Denying that marriage has moral meaning is the new virtue.

As I’ve previously explained, there is a very common misconception that our society no longer believes in sexual morality.  While this misconception is understandable, it overlooks the new sexual morality which has replaced the old one.  The new sexual morality inverts the natural order.  Now instead of lifetime marriage being the moral place to pursue sex and romantic love, romantic love is the moral place for sex and marriage.

You can see this new view with the huge social push to position couples who embrace divorce as demonstrating the height of virtue.  The Huffington Post published an article earlier this week gushing over a couple who took a “divorce selfie”.  Since marriage vows have no moral meaning, divorce doesn’t involve breaking any vows.  Divorce (they rationalize) should be about celebrating the fact that there once was romantic love, not about the destruction of a family or a failure to honor a solemn vow made in front of God and their closest family and friends.  The ex husband in the divorce selfie explains:

Here’s to the most friendly, respectful, and loving split imaginable. We smile not because it’s over, but because it happened…

…we also wanted to let people know that this didn’t have to be a negative experience. We are choosing to move forward with love. We’ve been separated a year, and throughout that time, we’ve both been committed to preserving our friendship.

To share that kind of bond with another is one of the most divine gifts given to us…

I feel blessed to have had the opportunity to love and be loved in return. I truly smile because I lived in that beautiful sunlight of love for a bit.

Back in March Gwyneth Paltrow and Chris Martin announced their divorce as a “conscious uncoupling”.  The Daily Telegraph and countless other media sources were delighted with this new and more enlightened approach to divorce.  More recently Jewel and her husband announced that they were engaged in a “thoughtful and tender undoing of ourselves.”

Ty and I have always tried to live the most authentic life possible, and we wanted our separation as husband and wife to be nothing less loving than the way we came together. For some time we have been engaged in a private and difficult, but thoughtful and tender undoing of ourselves. Allowing ourselves the time and space to redefine what we are to each other with love rather than malice.

We have been so aware that it is easiest to use the inertia of anger to leverage two souls apart who have been bound together by so much living. By a child. But we did not want anger to burn the ties that bound us. Instead we have chosen the much more difficult task of undoing ourselves stich by stich, and releasing each other with love so that we may take on our new form: dear friends and devoted co-parents of our beloved son Kase. We have no desire to damage ourselves and each other in the process. Who better than each other to bear witness to the heart ache of redefining our family? And who better as ally, while we learn to redraw ourselves in whatever new shape we find as separate people who are still striving to be the best versions of ourselves- as humans and as parents.

This new moral view is so ubiquitous that no one seems to notice what should be obvious.  If the ideal divorce is one where no one is to blame, then the ideal marriage is one where the vows have no moral meaning.

See Also:  Lovestruck

Posted in Denial, Divorce, Foolishness, Marriage, New Morality, Romantic Love, selling divorce | 188 Comments

From celibate boyfriend to celibate husband (true love doesn’t wait).

Pugsley’s story shows the folly of the celibate boyfriend:

When I met my then boyfriend-now husband, I told him right away that I was saving myself for marriage and he was fine with that because it was my body, my choice and he loved me.

We were together for six years before we got married.

Not surprisingly, her celibate boyfriend went on to become her celibate husband.  Part of this has to come from the selection process.  When a young woman sets out to find a celibate boyfriend instead of a husband, her selection criteria are going to be totally different.  A young woman looking for a husband will look for the best man she can attract, a man who fits the role of a husband and whom she can fall head over heels in love with.  A celibate boyfriend on the other hand is a totally different animal.  She needs to find someone without better options than to sign on as her official beta orbiter.  She also needs to find someone whom she isn’t too attracted to, or she might slip up herself.  Then after a suitable number of years of proving that she wasn’t in any hurry to marry (and most likely attaining her feminist merit badge), the celibate boyfriend is very often converted into a husband.

Again, this isn’t the biblical model.  The biblical model says marry if you burn with passion, then do it like rabbits.  The churchian model says to prove you really are in love by waiting to marry, most often several years, in a celibate romantic relationship.  The modern (unbiblical) view is that romantic love is purer than sex, and is what makes sex and marriage moral.  This overlooks the fact that like sex, romantic love is for marriage, and marriage is what makes sex and romantic love moral.

Posted in Finding a Spouse, Foolishness, Frigidity, New Morality, Romantic Love | 890 Comments

Corrupted purity.

MarcusD pointed out a recent article by Samantha Pugsley:  I Waited Until My Wedding Night To Lose My Virginity And I Wish I Hadn’t.  Salon published the same article under the title My Christian virginity pledge nearly destroyed me.

This is of course catnip for feminists (Christian or otherwise), who have been diligently inverting the very concept of sexual morality.  According to this new view, teaching sexual morality is immoral.  It is considered immoral because in the feminist view it disempowers women, especially young women.  Not surprisingly, an essential part of Pugsley’s “healing” is to remember that sex is only moral when it is miserly:

When I have sex with my husband, I make sure it’s because I have a sexual need and not because I feel I’m required to fulfill his desires.

Most of this is exactly what it seems, a rationalization for sexual immorality by women and feminists.  With that said, there is something creepy about the modern purity movement.  However, the perversion in modern Christianity is not teaching women (or men) virginity until marriage, but the often unspoken belief that women should delay marriage. Sexual desire isn’t presented as bad or dirty in the Bible. The biblical solution to sexual desire is to marry and have sex, but the vast majority of modern Christians are horrified at the idea of young marriage, especially for women. As a result of trying to teach purity while being hostile to traditional marriage, we end up with the perverse replacement of the father for the groom (scroll down to see all of the photos), the groom he is keeping her from marrying.

But make no mistake, the perversion isn’t in teaching virginity until marriage, but the accompanying hostility to women marrying in their late teens or early twenties.

Posted in Frigidity, Miserliness, New Morality, Ugly Feminists | 136 Comments

What is modern marriage for?

Why, divorce, of course:

The singular reason I wish I were actually married to my SO is so I could divorce his fucking ass.

Many would no doubt argue that this woman is an exception, and/or that no fault divorce isn’t about punishing men.  However, punishing men who make their wives unhappy is exactly what no fault divorce is designed to do, and everyone from academics to religious leaders is outright delighted by this.

While most will deny seeing no fault divorce as a system to punish men, nearly everyone implicitly acknowledges that no fault divorce is designed to punish men.  The ubiquitous retort to complaints about the unfairness of the divorce process for men is:

Prove that the men who lost their children, homes, and assets didn’t deserve to be punished.

It is worth noting that while no fault divorce is undeniably designed to be used to punish men, it is not designed to determine if the man in question is in fact guilty of anything.  This is the false veneer of fairness, because every man gets treated the same, guilty or not.  Of course in theory women could find themselves being the ones punished, but only in the very rare cases where a woman has taken on the traditional male role of primary breadwinner.  Given women’s strong preference for marrying men who out earn them, very few women are at risk of being mistaken for the man by the man-punishing machinery of no fault divorce and the family courts.

See Also:  

Posted in Denial, Divorce, Threatpoint | 682 Comments

Frigidity is ugly.

Commenter Jen reminds us that miserliness isn’t the only option for a wife:

Honestly, if a woman loves her husband, even if she’s NOT in the mood, she’ll be more than happy to acquiesce simply out of her love for and desire to please him & make him happy (which ought to, by default, make her even happier she said yes). And this is not “duty sex” or “Oh, FINE” sex, but “All right, Sweetheart!” and happily off the couple goes. IMO there is no room for the “duty” or grudging sex in marriage, because the woman is only “giving” grudgingly, and that is not giving at all, and may be just as cruel as denying. I wouldn’t like it if my husband acted that way. (God loves a cheerful giver! Perhaps that ought to be embroidered onto bedsheets…)

Many have grown so accustomed to the miserly perspective of feminism, where even love for family is subject to a penny pinching curmudgeonly attitude, that they forget that it doesn’t have to be this way.  Feminism is ugly because it teaches women to be misers with love, and frigidity is all about being miserly with love.  This feminist obsession with miserliness has caused large numbers of women to scorn what is beautiful to God;  what could be uglier than that?

There is a tendency in the sphere to make everything about Game/attraction, as if women can’t be loving unless their genitals are leading them that way.  This is the opposite extreme of Dr. Mohler seeing a woman’s clitoris as a divining rod for good men, and equally as foolish.  It isn’t that attraction and romantic love don’t matter;  they are very important.  But they aren’t the only thing.  We do miserly women a disservice if we claim the only way they can overcome their ugly attitude is for their husbands to lead them via their genitals.  We also do good and loving women a disservice by assuming they are only good and loving because they are following their genitals.

Posted in Foolishness, Frigidity, Game, Miserliness, Ugly Feminists | 288 Comments