriage, he did admit to me that he purchased luxury items on a whim because doing so made him feel wealthy/special/important, etc., and he also admitted that home ownership meant nothing to him, as he preferred moving from place to place whenever he felt like it. The two of us always had completely different standards of living throughout our decade-plus of marriage, as I avoided all spending to avoid adding to our debts.
Whether you are able to hold your marriage together or not, you should talk to your children about the importance of living within one’s means, etc. You may not be able to do anything about your husband’s spending patterns, but it may not be too late to mold your children’s. It will be very tricky to do this without saying disrespectful things about your husband’s past financial management, so it might be better to have an uncle, church elder, etc., talk to your children about saving and budgeting. But don’t assume that because the children ended up in a homeless shelter that they will automatically decide to be sensible spenders in adulthood. They are also absorbing the strange message that they can spend extravagantly without big worries, because everybody always survives somehow — “everything always works out.”
Women do tend to crave financial security and a stable upbringing for the children, and I know how hard it is when the spouse does not prioritize those concerns. As most divorced people will tell you, marriage counseling is a bad joke, but an OLDER MALE financial counselor MIGHT be able to persuade your husband to make some sort of financial plan and stick with it at least for a while. Even a savings account with one month’s rent in it would make a big difference in your daily anxiety level.
Do you work outside the home? If your children are school aged, it might help alleviate the strain if you got a job that would cover the rent and utilities. You can always get free food from a food bank or church. With food and shelter covered, you can hang on through almost any set of financial circumstances. If your children are old enough to work, I would encourage them to do so as well. It would give them their own source of spending money.
If your husband is telling you that your skin is sagging, etc., he may be on the verge of filing for divorce himself. This has got to be a time of tremendous stress for you. I am praying for you.
Sam Botta @ 1:35 am:
“The real man behind the name Rollo Tomassi has the life and the marriage/family the most of the men reading these words do not have. Rollo Tomassi, in my view, is the living demonstration of a Christ follower.”
If Rollo is a Christian then he’s kept the secret well, which isn’t what a believer is supposed to do. I give him top marks for his insights into the modern marketplace and will always be grateful to guys like him for telling me the truth about women but that doesn’t make a man Christian.
I rarely comment on his site because he comes from such an atheistic, evopsych-driven direction. No hard feelings, I just rely heavily on the Bible in lieu of any direct experience with modern women.
…
Novaseeker @ 7:58 am:
“The real burn, I think, for men on this reality is that they are at their biggest disadvantage vis-a-vis women as a group when they are at their horniest ages, and gain an advantage later on when their libido is beginning to decrease.”
This is almost a perfect description of MGTOW. Young man is desperate for sex, women shun him mercilessly and society blames him for being male. He gets older and the hormones lose their strength, and he remembers a decade of scorn and neglect. Maybe two decades.
The same guy would have been eternally grateful to a pretty girl who helped him out when he needed it, or to a society/church that gave him an easy, early path to marriage.
Laura,
My mother never let her unhappiness show during her marriage to my father.
Never? Is she a robot? It slipped through. Perhaps not much, but humans let things slip.
It reminds me of the time when I told my grandmother that I remembered my grandfather always calling her “tiger.” She quickly responding that “he meant it as good” which told me that it wasn’t. She was a tiger in many ways. I always saw it as a good thing, but her insistence it was good opened my eyes to see it was not always so. They both loved each other deeply, but the relationship had more under it than I saw as a child/teen in my interactions with them.
In short, if the husband is behaving badly he needs to clean up his own act.
Nothing I have said here contradicts that. You would notice that I get called a white knight many times for insisting on that if you read many comment threads. Though we already get plenty of that in many places. Men are regularly chastised for their failures. Women are not.
Exactly how would taking Elizabeth’s husband to task help her anyway? Do you just want us to commiserate with her about how tough her lot in life is? I already noted that (it sucks). But she can only control herself and must this focus on what she must do.
Some women can and do make things toxic, even while seeming sweetness and light to the world. This is far too common. Do you really not think that is a big problem today?
Deti,
You mean that the Cosby show’s example of a lawyer and doctor with 4 or 5 children (depending on the specific season) wouldn’t do as well as they did? You are destroying my world….
@thedeti
1) My sister and all of her friends + one of my cousins and a lot of her friends. And a niece and some of her friends. I do agree that these women represent a very small slice of society, and their lives should not be used as an example for most women to follow. None of the women that I know in this group even switched over to part time work when the babies were born. It was full time work the whole way.
2) You are right about future time orientation being extremely important to the UMC and being a good predictor for marital success. And somewhat related to that, people who see marriage as a permanent economic and dynastic union also seem to have a much better chance of making marriage last a lifetime. They are the ones who can visualize themselves fifty years in the future, sitting together in their rocking chairs on the front porch of a large home, watching their many grandchildren playing in a large yard.
I am wondering if Rollo’s Chart of Sexual Attractiveness is a measurement of sexual interest initially or very early in the relationship. In other words, how hot are they when you first meet them? Later, perceptions change as the relationship progresses, and the chart is no longer valid. For example, he has “wife goggles” (positive), she wants him because he has “game” (positive), she is disrespectful (negative), or he has an affair (negative).
Unfortunately, I don’t think many women recognize that the chart at least approximates reality. They underestimate their husband’s SMV and MMV, and they overestimate, often greatly, their own SMV and MMV. When the women become unhappy, they decide on frivorce and, as my son, 16 at the time, said, “I don’t see how anyone benefits from this.”
Laura,
My ex-husband was very bad with money and was ALWAYS heavily in debt.
Ah, so you had a bad marriage/husband and that colors your thinking. Do you take any responsibility for picking him in the first place? (I mean true responsibility, not just the obligatory “it takes two” view.) Or is it all in his court? Were your flaws minor in comparison to his, in the reality in your mind?
Your answers to these questions would color your view on things.
I also do not recall you posting any Scripture to back up your claims, just assertions and a link to HUS.
She meant under her other pseudonym.
I imagine the new name is because the last one didn’t fare well, either.
@Fawn: “the manosphere/redpill seems to be mostly men seeking advice on getting sex without commitment, not men seeking marriage advice.”
Ahem. My name links to Married Red Pill which is growing exponentially. Yes, the main Red Pill Reddit is largely younger guys looking for sex but claiming that older guys are not trying to fix their marriages is amazingly obtuse, even for a woman. 50,000 men blow their brains out every year, most because they could not fix their marriages because they were attempting to do so using the script FORCE FED to us from the culture, from our schools, from our elementary teachers, from our middle school teachers, from our high school and college teachers, from every single book, magazine, and article on love and relationships, from all the speakers on relationships, even from our counselors and mentors and everything written for the last 4 decades. And yes, from our mothers, our girlfriends, our sisters, and our Aunts. ALL of them repeated the blue pill lie.
Be nice to her. Do what she wants. Equal partnership but don’t forget she has the pussy and you have nothing. You are not worth as much as her. She is a princess and deserves to be treated like a queen.
Red Pill teaches the truth. Women are not sexually attracted to guys who are “nice” or who want to be in an equal partnership with her, or who does what she wants all the time. The HATE being treated like a princess or queen and instead of appreciating it as the culture tells us she will, instead she grows into a disrespectful evil harpy who treats you like shit and is turned off because you were so stupid- you listened to her.
Laura:
If your friends and sister were having three or more kids and working full time as professionals, then something suffered – either their work did, their professional advancement did, or their parenting did. It’s not possible to do all those things well at the same time. Not. Fucking. Possible.
“And somewhat related to that, people who see marriage as a permanent economic and dynastic union also seem to have a much better chance of making marriage last a lifetime. They are the ones who can visualize themselves fifty years in the future, sitting together in their rocking chairs on the front porch of a large home, watching their many grandchildren playing in a large yard.”
No, it’s not so much that they visualize themselves riding off into the sunset together. It’s that they don’t want to lose what they’ve worked for. So, they put their heads down and put up with the bullshit and the disrespect and the hard times and tight money and the shitty sex and the pot bellies and the sagging tits and the menopause and the fights and the disagreements and the generalized shit that they throw each other’s way.
You’re romanticizing UMC marriages as though they are all great. They’re not. Many of them resemble all other marriages — a few of them are great. Most of them range from good sometimes to very hard sometimes. Some of them are bad marriages in that there is no or little sexual attraction, they don’t like each other, they don’t get along with each other, there are builtup resentments, etc.
A UMC marriage is not by definition “great”, simply because they have a million dollars in their joint IRAs and they are both high wage earners and they have a second house on the Redneck Riviera and they do a week in Europe once a year and money isn’t a problem.
@BradA: My husband divorced me, and I was not anywhere close to be a perfect wife so there is plenty of blame for me. But, in my own defense, I always very supportive of his business and career plans, and I NEVER EVER threatened to leave him, even though he frequently talked about how much he wished for the blond-haired, blue-eyed girl he had a crush on in high school. (She wasn’t interested in him then, and when he saw her again years later, she still wasn’t interested in him.)
I was barely 19 when I got married, and my ex-husband looked good from the outside, and my parents thought that he would be a good husband. As I have related before, he had problems with criminality, over-spending, insolvency, adultery, etc., that lasted throughout our marriage. He very deliberately chose to marry a Christian (by pretending to be Christian) because he knew that nobody else would put up with his outrageous behavior for long. I have nothing but contempt for, and astonishment at, the “Christian” wives who dump a hard-working, non-adulterous husband because they are bored, etc., thinking that their Best Friend Jesus is going to pour out his blessings on their second marriage.
I’m sure that you were the very best father to your kids that you knew how to be, and yet it all went wrong despite the love, time, effort and money you gave. Why is it hard for you to believe that I was a decent wife to my husband, and yet he divorced me? And how do you think that you understand everything that went on in your childhood home, while remaining convinced that I have no real idea what might have been going on in mine? Or, for that matter, that Opus over in Limeyland didn’t correctly understand the true dynamics of his parents’ marriage?
If your friends and sister were having three or more kids and working full time as professionals, then something suffered – either their work did, their professional advancement did, or their parenting did. It’s not possible to do all those things well at the same time. Not. Fucking. Possible.
The parenting is what always, ALWAYS, without exception suffers under this arrangement. In their quest to “have it all” (and of course the excuse offered up by the hamster is ALWAYS that they’re having it all “for the children”‘s sake), they wind up denying their children the only thing that matters to a child and the only thing of value they have to give them: full-time maternal love and nurturing. Then again, as deti put it with such brutal accuracy, when children are nothing but checkboxes on a feminist achievement list, maternal love and nurturing is waaaay far down on the priority list, assuming that the mother is even familiar with the concept at all.
I am sure you were as decent a wife as you knew how Laura. Why is it hard for you to believe that you were not perfect?
That last question is a bit rhetorical. My mother did a lot for me and I am very grateful for all of it. I miss her greatly, but she never could handle even a whiff that she was not perfect, outside the perfunctory “we all have problems” non-perfection.
You seem similar, though perhaps you are the special snowflake and I am missing it.
Are only males really able to dissect themselves to see the core?
Novaseeker:
I agree that if you don’t share custody the formula does not look at the income of the other spouse. If you have the kids more than 25% of the time, then the incomes of both spouses matter.
In the people I have encountered, there was not a single case that someone who wanted custody was NOT getting shared custody. Not a one. There were some cases where they didn’t have custody because one parent abandoned or other logistics, but everyone was going for and getting shared.
With three children and not sharing, I would be paying 29% of gross income for over a decade. At that rate, I’d be better off getting a studio apartment and not seeing the kids at all. The shared formula takes income and amount of time into account. If my soon to be ex had an equal income and custody was 50/50, my child support would be $0. She worked before the kids, but not after, so we had to agree on an imputed income which is a good deal lower than mine. I won’t have 50% either because she did a lot of lowballing and threatening a long court fight. I had a decent chance of getting 50/50 in a court fight, but that is still a lot of legal fees and an unpredictable outcome given the age of the kids. So I will still be paying 13% of gross in child support.
This is why I emphasize getting the wife back to work. Gets more money in the coffers and it helps when the negotiations occur. Even though you are supposed to be making them happy by manning up and letting them have mommy time, it doesn’t matter. I agree that the notion of the “love bank” is a crock. I read that book, and she was doing less for me than I was for her.
Laura’s husband sounds just like me (a normal guy in fact) – but I simply don’t buy the idea that he married her because he thought that no non-christian would marry him. Let us not forget that her parents approved the match (or was that Eliz Jane) which is a pretty good reason to believe that he was something of a catch.
… and how is it, if Laura is new-ish to the blog, she knows so much about me – my not being American or Xtian, although I ‘d rather say that I was not a believer or perhaps that I was not a religious person and that it was merely an accident of history that I live under a different state.
It depends on where you live. In my area, when I was getting divorced (almost 15 years ago) shared *physical* custody arrangements were very much disfavored by the family law courts here. Most of the professional peer couples I know who got divorced in that era where I live did not have shared physical custody. It may be that in some places it has become more commonly granted by the courts in the past 15 years.
Fawn,
I grew up catholic/catholic school. Had a friend who he and I (so very sorry to those young women and would apologize to them now if I could and have since repented) see how much we could “get” without spending any money. At the age of 21 with high N count I woke up to the fact that seeing one (feeling one) you’ve seen them (felt them) all, whether HB5 or HB10 been there, done that.
Long story short, I did exactly as Rollo has laid out in his blog…. EXACTLY!!!! To the point that I went through all of the RP stages with ABSOLUTE RAGE. And as a born again christian I was tempted (look up tempted) to up my N count even as a married man. My SMV and MMV are way higher than my wife’s.
My experience here has taught me to SEE the truths. There are some bitter men on here and as christians we should not be bitter, however you can most assuredly see why they are bitter. In fact my wife does allow me to have sex with her at any time and after our history together I still feel a hesitation to initiate sex with her. Often times it is just a quickie and she is like a blow up doll and I feel like I am using her. She does get heavily enthusiastic about once a week, but most of the time she could take it or leave it. I TAKE IT! Many, many men on here don’t even get that and some would view my situation that out of 3-5 times/week she could take it or leave it as “not wanting me” or “not good enough, she needs to have the tingle and want it from you bad”. Others on here would say that she is being a good wife by making herself available to my sexual needs as 1Cor 7 indicates (which I agree with).
However, besides the sex there is a huge issue in our marriage of respect and lack of submission. She doesn’t care to study what those mean or what respect looks like to a God loving, God fearing christian man who would not ask her to sin or command her to sin.
One of the big issues is gossip. I hate it! She is prone to it. If I let her, I am allowing her to sin and am I not washing her with the word. If I do say something I AM EVIL. My son is the same way, he simply does not like to hear someone talked about in a bad light. She did one day and he got angry and she got mad at me for not reprimanding him for disrespecting her.
I asked her if she at all felt as though she shouldn’t have said what she said. She actually did and on occasion realizes this (which is good). The problem is she didn’t at the time, but had a problem with my son disrespecting her. She has taught my daughter this… do you see where it has come from and where it is going? To the next generation. She sinned, made my son stumble, but only saw his sin and most of the time denies her sin in the process and is unnnnhapppy when she is corrected, as if she is above correction and not accountable to anyone, especially not her husband (look up subject to your husband).
How does this fit together? She thinks now that she makes herself available for sex anytime that for some weird reason she can be/do anything else without correction or accountability.
Dalrock,
I told you it was going to be a waste of your time with the Harley thing, but appreciate you articulating why to others.
If you look into ANY marriage help book/programs they are wife sided because that is the demographic and if they do not put out what the market wants they will not make money.
SHEET MUSIC. Kevin Leiman
It looked promising because it tells women that men need sex etc. HOWEVER, I read it and he lost me in the first chapter when he states SEX STARTS IN THE KITCHEN. I told my wife that our hardwood floors would be uncomfortable, but I’m game and we have to wait until kids are out for a while. DUH! He meant helping out etc. GOTCHA! He states that if you would only do this or that she would want more sex with you. I laughed my way through the rest of the book. All a bunch of BS. Fawn, for your information I am a christian man who loves his God, wife and family. Harley and I talked with my wife and she came up with a list of the things I need to do to fill up her bank. I DID THEM ALL!!!!!! He could not fathom what was going on with her. After he pointed out ALL the things I was doing that SHE listed and he saw that there was STILL NO pay back in the form of sex from her, she was angry at him and me. She wanted to stop counseling with Harley Sr. himself. Sheet music says you can. Pahh haa ha!
@thedeti
All of the women I have known who have managed a high-earning career AND two or more children who have turned out well have been absolute outliers in terms of intelligence, personal drive, organizational skills and energy level. They are NOT typical women in any way, and I don’t like to see them held up as an example for young girls. Very few people can Do It All and Have It All, although a tiny sliver of society does seem to be able to manage this. I will also say that the husband in these cases usually has a complementary set of Special Qualities that helps to keep all the plates in the air.
My parents both worked full time throughout my childhood, and it was a mistake in my opinion. My mother was a highly-qualified secretary to a very busy man, and was unable to ever get any significant amount of time off for any reason other than an annual vacation. If my mother HAD been a doctor or dentist, she would have had some power to get an afternoon off once in a while. And the higher income she would have earned would have softened the blow of her never being at home during the day. The quality of the babysitting that I experienced would almost certainly have been better, and there might have been after school activities to alleviate the boredom and isolation. Fulltime working motherhood is not good, but if you are going to work fulltime, it is better to be a high earner than a low earner.
I’m generally against women working at all when their children are young, and I’m very much against daycare. But I mind my own business because each family has its own challenges.
It concerns me greatly that our society has gotten to a point at which a strong, healthy boy of 18 graduating from high school has little hope of ever earning enough money to support a wife and two children. Whether he goes to college and racks up student loan debt, or takes whatever job he can get with a high school diploma, he does not have the same opportunities that his father or grandfathers had when they were starting out in life. I wonder if our society can survive indefinitely under the current set of dismal circumstances. There is a lot of despair in the under-35 group, both male and female. I don’t worry about the dual-career future-millionaire couples much. They seem to be doing fine. I’m a lot more worried about the other 98% of society.
Some people stay married till death out of fear, but many others do indeed stay married for more positive reasons, and the mutual grandchild aspect is usually a factor in that. I don’t romanticize UMC marriages at all, although having a good and steady stream of money coming in DOES help to smooth over life’s inevitable rough spots. I agree with you that ultimately, a lasting marriage often just comes down to a refusal to give in to the temptation to divorce.
Husband asking about leadership on CAF gets exactly the sort of responses you’d expect:
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=964184
If your friends and sister were having three or more kids and working full time as professionals, then something suffered – either their work did, their professional advancement did, or their parenting did.
Every single couple I know where the women tries to “have it all” fails to do so. They suffer and so do the kids. They seem to think that everything is okay because in their view:
1) it’s normal to have disobedient and disrespectful kids and
2) there is nothing wrong with female employees putting in less time at work for the same pay.
I recently spoke to a woman who could not wait long enough to have her computer problem fixed because she had her five year old daughter with her, and the daughter would not sit down and wait for 20 minutes. This woman was at her place of employment at the time, and she had no expectation of doing anything but appeasing her daughter.
It concerns me greatly that our society has gotten to a point at which a strong, healthy boy of 18 graduating from high school has little hope of ever earning enough money to support a wife and two children.
There are a number of men, like my husband, who saw this coming and have planned accordingly. When he and I were first starting out, we were very poor ($8000/yr for two years, $16K the next, $32 the next etc.) and though his father helped us by giving us a place to stay during one of our transitions, that was where the assistance ended. Now when he makes a purchase it is always with “40 years from now” in mind. As he orchestrates the development of the property he bought a year ago, he is securing the ability to have food production for generations. Our home can easily house our three children and their families. All of them will have the opportunity to expand the homestead or go elsewhere and always have the homestead as a fallback if they need it. He has positioned himself financially to be able to assist his son or sons-in-law with any business venture they pursue. This has all meant that superficial consumerism is not acceptable in this home. If something can be fixed, it is fixed, not replaced. When opportunity arises, we maintain a cash flow to capitalize on it. He took to heart the lessons his grandfather passed down by making it through the depression with five children, and the lessons taught in the Bible (Joseph).
When wives continue to struggle with accepting what God has beautifully given them as their own personal instruction for marriage, what sadly gets challenged is her husband’s ability to focus on anything more than just the state of his marriage. Men have a hunger to do great things, generational things – though, doing those things for ungrateful women who won’t do the simplest of things (Obey God by respecting their husbands and submitting to him in everything), is not any man’s idea of well invested time and resources.
“It concerns me greatly that our society has gotten to a point at which a strong, healthy boy of 18 graduating from high school has little hope of ever earning enough money to support a wife and two children. Whether he goes to college and racks up student loan debt, or takes whatever job he can get with a high school diploma, he does not have the same opportunities that his father or grandfathers had when they were starting out in life. I wonder if our society can survive indefinitely under the current set of dismal circumstances. There is a lot of despair in the under-35 group, both male and female. I don’t worry about the dual-career future-millionaire couples much. They seem to be doing fine. I’m a lot more worried about the other 98% of society.”
Because men do not only have to compete with other men, but women as well. See how that works? Women take jobs, and the same people who have made it legal for illegals to take those jobs now have made it two fold harder for a man to have any kind of a salary that would support a wife now-a-days so that she can rest all day and sleep with other men. She actually has to go out and earn sleeping with those other men until she hits the wall or learns to grow up and get out of her own little world.
@Opus
I’ve been posting here for quite a while. I’m not sure which of us precedes the other, but we’ve both been here for years. There was just recently another person posting here as laura (small L) and possibly that has led to confusion. Novaseeker is a lawyer, Elspeth is black and has 4 or 5 daughters, Scott is a military psychologist and Orthodox, TFH is an Indian math genius, and you are English. I can’t keep everybody’s story straight, but the basics sink in after a while.
My parents approved of my marriage, and I believe that Elizabeth Jane said that her parents also approved of her marriage.
If I have misrepresented your views on religion, Opus, I am truly sorry, although if you do not consider yourself to be a “believer” I’m not sure why being referred to as a non-Christian would be offensive to you. Over the internet, there is no tone of voice, and maybe “non-Christian” looks harsh, or even insulting in black and white. I never meant it to be and I’ll be more careful in the future. If we seek the Lord we will find him, and I pray that He will always hold you in the palm of His hand. Wasn’t it Enoch Powell who returned to the Church when he was walking down a London street and heard the bells ringing? Today could be the big day for you.
@BradA: By objective standards, I was a decent wife to my husband, but was nowhere close to being the wife my mother was to my father and is now to my stepfather. And I doff my cap to Mulier — her Christian depth astonishes me. I could never have risen to that level, and when I read what she has written it certainly makes me feel that my present Christian life falls far short of the mark. I did commit a thousand sins during my marriage, more of omission than commission, but I am NOT claiming that I was a special snowflake in any way. I could have been a far better wife and mother, and I do realize that. It is monstrously hard to be even a decent wife to a man who treats you badly at every opportunity, so my heart goes out to Elizabeth Jane. She is where I was twenty-five years ago.
I would like to make it clear that I don’t consider my ex-husband and my father to have occupied the same niche in the humanity spectrum. My father was narcissistic and bad-tempered, but had a moral core and a code of ethics. He admired my mother, and on some level he must have known that he wasn’t treating her well, he just couldn’t manage to improve his daily behavior somehow. He did have some serious health issues, including untreated depression. In contrast, my ex-husband had real sociopathic traits. He could not form lasting friendships, members of his own family eventually distanced themselves from him, all three of his marriages were failures, etc. He lied frequently, just for the thrill of putting one over on people, and he was dishonest in many other ways, small and large. He did not seem to ever experience anxiety or fear and he was incapable of understanding that other people had their own wants and needs, so he continually walked all over people. Hence his lack of enduring relationships. I did lose all hope for the future after a while and allow despair to undermine my behavior, and at this point in my life, I have no illusions whatsoever as to my value. Nevertheless, it is time for me to hit the road to my elderly parents’ house, where I hope to do some good for somebody!
From reader “Xantippe”, a “senior member” of CAF, pertaining to the “husband as leader” question:
“I would really encourage a different plan–perhaps that in the case where you can’t achieve unity, you agree in advance to go to a neutral third party for a tie-breaker (a pastor or a marriage counselor). In practice, I think you will both find that you can work out 99.99% of issuues without doing this, and having to face a third party will keep you from having big fights about trivia and will keep you fighting fair.”
What? So a couple should have someone outside the marriage break ties? Seriously?
So a third party should decide things like whether they should buy a Toyota or a Honda; or have another kid, or how many times they should have sex per week, or where they should go on vacation?
Are these people out of their minds?
Uh, Is Ephesians 5:22 not in the Catholic bible or something?
Wow, just…wow. I can’t even….
Are only males really able to dissect themselves to see the core?
Yes, although not all are able to do so. Add “introspection” to the list of things women are generally incapable of (a list that also includes “understanding cause and effect,” “empathy,” and “gratification deferment”).
“Tie goes to the runner” *chuckle*
Xantippe is a regular contributor of anti-Biblical suggestions.
It’s eye-opening. When I was married, I would read that venom and buy into it, because (looking lower on the page) you’d get “Happy Wife/Happy Life” quotes from guys in Marriage 1.0. I followed advice like that right up until she blew up the marriage. I’m even a little embarrassed to admit I bought Love Dare (Fireproof). I was desperate to save my marriage.
It’s pure poison to marriage.
My first suggestion when someone brings a problem? Pray. Pray, then wait patiently.
Xantippe’s suggestion? Look for answers in the world.
That’s not to say it’s all I would do, but that is #1. Pray. Talk to your Father in Heaven. Cast your worries and concerns His way, live according to His Way, and trust in His provision. Now, that means being a Biblical husband, which would have Xantippe howling with agony, but that’s the way of the faithful.
@Laura. I was not in the least offended. I was merely trying to avoid offensiveness, myself, but when I fall out with my Muslim neighbour (who does not speak English) and raising a scimitar above his head with the cry of Allah Akbar, I fear it will do me little good to protest that I take my text from the book of Dawkins (or Lucretius, or Leucipus or Democritus or even the Baron D’Holbach or Hume) none of whom he has surely ever heard of.
You are correct about Powell, at least that was his story, and his fellow politician-colleague Quinton Hogg tells of his conversion to Christianity even as, as an undergraduate, sitting his finals, he was writing an essay in support of atheism, his unbelief undermining his unbelief, as he put it. I suspect however that their respective conversions had more to do with wanting to fit in with the establishment and thus a Damascus Road experience was rather convenient. I have no such ambition and even though the sales-lady form The Salvation Army has assured me that one day Jesus will find me and thus gives me The Salvationist’s weekly magazine The War Cry – whether I want it or not, and I refuse to pay for it – she has so far, at least, been waiting in vain.
When, however, I look (as I recently did on-line) at the antics of the lady Vicars at the established Church (where my sister married) – two women, not entirely coherent in written English – long gone are the days when Rectors were all M.A. Cantab and male and white – and where the photographs reveal a culture which any Social Justice Warrior would feel at home with, I feel relieved I lack belief – and yet I am as ease with the language of the KJV as with Shakespeare and Milton and with the music of Byrd, Tallis and Goss (he wrote Deep amid the Winter Snow – I really love that carol).
I believe it is the Hindus who maintain that whatever path you take you will arrive where you were going to, anyway, so it does not matter what disappointments one has, and no matter how successful, most people in some way feel that they could and should have had better opportunities, even those one would suppose supremely fortunate and successful. I am with Leo Tolstoy (did you know his daughter Sasha, who once wrote me a letter, was an American) who merely recommended that we should all be kinder with each other.
Are these people out of their minds? – If only that were the case.
Uh, Is Ephesians 5:22 not in the Catholic bible or something? – It’s not in the feminist version any Bible. That version is missing a lot of passages and has lots of PC indoctrination added as well.
Wow, just…wow. I can’t even…. – Me neither. It truly is painful to read over there.
When I quoted scripture over there, the response was basically: “we’re Catholic and not confined to the scriptures”, but I noticed that they DO confine themselves to PC/feminist doctrine. When I think of CAF, I am reminded of the term “pit of vipers”. Readers beware.
CAF may seem crazy, but most Catholics (not the trads, but both the “neo-cats”, which are like the non-traditional but not left/radical wing, and the radical left wing) do not embrace complementarity. I can’t remember ever having heard complementarianism preached in a Catholic homily from the time I can first remember until I left Catholicism 15 years ago. Even the Vatican fudges on it. That’s why most Catholics don’t follow it. Some (many?) of the trad catholics do, because they look back to the Catholic teaching prior to 1960, but they’re a small part of things overall.
The fact that she calls herself Xantippe gives a pretty good idea of what comes next: Socrates says he chose his wife Xantippe, because she was argumentative and hard to get along with.
Hoellenhund2, you know, you’re right, I shouldn’t have posted what I did about neckbeards. My pride and desire to be funny got the best of me. I apologize to Dalrock and the commenters for my insulting and divisive comments on the subject.
Well, nothing quite pays like making money off the misery of others. This is straight out of the same playbook as Doctors making their patients ill or writing bogus prescriptions for drugs that are not needed..
It’s a nascent dynasty there…..I’m pretty sure Harley’s daughter is “in the biz.”
I suppose I should apologize too. I crack wise on a number of blogs but I really appreciate the wisdom and thoughtfulness on this one. There is nothing wrong with good humor, of course, but being overly sarcastic and antagonistic is probably inappropriate here. I apologize.
JCO is not joking, actually…
Novaseeker:
Regarding custody/placement:
In my state, they changed the law around 15 years ago to strive to have significant time with each parent. The law is vague, but shared placement is encouraged.
In practice, unless one of the divorced is dumb or obviously incompetent, placement is going to be somewhere between a 5/9 plan and 50/50. If someone chooses to take less than 25% placement, the child support percentage shoots up as well. So the state is trying to incentivize shared placement.
Husband as leader
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=964184
How to STOP having pre-marital sex?
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=964282
Marcus – JCO is not joking, actually…
She wasn’t the only one.
Lord Ellie @EllieBaker92 8h8 hours ago
@TillyTweets @shoe0nhead what kind of animal is this? this is not a rhino or is it?
Randy Nichols @rbnich63 5h5 hours ago
@EllieBaker92 @TillyTweets @shoe0nhead Sweety it is a fake dinosuar… it is not real.
Lord Ellie @EllieBaker92 53m53 minutes ago
@rbnich63 @TillyTweets @shoe0nhead Why would they fake something horrible like that??
Opus,
“It has long puzzled me, by the way, why certain American states and certain counties, in say, Maryland, are still named after British Royalty.”
Because Americans, perhaps above all other peoples on earth, are not sore winners.
On Opus’ issue about naming of the East Coast locations, it’s partially that we’re generally not sore winners, but also that some of those names were nearly 200 years old at the time of the revolution. No real good reason to bother changing it.
I seem to have found a tender spot in the American psyche. Everything else gets changed: Sellafield a disliked Nuclear plant became Windscale, the Russians went from St Petersburg to Petrograd to Leningrad and then back to St Petersburg all in less than a century and I am pretty certain that the Nelson Mandela Housing Estate in Tottenham was previously the Cecil Rhodes Estate. It just struck me as odd. Have the inhabitants of Prince George’s County – to the north east of Washington D.C. in Maryland – been celebrating the arrival of the Royal baby?
What also struck me as odd was that Washington has yet to get round to naming its streets (apart from the cross streets) other than with letters and numbers. It must be an American thing, I thought for when the price of postage stamps changed, temporary stamps (unknown where I am) were issued without a price but with the letter E, and presumably since that time there have Fs and Gs and so on.
Oh to see ourselves as others see us.
@ Opus
It just struck me as odd. Have the inhabitants of Prince George’s County – to the north east of Washington D.C. in Maryland – been celebrating the arrival of the Royal baby?
I think this whole issue also serves as additional historical evidence that hatred of all things British wasn’t anywhere near as deep-seated and all-pervasive as the historical myth would have us believe. There is a widely believed, but long discredited historical myth that anti-British sentiment in America following the Revolution was so strong that a proposal was made to adopt German as the national language. That in fact no national language –not even English– was ever codified constitutionally is just one piece of evidence against this, adding to the fact that no written record of such a proposal has ever been discovered.
Bottom line: the majority of Americans at the time still had very deep cultural, economic, and ancestral ties to Britain. Their quarrel (IF they had one in the first place; only between 3 and 5 percent of the population were ardent separatists) was a political one with the crown, really nothing more.
What also struck me as odd was that Washington has yet to get round to naming its streets (apart from the cross streets) other than with letters and numbers.
I’m tempted to say here that this is due to the fact that no one has any real desire to waste time, effort, or money dignifying any aspect of the cultureless, decaying, imperial shit hole called Washington, D.C. After all, the place was carved out of worthless swamp for the sole purpose of serving as the seat of the federal government as prescribed by the Constitution (I’m an advocate, by the way, of the idea of moving the place, if we absolutely insist on maintaining the current failed form of government, to what is now the geographic dead center of the continental U.S. — the middle of Kansas– and letting the current location revert to worthless swamp). That, or the fact that it is generally, if tacitly, accepted that the inmates of the place (be they the political class or the proletariat that serves them) are too short on either literacy or attention span to comprehend anything more descriptive of kocations than a single letter or a pair of digits.
@Opus
About 15 or 20 years ago, I went to my local post office with my vast supply of lettered postage stamps in order to ascertain their value, so that I could use them up on parcels, etc., and get rid of them. Nobody at the post office knew how much they were worth. I still have them, and there is now a website somewhere that explains all, but I would probably have to stick them on with rubber cement, as the adhesive degrades over time.
These days, the post office issues “Forever” stamps. You pay the current price for them, and they last forever, AND they are peel n’ stick.
Numbered and lettered streets are good for newcomers — it’s all very logical. I suppose it lacks the romance of Ye Olde World.
Most schools and parks in the South that were previously named for men who owned slaves have been renamed. I’m against the continual revisionism. Who is to say that any of the people getting schools named (or renamed) after them now will still be accounted worthy thirty years from now? I wouldn’t name a school or a park after anyone unless they had been dead for at least 25 years, UNLESS they donated the land.
5/9 plan
The 5/9 plan is preferred because it deliberately keeps the number of days below the typical threshold of cutting child support.
I fought to get joint and was given with 5/9 (for now).
I contend your assessment that any man wishing to have joint physical custody automatically gets it is not backed statistically. Joint legal (deciding schools, medical treatment, etc), sure. Physical? Nope.
Making children constantly move between houses seems adding unnecessary hassle to the children, but the process is far past caring for the children, whatever the claims of some.
@TFH
I remember a regional joke from when I lived in the LA area (probably from a radio ad) about someone new to the area and wanting to take the “LA to Canada Freeway”, which was really a local freeway (La Cañada freeway). However, googling it now I wonder if they haven’t renamed the freeway in the last 20+ years since I can’t find the number for the freeway.
Either way, as you say the location names in CA along with most of the Southwest are largely Spanish names.
It’s a nice idea, that Americans do not like changing names because of some mythical multi-culti policy, but in fact you do it all the time: Washington National Airport is now Ronald Reagan W.N. Airport, Idlewild Airport is J.F.K. International. American Towns change names too, even in California: Ojai was formerly Nordoff – plenty of other examples: and Twentieth Century Fox having moved with the times is now Twenty-First Century Fox. Even your popular entertainers have been known to do so; I refer to the artist formerly known as Prince – and how many of your entertainers affect aristocracy in their names, Duke Ellington, Earl Hines, Count Basie, and the artist formerly known as. Elvis is of course The king.
Anchorman:
In my state, threshold for reduction is 25%. 5/9 is 36% so the formula that takes overnights and income goes into play. That is going to be less than the standard % per kid with no shared custody, at least in my state.
Like I said, my state has a guideline to maximize time with each parent. Once I figured out the worst I would do is 5/9, I shot for 6/8 and got it. Soon to be ex likely knew the odds, which is why she eventually agreed. But that’s my location.
BradA:
My comment on that would be what a woman said whose own parents divorced when she was young, and who is now going through a divorce herself. She said that as a child, you live out of a suitcase, but it is still the best of the available options. Children don’t want to choose, and don’t want to be deprived of either parent.
Some people have tried keeping a common home for the kids, with the parents moving in and out. That might work if it’s only a few more years with the kids at home.
I don’t know why anyone with multiple small children would try to pull this off, just due to the hassle involved. I have no choice in the matter.
D, there never was (to the best of my knowledge) a La Cañada Freeway. La Cañada-Flintridge is a very nice but not very big upper-income suburb that is bisected by the 210, which is called the Foothill Freeway.
Freeways in SoCal tend to be named after the chief large city, town, or area that they link to Downtown LA. Hence you have the Pasadena Freeway, the Santa Monica Freeway, the Ventura Freeway, and so on. Or they are named after some geographical feature, like the Foothill Freeway. Or after some other destination, like the Harbor Freeway. A few have more indistinct names, like the Golden State Freeway or the Century Freeway (where they filmed Speed).
Up north all the freeways have names too but nobody uses them. E.g., the 880 is officially the Nimitz Freeway (after the great Texan, Admiral Chester Nimitz, who lived out his retirement in Berkeley, of all places). But everyone just calls it the 880.
Striver,
I was originally given only 3/11. I fought for joint, and was awarded 5/9.
The difference in support amount to a 10% reduction. Had I been awarded 7/7 (which is why I have to go back a year after the last ruling), it would’ve reduced support almost completely, because even at 7/7, you can owe child support.
3/11 she get about $1,000 a month
5/11 she gets about $900 a month
7/7 she gets next to nothing.
They know what they’re doing with the 5/9 in my state. No doubt. It’s deliberately not a consistent decrease and they make men fight for every step.
Regarding 21st Century Fox, that name change wasn’t really by choice. After the phone hacking scandal, Murdoch finally had to succumb to investor pressure and split NewsCorp into two companies. The one with all the low or no-profit newspapers is still called NewsCorp. The question was, what to name the other company that would have the high-margin movie, TV and cable businesses? Since the whole thing went down in 2011, it made no sense to call it “2oth Century Fox,” but on the other hand, they wanted to capitalize on the Fox name, since that’s their strongest brand (movies, broadcast, cable, etc). So the name change made sense from that perspective, but wouldn’t have happened if Murdoch hadn’t been forced to spin off those properties.
@Escoffier
It could be the joke was based off of an interchange to the 210.
As for names, the only freeways I remember knowing by name (in addition to number) were the 101 (Ventura) and the 118 (Simi). For the rest it was just the 405, 10, 210, etc. But that could be since I grew up in the valley and those two were closest. At least 20 years ago, numbers were more important than names even down south.
@Opus
Between the World Wars, the name “Earl” was a fairly common given name for boys. Probably much more common for the lower classes. You and the English aristocracy will be happy to know that the name is deader than a stump now.
Dalrock says:
June 10, 2015 at 12:25 pm
Could it have been the 210? It passes right through La Cañada.
Never mind. Old news.
feeriker @ 8:54 am
“I think this whole issue also serves as additional historical evidence that hatred of all things British wasn’t anywhere near as deep-seated and all-pervasive as the historical myth would have us believe.”
Absolutely. The American colonies were generally proud to be British, only they were badly treated by the crown. For example, the infamous Tea Party was a protest against taxes, not against English rule. The cry “no taxation without representation” was a request for the colonies to be treated like homeland Englishmen, not a request for economic independence.
One interesting tidbit of history is that when the colonies gained their independence, they lost British naval protection and Muslim pirates from the Barbary Coast began preying on colonial shipping and enslaving the Americans they captured. One of many reasons for the colonies to have been reluctant about quitting England.
feeriker,
No, keep DC where it is, but shrink the boundaries to the smallest possible rectangle enclosing the White House, the Capital, and the Supreme Court. Everything else gets given back to Maryland (or, better yet, given to Virginia.)
Hoellenhund2, you know, you’re right, I shouldn’t have posted what I did about neckbeards. My pride and desire to be funny got the best of me. I apologize to Dalrock and the commenters for my insulting and divisive comments on the subject.
Thanks. On the other hand, let’s remember it wasn’t you who brought up the issue out of nowhere. It was, as expected, a woman. And shitting on men you know nothing about in order to present yourself as more acceptable to a woman you know nothing about either is a very common male trait.
Thanks. On the other hand, let’s remember it wasn’t you who brought up the issue out of nowhere. It was, as expected, a woman. And shitting on men you know nothing about in order to present yourself as more acceptable to a woman you know nothing about either is a very common male trait.
I used the word first when agreeing with Novaseeker that western men have their own set of issues, and I certainly didn’t mean to cause offense. I put it in quotations because I was not talking about the actual placement or length of hair on a man’s body or face. I was referring to a specific subculture (hygeine issues, speaking only in memes, think Comic Book Guy) and I thought that was understood. Again, I apologize for any misunderstanding.
Everything else gets given back to Maryland (or, better yet, given to Virginia.)
Preferably Maryland. Having spent many years living in both states, on either side of the Potomac/Capitol Beltway (and having not a drop of love in my heart for either one), Maryland is by far the more deserving of the blighted, crime-ridden, leech-infested slum that is non-federal government-germane D.C.
Dalrock,
I got on MB forum, where I use to look for help. I explained how I did a 180, instead of cow-towing to my wife’s desires, I started just doing what I wanted and the sex came back. Mind you respect and submission will always be a struggle do to the fall, but I GOT BANNED FROM MARRIAGE BUILDERS for saying it!!!!!!!!!!
All I did was say that the feminist culture we live in will not allow MB principles to work.
They banned me. I haven’t been on there in 5 years. I am more along the lines of GMOW, let the chips fall where they may. It has worked so far.
I think they do not only dislike anything contrary to MB, but it is so feminist oriented they didn’t like that I said we have more sex now in 6 months than in the previous 10 years.
I put it in quotations because I was not talking about the actual placement or length of hair on a man’s body or face. I was referring to a specific subculture (hygeine issues, speaking only in memes, think Comic Book Guy) and I thought that was understood.
I think it’s probably also well understood around here that this “subculture” is largely a mythical bogeyman invented by feminist pundits and social justice warriors in order to spread misandry, generate phony scandals and fake outrage, paint feminist women as victims of further male perfidy, and drum up more support for the hegemonic feminist narrative.
I don’t see any reason to lend legitimacy to the scum of the earth that wants to thrive on attention and social tension.
I think it’s probably also well understood around here that this “subculture” is largely a mythical bogeyman invented by feminist pundits and social justice warriors in order to spread misandry, generate phony scandals and fake outrage, paint feminist women as victims of further male perfidy, and drum up more support for the hegemonic feminist narrative.
I have never heard of a Magic, D&D, or Warhammer 40K scandal, though I’m sure if I looked there’s something out there on the internet. But I do know that if you walk into an average game shop on a Friday night, you’ll see a few guys like the ones I’m talking about. Most people with stereotypically nerdy hobbies aren’t like that, but there are some and they seem to be growing in number.
These people aren’t losers and they definitely aren’t bad, they’re just a product of the aforementioned instant gratification culture mixed with a Peter Pan Syndrome pandemic that has taken over the west. I watched a very bright cousin of mine fall into that life, and he’s really a shell of the man he wanted to be. It’s actually very sad. These cultural forces hit men and women differently: women get fat, loud, and hostile. Men start getting into cartoons about ponies and posting fan art to social media.
But either way, I think both sexes are left wondering where all the good mates are. Today’s women don’t have the charm of previous generations, that’s for sure. Today’s men lack a certain…. gumption? I don’t know, but they aren’t my like grandfather’s generation, or even like my dad’s. To a large degree, the sexes aren’t attracting each other, and what’s more concerning is that they don’t seem to care.
I got on MB forum, where I use to look for help. I explained how I did a 180, instead of cow-towing to my wife’s desires, I started just doing what I wanted and the sex came back. Mind you respect and submission will always be a struggle do to the fall, but I GOT BANNED FROM MARRIAGE BUILDERS for saying it!!!!!!!!!!
As a famous philosopher once said, “The only surprise is that you are surprised.”
Your theory doesn’t sell books, fill up seminars, or otherwise build the Harley Empire.
This is important to understand. Even as far back as Freud and Jung, this tendency started to become addressed as a problem.
Therapists and psychoanalysts may start out with the idea that they’re going to help people overcome problems and make the world a better place, but they’re human, and as we can all see, the desire for money at the expense of fidelity to one’s profession and ethical standards is a pretty powerful corruptor. Many of these people succumb to temptation, and start focusing on milking their patients rather than curing them.
Jane Dough said: “But either way, I think both sexes are left wondering where all the good mates are. Today’s women don’t have the charm of previous generations, that’s for sure. Today’s men lack a certain…. gumption? I don’t know, but they aren’t my like grandfather’s generation, or even like my dad’s. To a large degree, the sexes aren’t attracting each other, and what’s more concerning is that they don’t seem to care.”
When you send a kindergarten boy to the office for kissing a girl… it’s amazing the impact it has on the gumption of the boy and his classmates when they grow up. Likewise labeling all things heterosexual ‘rape’.
Fawn said, “@ Laura – the children not wanting to be around him is a pretty clear sign that he is the problem.”
This is a flat-out lie based on my own experience and I’m not surprised it’s coming from you.
As the oldest of three kids, our attitudes soured toward our father because he had a short temper and didn’t know how to deal with a passive-aggressive manipulative wife who nagged the sh*t out of him. The oldest of my sisters had/has a Narcissistic Personality Disorder and knew how to manipulate my mother against my father. It worked for years and it tore the family apart. As a result, the children grew up, but only I left the house. My 2 adult sisters are typical democrat parasites living off their parents, not out of familial bonding mind you, but out of dysfunctional necessity.
I’m productive, handsome, single, have a good paying job and have only an superficial relationship with my family which is ok with me.
You see, the children are react to what they see, Dad’s anger, especially when Mom turns the children against him. She plays the victim, despite being a major contributor to the familial dysfunction.
What the children don’t see is Dad has been relegated to last in the familial order, he gets the blame when Mom is unhaaaaaappy, he is routinely shown contempt by the whole family, his wife takes out her frustration physically on him which he does not return out of fear of imprisonment, any attempt to to discipline his children is either overreaching because of his anger or undermined by his shrew wife, he is routinely humiliated by his wife in front of the kids and is gossiped about to all of her family and friends about what a terrible man he is. All the children see is Dad reacting.
Despite what you would imply, a man’s rage doesn’t manifest itself in a vaccuum. The children not wanting to be with Dad isn’t necessarily a “Pretty Clear Sign” of the problem, Fawn, you… stupid… rebellious… woman.
You do not appear to like your Capital City: surely you were blessed that Pierre L’Enfant designed it so well (pity about the extremes of temperature and some of the people); the cherry blossom is always so attractive in April; The Lincoln Memorial and The Jefferson are wonderful (although the latter smells like a urinal); the Metro is spotless; was there ever a neater more convenient airport than R.R.Washington National; the Library of Congress is superb and the best cheap food in D.C. is sold in the cafeteria beneath The Supreme Court; what could be prettier than Georgetown, or more hip than Adams-Morgan – oh, and the State of Delaware is probably the most beautiful place on earth (outside the County of Sussex).
I could surely go on.
“I could surely go on.”
Imagine you have a glass of the finest champaign known to you. How much horse manure could you mix into it before no longer wanting to take a swig?
Regular Guy you’ve explained the standard template marriage dynamic perfectly. I had a GF all through college who could send waves of passive aggressive stress inducement without even saying a word. Most need to verbalize it. It can still be clandestine where in a group setting people will wonder why the man is bothered, his sweet wife has done nothing wrong.
That, as a constant low level trigger , over years and years, coupled with any attempt he makes to take it head on when the two of them are alone is met with the meandering frustrating nonsensical passive aggressive manner of debating that she deploys. If he went to talk to a friend about this most will glaze over. He can find no succor at church. So, he keeps on pressing on with barely contained anger that busts out time to time.
But we cannot talk about the atmosphere of confrontation, judgement, and disapproval because that is blaming the victim.
Imagine you have a glass of the finest champaign known to you. How much horse manure could you mix into it before no longer wanting to take a swig?
If you put a drop of fine wine into a cesspool, what do you have? Sewage.
If you put a drop of sewage into fine wine, what do you have? Sewage.
But either way, I think both sexes are left wondering where all the good mates are. Today’s women don’t have the charm of previous generations, that’s for sure. Today’s men lack a certain…. gumption? I don’t know, but they aren’t my like grandfather’s generation, or even like my dad’s. To a large degree, the sexes aren’t attracting each other, and what’s more concerning is that they don’t seem to care.
I find it impossible to believe that any (so-called) adult with a functioning brainstem, an awareness of their surroundings, and even an ounce of critical thinking ability (which includes the ability to grasp “cause and effect”) would express even mild surprise at this situation.
They Call Me Tom summed it up pretty succinctly upthread, but for the benefit of the extraordinarily dense, here’s another analogy, in the form of a rhetorical question: If a dog has been beaten, caged, kicked, starved, brutally neutered, and otherwise pretty much ceaselessly and violently abused since puppyhood, would you find it surprising that said dog wanted nothing whatsoever to due with humans and tried to avoid contact with them at all costs? (Hint: the only “surprise” is that the dog hadn’t turned into a vicious predator that attacked every human it ever came into contact with.)
Imagine you have a glass of the finest champaign known to you. How much horse manure could you mix into it before no longer wanting to take a swig?
I’m sorry, but a comparison of Washington, D.C. to champagne has never been appropriate. At best, it was like cod liver oil or bicarb and water: foul-tasting, but serving a necessary purpose.
Today, however, that already insipid mixture has been contaminated with sewage and industrial waste to the point where it’s irreversibly toxic to anyone who drinks it.
@ Opus:
I believe that it was John F. Kennedy who once described Washington as a city of “Southern efficiency and Northern charm.”
I have been involved with the board game community on and off for the past several decades. It is well known for having many “neckbeards” hoellenhund. “Gamer funk” (the smells of someone who has not cared for personal hygene, including a shower, for days) is well known and I have literally smelled it myself in large gamer meetings.
These people are not all bad, but the characterization is built on a reality.
PokeSalad says:
June 11, 2015 at 9:11
A.k.a. Schopenhauer’s Universal Law of Entropy.
You are correct Regular Guy. Too many ignore the factors pushing the father to his stance. The father may still need to control himself, but many factors play a role that are not covered in that case, such as long term attitudes by a wife. Women get away with far too much in those cases, even getting called angels for tolerating such a man. This is especially irksome when the wife has played a big role in causing the response that is confronted.
@empathologism – what is a wordless “wave of passive aggressive stress inducement”? Could you give an example?
@ BradA –
The father may still need to control himself, but many factors play a role that are not covered in that case, such as long term attitudes by a wife.
Likely the wife in those situations would also blame her spouse for her behavior.
@ Regular Guy – I was going to ignore your remarks entirely but there is something that I must point out. The fact that you can’t even have a simple difference of opinion with a woman online without resorting to accusations of lying and childish namecalling belies your claims that when something goes wrong it is the mostly the woman’s fault. I can’t imagine any relationship involving a man like you going well. It takes more than being, in ones own estimation, “productive, handsome and with a good paying job” to experience success in interpersonal relationships.
Fawn,
I’ll explain. It’s being sulky, pouty, silent treatment. If you truly have never walked into a room and felt the stress/tension or been there when it was created I am guessing you are the one inducing said stress.
Regular Guy,
My wife use to do this. Words to kids like, “You know what your father is like”, or “I don’t think your father would agree with…” Also, if you know wives who typically use MY children or “us” when meaning her and HER kids excluding the husband. My wife literally treated me like a stepfather in the worst ways. Of course she didn’t know what she was doing and has repented, but she is a product of the FI being part of her fulfillment in life after cock carosell, wall, epiphany, marriage… then children. Husband? Oh, yeah the sperm donor… We were actually having a discussion around the dinner table a couple of nights ago and my daughter brought something up that required self reflection, self discipline, diligence, and focus. My son looked right at me and said, “How come you never taught me…?” I remember the feeling as I looked at him and then at my wife who said, “Son, that’s my fault, I kept your dad from teaching you things that a father has every right to teach their kids and I am sorry.” DEAD QUIET for about 3 minutes.
I have tried really hard not to point things out about their mother. I no longer have to, they see it most of the time now that they are in their late teens. The hypocrisy oozes from every word/action she does.
I watched as some friends went through this to the point that he started having affairs. Mind you they are back together, but he built 2 multi million dollar businesses which he employed his boys who did nothing all day and he couldn’t train or discipline them because queen B wouldn’t let him. The contempt he was shown by his wife and kids finally got to him and he was looking for a way out. After he left they made up the regular excuses… he was bipolar, had depression, had bad upbringing etc. So why would she let him back? $$, coupled with the fact that he is up beat guy with tons of energy and charisma, fun to be around and is far beyond nice.
Relegated to the corner of the house and treated like the stepfather is the norm these days.
Fawn,
I am as guilty as RG for taking my frustration out in these blogs. I regret when I do it. One of the problems for a lot of men these days is they have no one to talk to, so remaining anonymous and venting helps release the tension. It is my opinion that doing that is sin. And like Rollo has stated, women will justify why something they do/say is NOT sin, men will justify WHY they do/say things.
Many have given you grace, please allow him some.
Fawn’s enjoying the drama tingles, as women are wont to do. Is posting here the best part of your day?
Fawn is on a mission to teach the men here and looks as silly as she would trying to throw a ball up in the air and expecting it to not come down. When gravity demonstrates itself once again, she stomps her feet and with all the harumph she can muster she insults the ball.
Happens.every.time. until women learn the truth about gravity.
Fawn,
Many who are very tired of being the butt of accusations respond strongly, especially when you and Laura came out proclaiming “it must be the husband’s fault.” I attempt to stand for truth wherever I can in this blog, which has gotten me called a white knight more than once, but I could not even handle that. I was on the other side of such accusations, so I know how false they can be and how much they leave out.
My wife and I are in a much better place now. My attitude shift helped a lot in this, but so has hers. It is too bad we have so few examples of women owning up to their idiocy, but it is what it is. You need to open your eyes a bit, though I suspect you are really just hiding a stronger agenda and think you already see things properly.
Though it is rather dumb to come into a male space and proclaim “males are bad” and wonder why people respond strongly.
Sd,
She is also complaining that the balloon flew away when she let it go outside. It always stopped at the ceiling inside after all….
You see, the children are react to what they see, Dad’s anger, especially when Mom turns the children against him.
Wives are often unaware of what they are doing when they do this. I’ve seen several instances of children picking up the wrong message, including mine at one point, and it takes us more thought and often Divine revelation to get a clue.
I taught a class last year and one of the assignments was for the kids to write a thank you letter to their parents. I made a point of saying “parents” instead of just their mother. One of my favorite students was a little boy (9) who was clearly enamored with his dad. It was obvious to anyone who spent time around him for any length of time. Tough kid with a very witty sense of humor and frankly, more “boy” than any other boy in the class. He never whined, which made him a favorite of mine.
He shocked me by saying that he would write the letter to his mother because his mother “does everything for me. My dad just comes home from work, says how tired he is, and has a beer in front of the TV watching the game”. Stunned, I sat next to him and asked him what his mother does for him, and he rattled off a whole list of things. Then I asked if he knew why his mother was able to be with him every day to do all those things and take him to football practice, and fix his meals. He seemed confused so I told him that it’s because his father is working so hard to make a living so that his mother can be available for him and his siblings. He’s a smart kid, so he got it pretty quick, and his letter was very well done.
I made a point of letting his mother know what I’d spoken to him about because I knew their marriage was a difficult one and I didn’t want to be out of a teaching position. It’s not like it pays anything besides waiving tuition for my kids, but I knew what I did could have been offensive. She was a little taken back at first, but thanked me for what I did.
From an early age wives need to make it clear to their children the pressure their husbands are understand the sacrifices they make for the sake of their families. I had to do it with my own children when they were young. All they saw was that mommy did everything around the house, and waited on daddy as well. I had to set the record straight. Now, as adults, they can’t say enough about what their daddy has done for them and the little ones have already internalized it. So even when I am in less than stellar mode, they have a narrative inside their heads: “Daddy works hard for us because he loves us and sometimes he is tired and needs a break.”
But if the wife is too busy nursing a list of grievances (more perceived than real) to help them see that, and she’s with the children all day, then they learn to build a list of grievances against heir father as well.
I have had many instances of wives sharing with me in response to my imploring them to see how hard their husbands work that they never really thought of it that way before. We women are very insular in our thinking and unless we make a conscious effort, it just doesn’t occur at all to be cognizant of our husband’s experiences.
That is an excellent example and advice, Elspeth. I’ve had that conversation with my children as well but my husband had the conversation with me first:
Early in our marriage I once said to my husband, “You go to work and come home, and what do I do everything else.” So he proceeded to list what “going to work” entailed, and that was before he joined the Army. And it is so much more than just the details of the job. The decider of any institution has much more to deal with mentally (and spiritually) and the responsibilities that come with it than those who are allowed the comfort of not being the decider.
@Brad A: Please don’t misquote me or misrepresent what I have said.
Laura,
Are you saying you do not agree that the husband was definitely at fault if the children/teens thought he was?
I will retract that part of my assertion if so.
Though I see this quote
The children of some relatives of mine endured a childhood with Mr. Know-It-All as a father. He ruined every family meal with his sarcasm and ridicule. By the time the children were in junior high they were eating as many dinners as possible with other relatives who lived nearby. When both children moved off to college, Mr. Know-It-All announced that he was divorcing their mother and moving to Florida with his new lover as soon as the divorce was final. The children (rather hardcore Catholics) refused to meet the new woman, and refused to visit their father at his new apartment, and told him that they were never going to visit him in Florida.
followed by Fawn’s comment
@ Laura – the children not wanting to be around him is a pretty clear sign that he is the problem.
Your lack of a response to that is what led my to including you. Your lack of replying to Fawn’t comment is not sufficient to judge you though. It would be good for you to have clarified that however as you seemed to be part of the “bad husbands” crowd at that point. That works better than just saying, “don’t misquote me,” without any reference to what you do believe.
That last sentence should read:
Telling my what I misquoted would be better, along with an assertion that you do not believe that. That works better than just saying, “don’t misquote me,” without any reference to what you do believe.
@ PokeSald
Yes, it must be the drama tingles that motivates her. I shouldn’t have responded, but this one asinine comment (among many) just set something off.
@ Elspeth
When a women shows a Godly grace to her husband the way you do, it’s a good reminder that there are women how actually care about their husbands and her serious about the faith in Christ.
@ Fawn
Thank you for demonstrating to everyone, yet again, that when choose women lie to themselves and believe it, the degree of their solipsism has no peer to be found in the male sex.
correction: “…are serious about their faith in Christ.”
I believe that it was John F. Kennedy who once described Washington as a city of “Southern efficiency and Northern charm.”
In case this is not understood (I know I was slow to catch on), JFK was poking fun at Washington, D.C. by implying it is neither efficient nor charming.
@ jeff
jeff says:
June 11, 2015 at 11:58 am
Fawn,
I am as guilty as RG for taking my frustration out in these blogs. I regret when I do it. One of the problems for a lot of men these days is they have no one to talk to, so remaining anonymous and venting helps release the tension. It is my opinion that doing that is sin. And like Rollo has stated, women will justify why something they do/say is NOT sin, men will justify WHY they do/say things.
Many have given you grace, please allow him some.
Yes, it is certainly a sin and I am relieved that you realize that! I am very sympathetic to those who have experienced difficulties in their relationships. I hope that I don’t come off as uncaring when I disagree with something.
If a person is prone to taking their frustrations out on others then this will probably have a negative impact on their closest relationships. Life can be hard even if your wife isn’t the problem. Which came first, the husband’s taking out his anger and frustration on his wife or the wife’s passive aggressive behavior?
I’m not excusing the husband’s behavior or the wife’s and really who did wrong first isn’t what is most important. Couples tend to get caught up in a negative cycle of behavior and if either of them would stop, things would resolve or at least dramatically improve.
@BradA
You wrote,
“Fawn,
Many who are very tired of being the butt of accusations respond strongly, especially when you and Laura came out proclaiming “it must be the husband’s fault.” I attempt to stand for truth wherever I can in this blog, which has gotten me called a white knight more than once, but I could not even handle that. I was on the other side of such accusations, so I know how false they can be and how much they leave out.”
(1) What accusations have I made against you?
(2) When have I ever proclaimed that “it must be the husband’s fault.”?
(3) N.B.: I am not Fawn, and I am not responsible for what she posts.
No Fawn, you misunderstand entirely. We don’t care about your interpersonal relationship dogma where one misstep can land a man in divorce without real reason and in serious financial trouble and emotional damage to his worth as a man. Those days are done. It’s better to be alone than with you. Please leave, don’t come back and leave us alone. Ok, thanks.
Now, fuck off!
@Brad A
dumb to come into a male space and proclaim “males are bad” and wonder why people respond strongly.
I never said that nor anything that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that I believe that.
Lol, why do you even bother to try and understand these women? Let them go, let them destroy themselves by their own hand. They are not worth trying to control or protect. Gosh! They go out of their way to tie you in knots with stupid relationship dogma. Just don’t bother anymore. Life if better without the drudgery of women.
Fawn, just leave. Do us all a favour and leave. This is not your space. Go watch a rerun of the vagina chronicles or something.
@ SD and Regular Guy:
Appreciate the kind words. I am learning that as you offer these admonitions face to face, it induces a certain amount of compassion for even those women with the most hardened hearts. I highly recommend that every woman try to make a point of doing that even if you still blog.
You figure out that lifelong programming affects people in myriad ways and when the church at large is set on “I’m okay you’re okay” mode, with no action prompted by “authentic feelings” being labeled sin, it’s easy to see how even the most well intentioned women can find themselves so far afield.
The most important thing is what you model before and train your kids. Reading through the latter part of this thread gave me a deeper appreciation for my step mother. It’s no stretch to say that her sensibilities lean feminist. I took for granted how much of a foundation their marriage had laid on my journey to be a proper wife to my own husband because recently I’d been more focused on our divergent views about my life.But she has always honored and respected my father and continues to do so even after 3 decades.
The value of that cannot be overstated.
@ Elspeth – That story about the boy and the letter is so sad. I think that you should’ve let that child write his letter his way and explain to his father why he did so. Working outside the home doesn’t excuse not connecting with the children at home. Even a child should be able to list things that he does with his father and appreciates even if he doesn’t understand how hard his father works everyday. His father might’ve realized that he needed to make some changes after he heard how his son feels.
Although I think it is a good idea to speak well of a child’s father in front of him I’m not sure that you can blame the child’s poor perception of his father on his mother.
No, Fawn.
I already knew enough to know that this father is engaged in the life of his kids. I knew that the boy idolized his father. This was not what you and so many other women commonly like to think it is. It was the internalization of other stuff that he picked up along the way, the way young children are wont to do.
That’s all I’m have to say. We disagree and I doubt our two sides will ever meet, but you’re entitled to your opinion. No use bothering to dialogue any further. Good night.
Describes his father as only drinking beer in front of the TV at 9 years of age but his father is engaged? It doesn’t add up, but reasonable minds can certainly disagree. I can tell that you meant well even if I wouldn’t have done what you did and I hope that things work out for that family. Good night to you as well.
“All your father ever does is plop his sorry ass down on the couch with his beer and football.” — boy’s mother (paraphrased)
I have never heard of a Magic, D&D, or Warhammer 40K scandal, though I’m sure if I looked there’s something out there on the internet.
Have you heard of that small and short-lived affair called Gamergate, by any chance? Plus the steady stream of complaints about the dearth of female students entering STEM fields, which is usually explained away as a result of the rampant sexism, sense of entitlement and misogyny among men that are involved in computer technology in any way?
But I do know that if you walk into an average game shop on a Friday night, you’ll see a few guys like the ones I’m talking about. Most people with stereotypically nerdy hobbies aren’t like that, but there are some and they seem to be growing in number. These people aren’t losers and they definitely aren’t bad, they’re just a product of the aforementioned instant gratification culture mixed with a Peter Pan Syndrome pandemic that has taken over the west.
Those trends are real. But public discourse about them is controlled almost completely by feminists, with predictable results. Heck, it’d be very difficult to find any portrayal of „neckbeards” that isn’t standard feminist agitprop.
@ The Brass Cat – let’s assume for a moment that’s what happened. Then perhaps the father reading the letter his son wanted to write, hearing the explanation and realizing how his son perceived thing might’ve inspired him to make some changes, even if those changes only involved handling the mother and clarifying things with his son. Whether the boy has a point in his perception of his father or the mother is the problem there is something off in that house and the father needs to know what is going on.
@Fawn: Writing a letter to someone in which you enumerate all of their personal shortcomings and failures generally leads to a rift in the relationship which is difficult, if not impossible, to repair. It would be entirely inappropriate for a child to write such a letter to a parent, and, as Elspeth was the adult in the room, she was correct to ensure that the letters that were being written were “nice” ones.
Possibly you are quite a bit younger than most of the other people who comment on this site, but anybody my age would tell you to be very cautious in your correspondence, and train your children to exercise the same caution..
Ladies, this isn’t twitter. Your “@” has no power here.
@ Laura – If a nine year old can cause a rift in a relationship with a parent by expressing their opinion on something like that then there is something seriously wrong with the parent. Would you hold a grudge against a 9 year old? I hope not.
But we aren’t talking about anything as dramatic as enumerating all of the dad’s personal shortcomings in a letter. The son didn’t want to insult his father, he wanted to thank his mother only and he didn’t realize what his father did for him. Apparently he couldn’t even come up with, “plays with me” at 9 years old which is just sad. Reading the letter and hearing the son’s explanation as to why he wrote it that way would let the father know that there is a problem.
Jane Dough @ June 10, 2015 at 7:01 pm
“These people aren’t losers and they definitely aren’t bad, they’re just a product of the aforementioned instant gratification culture mixed with a Peter Pan Syndrome pandemic that has taken over the west. I watched a very bright cousin of mine fall into that life, and he’s really a shell of the man he wanted to be. It’s actually very sad. These cultural forces hit men and women differently: women get fat, loud, and hostile. Men start getting into cartoons about ponies and posting fan art to social media.”
That doesn’t sound like gamer culture. I can say as an insider that roleplaying and tabletop wargaming are neither instant gratification nor “sit poolside” (because those games cost $$$). Odd your cousin would be harmed by this; most often, these games give men with poor social (and hygiene) skills a huge hand up, which is how gamers get reputations like Comic Book Guy. Can you tell me more about him?
The last line sounds like you’re talking about “Bronies”. Those guys are disturbing… but not gamers. They have problems apart from current male hardships.
“Today’s men lack a certain…. gumption?”
Motivation. Guys know where the pretty girls are–we’re wired to notice them–but they don’t like us anymore.
…
jeff @ 11:58 am:
“I am as guilty as RG for taking my frustration out in these blogs. I regret when I do it. One of the problems for a lot of men these days is they have no one to talk to, so remaining anonymous and venting helps release the tension.”
Been there myself a couple times. The regulars on this forum are really good about taking it in stride.
His father might’ve realized that he needed to make some changes after he heard how his son feels.
Oh, the solipsism…
While they really shouldn’t, statements like this from women never cease to amaze (and amuse) me. They most certainly do reinforce the observation that cause and effect is a concept hopelessly lost on women, as are the basics of economics.
What Fawn (and just about any other woman) really means when saying “making some changes” is “not spending so much time at work and spending more time at home.”
What women like Fawn don’t realize is that in order to do this, a man is going to sacrifice earnings and advancement opportunity (the former is tied to the latter), which in turn will mean less take home pay, which in turn means a decline in the family’s standard of living, which in turn means wifey/mom ain’t happy and gonna bitch and complain more than she ready does (if that’s even possible).
This is what economists call a “tradeoff” or “opportunity cost.” Dad can either work his ass off to maximize income, and thus maximize his family’s living standard, or stay home and maximize “quality time.”
He cannot have both. The real world doesn’t work that way, although it’s no surprise that most women don’t understand that, given that they can strong-arm (via their REAL husband, the State) their employers into giving them all sorts of paid free time at MEN’s expense, for the flimsiest of excuses. ’cause vagina.
For a married man with a family, there are two lose-lose choices: work like a slave for 12-plus hours per day to meet his wife’s hypergamous floor while putting himself into an early grave in the process, or take “quality time” with the family and be branded a slacker by wifey, who will bitch and moan ceaselessly about not having what the Joneses next door have.
As for the boy Elspeth talked about, I would love to educate that young man in the fundamentals of (Austrian) economics, which is (or should be) one of the RPs foundational planks for boys and young men. Let him understand at an early age WHY Dad is working like he is, and what he should expect to have to give up if he really wants more of Dad’s time and presence in his young life (and yes, this bitter truth will probably piss Mom off, but that’s just icing on the proverbial cake).
Always funny to hear terms like “Peter Pan Syndrome” tossed about, as if men just suddenly and unaccountably withdrew from being financial draft horses and supplicating women to play video games, and women’s behavior had nothing to do with it.
There must be some variant of Godwin’s Law/Scripture that says if two or more men are gathered together, in short order a woman will come along uninvited to tell them they are wrong.
Laura,
It would be good if you read what I wrote closer. The conversation was not about you. I was talking with Fawn. I noted how her jumping our your point and stating that it was clear the father was at fault made me believe you agreed with that point. You did not state disagreement even after I noted that was what I was referring to. My point remains about Fawn however, and that was the point of the post.
You did have your share of “men are bad” stories, mostly focused here on your first husband. (That would technically be a “man is bad” story, but the implication is what the implication is.)
Fawn,
Not worth discussing if you can’t see your accusations against fathers, especially those working hard to provide.
====
It is almost funny that some people are so blind that they will call for a man to support his family and then undercut that by saying he should not spend so much time at work. That bugs me to no end!
Laura, the final comment in my last post was general and not meant for you, though it does seem like it could apply to Fawn.
PokeSalad,
There must be some variant of Godwin’s Law/Scripture that says if two or more men are gathered together, in short order a woman will come along uninvited to tell them they are wrong.
Chuckle….
It is almost funny that some people are so blind that they will call for a man to support his family and then undercut that by saying he should not spend so much time at work. That bugs me to no end!
Another demand for fried ice.
I’ve finally taken the first step and made an appointment
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=964557
Boyfriend thinking about marriage but I am not ready yet…
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=964630
When I visited my parents, my Mother would look me over and say that I looked well, to which I would reply that I was indeed so, and then she would add ‘even though you live alone’. That I, a male, could survive healthily and happily without the aid or assistance of a female ministering to my needs was clearly a threat to her sense of well-being as a woman. Of course, these days, a few privileged women can also say that they do not need a man, as they occupy highly-paid make-weight jobs (no white-males need apply) with a proper work-life balance (i.e. not really full-time), where aged forty or so, they attend the sperm bank to produce a trophy child to be added to their academic accomplishments. These butch-lesbian types with their short hair and wasp-chewing visage disgust me.
Let us hope that TFH’s predictions come true and that the speed of light (clearly resting on its laurels since 4004 B.C. or 13,000,000,000 B.C. as suits you – but I think that both dates are wrong) is not overtaken by something even faster.
Poke Salad: This old chestnut is probably close enough (for government work).
“If a man speaks in the forest, and there is no woman there to hear him, is he still wrong?”
My ex fell in love with her boyfriend’s family’s golf course. After I whipped her ass in the family courts, he tossed her to the curb 1 day before common-law vesting. She must be the only woman to lose twice on the marriage/relationship break up. But since then I have had no shortage of women trying to get me to marry them, and I always tell them, I dont need the hell that is their life. I am single, happy, more assets than I ever thought I would have, and women seem to hate this. My existence, however grotesque to the average harridan termagant feminist, is a total reminder that this man is an island, and no bell tolls for me.
Apparently he couldn’t even come up with, “plays with me” at 9 years old which is just sad. Reading the letter and hearing the son’s explanation as to why he wrote it that way would let the father know that there is a problem.
What a fantastic example of a woman void of empathy who has likely never contemplated the work a man does, or if she has, she assumes he should give mooooore!
From the linesmen to the flat worker, men occupy jobs that would never cross a woman’s mind to work, consider the physical exhaustion these men endure, nor, in the luxury of their entitled comfort, do they even look at the sidewalk they flippin walk on and wonder who put that there for their little princess feet. Yet our society hums smoothly thanks to the men who fill these roles. The men who, at the end of the day, still concern themselves with whether the pay they receive is enough to provide for the family who waits at home for them.
Elspeth was dead on in her wisdom that the mother was contributing to this young boy’s flawed perception. What an excellent teacher – I wish there were more like her. Teachers who edify fathers. More so, I wish there were more wives who would take on their role of helpmeet and edify their husbands to their children.
A man does not need to come home and have play time with junior after a hard day’s, back breaking labor. He needs to know that the woman he entrusts with the care of his children properly communicates the respect he is due. Junior will do just fine knowing his father’s time was limited because his father provided.
There was a time when a man bought land and kept his family on the homestead running the farm while he left for five days a week to work in the city and bring home provision. There would be no placating to whining children that “Dad’s not home enough” or doesn’t “play with me enough” – just as it is today when Soldiers leave for deployments. The very least wives can do is honor and respect the sacrifices her husband willingly makes for her cozy, comfortable 1st world lifestyle.
I know Fawn’s comment was just meant to be inflammatory but there is a benefit to trolls like her. They give ample opportunity for other women readers to understand the contempt and disdain men have for modern, entitled, psycho-babble women as well as an opportunity for them to choose to NOT BE ONE OF THEM.
Women don’t need marriage. The science is in:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11668417/Marriage-is-more-beneficial-for-men-than-women-study-shows.html
Marriage-is-more-beneficial-for-men-than-women-study-shows.html
I heard about a study which showed that there were no fish less than 3 inches long. Odd that the nets used in the study only caught fish that were longer than three inches.
@ freeriker
What Fawn (and just about any other woman) really means when saying “making some changes” is “not spending so much time at work and spending more time at home.”
I really meant what I actually said and I don’t need you to put false words in mouth and then claim that is what I “really mean”.
@ Sarah’s Daughter
I know Fawn’s comment was just meant to be inflammatory
This is pure projection on your part because after reading a few of your comments I can tell that being inflammatory and rude (to female posters only of course) is what you do. You enjoy stiring up trouble under the guise of teaching and you are incredibly transparent as well a horrible example of a Christian and a Titus 2 woman.
Fawn, that which you ignored of my comment says all it needs to say.
You enjoy stiring up trouble under the guise of teaching and you are incredibly transparent as well a horrible example of a Christian and a Titus 2 woman.
Now that’s rich coming from a feminist woman who disregards scripture she disagrees with.
@Brad A
It is almost funny that some people are so blind that they will call for a man to support his family and then undercut that by saying he should not spend so much time at work. That bugs me to no end!
Where did I say that he shouldn’t spend so much time at work?
“Insanity Bites22?” Is that you? *chuckles*
@ JDG –
Now that’s rich coming from a feminist woman who disregards scripture she disagrees with.
Are you referring to my belief that wives are not to obey commands to sin? That belief is based on my understanding of the scripture. We may disagree but that doesn’t mean that I have disregarded anything. Don’t lie on me please.
I was trying to make a specific point so I kept to the point I was trying o make. After an entire school year of stories regaling experiences with his father, I was not at all convinced that my student suddenly discovered that his father was ignoring him in favor of beer and the couch.This was not an uninvolved father. This is an unbelieving father who accompanies his family to church. My husband didn’t even do that. I feel comfortable with what I did.
Even with no knowledge however, there is no reason why any person shouldn’t be taught the value of learning to appreciate and be thankful for those who do for us even if they do so imperfectly. My father NEVER played with me. and I do mean NEVER. I still count him among the greatest men I’ve been blessed to know. He took care of us, and protected us, and taught us right from wrong. The whole idea of regularly parents playing with their children is actually a fairly recent thing. That’s what siblings and friends were for.
We often mistake the luxuries of modernity for essential virtues when they in fact are not.
a horrible example of a Christian and a Titus 2 woman.
You know what they say, “Even the devil knows scripture.”
@ Phillyastro & JDG
“Marriage is more beneficial for men than women, study shows”
The headline of the article is absolutely true. Most men are, in fact, “Blue Pill” and have a strong male-mother emotional need. It would make sense that they would suffer from health issues manifested from this need not being met.
Women, on the other hand, need men less because their emotional needs can be met by her woman-worshipping western society, community, friends and family. Her physical needs will almost always be met by friends and family or also, if need be, a Gov’t willing to coerce resources from men on her behalf. They also get all of their sexual needs met if they choose to do so. So yes, without marriage, women get their needs met for the most part. 97% of homeless people in America are men. 70%-80% of all Gov’t wealth transfers are from men to women. The idea of a societal safety net for people is egalitarian in theory, but in practice, an endeavor of the Feminine Supremicist.
The greatest gift my mother gave me, though unintentional, was an eradication of my male-mother need. I no longer feel affection for women or give them undue deference without merit. Whether I live longer remains to be seen but I find it irrelevant since I’m happy as a single man.
Guys, the article’s headline is provocative and true, but not for the reasons those feckless monsters would have the reader believe.
Also…
I didn’t mention men’s sexual needs not being met. The areas of the brain in a man that respond to sexual stimuli are the same areas of a man’s brain that responds to hunger, unlike a woman’s brain. The casual dismissal by women that men’s sexual needs aren’t “needs” but a manipulative rephrasing of a desire is callous and cruel.
Are you referring to my belief that wives are not to obey commands to sin?
No. It’s based on your belief (contrary to scripture) that wives are to set themselves up as judge and arbitrator over their husbands (whom they should be learning from instead of rebelling against).
@JDG
No. It’s based on your belief (contrary to scripture) that wives are to set themselves up as judge and arbitrator over their husbands (whom they should be learning from instead of rebelling against).
I don’t believe that and certainly didn’t say that I did.
@Regular Guy
And for those of us who didn’t exactly fall under your circumstance, this is poignant.
This deference to women for validation, approval, and general offhand support is something that men need to learn to discard, and either look inward or to other men who can wholly relate to our travails and even triumphs.
For example, when we meet a goal, accomplishment, or have a “feel good” moment, we would typically call or text our wives, or even sometimes our female “friends” with this “guess what I did…guess what happened…guess what I found out…guess what I learned today…” etc. We really should equally, if not more, accountable to our tribe of brothers and interested men who share similar ideals and experiences.
I mean…if wifey is “supposed” to be the best friend, that has some merit, but, how much? And what of your female associates? Should they have a front row seat into our lives?
I’m thinking not a whole lot, because if our travails and tribulations aren’t directly related to them (either negatively or positively) they simply don’t care.
I mentioned on one of Deep Strengths posts that if he were to win the Nobel Prize for his work in dissecting Christian Masculinity And It’s Impact On Relationships and Marriages, most women would only give it a cursory nod, unless she happened to be a potential love interest who might desire to see how much the status/money/influence he’d garner from such a work, and how she could derive some direct benefit from it.
Even as a single bro, during the last Memorial Day cookout, when I mentioned in passing (mixed company of friends and family) that I’m in school again to get my MBA, they (the women) were like…”oh…that’s nice…” and the men were fist-bumping and high-fiving like I was a boss.
One woman even said, “now we have to find you a wife”. Buzzkill.
“Women, on the other hand, need men less because their emotional needs can be met by her woman-worshipping western society, community, friends and family.”
Esther Vilar in her book: The Manipulated Man, explains that women don’t have feelings. Men really are the true romantics. Women just don’t have the emotional depth that men have. Most men do not understand the true cold and callous nature of women.
“Woman is a violent and uncontrolled animal… If you allow them to achieve complete equality with men, do you think they will be easier to live with? Not at all. Once they have achieved equality, they will be your masters.”
– Cato The Elder
Yes you do and yes you did. When you wrote that if a woman thinks something is wrong then for her it is sin (paraphrasing), implying that she should not do it if her husband asks / tells her to, you disregarded scripture.
Your belief: Husband says do X => wife believes X is wrong => wife should disobey husband.
Scripture: Husband says do X => even though wife believes X is wrong, husband believes X is not wrong => wife should obey husband.
My comment at 11:11 am was for Fawn.
Question, what happens when an obstinate and contentious feminist living in a bubble suddenly meets reality?
Answer:
@ JDG – cute gif. Your paraphrasing leaves much to be desired. I’m not going to rehash the whole argument because what I actually said is still plainly written in the other thread. I did not disregard scripture, in fact I used scripture to explain my beliefs.
Folks, is there some compelling reason for your continuing dialogs with Fawn? In addition to giving her and her nonensical ramblings unmerited attention, it’s a waste of your time and mental energy. Fawn, reason, and truth do not coexist in the same universe and never will.
@ Pedat
“I mentioned on one of Deep Strengths posts that if he were to win the Nobel Prize for his work in dissecting Christian Masculinity And It’s Impact On Relationships and Marriages, most women would only give it a cursory nod, unless she happened to be a potential love interest who might desire to see how much the status/money/influence he’d garner from such a work, and how she could derive some direct benefit from it.”
This.
Most of us men were conditioned from young to put women in God’s place. In the church, women are set up as golden calves for men to supplicate.
The last time I got a “So when are you going to find a…” from my mom, I cut her off and told her I’m not giving her grandchildren.
Women don’t need marriage. The science is in:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11668417/Marriage-is-more-beneficial-for-men-than-women-study-shows.html
Meh. This is old news. The notion that marriage is some sort of bonanza for men while a great act of sacrifice by women has been the mainstream narrative for a long time. It’s bunk, of course, but at the end of the day, every society is based on lies one way or another, so the societal denial of truth is an overriding imperative everywhere.
What these studies actually prove is that divorce is more beneficial to women, and that it is a much bigger health risk for men due to its punitive and exploitative nature. Good luck trying to express this simple truth in mainstream discourse.
In the other thread, Fawn ma’amsplained:
@ JDG – I is my understanding that if a wife has been convicted about something even if those things aren’t overtly sinful then they are a sinful for her. Also that sins don’t come with an “unless your husband tells you to” condition. Like thou shall not lie unless your husband tell you to. Then it’s fine.
See it? See what she did? something that’s “overtly” sinful is really what? It’s when the wife approves of the husband’s determination of what is sinful. More later.
This isn’t even going down the rabbit hole of, “Husband leading wife in obvious sin.” Cane Caldo addressed that issue here.
Fawn stated she “quoted scripture” in that discussion. I reviewed the thread. I couldn’t find a single quote. She would recite Book and verse someone else quoted, but never offers Scripture to validate her opinion.
No, Fawn, JDG did not take your words out of context. They are clear as day.
You offered no explanation of how the theoretical wife “has been convicted” about something. You wrote plenty of posts and had lots of opportunity to do it then and since. Can’t really say what you want to say, can you?
You state the theoretical doesn’t include an overt sin (yet, you continued to distract the conversation by repeatedly raising this point, even though your example specifically excluded it as a possibility.
So, how does a wife come to be convinced an act is sinful, when “overt” signs point to “no” (see: “not overtly sinful” – your words).
Back to your example for the final point. You know what you didn’t mention and it’s like a flashing neon sign?
What if the husband says, “Wife, what you are doing is sinful. Stop.”
But she’s convicted that it’s not sin. So she is free to rebel in your model. Sure, she will be in judgment. Meanwhile, poison seeps into the marriage.
Fawn’s mind couldn’t formulate an obvious reversal of who is sinning and who is righteous.
So, Fawn, if the man is certain it’s sin and the woman is “convicted” that it’s not sin, does she submit?
Come on. Say it, Eve.
Folks, is there some compelling reason for your continuing dialogs with Fawn? In addition to giving her and her nonensical ramblings unmerited attention, it’s a waste of your time and mental energy.
It goes against the male biological imperative to ignore women, so for men it even requires effort to just ignore nameless female commenters on some blog. It’s unfortunate, but a fact nevertheless, and it’s ill-advised to ignore facts.
Just to clarify:
BSo, Fawn, if the man is certain it’s sin and the woman is “convicted” that it’s not sin, does she submit?
The husband reads Scripture, meditates on it, cross references, and prays on it. What his wife is doing is sin.
Weeks earlier, the wife became convicted that it is not sin (insert your Magic 8ball method here).
Husband confronts wife. “What you are doing is sinful. Stop.”
Submit or not?
@ anchorman
Fawn stated she “quoted scripture” in that discussion. I reviewed the thread. I couldn’t find a single quote. She would recite Book and verse someone else quoted, but never offers Scripture to validate her opinion.
I used scripture to validate my beliefs. Here is one of my comments from the previous thread. I didn’t cut and paste the scripture though. I assume that you all have the same access to bible.org that I do.
@ Deep Stregnth – My understanding is that Acts 5:28 and 29 are clear example of a time when human authority was disobeyed because of obedience to God’s authority. This is despite the fact that Christains are commanded repeatedly to obey earthly authorities. Also none of the thou shall not commands in the Bible came with an “unless your husband tells you to caveat.”
Back to your example for the final point. You know what you didn’t mention and it’s like a flashing neon sign?
What if the husband says, “Wife, what you are doing is sinful. Stop.”
But she’s convicted that it’s not sin. So she is free to rebel in your model. Sure, she will be in judgment. Meanwhile, poison seeps into the marriage.
Fawn’s mind couldn’t formulate an obvious reversal of who is sinning and who is righteous.
So, Fawn, if the man is certain it’s sin and the woman is “convicted” that it’s not sin, does she submit?
Come on. Say it, Eve.
Apparently it needs to be spelled out for some. I said that the wife was not to obey a command to sin. If a wife thinks that something isn’t a sin, say drinking for example, and the husband tells her to stop drinking because it sinful then she should stop. Not only because he has given her a command to follow (his reason doesn’t matter he asked her to stop and stopping isn’t sinful) but because we aren’t to be a stumbling block for others and drinking is sinful for the husband.
Now let’s say that the husband tells the wife to stop praying as he is now an atheist who thinks that Christianity is foolish. Well obviously doing that would be sinful and she should continue to pray.
@Fawn..this is interesting..
“Now let’s say that the husband tells the wife to stop praying as he is now an atheist who thinks that Christianity is foolish. Well obviously doing that would be sinful and she should continue to pray”
That came from out of nowhere.
I was lurking on that thread in question….why didn’t you say this there?
If a wife thinks that something isn’t a sin, say drinking for example, and the husband tells her to stop drinking because it sinful then she should stop.
Not “thinks,” but is “convicted” it isn’t a sin.
There is no consistency between your answer and your belief that a wife can rebel if she is “convicted” something is a sin and the Husband is convicted” it isn’t. In fact, they are in direct opposition. Either you never brought things to logical conclusions and noticed this (my guess), or you think no one will notice.
Either the wife submits to the husband’s Biblical interpretation or she is in rebellion.
Her separate “conviction” is not a justification for rebellion. Consider, Satan can carefully manipulate into temptation and even mention God during the temptation. “What did God really say?” She rationalized and was “convicted” it wasn’t a sin. Had Adam told her to drop the fruit, your model earlier approves of her marital rebellion. It does.
Telling women they can confront and overrule their husbands when their “convictions” conflict sows seed of discord in marriages.
Playing the game of “only when not overt” is really saying, “I’ll submit as long as I approve.” That’s not submission. And when the wife doesn’t approve, your earlier model validates the wife exercises ultimate authority in the marriage. “Sure, hubby, I’ll go along with you. Just know, I’ll do whatever I convinced myself is Biblical if we don’t.”
Wives must submit or be in rebellion. Christian women need to be told this clearly and without muddled, “well, not really” interpretations. If they are unwilling to accept think unbreakable vow, do not get married. Remain a godly woman, submitting to the church authority. Once the wifely vow is taken, there cannot be pick and choose submission. It’s toxic to marriage and sin.
@ Pedat Ebediyah – it didn’t occur to me that people would think that I was claiming that a husband didn’t have the right to tell a wife to stop doing nonsinful things. I’m not even sure that I believe that Anchorman thinks that was the point I was trying to make. I suspect that he’s just being difficult.
Also this example seemed obvious to me. Like if wives are literally meant to obey our husbands in all things then we would have to blaspheme the Holy Spirit, stop praying and renounce God if we are commanded to by a nonbelieving husband. Obviously this isn’t the case. If exceptions are made for that then clearly there are exceptions. I believe that sin is the exception and that we are to obey God above men.
feeriker @ 11:55 am:
“Folks, is there some compelling reason for your continuing dialogs with Fawn?”
Agreed. It was nice when Fawn was illustrating our points for us but now she’s just the usual noise.
@ Anchorman – Maybe you are serious but you aren’t making sense.
I believe that wives are to obey any command given by the husband that is not a command to sin. That means that if the wife is convicted that drinking is not a sin and the husband is convicted that it is, then she shouldn’t drink. He has given her a command that is within the limits of his God given authority. After all, abstaining from alcohol is not a sin.
You keep using “obey,” not “submit.” Let’s take a moment to clarify some things.
Hupotasso (submit) is not hupakoe (obey).
Submitting is deferring to an authority.
Obeying is following an order.
When a husband interprets Scripture, the wife must submit (“defer to authority”). Submission specifically indicates the person’s will must submit. This is integral in shaping the character of the individual. Women have rebellious nature and seek to usurp the husband’s authority (Genesis 3:16).
In Genesis 3:16, God hands down the punishment to women, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” John MacArthur notes the term, “desire,” comes from the Hebrew t’shûqâ which is closer to meaning “master.” He cites a later passage about Cain, “Sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must control it.” (Gen 4:7) Sin wanted to control (master) Cain, but he must control it. The Hebrew word is the same in both passages and it ain’t a coincidence.
There’ aren’t two ways around it. God commands a wife to submit specifically because of their nature after The Fall. You still want to find that escape clause, which is why you’ve convinced yourself that if a wife is “conicted,” she can ignore the marital requirement to submit.
True, willful submission bothers you because, well, you’re the way God made you.
@feeriker
Do you really think men marry because they have a burning desire to be a work horse to a woman who won’t touch them?
I, for one, have no doubt whatsoever that Fawn truly thinks exactly that. Or, perhaps more accurately, she, like most other women, believes that it’s a husband’s obligation to shut up, roll over, castrate himself, and then thank her for even deigning to allow him to breathe the same air she does.
It boils down to pedestalization and pre-marital sex. Women are said that they are better than men, that men are brutish creatures that women have to civilize, whose only reason of existence is to serve a woman. In addition, women spent their prime years banging alphas and despising betas as “below their level”. Then, they don’t have any alternative but to marry an icky beta.
When the honeymoon phase is over, the woman thinks: ” I could have married better. This inferior guy should thank me for allowing him to breathe the same air. The less he can do is to be my happy slave”.
@Elizabeth Jane . June 7, 2015 at 3:40 pm
Same old, same old. We know this story of yours too well. If you hear one million of stories of unhappy women, they are always the same.
The woman is always the Virgin Mary, born without sin. The man is always the devil or a complete failure. Of course, we never hear the man’s point of view. The situation is completely unbearable. Of course, the woman does not want to divorce but she doesn’t have any option. She is forced to divorce. That is, the old female thing about avoiding one’s own responsibilities. In my language, we say “she throws a stone and hides her hand”.
Then the LORD God said to the woman, “What is this that you have done?” The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.” (Notice that the serpent is to blame, not the woman).
Women are unimaginative. Always the same lies. Always the same distortions. Always the same shaming language. Always the same seduction techniques: playing hard-to-get, flaking, etc. We could number them.
Look, Elizabeth Jane. Now that you have decided to blow out your family and make your children miserable forever, it’s not here that you are going to have some sympathy for your selfishness and sin. If you feel guilty of what you are about to do and need reassurance to avoid your responsibility, this is not the place to go. Go to a women’s forum: there you will have all the lies you are looking for.
Men are the prize. Women are inferior to men, not equals. Not even close, this is a fact. I blame weak, ignorant men just as much as women for the state of modern women and their bad behavior. These men gave women the power to harm men, society and themselves. Men built civilization and 99.99% of the culture and technology within it. Men civilize women. Women just made it more comfortable. Women must be led by men. Women should be on their hands and knees thanking men for what they have done and continue to do for women.
Let the flames start because I am on record agreeing with Fawn that a husbands order to his wife to commit a sin is what the lawyers call void ab initio (void from the beginning). I realize this may no longer apply given female empowerment and potentially provides an exception big enough to drive a Divorce Hearse through. However, I am not clear how you literalists can reject my interpretation of the Lord’s words on Divorce (that they apply to Marriage 1.0 but NOT marriage 2.0) but not the hypothetical case where a man orders his wife to sin. With more disempowered women in the 1st Century a husbands order would have to be an extraordinary and obvious violation of God’s word (aka a “sin”) while to the empowered women of today a husband’s order is totally optional and giving them any wiggle room creates Hell on Earth. An interesting logical conundrum but I still fall down on the side of Free Will- for both men and women.
Do you trust God?
Do you trust God’s wisdom when He outlined the roles and responsibilities of marriage?
Pre-convicting men of leading wives to sin and using it to justify undermining the fundamental relationship needed to have a Godly marriage is mankind over-ruling God’s plan, not trusting God’s plan, and telling God, “Yeah, that might’ve worked when You were a pup, but You didn’t anticipate men possibly leading women to sin, so we’ll add an escape clause. You can thank us when we get there.”
So, take a few seconds, start a prayer, and tell God you fixed His short-sighted model for marriage.
I’ll wait.
You are deep in Pride when you think you know mankind and sin better than God.
Submit to God. Trust God. Trust God’s Plan. He provides and cares for us abundantly, faithfully, and with full knowledge that we are fallen, depraved sinners, incapable of making ourselves worthy to stand in His presence.
Stand against the rebellion started by Satan.
Anchorman – Excellent summation.
@ Anchorman – Maybe you are serious but you aren’t making sense.
I am not at all surprised that this woman failed to see the clarity and logic of your argument.
@ BPP
This has already been addressed very well by Cane Caldo. It’s about disobeying a sinful demand while still remaining under the authority in which she has been placed.
https://canecaldo.wordpress.com/2013/10/13/you-bowed-up-when-you-should-have-bowed-down/
A husband’s sinful demand isn’t a “Get out of submission free” card for his wife.
Beeker,
It depends what you mean by “equal.” The Scriptures clearly indicate we are all equal in our standing before God. They also clearly indicate we all play different roles.
@ Anchorman – I don’t want to get into a scriptural debate with you, but I think that huptosso means arrange in order under. This was covered in the other comment thread when I discussed how not obeying a sinful command didn’t suddenly make you a higher authority than the husband. He’s still in charge and you still have to try and please him.
June 12, 2015 at 3:18 pm
Do you trust God?
Do you trust God’s wisdom when He outlined the roles and responsibilities of marriage?
Pre-convicting men of leading wives to sin and using it to justify undermining the fundamental relationship needed to have a Godly marriage is mankind over-ruling God’s plan, not trusting God’s plan, and telling God, “Yeah, that might’ve worked when You were a pup, but You didn’t anticipate men possibly leading women to sin, so we’ll add an escape clause. You can thank us when we get there.”
So, take a few seconds, start a prayer, and tell God you fixed His short-sighted model for marriage.
I’ll wait.
You are deep in Pride when you think you know mankind and sin better than God.
Submit to God. Trust God. Trust God’s Plan. He provides and cares for us abundantly, faithfully, and with full knowledge that we are fallen, depraved sinners, incapable of making ourselves worthy to stand in His presence.
Stand against the rebellion started by Satan.
I don’t believe that there is an “escape clause”. I believe that we are to obey God above man as is clearly stated in the Bible.
So many men are asking so many wives to do unscriptural things that we have to focus on that….
Many times the purpose of a debate isn’t to change the beliefs or perspective of the opposing side, but for the benefit of the audience. There are certainly some lurkers here, and of course the material is archived and people can stumble across the debates at a later time. Along with the fact the Christian men have a hard time letting mistruths or lies go completely unchecked is why so many continue to respond to Fawn. When an onlooker sees “Your point A can’t stand up because it contradicts these scriptures”, and the other side responds with “You’re wrong because you were rude to me and that’s shameful.” (which happened in this very thread) it is a very important exchange for someone learning to see the merits, or lack of, the stances.
The discussion of “But what if a husband commands a wife to SIN!?” is leaking over from the other post about MILs so I’ll copy some of what I posted there.
God’s word is extremely clear: Ephesians 5:24 -“…wives should submit in all things to their husbands.”
ALL THINGS means ALL THINGS. Because letting go of control goes against woman’s nature, God knew there would be the inquiries of “But SURELY not if he commands me to sin!”, and he responds with
1 Peter 3: …”even those who do not follow God’s teaching…”
@Fawn “…if wives are literally meant to obey our husbands in all things then we would have to blaspheme the Holy Spirit, stop praying and renounce God if we are commanded to by a nonbelieving husband. ”
Yes. This is EXACTLY what 1 Peter 3 is addressing! Please keep in mind that renouncing God, having threesomes, abortions, and robbing banks are red herrings meant to distract from the real point. These are extreme exceptions and not remotely commonplace. Countless women have been married 10+ years and can not recall a single time their husbands commanded them to sin, even the women married to unbelievers, yet you act like it happens every 5 minutes in every marriage. Their submission in these cases never even had to be tested, perhaps this is part of God’s way of changing the attitude of the heart?
Women need to be held responsible – if a woman suspects that a man would be the type of husband who would knowingly command her to sin, she should simply NOT MARRY THAT MAN. Women have a responsibility to choose a man who is likely to be the head of the household in a godly lifestyle.
In trying to find the congruence between “Submit in ALL things” and the potential conflict of the 10 Commandments list of “Thou shalt not” do certain things, you have chosen to modify the *ONE* single obligation women are instructed to do in marriage. It is much more sincere to look at the whole spirit and letter of the instructions. Husbands are compared to Christ, and wives are compared to the church. Even as we the church will falter and sin, Christ takes the blame for it and purifies us. Christ gets 100% of the blame of sin, and 100% of the responsibility for defeating it. Similarly in a Christian marriage the husband takes 100% of the responsibility for the choices he makes for the family, and if he chooses for them to sin he will take 100% of the blame. There are dozens and dozens of verses establishing this parallel, and the only reason not to follow Eph 5:24 is the gut feeling women have when asked to give up power and control.
Fawn and Bluepillprofessor, your point can not get past 1 Peter 3, the only way it can stand is by ignoring scripture.
@Bob
Right. It’s my understanding that God’s commandments are written specifically for men (don’t covet your neighbor’s wife, for example) who bear all the authority and all the responsibility of sin. Knowing that women are weak and easily fall into sin, women are asked to be under the authority of their husbands. Of course, this is abomination for the ones who follow the Gospel according to Oprah.
So many men are asking so many wives to do unscriptural things that we have to focus on that….
…and while they are doing that, their sons are running wild on college campuses, raping every fourth or fifth coed…….
@Fawn “…if wives are literally meant to obey our husbands in all things then we would have to blaspheme the Holy Spirit, stop praying and renounce God if we are commanded to by a nonbelieving husband. ”
Yes. This is EXACTLY what 1 Peter 3 is addressing! Please keep in mind that renouncing God, having threesomes, abortions, and robbing banks are red herrings meant to distract from the real point. These are extreme exceptions and not remotely commonplace. Countless women have been married 10+ years and can not recall a single time their husbands commanded them to sin, even the women married to unbelievers, yet you act like it happens every 5 minutes in every marriage. Their submission in these cases never even had to be tested, perhaps this is part of God’s way of changing the attitude of the heart?
Women need to be held responsible – if a woman suspects that a man would be the type of husband who would knowingly command her to sin, she should simply NOT MARRY THAT MAN. Women have a responsibility to choose a man who is likely to be the head of the household in a godly lifestyle.
I am not “acting like commands to sin happen every five minutes” but I do acknowledge that it happens to some women. Also keep in mind that God’s word is timeless and not just applicable to Western cultures. Women do not always pick their own husbands. Some women become Christians after marriage and are married to nonbelievers.
My belief is that Christians are still accountable for sins that they commit and are obligated to obey God above man. The scriptures support this belief. My understanding of 1 Peter 3 is that even if a husband is nonbeliever he is still her authority. It doesn’t mean that he can command her to go against God who is a higher authority. She is to win him without a word through her godly behavior. That means that she must actually have godly behavior and not sin because her husband just because said so.
@BradA
So many men are asking so many wives to do unscriptural things that we have to focus on that….
I find the focus on submission in general to be sort of odd. I rarely think it about as reacting appropriately to authority is just a normal thing to do. I never tied myself into knots about obeying my parents or grandparents either. It is odd to me that this is such a big issue here that someone (not me) brought it up again in this thread because they weren’t satisfied with my answer in the last thread.
I don’t want to get into a scriptural debate with you, but I think that huptosso means arrange in order under.
You don’t want to get into a scriptural debate about a view you endorse, purportedly based on scripture?
I know what hupotasso means. I know that it is more commonly used in martial matters (martial, not marital, i.e.military). It means, husband outranks wife like an officer outranks a NCO.
I don’t believe that there is an “escape clause”. I believe that we are to obey God above man as is clearly stated in the Bible.
See? See what she did there? “Man,” not “husband.” You thought you could slip that in there and steer the conversation away from what you were just shown the Bible says on marriage, didn’t you?
So, even though Gods clearly states marital roles, she is trying the, “Oh, yeah? We’ll see what your boss says about it! I just talked to Him and He said I was right! So, there!” The husband can cite chapter and verse, but if she reaches a different conclusion, he’s just gonna have to deal with his wife
The escape clause, denied to exist, yet there it is.
Women aren’t commanded by God to submit to any man in their lives. Nope.
Wives are commanded to submit to husbands. No “but I’m convicted that your wrong” clause.
The weekend is here.
Rebellious Christians mistrusting God and insisting God never anticipated modern people will sin will have to wait until Monday.
@Fawn,
You may indeed find it odd, seeing as you’re a woman.
To yet again mirror the sentiments of our brother DeepStrength, it’s an unjust weight and scale as it concerns marriage in this dispensation.
I mean, at the most base and fundamental level, what it boils down to is the fact that women are given a wholesale pass to practice the faith of our Fathers in a lackluster, ratchet, and common way, while the men have to be stalwarts of sacrifice and fortitude as it concerns heavenly things.
Those of us who really are trying to walk alright before the Father find very few women in sight who earnestly are trying to do the same thing.
Forreal doe….as the kids in my ‘hood say…do you REALLY hunger and thirst for righteousness?
I can tell you that most of the Christian women I know (some of whom I love dearly) , even the ones who I meet in passing – are just plain whack. It’s disgusting. They might love the Lord with all of their heart and soul and might…but a brotha cain’t tell by how ya’ll act, which is a direct reflection of how ya’ll think!
So yes, the emphasis on submission is such because it is a fulcrum for so much of the blessings of having a household that is truly serving our Master, where the footsteps of each member is ordered by the Lord.
If only the husband is trying do practice due diligence as it concerns Holy things, then WHAT-THE-HELL man, let’s just call the whole thing off, which is what many are already doing.
But then women come up in our spaces trying to convince us to call the calling off – off.
Puuhhhleeeeze.
I’m in Monk Mode (God mode) now, and one of my married sisters said, “what if the ONE comes along while you are in monk mode…whacha ‘gon do”.
My answer: “I’ll pull out a knife and commence to get jiggy like Abraham did unless the Lord comes to me in a flaming VW Golf R saying, ‘Pedat, she’s good – forreal doe‘”
And he can leave the car…it’s a “desires of the heart thing”. LOL.
Everytime I think I want to have a serious relationship, I reads Dalrock’s column. It never fails to snap me out of it. Marriage is playing Russian roulette with 3 bullets in the revolver. You’re 50% linel to commit financial and social suicide…
http://www.liftbump.com/2015/06/63056-dad-finally-finds-daughter-after-16-years-of-searching-thats-when-he-gets-a-big-shock-in-the-mail/?utm_campaign=naytev&utm_content=557a29d2e4b04c525e153b4d
So many men are asking so many wives to do unscriptural things that we have to focus on that….
…and while they are doing that, their sons are running wild on college campuses, raping every fourth or fifth coed…….
… and their father’s and uncles are craftily manipulating job sector environments to keep women below the “glass ceiling” and only paying them 77 cents for every dollar that a man makes.
Fawn is either a troll or the worlds most contentious submissive Christian wife. Either way, I have moved her to the blacklist.
“Marriage is playing Russian roulette with 3 bullets in the revolver. You’re 50% linel to commit financial and social suicide…”
50% is just the divorce rate, that’s not including the marriages that remain intact, but where the men are absolutely miserable and trapped in hellish marriages.
“The national divorce rate is 50%. (It’s higher in some parts of the country, like CA) However, I ask you, consider of the number of people who are in a bad marriage, but elect to stay. (Men who don’t want to lose 50% [at minimum, but probably higher for most men], ….women who know they can’t support themselves alone, etc) Next, think of how many more couples stay together just for the sake of the kids. Of these, “forced marriages, consider how many of these marriages involve infidelity. A shot in the dark, but I estimate the percentage of happy & monogamous marriages to be under 5%. Are these odds you would take in a business venture? Or even a raffle ticket? Most of the risk-averse population would not. Yet they seek this exception to the rule everyday at the altar.”
http://www.dontmarry.com
“It depends what you mean by “equal.” The Scriptures clearly indicate we are all equal in our standing before God. They also clearly indicate we all play different roles.”
@BradA: Women need to be led by a responsible, good, decent man. Too many men these days supplicate to their wives, buying into the delusional and misguided “happy wife, happy life” mantra. Women are insatiable, and if a man gives into them, they will demand more.
Men and women may be seen as equal in terms of salvation and being loved by God, but on Earth, man must take the lead and rule over women. Didn’t God proclaim that women were to be mans’ “helpmates” – not equal partners, or masters?
Modern marriage today and relationships have very serious problems. The laws are biased against men, and society does not shame women for bad behavior (divorce, infidelity). It’s all viewed as the mans’ fault.
It is odd to me that this is such a big issue here
The door is right over there. Don’t be hesitant to use it.
If this didn’t fire your tingles, you’d have left a while ago.
Bob,
[1Pe 3:1 KJV] 1 Likewise, ye wives, [be] in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;
This says that wives should be in subjection to their husbands, not that they have no responsiblity for moral standards. The next verse’s discussion of where the beauty should lie points to the core idea: Have a good attitude and act according to that, not the content so common today. (And it past days most likely as some ancient writers indicate.)
You have the example of the early Apostles not obeying the just Jewish authorities to stop speaking about Jesus as they were called to a higher power. You would have to make a firm case why that principle would not apply here before you could sweep it away. Scripture must always be taken in the context of Scripture.
Your point about such requests being rare is exactly what I was noting however. I am convinced a wife should still obey specific Biblical commands, I believe those are much more rare, as with similar actions in the Book of Acts. Using it in the submission discussion is a red herring in almost every case.
The practical effect is that very few women today have a Scriptural right to disobey and usually do so because of their own preferences and desires, not due to some attempt to stay righteous.
I would argue that the principle in James is more often in play:
[Jas 1:14 KJV] 14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
Note that “man” here refers to all humans, not just “men”.
I wouldn’t bother arguing with you Fawn, but I will note that we do have a problem with Christian wives being very non-submissive in modern marriages. It is harming their husbands, their children and even themselves, especially when it leads her to blow up the marriage because she is “unhappy”.
This is an epidemic and the elephant in the room that is almost always ignored in the teaching in this area. That is why it must be addressed. Men commanding their wives to sin is not a problem to that extent. I would guess that the places where it might be an issue are almost always ones where the wife violated the command to not be active with an unbelieving mate.
====
Question for everyone: Has anyone heard of anyone writing in the time of the early church about this issue? How did the Church Fathers treat the issue of a wife with a pagan husband who commanded her to continue offering sacrifices to idols, work in the temple as a prostitute, etc.? I have never heard of anything on that, but I have not read widely in that area and I wonder if any of the more reliable ones wrote about it.
Pedat asked Fawn,
do you REALLY hunger and thirst for righteousness?
I don’t think many today do that, male or female. I believe many seek a fun experience of some sort and many are seeking an “intimate relationship” of some kind (the “Jesus as my boyfriend” idea), but they aren’t seeking to be pleasing to their Lord as much as to be desired by their (spiritual) lover.
Elements of that are correct, as we should seek to be close to God. We are told that David and Jonathan has a love that went deeper than the love of women, so I believe the standard is there, but it is far from what the emotionalist and feelings modern society sees as love.
Desiring to please someone will make us not want to grieve them. Spinning that to make it all focused on the women and keeping her happy rolls over in many cases to that same women (who some will claim is more spiritual) not really seeking righteousness, but the “unconditional acceptance” that is the common thing pushed onto men today. It doesn’t work well, but many have not quite found that out yet.
Just some thoughts I have been having on this topic lately that seemed relevant.
Beeker,
I would generally hold to the ideas you wrote. I don’t go as extreme as some here in their response to the current imbalance, but I fully understand that. That is why I asked what you meant by “not equal”.
Fawn reminds me a little of Leo Tolstoy: Tolstoy (an ex Russian Army Officer in The Crimea) was a Pacifist. But what, people said, would you do if you saw a man with a big stick threatening to hit a child? I forget Tolstoy’s arguments – though he stuck to his view – but to have caved in would have been carte-blanche to use violence whenever one feels like it. No one, of course has ever witnessed a man with a big stick threatening to hit a child (even if you imagine you have , you haven’t) and so we are in realms of the hypothetical. Pretty much the same surely applies to wifely obedience.
BradA: buying into the delusional and misguided “happy wife, happy life” mantra. Women are insatiable, and if a man gives into them, they will demand more.
No, I think that “happy wife, happy life” is true. However, Game teaches that one does not make a woman happy by giving in to her. But if a man’s wife is happy in the marriage (via Game, or however else), then the man is likely to have a happy life.
@RPL: What I meant by “happy wife, happy life,” is that a man must often make himself miserable to make his wife happy – and that only the wife’ happiness is important. I agree that if a man can make his wife happy, and that often makes him happy as well, but not all the time. But the problem is there is no reciprocity in relationships with modern women. If the wife is happy, the wife doesn’t care if the husband is happy. Men should just be happy in their servitude to women it seems.
“Want to keep the wife happy? Be miserable or risk divorce”:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1280077/Want-wife-happy-Be-miserable.html
@Red Pill Latecomer
The problem with the “happy wife, happy life” approach (even if it works), is that it leaves wives thinking, “Sweet, now how can I get my husband to make me happy?”.
Don’t get me wrong – you’re free to have that mantra in your marriage.
But for wives, I think a more helpful approach is to focus on making their husbands happy. It’s the “more blessed to give than to receive” principal – we get more joy out of giving to others than monitoring how much we are receiving.
*principal should be principle
BradA says:
June 12, 2015 at 4:32 pm
Such a fun game, this Hypotheticals.
Wives don’t add exceptions to their vows. There is no “unless…” or “except”. Also, examples of righteous rebellion in the Bible, are not examples of people who are in a consecrated covenant between a man, woman, and God.
The ability for a woman to express the command as Paul wrote it, demonstrates a complete understanding of her role in the one flesh covenant. It proclaims her surrender and obedience to God. And it reveals she understands what was written in 1Peter about fear and what it means to live life with their husbands as Sarah did.
Much like professing our faith in Jesus Christ, so too is professing our one flesh covenant.
seriouslyserving says:
June 13, 2015 at 5:42 am
Those are words of wisdom. It’s better to give than receive for everyone.
I’m in the “it’s not my job to make / keep you happy” camp. I do want her to be happy but:
1st) her happiness isn’t that high on my list of priorities (their are sometimes other matters which may not make her happy that must be addressed)
2nd) happiness comes and goes (learning to be content in all situations is far better)
3rd) I can’t always control what will or will not make her happy
I try to focus on what my job is per the Bible and teach her to focus on her part. It truly is better to give than receive.
I’m in the “it’s not my job to make / keep you happy” camp. I do want her to be happy but:
1st) her happiness isn’t that high on my list of priorities (their are sometimes other matters which may not make her happy that must be addressed)
2nd) happiness comes and goes (learning to be content in all situations is far better)
3rd) I can’t always control what will or will not make her happy
I try to focus on what my job is per the Bible and teach her to focus on her part. It truly is better to give than receive.
This.
I am, I’m ashamed to admit, a member of the “learned too late in life that it’s not only not your job to make/keep your wife happy, but also impossible” club.
Happiness comes only from within, whether it be driven by a love of and committment to following Jesus, or some other motivator that only can completely identify and nurture.
Guys, here is the hard-learned truth about an “unhappy” wife: she was unhappy before she ever met you and will continue to be unhappy even without you being any part of her life. Something (sincere submission to the Lord?) is missing inside of herself that prevents her from ever being happy and fulfilled under any set of life circumstances. YOU can do nothing to correct that. Neither can anyone else but she herself, and even then only with God’s assistance and blessing.
Ping!
Did I get banned from here finally? 🙂
Anyway, I’m glad Fawn is finally out the door. There are hardcore sisters here that I learn from, but they are a tiny minority among all the usual wimminz, who come here to express faux shock and outrage at hateful misogyny-laden comments like “I want kids to grow up in a stable family with a mom and a dad” or “I think widespread divorce is harmful to society”.
In another part of the world of the US, a “very devoted” husband decides to take his wife’s last name, and it is sexist to ask her about it.
Historically, it very occasionally happened that a man marrying into a prominent family that had no sons might be asked to change his name to theirs, but in exchange for that he became the heir to a vast acreage and a stately home. No telling what “Mr. Soldana” thinks he is getting out of this deal. Nevertheless, I wish the couple all the best.
It’s the “more blessed to give than to receive” principal – we get more joy out of giving to others than monitoring how much we are receiving.
A misunderstanding of this principle is the single most important reason why feminists will never, ever be happy. They are focused on their own happiness. Doing so is like trying to fill the Grand Canyon with a wheelbarrow and a shovel. It is the wrong focus. A striving after the wind. A chasing after the shadows.
God has so designed the Universe that we can only be happy by making contributions to other people’s happiness. Indeed, the whole of Christiandom is built on this principle, because the ultimate promotion of other people’s happiness is the very definition of God’s perfect will.
Paul made it clear, too:
Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others.
Philippians 2:4
Let no man seek his own, but every man another’s good. 1 Conrinthians 10:24
Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved. 1 Corinthians 10:33
I am a woman and I love this site. I think I went through a similar “red pill” experience as many of the men here. Childish ideals and hopes, shattered by a blue pill world, followed by the realization that men and women are supposed to be different (yay! of course! secret to happiness!) followed by a second disillusionment realizing a lot of painful truths about men that I didn’t want to know (hard-wired to look at other women) followed by a deeper commitment to trusting God that it can somehow all work out. I think there is grounds for hope – maybe not for society but for individuals at least.
I think the grounds for hope is that God knew what He was doing when He made us different, and that just as men have a deep instinctive desire to be masculine, and love women, women have a deep distinctive desire to be feminine, and to love men. Both have a deep need to please and be pleasing to the other. Feminism is evil and has made this all very very difficult. Feminist ideas are destroying the happiness of both men and women.
When I was a young girl I had the right idea of how things should be. If I had had a father to protect and guide me I think things could have turned out quite well for me. I had a natural instinct to admire men and look to them for leadership and guidance.
College was a very destructive factor in my life. I fell in love and all I wanted was to please and be pleasing to the man I fell in love with. However society completely fooled me about what men wanted or how I should go about being pleasing. The messages that I took home were superficial, confusing and destructive. I was naturally modest, submissive, meek, trusting, emotional and insecure. Feminism told me that these were unattractive qualities in a woman. Feminism (which the guys I knew seemed to buy into too) told me that in order to be attractive to a man I needed to be tough, unemotional, blasé about sex and emotional attachments, wild, immodest, strong-willed, independent, etc. I knew that I wasn’t those things, but instead of recognizing that society and feminism were wrong, I thought I was a failure as a woman, and that men would be repulsed by my weakness and old-fashioned femininity.
Society told me that a woman’s only worth was in the hotness of her body. This message was just as strong as the feminist message but resulted in a weird kind of schizophrenia, the upshot of which is that I constantly felt like a failure and never good enough. This resulted in additional self-destructive behaviors that do not benefit either women or men. Telling women that they’re not pretty enough does not result in women who are happy to take their clothes off, even in front of good husbands. Furthermore women who don’t eat have no libido. Society’s message to women that they will never be thin enough of pretty enough does not result in happy men or happy women.
Eventually I realized that feminism and society were the problem, not my natural instincts. I realized this mainly because of my own unhappiness trying to conform to a feminist world, and through the help of better religious education and people like Dr. Laura. Unfortunately, by that time much damage had already been done. Not so much to the men I had had in my life, they were all more liberal types who still seem content with the feminist mindset, but to me. I genuinely wish I had saved myself for marriage and married much younger. I genuinely wish I had known how to recognize a truly masculine and Godly man when I was younger. I did not want to be a slut until I was too old to attract an alpha male. I wanted my first boyfriend to be a masculine man and marry me and protect me and provide for me and I wanted to have children and be a sweet wife. The problem is that he was a liberal who believed that men and women were essentially the same and that women did not need protection or leadership or to be treated as feminine, and as a naturally submissive women I believed that he was right and that I was the problem? I followed a man who didn’t believe in his own position of leadership. Do you see what I’m trying to say? I hate feminism because of what it did to me. It took all of my best instincts and perverted them, turned them against me and created a schizophrenic mindset.
I do love strong, masculine men but what I admire and respect most of all is Godly men. Just as I would advise all young women to remain virgins until marriage I can’t think of anyone more worthy of admiration and respect than a young man who is strong enough and God-fearing enough and responsible enough to remain chaste until marriage. I don’t see this as a sign of weakness or attractiveness at all and I wouldn’t have at any stage in my youth either. Self-control and discipline can be incredibly sexy and awe-inspiring.
The second disillusionment, the one that came after reading Christian literature about even happily married men never really having eyes for only one woman and being hard-wired to always keep admiring hot young flesh was devastating to me, just as I think many men here are devastated by learning certain things about female nature. It’s devastating because it makes us feel we will never be truly loved the way we always hoped to be loved. I’m learning to have faith though that there’s hope, and that maybe my own understanding of these things is flawed because I am not a man and don’t truly understand men’s hearts. I am married now, and I’m not a great wife, because of the insecurity and lack of trust that are the fruits of my past, but at least I really really want to be a great wife and am working towards that. I am truly grateful for my husband and want him to be happy with me. I know that he is not my enemy, and that I am my own worst enemy.
Lots of typos in my above comment, but in particular I need to correct the part that says “I don’t see this as a sign of weakness or attractiveness at all” – of course I meant UNATTRACTIVENESS.
Pingback: Don’t blame Heartiste for the equation of Alpha with virtue. | Dalrock
… the one that came after reading Christian literature about even happily married men never really having eyes for only one woman and being hard-wired to always keep admiring hot young flesh…
For the avoidance of doubt, any Christian literature that promotes or advocates this is clearly in error. No one has any excuse to do wrong things “because it’s nature”. And lusting after a woman (or man for that matter) is wrong on so many levels.
We are to “mortify the deeds and desires of the flesh”, and bring those desires into subjection of Christ. Men, single or married, have no reason or excuse to keep looking at other women.
The biggest enemy of us humans is not the devil. It is not the world. Our biggest enemy is our flesh. I’m afraid, the flesh has sent more Christians to hell than all the devil’s tempations combined. All these homosexuals advocating for “rights”; all these women sleeping around and all the men lusting after other women, even after they are married, are all motivated and dominated by the flesh, and Christians are commanded to pout thei9r fleshly desires to death, because if we “walk after the flesh”, the result ain’t pretty at all. It’s eternal death.
So, let us make it clear: there is no excuse for a married man to keep looking at other women.
Now, that does not necessarily mean he cannot see them—the same way you see a multimillion dollar house while walking through a nice neighborhood, without losing appreciation for your humble abode—-but seeing other women and lusting after them are two different things.
Good point Dave, thanks for clarifying. As an aside, I know it’s not really my place to be posting comments here and that the men here don’t care about my life history or my opinion probably, but it’s doing me a lot of good to read what everyone’s saying here. Not that I wasn’t already sympathetic to the male position (I have brothers whom I love!) but the more I genuinely understand about men, the better equipped I am to deal with life, and generally a better understanding of men and male-female relationships actually helps me emotionally. I feel safer and happier when I know what’s what instead of being so confused.
The main reason I posted stuff is to add my voice to that of the other women who are saying that we appreciate what most of you guys are saying here, and agree with you, and hope that men like you become the norm in society again, rather than the minority. And I can see very clearly that what Dalrock is endorsing here is the key to female happiness as well as male. I am extremely lucky to have the husband I have, and reading this blog helps me to appreciate him even more, and I feel like I’ve gotten more useful ideas here than I have from most of the “Christian” marriage books I’ve read.
Long time lurker, first time poster. BradA:
“Question for everyone: Has anyone heard of anyone writing in the time of the early church about this issue? How did the Church Fathers treat the issue of a wife with a pagan husband who commanded her to continue offering sacrifices to idols, work in the temple as a prostitute, etc.? I have never heard of anything on that, but I have not read widely in that area and I wonder if any of the more reliable ones wrote about it.”
Not precisely, to my knowledge, but (as you presented it) it would have been a question to which the answer was assumed, and therefore there was no need to re-answer it. The first followers of the Way were Jews in the Rabbinical tradition, which states that the greatest of the mitzvot is the preservation of a life, and that this mitzvah takes precedence over all other commandments (including even remaining ritually pure in order to sacrifice in the Temple; cf. the Cohen’s role in the story of the Good Samaritan). The Master referenced this in Matthew 12:3-4, as well, illustrating that it was a known principle that David, a starving and hunted man with no other options, was blameless in preserving his life when eating even the showbread of the Temple.
Did I say “all other commandments”? Sorry; I meant that in the Rabbinic tradition preservation of life takes precedence over all other commandments save for three: 1) Murder; 2) Adultery; 3) Idolatry. Since even the greatest of mitzvah is not able to override these prohibitions, it stands to reason that “lesser” commandments cannot override them either. Which, incidentally, is my stock response to the endless “But what about–“s of rebellion-minded women: “Sure; if he commands you to commit murder, adultery, or idolatry, you don’t have to do it. But since you and I both know he’s not going to do that, I’m going to assume that the question is just a smokescreen.”
The very early Christians were Jewish hadavar, but things split from that fairly early from what I have read (after the period of the Book of Acts). Paul went to the Jerusalem Council to present the issue of the requirements of the Gentiles to convert to Judaism first (which was ruled not a requirement).
I am sure many members of the early Church in the places we read about were women married to pagan men, perhaps even some of them completely bound to idolatry. I would love to see some comments from some about that. Was it Pliny the Elder that was the disciple of John? Any others in that time frame? What about someone like Origen, Augustine, etc.? I know they were later, but they were still in the pagan Rome era IIRC.
BradA:
It’s true that the split was fairly early on a historical scale, although “after the book of Acts” is a few decades early. The breach wasn’t really effected until after the Bar Kochba revolt, when the nonbelieving Jews said to the believing Jews and God-Fearers, “If you’d only believed in Bar Kochba, then he would have been the Messiah and we wouldn’t be in this mess,” and gave them the boot from the temples and the synagogues. At which point the God-Fearers basically said, “All right, we’re taking our ball and going home.” It was sort of the last hurrah of Zealotry– which, incidentally, was the topic on which the Jerusalem Council was ruling in Acts 15. The Way wasn’t a separate religion at that time; it, like all other Rabbinical Jewish sects of that time period, had to make a decision between Hillel and Shammai, between the God-Fearers and the Zealots, between accepting that it was possible for a non-Jew to be a devoted follower of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and discounting all non-Jews as pagan “Gentiles”, unclean and deserving only of being purged from the Land unless they became (physically, not merely spiritually) Jews. Of course, the Way had Peter’s vision as a guide, to tell it which side God was actually on. And as with all other Jewish sects of the time, the ones that chose the Hillelite tradition survived, while the ones that chose Shammai were wiped from the face of the earth, which is why modern Judaism is descended from the Pharisees, while nobody (except perhaps the tiny number of Karaites) follows Sadducaical beliefs. It’s actually quite fascinating history, but I won’t dwell further on it, since I know it’s not really your point.
Are you perhaps thinking of Polycarp as the disciple of John? He and Origen appear to have only fragmentary works surviving. Augustine, of course, somewhat more, but I’m by no means a scholar regarding those writers; I concern myself (as may be evident) mostly with Jewish observance, rather than Christian. I wonder if the Didache touches on this topic, either; since it was written during the fully Jewish period, though, my earlier analysis (“why write about this when everybody knows the answer, as one of the first principles of tradition that we passed down to them when they came to the faith?”) may stand.
@hadavar
Up to this point your logic is sound.
A = commandments against Murder, Idolotry, and Adultery
B = principal of preservation of life
U = all commandments
C = command for a wife to submit to her husband
A > B and B > U – A and C is a member of U – A therefore A > C
However what you did here is not valid. Here you just said, “therefore C > U – A” or perhaps you meant C > U – A – B. Either way, you cannot conclude that based on your argument.
Now just for the record, while I have no problem with Cain’s formulation in his essay, I do disagree with Sara’s Daughter’s position, and note that, IIRC, all but two of her examples fall under the above exception. Sarah was attempting to save her husbands life, and the national security exception is intended to save the lives of American soldiers. Now I am not married, and so I still hope through careful vetting to avoid this problem, but if I accidentally ended up married to a dishonest man, or one with hidden perversions as in her two other examples, I would be sending up a quick prayer on how to remain submissive and not sin. As I am a slow thinker, I would find the time constraints on her lie to his boss example particularly difficult. My best guess at this point would be for my hand to hover over the phone as I asked, “Maybe I should just let it go to voicemail?”
@Katerina
You’ve had a purple pill insight, (Isn’t purple red+blue?). The manner in which you describe finding a strong godly man attractive combined with your disappointments with your husband puts you in the cohort of most Christian wives, regardless whether their husband is traditional or liberal or whatever and whether she stays home with kids or works outside the home. You’ve also managed to rationalize away the behaviors that are in your past, the most negative thing said about those behaviors being that you wished you had done differently.
If a Christian man tells of a sordid background the language is about ownership. Not the sirens and their calls, not society telling him to bed lots of women, but that he was given to lust coupled with some success with women and he did it. Stop.
Also, “society” is not telling women to be thinner and thinner. This is a blue pill understanding and a trick for working around whatever degree of personal responsibility we ought to take as people, men and women, for our appearance and health. It usually goes something like, yes I carry an extra 20 – 30 pounds but its not feasible I reach waif status that society wants so…….so once the expectations are more realistic I’ll be fine. Men are not nearly as waif selective as these mantras imply. Women push the more extreme stuff in media run by women for women. But even that shouldn’t be considered pushing, especially for Christian women as they know from where their esteem should come (God and husband) and their motive for not being overweight would be that its pleasing to God that they not be slovenly , apathetic, or defeated, and pleasing to husband , well, because it just is.
That men’s eyes can be turned by youth and fitness is not a source for distress any more than the proclivities of women like hypergamy need be stressful for men. In fact when you examine the world with a red pill lens, it is obvious that unrestrained female proclivity is overtly acted upon more than men’s proclivity as evidenced by female initiated frivolous divorce, and by the silent plodding suffering men who are fortunate to not be jettisoned must settle into and make due with as a life.
Sarah was attempting to save her husbands life
Wrong, I did what I was told to do in a 30 second phone call that had no explanation of further guidance as to why. I was not insightful. I was an insecure, gossiping, rebellious woman who was convicted to obey. Without the phone call, I would have told what I thought was factual about the situation down range and wouldn’t have considered the fall out. I believed I was lying when I told the women who asked that I had no information. If there was any insight into what I did, it was fear that based on the tone of my husband’s voice, if I did not do as I was told, there would be severe consequences in our marriage.
Don’t look further into justifying why I obeyed my husband. It lessens the impact that flash of obedience had when I searched for Truth and questioned Paul’s writing myself. I was clearly reminded of the incident and how my discernment is flawed, was flawed, will likely always be flawed when it comes to me attempting to be the judge of my husband’s commands of me.
@Sarah’s Daughter
No, no you misunderstood, the Sarah I was referring to was Abraham’s wife. I was unaware that your name is also Sarah. Usually when I see someone refer to you briefly, they say SD, as I also sometimes do. Now, I do recognize that you may not have been aware that the national security exception would have applied. In that case, I think you should have prayerfully (given your time limitations) either tried to ascertain whether a national security exception did apply (a reasonable thing for a soldier’s wife talking to him in the field to think), or asked if you could either say the same thing in a truthful way (“I’m not authorized to give that information” or something), or tell the group of wives that he told you to say this (thereby making it clear that they were not authorized to know the truthful answer, and you would be justified to have an irritated tone in your voice when they asked anyway). (You were lying by the way, just because there is a valid exception that makes lying permissible in a certain case doesn’t make it not a lie.)
@empathologism
“You’ve also managed to rationalize away the behaviors that are in your past, the most negative thing said about those behaviors being that you wished you had done differently.”
Isn’t that enough? The point of my post wasn’t a confession of sins, I did that already in the confessional many times, and I don’t need to do it here. The point of my post was a declaration of how much I believe feminism has harmed my own nature and my own happiness, and an affirmation that I agree with the men here about why feminism is band. If the point of my post was to come here and proclaim what a terrible sinner I am, I don’t see how that benefits any of you or specifically fits the purpose of this site – I could go to any Christian site and do the same thing, why here? The point of my post was how feminism harmed me.
“If a Christian man tells of a sordid background the language is about ownership. Not the sirens and their calls, not society telling him to bed lots of women, but that he was given to lust coupled with some success with women and he did it. Stop.”
Again, it makes perfect sense that a man would say it that way. The man’s sordid background is in many ways different from the woman’s.That’s why I said on another post that we can’t have it both ways. We can’t say women and men are the same and do things for the same reason, and say at the same time that they are different and think differently and have different roles to play in romance and love. I don’t think lust played a prominent part in my actions. Certainly it was there, but a desire to be loved and cherished and a fear of losing the man I loved was certainly much more in the forefront. I didn’t believe I would be loved unless I gave myself fully. That doesn’t change the fact that it was still a sin, and you could in some ways say an even more severe sin than lust, because it involved elements of pride and vanity and valuing the man I loved above God. Probably the most severe aspect of the sin was that I went into college believing in God (although knowing very little about Him) and then stopped believing in God or religion, so if I’m here to confess my sins, that was probably the root of it all and the most severe.
Yes absolutely I sinned by giving myself to men I was in love with and not married to. I didn’t believe it was a sin at the time, I was pretty much a Godless pagan. I lost my virginity after being with my first boyfriend for two years, and in my mind we were as good as married because I wanted to be with him forever. I wasn’t a feminist harpy, I was quite submissive without even realizing that that was a good thing (I was submissive even though I thought it was uncool, I was submissive because I couldn’t help it). But the way in which I felt I was a victim of feminism, is because feminism seemed to be telling me that that was the best I could get. A man who *might* stay with me, if I was lucky, and if I had sex with him. And before you say I’m rationalizing again, I’m not, I’m explaining the mindset. Other women who come here, and are in the position I was in (not believing in God, wanting to be loved) will hopefully benefit from me saying, “look, I did these things and they hurt me and made me unhappy”, where they might not benefit from hearing “don’t do those things because it’s a sin and makes you a slut” because if they’re a feminist they don’t buy into the sin=slut idea in the first place.
“Also, “society” is not telling women to be thinner and thinner.”
I beg to disagree. Have you seen television ads? Read a magazine? Do you KNOW any young women or teenage girls? I was NEVER overweight all through my teens and 20s but I thought I was, and engaged in harmful behaviors because I thought that if I was thinner I would be more attractive and hence more loved. I hardly know any women who aren’t worried about their weight, no matter how attractive they are. In no way shape or form am I saying that this is the fault of men. Certainly it isn’t and learning about men’s more reasonable expectations in this regard was a huge relief for me, and a very healing thing to learn. But the warped mentality is coming from somewhere, and I think it’s a Satanic influence, just another of his many tools to destroy marriages and the relationship between men and women. And the reason I brought it up in the first place is because now that I am older I see how destructive and ridiculous it is. Man thinks woman is hot. Woman worries she’s not hot enough. She frets and moans about it all the time. She lives in constant fear her man thinks she’s not hot enough. It drives him crazy, he feels like she won’t listen to him when he says she’s fine, and it destroys their love for one another. Are you telling me you haven’t seen this in play over and over again? What I’m saying is that it’s a perversion of a good, God-given instinct. Women know that attractiveness is important to men. Women have an instinct to want to be pleasing to men. Fear gets in there and twists it all apart and ruins it. It’s like the flipside of the feminized man coin. Feminized men think that what they’re doing is what women want them to do, but it’s not really what women want at all, it’s what society is telling men (and women) that women want. The more these men fear being unloved and alone the worse it gets. That’s why so many men have given up on women, because at least being true to themselves and alone is better than being emasculated and living in constant fear and stress, right?
” Women push the more extreme stuff in media run by women for women. But even that shouldn’t be considered pushing, especially for Christian women as they know from where their esteem should come (God and husband)”
Yes I absolutely agree with you on that point, you are 100% right but it took me many years to learn that and to have it sink in. But I agree, it’s mainly women and gay men pushing the anorexic look or the bodybuilder six-pack abs look on women. Most men are disgusted by both of these extremes, thank God. In our current pagan society however, this problem is just getting worse and worse. If I thought it was bad when I was young, well, it’s much worse now. More and more young girls think that their sole value to a man rests in their “hotness”. Wendy Shalit writes about this stuff very eloquently: http://www.girlsgonemild.com/about http://www.wendyshalit.com/a-return-to-modesty/
She’s one of a few authors out there encouraging true femininity.
“That men’s eyes can be turned by youth and fitness is not a source for distress any more than the proclivities of women like hypergamy need be stressful for men. In fact when you examine the world with a red pill lens, it is obvious that unrestrained female proclivity is overtly acted upon more than men’s proclivity as evidenced by female initiated frivolous divorce, and by the silent plodding suffering men who are fortunate to not be jettisoned must settle into and make due with as a life.”
You’re right and receiving that message over and over again by reading the huge backlog of posts here helps me get over my insecurities and fears. By reading what the various men have to say here, it gives me a better perspective on what love and marriage look like from a man’s point of view, and I think a male perspective is really valuable for a woman to have.
“combined with your disappointments with your husband”
Did I write anything here about disappointments with my husband? I certainly didn’t mean to…I don’t consider this the forum to ask for advice about “fixing” my husband, I am here to look for information to help me understand men better.
“why feminism is bad” not “band” of course.
Anne, a brief clarification:
“However what you did here is not valid. Here you just said, “therefore C > U – A” or perhaps you meant C > U – A – B. Either way, you cannot conclude that based on your argument.”
In point of fact, I deliberately avoided postulating either the existence or nonexistence of a category of commandments (call it D) that overrides the command for a wife to be subject to her husband but is still lesser than the negative commandments to avoid adultery, idolatry, murder, or the positive commandment to preserve a life; in other words, I did not address one way or the other whether
(There Exists) commandment(s) D such that A > B > D > C > U – A – B – C – D
I didn’t address this question for two reasons: 1) BradA’s query was specifically about early believers’ stances on how a wife was to react to demands to commit idolatry or prostitute herself, which has the aforementioned precise and universal answer within the early believers’ Rabbinical tradition, and 2) because positing this worst-case scenario of submission (as I have heard some women do) as a reason that submission is null is a smokescreen; it’s an argument which, if it nullifies submission, also nullifies every other commandment, since every commandment is subject to the same rule of nullification when weighed against A or B; and we know that the other commandments are still in effect, so by proof by contradiction, &c, &c, &c. In other words, I was making a practical argument against the smokescreen, one which was separate from the preceding symbolic arithmetic as you described it.
@hadavar
Here you say:
The impression I got, is that if a woman says “But what about–” than you suppose her to be a rebellion-minded woman. But what I hear is a claim that the — belongs in category D (if not A or B).
You then say:
What I hear here is
But since you and I both know that he is not going to command you to do A, I’m going to assume that the question is just a smokescreen.
However, if she is actually asking about something which she thinks belongs in category D, her question may not be a smokescreen. Perhaps it is an honest question.
No, no you misunderstood, the Sarah I was referring to was Abraham’s wife.
I’m sorry I misunderstood.
I was unaware that your name is also Sarah.
It’s not.
I think you should have….
And it could have gotten my husband killed. Imagine how well the rest of the wives would have taken it for me to even hint that I know something that I can’t tell them. I have no secret clearance. What would you think of another woman potentially knowing something about your husband that you aren’t allowed to know? You are naive about the nature of women. What those women go through during deployments and the nature of the Military. Your advice is moronic. My husband’s command of me was exactly what needed to happen and my usurping it with the advice of a misguided Christian like you could have made morale dip even further down than it did – with wives threatening divorce back home – ever heard of the suicide rate among Soldiers? Now consider what a rage filled man getting word from back home that LT’s wife knows something but won’t tell her?
What my husband did is end all gossip. It had a rippling effect. His men knew they could rely on LT, the rumors coming from back home ended, the gossip ended and the mission was successful. The loyalty these men had for my husband was something I truly believe only men can understand. His medic was so loyal, back in garrison, when my husband was sick and he couldn’t get an over the counter med for him from the Army, he went to the store himself and bought it for my husband for months. My husband had no idea he was doing it. When he found out he asked the man why he was doing that, he could get his meds from the store, the man answered, “No need to inconvenience you, LT, I got you. You come to me for help, I help you.
Those are the kinds of things that come from obedience to God and his commands for wives. I pray you learn these things or never get married.
@SD
If you read what I wrote, you would have noticed that all the suggestions I gave were things I thought you should have cleared with your husband. Truly, I don’t understand how a soldier’s wife couldn’t understand that secrets are involved in the military. Especially officers wives. Why would their husbands not already have told them that before they even left for the mission. And if your husband could have cleared it up with a “well, you’re not lying, the stuff you think you know is not necessarily true”, then when you expressed your concerns, he could have said that. And if he instead just claimed national security, than he would have been explicitly invoking the “to save a life” exception, and the lie would have been permissible.
You are being intentionally obtuse to cling to the righteous rebellion you’ve already determined you’ll have in marriage.
We had a Satellite phone conversation for 30 seconds before it cut out when I was on my way to the meeting with the wives.
That’s how fast your husband might need your obedience. When there is no time for the self-righteous wife to hem and haw over the details.
You know God and what lies are permissible? but you don’t know God’s command for wives in marriage meant.exactly.what.Paul.said?
To the rest still reading – I get it. I get why those of you are MGTOW are so. If this is what you have available, offered up as a Christian woman… I get it.
What I hear here is
But since you and I both know that he is not going to command you to do A, I’m going to assume that the question is just a smokescreen.
And… it usually is. So why even bring up the red herrings?
Sarah’s Daughter
We had a Satellite phone conversation for 30 seconds before it cut out when I was on my way to the meeting with the wives.
That’s how fast your husband might need your obedience. When there is no time for the self-righteous wife to hem and haw over the details.
This is reality, although not so strongly so for most of us. Sometimes people are like children. Those are people I won’t take out into the back country, because I don’t want to wind up in a serious situation caused by something like an ill-timed “why?”. “Step back from those logs, now!” — because there is a poisonous snake that I can see coiled up underneath it — needs to be obeyed, not “Why”‘d to death. And there are other examples one can easily come up with from the urban world as well. Not to mention the much more serious example SD provided.
It’s not blind obedience, either. But it is unquestioning obedience. And it’s rare.
@JDG
I should point out that “Step back from those logs, now!” is not a command to sin.
Anne – No need to point it out. Neither is there a need to defend those who want to bring up pointless red herrings.
Sorry, sorry I meant AR. 🙂
I didn’t reply to your red herrings thing because I couldn’t figure out how, though I don’t think it is all red herrings.
@feeriker
>Guys, here is the hard-learned truth about an “unhappy” wife: she was unhappy before she ever met you and will continue to be unhappy even without you being any part of her life. Something (sincere submission to the Lord?) is missing inside of herself that prevents her from ever being happy and fulfilled under any set of life circumstances. YOU can do nothing to correct that. Neither can anyone else but she herself, and even then only with God’s assistance and blessing.
This is an incredibly valuable piece of wisdom. You cannot MAKE another happy, over the long term.
@Katerina
May God bless and guide you both in your marriage.
@Dave
>Now, that does not necessarily mean he cannot see them—the same way you see a multimillion dollar house while walking through a nice neighborhood, without losing appreciation for your humble abode—-but seeing other women and lusting after them are two different things.
This difference is important to understand. One foolish author, Auterburn(?) wrote Every Man’s Battle. Therein, he clearly portrays the idea that a man is incapable of looking at a woman without lusting after her. As I recall it, he directs his readers to avoid looking at other people, even to the point of insisting you keep your eyes on the sidewalk as you are walking, just in case a woman happens by.
Yes, Jesus speaks against lusting after a woman in your heart (Matt 5:27-28). This is completely different from noticing a beautiful woman however.
for some reason, I am reminded of this verse; enjoy 🙂
Proverbs 11:22: Like a gold ring in a pig’s snout is a beautiful woman who shows no discretion.
@Dave
Thank you! God bless you too!
Sarah, here is a good summary by Roosh on just how rotten are American women and the deal they offer men at any depth of involvement:
http://www.rooshv.com/the-end-game-of-feminism
Excerpt; links in original
The End Game Of Feminism
February 13, 2013
“The end game of feminism is to make it impossible for a female to do any wrong, absolving her from all responsibility for her actions, no matter how reprehensible. The fact that a human being has a vagina will soon mean that she can not make a bad decision about anything. Punishing or criticizing a woman for her life choices will be abolished.
Name one thing right now that a feminist would criticize their gender for doing. I’ll save you the mental effort: there’s nothing. There is absolutely nothing that a girl can do that would get hate from feminists. For example:
Girl has no willpower and is 50 pounds overweight? Not her fault. She’s beautiful. Social constructs need to be changed.
Girl sluts around with 100 guys without condoms? Not her fault. She’s empowered and strong.
Girl is irresponsible with sex and has five abortions in her 20s? It’s her body and she can do whatever she wants. A fetus inside her is not a living entity.
Girl is making less money than men? The patriarchy is holding her down.
Girl gets drunk in a guy’s house and has sex with him? He took advantage of her. She was raped.
Girl studies stupid major in college and can’t get a job? The 1% owes her a marketing manager position.
Girl sleeps with her college professor in exchange for a better grade? She was a victim. The professor took advantage of her.
Girl likes dating guys much younger than her? You go girl! Rob that cradle!
Girl experiences an uncomfortable moment of any kind? She’s being harassed. Men are creeps.
Girl travels to Italy or Spain to bang hot European men? She’s romantic.
Wife gets slapped by husband after she pushed him first? Call the police and send him to jail.
Wife cheated on her faithful husband? He wasn’t attending to her needs. She wasn’t happy. Give her the kids and half his money.
Mother runs over her own kid in an accident? The SUV wasn’t safe. It’s the auto industry’s fault.
Mother kills all of her kids? She was mentally sick. We must give her love instead of severe punishment.”
Here is a good analogy he makes defending MGTOW:
http://www.rooshv.com/im-ready-to-man-up
So feminism has poisoned our society in many ways, including making marriage a bad deal for men and encouraging men, to their detriment, to behave more like women. Well, I have to tell you all: You are certainly not doing anything to work against this trend. I haven’t seen a bigger group of whining babies in my entire life.
Luke,
The hope I cling to is that those who might form the remnant is, at the very least, reading and witnessing the Jezebel spirit so prevalent by the female guests on blogs like these. The women who can’t help themselves but display literally everything that all men, throughout the ages, have found repugnant in women. Their snark is not new, their insults and self righteous behavior is all biblical. They are still blind, as I know I was.
myrealitie “has to tell you…” – no dear, you don’t. It is not required of you to come to a place where men are having discussions and attempt to shame them or insult them. You’re a liar, and a slanderer.
Anne “should point out” – no dear, there is no need for you to point it out. In doing so you displayed the obvious. Again, what you don’t comment on, what you don’t cede, is very telling. You are one of many many women with the same spirit.
Separate yourselves from this ladies. It really is possible for you to rise above the contentious, ungrateful, deplorable attitudes that exist inside your trained feminist hearts. You can and should cast those aside. For no one’s benefit than your relationship with your Creator and to remove the separation you are causing with Him.
myrealitie says:
June 15, 2015 at 8:52 am
Didn’t you pop in on another thread and pretty much make the same unfounded claim on another thread a couple of weeks ago? If your going to keep showing up without anything useful to say, you need to start bringing sammiches. Now back to the kitchen where you belong.
myrealitie says:
June 15, 2015 at 8:52 am
So feminism has poisoned our society in many ways, including making marriage a bad deal for men and encouraging men, to their detriment, to behave more like women. Well, I have to tell you all: You are certainly not doing anything to work against this trend”
Sure we’re working against it. A high percentage of men who post on MRA sites both themselves are marriage strikers and when possible advise other men to do so. I have posted things on non-MRA sites that many hundreds of people have read suggesting men who want a family eschew marriage and go the egg donor/gestational surrogate/hired nanny route, instead of more likely than not setting up for life a porcine, faithless Amerislut once the inevitable frivorce hits. Short of generating negligible tax receipts, it’s hard to imagine anything that strikes at heart of their plans to ride the carousel and then rob a beta provider. The reaction I get from such posts on non-MRA sites shows fear to the point of terror on women’s part from such developments, far ahead even of widespread secret paternity tests.
I was reading the comments and the contradiction popped out at me in neon lights. Here everyone is discussing how feminism tries to turn men into women and all of the men on the thread (650 comments so far!) are whining and bitching (just like women) about how women did them wrong. It was just so hilarious to me that I couldn’t help myself 🙂 You might rail against me on account of my being female, but I hope privately you reflect on that.
And @Luke – I of course won’t speak for Dalrock, but I didn’t get the impression so far that he is against marriage…
all of the men on the thread (650 comments so far!) are whining and bitching (just like women) about how women did them wrong
You are a liar.
This is not railing against you. This is a fact. The only thing to reflect on is the obviousness of your being a woman of Jezebel spirit and that you are a liar. No one expects you can help yourself – we fully expect you to act on the darkness in your heart.
I should point out that “Step back from those logs, now!” is not a command to sin.
True. And so what? A person who can’t obey an obvious instruction such as “step back from those logs, now!” is all but certain to argue endlessly about more ambiguous instructions. The word for that is “rebelliion”, in some contexts. In other contexts it is considered “Strong, Independent” etc.
In the context of a man who needs and wants a helpmeet, the attitude in question is “pain in the neck”. Being a pain in the neck is not a virtue, by the way.
myrealitie says:
June 15, 2015 at 11:01 am
How is your bitching and whinning about the men here any different than what you are complaining about? Oh that’s right… it’s not. I’d ask you to reflect on that, but …
Where are the SAMMICHES?
Tailgating on my previous comment, let me expand for just a little bit on “trust”.
Women, if you won’t trust your man on simple issues, then he’ll believe that you will never trust him on the big issues.
This is because men don’t like to be second guessed when we have a plan or see a situation that needs to be dealt with. It’s all but certain that you don’t know as much as we do about said plan or situation, so your “why? What about (blank)? What will the neighbors say?” etc. does not necessarily come across as a sincere attempt at brainstorming / problem solving. Rather it comes across as an attempt to wrestle control of the situation into your little, soft hands.
If I’m ever on the market again, there are a few tests I’d put to a prospective wife, such as hiking on rough, backcountry ground, camping for more than one night, etc. and there would be compliance tests deliberately included. Because a woman who would rather fight than comply is not going to be a decent partner in life, or in Bible terms a “helpmeet”. She’ll be a source of contention…
Sorry to spoil y’all’s fun; but, “myrealitie” is a well known feminist and internet kook who has trolled Dalrock blog for months and months.
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/07/11/a-bridge-too-far/#comment-130926
Just in case any of you new folks weren’t aware…
Regards,
Boxer
I am not a jezebel feminist, for the record. I am also happily married. I sympathetic to some “manosphere” ideas, and I am a fan of Dalrock, who is smart, reasonable, and gives intelligent commentary on data and social trends.
But I like nuance in my arguments, and I don’t tend towards extremes, as many here do.
In any event, carry on. I apologize for interloping openly.
Just like ticks….rid yourself of one, two more appear…..*chuckles*
Myrealitie, tell Fawn and insanitybites22 “hi” for us….pretty sure you won’t have to go far… 😉
I apologize for interloping openly.
Your apology should be for lying. Take responsibility for your dishonest hyperbole and pretend for one moment you are an accountable person.
Separate yourselves from this ladies. It really is possible for you to rise above the contentious, ungrateful, deplorable attitudes that exist inside your trained feminist hearts. You can and should cast those aside. For no one’s benefit than your relationship with your Creator and to remove the separation you are causing with Him.
I’ve said before and I’ll say it again: I see very little evidence that these women truly believe in a “creator.” Their own hamsters are the only power they acknowledge or respect.
I of course won’t speak for Dalrock, but I didn’t get the impression so far that he is against marriage…
From what I’ve read, I would guess Dalrock is pro biblical marriage. But I suspect that if given the opportunity, would warn a single man to vet a woman properly. Part of that vetting would likely include separating out women who can’t help themselves from posting an exaggerated insult to a blog where men converse. It’s indicative of much greater things. With that in mind, myrealitie, do you know of any single women or married for that matter who could differentiate themselves from women like you and demonstrate some restraint and integrity?
[D: You are correct that I am pro biblical marriage and that I would advise a man to vet a prospective wife carefully. I wrote a guest post at the Orthosphere some time back on the question of whether a man has an obligation to marry.]
Sorry to spoil y’all’s fun; but, “myrealitie” is a well known feminist and internet kook who has trolled Dalrock blog for months and months.
Yup, which is why I was wondering why some of the veteran regulars here who should know better are paying her any attention.
Katerina says:
June 14, 2015 at 1:00 pm
@empathologism
“Also, “society” is not telling women to be thinner and thinner.”
I beg to disagree. Have you seen television ads? Read a magazine? Do you KNOW any young women or teenage girls?
” Women push the more extreme stuff in media run by women for women. But even that shouldn’t be considered pushing, especially for Christian women as they know from where their esteem should come (God and husband)”
Yes I absolutely agree with you on that point, you are 100% right but it took me many years to learn that and to have it sink in. But I agree, it’s mainly women and gay men pushing the anorexic look or the bodybuilder six-pack abs look on women. Most men are disgusted by both of these extremes, thank God. In our current pagan society however, this problem is just getting worse and worse. If I thought it was bad when I was young, well, it’s much worse now. More and more young girls think that their sole value to a man rests in their “hotness”. Wendy Shalit writes about this stuff very eloquently: http://www.girlsgonemild.com/about http://www.wendyshalit.com/a-return-to-modesty/
She’s one of a few authors out there encouraging true femininity.
Shalit’s book has good points, but some serious flaws from a manosphere POV.
Review of the book by Roger Devlin:
Several excerpts:
”
“Do I Make You Look Fat?” and “Blondes are Adored…Brunettes are Ignored.” Among the motives behind the recent successful “girlcotting”of stores selling such shirts, in fact, is girls’ awareness that they encourage cliques and bullying among themselves (p. 225).Reportedly, an increasing number of American girls are choosing to socialize only with boys because, as one such girl’s mother explains,“teen girls are often brutally manipulative and mean” (p. 128). Experts report that “girls are committing significantly more acts of violence than they did even one generation ago” (p. 243). The author relates disturbing stories of girls actually driven to suicide by the bullying of their “friends” (pp. 254-55).Girls may be behaving so badly in part because it is what they are now being taught. The author tells of one mother who was“determined to raise a feminist.” By the time her little girl was two, the nursery school was complaining of her bullying the five year olds (she would jump up in order to hit them). The mother says “I encouraged her to ‘go for it.’” Another female lawyer told her “I am very suspicious of telling girls they need to be morally good. That’s sexism right there”(p. 251). She quotes articles from the popular feminist magazine Bitch
ridiculing selfless and considerate women and unfavorably contrasting them with others who show a “dark side” (p. 241). A certain Elizabeth Wurtzel has written a whole book entitled
Bitch
in which she declares:“For a woman to do just as she pleases and dispense with other people’s needs, wants, demands, and desires continues to be revolutionary” (p. 242).A highly successful women’s magazine editor has written a book of advice for young wives stating: “Giving, devoting, sacrificing…these are the actions of a good wife, no? No. These are the actions of a drudge, a sucker, a sap.” Instead, women are urged to emulate a wife who threw her husband’s clothes into the garden to teach him not to leave socks on the floor: “he understood I meant it.” Or another who wanted her husband to help with the laundry, and hollered at him:“Are you a f—ing retard that you don’t see me running up and downstairs? Listen to me and stop your bulls—t.” Or another who discovered this interpersonal skill: “Just stand there and start screaming. If you stand there and scream long enough, someone is going to realize that you’re standing in the middle of the room screaming [and ask] ‘Why are you screaming?’” (pp. 245-47).What could be wrong with men these days that they refuse to commit?”
Basically, his criticisms come down to Shalit not considering what men what, what is their motivation. It seems a valid one, after reading her book.
Sorry; better link here:
http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/devlin_shalit.htm
I wrote a guest post
That was excellent! Thank you for linking it.
Hi Luke, yes you’re right, that reviewer does offer up some good very points in his review, I read most of it and I’ll finish reading the rest of it later.
A couple of things in Shalit’s defense: she wrote about what she was specifically studying and what she specifically knew, and that was the topic of this new wave of girls standing up against this feminist “bad girl” mentality and the sexual immorality of our society, and why it takes more character to be a “good girl” than it does to be a “bad girl”. I agree that it would have been wonderful if she had written more about the male perspective, but I do think that the book serves as a valuable eye opener for the secular, vaguely feminist young women who would choose to read it, and as a good sort of morale-booster for the young “good girls” who read it – letting them know that there are others out there and they’re not alone. But you are right, it’s not perfect. Her quote about boy’s feelings being more important to society than good girls’ feelings is pretty ridiculous in it’s inaccuracy
I must admit, I’m confused about the excerpts you included below the review… as far as I can tell, in ALL of those excerpts Shalit would be in agreement with most of the men here, the only one in which she wouldn’t be is the last one: “What could be wrong with men these days that they refuse to commit?”. Were you trying to make a point about what Shalit is doing wrong that I missed somehow, or were you showing examples of some of the good things she wrote about?
Did you read the two books, yourself? In addition to reading the reviewer’s opinion, I’d be curious to know what YOU thought of it specifically.
Thank you for responding to my post!
I meant to write “in ALMOST ALL” above.
I’ll finish reading the end of the review tonight.
Hi, Katerina. I have read of Shalit’s two books only the “Modesty” book. It has worth, but IMO is far inferior to Devlin’s writings (to say nothing of Daniel Amneus; best example: “The Garbage Generation”).
I think Shalit is dimly seeing something worth seeing, but is struggling for clarity. She won’t ever be fully red pill (if ever) til she is divorced and well past 40.
@AR
I take it from you saying you are unavailable right now that you are married. It is my sincere hope that you have a long and happy marriage and for that reason are never able to use your test for your own personal benefit. Perhaps others will follow your advice.
That said, at first blush I think your test is an acceptable low bar standard. The reason I say at first blush is that these couple days I haven’t been able to reply as I’ve been thinking about what to say, I remembered a couple things. I remembered an article allamagoosa wrote about this subject. A google search didn’t find it. A site search didn’t find it. She was talking about how when they first married she was always saying why, until NSR said something like “one of these days I’m going to say ‘duck’ and you’re going to ask why.” So, she worked on that and fixed it. From that story it seems she would have failed that test, but learned better after she was married. I believe she did start out with an attitude that she wanted to be a submissive wife. The second thing I remembered was a story Michael Pearl told. I read it in a book, so I don’t know if it’s online. Probably in his main child raising book. He went to the trouble to teach his kids to obey immediately. One day he was driving I think his truck, with two or three kids in the passenger seat. He saw something, and said “Get out of the truck now!” A few moments later he looked over, and his kids were gone. They’d jumped out the window. He asked them why they did that, and they were like “but dad, you said…” What these stories indicate to me is that perhaps people without the instant obedience habit, can acquire it with training, but you can’t get that training unless someone gives it to you. For myself, I don’t know what I would do in the instinctual time frame, though once my brain engaged, I’m sure I would step back. I’m not sure that would be fast enough. This worries me a little.
That was not the first objection I had to your test, however. I was more concerned with the propriety of the thing. If a man and a woman go off on a camping trip alone, there are two issues. One is temptation, being alone in the woods overnight with someone you are attracted to so much that you are seriously considering marriage seems a little risky. The other is your Christian witness. Though secular people have no problem doing those sorts of things without any qualm, if they see a Christian camping with his fiance or future fiance, they will assume they are doing just what they would be and since they know Christianity frowns on that sort of thing, will use it as an illustration of what hypocrites Christians are. These are very solvable problems though, just bring enough extra people that they can act as chaperones.
Now my reason for pointing out that your command wasn’t a sin, was that I thought we were discussing the Biblicality of the claim that if a husband were to command his wife to sin, she should not do the sin, but instead be submissive in her method of refusal. Since your command wasn’t a sin, if would not be affected by this rule, and a wife would therefore be obligated to follow it.
PokeSalad
Just like ticks….rid yourself of one, two more appear…..*chuckles*
Myrealitie, tell Fawn and insanitybites22 “hi” for us….pretty sure you won’t have to go far… 😉
You know, I was thinking the same thought. The only thing is that our education system is spitting out girls with this kind of mental conditioning like drones on a Star Wars production line. So it is possible that more than one found her way here, possible but not all that likely.
If a man and a woman go off on a camping trip alone, there are two issues.
You are assuming a fact not in evidence. Were I back on the market again, it would be easy to go on a camping trip with sufficient friends of both sexes to avoid temptation, and yet still be able to test a woman in the way described above. In fact it would be best to go camping in such a situation with one or more married couples, possibly also with other unmarried people. This is not a complicated problem – the farmer, the fox, the chickens, the grain – t’s not difficult to figure out.
Now my reason for pointing out that your command wasn’t a sin,
Yes, yes, I know. Today a man tells his fiance to step away from a pile of logs, and if she obeys then as soon as they are married he’ll be ordering her to rob banks.
Striver “In today’s world, you want the wife that makes money. If any of them can divorce you, it’s simply less risk. Any man that doesn’t consider how much the future wife may earn is a fool. DO NOT LET YOUR WIFE BECOME A SAHM. Encourage her career, encourage her to put the kids in childcare and get back to work. Even offer to take care of them yourself if “her career is going better.””
You know… I kind of agree with you in a husband being supportive of a wife working. I’m a stay at home mom now (and it is definitely work and saving us money in childcare), but that is by no means what I want to do when my kids are all older. I wanted (and had planned out) a career when I was as young as 9 years old (how’s that for feminism indoctrinating girls super young??). lol My husband loves that I’m staying at home right now, but he also loves the 100,000+ income I’ll bring in once done with pharmacy school. We live off his income and are super tight, so we’ll continue to live off his income and my contributed income will go straight to savings (that’s how we plan it at least). I don’t think I would be fulfilled just staying home when my kids are in school (I guess unless I was homeschooling them all the way through). I graduated with honors majoring in Biology, and genuinely loved Organic Chem & Pharmacology/Neurology classes… so being a life learner (and earner) is desirable to both of us. But we both love that our kids aren’t in daycare when young. When I did work for a year using my degree, it was wonderful and “fulfilling” but everyday when I dropped my two year old off, I cried and felt torn and like I was doing the wrong thing. It’s sad that women are so pressured to work, have a career planned out by the time they’re 10, and then have a child and finally realize how amazing children really are (and how much they utterly need you).
Encourage her career, encourage her to put the kids in childcare and get back to work. Even offer to take care of them yourself if “her career is going better.
Completely disagree. It would be better to not have kids at all then to put them into the hands of strangers to raise. Also, a wife with a career IS more likely to interact with high status men and frivorce you. The more she makes, the more likely she will frivorce you. Granted if she is making money then the courts are more likely to go easier on you, but what about your kids? Also, a woman with a career is only going to be a part time mother giving a bad example of motherhood for all to see.
Phillyastro says:
June 5, 2015 at 9:23 am
It would be better to grind up one of those new FDA approved lady pills and put it in your wife’s mimosa for brunch. Problem solved.”
Nah. She’d just bang her boss/old BF/new “friend” who “understands her” she met on Facebook that much sooner and more enthusiastically. There’d be no improvement WRT her friendzoned hubby she’s got on the frivorce fasttrack.
Pingback: Never let a crisis go to waste | Dalrock
Pingback: She lost her best friend. | Dalrock
Pingback: FotF and Dr. Hegstrom: Check your male privilege. | Dalrock
Pingback: Whose job is it to keep mama happy? | Dalrock
It should be noted that the plan B advice you keep referring back to from Dr. Harley that you’ve based most of this article upon should be looked at in context, he is giving advice on what to do with the husband is in the midst of his infidelity, not just to an annoying wife trying to get some random thing from an otherwise decent husband.