Firebombed

Last week I had a discussion with two Christian women on another blog about my criticism of the movie Fireproof in my post The endless courtship fantasy.  The women took issue with my characterizing the wife in the movie as whorish.  They felt that since the husband had viewed porn on the internet this was grounds for the woman to divorce him.  They didn’t see the wife’s pursuit of a doctor she worked with while still married as a real problem, because she had already decided to divorce and it was really the husband’s fault after all.  They were also adamant that the wife planned on waiting until she had divorced the first man and married the second one before consummating the affair with sex, even though I could find no mention of this in the movie.

I should acknowledge that I run the risk of creating a straw man of their argument, but these points were made by them.  I’ve decided to not link directly to the blog, and directly quoting them would with the help of google create a de-facto link*.  I don’t want to send an angry mob their way, but I do want to address what I see as glaring problems with the movie.  Since I will ask them to read the post, I will also ask as a courtesy to me that you avoid any personal attacks on them in the discussion.  However, feel free to take issue with their arguments as I have presented them, the Christian fawning over this movie in general, and the incredibly weak Christian support for the concept of marriage vows.

The women challenged me to actually watch the movie, so I took their challenge and added it to our netflix queue.  We watched it last night in fast forward with subtitles turned on, and I stopped it periodically to repeat the dialog so I could take what ended up being 7 pages of notes.  Since I’m dissecting the movie it should go without saying that it will pretty much spoil the whole plot.  If you want to watch the movie without it being spoiled first, stop reading now.  For those of you who are like my wife and I and would rather snack on broken glass than watch a gussied up chick flick, read on and I’ll spare you the need.

The movie starts 25 years ago when the wife (Catherine) is a young girl.  She wants to marry her daddy when she gets older (we see in a picture that he is a fireman).  Her mother says that she can’t marry her daddy, and has to find her own husband.  The girl asks Will we live happily ever after?, and the mother replies:

If you marry someone who really, really loves you.

Fast forward 25 years, and the little girl turned wife of a fire captain isn’t haaaaapy.  Whenever her husband Caleb comes home, he is walking on eggshells for fear of setting her off.  She has a laundry list of standard issue complaints.  He doesn’t do the housework, and she is too busy to do it now that she has a high status job as head of PR for the local hospital.  She has a list of needs which he isn’t spending money on, which he points out are actually wants.  He is very clear that his primary complaint is that he is respected everywhere but in his own house.  In the marital fight which stages the fundamental conflict for the movie, we learn that she has been denying him sex because he isn’t doing what she wants, and that he has been viewing online pornography (direct quote from the subtitles):

Catherine:  If looking at that trash is how you get fulfilled, then that is fine.  But I will not compete with it.

Caleb:  Well, I sure don’t get it from you!

Catherine:  And you won’t.  Because you care more about saving for your stupid boat and pleasing yourself than you ever did about me.

When she taunts him with her manipulation of him through withheld sex, he flies into a rage and calls her a “disrespectful, ungrateful, and selfish woman”:

Catherine:  I’m not selfish.  How dare you say that!

Caleb:  If you can’t give me the respect I deserve, then what is the point of this marriage?

Catherine (bursts into tears):  I want out.  I just want out.

Caleb replies that if that is what she wants, then it is fine with him.  Immediately after the fight she takes off her wedding ring, and begins actively flirting with a doctor at the hospital which other women have already noted seems interested in her.

Her objection to him saving for the boat is that she has other plans for the money.  Her mother had a stroke a year prior, and Catherine has gone to a medical supply store and picked out a sort of stroke bridal registry of things she wants to give her mother.  She specifically mentions a new wheelchair and a “hospital bed”.  By pure coincidence, this totals to the exact twenty four thousand dollars the husband has set aside to buy a boat.  Interestingly the movie authors clearly expect us to see this as a “need”, but we never hear this from a medical professional.  Her mother has already moved back home, and is sitting up fine in a normal chair when we see her.  There is never a discussion about why top of the line equipment is the only way to help her parents, or how any of this will help her mother be able to speak again.  The flimsy nature of this is important, because it sets the tone for the movie.  Even if the wife’s demands are suspect, the right choice for the husband is to give her whatever she demands.

Money is fundamental to the plot, and the movie makes repeated reference to the husband’s need to spend money on his wife.  Him spending money on her is so important it is one of the first parts of the Love Dare.  Caleb makes the mistake of sending her flowers which aren’t expensive enough, and the movie grinds in the point that this makes him a bad husband.  When the flowers arrive, they are actually fairly nice (but nothing extravagant).  His unhaaaapy wife rolls her eyes and walks away.  Later a more expensive bouquet of red roses arrives with a note which says “I love you more”.  She appears to think this is from the doctor at the hospital she is trying to start an affair with, and instead of rolling her eyes lights up.  Her very next move is to put an envelope marked “Caleb” on the table, which turns out to have divorce papers in it.

But none of this deters our husbandly hero in his pursuit of ever greater feats of betatized groveling.  After she gives him the divorce papers, the Love Dare tells him he needs to give her an all out romantic dinner.  He learns his lesson from the flowers incident and it is made clear that he spared no effort or expense.  Catherine comes home and sees the dinner he prepared for her, candles and all.  She treats him with her standard contempt, and asks what this is all about.  He answers pleadingly “Maybe I want to have dinner with my wife”.  She goes into her bedroom for a minute to get what she came for, and before she walks out the door tells him:

Let me be real clear with you about something.

I do not love you.

But our hero is still undeterred.  He knows from his wise father (who sent him the love dare), that he needs to love his wife unconditionally.  Even when she is starting an affair with another man and tells him she doesn’t love him and gives him divorce papers, it is his job to try harder to please her.

Around day 20 Caleb is trapped in a burning house while trying to rescue a young girl.  He uses his axe to chop through the floor of the house and pulls the unconscious girl into the crawl space.  Here he very nearly ends up trapped again, and is forced to remove some of his protective gear.  The scene ends with other firefighters dragging both Caleb and the girl out of the crawl space, and both appear to be unconscious.

This puts Caleb in the very hospital Catherine works at, being treated by the doctor she is starting an affair with.  Catherine briefly stops by to check on him, but is extremely cold and walks away after the nurse tells her she is welcome to stay with her “hero” husband.  Her specific words to him are “You look terrible.  You gonna be ok?”  This scene contrasts with a later scene where Catherine is in bed with a fever.  Caleb runs out and buys her food from Chick-fil-A to nurse her back to health.  It turns out that men who were nearly killed with first degree burns don’t deserve the same level of caring a woman who has a fever does.

Later in the movie Caleb finds a greeting card/love letter from the doctor who treated him which Catherine is keeping on her dresser (he finds this while doing the housework he has taken over).  This sets up the ultimate frivolous divorcée fantasy, where two alphas (in status at least) compete directly for her heart.  Caleb tells the doctor that he will “compete for her heart”.  As Caleb leaves the Dr. opens a drawer with his own wedding ring in it, but we aren’t told whether he is divorced or currently married.

The concept of two high status men fighting over the would be divorcée’s heart is at the core of the movie.  Even the plot device, the Love Dare, is all about him convincing her to love him.  It isn’t about him convincing her to honor her wedding vows.  This is standard issue divorce porn, and tells women that divorce gives them power to get what they want.  No woman who watched the movie would fail to get this overriding message.  If you aren’t haaaapy, threaten divorce and let high status men compete for your heart!

The core reason the Christian women thought the wife’s actions were morally justified is the husband’s ostensible addiction to pornography.  Interestingly the first time we hear the word addiction in this context is from the instructions from his father.  His wife never uses this term, and we aren’t shown him being obsessed with it.  At one point he is on the web looking at something else, and he gets a popup for porn.  With his new faith in God and his desire to prove himself to his wife he resists the urge to click on the popup.  From here he smashes the PC with a sledgehammer and says “no more addictions”.

The conflict is finally resolved when Catherine is talking to the woman who runs the medical supply store.  She wants to pick out some more odds and ends for her mother.  She mentions the Dr. and when she does she lights up and starts playing with her hair the same way she has been doing while flirting with him (the whole hospital knows she is after him).  The woman corrects her, explaining that the Dr. only gave $300, and her husband gave $24,000.  Suddenly Catherine realizes she misunderstood who was the winner of the bidding war for her heart.  She races home and puts her ring on and tarts herself up before going see Caleb at the fire station.

At this point I was expecting her to apologize not only for being a ball busting harpy, but more than a little whorish as well.  But all she says is:

If I haven’t told you that you are a good man, you are.

If I haven’t told you that I have forgiven you, I have.

If I haven’t told you that I love you, I do.

With those magic words, all of her awful behavior is forgotten.  Shortly thereafter she is treated to a second wedding ceremony, but this time they stress that she actually means it for life.

*Update:  The Christian blogger (Sheila Gregoire) later made the same argument on another post on this blog, and I responded with this post.  Here is the link to her blog post where we had the exchange I referenced in this post.

See Also:

About these ads
This entry was posted in Choice Addiction, Church Apathy About Divorce, Divorce, Feminists, Fireproof, Kendrick Brothers, Marriage, selling divorce. Bookmark the permalink.

579 Responses to Firebombed

  1. EF says:

    Thanks for the review. Now to steer clear of that POS movie.

  2. Rhahael says:

    It is a comedy, they exaggerate things so they become more noticeable and when things become impossible not to note the funny side of it materializes.

    On the stage, it is, because in real life people suffer anxiety from those things.

  3. MarkyMark says:

    Even Christian women suck! Thanks for yet ANOTHER reason to stay single…

  4. red says:

    Wow, that’s quite bad. But it sounds typical for most of evangelical christian women I have known.

  5. Ya Boy Matt says:

    Porn has become one of the default excuses for women who aren’t haaaaaapy to justify whatever they do and have no one argue with them because porn is naughty and sinful but infidelity is just peachy.

  6. red says:

    The addiction angel/physical violence is often used by evangelical christian in justifying divorce. I’ve seen several divorces like this as a kid. Once case I watched how the father was driven to hide away at bars and drink because he didn’t want to go home to his harpy disrespectful wife. Another case I watched a wife spend hours insulting her husband, following him where ever he went in the until he slapped her once to make her shut up. She then used that as excuse to leave the house and screw around for a few months. Both were considered good christian women in my Evangelical Christian church.

  7. sean says:

    Did we watch the same movie? I thought the movie showed 2 sinful people doing sinful things that were ruining their marriage. In no way did the movie give the wife a pass about the sinful way she reacted to her husband. In fact, the movie shows that a woman needs to make sure she has friends who are pro-marriage. Women and men need friends who will give them good advice & this wife had fools for friends. In a marriage where both parties are not acting in the best interest of the marriage someone has to make the first step to rectify the situation. The movie choose to show the husband making the first step, it’s called being humble and it’s a highly prized virtue. The movie did highlight that originally his mother had to humble out and use the steps in the book to get his father back. I don’t know any valid Christian woman who saw that movie and didn’t see the wife’s actions as sinful and wrong.

    [D: I stand by my post, and invite anyone who thinks I am wrong to print the post out and watch (or rewatch) the movie to find where I am wrong.]

  8. Dalrock says:

    @Sean

    I don’t know any valid Christian woman who saw that movie and didn’t see the wife’s actions as sinful and wrong.

    Would you call her actions whorish?

    Also, in the version you watched, did she apologize for this? I was specifically looking for this, and replayed the final scene at the firehouse several times to make sure I didn’t miss anything. She never did.

    Print out the post and watch the movie again. You will find that everything I have said happened as I say.

  9. sean says:

    Yes her actions were whorish. Anytime you leave the man you have committed yourself to before God to go after some other man you are being a whore. Why do you think I’m squeamish about that? Heck no. Yes I don’t dispute what you said happen, I dispute your interpretation. Both of them where not upholding their marriage vows, I infer that she and he apologized to each other and forgave hence the remarriage ceremony. If no apologies were made there would be no remarriage. Perhaps it would have been better to have that explicit scene.

  10. Ricardo di Matteo says:

    He should have said: “She’s your ****ing mother” and bought the boat.

  11. Lori says:

    I wholeheartedly agree with you. I think there needs to be a movie where there are manipulating, controlling women whose husbands have to walk on eggshells {which I see in many homes, including Christian ones…I actually was one of those wives} and an older woman points out their error of not loving their husbands as God commands them to love them. They start loving, serving, and pleasing their husbands and their marriages are healed. The Bible does say that “women will win their husbands without a word” and “a wise woman will build up her home and a foolish one will tear it down.” Women hold A LOT of power in the home and marriage! If I can get a hold of a woman and mentor her, their marriage is dramatically changed for the good 100% of the time.

  12. Opus says:

    Intrigued by the post I have just done a little research at the ever-excellent IMDB. This movie – made principally by The Goldwyn Company – for half a million dollars (!) – has grossed over $33,000,000, so it is clearly rather successful financially. The comment section for the film is largely a debate over religion – as this is clearly a christian film, and I suppose aimed at an American Protestant Audience – though I rather liked the comment, that what the fireman should have done was beaten the hell out of the Doctor. I think you would thus have needed someone like Harrison Ford or Mel Gibson to play the Fireman – though personally I would have preferred it if as the last line of the film the Foreman had turned to his wife and said ‘Frankly my dear I don’t give a damn’ and walked.

    The question seems to me turn on a comment I made – but received no up-take on – on Dalrock’s last post but one, namely, is Adultery (or in this case masturbation) justifiable grounds for Divorce? I am not aware that there is anything to that effect in the Testaments, New or Old; nor do I ever recall reading anything in Paul about being justified in throwing your Husband out if he fails to make you haaaapy, or if he should fail to spend as much money on you as the (presumably) better paid Doctor (or even a secret Millionaire Handyman). Christianity seems to be a broad church but I cannot quite see Father O’Murphy agreeing with the premise of the film – as I see it – that a woman is entitled to divorce to get more romance, but then Catholics aren’t Christians are they.

    The film, appears therefore, to be Chic-Crack Porn masquerading with various dubious assumptions (looking at Internet Porn is not an addiction) as dubious moral tale, and we clearly must be grateful to Dalrock for undertaking the unenviable task of watching the dross – if only in fast-forward mode. As his Internet Christians may be reading this (and abiding by the request not to be rude to them) may I suggest they read or view Shakespeare on marraige, as in, say The Winter’s Tale, or perhaps Othello, for a somewhat different ‘christian’ take on female responsibility within the Holy Sacrement. No Handsome Doctors though I am afraid – though perhaps The Moor may appeal to the EatPrayLove crowd, as he clearly did to Desdemona.

  13. That movie sounds about as appalling as Eat Pray Love. I think both genders have succumbed to entitlement syndrome. Men feel entitled to be married to a domesticated porn star, a woman who stays as skinny as the day she married him, cooks like mom, and gives frequent blowjobs. Women feel entitled to always feel like they’re living in a romantic comedy where the wooing never ends.

    Both sets of unrealistic expectations are probably behind a lot of our current issues as a culture.

  14. Ya Boy Matt says:

    Can you identify a single thing in this film from the husband that indicates “Men Entitlement?”

    Because otherwise you are just reverting into TEAM WOMAN mode and projecting and deflecting.

  15. Re: sexual immorality in the Bible…it’s not so cut and dried as “watching porn is a-okay.”

    First, adultery is, in fact, grounds for divorce in the Bible:

    Matthew 5:32
    But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery. (NIV)

    Matthew 19:9
    I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery. (NIV)

    Both of these are quotes from Jesus.

    However, beyond actual acts of infidelity, porn probably falls into the category of sexual immorality as well, based upon the teachings of Christ:

    Matthew 5:28: But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

    It’s hard to say that a man watching porn isn’t, based upon this standard, committing adultery.

    But I think it goes beyond the superficial. Christ’s teachings were really trying to communicate a message of the overwhelming guiltiness of mankind before God. The teaching was in the context of addressing human self-righteousness. Christ was dealing with a group of people convinced of their own goodness before God. They were following the letter of the law, but trampling all over it in spirit. Matthew 5 points out exactly how far short humanity falls from God’s perfection…and yet, God shows incredible mercy.

    It can be argued that the passage is designed to show humanity how much mercy God shows to us, and similarly, how much mercy we should show to one another.

    I don’t think that a woman should divorce her husband for watching porn. Nor do I think that people should divorce for a single act of infidelity. I think that in the context of Christian marriage, the calling is to show mercy to each other’s imperfections. But that should not serve as an excuse for bad behavior.

  16. TikkTok says:

    Wait- what? This is a Christian film? I haven’t seen it. Doesn’t sound like I want to…..

  17. Can you identify a single thing in this film from the husband that indicates “Men Entitlement?”
    Because otherwise you are just reverting into TEAM WOMAN mode and projecting and deflecting.

    Your reasoning is flawed. I don’t believe there was male entitlement in the film. However, it’s hard to make the argument that it isn’t incredibly prevalent in our modern culture–on the part of both genders.

    Your post reaks of unthinking parroting. Apparently, in your world, anything that isn’t selectively critical of women is “team woman.” I tend to think that both men and women are equally culpable in widespread bad behavior, and that both genders should be held accountable for their bad behavior.

  18. PT Barnum says:

    Did we watch the same movie? I thought the movie showed 2 sinful people doing sinful things that were ruining their marriage. In no way did the movie give the wife a pass about the sinful way she reacted to her husband.

    Make a list of changes the wife made to make her husband happy. I can’t think of one. I have no idea what you are talking about.

    As for “porn as an excuse”. Well, has she saved any children from fires lately? No? Why not?
    And spending his money on her mother is just funneling resources to her and hers, and away from him. Obviously.

    How many times does a man have to look at a naked lady to equal saving one child by risking his own life?

    Well chickees? Five playboys to the saved child? Let’s not pull our punches here, chickees, maybe it’s as low as three playboys.

    And while we are at it, only fools actually believes that if he had not looked at pornography, then wifey would not have attacked. At least only an idiot would believe that. Wifey would simply make something else up. Ah, but you are to clever for us, and we don’t know that, do we? Such cunning.

  19. TB says:

    Wow, I hate evangelicalism. This attitude is just in the water. It’s the subtext of every service I attended from age five to twenty-five. Women can do no wrong. Men should volunteer to have their balls cut off in order to be good Christians.

    They can go to hell. If my wife acted that way, I’d be gone in a flash.

  20. This is an excellent analysis of the movie.

    “Even if the wife’s demands are suspect, the right choice for the husband is to give her whatever she demands.”

    Excellent point. The stroke and medical equipment is an appeal to the emotions as to make us choose the wife’s side. You instinctively feel sorry for the mother and therefore think no further whether such equipment is actually needed. Whereas with the boat, that has no emotional appeal and instead the first reaction is to think how selfish he is in comparison.

    There really is no “love dare”, but a “money dare”. Her love is entirely conditional on whether he can buy her off. A far cry from the Christian 1 Corinthians 13 definition of love.

    Given the message of this film, I am sure the latest movie “Courageous” is not much better. From what I can gather, it is a “man up” message to be better fathers and husbands, regardless of what a wife/mother is or isn’t doing. The burden always is with the man. This is true for the movie “Facing the Giants” as well. In that one, if I recall correctly, the reason the couple couldn’t get pregnant was a biological issue on HIS end and the reason why praying wasn’t overcoming a medical issue, was because HIS faith wasn’t strong enough.

  21. Dalrock,

    You shacked the analysis.

    Mrs. Wapiti and I saw this excreble movie during one of Dennis Rainey’s Weekend to Remember seminars a couple of years ago.

    Even Mrs. Wapiti saw through the obvious, as you say, divorce porn.

  22. PT Barnum says:

    Your reasoning is flawed. I don’t believe there was male entitlement in the film. However, it’s hard to make the argument that it isn’t incredibly prevalent in our modern culture–on the part of both genders.

    So make it. Show me the movies where the non-alpha gets the super-model without some bizarre plot twist. Go on, there are, ah, hundreds I am sure. By that I mean I can think of one.

    Knocked Up, which obviously had the Gotcha! of pregnancy.

    NOTE:
    Catharine Holt(Erin Bethea) is not that good looking. Her face is basically square. Like a man’s. I dislike it. Her voice is, my god, her voice is horrid. I don’t know about her figure, since she dresses like a man in the movie. No attempt to look even feminine, much less sexy. The character clearly hit way out of her league just getting a fire captain to marry her, much less be faithful and actually pay some attention to her.

    I have no idea how such a reject would ever end up with a fire captain in the first place.

    I googled “face” and found this superior female face on page one:

    Erin Bethea:
    http://pickledwookiee.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/erin-bethea.jpg
    Emma Watson:
    http://www.hdwallpapers.in/wallpapers/emma_watson_getting_glow_in_face_hd-1024×768.jpg

    Emma also has better skin. Not like that’s hard given what she is competing with.

    I could go on and on. But really. And you think I would sleep with her?

    I’d have to listen to that voice for HOURS to sleep with her. MY GOD. HOURS AND HOURS AND HOURS.

  23. jso says:

    kirk cameron is a creationist psychopath, as well as being a pussy whipped mangina douchtruck

  24. Basil Ransom says:

    Apparently, the whole movie is on Youtube. I watched the trailer, Her contempt is apparent. The problem with trying to “woo her back” is that it’s inherently low value behavior. It’s just confirmation of the man’s lowly status. So unless the relationship had been foundering due to his genuine neglect, it’s just bound to make things worse.

    Traditional relationship advice says when a girl is upset with you, “show her you care.” In reality, this is terrible advice. It will make her feel claustrophobic, and even make you seem controlling. Your value declines, confirming her decision to withdraw. You risk anchoring her bad mood permanently to your presence. Classic game advice is to withdraw until she re-engages.

    Men feel entitled to be married to a domesticated porn star, a woman who stays as skinny as the day she married him, cooks like mom, and gives frequent blowjobs.

    A woman who truly loves her man aims to please. It is incumbent on both parties to remain attractive to each other, to attend to each other, and to satisfy each other. Any woman who disagrees is not fit to be a wife, nor a man a husband. She is putting her vanity above her husband’s satisfaction, above the relationship.

    the fireman should have done was beaten the hell out of the Doctor.

    Weak move. Beating up a man because your own wife is a whore? Eh.

  25. cd says:

    I recall a line from mission impossible 2, “Women are like monkeys, they will not leave the branch they are on unless they have a firm grip on the one above them”. Dont say you were not warned.

  26. Basil Ransom says:

    For some reason, the Evangelical female mindset reminded me of this: http://www.quickmeme.com/Sheltering-Suburban-Mom/

    Entitled, hypocritical, pseudo-righteous, self-absorbed, hubristic.

  27. Ceer says:

    The real world has this subtext…unconditional love from men will never give you love from a woman in turn. Women only like men who show in their mannerisms that they’re not that interested in them. If you make that mistake, they’ll happily think of you as a potential murderer, rapist, or cheater…whatever the hamster needs to get their forebrain to abuse you.

    Women are not called to account for their immorality in this culture. The prevalence of romance novels is telling. The entire genre is basically emotional pornography for women. Women excuse this while deride men’s visual pornography. So much for not having double standards.

    Seems like the movie itself is about how the husband should always cave in to the wife’s demands. To me, women tend to spend their money on the craziest things. This is neither right nor wrong, just a difference in priority. The husband quite reasonably kept his money back from taking care of the wife’s parents, whose care should come out of the wife’s income first. Perhaps it’s implied in the movie that the wife already blew her entire income on wants for her parents. Or worse…closet decorating or lawn arranging… Isn’t she the PR head of a hospital in liberated times?

  28. Celeste says:

    I watched that movie with my husband several years ago, and the question of “wow, I feel more sympathetic toward the husband!” was keen in my mind. Interestingly, my husband was more sympathetic toward the woman.

    I also remember that the one time the husband brought up a point I found glaringly obvious, the “Why does deserve a guy as great as he is being now?” his father pointed to the cross and said gravely something along the lines of “Look what Jesus did for us undeserving sinners.”

    And I thought that was kind of a cheap cop out. I mean yes, love even when we don’t deserve it is important in a marriage, but where’s the balance? Should a person be expected to receive absolutely nothing in return? Should a person be expected to keep trying to the point of sexual abandonment? Are we really to expect men to be tortured, like Christ, for their marriages? Does not Jesus require that we accept his sacrifice in order for it to be ours, and to love him in return?

  29. Bellita says:

    If you aren’t haaaapy, threaten divorce and let high status men compete for your heart!

    I didn’t see that the first (and only) time I watched this movie, but now that you’ve pointed it out, I agree that Fireproof has exactly that message for women.

    Having said that, I vaguely remember the twist Sean has already mentioned, which reveals that the “Love Dare” actually originated from Caleb’s mother, who did everything in the book to woo back his father, when their own marriage was on the rocks. Not that it’s enough to save the movie. And since what we know of the “Love Dare” involves spending a lot of money on flowers and chocolates (although I don’t recall if these were explicitly mentioned), I doubt that Caleb’s mother followed the same version she gave her son.

  30. PuzzledTraveller says:

    Brilliant summary D .

    I lived a period of my life that was eerily similar to this movie. The best I can say for this movie is that it is an instruction manual for any man on what not to do and whom not to marry. Just so the ladies know: In real life, your husband does not reward your adultery with a beautiful new wedding, cash prizes and take the blame for your choices.

    No, in real life when you cheat on your husband, the neighbors find out, your relatives all find out, the people at your work find out, your kids find out and they call you a whore to your face or behind your back, and they are ashamed that you are their mother. And you have to live with it for the rest of your life. They don’t buy into your rationalizations. They call it like they see it. But if it makes you haaapppyyyy…as you please ladies, as you please…

  31. PuzzledTraveller says:

    @Laura Grace Robbins

    “Given the message of this film, I am sure the latest movie “Courageous” is not much better. From what I can gather, it is a “man up” message to be better fathers and husbands, regardless of what a wife/mother is or isn’t doing. ”

    Exactly. That’s why I quit Church. Men get accountability groups. Women get study groups. Every man in church is made to feel like he is strange if he is NOT addicted to porn, the bottle or a wife beater. “Come on brother, there must be some sin in you, let us meet at the men’s accountability group and drag it out of you. Your poor, poor wife.”

    I think I would have a stroke if ever there was an organization like “Promise Keepers” for women. Seems the Church hates the men. But they know which side their bread is buttered on. Women fill the pews and the coffers. They can have it. My Bible reads the same at home or elsewhere.

  32. Sandy says:

    2 Dubious Wonder
    =========================
    Men feel entitled to be married to a domesticated porn star, a woman who stays as skinny as the day she married him
    =========================
    What’s wrong with staying at healthy weight? Being overweight or obese is detrimental to health and it looks bad, killing sexual desire. Do wives have a right to stuff themselves with food like pigs? Is it wrong for a man do demand that his wife stays at a healthy weight and doesn’t go into pig weight territory?

    =========================
    , cooks like mom,
    =========================
    What’s wrong with cooking?

    =========================
    and gives frequent blowjobs
    =========================
    What’s wrong with frequent blowjobs?

    If reasonable eating and exercise habits, cooking and sexuality makes a wife into a “domesticated porn star”, then I think a good married man absolutely has a right to a “domesticated porn star”

  33. PuzzledTraveller says:

    @Dubious Wonder:

    Well, that would be ideal. (lol) I get what your saying.

    Honest to God, I think most guys would be extremely encouraged if their wife was just NICE to them and treated them with some respect. Which is kind of sad in its own way. I don’t think women realize how much influence they have over the average Beta husband to either inspire him to great things or to tear down and grind him in the dirt. Maybe they do though and they enjoy toying with him, which is more likely.

    As for me, I required that my wife not sleep with other people. She disagreed with my requirement. She is gone now but me and the kids are still cleaning up the damage after her. After having gone through the whole process, I just feel like their futures are dimmer now than what they could have been. Sad.

  34. Sandy: Very few wives with kids are having porn star sex. That’s because porn star sex isn’t real. Women in porn are performing. They’re playing a role. Their acting isn’t about their own satisfaction, it’s entirely focused on male gratification, for one thing. And yet, there are a lot of guys out there who want their sex lives to be just like porn.

    So, if a woman doesn’t live up to perfection in any of these areas, is her husband entitled to cheat just like the wife in this movie? If my husband doesn’t do home repairs or puts on 20 pounds or develops erectile dysfunction, am I entitled to cheat, because I’m a good wife?

    The fact that you think that men have a “right” to perfection is exactly what I’m talking about—the culture of entitlement which says that people must live up to our fantasies or we’re entitled to ditch them for a shinier new toy.

  35. Opus says:

    All of which reminds me of something told to me by a friend.

    He, was speaking to an ex-girlfriend who (coincidence) had recently married a Doctor (My friend had been a truck driver). She said she intended to divorce the Doctor with a view to marrying my friend. He replied, that as she was a Roman Catholic, that would presumably not be possible. Her reply was, ‘Jesus would not want me to be unhaaaaapy’. Wow, isn’t religion wonderful. I may be a bit shaky on the New Testament (clearly) but surely there can be no verse justifying Divorce on the grounds of unhappiness.

  36. Jason says:

    Great post Dalrock,

    When my wife first asked for a divorce this was a movie that was recommended to me to watch. Never got around to it but OMG WTF?!?!?!?!

    Assuming your take is accurate, and from the reviews I have heard and the summary I was given and why it was recommended, it seems I have no reason to think it isn’t.

    I am sure the movie was made with the best of intentions but what possible good can come from encouraging Christian women to pdivorce their husbands if they are unhappy? No wonder the church is such a mess, but a horribly feminized (heh, my iPad just autocorrected the first attempt to type that to demonized, A sign perhaps?) evangelicalism is a cmmon coolant today and this is probably as much a symptom as a cause of it.

    Thanks for the review.

    Jason

  37. Celeste says:

    @Dubious

    In my opinion, a wife has the obligation to give her reasonable best effort at her appearance and sexual prowess. Ideally, what’s “reasonable” would be discussed before marriage.

  38. Jason says:

    I have to side with DW on the utter idiocy of men expecting their wives to be porn stars. Actually I would suggest men are idiotic for indulging porn at all (I have learned this lesson the hard way).

    And to be honest, trying to learn about sex from porn is like trying to learn about physics from star trek.

    Jason

  39. Random Angeleno says:

    Thank you for steering me clear of this movie. Someone recommended it to me; next time it’s mentioned to me, I’ll send a link to this post.

    I don’t mind if a woman wants to know about my ability to provide, but that needs to come after she’s established attraction to and rapport with me, not before. Seeing someone like Catherine be all about the money makes my skin crawl. I know of many like her in the real world.

  40. As for me, I required that my wife not sleep with other people. She disagreed with my requirement. She is gone now but me and the kids are still cleaning up the damage after her. After having gone through the whole process, I just feel like their futures are dimmer now than what they could have been. Sad.

    I understand. I cooked, gave blowjobs, and didn’t turn into a fatty, but that sort of normalcy wasn’t enough for my ex. He craved a fantasy that didn’t exist and thought he’d find it by chasing strange. Like you, I’m still cleaning up the mess he left.

    It sucks, but kids are resilient. In some ways, my kids will probably always carry the wounds from what happened, but very few of us make it to adulthood without scars of some kind. Even in two parent homes, kids can get damaged. Just do your best. That’s all you can do. And really, it’s all any kid can ask for.

    I wish my kids had a good dad. But, they have a good mom. That makes them luckier than a lot of kids. In your case, I’m sure you wish they had an unfractured home, but they clearly have a dad who thinks about them a lot and is involved in their lives. That makes them lucky.

    Neither of our situations are ideal, but we can’t dwell on that. We have to go on and make the best we can with what we’ve got. My kids aren’t perfect, but they’re good students, they’re caring and respectful people, and I have ensured that they are surrounded with multiple positive adult role models. They’re doing well. In some ways, what they’ve been through, as much as it’s sucked, has taught them things that has given them a maturity that some of their peers don’t have.

    I wish they hadn’t been required to learn those things, but like I said, you make the best of what is.

  41. Smooth T says:

    @ Dubious Wonder –

    Who said anything about perfection? You created that strawman all by yourself.

    Few men demand “porn star sex” – whatever that is – from their wives. Are you defining it as “frequent blowjobs”? Most married men would be thrilled for *a* blowjob, period.

    Husbands just want their wives to be sexually responsive on a regular basis, and not simply going through the motions in order to get it over with as quick as possible.

    Would you ladies prefer it if us husbands did the absolute bare minimum necessary at our jobs or around the house? Or would you rather us do it with enthusiasm, because we love our wives and want the best for them?

  42. Sandy says:

    2 Dubious Wonder
    ==========================
    Sandy: Very few wives with kids are having porn star sex. That’s because porn star sex isn’t real. Women in porn are performing. They’re playing a role. Their acting isn’t about their own satisfaction, it’s entirely focused on male gratification, for one thing. And yet, there are a lot of guys out there who want their sex lives to be just like porn.
    ==========================
    You said that “frequent blowjobs” are some form of porn star perfection fantasy. That’s total BS. If a husband likes blowjobs he has a right to get them from the wife (if the wife has sexual reasonable preferences herself, the husband should satisfy her too)

    ==========================
    So, if a woman doesn’t live up to perfection in any of these areas, is her husband entitled to cheat just like the wife in this movie? If my husband doesn’t do home repairs or puts on 20 pounds or develops erectile dysfunction, am I entitled to cheat, because I’m a good wife?

    The fact that you think that men have a “right” to perfection is exactly what I’m talking about—the culture of entitlement which says that people must live up to our fantasies or we’re entitled to ditch them for a shinier new toy.
    ==========================
    Since when a healthy weight, cooking and blowjobs constitute perfection? 99% of all women can do it if they want it. It’s far from perfection, it’s very low standard actually

  43. Basil Ransom says:

    The fact that you think that men have a “right” to perfection

    Given how you’ve defined perfection, you have absolutely zero credibility. “Waaa I have to exercise… Waaa I have to cook for him… Sex, ewwwww!” You hate men, face it. You hate sating their desires. You see satisfying them as some great loss, as treason and betrayal. If he’s winning, you must be losing. You are toxic. Your perspective is warped because your ex-husband left you, and now you’re taking it out on all men. Because, according to you, you did everything right and things still went wrong, you’re now saying no one need do anything right. Hell, asking a partner to be faithful is just too oppressive and ‘entitled.’

    Call it “entitlement” and “rights”…You can use whatever pejorative language you like. I see it as an obligation, and it runs both ways. And there are plenty of women who do enjoy sex.

  44. Raymond of St. Pete says:

    Wow – I hadn’t seen the movie but I’ve lived this story. Had an evangelical wacko wife who couldn’t stop giving our money to the TV preachers (Joyce Meyers, Benny Hinn, …). She’d ride me into the ground because she didn’t have all the stuff she felt she deserved. The sense of entitlement, grandiosity, narcicism, enabled by “Jesus wants me to have/give/get …” rings too true. Frustrated by not getting what her hotness and faith deserved, she filed for divorce and for me it wasn’t a day too soon (while telling me how “all the doctors are checking me out”). Creepily similar. Unlike her, I’m an atheist who respects the solemn promises of marriage but she did me a huge favor. No wonder evangelicals have the highest divorce rate. There is something pathologically broke in that community and no one wants to admit or confront it.

  45. Prof. Woland says:

    This reminds me of the old saying, “It does not matter where you get your appetite as long as you eat at home.” Being faithful to your spouse does not mean going blind. This whole need to latch on to porn as the reason for the divorce has more to do with the fact that women are always trying to cast themselves as the victim. Initiating divorce with out good cause means the other person is the one most victimized.

  46. Sandy says:

    2 Jason
    ========================
    I have to side with DW on the utter idiocy of men expecting their wives to be porn stars. Actually I would suggest men are idiotic for indulging porn at all (I have learned this lesson the hard way).

    And to be honest, trying to learn about sex from porn is like trying to learn about physics from star trek.
    ========================
    What are you talking about? Most non-fetish, non-group hetero porn it’s just filmed sex between a man and a woman. Porn sex is mechanical, and people who do it don’t love each other and don’t know each other well. A husband and wife can do much better in sex because if they love each other and know each other, they’d bring a dimension of sensuality into sex which is absent in porn

  47. Badger says:

    Dalrock, thanks for watching this vomitorium so I didn’t have to. It is just amazing how disgusting and unmarital the message is – and this is passed off as Christian goodness!

    To Dubious Wisdom:
    “Sandy: Very few wives with kids are having porn star sex. That’s because porn star sex isn’t real. Women in porn are performing. They’re playing a role. Their acting isn’t about their own satisfaction, it’s entirely focused on male gratification, for one thing. And yet, there are a lot of guys out there who want their sex lives to be just like porn.”

    Women go apeshit about porn, claiming it gives unrealistic standards for sexual behavior etc etc, but keep in mind the most alluring factor of porn for a lot of men: the woman is into it.

    Think about it. The oohing and aahing, the O faces, the women getting turned on as they are happily stripped and ravished – this is mostly acting of course, but contrary to your statement, the acting IS about their own satisfaction, and that’s part of what is exciting about pornography. If it wasn’t, National Geographic and anatomy textbooks would be mainstream sources of porn for non-teenagers.

    Then again, maybe her being into it is too much to ask, and that’s what women are objecting to.

  48. You hate men, face it. You hate sating their desires. You see satisfying them as some great loss, as treason and betrayal. If he’s winning, you must be losing. You are toxic. Your perspective is warped because your ex-husband left you, and now you’re taking it out on all men.

    Hilariously wrong, but thanks for playing. I’m in a happy relationship with a good guy, and sex is pretty damn important to me.

    I think our relationship works because we both spend a significant amount of time trying to make the other person happy. The other morning I woke up, and he’d swept some broken glass up in my garage (he knew I’d do it, but he did it first, just ot make it easier for me). He checks the tires on my car and other things that he knows I’m forgetful about. Today, I spent the day cooking several casseroles. He doesn’t have a working kitchen (yet), and can’t fix his own food. The plan is for him to use his tiny microwave to thaw/reheat them for lunches/dinners for the next couple of weeks.

    I don’t see those things as a “right.” Or, for that matter, an obligation. Love is an action. I take care of my partner because I love him. And, he does the same for me. If either of us acted as if we were entitled to them, it would take a lot of the joy out of serving each other.

    It’s not that we shouldn’t want to be fit, have great sex, or cook for a partner. But, marriage is for better or for worse.

    How is a man feeling entitled to a perfect wife and behaving badly because he married a human being any different from a woman leaving because she isn’t “happy”? The fact is–there are no guarantees in marriage. Your wife, if she has a kid, may not always be perfectly skinny. She may have to work very hard, in fact, to get back down to her pre-child weight. Her breasts and body may change–sometimes drastically–because of that experience. Maybe there will be complications with labor and delivery and she won’t be able to have sex for a period of months. Life is not a finite quality. The only guarantee is change. Your husband can develop erectile dysfunction. Your wife can get multiple sclerosis and be completely incapacitated (I know a couple who are currently dealing with this). Either spouse may get cancer or develop some other physical condition that impairs their life to a drastic degree. Are any of those things excuses for leaving/infidelity?

    Marriage is not a commitment to only stay with your partner if he/she is perfect. Marriage is a commitment to love them in spite of their imperfections, through the skinny times and the fat times, through the good times and the bad times.

  49. Then again, maybe her being into it is too much to ask, and that’s what women are objecting to.

    I’m not religious (though I understand what the Bible says about the subject), and porn doesn’t bother me. My partner and I have watched it together occasionally, when we could find something that didn’t make us crack up because the acting was so horrific. I don’t know about other women, I’m pretty enthusiastic when it comes to sex.

    But, the enjoyment you see women showing in those films isn’t real. It’s totally faked for the camera, and is totally over the top for effect. And, that’s what I’m saying. For me, real sex is way better than porn, because of the length of time I’ve been with my partner and the level of emotional connection between us. But, there are guys out there whose entire view of sex has been formed by watching porn, and they have some pretty unrealistic ideas about the subject. For one thing, a lot of the stuff that women do in porn is actually pretty uncomfortable and/or painful in real life. I don’t really want my partner to manhandle my breasts, for instance. That’s not as fun as it looks in the movies.

  50. slwerner says:

    Jason – ”I have to side with DW on the utter idiocy of men expecting their wives to be porn stars. Actually I would suggest men are idiotic for indulging porn at all (I have learned this lesson the hard way).”

    First-things-first. Thank you Jason… for indulging Dubious Wonder’s BMDBTT effort at derailing the discussion.

    But, come on, Jason, do you really know men who are unhappy in their marriages because their wives don’t look like porn stars and/or f*ck like them?

    It is far more likely to hear men complain about a lack of sex from their wives, not about eh quality of the sex their wives provide. In fact, not only is the lack of sex one of (if not the) biggest issues for men’s marital dissatisfaction, it is also one of the most cites reasons for married men either turning to porn or cheating on their wives. [if you’ve been around the Manosphere any amount of time, then you will be aware that whenever the question of men’s infidelity being “justified” or not comes up, it is rounding declared that it most certainly is not].

    DW has erected a strawman to argue BMDBTT, and you’ve taken the biat.

    Dalrock – ”They were also adamant that the wife planned on waiting until she had divorced the first man and married the second one before consummating the affair with sex…”

    Obvious BS. The wife already had her “target” picked out before her “prove you love me by spending money” challenge. I seems more easily argued that she had already planned the husbands foray into porn to justify – to justify demanding the money be spent, to justify her planned decision to divorce if she didn’t get her way, and to justify her plan on pursuing a sexual relationship with another man.

    And, although it was a movie, the reality is that divorce proceedings take time to complete. In real life, if a divorcing spouse was intent on waiting until the divorce was final, they wouldn’t start pursuing another immediately after the papers were filed.

    And, also in the real world, if a person has already convinced themselves of their “justification”, even the demanded “corrective action” on the part of a spouse is no guarantee that it will be enough to prevent the planned “justified” behavior anyway.

    In my former Churchian life, I saw way too many examples of husbands being held entirely accountable for any and all bad behaviors on their part, while wives were routinely “excused” under the logic that they were “justified” – typically argued that the husband had failed them in not providing well enough, for not paying them enough attention, for not satisfying their (sexual) needs, and/or for failing to prevent them from their bad behaviors (not exercising the “Headship” properly).

    It sounds like Fireproof was typical pandering to Churchian women in their belief that they can do no wrong (unless pushed into it by men).

  51. Brendan says:

    Exactly. That’s why I quit Church. Men get accountability groups. Women get study groups. Every man in church is made to feel like he is strange if he is NOT addicted to porn, the bottle or a wife beater. “Come on brother, there must be some sin in you, let us meet at the men’s accountability group and drag it out of you. Your poor, poor wife.”

    I think I would have a stroke if ever there was an organization like “Promise Keepers” for women. Seems the Church hates the men. But they know which side their bread is buttered on. Women fill the pews and the coffers.

    This seems to be quite a big problem in the evangelical churches in particular — holding men to account and pedestalizing women. I see it as well in my non-evangelical Church, but to a lesser degree. I suppose it’s always a current that needs to be recognized and called out, but it seems in some places it is more downright toxic than in others.

  52. Sandy says:

    2 Dubious Wonder
    ====================
    I don’t see those things as a “right.” Or, for that matter, an obligation. Love is an action. I take care of my partner because I love him. And, he does the same for me. If either of us acted as if we were entitled to them, it would take a lot of the joy out of serving each other.
    ====================

    Marriage is a sexual union. If a wife unilaterally changes sexual union into asexual celibate union for no good reason, she is breaking her marriage vows

    ====================
    It’s not that we shouldn’t want to be fit, have great sex, or cook for a partner. But, marriage is for better or for worse.
    ====================

    Who cares what people may want? What’s important is what people do. If a wife DOES respect her body and keeps it healthy, DOES cook and DOES satisfy her husband in bed then her husbad will be happy and will do nice things in return. That’s not rocket science, almost any woman can do it

    ====================
    How is a man feeling entitled to a perfect wife and behaving badly because he married a human being any different from a woman leaving because she isn’t “happy”? The fact is–there are no guarantees in marriage. Your wife, if she has a kid, may not always be perfectly skinny. She may have to work very hard, in fact, to get back down to her pre-child weight.
    ====================
    People who work hard, get what they want. Loosing some fat is not rocket science, anyone can do it

    ====================
    Her breasts and body may change–sometimes drastically–because of that experience. Maybe there will be complications with labor and delivery and she won’t be able to have sex for a period of months. Life is not a finite quality. The only guarantee is change. Your husband can develop erectile dysfunction. Your wife can get multiple sclerosis and be completely incapacitated (I know a couple who are currently dealing with this). Either spouse may get cancer or develop some other physical condition that impairs their life to a drastic degree. Are any of those things excuses for leaving/infidelity?
    ====================
    Multiple sclerosis is very different from fat or unwillingness to give blowjobs. Fat and blowjobs are under full control of the wife, she can always change there for the better if she wants.

    ====================
    Marriage is not a commitment to only stay with your partner if he/she is perfect. Marriage is a commitment to love them in spite of their imperfections, through the skinny times and the fat times, through the good times and the bad times.
    ====================

    Marriage is not a commitment to love an obese pig who chooses to stuff herself with food if before marriage the wife was attractive and at healthy weight. Bad behavior should be forgiven if the person recognizes it as bad and corrects it. If a wife chooses to be obese, harming her health and destoying her sexual attractiveness for her husband, the husband shouldn’t tolerate it

  53. Jason Rennie says:

    @slwerner,

    “But, come on, Jason, do you really know men who are unhappy in their marriages because their wives don’t look like porn stars and/or f*ck like them? ”

    Not phrased like that no, but use of porn does distort men’s understanding of sex and presents a surprisingly homosexual view of sex to men (The women porn presents are basically men with boobs and vaginas, compared to the way sex drives work in real women). Not to mention it encourages men to want acts from their wives that they have seen in pornography.

    At least one man in this thread has acted like a blow job from a wife is a _right_. A _right_? Seriously? Especially if the girl doesn’t like doing it. There is something depraved about a husband who would expect his wife to engage in sexual acts that she finds unpleasant, and men need to face up to the reality that insisting on such things, when the wife doesn’t like it, is not going to give you any sort of a sex life in short order.

    Don’t get me wrong, Wives _do_ have an obligation to meet the sexual needs of their spouse (within reason, but it would seem 2 – 3 times a week and some enthusiasm for acts she is comfortable with is certainly within reason).

    My perspective might be skewed as I am involved with a para-church group aimed at helping men and women break out of cycles of sexual brokeness (porn addiction and same-sex attraction mostly, both sexes) but, yeah some husbands do complain that their wives will not engage in sexual acts they saw acted out in porn movies. So _yes_ I do know men who behave like that.

    Jason

  54. writingmax says:

    Is this supposed to be a Christian film? I’ll give it a view. But it could be a case of the reviewer, Mr. Dalrock in this instance, mistaking what the audience takes away from it, as was the case with Eat, Pray, Love. Many bloggers, mostly men and mostly divorced men or those scared of the possibility, assumed movie goers, particularly women, left the theatres with divorce plans and a call to their travel agent the following day. On the contrary the majority of movie goers reported a desire to take up some sort of meditation, prayer or otherwise spritual practice.

    “Catherine (bursts into tears): I want out. I just want out.

    Caleb replies that if that is what she wants, then it is fine with him. Immediately after the fight she takes off her wedding ring, and begins actively flirting with a doctor at the hospital which other women have already noted seems interested in her.”

    The marriage is basically over at that point. Wife wants out and husband agrees. He’s committing a form of adultery by watching porn and she commences another form by flirting. Tit for tat. Happens all the time. If they have kids then that’s a shame, otherwise if its just the two of them, there is no real big loss in divorcing an adulterer, which is the case with both of them.

  55. slwerner says:

    Jason – “My perspective might be skewed as I am involved with a para-church group aimed at helping men and women break out of cycles of sexual brokeness (porn addiction and same-sex attraction mostly, both sexes) but, yeah some husbands do complain that their wives will not engage in sexual acts they saw acted out in porn movies. So _yes_ I do know men who behave like that. “

    That you find some who do,but only in a group such as you belong to, is actually making my point. Men behaving in that way era definitely the exception – not the rule, as DW seemed to be implying.

    Nor is it the case that men will cheer-lead other men’s attempts to justify bad behaviors (especially cheating) based on a wife’s failure to live-up to unreasonable ideals. I’m sure that there are some examples of this happening, but they seem to be quite rare. The reverse, of women cheer-leading other women’s justification of bad behaviors based on a husband’s failure to live up to similarly unrealistic ideals is quite common, OTOH. [You go Grrl!]

  56. Jason Rennie says:

    @Sandy,

    “Marriage is not a commitment to love an obese pig who chooses to stuff herself with food if before marriage the wife was attractive and at healthy weight. Bad behavior should be forgiven if the person recognizes it as bad and corrects it. If a wife chooses to be obese, harming her health and destoying her sexual attractiveness for her husband, the husband shouldn’t tolerate it”

    It is interesting that Sandy seems to think men shouldn’t have to obey marriage vows either if they are “not haaaaapppyyy”. Who would have thought Sandy was a feminists?

    Jason

  57. Celeste says:

    As for a blowjob being a right, I think it is, if he stated prior to marriage that that is something he’d be interested in. Really I do think some negotiations about sex are necessary pre-marriage, just as talks about how to handle money, children, in-laws, etc are necessary. That doesn’t mean they have to have sex, just a, “Are you open to oral sex?” Really, shouldn’t any spouse be willing to experiment the other, and stretch themselves outside of their comfort zone? I think both women and men ought to be willing to leave their comfort zone, if it is done slowly, with affirming words and gestures, and with a loving spouse.

  58. MAX a writer says:

    “Multiple sclerosis is very different from fat or unwillingness to give blowjobs. Fat and blowjobs are under full control of the wife, she can always change there for the better if she wants.”

    Cunninglingus and fellatio are traditionally homosexual activities and not all hetersexuals are comfortable doing either/or.

  59. Jason Rennie says:

    @Celeste,

    “In my opinion, a wife has the obligation to give her reasonable best effort at her appearance and sexual prowess. Ideally, what’s “reasonable” would be discussed before marriage.”

    I think this is a reasonable expectation.

    Jason

  60. Sandy says:

    2 Jason

    =========================
    At least one man in this thread has acted like a blow job from a wife is a _right_. A _right_? Seriously?
    =========================
    If a girl gave blowjobs to a guy before marriage and didn’t say that she wouldn’t do it in the future then – yes, a right, seriously.

    =========================
    Especially if the girl doesn’t like doing it. There is something depraved about a husband who would expect his wife to engage in sexual acts that she finds unpleasant, and men need to face up to the reality that insisting on such things, when the wife doesn’t like it, is not going to give you any sort of a sex life in short order.
    =========================

    If a woman for some reason absolutely hates blowjobs and said upfront that she wouldn’t do it and the guy agreed, then blowjobs are out. Absent that the wife should try her best to satisfy her husband’s reasonable sexual requests and the husband should satisfy her too

    =========================
    My perspective might be skewed as I am involved with a para-church group aimed at helping men and women break out of cycles of sexual brokeness (porn addiction and same-sex attraction mostly, both sexes) but, yeah some husbands do complain that their wives will not engage in sexual acts they saw acted out in porn movies. So _yes_ I do know men who behave like that
    =========================

    Blowjobs has nothing to do with same-sex attraction or sexual brokeness. It’s not something that is immoral, painful or unhealthy

  61. slwerner says:

    Sandy – “Marriage is not a commitment to love an obese pig who chooses to stuff herself with food if before marriage the wife was attractive and at healthy weight.”

    Um… yes it is. The vows are “for better or worse“. It is not intended that they be “conditional”.

    However, I would agree with you in so much as the vows are also not intended to provide license to either party change for the worse, or to let themselves go.

  62. Sandy says:

    2 Jason
    ======================
    It is interesting that Sandy seems to think men shouldn’t have to obey marriage vows either if they are “not haaaaapppyyy”. Who would have thought Sandy was a feminists?
    ======================
    Where did I write that a husband should divorce the wife first and ask questions later? I didn’t write that. I wrote “husband shouldn’t tolerate it” to me it means some corrective action (not passive acceptance). A husband shouldn’t tolerate her wife destroying her health by eating junk and a wife shouldn’t just sit and watch if her husband becomes an alcoholic or a heroin addict

  63. Ceer says:

    Men have a right to thin wives like women have a right to a husband with game. Women are less tolerant.

  64. Jason Rennie says:

    @Sandy,

    My apologies I misunderstood what you meant. It did sound like you were advocating divorce in that case. I am all for taking corrective action, including seperation to bring an issue into focus and get it sorted. I don’t advocate divorce, but seperation and other consequences to bring an issue to light is essential.

    Although I also wonder what you mean by “obese”. Given what some men consider “fat” in these insane times.

    Jason

  65. Dalrock says:

    @sean

    Yes her actions were whorish. Anytime you leave the man you have committed yourself to before God to go after some other man you are being a whore. Why do you think I’m squeamish about that? Heck no. Yes I don’t dispute what you said happen, I dispute your interpretation. Both of them where not upholding their marriage vows, I infer that she and he apologized to each other and forgave hence the remarriage ceremony. If no apologies were made there would be no remarriage. Perhaps it would have been better to have that explicit scene.

    I had to think about this a while Sean, but you have helped me understand why you and I watched different films (thank you). You watched it from the perspective of a Christian woman who knew better, one who doesn’t need a movie to tell her not to do the things on the screen. From this perspective, it is natural to assume that the woman was held accountable off screen even though she never was on screen. I watched it from the perspective (as close as possible) of a woman who was prone to frivolously divorce. For women who are already 100% solid on how to approach marriage, the movie does no harm. You may have even received a marriage strengthening message by empathizing with the husband.

    For a woman who needs a pro marriage message though, the movie is an unmitigated disaster. It trots out all of the awful divorce porn themes and indulges them to the hilt. The only reason the wife chose one man over the other is one of them won the competition. Watch the scene I mentioned where she learned who won the bidding war for her heart again and you will see what I mean. And either way her being not haaaapy and threatening divorce got her everything she wanted (there were absolutely no compromises) and there was no judgment for her actions. The only one who had to apologize and learn a lesson was her husband.

    This wouldn’t be a problem if women in our culture didn’t need a pro marriage message. However, as I’ve shown repeatedly in this blog this is very true for the vast majority of Christian and non Christian women. Additionally, the movie is a prescription for failure for any man who watches it who is faced with a similarly inclined wife. It teaches him exactly how not to handle a would be frivolous divorcee wife. They may as well have handed out fire extinguishers filled with napalm.

    So the movie gets high marks for preaching to the choir, but is actually likely to greatly increase divorce rates for everyone else unfortunate enough to watch it.

  66. Jason Rennie says:

    @slwerner,

    “That you find some who do,but only in a group such as you belong to, is actually making my point. Men behaving in that way era definitely the exception – not the rule, as DW seemed to be implying.”

    Hang on. I would argue that any porn use distorts peoples approach to sexuality and not in a good way. the stuff is extremely toxic. I’m dealing with a sample of people who see it as a _problem_ in their lives. Much like not all people with problem drinking attend AA, just those who have reached a point where they see it as a problem. But surely, there are people with drinking problems who simply deny it is a problem. I would argue porn use is similar.

    “Nor is it the case that men will cheer-lead other men’s attempts to justify bad behaviors (especially cheating) based on a wife’s failure to live-up to unreasonable ideals.”

    True enough.

    Try to understand my comment for what it was. I think porn is going to be distorting and damaging to a relationship period and that it will (as the data suggests) distort men (and women’s_ approaches to sex and what they expect/desire. The whole industry sells a pure unadulterated fantasy to people, and unsurprisingly it ends in tears when you try to turn fantasy into reality.

    Jason

  67. Jason Rennie says:

    @Sandy,
    “If a girl gave blowjobs to a guy before marriage and didn’t say that she wouldn’t do it in the future then – yes, a right, seriously.”

    That might be an exception then. Actually I agree, many women it seems today, behave in ways that are sexually beyond what is their “norm” before they get married, and then return to a more normal level later after they tie the knot, which makes for an incredibly disappointed husband who I would agree has actually been greatly wronged by the women and deceived by her. There is something to be said for waiting to marriage.

    “If a woman for some reason absolutely hates blowjobs and said upfront that she wouldn’t do it and the guy agreed, then blowjobs are out. Absent that the wife should try her best to satisfy her husband’s reasonable sexual requests and the husband should satisfy her too”

    Yeah I can see that, although I suspect that many of these complaints stem from, in practice, acts _other_ girls were comfortable doing in the past that the wife is not comfortable with. I’ve seen examples of that sort of thing as well. And men _do_ try to act out things they have seen in porn (actually women probably do as well, but the data just doens’t exist yet).

    “Blowjobs has nothing to do with same-sex attraction or sexual brokeness. It’s not something that is immoral, painful or unhealthy”

    Actually I wasn’t suggesting oral sex was a part of same-sex attraction, it is a seperate issue. Although fixating on it, and insisting your spouse perform acts they are not comfortable with does fall into the category of sexual brokeness.

    If both parties are comfortable with it, then there is nothing wrong with oral sex. Although I would note, that some men (and I know a number of these) are uncomfortable receiving oral sex preceisely because it has overtones of sexual domination and submission (although they are generally happy to service their wives in these ways, go figure) over a partner (some of these have come out of same-sex attracted backgrounds).

    Jason

  68. Sandy says:

    2 Jason
    ========================
    My apologies I misunderstood what you meant. It did sound like you were advocating divorce in that case. I am all for taking corrective action, including seperation to bring an issue into focus and get it sorted. I don’t advocate divorce, but seperation and other consequences to bring an issue to light is essential.

    Although I also wonder what you mean by “obese”. Given what some men consider “fat” in these insane times.
    =========================

    Being overweight or obese is a medical issue. The simplest way to determine if a person is obese is to look at BMI, if BMI is 30 or more, the person is obese (this doesn’t work for people with high muscle mass, such as bodybuilders, but most women are not bodybuilders). More precise definition of obesety comes from body fat percentage (it’s harder to measure it), if a woman has body fat of 32% or more, she is obese regardless of her muscles.

    Being overwieght or obese for a woman is bad all around, because:
    1. Extra fat is harmful for health
    2. Extra fat creates nasty pregnancy complications
    3. Extra fat damages sex life
    4. Extra fat might lower self-esteem and create psychological problems

  69. Jason Rennie says:

    Oh 1 thing, and I think this is important to state, and just so my position is clear,

    Porn use, although an act of sexual unfaithfulness to a spouse (as is denying them sexually), it is not legitimate grounds for divorce. It is reasonable for a spouse to expect the other person not to do, but not legitiamte grounds to nullify the marriage contract.

    Jason

  70. MarkyMark says:

    To those who think porn is bad for men, what do you say about romance novels for women? Are they not ‘emotional porn’ for women? Like porn for men, doesn’t porn for women give THEM unrealistic expectations WRT men? Why is that all right for women, yet porn for men is bad? Why the blatant double standard here? Why is it all right when a woman does it, hmmmm?

  71. Jason Rennie says:

    @Sandy,

    Thanks for clarifiying, I just noticed that I have seen references to “become an obese pig” several times in these forums, and I have seen, in other places what some guys “consider a fatty”. You seem to have a sane handle on it (although data seems to suggest that being overweight by those standards can actually be benifical, even though being obese is not, suggesting the lines are drawn in the wrong place). I’m in the women are supposed to have curves camp, and i’ve witnessed some strange attitudes that seem to regard “sexy” and “looking like an emaciated boy” or (emaciated boy with breat implants). I don’t understand that myself.

    Jason

  72. greyghost says:

    Damn Dalrock, you got any more of that broken glass ? I have some caster oil to wash it down with.

  73. Jason Rennie says:

    @MarkyMark

    “To those who think porn is bad for men, what do you say about romance novels for women?”

    They are a bad idea and should be avoided. They aren’t identical, but that is more todo with the way the brain (and especially mens brains) are wired and react to pornographic imagery.

    “Like porn for men, doesn’t porn for women give THEM unrealistic expectations WRT men? Why is that all right for women, yet porn for men is bad?”

    Who said it was ok for women to indulge in this sort of thing? It is potentially less problematic because it isn’t likely to effect a women in the same biochemical way that porn stimulates men, but I agree in general, these “romance fantasies” can be a very bad idea for a wife to indulge in if she then carries that expectation over to a husband. Before anybody says it, i’m not suggesting that women are somehow “more immune” to this than men are. Just that I suspect the biochemistry of it is different (also women AFAIK aren’t physically masturbating to this stuff, which is a large part of the problem, again due to the biochemistry).

    ” Why the blatant double standard here? Why is it all right when a woman does it, hmmmm?”

    No double standard. I don’t think they are identical for the reason mentioned above, but women should probably avoid it.

    Jason

  74. slwerner says:

    Jason – “Try to understand my comment for what it was.

    And try to understand mine as well. I saw DW trying to avoid the main thrust of Dalrocks post, and not wanting to address the issue of the (Christian) women who were attempting to justify the fictional wife’s behaviors, and to minimize the sin involved (“Oh, she would have waited until after the divorce was final before fornicating.”).

    DW seemed to be using the all-too-common, BMDBTT to argue that neither the fictional woman’s nor the women defending her should be judged – except in the light of the supposed bad behaviors of (many or most) men.

    My comment to you was in response to your seeming willingness to buy into her effort.

  75. Sandy says:

    2 Jason
    ======================
    That might be an exception then. Actually I agree, many women it seems today, behave in ways that are sexually beyond what is their “norm” before they get married, and then return to a more normal level later after they tie the knot, which makes for an incredibly disappointed husband who I would agree has actually been greatly wronged by the women and deceived by her. There is something to be said for waiting to marriage.
    ======================
    I think it’s a fraud (bait and switch) and it shouldn’t be tolerated. It a woman dislikes activity X and she won’t do it after marriage, but does before marriage, she must tell her potential husband about it

    ======================
    Actually I wasn’t suggesting oral sex was a part of same-sex attraction, it is a seperate issue. Although fixating on it, and insisting your spouse perform acts they are not comfortable with does fall into the category of sexual brokeness.
    ======================
    A wife really loves and wants to satisfy her husband then she will find a way to do it. If she doesn’t have serious psychological traumas from the past related to some sex acts then a pretty standard sexual activity like a blowjob shouldn’t create discomfort for her in most cases

  76. Sandy says:

    2 Jason
    ====================
    Thanks for clarifiying, I just noticed that I have seen references to “become an obese pig” several times in these forums, and I have seen, in other places what some guys “consider a fatty”. You seem to have a sane handle on it (although data seems to suggest that being overweight by those standards can actually be benifical, even though being obese is not, suggesting the lines are drawn in the wrong place). I’m in the women are supposed to have curves camp, and i’ve witnessed some strange attitudes that seem to regard “sexy” and “looking like an emaciated boy” or (emaciated boy with breat implants). I don’t understand that myself
    ======================

    Most of men are attracted to women’s bodies at healthy weight. Fashion is dominated by gay men and many fashion models have pretty weird bodies. Magazines like Playboy are dominated by hetero men, and we see there attractive women with curves, not sceletal, but not fat. Playboy models and non-fetish porn stars have bodies at healthy weight

  77. kirk cameron is a creationist psychopath, as well as being a pussy whipped mangina douchtruck

    Kirk Cameron is a bigger mangina than you think. He married a woman 6 years older than him.

  78. CL says:

    I watched less that 10 minutes of that movie a while back and couldn’t watch anymore. It’s awful. Looks like it lived down to the expectations I got from the first 10 minutes.

  79. Exactly. That’s why I quit Church. Men get accountability groups. Women get study groups. Every man in church is made to feel like he is strange if he is NOT addicted to porn, the bottle or a wife beater. “Come on brother, there must be some sin in you, let us meet at the men’s accountability group and drag it out of you. Your poor, poor wife.”

    The only reason to go to church now is to protect men who don’t know better by collecting “reformed” sluts who are looking for a chump to marry like I do.

  80. Dalrock says:

    @Jason Rennie

    Not phrased like that no, but use of porn does distort men’s understanding of sex and presents a surprisingly homosexual view of sex to men (The women porn presents are basically men with boobs and vaginas, compared to the way sex drives work in real women).

    Without suggesting that porn is realistic, your assumptions about women’s sex drives are very likely in error. Women who are attracted to a man sexually behave very differently than the average wife who has degraded her husband to lessor beta status. The assumption that it is normal for a wife to be generally uninterested in and/or unenthusiastic about sex is the one which is in error. Ask any of the pickup artist types on the blogs in the manosphere, or perhaps better ask Athol Kay.

  81. Dalrock says:

    I just wanted to thank everyone for the vigorous yet almost entirely free of personal attacks discussion. My wife and I were both reading this at separate PCs in the same room, and were like kids in a candy store: Did you read X’s comment yet?

  82. Jason Rennie says:

    @Sandy

    “I think it’s a fraud (bait and switch) and it shouldn’t be tolerated. It a woman dislikes activity X and she won’t do it after marriage, but does before marriage, she must tell her potential husband about it”

    Agreed. Actually I think it is foolish for women to have sex before marriage, but certainly this sort of bait and switch is fraud. Perhaps grounds for an anullment?

    “A wife really loves and wants to satisfy her husband then she will find a way to do it. If she doesn’t have serious psychological traumas from the past related to some sex acts then a pretty standard sexual activity like a blowjob shouldn’t create discomfort for her in most cases”

    I think it says a lot about out culture that a “blow job” is considered entirely normal. It used to be considered a very special sexual act reserved for the most intimate relationships and special occasions. At the turn of last century it was _extra_ to get that sort of service from a prostitute.

    A few thoughts though. It seems that if the husband expects oral sex he should also be willing to perform it, fair is fair after all (although same applies to the wife, if she likes it she should be willing to reciprocate). Also, i’m not sure what it says about men, that they _expect_ a wife to do something sexually she isn’t happy to do. How is that being a lover to your spouse?

    “Most of men are attracted to women’s bodies at healthy weight. Fashion is dominated by gay men and many fashion models have pretty weird bodies. Magazines like Playboy are dominated by hetero men, and we see there attractive women with curves, not sceletal, but not fat. Playboy models and non-fetish porn stars have bodies at healthy weight”

    I’m not sure Playboy provides a very useful perspective on “normal” for men though as the women are airbrushed and otherwise altered and using that as a standard for normal is ludicrious.

    Also, it is only an anecdote from a former “playboy bunny” but apprently Hugh lets the girls amuse themselves while he prefers to jerk off to gay porn videos.

    Jason

  83. Dalrock says:

    @Sandy

    If a girl gave blowjobs to a guy before marriage and didn’t say that she wouldn’t do it in the future then – yes, a right, seriously.

    Unless the wife was truly a virgin before meeting the husband, I would say quite often it is even worse. What it often amounts to is her having performed acts on multiple men in the past which she is unwilling to perform with her husband.

  84. To those who think porn is bad for men, what do you say about romance novels for women? Are they not ‘emotional porn’ for women? Like porn for men, doesn’t porn for women give THEM unrealistic expectations WRT men? Why is that all right for women, yet porn for men is bad? Why the blatant double standard here? Why is it all right when a woman does it, hmmmm?

    I think romance novels are ridiculous, and I question the intelligence of women who read the because they are generally poorly written and completely fantastical. Similarly, I question the intelligence of men who think porn is “real.” Both of these things give people unrealistic expectations of the opposite sex, as do a lot of romantic comedies (movies and television).

  85. Jason Rennie says:

    @Dalrock,

    “Without suggesting that porn is realistic, your assumptions about women’s sex drives are very likely in error. Women who are attracted to a man sexually behave very differently than the average wife who has degraded her husband to lessor beta status. The assumption that it is normal for a wife to be generally uninterested in and/or unenthusiastic about sex is the one which is in error.”

    I’m not suggesting that, sorry for the confusion, although I could see how it would come across like that. Men and women vary in their level of sexual interest and you are right, a women strongly attract to a man will behave differently to their “browbeaten betaized husband”.

    Just noting that on average, women’s sex drives are nothing like what is portrayed in pornography at all (nor are the women) and that the women are essentially portrayed as having sexual responses and drives identical to a 15 year old boy. Which is clearly not the case.

    Jason

  86. Sandy says:

    2 Jason
    ====================
    I think it says a lot about out culture that a “blow job” is considered entirely normal. It used to be considered a very special sexual act reserved for the most intimate relationships and special occasions. At the turn of last century it was _extra_ to get that sort of service from a prostitute.
    ====================
    Loving marriage is the most intimate relationship, don’t you think?

    ====================
    Also, i’m not sure what it says about men, that they _expect_ a wife to do something sexually she isn’t happy to do. How is that being a lover to your spouse?
    ====================
    A loving wife should be happy to do normal stuff to please her husband

    ====================
    I’m not sure Playboy provides a very useful perspective on “normal” for men though as the women are airbrushed and otherwise altered and using that as a standard for normal is ludicrious.
    =====================
    Airbrushing doesn’t affect body shape. Many models have fake boobs but other parts of the body are natural

  87. MAX a writer says:

    “Blowjobs has nothing to do with same-sex attraction or sexual brokeness. ”

    Oral sex has its origins in homosexual culture. It later crossed over to the fringe of heterosexual culture and now its mainstreamed. There are still people uncomfortable with it and those who think its unnatural and just generally nasty. There was even a time, not too long ago, when many states in our country considered it illegal.

    You may consider that its normal and healthy heterosexual activity but there are still some people who don’t. Your opinion is not anymore valid than their’s.

  88. @ Slwerner…
    I don’t know what the acronym is that you think I’m throwing around, but my initial post in this thread said:
    That movie sounds about as appalling as Eat Pray Love. I think both genders have succumbed to entitlement syndrome.

    In no way am I attempting to diminish the self-indulgence of the female characters in either of those films. EPL was recommended to me by a friend. I could never get past my strong initial dislike of the primary female character for her frivolous dismissal of her marriage, and though I haven’t seen this movie, I feel quite certain that I’d be similarly affected by it.

    I take marriage seriously. I didn’t intend to divert the discussion, but I guess I’ve spent the past couple of days thinking about the self indulgence and entitlement of a lot of people these days, largely as a result of something that happened between my daughter and my ex, and it was on my mind. I apologize for the segue.

  89. MAX a writer says:

    “Just noting that on average, women’s sex drives are nothing like what is portrayed in pornography at all (nor are the women) and that the women are essentially portrayed as having sexual responses and drives identical to a 15 year old boy. Which is clearly not the case. ”

    BINGO.

    Porn belongs in the fantasy/science fiction category first and foremost. Thriller/horror next. Followed by comedy. But not ever, ever documentary.

  90. Locard says:

    Amen.

  91. Jason Rennie says:

    @Sandy

    “Loving marriage is the most intimate relationship, don’t you think?”

    I do, but I think you are missing the point. It used to not be “normal” at all but a special occasion thing. But again, if the wife doens’t want to to do, or doens’t want to do it the way the husband wants, but is willing to have normal sex with him, then they guy should not be demanding it. I’d go so far to say, if you are demanding anything sexually from your wife (act wise, not sex itself in a marrige) then you are probably doing it wrong.

    “A loving wife should be happy to do normal stuff to please her husband”

    For whose definition of Normal(TM)? You seem quite hung up on this point BTW.

    “Airbrushing doesn’t affect body shape.”

    Actually with all the different techniques they can do quite a bit, but again I think you are missing the point. Playboy doesn’t provide a reasonable template for what real women look like, even the models themselves unmade up etc are not as attractive as the final tweaked imagery presented in the magazine. If you think what you see in Playboy is a resonable expectation of what real naked women look like, i have a collection of world landmarks to sell you at a bargin basement price.

    Jason

  92. Celeste says:

    @Jason

    At the same time, why on earth would a woman who loves their wife NOT want to please him in any way they can? It’s not illegal, immoral, no physical harm is inflicted, no extra risk of disease or anything, and so if a woman isn’t willing to do it bar those factors, I’d say she’s probably doing something wrong. At the very least, she should say, “Can we take it in baby steps?”

  93. slwerner says:

    Dubious Wonder – “I don’t know what the acronym is that you think I’m throwing around”

    You’re not throwing around any acronym. What you were (or so it seemed) doing was making the style of argument the acronym BMDBTT (But Men Do Bad Things Too) implies.

    The very next sentence in your post was:
    “Men feel entitled to be married to a domesticated porn star, a woman who stays as skinny as the day she married him, cooks like mom, and gives frequent blowjobs.”

    Not only is it NOT an accurate assessment of men in general, but it tries to deflect criticism of women who either feel entitled to behave badly due to perceived sleights, or from the women who defend such actions.

    In effect, you’re arguing, “don’t judge these women without judging the supposed pathologies of men”.

    But, the fact remains, there simply aren’t direct comparisons to the the messages being sent to women in both popular-culture media, and that of the supposedly Christian culture.

    Show me an example (movies, television, music, literature, etc.) wherein it is suggested that if a woman doesn’t do exactly what her husband demands to please him, that he should file for divorce, and begin pursuing other women that he’ s had his eyes on (or something along those lines). Then, show me examples of men acting as apologist for such behavior.

    Dalrock has pointed out examples of both in Christian women.

    You seem to be arguing that it’s no more problematic than all those (imaginary) men who demand that their wives be models and porn-stars.

    I don’t buy that there is any appreciable such problem. Maybe you could point out some examples of men doing this, and it being championed via film, and defended by men as perfectly reasonable?

  94. Not only is it NOT an accurate assessment of men in general, but it tries to deflect criticism of women who either feel entitled to behave badly due to perceived sleights, or from the women who defend such actions.

    In effect, you’re arguing, “don’t judge these women without judging the supposed pathologies of men”.

    I’m sorry that you interpreted as being the case, but that was not my intention. I was not, at all, trying to deflect criticism towards the woman in the movie. AT ALL. I find her actions entirely inappropriate. Please don’t create strawmen for me.

    As far as examples of men doing this in movies, off the top of my head: Walk the Line. I live in an affluent area, and probably one out of three marriages in this area are men who divorced their boring first wives and married a trophy. It is a normalized, celebrated behavior (amongst men, that is).

    Here’s a list of the top ten trophy wives from askmen.com: http://www.askmen.com/top_10/entertainment_250/284_top_10_list.html

  95. MAX a writer says:

    Jason makes very good points about porn. If you wanna know why it portrays adult women as having the insatiable sexuality of 15 year old boys and why Hugh Hefner needs to watch gay porn in order to get off, its because, well, porn, like the fashion industy, has its origins in gay culture and is completed dominated by gay people and by gay “norms”.

    Oral sex, anal sex, fetish sex, have all been mainstreamed in the last few decades but have their origins in the gay sub-culture.

  96. As far as men who demanded that their wives be porn stars…they’re hardly imaginary to me (and Jason validated the comment). I was married to one.

    [D: We've already established that your ex husband was a pathological narcissist, a textbook case of dark triad traits. What he did isn't relevant to a general discussion of what normal men expect.]

  97. Sandy says:

    2 Max a Writer
    ===============
    Oral sex has its origins in homosexual culture.
    ===============
    Complete BS. Oral sex is in Kama Sutra

  98. Oral sex, anal sex, fetish sex, have all been mainstreamed in the last few decades but have their origins in the gay sub-culture.

    There aren’t a lot of women begging for dual penetration outside of porn.

  99. SL Werner:

    I want to correct your misunderstanding of my initial post in this thread. I think that men are often called out for infidelity, etc., and that there is a culture of entitlement in modern culture which leads to infidelity (witness wife’s behavior in object lesson film). Men frequently engage in this behavior, but this film makes the point that SO DO WOMEN. Which is why I said:

    Women feel entitled to always feel like they’re living in a romantic comedy where the wooing never ends.

    Please don’t make the mistake of thinking that I hold the genders to different standards. I do not. Probably the person that I am most appalled by, in real life, is a woman who is the mother of one of my daughter’s close friends, and who has had a series of affairs behind her husband’s back. She once came in my house while dropping off her daughter, and my dog bit her on the nose. I wholeheartedly agree with my dog’s opinion of this disgusting skank.

  100. Dalrock says:

    @Jason

    Playboy doesn’t provide a reasonable template for what real women look like, even the models themselves unmade up etc are not as attractive as the final tweaked imagery presented in the magazine. If you think what you see in Playboy is a resonable expectation of what real naked women look like, i have a collection of world landmarks to sell you at a bargin basement price.

    What I find fascinating is how common the fear is that porn will change men’s expectations such that they can’t relate to “real women”, yet upon further examination it turns out to be almost entirely a case of female projection. Very large numbers of women tell us they can’t experience attraction to normal men (see also here). Very few men have this complaint.

    Given our mass immersion of men in pornography, I’d say we have pretty well debunked this myth. Certainly some men have real problems with this, and I’m not advocating porn. I’m just pointing out that the conventional wisdom has pretty well been proven to be wrong, and it is in fact women who struggle to experience attraction to “real” men.

  101. slwerner says:

    Dubious Wonder – “As far as examples of men doing this in movies, off the top of my head: Walk the Line”

    Really? Did you watch that movie?

    Johnny Cash’s infidelity was portrayed in a most negative light, and his issue with his wife had nothing to do with her looks, her cooking, nor even her sexual willingness – just his lust for another woman (and his substance issues). And, what men were there who suggested that his behavior was the least bit okay?

    Anecdotes mean little, as we have seen so many (published) accounts of women dumping their boring beta husbands to go after some hot alpha (real or believe to be awaiting them), that the fact that a few men behave likewise no longer even “balances out” with what woman are being celebrated for doing.

  102. knepper says:

    I saw this movie with my wife a few years back and was touched by it. I even wanted to try to please my wife more, etc. Problem was, she was never around. I discovered later that she had begun sneaking around to see an old boyfriend, and it started just about this time. Obviously, we are now divorced.
    Now that I understand about game, I can see that the husband was being a chump, and the wife was throwing away a marriage without good reason. But I think Dalrock’s interpretation is skipping over the Christian conversion part of the story. Neither of the characters were Christian at first. The husband becomes one, thus it is up to him to try to win his wife by loving her, in spite of the fact that she doesn’t deserve it, which of course she doesn’t. The movie ends shortly after she becomes one, so we don’t see the hoped for changes in her, in which she becomes a less selfish person. Agree or disagree with the Christian angle, it is unfair to interpret the film without it.

  103. slwerner says:

    Dubious Wonder – “I want to correct your misunderstanding of my initial post in this thread. I think that men are often called out for infidelity, etc., and that there is a culture of entitlement in modern culture which leads to infidelity (witness wife’s behavior in object lesson film). Men frequently engage in this behavior, but this film makes the point that SO DO WOMEN.”

    It’s not just that women do it too, but rather that (given the very existence of that film), that even Christian culture excuses it when women do it.

    It seems that Christianity has formally accepted the message to men that they better obey their wives, work hard to please them, and do exactly what they ask, or their wives are justified in leaving them for better men.

    It’s not you who hold the genders to differing standards, it the majority view of Churchianity (not to mention Feminism).

  104. grerp says:

    This movie sounds ghastly. In addition to the many passes for the wife’s behavior, it also appears to equate love with spending (copious amounts of) money. Prosperity theology has a lot to answer for. A Christian woman I know was expressing anxiety on her blog the other day because there’s always the chance that her perfect life could be taken away from her. She has kept her husband hopping since the day he married her so that she could have 1) a better house (the one he had before was beneath her and geographically unacceptable) 2) a minivan 3) several kids which she could then stay home with. Her husband sold his house at a huge loss, used all the money they had in savings to buy the minivan, and moved across the country to acquire these things for her. She has hardly worked since they married. Now they live in a 5-bedroom, new house in the south. It has a pool and a hot tub. It is in a gated community. I can only assume he borrowed for the down payment because they had nothing before they moved and moving had to cost them. Which means, in reality, they own nothing of this; they are merely “renting” it at some considerable risk. She talked in her blog about how she prays that God will calm her heart and have her understand that He wants good things for her.

  105. MAX a writer says:

    “Oral sex is in the Kama Sutra”

    I knew someone would bite. So Sandy, who are the people that the Kama Sutra says perform blow jobs? And what does it say about cunninlingus?

  106. Smooth T says:

    “Kirk Cameron is a bigger mangina than you think. He married a woman 6 years older than him.”

    Who is also smoking hot, even today. Sorry, I calls it like I see it :)

  107. A Newt says:

    Thanks, dalrock, for the review. Your analysis is spot on. Especially here, “No woman who watched the movie would fail to get this overriding message. If you aren’t haaaapy, threaten divorce and let high status men compete for your heart!”

    I actually know of a couple that divorced because of this movie. The woman decided after seeing it that the way to get her husband to do what she wanted was to threaten divorce. Only the husband called her bluff, and that was the end of that.

    [D: Wow. Thanks for the kind words, and welcome to the blog!]

  108. Jason Rennie says:

    @Celeste

    “At the same time, why on earth would a woman who loves their wife NOT want to please him in any way they can? It’s not illegal, immoral, no physical harm is inflicted, no extra risk of disease or anything, and so if a woman isn’t willing to do it bar those factors, I’d say she’s probably doing something wrong. At the very least, she should say, “Can we take it in baby steps?””

    Sure. Look at it this way. Everything is up for negotiation AFAICS, but forcing a spouse to perform an act they don’t want to is hardly a way to love them. If they are reluctant but willing to give it a go, whatever they like. It just seems that you are doing something wrong if you need to cajole a partner to do something.

    Jason

  109. grerp says:

    What’s really sad about the above situation is that the husband was absolutely cleaned out by his first wife who after the divorce moved his daughter across the country twice for job opportunities. Wife #1 is a total shrieking nutcase and has since fleeced another husband whom she reproduced with again (twins via infertility treatments), then left him flat. She tells her daughter, “We don’t need men now.” When said daughter gets to be a certain age and hard to handle (a given, considering the mother), she will ship this girl back to her father, and his second wife’s “perfect life” will most assuredly be ruined. But I can’t feel sorry for her because she stopped her husband from pressing for custody when it looked like he might be able to win, fully knowing the daughter’s situation and seeing that there were warning signs like precocious sexuality – because she wanted her “own family” to have a perfect life.

    Maybe I’m just judgmental, but putting the welfare of a child who is screaming for help with every display of inappropriate sexual behavior and the need of your husband to be with his daughter after your own desire to have everything easy and great is pretty evil. She did not see it that way, and I couldn’t stomach socializing with them after that.

  110. MAX a writer says:

    “In no way am I attempting to diminish the self-indulgence of the female characters in either of those films. EPL was recommended to me by a friend. I could never get past my strong initial dislike of the primary female character for her frivolous dismissal of her marriage,”

    The movie didn’t glamorize that. The character came off very bitchy, hard and cruel in that segment of the film. There was dead silence and then shock from the audience. Many viewers left the theatre talking about that and also talking about how the movie has inspired them to look into prayer and meditation again or for the first time. Yoga and meditation studios, as well as other spiritual centers, reported a marked increase in attendence after the release of both the book, then the film. I don’t remember reading about any increased calls to divorce lawyers.

    “He married a woman 6 years older than him.”

    That’s practically the same age. If you had said 16 years, then I’d raise my eyebrows.

  111. Sandy says:

    2 Max a writer

    ===================
    I knew someone would bite. So Sandy, who are the people that the Kama Sutra says perform blow jobs?
    ===================

    A wife perform blow jobs on the husband

  112. greyghost says:

    Women do behave differently as girlfriends than they do as wives. Girlfriends do any and everything sexual from anal,oral,in public,in the car and some even do three ways. (I ve never done any group thing) Also girlfriend enjoy a frequency that is when ever he wants it just come and get it. new wives will tend to continue on until you have kids. Women seem to know until they have kids they can be easily gotten rid of.
    I don’t know if the characters in the movie had kids or not. If they didn’t have kids the first time that she said shit to me we were done. Women are such sluts today and so define themselves as how much of a burden they can be on everybody that there is really nothing to be missed from any paticular woman. Most women have nothing to offer but sex so one is easily replaced by another. There is no reason at all for any man to take the slightest hint of garbage from a woman that doesn’t have at least your kids to hold as hostage against you. A few years ago I had to let my wife know that anything happens to the kids we are through and she knows it. (women in general know it and is a big reason kids survive long enough to avoid being aborted)

  113. MAX a writer says:

    “A wife perform blow jobs on the husband”

    In the Kama Sutra? What edition are you reading? Read again, fair lady. Read again. I’ll give you a few hints; eunuchs, barbers, male prostitutes.

    And what does it say about cunninlingus?

  114. Juan Ferguson says:

    Max,

    Even if you are correct, which, given that gays are maybe 1-2% of the population is statistically unlikely, who cares? Gay people are good dancers, so straight people shouldn’t watch ballet? Gay people are good at interior decoration, so straight men should stop the home renovation after the drywall mud is up? Gays like to drink cosmos, so they should avoid beer?

    Seriously, you remind me of a character in Chris Rock’s CB4 who was always going on about how black people invented this that or the other to the anoyance of the other black characters.

    Please go to some homosexual based websites. This site is intended for straight audiences.

  115. MAX a writer says:

    “If they didn’t have kids the first time that she said shit to me we were done. ”

    That’s exactly what happened in the film Greyghost.

    “Catherine (bursts into tears): I want out. I just want out.
    Caleb replies that if that is what she wants, then it is fine with him. Immediately after the fight she takes off her wedding ring, and begins actively flirting with a doctor at the hospital which other women have already noted seems interested in her.”

  116. greyghost says:

    Damn, if that was the case then what was this movie for? A movie so feminist woman calling themselves christian can feel good about how they treat their own husbands watching this idiot fall over himself ?

  117. MAX a writer says:

    The husband stepped outside of the marital lines of fidelity first by watching porn, which is a form of adultery. After the wife said she wanted out and the husband said “fine go for it”, she started her own form of soft adultery with flirting. I agree that if kids weren’t involved then its not that big of a deal to divorce. However, even in the case of adultery, if you have kids, then I believe you should work it out, just for the kids sake. Even if that means a mutally agreed upon open marriage.

  118. Ws says:

    Whenever I hear that porn is unrealistic, my response to that is “Not if you know the right people”. I, myself, was surprised to discover this; (I’m basically a social recluse living in a small conservative city in the south), but my observation is that real life sexuality is far more depraved, insane and outrageous than what goes on in most porn (or at least non fetish porn). Sorry, it’s true. If no one invited you to the party it doesn’t mean it’s not taking place.

  119. Sandy says:

    2 Max a writer
    =====================
    In the Kama Sutra? What edition are you reading?
    =====================
    OK, in Kama Sutra it doesn’t apply to a wife but applies to women. So your claim that blowjob is a product of gay culture is as wrong as before.

  120. slwerner says:

    MAX – “The husband stepped outside of the marital lines of fidelity first by watching porn, which is a form of adultery.”

    This is a rather specious argument. While porn may be damaging to a marriage, it is not nearly as egregious as actually having sexual relations with another living, breathing human other than ones spouse. Visual porn, while the preferred porn of men (but many woman use it as well) is perhaps little worse (in terms of damage to expectations) than the erotic literature (chick porn) favored by women.

    Not to underestimate the harm that either form of porn may do, but actual infidelity is far worse on a relationship. To try to equate visual porn with actual infidelity seems to be an effort to diminish the the fact that the latter ruins far more relationships, and can extend its damage onto the children, especially via the paternity fraud being widely committed by women to hide their cuckoldry.

  121. Sandy says:

    2 Max a writer
    ===================
    The husband stepped outside of the marital lines of fidelity first by watching porn, which is a form of adultery
    ===================

    The dictionary definition of adultery:
    ——
    voluntary sexual intercourse between a married man and someone other than his wife or between a married woman and someone other than her husband
    ——-
    What is the basis of you claim that watching porn is adultery?

  122. MAX a writer says:

    “OK, in Kama Sutra it doesn’t apply to a wife but applies to women. So your claim that blowjob is a product of gay culture is as wrong as before.”

    No. No, and no.

    3 words: eunuch, barber, male prostitute. Again, WHICH edition, or more specifically WHO’s edition of the Sutra are you reading? And what does your edition say about pleasuring women with oral sex?

    Regarding adultery, I’m talking in terms of the strict Christian definition of it, which will be more restrictive than the legal secular one. As this is a “christian movie” then it applies.

  123. Sandy says:

    2 Max a Writer
    ==================
    No. No, and no.

    3 words: eunuch, barber, male prostitute.
    ==================

    You are completely wrong and don’t know what you are talking about

    ==================
    Again, WHICH edition, or more specifically WHO’s edition of the Sutra are you reading?
    ==================

    Sir Richard Burton translation

    ==================
    Regarding adultery, I’m talking in terms of the strict Christian definition of it, which will be more restrictive than the legal secular one. As this is a “christian movie” then it applies.
    ==================

    Where did you get this definition? Citation?

  124. caballarius1 says:

    Biblically speaking, porn use can’t equate to actual physical adultery as a cause for a woman to divorce, since you can’t steal a man’s legacy, adulterating his lineage, through porn. Adultery, in Bible terms as opposed to 3rd century Churchian tradition, is a sin against the husband of the adulteress. Christ does introduce a new class of adultery in the case of a man who divorces a member of his harem without cause of sexual sin and replaces her with a new woman. Aside from that circumstance, a man cannot commit adultery against his wife under the Biblical Lev.20 and Deut. 22 definitions.

  125. Eric says:

    Dalrock:
    Are you actually surprised that the ‘Sisterhood’ came to the defense of one of their sister-sluts?

  126. tm says:

    Excellent review of a movie I know I’ll never watch, and some very good comments. There’s something that seems pretty obvious, though I haven’t seen it discussed: in reality, if the woman got to the point where he’d have to “walk on eggshells” (not to mention her withholding sex, and then “wanting out”, chasing the doctor, etc), the relationship would be already OVER. Probably even before that, and she’d stay in by default, waiting for the next move to untangle herself. And if she were to ever get back with him, it would be on account of his utility, never out of re-kindled love.

  127. MAX a writer says:

    “You are completely wrong and don’t know what you are talking about”

    Then you have not read the Kama Sutra. Nowhere does it discuss oral sex in context with either married couples or the seduction of non-professional (prostitute) women. It explicitly says that such services are to be sought out amongst eunuchs, in the barber shops (the word “shampooers” is used), and male prostitutes. It does say that there are some female prostitutes from particular regions who will also render that service. It explicitly says that it is not to be expected from wives and mainstream society women. Moreover, the Kama Sutra has nothing to say about cunninlingus.

    “Where did you get this definition? Citation?”

    Matthew 5

    Adultery in the Heart

    27 “You have heard that it was said to those of old,[c] ‘You shall not commit adultery.’[d] 28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell.
    Marriage Is Sacred and Binding

    31 “Furthermore it has been said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality[e] causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.

  128. Retrenched says:

    So I guess if a woman admires a muscular guy on the beach then her husband is justified in leaving her for another woman, since she’s committing lust in her heart and is thus breaking her vows, right?

  129. whiskey says:

    Bottom line, if faithfulness and monogamy go only one way, man only to woman, not both ways, then no, the woman is not whorish or a slut because the modern definition of marriage is where the man must always be faithful (unless he’s a big time ladies man Alpha, not some idiot hero no one not even his wife cares about) and the woman can choose not to at any time.

    IF however vows of faithfulness and fidelity are two-way streets, obligating the woman as well as the man, then yes the Christian woman is a slut. One who cares only about who is the biggest big man sex machine.

    Note by the way the desire to have lots of money spent on her. That’s stupid. Saving money when you can is smart. Most women know nothing about money, outside a few I know of who know quite a bit. [They tend to be older, having lived through hard times.]

    Marriage now is endless courtship, endless choice, endless effort by the husband. No wonder it is not supportable. No wonder if THIS is what is in store, PA’s woman friends found no takers for marriage. Who wants to get married when all there is really is endless courtship? You might as well stay single and have options yourself, if your wife has endless options, and provides not a single bit of support.

    This is pretty common. Twilight has a vampire and werewolf competing for some dumb chick with her mouth open all the time (Beavis and Butthead made fun of it, and yes they are BACK!). Or Buffy having vampire boyfriends Angel and Spike fight over her before that. Women seem to want this like crack cocaine. Its ridiculous. Maybe if you look like a young supermodel, not even if you look like your average Hollywood starlet. Katy Perry has to share her hubby with other woman, not have other guys challenge Russell Brand for her devotion. And she’s Katy Perry. What chance do ordinary women have for two Alpha guys fighting over her.

    With marriage now redefined, how many men will be takers? For a lifetime of endless courtship? Better to play the field. And that for the most part is what women will get.

  130. Sandy says:

    2 Max a writer
    ===============
    Then you have not read the Kama Sutra. Nowhere does it discuss oral sex in context with either married couples or the seduction of non-professional (prostitute) women. It explicitly says that such services are to be sought out amongst eunuchs, in the barber shops (the word “shampooers” is used), and male prostitutes. It does say that there are some female prostitutes from particular regions who will also render that service. It explicitly says that it is not to be expected from wives and mainstream society women. Moreover, the Kama Sutra has nothing to say about cunninlingus.
    ==============
    Kama sutra mentions women performing blowjobs, so your claim that blowjobs came recently from gay culture is as 100% wrong a before

    ==============
    Matthew 5

    Adultery in the Heart

    27 “You have heard that it was said to those of old,[c] ‘You shall not commit adultery.’[d] 28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell.
    Marriage Is Sacred and Binding

    31 “Furthermore it has been said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality[e] causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.
    ==============

    So do you think that “adultery in heart” and “adultery” are the same things? If yes, then what does it have to do with porn? A guy can lust for a woman which is fully clothed. In your view if a guy looks at a woman and wants her, he might as well screw her, because he already commited “adultery in heart” by looking at her? I think you cannot correctly interpret the text you cited

  131. MAX a writer says:

    “So I guess if a woman admires a muscular guy on the beach then her husband is justified in leaving her for another woman, since she’s committing lust in her heart and is thus breaking her vows, right?”

    For Christians, in light of what Jesus is qouted as saying about marriage and fidelity in Matthew chapter 5, we are diligent to check ourselves before we wreak ourselves, and our marriages.

  132. TikkTok says:

    @Whiskey: “Most women know nothing about money, outside a few I know of who know quite a bit. [They tend to be older, having lived through hard times.] “

    Really? What’s your definition of older? I know a lot of women who handle the family finances (me being one of them). It’s not something I went clamoring for, to be sure, but it’s something that makes sense, since I’m home and taking care of the household, which for us, also includes paying the bills…. for us, it was a logical choice. Maybe that’s not your definition of knowing about money?

    On the other hand, there are people I know where the husband does take care of all of the finances, and is the one to call and make doctor’s appointments for everyone in the family. I say, whatever works. For us, that again is my department, because I am the one who is home and has the time for it.

    One thing I have seen (even with couples who have been married 15+ years) is total division of bill paying and bank accounts, as in your bills, my bills, and our bills and who is paying what from each account.

    I don’t see anything wrong with courting or putting effort into a relationship- on both ends. If “effort” in the relationship (and maybe I don’t understand your definition of courting) after marriage ends, I think the relationship is doomed anyhow. Marriage is not a license to turn off the effort switch for either party.

    Certainly- any relationship that is entirely one sided is not going to be sustainable (and I am not sure it would have actually gotten off the ground as a *real* relationship- that would seem to more accurately fit my definition of gold-digging).

  133. caballarius1 says:

    @Retrnched:
    “So I guess if a woman admires a muscular guy on the beach then her husband is justified in leaving her for another woman, since she’s committing lust in her heart and is thus breaking her vows, right?”

    Admiration doesn’t quite make it to the level of “epithumia” (Greek for over-the-top passionate desire), the word translated as “lust” in the King James.

  134. MAX a writer says:

    “Kama sutra mentions women performing blowjobs, so your claim that blowjobs came recently from gay culture is as 100% wrong a before”

    You’re being disingenous and obtuse, on purpose. The Kama sutra explicitly states that blow jobs are to be obtained from the “experts” – eunuchs, young men working in barber shops, and prostitutes – ALL MALE. It does say that there is a minority of female prostitutes from a certain region who may be willing to render this service. Why do men have to seek out other men or travel long distances to get it from that section of prostitutes who are willing to give it? Because it was not something that the vast majority of women would do or were expected to do. I’ve already explained this in about 3 comments so far, what is it that you are not getting, exactly?

    Coming recently from gay culture? Absolutely not! The Kama sutra is an ancient text. Blow jobs originate in a very, very old gay culture. Anal sex, oral sex and fetish sex have been mainstreamed recently for heterosexuals, at least in the post-industrail West. It would be interesting to know if any of these have yet been mainstreamed for heterosexuals in the land of Kama sutra itself.

    Adultery in the heart or adultery, just a matter of semantics for us Christians. As Christians we are diligent to check ourselves before we wreck ourselves, and yes, there have been some Christian wives who have divorced their husbands over porn addictions. After giving them many, many chances to give it up.

    Of course I wouldn’t expect secular people to even have any issues of guilt or shame over porn at all. They are not endeavoring to sanctify their lives for God or live by a Biblical moral code.

  135. Sandy says:

    Max a writer
    ==================
    You’re being disingenous and obtuse, on purpose. The Kama sutra explicitly states that blow jobs are to be obtained from the “experts” – eunuchs, young men working in barber shops, and prostitutes – ALL MALE. It does say that there is a minority of female prostitutes from a certain region who may be willing to render this service. Why do men have to seek out other men or travel long distances to get it from that section of prostitutes who are willing to give it? Because it was not something that the vast majority of women would do or were expected to do. I’ve already explained this in about 3 comments so far, what is it that you are not getting, exactly?
    ===================
    You are wrong and you don’t know what you are talking about. Kama Sutra says that blowjobs are practiced by “female attendants and serving maids” and most women in certain regions of the country. It has nothing to do with gay culture, and your point is as 100% wrong as before

    ===================
    Adultery in the heart or adultery, just a matter of semantics for us Christians.
    ===================

    Are you some kind of official Christian representative, like Pope? What “us Christians” asked you to represent them? Your assertion that watching porn is the same as adultery is bogus and doesn’t make any sense

  136. PT Barnum says:

    Max is being an annoying troll.

    You know the story about how you should never wrestle with a pig because the pig will be happy and you will get dirty?

    I’ve found that it is wrong. Can I PLEASE talk to him without holding back? I bet I can get the robot to shut up very quickly. PLEASE?
    For example:

    3 words: eunuch, barber, male prostitute. Again, WHICH edition, or more specifically WHO’s edition of the Sutra are you reading? And what does your edition say about pleasuring women with oral sex?

    Can you read a native language of India? No? Then I imagine that your translation is every bit as suspect as any other. I know, I know, I’m holding you to your own rules! How like a man. I am such a big meanie.

  137. MAX a writer says:

    “Are you some kind of official Christian representative, like Pope? What “us Christians” asked you to represent them? Your assertion that watching porn is the same as adultery is bogus and doesn’t make any sense”

    Hey! Don’t shoot the messenger, ma’aam. I’m just telling you what the good lord Jesus said. I agree with me. And if you scroll up, you’ll notice when I first breached the subject of porn, I said it was a “FORM of adultery” – Jesus said the lustful eye is a form of adultery too, “adultery of the heart”. I also said the wife flirting was another FORM of adultery. I don’t see anyone protesting that here.

    How a spouse chooses to deal with the various forms of adultery, whether legal/illegal by secular laws, or whether “by the heart” by Jesus’s laws, is up to him or her. I certainly do not fault my neighbor for divorcing her husband for his porn addiction as she gave him several chances to reform. The addiction consumed him and ruined his life.

    And no, I’m no pope. I’m considered amongst the most liberal of my Christian circle because I am not opposed to a mutually agreed upon open marriage scenario.

  138. MAX a writer says:

    Wikipedia on Kama Sutra and fellatio:

    “The Ancient Indian Kama Sutra, dating from the first century AD, describes oral sex,[28] discussing fellatio in great detail and only briefly mentioning cunnilingus. However, according to the Kama Sutra, fellatio is above all a characteristic of eunuchs (or, according to other translations, of effeminate homosexuals or transwomen similar to the modern Hijra of India), who use their mouths as a substitute for female genitalia.

    The author states that it is also practiced by “unchaste women” but mentions widespread traditional concerns about this being a degrading or unclean practice, with known practitioners being evaded as love partners in large parts of the country. He seems to agree with these attitudes to some extent, claiming “a wise man” should not engage in that form of intercourse while acknowledging that it can be appropriate in some unspecified cases.”

    Corresponds correctly with all three versions I’ve read. Don’t shoot the messenger.

    [D: This is getting a bit old, and more to the point off topic.]

  139. MAX a writer says:

    D, I totally agree :)

  140. Sandy says:

    2 Max a writer

    ====================
    Corresponds correctly with all three versions I’ve read. Don’t shoot the messenger.
    ====================

    Initially you claimed that it was a part of gay culture. Now you provide a citation which says it was practiced by females. So you confirmed yourself that your initial claim was 100% wrong. I consider that matter settled then so I’m not going to return to it, even if you repeat your bogus claims

    ======================
    And no, I’m no pope. I’m considered amongst the most liberal of my Christian circle because I am not opposed to a mutually agreed upon open marriage scenario.
    =====================

    It looks like you belong to a pretty kooky circle. You consider watching porn to be an adultery and in the same time you are not opposed to open marriage scenario

  141. caballarius1 says:

    @ MaxAW :
    “Hey! Don’t shoot the messenger, ma’aam. I’m just telling you what the good lord Jesus said. I agree with me. And if you scroll up, you’ll notice when I first breached the subject of porn, I said it was a “FORM of adultery” – Jesus said the lustful eye is a form of adultery too, “adultery of the heart”. I also said the wife flirting was another FORM of adultery. I don’t see anyone protesting that here.”

    You’re as clueless about adultery as “saint” Jerome was. Adultery, the biblical kind not the 3rd century and later kind, happens when copulation occurs between a married woman and a man of any status. When Christ talks about epithumia and adultery of the heart, it’s an in-depth restatement of the commandment “thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife.” The woman who is the object of the epithumia in Christ’s discourse is a married woman and the viewer is consumed with how to get to her. In the Bible, the only way a man can commit adultery against his wife is if he divorces her and replaces her with another. Notice that this only happens if the husband both divorces and replaces her, not if he merely adds another wife, concubine or slave girl. You do realize that the Hebrews were not limited to one wife, correct?

  142. dannyfrom504 says:

    Dalrock-

    is it wrong that couldn’t read any more of the review because the plot made me physically ill? i swear to you, i’m SOOOOO sick of shit like this. and ii see it all the time. look, i’ve never been married so it’s hard for crap like this to register for me from a “married man” perspective. this i why i dig when married guys post on my blog. i’m blogging as a single guy in the dating jungle looking for that LTR.

    the one thing that DID register with me is having a woman with-hold sex from me. i initiated early one morning (we had had a spat the night before) and she turned me down (something she NEVER did). i lovingly tried again……she said no. after the third rejection i was angry. i said, “fuck this bullshit.”, threw off the cover and went to my computer and turned up the volume. i went an online site and began cranking one out.

    she stood in the doorway of the my bedroom, arms crossed and said, “what the hell are you doing?” i responded, “shut up, you’re ruining my concentration, if you don’t help me out, i’ll deal with it myself. now get back to bed and leave me the hell alone.” when i finished, i went to bed. she said (back to me), “i can’t believe you did that. i answered, “you know…i did just fine before i met you. i just had a fantastic orgasm and you had NOTHING to do with it.” it never happened again.

    stay up Dal

  143. MAX a writer says:

    “But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. ”

    Does not specify married woman.

    Go ahead and watch all the porn you want. Hell, practically everyone is. I prefer to keep my eyes, mind and heart chaste for my spouse, as God intended.

    Yes I’m aware some hebrews had more than one wife. There are some Muslims and Mormons doing that today. I know a couple in a mutually agreed upon and happy open marriage scenario so I am under no illusion that strict lifelong monogamy works with the same great results for all couples. My concern is with deception, lying, and cheating and also what is best for the children invovled. If your culture, laws, religion and spouse agrees to such a thing and it won’t scar your kids, then knock yourself out.

  144. tspoon says:

    Interesting discussion on the relativities between male use of visual porn and female use of narcissism porn. I see several even liken it to adultery in the male instance. So may a husband divorce his wife if she watches unbelievably crappy movies? Strangely we see no movies advocating this. Although he might kick himself for having attached himself to such an unbelievable dullard… be warned young males, another tell to add to your list when choosing.

  145. somebody from far says:

    After having read the discussion I think that the Fireproof story is great and could be used for making another movie, like Fireproof 2. In this movie, the fire captain is tired of his wife’s disrespectful behaviour and flirting with other men and finally decides to divorce her. The wife initially agrees, but then somebody gives her a book called the Bible. In the book she reads that the wife is supposed to be a keeper at home (housewife), obey her husband, and that adultery is wrong. She then decides to try and win her husband back. She quits her job and starts doing housekeeping at the 1951 level and buys feminine garments called dresses (the woman shall not wear that which pertaineth upon a man or something to the point). When her husband comes home after resqueing little girls out of burning houses she meets him in high heels and pearls, the whole house is clean and smells fresh, there is a huge pot of coffee, dinner on the stove and an apple pie in the oven. She also washed all his socks and underwear and ironed them, too. She then proceeds to sincerely apologise to her husband for flirting with other men. The husband is surprised but still wants to serve her the divorce papers. At this moment Catherine tells him that she will from now on obey him and that as the head of the family and the breadwinner he will have the right to take all final decisions on how money will be spend and she will cooperate by practising frugality. And she thinks a new boat is a great idea. Then she apologises for refusing him sex and promises it will never happen again (defraud ye not one another… the wife has no power over her body…). At this moment Caleb realises that his wife is a good woman at heart and he still loves her and wants to give her a second chance.

    Somehow I’m afraid we won’t see such a movie any time soon.

    [D: Outstanding! Welcome to the blog.]

  146. dragnet says:

    I would like to express my condolences that Lara has, at long last, found your blog.

    I wouldn’t wish that on my worst enemy.

    [D: I knew this was bound to happen some day. It's been a good run.]

  147. Lara says:

    Hi dragnet,
    I’ve been hanging out over at your buddy Abagond’s also.

  148. Joe Blow says:

    Ick ick ick. Somehow, I don’t think the solution to a woman who is actively pursuing an illicit affair, is to further abase yourself in her presence. Based on my limited knowledge of human nature, the only way to stop that is to say, “Fine, you go ahead. I’ll have your shit packed in a UHaul by the time you get back, I wouldn’t want to stand in the way of you, and what you want.” A lack of respect is at the basis of that decision to cheat, and groveling is no way to rebuild respect.

    For that matter, respect isn’t worth much if it isn’t earned or merited. Women deserve respect generally as fellow humans and as the physically weaker sex. It is good for a man to have a default setting of “respect women.” But if you respect women generally, it doesn’t mean you worship them, it just means you have enough regard for the fairer sex to respect them as humans, to open the door but also take them one at a time – some women merit better treatment than others, not all deserve your affections or your hard work. It isn’t respect to heap fine treatment on somebody who patently is not deserving. Have enough respect for the woman in front of you to treat her as she deserves to be treated. Granted, if you are married to the woman, the marriage vows inform how “deserves to be treated” should be interpreted. A minor bad act from one’s wife does not merit quid pro quo reprisal, since love occasionally requires forgiveness and the vows obligate each partner to treat the other better than they would treat a random person encountered on the street. Honoring, loving, and respecting, however, does not include a willful blindness to bad behavior. In fact it seems to me that ignoring a spouse’s major screwups and pretending they aren’t doing anything wrong, is actually doing them a disservice by allowing them to continue in error, unchallenged. It looks like the height of disrespect, is to let somebody you allegedly love to destroy their own life.

    And about unconditional love – it is a good thing to strive for in human relationships. It is downright Christ-like. But as a practical matter unconditional love, as popularly imagined, is a suicide pact. Humans are weak and unconditional love of that sort is an invitation to temptation. “I will love you no matter what – and that includes if you throw me out of the house then invite the 7th Cavalry over for some sex and light refreshments…” encourages bad behavior and gives sanction to it. Part of love is keeping the person you love from disaster, if at all possible. That means that if they have a stupid idea to steer the ship onto the rocks, you need to have the courage to point out that thar be rocks, and certain death lies that way; it isn’t love to help them rationalize disastrous or evil choices; nor is it moral to encourage somebody as they explore depravity. Unconditional love involves affirmation, but it also involves having the courage to lead in the relationship, and helping the spouse steer clear of sin and other major disasters, even if it makes that person very, very angry at you. “Keeping you happy at all times” is not the same as “loving you at all times.” Conceivably, love may include an ultimatum that “I am kicking you out of this house until you stop bringing crack / your numbers racket / the 7th Cavalry into it.” “Unconditional” does not mean “without standards.” Christ has unconditional love for us, but it doesn’t mean that he suspended the ordinary rules against murder, adultery, theft, and all those other traditional prohibitions, in fact he was pretty clear about the need to eliminate evil in our lives and I seem to remember something him chastening a number of sinners, and at one point taking a whip to the folks who were using the temple for personal monetary gain [televangelists take note]… Being the Christ, did he not unconditionally love the money changers in the temple too? Of course he did. Then ask yourself, why did he discipline them? Love isn’t just a mental state, it’s a spiritual and emotional condition that comes with obligations to the beloved. We are cowards if we want only to enjoy love’s benefits, without performing the corresponding duties to earn reciprocal love and respect. It is a very immature form of love that demands only pleasure, or that offers only pleasure.

  149. terri says:

    I didn’t comment on the exchange between you and the other women at blog you referenced above, but I largely agree with what you’ve said here and from the time I watched Fireproof, I thought it was clear that the wife was just as much at fault for the state of the marriage as the husband was.

    I like the idea behind the “Love Care”, but only if both spouses participate in it and not necessarily at the brink of marital dissolution.

    I felt no sympathy for the wife’s character at all. But I thought maybe I was just being swayed by her terrible acting, LOL.

  150. Are you some kind of official Christian representative, like Pope? What “us Christians” asked you to represent them? Your assertion that watching porn is the same as adultery is bogus and doesn’t make any sense

    Christ’s words on the subject were crystal clear. I would never advocate divorcing someone for porn. Nor would I say that divorce is appropriate for a single act of adultery. But, your quibble is with God, not Max, because Christ extends the letter of the law of the old testament to encompass the spirit of the law in Matthew 5. Focusing your lust on a person who is not your spouse is a sin against God. Of course, there are lots of sins, and God forgives (and so should we).

    As far as many sex acts mentioned in this thread, several of them (cunnilingus, anal sex, etc.) have been normalized in our culture via the introduction of porn into the mainstream. Oral/anal sex were not considered “normal” between husbands and wives even in the hedonistic 1970s, but are increasingly mainstream (and more and more men/women report performing these acts).

    Beyond that, using a lot of porn changes a man’s capacity to get off:
    http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-20124181-71/research-web-porn-stops-men-from-performing/
    http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/20/how-porn-is-changing-our-sex-lives/

    And, it changes how he gets off:
    http://www.alternet.org/sex/152886/is_porn_ruining_our_sex_lives

  151. Jason Rennie says:

    Hang on a sec,

    Using Porn is _not_ a case of Adultery. It _is_ an example of sexual unfaithfulness between spouses, but so is depriving a spouse of sex.

    Not all sexual unfaithfulness is adultery.

    Jesus did equate lusting with the eyes as adultery in the heart, but it doesn’t seem that such “adultery in the heart” would actually be a legitimate grounds for divorce. If “lusting after a woman with your eyes” was the equivalent of adultery that was a legitimate grounds for divorce, is there any woman that could not cite this grounds to divorce her husband whatever reason she actually had as all men would be guilty of lusting with their eyes.

    Jason

  152. Jason Rennie says:

    @Dalrock

    “What I find fascinating is how common the fear is that porn will change men’s expectations such that they can’t relate to “real women”, yet upon further examination it turns out to be almost entirely a case of female projection.”

    It depends what you mean. The negative effects of pornography are fairly well documented, including the distorting effects. It has taken time for the absolute saturation provided by the internet to have its full effect. We’ll see how it goes and who is right, but I don’t think it is reasonable to suggest the results are in yet. The real results (and likely the true destruction this produces) will show up as we have a generation who have learned about “sex” from their exposure to pornography.

    Jason

  153. I do love the idea of eternal courtship as a marital focus, though. Not in the context of the husband continually wooing his wife while she spurns him, but rather, the couple wooing each other on an ongoing basis. I do this with my guy. There is not a day that goes by that I don’t do something specifically designed to make him feel cherished, cared for, or sexually desired. Part of it is that I feel a deep gratitude for his presence in my life, because he is just such a good man. I am grateful for the many sweet things he does for both me, and for my kids. I am deeply aware of exactly how lucky I am. And, similarly, he continually surprises me by identifying and doing some small things to take care of me. I’ve spent the last 6 years taking care of my kids and myself alone. I mow my own yard, I fix my own plumbing, I make it work without a lot of help. The day he cleaned my gutters for me, just because he noticed that they needed it, was the day he won my heart forever. I don’t need flowers or poetry or candlelight. But, someone who notices that the gutters are full of leaves and just cleans them, without being asked? That’s hard to find and truly valuable.

    I wonder how many wives realize how much more difficult their life will actually be if they are on their own…not many, probably, or fewer people would divorce for what I consider frivolous reasons. I think that sometimes women have this fantasy of independence–”life will be so much better if I’m just on my own, doing what I want.”

    I have a friend who frequently threatens her husband with divorce. I’ve counseled her many times that she does not want to be living my life–she has a lot of health issues, and I know that she could not physically handle it. It’s HARD to do this stuff on your own, with no back-up, and she doesn’t even realize how good she’s got it with a hard-working man who adores her. My cousin is in the same boat, married to a good man, 20 years older, that she’s decided is too old and boring. She has a beautiful home, a maid, gorgeous car, someone to come in and cook for her when she doesn’t feel like doing it, she gets her nails done weekly and has time to go to the gym every single day. And she’s throwing it all away over some fantasy of her lost youth. People–especially a lot of women–are dumb. They really don’t even understand what they’re doing.

  154. slwerner says:

    Jason – “It depends what you mean. The negative effects of pornography are fairly well documented, including the distorting effects.”

    It’s not that I disagree with you that porn can distort (some) men’s desires; but I would add that the question that (IMHO) needs to be asked is, how often do men in marriages with sexually giving wives turn to porn as an alternative for sexual release? I’d guess (your therapy group not withstanding) that it’s fairly rare. From what I’ve heard of the matter, the married men who become addicted to porn tend to be either those whose wives withhold or entirely deny sex, or those whose wives have become physically repulsive to the point where those men can no longer be aroused by them [obviously a subjective measure, and one could argue which came first, the wifes declining physical appearance (or hygiene), or her husbands porn-warped declining view of her].

    Yes, some men who have had good sexual relationships with their wives have never-the-less turned to porn to an unhealthy level. But, I suspect that they are distinctly outliers from the norm.

    Since you are approaching this discussion from the perspective of an active Christian, let me address this to you in a very direct manner. I see the efforts by Churchians to elevate (male, specifically) use of (visual) porn as a sin on par with actual adultery, and I have to wonder why. My best guess is that they understand that if a man can gain sexual release without his wife’s involvement in doing so, then her sexual manipulating power over him is being diminished.

    Why do you suppose it is?

  155. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dalrock, it appears that you and those you disagree with saw two different movies because you and they watched the film using different premises. If I read their position correctly they are assuming that the female protagonist has been changed, at the end of the movie, by the male protagonist’s display of loyal affection…true love. It seems to me that you look at her actions, and do not see any change, so the end of the movie is a sucker’s bet for the male protagonist as the female protagonist is set up to do the whole thing to him all over again.

    It could be that those women who see this movie and like it are projecting themselves and their own attitude into the female protagonist. While you are just looking at actions. Implied in this movie, based on what has been written, is the assumption that this woman is worth all of this expense, emotional toll, etc. because – well, because she’s just so fabulous, by golly! This plays in to the high self-esteem levels that are often found in modern women. She doesn’t have to bring anything to the marriage but her own fab self, while the male protagonist has to prove himself worthy of her fab self in multiple ways, all of which seem to involve spending money.

    He is supposed to provide resources plus fidelity, and she provides herself. Period. A very modern romance.

  156. Will S. says:

    Thanks, Dalrock, for this in-depth review. I’m definitely not going to see ‘Courageous’, or anything else that Sherwood Baptist Church puts out, ever.

  157. Locard says:

    Don’t sell yourself short. I look at it as entertainment!

  158. PuzzledTraveller says:

    @Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech
    I read your blog post. I certainly see that you could use church as a Sunday morning nightclub. Nothing really wrong with meeting women at church. However, I am divorced so to Churchy women I am untouchable.

    Funny thing about the one I was going to, they had a ‘young’ adult kind of dorky co-ed activity club for 21 up to age 35. Then at 50 on up they had another group/club. They skipped over 36-49 for some reason. Prime divorce years? Head in sand, dunno.

  159. Jim says:

    I am enjoying reading the comments on here. I find your review of the movie basically true, so at this point I won’t echo by saying, yes, this part is right and I really agree with you there. My take on it after I saw it was that it was a Christian chick flick and that the women love this kissing up stuff from the man, and that it’s the same message the “world” (the secular non-christian world – as in love not the world and the things in it) promotes. Also it was promoted with a major marketing effort as any entertainment flick would be and promoted as a valuable teaching tool for churches. (Books, workbooks – and maybe even coffee mugs and T-shirts?)

    I left comments after seeing it on a Christian mailing list I was on at the time, saying, “Wow great chick flick but too bad there weren’t more burning buildings and train scenes, that’s what we guys like, action!” The ladies on the list didn’t get my humor, but answered that this was a message that needed to be told.

  160. van Rooinek says:

    ….beyond actual acts of infidelity, porn probably falls into the category of sexual immorality as well, based upon the teachings of Christ:
    Matthew 5:28: But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
    It’s hard to say that a man watching porn isn’t, based upon this standard, committing adultery.

    True. However —

    A “Christian” wife who reneges on the marital sexual bargain — either by refusing to put out with reasonable frequency (or at all), and/or by letting herself go physically, beyond the normal and inescapable changes that come with age and without any particular disability or condition forcing it on her — is in NO POSITION to cast stones at her husband if he breaks down and seeks solace in porn. Indeed, given her own betrayal, she should be grateful that it’s just porn, and that he’s still there for her and the kids.

    Likewise, “Christian” single women who are so sinfully hypergamous that most normal Christian men can’t hope to earn enough money to marry til well past 30 (if ever), are in no position to cast stones at single men for seeking solace in porn during their long, miserable years of wrongfully forced celibacy.

    I’m not making excuses or justifications for porn here; I’m simply saying that, in my observation, the women who howl the loudest about porn are often partly at fault for it.

  161. Tom says:

    “I read your blog post. I certainly see that you could use church as a Sunday morning nightclub. Nothing really wrong with meeting women at church. However, I am divorced so to Churchy women I am untouchable. ”

    Depends on where you go. As with most things, the old rules no longer apply… I’m somewhat astounded at how quickly second marriages happen within the church between divorcees.

  162. Will S. says:

    Damn straight, VR. Hear, hear!

  163. rmaxd says:

    So anyone up for an intervention on Jason Rennies hang ups with porn, gay fellatio in the Karma Sutra & his weird hard on for christians having open having sex with everyone christian marriage …
    This guy gets the biscuit for the most screwed up white knight next to manboobz …
    go buy yourself a packet of jaffa cakes … theyre on me, you widely weird white knight ….

    [D: I think you have him confused with another commenter.]

  164. Jim says:

    The other thing I’d like to say about this post is that if our church were showing this movie and having a discussion on it, I would print out your post and bring it to the class as an alternate study guide to the material.

    [D: That is a great idea. Welcome to the blog.]

  165. van Rooinek says:

    Will S….

    1…Thou that despisest porn, dost thou act as a stumbling block?
    2…Wife, art thou no longer a joy unto thine husband?
    Hast thou regarded gluttony and sloth, as better than love?
    2…Single woman, dost thou refuse to marry?
    Is matrimony a sacrament reserved unto the rich,
    And hast thou kissed dating goodbye, if the man be of modest means?
    4…Surely thou hath acted as the marketing department unto the pornmongers
    Yet thou condemnest the customer that thou hast created !!!!

    Ya won’t hear that preached Sunday morning.

  166. Prof. Woland says:

    The reality is that some partners completely let themselves go physically after they feel secure in a relationship. You can argue whether this is fair or not, but it is not a healthy thing for the partnership. A lot of women lose their sex drive before the men do and somehow thinking that they have already checkmated their spouse and that there is nothing he can do about it. This is why on my second time around I married a woman considerably younger than me. Problem solved. As for my contemporary female counterparts, my suggestion is buy a cat.

  167. van Rooinek says:

    I see the efforts by Churchians to elevate (male, specifically) use of (visual) porn as a sin on par with actual adultery, and I have to wonder why….Why do you suppose it is?

    Guilt. They think that if they scream at men loud enough, they’ll be able to shut out the nagging voice of conscience, that tells them it’s partly their own fault (see my 2 prior posts, this thread). They seek to put all the guilt of porn on the man, and send him off into the wilderness as scapegoat, but it doesn’t work.

  168. anonymouse-1 says:

    How come 1/3 of the subscribers to online porn sites are women?

  169. somebody from far says:

    “Welcome to the blog”. Thank you, Dalrock. I am a long time reader, though not really a commenting type. But I do enjoy a good discussion.

    On the topic of porn, I do think it’s wrong but it’s not a reason for divorce. I cannot provide links but I do remember that male unfaithfullnes wasn’t considered grounds for divorce up until the 20th century. Old Testament describes the crime of adultery as “‘the man who commiteth adultery with ANOTHER MAN”S wife”, not a married man visiting whores. The New Testament passage simply shows that adultery begins in the heart, as with sinful thoughts. I believe that this interpretation is correct, as it was used up until mid-20th century. Somebody found a text of a law against adultery which is still on the books in one state (don’t remember which), and it desrcibes adultery in the same manner, i.e. it was considered a crime to have sex with a married woman, but not for a married man to cheat. Women used to obtain divorce on grounds of abandonement, as it meant financial non-support. This is in line with the traditional understanding of a marriage contract being the woman exchanging her sexuality and the fruits thereof (children) for the financial support of the man. I believe Rob Fedders from No Maam had a post about it.

    As a Christian I absolutely believe that it’s wrong for a man to cheat, but I have seen women leave marriages to otherwise reasonably good provider types who strayed and nothing but the misery came out of it, especially for the children.

  170. slwerner says:

    somebody from far – “As a Christian I absolutely believe that it’s wrong for a man to cheat”

    This may seem like a dumb question, but, just to be clear: you are stating this so as to show contrast to those interpretations that it was okay for men to do so – so long as it wasn’t with a married woman?

    Given the current state of Churchianity, I’m afraid that I won’t be to surprised to hear some (proclaiming-Christian women) to be of a mind that cheating is only wrong when done by a man, but excusable when done by a woman (since it could be construed to be the fault of men anyway). Just want to be sure of your intent in making the statement in the gender-specific way you did.

  171. Alat says:

    The husband stepped outside of the marital lines of fidelity first by watching porn, which is a form of adultery.

    That’s wrong, even if we accept that porn is a form of adultery. The wife was the first one to break the marriage vows by refusing sex to her husband. In marriage, men (and women) sign up for MONOGAMY, not CELIBACY.

  172. Will S. says:

    @ VR: alas, no…

  173. van Rooinek says:

    How come 1/3 of the subscribers to online porn sites are women?

    Good question. However, this no way contradicts, but perhaps even reinforces, my earlier charge, that… “the women who howl the loudest about porn are often partly at fault for it.”

  174. rmaxd says:

    @prof woollyend,

    this is also why most beta older men buy erm i mean marry, younger women, alpha males just plow their harems into old age

    In a lot of ways the fictitious SMV is set up for older rich men, & alphas & young tight women, while women & betas get screwed by old age, & men get screwed over by not being old enough …

    Of course most men & women who dont benefit by the SMV, dont participate, ie only richer older men can afford the traditions of multiple dates & rotating harems on a daily basis, & poorer alphas let the government take care the price of rotating harems

    In alot of ways feminism has highlighted the inefficiencies of alphas & hypergamy, whereas in the past the cracks in the poorer alpha AND the richer alpha would’ve been paid for by clueless beta husbands & cuckolded husbands who stood to loose their lifetime governmental jobs & traditional social stead

    It is the disappearance of clueless beta husbands, & men who stand to loose nothing because of the loss of tradition, we get films like this

    Desperately trying to brainwash clueless betas & their wives into divorcing so the poor schlub can save another yet empowered 40 yr old from a catfarm

    So basically this is another economic fundie drive by feminists to save their own aging wrinkled asses

    Basically a begging letter to christians to save them from a life of catfood & refusing to settle for the catlady loving guy next door ….

    What next a love letter to red cross on valentines day? …. The feminists in their time of need ironically need men in ever increasing numbers to bail them out from the millions of single moms created in their name

    & the catfarms of aging hags too retarded to admit the failings of feminists being sexist pigs against men

    Such is the fate of the dumb blonde & sexist haggard feminist

    Thanks for screwing yourselves over economically womyn, all us PUA’s & gamers thank you everywhere for throwing your daughters & their best years at us

    No more betas or traditions to protect you from the economy or the government, enjoy your free college & welfare handouts while they last,

    while we enjoy your daughters without any of the expense & hassle of a facade of a shred of social shaming for use in our harems

    To go up against alphas & gamers, you feminists wld’ve to launch a campaign specifically targetting & demonising alphas,

    in this case going after the enemy, ie us, the alphas & gamers women crave, feminists have already lost,

    the sleeping betas of centuries have awoken & they have the know how & ingenuity to crush invading hordes of mongols & program cutting edge cray computers …

  175. rmaxd says:

    & one day these sleeping betas, will invent a program on how to get chicks … & it shall be called … google …

  176. caballarius1 says:

    @ MaxAW
    ‘“But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.’

    Does not specify married woman.”

    It’s obvious it is a married woman: since actual sex with an unmarried woman is not constitute biblical adultery, how could a strong desire for sex with said woman constitute adultery. It’s the woman’s marital status that determines whether or not adultery has occurred. You cannot adulterate another man’s legacy with a woman who is not married.

    @ MaxAW
    ‘“But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.’”Go ahead and watch all the porn you want. Hell, practically everyone is. I prefer to keep my eyes, mind and heart chaste for my spouse, as God intended.”

    There is no Biblical mandate for male “chastity” anywhere in scripture. The only Biblical restrictions on non-elder/deacon male sexuality are no homos, no beasties, no married women, no menstrual sex, no temple prostitutes and regular prostitutes are highly discouraged.

  177. caballarius1 says:

    @Dubious Wonder:
    “As far as many sex acts mentioned in this thread, several of them (cunnilingus, anal sex, etc.) have been normalized in our culture via the introduction of porn into the mainstream. Oral/anal sex were not considered “normal” between husbands and wives even in the hedonistic 1970s, but are increasingly mainstream (and more and more men/women report performing these acts).”

    Here’s some oral sex poetry. It definitely predates the 1970s.

    Like an apple tree among the trees of the forest, so is my beloved among the young men. In his shade I took great delight and sat down, and his fruit was sweet to my taste. (Song of Solomon 2:3)

  178. Interested says:

    “She doesn’t have to bring anything to the marriage but her own fab self, while the male protagonist has to prove himself worthy of her fab self in multiple ways, all of which seem to involve spending money.

    He is supposed to provide resources plus fidelity, and she provides herself. Period. A very modern romance.”

    and more:

    “Funny thing about the one (church) I was going to, they had a ‘young’ adult kind of dorky co-ed activity club for 21 up to age 35. Then at 50 on up they had another group/club. They skipped over 36-49 for some reason. Prime divorce years? Head in sand, dunno.”

    @ Anonymous Reader and PuzzledTraveler

    I’ll go with the head in the sand. I fall in this demographic and, unfortunately, I am exposed to a lot of women in this 36-49 bracket. Just replace the word “marriage” with “date”. For the most part these women don’t have hobbies, do not make an effort to learn anything new, do not volunteer for anything, live check to check, and sometimes take care of themselves. And these are college educated women with pretty good jobs! There is ZERO intellectual curiosity.

    It’s like they believe that they figured it all out and that they will have men fighting over them. But they don’t. So in your church PT I have to believe that there is no push from females in this demographic to create such a group. They fully expect that the men will appear and woo them in a way that AR describes all while ignoring how little they bring to the table.

    But the EPL marinade leaches out of them by 50 and they decide that they need another group to grease the skids.

  179. van Rooinek says:

    There is no Biblical mandate for male “chastity” anywhere in scripture.

    Self-serving selective reading. Go look again. “Marriage is honorable, and the bed undefiled, but fornicators and adulterers, God will judge.” If the girl is married to someone else, you’re an adulterer, and if not, you’re a fornicator. There is just not a loophole there, however you might wish one.

    The double standard is pagan, not JudeoChristian. With the single exception, that in Old Testament times, polygyny was permitted.

  180. dragnet says:

    @ Lara

    I’ve never heard of Abagond—is he a manosphere guy?

  181. Lara says:

    Oh sorry. From what I’ve seen so far he is mostly interested in race. Most of the people over there I’ve never seen on Spearhead or this blog.

  182. caballarius1 says:

    There is no Biblical mandate for male “chastity” anywhere in scripture.

    @VanRooinik:
    “Self-serving selective reading. Go look again. “Marriage is honorable, and the bed undefiled, but fornicators and adulterers, God will judge.” If the girl is married to someone else, you’re an adulterer, and if not, you’re a fornicator. There is just not a loophole there, however you might wish one.

    The double standard is pagan, not JudeoChristian. With the single exception, that in Old Testament times, polygyny was permitted.”

    You need to look again, in the “original” Greek this time. The Greek word translated into English as “fornication” (incidentally from the latin “fornix”, which is a vaulted arch and was the overhead architectural feature one would see when lying supine in a cellar brothel) is “porneia” and has nothing to do with the present English meaning of “fornication.” Proneia literally means prostitution for cash, either temple or commercial. In the New Testament era, LXX, and NT Greek text it was a catchall term for the whole bag of acts specifically listed as sin in the Mosaic Law, which were adultery (sex with another man’s wife or betrothed), various incests, menstrual sex, bestiality, male homosexuality, pagan sacred prostitution, and rape of a married or betrothed woman.

    You’re right there are no loopholes, just a few restrictions.

  183. So I should just watch The Last Boy Scout again instead of viewing this?

  184. rmaxd says:

    This film is basically a cry for :

    So wheres the bail out betas for feminists …

    this is basically what this films about, wheres our bail out money paid in betas from feminists failing & burning hard in the smv from their sexist pig biased against men policies

    Unfortunately for feminists they never BOTHERED to put us PUA’s, gamers & alphas on their side, before they imploded the smv …

    We couldve been your smv bankers, your saviours as the smv imploded under the height of feminist hatred, very short sighted feminists …. but very typical for a man hating woman …

    Feminists if you bothered to put us alphas on your side, you couldve been a contender

    Look at the techniques us PUA’s use, designed to deprive & destroy betas, we’re literally expert beta destroyers, hell we destroy betas more thoroughly then any feminist has ever done

    For their own good of course

    In alot of ways films like this enable us Financiers of the smv, the PUA & gamers & alpha males, as more women divorce & prevent their daughters from strong mature masculine guiding hands, into our pumping & dumping market manipulating harems

    You shouldve worked with your traditionalist sisters, experts in using men as walking wallets while feigning biology, & kept men in perpetual traditional societal ignorance & bondage for CENTURIES

    I mean look at you feminists, you’re only around 80-90 years, & already you’re beginning to loose, pathetic

    & you shldve worked with us the alphas & PUA’s

    Learn to pay your dues to the right ppl feminists, before you & your communist banker funded overlords try & take over society

    You shouldve infiltrated the PUA & gaming communities feminists, you couldve been a contender ….

  185. van Rooinek says:

    In the New Testament era, LXX, and NT Greek text it was a catchall term for the whole bag of acts specifically listed as sin in the Mosaic Law….

    Yes, and one restriction in the Mosaic law, was that women were required to be virgins til marriage. On pain of death. Which leads right back to…. No sex is allowed outside marriage. At all. No loopholes.

  186. somebody from far says:

    “slwerner says:
    October 31, 2011 at 11:47 am
    somebody from far – “As a Christian I absolutely believe that it’s wrong for a man to cheat”

    This may seem like a dumb question, but, just to be clear: you are stating this so as to show contrast to those interpretations that it was okay for men to do so – so long as it wasn’t with a married woman?””

    What I meant to say is that I think it’s sinful for a man to cheat on his wife (there is something in a traditional wedding vow about ” forsaking all the others””), but it constitutes fornication, not adultery and it was traditionally not the grounds for divorce until feminists made it so. I believe the traditional interpretation is correct. I hope that answers your question.

  187. PT Barnum says:

    And no, I’m no pope. I’m considered amongst the most liberal of my Christian circle because I am not opposed to a mutually agreed upon open marriage scenario.

    Rattle the cage and looks what falls out.

    See? I didn’t even go up to four on the guy.

  188. slwerner says:

    somebody from far – “I hope that answers your question.”

    No, it does not.

    What I was asking was, in more plain terms, was: do you also feel as though it is just as wrong for a woman to cheat? Just because you may be “absolute” in your view that it’s wrong for a man to do does not automatically imply that you are not one of those Churchians who would prefer to apply more “situation ethics” in regards to women cheating.

    Your statement, along with examples that followed it were all very gender-specific. Sometimes when Churchians become noticably gender-specific in their communication, they are simply telegraphing that they hold the genders to different standards.

    At least this has been my experience.

  189. caballarius1 says:

    @van Rooinek says:
    “In the New Testament era, LXX, and NT Greek text it was a catchall term for the whole bag of acts specifically listed as sin in the Mosaic Law….

    Yes, and one restriction in the Mosaic law, was that women were required to be virgins til marriage. On pain of death. Which leads right back to…. No sex is allowed outside marriage. At all. No loopholes.”

    You are quite mistaken. The Mosaic Law never refers to premarital sex as sin and there is no penalty other than a virgin’s cash value on the SMV, unless you see marriage as a penalty (and even then marriage is optional). Let’s take a look at what the Bible, as opposed to some hedge priest, actually says about the matter:

    Exodus 22:16 “And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.”

    No death penalty there. The seducer forks over the dough to the father and marries the ex-virgin, unless the father chooses to refuse the marriage, in which case the father still gets to keep the cash. Also, notice the requirement that the woman be a virgin. This whole shotgun marriage, virgin bride price settlement only applies to virgin girls. Non-virgin women, be they previously seduced unmarried girls, widows (sans pending levirate marriage responsibilities), or divorcees are not covered by these requirements.

    Perhaps you were thinking of the death penalty required when slightly used young ladies are falsely sold off as virgin brides in Deuteronomy 22:17. That one does have a death penalty, stoning, for the girl only. However, it’s not because she had premarital sex, it’s because she passed herself off as a virgin and defrauded some guy out of his bridal cash. As the Bible puts it, “because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house.” Just like today, virgins in the Bible have a higher SMV than non-virgins, so this issue is about cash money and fraud.

    Or perhaps you were thinking of Leviticus 21:9 “And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.” So it is true the cash money prostitution is definitely a capital offense in the Law, but only for the daughters of the priests. This does not apply to the whole people of Israel and it has nothing to do with non-cash sex.

  190. zed says:

    I’m sure that Dalrock is sharpening his knives to go after this story –

    In a statement to The Famous, Kim Kardashian says: “After careful consideration, I have decided to end my marriage. I hope everyone understands this was not an easy decision. I had hoped this marriage was forever but sometimes things don’t work out as planned. We remain friends and wish each other the best.”

    After little more than two months of marriage, Kim Kardashian is filing for divorce from Kris Humphries.

    I guess 72 days is giving “forever” a decent college try by today’s standards.

    Given that her husband supposedly spent $2 million on her ring, I wonder how much it would have cost him to “fireproof” himself? :twisted: :mrgreen:

  191. Chels says:

    Zed

    I can’t say that really surprised me, it’s a long period on Hollywood time! She’s also richer than he is, which is why she made him sign a prenup and wants to make sure that he’s not awarded spousal support. :S

  192. somebody from far says:

    Slwerner, you said:
    “No, it does not.

    What I was asking was, in more plain terms, was: do you also feel as though it is just as wrong for a woman to cheat? ”

    A woman cheating on her husband constitutes adultery and it has been the traditional grounds for divorce for men. I thought there was a consensus on this issue, and the discussion was whether male philandering also constituted adultery (I believe it does not).

    Of course adultery is wrong, is there any doubt about it? Now to answer your question more directly: I don’t think it’s just as wrong for a woman to cheat, I believe it is worse.

  193. greyghost says:

    Zed
    I didn’t know the guy blew that kind of cash on that chick. i hope he learned something from that. That lady is a classic pump and dump. You hit that until you decide any pleasure or anything else you can possibly get from the woman is less than the incredable burden someone like that brings to the table.
    BTW he is an NBA star no money coming in maybe for the year, so gotta cut the burden loose.

  194. Jason Rennie says:

    @slwerner

    “It’s not that I disagree with you that porn can distort (some) men’s desires”

    The data seems pretty conclusive that even limited has an effect on men, actually women as well, but less so as they are wired somewhat differently.

    “how often do men in marriages with sexually giving wives turn to porn as an alternative for sexual release? I’d guess (your therapy group not withstanding) that it’s fairly rare.”

    As a supplement it seems to be at least somewhat common. Although in a healthy marriage you are right, there is no need and use of it is an indication of something defective somewhere in the marriage. Although at the same time, porn users prior to marriage find it difficult to stop when they get married. I’ve seen that often enough as well.

    “From what I’ve heard of the matter, the married men who become addicted to porn tend to be either those whose wives withhold or entirely deny sex”

    Often a wife will feel hurt and betrayed by a husband who looks at porn and withdrawa at that point. The effect can go both ways, and although it is clearly less a betrayal than physical infidelity with another person, it does feel like a serious betrayal. YMMV.

    “Yes, some men who have had good sexual relationships with their wives have never-the-less turned to porn to an unhealthy level. But, I suspect that they are distinctly outliers from the norm.”

    Porn tends to be physically addictive so I would contend there isn’t really a “healthy level” of use.

    “Since you are approaching this discussion from the perspective of an active Christian, let me address this to you in a very direct manner.”

    Sure.

    “I see the efforts by Churchians to elevate (male, specifically) use of (visual) porn as a sin on par with actual adultery”

    It is unfortunate they do that as they are only going to invite more fivolous divorce. It is just empowering bad ideas. At the same time, from the perspective of dealing with the problem and how endemic it seems to be (especially if you are convinces it is extremely destructive as I would contend), it is reasonable in certain contexts to suggest it is at least in the league of actual adultery.

    “I have to wonder why. My best guess is that they understand that if a man can gain sexual release without his wife’s involvement in doing so, then her sexual manipulating power over him is being diminished.”

    That might be correct in some instances. I don’t think in general that is the case though. Use of porn is clearly a defective use of sex and spending sexual energy in a marriage on someone other than your spouse is only going to stress the relationship and casue problems. Wives are not excused from contributing to this problem, and I agree the church has often fallen down as it has become more insanely feminized. To be fair though, my perspective on the feminized nature of the church in the US church is limited to reports I hear. I do attend a conservative anglican church in sydney australia although I do see the problem here to some degree.

    At the same time, the problem is starting to be addressed and noticed, so lets hope it turns around.

    Jason

  195. zed says:

    Actually, greyghost, I think they both made a fairly good profit on the wedding, which was planned as a “media event.”

    I think it is indicative of the times that we live in that weddings are rapidly passing through the melodrama phase and often becoming complete farces.

  196. Jason Rennie says:

    @van Rooinek

    “A “Christian” wife who reneges on the marital sexual bargain … Likewise, “Christian” single women who are so sinfully hypergamous that most normal Christian men can’t hope to earn enough money to marry til well past 30 (if ever), are in no position to cast stones at … men for seeking solace in porn”

    You know what, it is difficult to disagree with that observation. Actually I don’t disagree with that observation at all. I would suggest to any Christian that indulging in porn is a bad idea because it will destroy your sex life and cause you endless problems for you.

    I would add, that there is _nothing_ forbidden by God in the Bible (especially the NT, there are aspects of OT law that are ceremonial and essentially arbitrary, or specific instances of more general prohibitions, which means a bit more care and research is needed for OT cases) that is actually benifical to people. Everything that is on the prohibited list is actually bad for you. So the prohibition on extra marital sexual relations (even with yourself it seems, see Matt5:27-30, and read it as a whole interelated unit) itself is done because the alternative is bad for you.

    Jason

  197. Jason Rennie says:

    @rmaxd,

    You might be confusing me in part with some other posters. I don’t have a “hang up” with porn though, the reasons for what is wrong with it are well known and documented.

    Jason

  198. Jason Rennie says:

    @van Rooinek

    “Ya won’t hear that preached Sunday morning.”

    Sadly you make a good point, although you might want to google Mark Gungor and give his radio show a listen, he is a Pastor from Green Bay Wisconsin and the creator of Laugh Your Way To a Happy Marriage, and he would agree with the points you are making (I do also, but he is someone in a leadership position which I think is what you wanted)

    Jason

  199. Jason Rennie says:

    @van Rooinek

    “Guilt. They think that if they scream at men loud enough, they’ll be able to shut out the nagging voice of conscience, that tells them it’s partly their own fault (see my 2 prior posts, this thread). They seek to put all the guilt of porn on the man, and send him off into the wilderness as scapegoat, but it doesn’t work.”

    Good observation. Part of the problem I have commenting is that I am in Australia. It is insane what seems to go on in parts of US culture and especially the US church.

    Jason

  200. MAX a writer says:

    “Like an apple tree among the trees of the forest, so is my beloved among the young men. In his shade I took great delight and sat down, and his fruit was sweet to my taste.” (Song of Solomon 2:3)

    that does not describe oral sex. it is poetic embellishment. it may be describing the lips of her lover, the taste of his skin, or maybe his penis. but fruit was often a poetic metaphor in ancient and medieval poetry for describing the overall experience of being with a lover, or even feeling mystical union with the divine, with god.

    Glad someone brought up the fornication angle here to the man who is trying to justify sex before or outside of marriage, for men.

  201. rmaxd says:

    Jason the fact you keep harping on about it, implies you do have a hangup

    This is not meant as an insult btw, just that you’ve repeated the same mantra like a broken record for at least 3 or 4 posts now & its getting tiring

    I might’ve got the christian bit wrong, but yes i was referring to yourself

    & btw porn as consumed by most men is in fact healthy & as its been well observed, its ordinary average women who pay the price for porn, not men

    Porn is responsible for more beta chicks not getting laid then quite probably both the world wars combined …

    Porn has effectively raised the market price for women even wanting to get laid, even by a semi-decent beta, men no longer have to bang low grade beta chicks to satisfy their needs

    Yes most men would rather watch pictures of hot chicks, then have to force themselves to bang an average looking beta chick

    That’s how much beta chicks are invisible to us guys

    As for the crap you keep on harping on about, most men arent porn addicts

    Porn is designed for men, & for your information it is women who suffer the most from men watching porn, & im not talking about married women, or divorcee’s

    It is average beta chicks who suffer the most from men watching porn, before internet porn, i wouldve gladly plowed hundreds of average looking chicks

    Hell thanks to porn i dont even notice them, in fact porns done men a massive favour, it raised our standards & MOST importantly it stopped men from rewarding bitchy average looking chicks with sex,

    except for black men of course, who dont need to watch porn, so they continue to ream average looking chicks, & hideously obese chicks, PRECISELY because they dont watch porn, so theyre still operating on their old school rules of sexuality back at home

    then again as everyone knows white women dont count sex with black men as sex …

    So yes us men got a double bonus from feminism, endless tight young chicks, & no sex for bitchy average looking chicks & most importantly no sex for obese beta women thanks to porn

    Feminism deprived MOST women from husbands & fathers & meal tickets, while deprived the vast majority of average looking beta chicks from sex, thanks to porn

    You can thank the cluelessness of most women getting a raw deal from porn & feminism

    Women got the sexual revolution & men got the ability to deprive average beta chicks of sex everywhere

    No amount of whining about the dangers of porn is ever going to change the above … its only going to get worse ladies … wait till the REAL competition to porn arrives …. & see what happens to the bone dry beta chicks …

  202. MAX a writer says:

    @Tspoon,

    “Interesting discussion on the relativities between male use of visual porn and female use of narcissism porn. I see several even liken it to adultery in the male instance. So may a husband divorce his wife if she watches unbelievably crappy movies? Strangely we see no movies advocating this. Although he might kick himself for having attached himself to such an unbelievable dullard… be warned young males, another tell to add to your list when choosing.”

    Narcissism porn? Seriously? Can we stop putting the suffix “porn” on everything that we find offensive? I’m even reading diatribes against “food porn” these days. When we Christians use the word “porn” it has a very specific meaning. The original, accurate meaning, to be exact. Not a suffix to be added at the end of all and sundry under the sun, as is the current “meme” or whatever you call it now.

    Jason, seems you and I are on the same page regarding the current sexual zeitgeist. You seem to have seen porn (the real kind) ruin more than just a few marriages. Which comes first, the chicken or the egg? Do wives withdraw sexually and their husbands turn to porn for release or do the husbands get start watching porn first, and then the wives withdraw because of that? What about wives who develop porn addictions?

  203. rmaxd says:

    So to conclude for all the fence sitters out there …

    If you want to bang high quality chicks watch porn

    If you want to continue find attractive bitchy low average looking chicks, dont watch porn …

    The choice is yours …

  204. Jason Rennie says:

    @rmaxd,

    Believe what you want.

    “No amount of whining about the dangers of porn is ever going to change the above”

    I’m not whining and you don’t have to read what I write if it doesn’t interest you.

    Jason

  205. Jason Rennie says:

    @rmaxd,

    You write an interesting response. You clearly see yourself as some sort of enlightened superior individual “banging lots of hot ass”. I’d contend you are pretty horribly broken in reality. You do have some reasonable points about the effect of pornography on “average women”.

    But still, I guess what they say about the moral reasoning capacity and corruption is true.

    Jason

  206. Lily says:

    rmaxd
    “Porn is responsible for more beta chicks not getting laid then quite probably both the world wars combined”
    I think you may have at least partially proved one of Jason’s points.

  207. MAX a writer says:

    “As a Christian I absolutely believe that it’s wrong for a man to cheat, but I have seen women leave marriages to otherwise reasonably good provider types who strayed and nothing but the misery came out of it, especially for the children.”

    When a couple has kids, even in cases of infidelity, it is often better to work things out. If that working out constitutes living together as friends while seeking romantic/sexual involvement outside the marriage in a mutually agreed upon open marriage scenario, then I say for the sake of the kids, let it be. I’ve seen an example of this working successfully otherwise I would never suggest it.

    sometimes a spouse just can’t be all things to us at all times. Men often complain of a lack of sex (quantity) while women often complain of a lack of sexual satisfaction (quality) and a lack of feeling loved, appreciated and adored, which seems to be wired in psychological female needs. But minus the above the couple can still function as housemates, parents, buddies. I see no reason why they should divorce when alternatives are available.

  208. MAX a writer says:

    “If you want to bang high quality chicks watch porn”

    You mean if you want to watch guys with bigger shlongs than you have banging high quality chicks, watch porn.

  209. Will S. says:

    Oh, c’mon Max, please! Surely Song of Solomon is about many things, oral sex amongst them. Why not? Why must we not interpret it thus? Sheesh.

    I faced this shit recently at another blog, regarding a NT passage, “If you understood the original Greek…” blah blah blah; now I’m getting “If you understood the original Hebrew…” re: an OT passage.

    God has given us translations in our own languages; we don’t need to all be scholars to divine meanings; if we do, we might as well go back to Rome, shall we not? Rome told us it understood the ancients, and that they’d tell us all what it meant…

    Sheesh!

    [D: I've asked Max to let this question go since it is so far off topic. Maybe someone else will want to make a specific post on it on their own blog and do a linkback from here so it can be discussed at even greater length. Otherwise, no more on this please.]

  210. caballarius1 says:

    @Jason Rennie
    “At the same time, from the perspective of dealing with the problem and how endemic it seems to be (especially if you are convinces it is extremely destructive as I would contend), it is reasonable in certain contexts to suggest it is at least in the league of actual adultery.”

    Pharasaical thinking at its best. Adultery has a very specific meaning, it is the adulteration or potential adulteration of a husband’s lineage by the introduction of an interloping male into the vagina of the wife. Christ also extends the term adultery to the unjustified casting out on the street (the general effect of divorce in those days) and replacement of a non-adulterous wife with another woman. Porn cannot adulterate a man’s lineage and it doesn’t result in wives being actually cast aside and physically replaced with another woman. Attempts to elevate porn viewing and so-called emotional affairs to adultery status are purely attempts to be able to justify divorces that do not reach the Biblical standard.

    None of the above should be viewed as an endorsement of pornography. There are lots of things that aren’t particularly good for you which do not rise to the level of “Thou shalt not.” I don’t think the Almighty accidentally forgot any.

  211. Jason Rennie says:

    @caballarius1

    “Pharasaical thinking at its best.”

    Not really. Go read Matt 5:27-30.

    “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

    Not to put to fine a point on it, but I can really only think of one way that a man’s eye and hand cause him to sin when lusting after a woman.

    “Attempts to elevate porn viewing and so-called emotional affairs to adultery status are purely attempts to be able to justify divorces that do not reach the Biblical standard.”

    I actually said something to that effect further up in a previous post. They are clearly not the same thing and attempting to use it as grounds for divorce is pretty much textbook frivolous divorce.

    Jason

  212. MAX says:

    @rmaxd

    “No amount of whining about the dangers of porn is ever going to change the above … its only going to get worse ladies … wait till the REAL competition to porn arrives …. & see what happens to the bone dry beta chicks …”

    Proves Jason’s point for him. As family oriented Christians we do not see leaving beta chicks high and dry with no prospects of a God centered marriage and family life to be a positive thing.

    Pornography needs no cheerleaders from the lay people. There are millions of sex positive feminists and industry workers who will make sure this bastion of American freedom of speech lives on well into the millenia to come.

  213. MIX says:

    ” And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. ”

    Considering that most porn viewers are right handed, and we know what their doing with their hand while they watch porn, we can reasonably conclude that Christ was making a future prediction here.

  214. caballarius1 says:

    @Jason Rennie
    See my comment above to Max on Matt 5 and the meaning of “epithumia” (aka “lust”). It’s quite a bit more involved than just a visual or even a whacking fantasy, it equates to the OT “covet.”

  215. MIX says:

    Fair enough. Consider that many porn actresses are indeed married women!

    I’ll predict that you’ll say Jesus meant married women that you knew in real life, not on the computer screen!

  216. Thumpy says:

    No big surprise… movies steeped in religion always suck.

  217. Jason Rennie says:

    @Thumpy

    Didn’t like Lord of the Ring’s then?

    Jason

  218. Twenty says:

    Re: “Adultery of the Heart”

    This reminds me of the Prop 65 warning labels you see everywhere in California.

    (For those lucky enough to live elsewhere: Some do-gooder morons got a Proposition passed that mandated the posting of signs wherever substances “known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm” might be found. Naturally, the state of California, being run entirely by hippies, “knows” just about everything, from auto exhaust to wood dust, to “cause cancer” &c. Next, lawyers entered the mix, and started sue-sue-suing anyone with more than a nickel to their name who didn’t have a sign up. So, the signs are now meaningless, because they’re everywhere and warn of everything. It’s just wasted a lot of money, made some scummy lawyers richer, and made some “environmentalists” feel good about themselves.)

    Anyway: The abuse of the notion of “adultery of the heart” seems to have a similar effect: It defines “adultery” so broadly that it can be found almost anywhere, and so that it means almost nothing. This is foolishness. A spouse who shtups another person is doing nothing at all like watching porn. They’re entirely different things.

    Personally, I suspect the anti-porn crusade is just a way to enhance the power of churchy women to mistreat their men by not only withholding sex, but by denying them any other release as well. While there might be some tiny fraction of men who have a legitimately unhealthy relationship with it, it just doesn’t seem to merit near the attention it gets. An actual flesh-and-blood, willing woman is a lot more fun than streaming video.

    Maybe some of these women with porn-”addicted” husbands need to look to themselves?

  219. Foo says:

    I think it is comically inasutue to assume that a man stuck in a sexually dysfunctional marriage will find the situation more paletable if he and the shrew waited until marriage to have sex.

    My wife and I waited and married each other as virgins. Abstinence prior to marriage is not a panacea… or even a cough drop. It is simply a reminder that I was a fool to refuse getting any while the getting was good.

  220. greyghost says:

    That was an outstanding comment Twenty. And just to add that same meme is forgotten about when woman chose to dress and act like sluts. Remember the slut walks when women shouted out to have men notice their porno look but don’t touch or judge my appearance.

  221. Jason Rennie says:

    @Twenty,

    “Anyway: The abuse of the notion of “adultery of the heart” seems to have a similar effect: It defines “adultery” so broadly that it can be found almost anywhere, and so that it means almost nothing. This is foolishness. A spouse who shtups another person is doing nothing at all like watching porn. They’re entirely different things.”

    I agree they are not the same, although they are clearly not _entirely different things_. I said above the using porn or denying a sex to a spouse are both acts of sexual unfaithfulness. Adultery is also an act of sexual unfaithfulness, although a more extreme one and reasonable grounds for divorce. So to say they are entirely different is silly.

    “Personally, I suspect the anti-porn crusade is just a way to enhance the power of churchy women to mistreat their men by not only withholding sex, but by denying them any other release as well.”

    Surely the proper approach is to deal with the actual problem, the churchian women being sexually unfaithful to their husbands, not compound the problem by encouraging unfaithfulness by both spouses.

    “While there might be some tiny fraction of men who have a legitimately unhealthy relationship with it”

    What do you base this claim on? I would base my claims that it is destructive on the reasearch that has been done, not to mention the stats on how many men use pornography regularly in the church.

    “An actual flesh-and-blood, willing woman is a lot more fun than streaming video.”

    Interesting you say that. Some men seem to think a flesh and blood woman is less fun because it is more work.

    “Maybe some of these women with porn-”addicted” husbands need to look to themselves?”

    I agree with you on this point. These sorts of things don’t happen in a vacuum after all.

    Jason

  222. Jason Rennie says:

    @Foo

    “I think it is comically inasutue to assume that a man stuck in a sexually dysfunctional marriage will find the situation more paletable if he and the shrew waited until marriage to have sex.”

    I think it is inastute to suggest that anybody has suggested anything of the sort. My main point about waiting for sex was that sex makes you stupid and encourages poor decision making due to its biochemical bonding effect.

    Jason

  223. Jason Rennie says:

    @greyghost

    “same meme is forgotten about when woman chose to dress and act like sluts. Remember the slut walks when women shouted out to have men notice their porno look but don’t touch or judge my appearance.”

    It is a peculiar form of insanity that women can demand to behave like sluts and then in the next breath demand that this behavior not be “judged”.

    I will never understand anybody who deliberately chooses to make poor decisions and then wants to whine about it when it blows up in their face.

    Jason

  224. jack says:

    I will say this:

    Even as a complete conservative Christian, if my wife ever cuts me off for selfish reasons, I will tell her straight up that I’m going to get it somewhere, so either put out or don’t complain about me taking a mistress.

    Arrogant Christian girls need to learn that sex is not a weapon or a reward. And to use it as such makes one a, well, a whore of sorts.

  225. van Rooinek says:

    I suspect the anti-porn crusade is just a way to enhance the power of churchy women to mistreat their men by not only withholding sex, but by denying them any other release as well. …Maybe some of these women with porn-”addicted” husbands need to look to themselves?

    As I noted earlier, she that howls the loudest, is trying to silence her own guilt — guilt at not making a reasonable effort to satsify her own husband. The great and unanswered question is, WHY are so many wives unwilling to do this? Surely they knew what marriage involved, before they walked down the aisle? If they are just uninterested in sex, why the hell did they get married in the first place? “Get thee to a nunnery!”

    The answer that pops into mind, is Money. They married for money. So… perhaps at some level they feel like whores every time they put out for their husbands?

    While there might be some tiny fraction of men who have a legitimately unhealthy relationship with it, it just doesn’t seem to merit near the attention it gets.

    Welll… as with so many other things on this earth, a small percentage of people do get addicted to it. Most, however, do not. However, we can’t put it in the category of alcohol, because unlike alcohol, there’s no room in scriptural morality for “moderate” porn use. It’s really something that should be totally abstained from, by everyone. And a healthy sex life with a reasonably fit spouse, makes abstaining from porn a lot easier. Without meaning to sound freudian, anti-porn crusaders would probably be more successful if they focused more on the carrot and less on the stick…

  226. van Rooinek says:

    Everything that is on the prohibited list is actually bad for you.

    Indeed. This observation is centuries old. Benjamin Franklin, one of the American founding fathers, once observed, “Sin is not harmful because it is forbidden, but it is forbidden because it is harmful.”

    Even some of the “crazier” aspects of the OT laws, have been shown to have very specific disease prevention utility — not just the forbidden foods list (which prevent a lot of foodborne illness particularly before the advent of modern cooking), but also things such as discarding a vessel if a mouse touches it (hantavirus!), the sexual restrictions (think fertility-destroying STDs), handwashing before meals (IOTTMCO), and a host of others. The whole Mosaic system, except for the ritual sacrifices themselves, seems to be one massive and scientifically well designed system of infection control….. 3000 years in advance of the actual science. It even ends with a promise, that if the Israelis keep these laws, they won’t get the diseases of the Egyptians.

  227. Mitchell says:

    What a perfectly craptastic movie. It just got added to my “Vagina Monologues” exclusion list- any woman who would watch this movie is not someone I would take seriously as an adult.

  228. Will S. says:

    Hear, hear, Mitchell! Like “Eat Pray Love”, any of the “Twilight” movies, “Sex and the City”, etc. Any woman who likes any of these movies, that’s a big red flag, and a good reason to break things off immediately with her.

  229. deti says:

    @ jack:
    “Even as a complete conservative Christian, if my wife ever cuts me off for selfish reasons, I will tell her straight up that I’m going to get it somewhere, so either put out or don’t complain about me taking a mistress.

    Arrogant Christian girls need to learn that sex is not a weapon or a reward. And to use it as such makes one a, well, a whore of sorts.”

    Refusing sex for selfish reasons, using sex as a reward, or otherwise refusing sex unreasonably constitutes marital abandonment in my book and is grounds for divorce.

    A husband and wife should view marital sex as a marital obligation which must be fulfilled absent compelling circumstances. Sex is the one characteristic unique to a marriage – it is what makes a marriage a marriage.

  230. caballarius1 says:

    @Jason Rennie says:
    “I would add, that there is _nothing_ forbidden by God in the Bible (especially the NT, there are aspects of OT law that are ceremonial and essentially arbitrary, or specific instances of more general prohibitions, which means a bit more care and research is needed for OT cases) that is actually benifical to people. Everything that is on the prohibited list is actually bad for you.”

    Not really, in the case of much of the Mosaic Law. A lot of the stuff in there is to merely set the Hebrews apart from the people around them. Shrimp and pork chops won’t hurt you, in fact they’re good for you. Not wearing tassels and fringe on your square cloak is harmless. The apostles figured this out in the Council of Jerusalem. It’s interesting to note their conclusions indicated that the newly converted gentile believers were not to follow the purity elements with the exception strangled meat, meat sacrificed to idols, eating blood, and committing porneia offenses, i.e. the sex acts prohibited by the Mosaic Law.

    @Jason Rennie says:
    “So the prohibition on extra marital sexual relations (even with yourself it seems, see Matt5:27-30, and read it as a whole interelated unit) itself is done because the alternative is bad for you.”

    There is no blanket prohibition of extra marital sexual relations in Matt 5 nor in the Mosaic Law, nor in any of the rest of the Bible. There are very specific prohibitions of certain acts in the Mosaic Law, some of which are or may be extramarital, but nowhere are all extra marital relations denounced. God doesn’t have a problem saying “thou shalt not” on the sex acts he proscribes. If he wanted a blanket ban, he would have given one. God even gives instructions on how to fix it when you’ve nailed one of your slave girls and then find out she’s betrothed to somebody. God ordered Elijah to shack up with a young widow for many months in a one room house when he was hiding out from Jezebel. What do you think was happening on the threshing floor when Ruth the widow asked to join Boaz’s harem by saying, “spread therefore thy skirt over thine handmaid?”

    The entirety of Matt 5 is about the fact that sin begins in the heart, before it reaches a physical manifestation. Despite Churchian tradition, it is not a new layer of legalism added on top of the Old Testament Law, it’s a restatement and elaboration on the spirit of the 10th commandment and an explanation of how even when keeping the letter of the law, we can still be corrupt. We know the woman is married or else the overarching desire (epithumia) to have her could not be adultery, since the woman must be married for adultery to occur. Epithumia towards a married woman means the man who wants the woman desires to corrupt and adulterate her husband’s legacy with his own seed. This adulteration is what makes it adultery. Get it?

  231. MIX says:

    “A husband and wife should view marital sex as a marital obligation which must be fulfilled absent compelling circumstances. ”

    What if your spouse wants you to do something disgusting? What if, and this is the complaint of alot of women, the husband is unable or unwilling to do what it takes to make her orgasm? Are orgasms an obligation?

  232. caballarius1 says:

    van Rooinek says:
    “Even some of the “crazier” aspects of the OT laws, have been shown to have very specific disease prevention utility — not just the forbidden foods list (which prevent a lot of foodborne illness particularly before the advent of modern cooking), but also things such as discarding a vessel if a mouse touches it (hantavirus!), the sexual restrictions (think fertility-destroying STDs), handwashing before meals (IOTTMCO), and a host of others. The whole Mosaic system, except for the ritual sacrifices themselves, seems to be one massive and scientifically well designed system of infection control….. 3000 years in advance of the actual science. It even ends with a promise, that if the Israelis keep these laws, they won’t get the diseases of the Egyptians.”

    That’s bad science and bad theology all rolled into one post. Which sexual restriction was designed to prevent the clap? Which food borne illness is prevented by the dietary restrictions? Better yet, which much more common food borne illnesses are not prevented by the dietary restrictions? What’s scientific about sprinkling blood on the mercy seat?

  233. MIX says:

    “Surely the proper approach is to deal with the actual problem, the churchian women being sexually unfaithful to their husbands, not compound the problem by encouraging unfaithfulness by both spouses. ”

    But how do we know that denying sex to their husbands has reached epidemic levels amongst Church women? Where are you getting this info from? In my experience in unofficially counseling couples, its the wives who felt sexually deprived because their husbands were often unwilling to take the time and do what it takes to get them off. Womens’ anatomy is different and requires more focused attention. There’s alot of sexually frustrated women out there who are having lots of sex in which their husbands acheive quick orgasm and release and they get nothing.

  234. van Rooinek says:

    Which sexual restriction was designed to prevent the clap?

    The Biblical ban on premarital and extramarital sex, which you sinfully refuse to acknowledge, despite obviously knowing it at some level. Grasping at straws, such as the escape clause for when a man married a slave girl not knowing she was bethrothed, is rather silly. Even female POWs who were taken by Israelites, had to be treated as wives (and interestingly, their hair and nails had to be cut and their old clothes thrown away…. that’s clearly a parasite prevention measure to this professional scientist’s eye.)

    Pragmatically speaking, it’s absolutely undeniable that the clap and a good many other sexual diseases, would swiftly become extinct in any society where everyone followed Biblical sexual standards. That fact has got to bother you at some level. Some wise head of the past once opined, that when someone shifts the argument from principle to expediency, trust neither; however I reject this doctrine as I have observed sometimes, the absolute inexpediency of a proposed course of action may inform one that it is unprincipled. In other words, for something to be moral, a necessary but not sufficient condition is that it has to work. By which we can reject all sorts of madness ranging from IKDG to your strange interpretation of biblical sexual law. In other words, in the total absence of Scripture, my way COULD be right, simply on the grounds that it would work. You CAN’T be right, because it simply could not.

    On the medical utility of the kosher laws, go do your own research. I don’t have hours to waste today, digging it up again. You seem to be very good at researching the fine details of the Mosaic law as applied to sex, in a desperate hope to find a loophole for your sin. So research the science of kosher for yourself, you’ll find that I’m right. And no, there’s nothing scientific about sprinkling blood on the mercy seat. You clearly failed to read where I specifically said, “except for the ritual sacrifices themselves”….

  235. van Rooinek says:

    What if, and this is the complaint of alot of women, the husband is unable or unwilling to do what it takes to make her orgasm? Are orgasms an obligation?

    Yes.

  236. K_C says:

    I had to comment as this particular dialogue contains so many interesting elements intersecting together.
    Regarding porn, I think it ultimately ends being one of those things that is so harmful it really is best left alone regardless of your stance on its sinfulness. I believe it’s very much like smoking pot before the age of 20 or so as studies have shown. Your brain is still developing at that age and it has serious deleterious effects that older people don’t experience from smoking it. Porn it seems works in a similar process and is *way* more widespread among young men (including Christians!) than pot ever will be. So, you have large amounts of males that have those mis-wired pathways seared into their brain chemistry; not good.
    But, to say that it’s geared toward a 15-year old’s sex drive plays into the same feministic mindset of ‘men are bad and need fixing’. No, men and women are simply different and men are typically simplistically easy to please so therefore porn (which is made primarily for men) is simplistic. Men are then shamed that their desires are the way they are and that they should be more like women. Christian men in America today, tell me if that’s not the message you are sent? When are women ever told to me more like men? Nope, the message is always that men need to please women more and then maybe women should tolerate their men a bit, if at all.

    But really, I think it ultimately *hurts* women more than men because of these differences. Men can typically consume porn, be turned on by it, but not necessarily long to make the women on the screen their own. However because of the way women are wired, they can’t relate to it in the same way that men can and think that their man must be wanting to be with that woman on the screen more than them. It’s like Chris Rock said: “When a buddy has a great girlfriend, a guy says ‘Ahh, I need to get me a girl like that’, but when a woman’s friend has a great boyfriend, she says “Ahh, I need to get me *that* man’.” So, when a man consumes porn his woman is hurt very deeply in a way that’s hard for him to relate to.

    Finally, agreeing with many earlier posters, the other destructive effects of porn are evident as well: real women become too much work, unrealistic scenarios are seen as the norm, women who aren’t like porn stars seem boring and frigid, and many other effects that ultimately cause disruption in men’s and women’s relationships and prevent them from being fulfilling. The posters spouting the loudest about how awesome porn is are simply proving the points.

  237. MIX says:

    “What if, and this is the complaint of alot of women, the husband is unable or unwilling to do what it takes to make her orgasm? Are orgasms an obligation?”

    “Yes.”

    Glad to hear there’s a man out there willing to do what it takes for his wife. It seems the men, in their proposal that wives exchange sex for financial security, are under the impression that women are by nature sexless or unable to enjoy sex for sex’s sake. Women have the capacity to for mutliple orgasms and to enjoy sex at a far deeper and greater level than men, largely due to anatomy, and yet we are supposed to believe that women would purposely deny this oppurtunity to themselves? Hog wash. If your wife doesn’t want to have sex with you, start asking her why. And really listen. Listen closely.

  238. K_C says:

    Now, having said that, I think a mistake that has been made in Christiandom is the ‘sacredization’ of sex. Yes, sex is a sacred union that God ultimately blesses within the sacrament of marriage. But, that doesn’t meant that it’s an event that must be performed with the austerity of communion! This has created an environment again in which women’s particular brand of sexuality is seen as good and pure, and men’s is something that needs to be corrected and brought in line more like women’s. I think this has helped foster in women the concept that all sexuality must be a special event, and that men would want anything less is a defect of character (or the influence of porn).
    Nope, again, men are just different from women and neither is bad. Christianity needs to begin to recognize the actual *need* that men have for sexual release as a part of their God-given structure!
    A good willed man who is accommodated with frequent sex (and it doesn’t have to full blown sex, men aren’t picky!) is also going to want to give his spouse what she needs both sexually and emotionally all that much more. This is of course only going to make women more comfortable with men’s sexuality in general and propagate the cycle of reciprocal giving of themselves to each other.

    For by far what I’ve seen as the best Christian marriage teachings, check out Emerson and Sarah Eggerich’s Love and Respect seminars. They have a book but I recommend the video series. It’s Christian, but they’ve also done a lot scientific research that supplements it all in a way that I think non-Christians can really relate to as well.

  239. A Lady says:

    Shellfish is a superfood, though. Oysters, clams and mussels are full of delicious nutrition.

  240. Jason Rennie says:

    @vanRooinek,

    Thanks for the information. An interesting set of observations :) Don’t worry to much about caballarius1 their reading skills seem poor based on a response I got.

    And yes I would agree, an orgasm is an obligation, although many wives it seems have never been told the simple reality that if they want a faithful husband who lasts in bed, then they need to have sex with him regularly.

    Interestinly, have you noticed that the “sex training” that our culture gives boys today via porn etc, is exactly the opposite of what will benifit them later in marriage? Mostly the whole, masturbate to orgasm quickly thing.

    Jason

  241. MIX says:

    “And yes I would agree, an orgasm is an obligation, although many wives it seems have never been told the simple reality that if they want a faithful husband who lasts in bed, then they need to have sex with him regularly. ”

    How do you correlate having regular sex with the ability to last for a long time in bed? I also asked what if a spouse wants you to do something you find disgusting. Are you obligated? I bring that up because a few husbands I counseled found what their wives wanted them to do, disgusting. Many wives say that a continuously thrusting penis is not what enables them to orgasm, so merely being able to “last long” in that technique is not what all women require.

  242. van Rooinek says:

    Shellfish is a superfood, though. Oysters, clams and mussels are full of delicious nutrition

    True… .and yes I know all the Weston Price info on it!… but at times shellfish can accumulate dinoflagellate toxins and sometimes dangerous microbes. Pork, too, is very nutritious and the second-best vitamin D source after cod-liver oil (if the pigs have been in the sun, anyway), but pigs tend to be village scavengers that pick up all kinds of parasites. The point being, that in that place and at that time, and with the ancient Israelites’ level of knowledge, the kosher diet represented a signifcant harbor of safety. (Some aspects like mixing milk and meat were purely to avoid copying local pagans but much of it represented food safety.)

    If you recall the raid on Entebbe (movie based on fact)… Israeli hostages were held in Uganda. The Israelis were getting terribly sick from the food they were being given by their captors. When one hostage refuses non-kosher food, his friend expresses astonishment — “I didn’t know you kept kosher”. He replies, “But look who isn’t getting sick” — pointing to the Orthodox, who are almost the only people not doubled over with illness. He continues, something to the effect of, “Back home I don’t keep kosher. IN UGANDA, I KEEP KOSHER!”

  243. van Rooinek says:

    would agree, an orgasm is an obligation, although many wives it seems have never been told the simple reality that if they want a faithful husband who lasts in bed, then they need to have sex with him regularly.

    I meant, FEMALE orgasm is an obligation. If sex occurs at all, it’s pretty much a given for the male.

    have you noticed that the “sex training” that our culture gives boys today via porn etc, is exactly the opposite of what will benifit them later in marriage?

    From my limited knowledge, (eg, spam, or falling asleep watching a movie on cable, and waking up to porn hours later), it seems that a lot of porn involves cunnilingus; and if porn must exist in the first place, that’s probably a good emphasis for it to have. Problem is, as often than not, it’s girl on girl, so sometimes it takes serious willpower to change that channel….(caballarius1 could probably find a loophole to allow me to watch it, LOL)

    On the other hand, I have heard (and seen in spam) that serious DVD or paysite porn is trending more and more to anal — a totally disgusting abomination. I hear that more and more women are complaining that this once rare perversion is now considered a normal and reasonable demand by their husbands/boyfriends/etc. Foul.

  244. Dalrock says:

    @MIX

    If your wife doesn’t want to have sex with you, start asking her why. And really listen. Listen closely.

    Nonsense. He should ask someone who knows why she doesn’t want to have sex with him. Asking her and then really listening is a prescription for disaster.

  245. And yes I would agree, an orgasm is an obligation, although many wives it seems have never been told the simple reality that if they want a faithful husband who lasts in bed, then they need to have sex with him regularly.

    I think that a lot of women who are raised and culturally rewarded for saying “no, no, no” sometimes have a difficult transition to saying “yes, yes, yes” after they are married. I lived in Utah for 10 years, it was a problem there, and the LDS church acknowledged it openly a couple of years ago. It’s for women to be sex positive when they’ve heard a sex negative message for the first 20+ years of their lives. Also, who is going to deliver that message? Does mom have an active and vibrant sex life? Or, is she from the “sex is a duty, not a privilege” school of thought? If she is, she can’t be the water carrier for teaching her daughter about sex being a pleasure and a privilege.

    I don’t think you guys sometimes realize how conflicted women can be on this stuff.

  246. On the other hand, I have heard (and seen in spam) that serious DVD or paysite porn is trending more and more to anal — a totally disgusting abomination. I hear that more and more women are complaining that this once rare perversion is now considered a normal and reasonable demand by their husbands/boyfriends/etc. Foul.

    Exactly what I was referencing when I said “porn star sex” above.

  247. Brendan says:

    Where is the line drawn? What if a man doesn’t like to perform cunnilingus, finds it distasteful? Same for a woman who finds fellatio distasteful. Do spouses have to perform sex acts they find distasteful just to get their spouse off? Where is the line drawn, and why is it drawn “here” and not “there”? On what basis?

  248. Will S. says:

    Good questions, Brendan.

    Seems to me, potential spouses ought to discuss such matters before wedding, and not be afraid of indecency. If incompatible in one or more ways, and it means that much to one or both of them, that they can’t compromise, then they could go their separate ways, and not waste each other’s time, and do something they might live to regret, in getting permanently attached. But if OTOH, they can compromise, work through it, all good. Communication makes sense.

    But what do I know, I’m just a single bachelor. But even I know successful relationships of all kinds involve compromises, on the part of all parties concerned…

  249. Passer_By says:

    @Brendan

    Put your face in there and think of England, buddy.

  250. Jason says:

    @MIX,

    I correlate regular sex with lasting because men don’t tend to last very long if sex is infrequent and there is no oth release. A wife shouldn’t be surprised if ey only get a two minute quicky if they only have sex once a month. This is within the woman’s power to control too and they shouldn’t complain if they are engineering the problem.

    As for “disgusting requests”. I guess it depends what you mean. If you find vaginal intercourse disgusting then you have a problem and need to get it addressed. I suspect you mean demands for oral ( and ejaculating on her face, sometng they learn from porn) or anal sex, or weird stuff like sticking things up the guys butt etc. I think it is perfectly reasonable for either partner to refuse acts they consider abnormal beyond vaginal intercourse.

    It is wrong for either Spouse to deny their spouses legitimate sexual needs, but I don’t think there is an obligation to accede to demands that are outside the norm and that they are unwilling to do.

    And I know it is not simply a matter of lasting, but infrequent 2 minute sex is not exactly a recipe for sexual fulfillment for a woman is it.

    Jason

  251. Jason says:

    @vanRooinek,

    I know you meant female orgasm. My point was just that infrequent two minute sex is not a recipe for reaching orgasm etc for a woman is it. Wives bear at least some of the responsibility for what they get after all. If you deny your husband and only have sex once a month, it isn’t reasonable then to turn around and bitch that it lasts two minutes and he isn’t really interested in getting her off.

    Yeah you are right about porn “pushing the boundaries” and moving to more abnormal and medically dangerous sex acts, which men then perceive as normal sexual expectations.

    Jason

  252. Brendan says:

    @Brendan

    Put your face in there and think of England, buddy.

    My point is not my own personal preferences, but where the line is drawn.

  253. Passer_By says:

    Yeah, I understood that. It was more of a general comment.

  254. MIX says:

    van, you’re right about health and hygiene being amongst the various food taboos in ancient cultures. That applies to circumcision of boys as well. In a dry, desert region where water was scarce, circumcision helped to keep that area clean and prevent bacteria from building up. It serves no purpose in the modern world, however.

    @ dalrock, “Nonsense. He should ask someone who knows why she doesn’t want to have sex with him. Asking her and then really listening is a prescription for disaster.”

    How is somebody else going to know why my wife doesn’t want to have sex? How are they going to know that she may have been molested or otherwise abused in the past? How are they going to know if she wants finger action as opposed to oral, or oral as opposed to penile? How are the going to know that she may have body confidence issues? How are they going to know that she might need her nipples or toes to be sucked for 15 minuts before genital action?

    If a spouse feels he or she can’t talk to their mate but needs to go outside to learn someting personal about their mate’s sexual needs, well, I’d say the marriage has bigger problems than just a dry spell.

  255. Jason Rennie says:

    @Dubious Wonder,

    “I think that a lot of women who are raised and culturally rewarded for saying “no, no, no” sometimes have a difficult transition to saying “yes, yes, yes” after they are married.”

    Yeah that does seem to be a problem of messaging doesn’t. Especially as the biblical message is not that, but is, “Sex is freakin’ fabulous, and restricted to the confines of marriage because that is where it works best, so get married and do your best impression of a bunny in heat”.

    Jason

  256. Jason Rennie says:

    @Passer_By

    Ok, I now have coke (a cola) coming out my nose after your comment. Thanks a lot.

    But it did make me laugh :)

    Jason

  257. MIX says:

    “Yeah you are right about porn “pushing the boundaries” and moving to more abnormal and medically dangerous sex acts, which men then perceive as normal sexual expectations.”

    And this porn has the mystical ability to reach people all over the world, even in remote corners. It has the ability to bring what many cultures teach are taboo, or what many people have never even conceived of in their wildest nightmares, right in front of the eyes of hormonally charged young men and boys, who may then think this is somehow the norm of what sex is universally, and then force such acts upon their naive virgin brides on the wedding night, thus traumatizing the poor girl and turning her off to sex forever.

    I’ve read about this being one of the negative side effects of the global porn industry reaching other more traditional cultures, as well as right here in our country amongst the more secluded religious sects.

    Dubious Wonder makes a good point about religious youth being taught the body and its desires are bad, even taught to feel shame and guilt over self-pleasuring, and then expected to make a complete about-face on the wedding night.

  258. Jason Rennie says:

    @Brendan,

    “Where is the line drawn? What if a man doesn’t like to perform cunnilingus, finds it distasteful? Same for a woman who finds fellatio distasteful. Do spouses have to perform sex acts they find distasteful just to get their spouse off? Where is the line drawn, and why is it drawn “here” and not “there”? On what basis?”

    I’d say beyond vaginal intercourse most things are subject to negotiation. Neither spouse should feel obligated to do soemthing they don’t like and as with a lot of things, hygeine goes a long way.

    For something like oral sex, both spouses should consider the others (giving and receiving) and to be honest, it seems reasonable that if you don’t like to give then demanding you receive is probably unreasonable as well.

    And besides, there is a certain amount of, don’t knock it till you try it to things like oral sex.

    Jason

  259. caballarius1 says:

    @van Rooinek says:
    Which sexual restriction was designed to prevent the clap?

    The Biblical ban on premarital and extramarital sex, which you sinfully refuse to acknowledge, despite obviously knowing it at some level.”

    Chapter and verse on the premarital and male extramarital sex, please.
    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

    “Grasping at straws, such as the escape clause for when a man married a slave girl not knowing she was bethrothed, is rather silly.”

    You truly do stretch the Word to suit your purposes. There is no marriage to the woman whatsoever in Lev 19:20, which states baldly: “And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free. The man, however, must bring a ram to the entrance to the Tent of Meeting for a guilt offering to the LORD.”

    The offering is not required because he had sex with his slave, it’s strictly because she was betrothed to another man, thus being very near to adultery. If the woman was not betrothed, he would have been fully within his rights to utilize his bondwoman, no matter what his marital status. That would be called extramarital sex.

    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

    @van Rooinek says:
    “Even female POWs who were taken by Israelites, had to be treated as wives (and interestingly, their hair and nails had to be cut and their old clothes thrown away…. that’s clearly a parasite prevention measure to this professional scientist’s eye.)”

    The only ones who had to be treated as wives, were the ones whom they actually brought into their harems. Bushwhacking may have stopped the crabs, but it’s only the head hair that she has to shave. If this promiscuous pagan captive slave women were bringing in the clap, this haircut won’t stop it. So all the Lord’s rules against incest and adultery (and your imaginary ones on extramarital sex) are for naught if they were medical rules, rather than the purity and property laws which they actually are.

    Deut 21:12-14
    And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.
    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

    @van Rooinek says:
    “Pragmatically speaking, it’s absolutely undeniable that the clap and a good many other sexual diseases, would swiftly become extinct in any society where everyone followed Biblical sexual standards. That fact has got to bother you at some level. Some wise head of the past once opined, that when someone shifts the argument from principle to expediency, trust neither; however I reject this doctrine as I have observed sometimes, the absolute inexpediency of a proposed course of action may inform one that it is unprincipled. In other words, for something to be moral, a necessary but not sufficient condition is that it has to work. By which we can reject all sorts of madness ranging from IKDG to your strange interpretation of biblical sexual law. In other words, in the total absence of Scripture, my way COULD be right, simply on the grounds that it would work. You CAN’T be right, because it simply could not. ”

    My point is that Old Testament Mosaic Law and the New Testament “porneia” that encapsulates it, puts no limits on heterosexual male sexuality other than adultery (inclusive of wife coveting), rape, hiring of temple prostitutes, menstrual sex, and incest. That’s all there is to it. You may feel God left some rules out that you would like to see added, but so far that’s what’s in the Law. As we read Genesis, and the books of the Bible following the Pentateuch, we see almost all men, not just the Patriarchs, but from Moses on down had multiple wives, concubines, and bondwomen. God never rebukes any of this. On the contrary, He says He provides women and other benefits to His servants, or at least to David. He sent Elijah to the young widow and the story of Ruth’s seduction of Boaz at the instigation of Naomi is included in the Book of Ruth without censure. Of course, why should it be censured since it was not a violation.

    If a woman doesn’t want to have sex with her husband, it’s no big deal in a Biblical Marriage because the next woman in line will probably be in the mood. Nothing like friendly competition to keep the ladies on their toes and a married man’s testosterone levels high as a kite (according to new scientific studies on testosterone in married men).
    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

    @van Rooinek says:
    “On the medical utility of the kosher laws, go do your own research. I don’t have hours to waste today, digging it up again. You seem to be very good at researching the fine details of the Mosaic law as applied to sex, in a desperate hope to find a loophole for your sin. So research the science of kosher for yourself, you’ll find that I’m right.”

    I don’t have to research it, had it in Old Testament class 40 years ago. Chicken is on the menu and it carries all kinds of bugs. The main idea behind the dietary purity law being healthful, was the avoidance of trichinosis through the banning of pork and game lacking cloven hooves. That knocks out carnivorous and omnivorous animals which might carry the roundworm. Nevertheless, there are many diseases and parasites carried by clean animals. Of course, these dietary rules were not applied to Gentile Christians per the Council of Jerusalem.

  260. As I noted earlier, she that howls the loudest, is trying to silence her own guilt — guilt at not making a reasonable effort to satsify her own husband. The great and unanswered question is, WHY are so many wives unwilling to do this? Surely they knew what marriage involved, before they walked down the aisle? If they are just uninterested in sex, why the hell did they get married in the first place? “Get thee to a nunnery!”

    If she is a virgin, how would she know? Your statement seems to argue for marrying a sexually experienced woman with a high sex drive.

  261. Passer_By says:

    @DW

    “If she is a virgin, how would she know?”

    Well, I’d think she would know whether she found it difficult and painful to abstain that long or whether she wondered why everybody else found it so hard.

  262. MIX says:

    “If this promiscuous pagan captive slave women were bringing in the clap, this haircut won’t stop it.”

    Who’s to say she was promiscuous?

    “If they are just uninterested in sex, why the hell did they get married in the first place? “Get thee to a nunnery!”

    “If she is a virgin, how would she know? Your statement seems to argue for marrying a sexually experienced woman with a high sex drive.”

    I’d argue for men with very high sex drives who expect marriage to fulfill their neverending kinky sex fantasy to marry precisely such a woman, or not marry at all. Heck, according to at least one commenter here, a man can bang as many unmarried women as he likes and still be within the holy confines of Biblical law, so this is certainly good news for Christian men.

    Why even bother getting married in the first place? And if married, why bother with monogamy?

  263. caballarius1 says:

    MIX says:
    “‘If this promiscuous pagan captive slave women were bringing in the clap, this haircut won’t stop it.’

    Who’s to say she was promiscuous?”

    Well, any individual woman could be an exception, but many of the cultures surrounding the Israelites were very promiscuous with ritual sex being a part of the worship of their fertility goddesses. Leviticus 18 would indicate open marriages (to the point of sexual hospitality), bestiality, and male homosexual acts were not uncommon among the people the Israelites were ejecting.

  264. MIX says:

    Regarding porn, did you know that a recent report alleged that the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) employees in the U.S. were browsing porn sites at a time when the country was sinking into its worst financial crisis in more than 70 years. Today, not many companies consider it as a priority to monitor its employees’ internet activity, though there are written policies in place.

  265. Sandy says:

    Thanks to caballarius1 for showing why watching porn cannot be compared to adultery in any way from moral point of view. Porn might be harmful or unhealthy, but it cannot be a valid reason for divorce

  266. Jason Rennie says:

    @Sandy,

    Hang on, nobody AFAICS is suggesting that porn use is a legitimate grounds for divorce.

    What was said was that porn use and refusal to have sex are both acts of sexual unfaithfulness by a spouse. Adultery is also an act of sexual unfaithfulness. So in that sense, that all fall into the set of acts that qualify as “sexual unfaithfullness” is does have some common ground. It seems silly to deny this.

    It is _not_ the same as adultery with another flesh and blood human being, and therefore not a valid ground for divorce, but to claim they have no similarities is just silly. Clearly they do, and clearly any of the three actions communicates to a spouse that there is something wrong with them and that they “aren’t good enough” for some reason.

    Jason

  267. Sandy says:

    2 Jason
    =================
    What was said was that porn use and refusal to have sex are both acts of sexual unfaithfulness by a spouse
    =================

    The claim that watching porn is sexual unfaithfulness doesn’t make any sense.
    What if both husband and wife watch porn together before sex? Is it sexual unfaithfulness?
    Who is unfaithful to whom? What if a husband accidentally watched some porn (due to porn banners
    opened by malware), can he be called sexually unfaithful? What if a person observed two people having
    sex outdoors (for example a cop discovered a drunk couple having sex), is it sexual unfaithfulness?

  268. Foo says:

    Jason, you posted:

    “That might be an exception then. Actually I agree, many women it seems today, behave in ways that are sexually beyond what is their “norm” before they get married, and then return to a more normal level later after they tie the knot, which makes for an incredibly disappointed husband who I would agree has actually been greatly wronged by the women and deceived by her. There is something to be said for waiting to marriage.”

    It is not much of a stretch to conclude that you were suggesting the husband would be less disappointed and not greatly wronged had he and his wife waited until after the marriage. But maybe you’re right anyway; perhaps not knowing is better.

  269. MIX says:

    Biblical grounds for divorce are specific. A poster was trying to argue that “witholding sex” is grounds for divorce. Personally, sure. Biblically, nope.

    “The claim that watching porn is sexual unfaithfulness doesn’t make any sense.
    What if both husband and wife watch porn together before sex? Is it sexual unfaithfulness?
    Who is unfaithful to whom? ”

    It recently came out in our community that a couple is in a mutually agreed upon open marriage. Everyone in the community (save for me and them) is saying this is adultery. Its not even unfaithfulness because this is something BOTH of them want and are doing in full knowledge and with full consent of the other. Our community is saying it would be better for them to divorce, but ironically, this arrangement is keeping their family intact very nicely.

    I wouldn’t recommend it for most couples, not even myself, but for this couple, I can see its a good arrangement.

  270. MIX says:

    @ dalrock, “Nonsense. He should ask someone who knows why she doesn’t want to have sex with him. Asking her and then really listening is a prescription for disaster.”

    I’ve already commented on the above but would like to know why Dalrock holds that opinion.

    And who should a husband go to exactly to seek answers to such personal, sexual matters regarding his wife, if not her?

  271. caballarius1 says:

    Mix says:
    “Why even bother getting married in the first place? And if married, why bother with monogamy?”

    In ancient Israel, a man took his first wife right after reaching puberty. Both were around 13 years old, and this marriage marked the start of adulthood. This wife was “the wife of thy youth” referenced in Malachi and Proverbs. Marriage is necessary in the Bible culture for an Israelite to be seen as a full grown member in society, to ensure security for his women, and to produce heirs. That importance was why adulterating the man’s legacy with an interloper called for the death penalty.

    As for monogamy, it never comes up in scripture until the pastorals, where the offices of elder and deacon are limited to men who have one woman.

  272. Dalrock says:

    @MIX

    I’ve already commented on the above but would like to know why Dalrock holds that opinion.

    And who should a husband go to exactly to seek answers to such personal, sexual matters regarding his wife, if not her?

    Women are notoriously bad at knowing what they actually want regarding sex/romance. Far more often than not it is the rationalization hamster who is talking. This is a fundamental concept of game. There may be some corner cases such as the wife having been abused and never having mentioned it to the husband, but as a general rule the wife will only steer her husband down a blind alley.

  273. van Rooinek says:

    My point is that Old Testament Mosaic Law and the New Testament “porneia” that encapsulates it, puts no limits on heterosexual male sexuality other than adultery (inclusive of wife coveting), rape, hiring of temple prostitutes, menstrual sex, and incest. That’s all there is to it.

    You are willfully closing your eyes to the obvious. If women were required to be virgins at their wedding, then there is just not a license to seduce unmarried women at will (as you seem to hope.) Repent, or prepare to face the fires of helll.

    As to the kosher laws — which include not only dietary restrictions but other types of cleanliness restrictions perhaps even more important than diet — yes, of course they can’t prevent *all* disease, but, those laws would help a lot. And of course when the word left Israel and went global, the food rules no longer made such sense — how is an Eskimo (dependent on seal-meat), an Aboriginal (dependent on kangaroo), or a primitive Northern European (dependent on pork, to a large degree), supposed to keep kosher without starving? But the rules regarding waste disposal and general cleanliness, largely make good sense even til today.

  274. Brendan says:

    It recently came out in our community that a couple is in a mutually agreed upon open marriage.

    Very, very, very rare that it is mutually desired. Mutually agreed upon usually means that the person who didn’t propose the arrangement consented to it to avoid getting divorced.

  275. Sandy says:

    2 caballarius1
    =======================
    If a woman doesn’t want to have sex with her husband, it’s no big deal in a Biblical Marriage because the next woman in line will probably be in the mood
    =======================

    I disagree with that. Next women in line were available more to rich or powerful men, not to ordinary men. One of the features of marriage those days was that a husband has a right to have sex with his wife. So if a wife was not in the mood it was up to the husband to decide if he wants to have sex with her or not. The concept of “marital rape” is very new one and it didn’t exist anywhere in human history, except for a few recent decades

  276. Sandy says:

    2 van Rooinek
    ====================
    Repent, or prepare to face the fires of helll.
    ====================

    Are you a representative of God? It’s not up to humans to decide who goes to heaven or hell.
    We have a serious discussion in this thread, there is no need to inject crazy talk here

  277. Anonymous Reader says:

    Adding on to Dalrock’s observation; for a woman to be able to answer the question”why don’t you want to have sex with your husband anymore” with any accuracy requires her to know her own sexual attractors. But most,in fact virtually all, women don’t really know what attracts them to a man in sexual, ‘gina tingle terms. . They “know it when they see it”, and when they don’t see it, they just get unhappy. That unhappiness tends to show up as more frequent fitness testing, more dram, more nagging, more crankiness, possible more serious forms of fitness testing, and so forth.

    Thus, asking a woman in a low sex or no sex relationship, especially marriage, the question would surely get a long, long list of complaints – ranging from “he doesn’t help out with the children” “he doesn’t help pout in the kitchen” “his hobby is taking too much time” “we have money worries” to the ultimate, “I’m not haaaapy”. Following this shopping list would lead to a further decline in his value in her eyes. It would require him to fail fitness tests, deliberately; being the “kitchen bitch” is a surefire way to kill off any lingering tingle. Because what she really wants is whatever leadership/alpha qualties he had that attracted her in the first place. Her words are going to be different from her “back of the head” needs, maybe 180 degrees different. Her words are what she would apply to a roommate, not to a lover. It is quite likely that the list of faults was totally overlooked back when she had her tingle.

    It would be far more useful for a man in that situation to ask another man who had gone through that knid of “attraction dip” or “attraction deficit” in an LTR and who had succeeded in getting it fixed about the problem, than asking virtually any woman on the planet. In my opinion, based on my own observation and experience combined with the growing body of observations and experiences of many other men. These observations and experiences are in direct contrast to the widespread and very common approach of “just listen to her and do what she wants” approach that has conspicuously and blatantly failed to work.

  278. van Rooinek says:

    Are you a representative of God? It’s not up to humans to decide who goes to heaven or hell.

    True. I didn’t make the rules. If it were up to me, nobody would go to hell. It’s not up to me.

    We have a serious discussion in this thread, there is no need to inject crazy talk here

    If there’s no God, no heaven, no hell, then… .there’s no reason to have a serious discussion about anything, ever, because ultimately nothing matters.

  279. Anonymous Reader says:

    Post script: all of the previous statement assumes normal humans with normal healt both physical and mental. I’m not referring to a woman who is still healing from a difficult childbirth or some plumbing problem, or some emotional problem such as a death in the family, past sexual abuse, etc. and so forth. I’m not referring to the exceptions, I’m referring to what clearly is the rule: women in LTR’s / marriages who lose interest in having sex with their men for reasons they can’t really explain.

  280. Women are notoriously bad at knowing what they actually want regarding sex/romance.

    An inevitability when virginity is mythologized. A woman who knows what she wants regarding sex has probably had sex (and is thus a slut, by your measurement). Good sex between two inexperienced people is not an inevitability, it’s a statistical anomaly.

  281. In other words, if premarital sex is sinful, and so is maturbation, then in essence, you’ve set up a scenario in which women are rewarded for being notoriously bad at sex.

  282. caballarius1 says:

    van Rooinek says:
    “You are willfully closing your eyes to the obvious. If women were required to be virgins at their wedding, then there is just not a license to seduce unmarried women at will (as you seem to hope.) Repent, or prepare to face the fires of helll.”

    It is false to claim that in the Bible “women were required to be virgins at their wedding.” Where did you get a crazy idea like that? I have already quoted above the full texts of all the scriptures in the Pentateuch about the hymen status of new brides and there is no such requirement. As for “a license to seduce unmarried women at will”, Exodus 22, which I quoted and you evidently failed to read, plainly states that seducers of virgins must pay the full bride price to the girl’s father and marry her, unless the father objects to the marriage; in either case the cash value of the girl’s virginity is forked over by the man. Basically, if you break it, you bought it. I suppose it would be a license if my bank account was large enough.

    I think it’s a good idea for women to be virgins at their first marriage and that is clearly what Exodus is encouraging, but failing to do so is not called sin here and there is no punishment for the girl for succumbing. The only blowback is that man has to pay cash for the drop in SMV of the girls lost virginity. It’s also important, yet again, to emphasize the age of these people at first marriage. It ain’t age 30 after she finishes her doctorate.

    Of course, there is no such marriage or cash payment required by the scriptures for men who become sexually involved with unmarried non-virgins. And there is no problem with a man marrying a woman who is not a virgin, unless she is falsely passed off as one, such as we see in Deuteronomy 22. And lastly, there are no scriptural restrictions in the Old Testament for certain women who are free agents much as they are today; widows not subject to levirate marriage, previously seduced yet unmarried former virgins, and divorcées.

    On the kosher side issue, some diseases are avoided and others aren’t. Nobody wants to get trichinosis, which is why I like crispy bacon.

  283. Anonymous Reader says:

    Women are notoriously bad at knowing what they actually want regarding sex/romance.

    An inevitability when virginity is mythologized.

    Nonsense. A result of many cultural changes, most especially the unleashing of female hypergamy, but having nothing at all to do with this absurd claim.

    A woman who knows what she wants regarding sex

    Is not the topic. Attraction precedes sex. Therefore attractors matter. Women’s attractors are not the same as men’s. None of this should be news to you.

    Good sex between two inexperienced people is not an inevitability, it’s a statistical anomaly.
    This arrogant and ill-informed statement is not relevant to what I wrote. Nice try to change the subject, but it failed.

  284. caballarius1 says:

    Sandy says:
    “‘If a woman doesn’t want to have sex with her husband, it’s no big deal in a Biblical Marriage because the next woman in line will probably be in the mood’
    =======================

    I disagree with that. Next women in line were available more to rich or powerful men, not to ordinary men. One of the features of marriage those days was that a husband has a right to have sex with his wife. So if a wife was not in the mood it was up to the husband to decide if he wants to have sex with her or not. The concept of “marital rape” is very new one and it didn’t exist anywhere in human history, except for a few recent decades.”

    Well, they’re called Alphas these days, but back in violent, unsettled times of the Bible, they were more common than today and betas and herbs were naturally selected out. Men who could take wealth and women and hold them had them. A lot of what you call “ordinary men” (low beta and worse) didn’t live to see their kids grow up. Only the strong survived the constant raiding and poaching. It has been estimated that at any given time in ancient Israel approx 30% of the adult (13+) female population were widows. The younger, better looking of these ladies would be scooped up by some guy who could afford to bring them aboard, but the others were still out there even with a lower SMV for those with less gold at hand. The mores of the ancient world were much closer to mankind’s natural post-fall state of poygyny.

    And you’re right, these guys didn’t take “no” for an answer. Thus Paul to married couples, “your bodies are not your own” and his assertion that failing to provide sex to a spouse is marriage fraud.
    The Puritans, a group that was very much into sex, just not group sex, considered failure to provide sex to be a violation of Biblical command and thus Biblical grounds for divorce.

  285. Sandy says:

    2 Dubious Wonder

    ===================
    An inevitability when virginity is mythologized.
    ===================

    What does it mean?

    ===================
    A woman who knows what she wants regarding sex has probably had sex (and is thus a slut, by your measurement). Good sex between two inexperienced people is not an inevitability, it’s a statistical anomaly.
    ===================

    Completely wrong. We are talking about attraction first and foremost. An omega with great sexual techinique, will be as repulsive to women as an omega with bad sexual technique (in the same way 80-years old grandma will be sexually repulsive to men without regard to her blowjob skills)

  286. What does it mean?

    When you shame women for sex, there are many inadvertent consequences.

    Completely wrong. We are talking about attraction first and foremost. An omega with great sexual techinique, will be as repulsive to women as an omega with bad sexual technique (in the same way 80-years old grandma will be sexually repulsive to men without regard to her blowjob skills)

    Citation needed. Pseudoscience is not an argument.

  287. Nonsense. A result of many cultural changes, most especially the unleashing of female hypergamy, but having nothing at all to do with this absurd claim.

    You cannot demand female purity and abstinence from sex, and then beat women up for not knowing what sexually pleases them. The two are mutually exclusive.

    Is not the topic. Attraction precedes sex. Therefore attractors matter. Women’s attractors are not the same as men’s. None of this should be news to you.

    A man can be very attractive and yet still incompetent at the physical act of sex. Physical skill matters. Attraction only gets them IN BED. Skill keeps them there.

    This arrogant and ill-informed statement is not relevant to what I wrote.

    See above. Madonna/whore syndrome has its downsides.

  288. imnobody says:

    Citation needed. Pseudoscience is not an argument.

    Fair enough, Dubious Wonder. I have no doubt that you can’t wait to provide citations for all your statements. In the other thread, I have provided two citations about arranged marriages while your opinion about arranged marriages has no citation.

    This is your time to set the record straight and unleash all these mountains of bibliographical references that we are eager to read from you.

    We all are waiting for them. Unleash the cites!

  289. Legion says:

    MIX says:
    November 1, 2011 at 2:39 pm

    Getting back to the “How do you correlate having regular sex with the ability to last for a long time in bed?” I correlate it directly. Have you been in a marriage where the women doesn’t want sex for a month or two but suddenly your required perform like a stud in one shot. Not going to happen. A month or so of thinking about sex makes for a mighty short first try. That’s why regular sex is important. Think of good sex as a skill that needs to be honed and then maintained as a skill.

  290. What sort of cites are you looking for? Citations regarding forced arranged marriages?

  291. “Based on a unique data set on the event history of marriage and divorce collected in the In-Depth Fertility Surveys conducted in Shanghai, Shaanxi, and Hebei in 1985 and a multivariate hazards model, this paper investigates the association between divorce risk and
    socio-demographic factors in China. Controlling for several other socio-demographic factors, we demonstrate that the risk of divorce for women who married before age 18 is twice as high as that of those married after age 20; the risk of divorce of arranged marriages is about 2.6 times as high as that of not-arranged ones.”
    Association of Divorce with Socio-Demographic Covariates in China,
    1955-1985 Event History Analysis Based on Data Collected in Shanghai,
    Hebei, and Shaanxi by Yi Zeng, T. Paul Schultz, Deming D. Wang, Danan
    Gu Published in Demographic Research, Vol 7: 404-431, 2002

    “Domestic abuse is common in India, but varies widely by region. In a study conducted in five districts of Uttar Pradesh, 18-45% of husbands reported physically abusing their wives. Of those who acknowledged being physically abusive, more than four in 10 reported an episode of
    violence during the prior year and more than six in 10 admitted repeated abuse… Men in Nainital were least likely to say they had had nonconsensual sex with their wives (18%), while those in Bandha were most likely to do so (40%). Men were much less likely to say they had
    physically forced their wives to have sex (4-9% across the districts)… Most of the men who said that they had physically abused their wives reported multiple episodes (63-91% across districts), and large proportions said that they had physically abused their wives within
    the past year (47-74%). Smaller percentages (5-13%) reported abusive behavior while their wives were pregnant. Men were more likely to report shouting or yelling at their wives (33-94%) and slapping or pushing their wives (47-77%) than punching or kicking them (8-32%) or
    using a weapon or object against their wives (5-10%). The men were most likely to say that their wives had responded to the last episode of abuse by crying (49-90% across districts) or by shouting and yelling back (7-42%). Smaller proportions of men said that their wives
    had run away from home (4-10%) or had physically retaliated (0-6%). No more than 3% reported that their wives had sought medical treatment after being abused.”
    In India, Poverty and Lack of Education Are Associated With Men’s
    Physical and Sexual Abuse of Their Wives, published in Family
    Planning Perspectives Volume 26, No. 1, March 2000
    http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/journals/2604400.html

    I’m not sure what exactly you’re looking for, but arranged marriages go hand in hand with abuse of women (and when people are given an opt-out of arranged marriages, they are much more likely to end in divorce (see stats from China).

    The low divorce rate does not equal success in the relationships and/or happiness for partners. It equates to a culture that shames people who divorce for any reason.

  292. Passer_By says:

    @DW

    “Men were more likely to report shouting or yelling at their wives (33-94%) . . .”

    To me, this alone sort of discredits the whole thing. People shout. Women shout at their husbands more than men shout at their wives. If it’s abuse, then almost every married man in the US is a domestic abuse victims.

  293. MIX says:

    “Women are notoriously bad at knowing what they actually want regarding sex/romance. ”

    Dalrock, are you, in all seriousness suggesting that when a woman tells you, “there! there! now a little to the left, ok now with your tongue”…. that she doesn’t know what she wants? Really, in all seriously? And you advice men NOT to heed women when they are telling them exactly what they need in bed to get off?

    I’m speechless.

  294. Thrasymachus says:

    Dubious Wonder: Sexually experienced women do not, in fact, have happier and more sexually fulfilling marriages. The more partners (other than her husband) that a woman has had prior to her marriage, the more likely she is to be unfaithful or get divorced, and the less sexually satisfying her marriage is likely to be for either spouse. The Social Pathologist reviewed the social scientific evidence on these issues in a couple of blog posts a year or so ago.

    These trends also apply to men with a great deal of premarital sexual experience, but the effects are statistically much smaller. And men with high number counts are generally attractive to women, because men need some highly desirable qualities in order to succeed in the SMP. Women – beyond a fairly low level of physical attractiveness – need nothing other than a willingness to indulge in casual sex.

  295. MIX says:

    “I’m not sure what exactly you’re looking for, but arranged marriages go hand in hand with abuse of women ”

    If that were the case there would be zero intimate partner abuse in the US, and we know there is quite alot of it.

    “In India, Poverty and Lack of Education Are Associated With Men’s
    Physical and Sexual Abuse of Their Wives, published in Family
    Planning Perspectives Volume 26″

    It does not say that arranged marriages are associated with men’s physical and sexual abuse of their wives, does it?

  296. Passer_By says:

    No, Mix, he’s suggesting that most problems of wives not wanting or enjoying sex come from how the husband acts outside the bedroom, and, in most cases, asking her how he should change that behavior to turn her on is at best useless and at worst counterproductive.

  297. Sandy says:

    2 Dubious wonder
    ==================
    Citation needed. Pseudoscience is not an argument.
    ==================

    Where exactly do you see pseudoscience in my post?

  298. Anonymous Reader says:

    Nonsense. A result of many cultural changes, most especially the unleashing of female hypergamy, but having nothing at all to do with this absurd claim.

    You cannot demand female purity and abstinence from sex, and then beat women up for not knowing what sexually pleases them. The two are mutually exclusive.

    This has nothing to do with anything I have written. it’s irrelevant.

    Is not the topic. Attraction precedes sex. Therefore attractors matter. Women’s attractors are not the same as men’s. None of this should be news to you.

    A man can be very attractive and yet still incompetent at the physical act of sex.

    True, but irrelevant to my point.

    You are bashing a strawman. Try reading what I wrote, rather than making stuff up in your head and pretending I wrote it.

  299. MIX says:

    To be fair to Dubious Wonder, the original topic was wives who sexually withdrawn from their husbands, or unwilling to do such and such in bed, so obviously attraction was already there at some point or she wouldn’t have married him.

    Men seem to be ok with the fact that their wives might lose attraction to them for being increasingly betaized or omegaized (!!!???) in the marriage, but appear to be very uncomfortable with the idea that they just might not be all that in the sack itself.

    That’s why I recommend open communications between couples and for husbands to really listen when their wives are telling them what they need to feel sexual satisfaction. It takes time and practice, guys. Womens’ anatomy is very different from our’s.

    DW suggest that kids who grow up believing that sex is dirty and masterbation is a sin are likely to not be able to turn into hot sex kittens or Don Juan multiple clitoral and g-spot orgasm suppliers on the wedding night, and she’s correct.

    The virgin couple will have to do a lot of communicating, exploring and experimenting. Probably some reading and anatomy study as well, especially the husband.

  300. Sandy says:

    2 Dubious wonder
    =============================
    You cannot demand female purity and abstinence from sex, and then beat women up for not knowing what sexually pleases them.
    The two are mutually exclusive.
    =============================
    1) Who exactly demands female abstinence from sex? Are we talking about nuns in a nunnery?
    2) A married woman is in better position to find what pleases her in terms of sexual techinique. Married
    people have more regular sex, know each other better and can have sex without condoms not worrying about STDs.

    =============================
    A man can be very attractive and yet still incompetent at the physical act of sex.
    Physical skill matters. Attraction only gets them IN BED.
    =============================
    The same applies to women, any skill can be developed or improved over time, if needed

    =============================
    Skill keeps them there.
    =============================

    That is wrong, of course. If a guy loses his alpha attraction he is frequently kicked out of bed and his sexual skill remains the same

    =============================
    See above. Madonna/whore syndrome has its downsides.
    =============================

    Who exactly advocates for Madonna/whore syndrome here?

  301. Sandy says:

    2 MIX
    =========================
    Dalrock, are you, in all seriousness suggesting that when a woman tells you, “there! there!
    now a little to the left, ok now with your tongue”…. that she doesn’t know what she wants?
    Really, in all seriously? And you advice men NOT to heed women when they are telling them
    exactly what they need in bed to get off?

    I’m speechless.
    =========================

    You simply didn’t get what Dalrock wrote. Dalrock wrote about sexual attraction not sexual performance. Sexual performance is only relevant when sexual attraction is there. Women don’t care if a street corner hobo has a great sexual technique – attraction comes first. 99.9% of women cannot verbalize what creates sexual attraction for them

  302. imnobody says:

    You are contradicting yourself:

    You say: “The low divorce rate does not equal success in the relationships and/or happiness for partners.” to discredit my statistics of only 2% of divorces in Japan.

    Fair enough, but then you say “the risk of divorce of arranged marriages is about 2.6 times as high as that of not-arranged ones.”. And you put this in bold as if this proved the evilness of arranged marriages.

    If you have statistics about happiness, then present them. In the other thread, I have presented statistics about love.

    If you want to use the divorce rate as a proxy for happiness, you have to use it in both cases. Now when you want it, divorce counts. When do you don’t want it, divorce rate does not count. This is disingenuous.

    And don’t get me started about mixing results about domestic abuse in India with results about divorce in China to cook up your thesis.

  303. Passer_by says:

    What’s the point in an argument about arranged marriages?

  304. MIX says:

    “You simply didn’t get what Dalrock wrote.”

    He didn’t get what I wrote, first.

    Re: arranged/non-arranged marriages and happiness levels. DW is right that lack of divorce in cultures where divorce is highly stigmatized or can render one homeless and penniless is no indicator of marital happiness.

    However, we’d have to see several studies with wide sample groups to compare marital satisfaction levels between the two.

    There’s no reason to assume that the majority of arranged marriage couples do not fall in love.

  305. Jason Rennie says:

    @Sandy
    “The claim that watching porn is sexual unfaithfulness doesn’t make any sense.”

    Really I thought it was pretty straightforward. You are seeking sexual release with someone other than your spouse. Even if it is just an image.

    “What if both husband and wife watch porn together before sex? Is it sexual unfaithfulness?”

    Really? That is your point of confusion? I wouldn’t recommend this behaviour as it turns out to be destructive, but clearly I had in view what nearly all porn used by men is used for. For the purposed of solo masturation instead of having sex with your wife.

    “What if a husband accidentally watched some porn (due to porn banners
    opened by malware), can he be called sexually unfaithful?”

    And then closed it? No of course not. Do you not know what _temptation_ is? How can you be this dense Sandy? Seriously.

    Sandy are you a man or a woman because you seem to have a rationalization hamster going in over driver.

    Jason

  306. Jason Rennie says:

    @Foo
    “It is not much of a stretch to conclude that you were suggesting the husband would be less disappointed and not greatly wronged had he and his wife waited until after the marriage. But maybe you’re right anyway; perhaps not knowing is better.”

    It depends. If the wife is willing to have regular (twice a week) reasonably enthusiastic sex with her husband then there is no problem.

    I think the real problem is that you have women who are not really interested all that much in sex, especially as they have likely had plenty of empty and unpleasant sexual experiences prior to marriage, who are using sex as a lure to “bag a man”, but that this “high sex drive” they exhibit is basically an act that they have been taught is required to “bag a man”. Although we both agree it is fraud to behave in this way to get a husband, it would seem that a large part of the problem is a culture that encourages this sort of behavior.

    It seems from the data that actual virgins (as opposed to technical virigins) at the time of marriage have quite successful marriages and good sex lives because the biochemical bonding sex provides works in an uninhibited and optimal fashion and they also clearly have no external standard of reference. I’m not sure, if it actually works out and people are content, that this is deemed some sort of a bad outcome.

    Jason

  307. Dalrock says:

    @Jason

    It depends. If the wife is willing to have regular (twice a week) reasonably enthusiastic sex with her husband then there is no problem.

    Twice a week? Are we talking health problems here or something?

  308. Passer_by says:

    @MIX
    “Men seem to be ok with the fact that their wives might lose attraction to them for being increasingly betaized or omegaized (!!!???) in the marriage, but appear to be very uncomfortable with the idea that they just might not be all that in the sack itself. ”

    Or maybe they rightly reason that they haven’t gotten any worse in the sack than they were back when she was quite into it.

  309. MIX says:

    Jason, keep in mind that libido fluctuates and is also affected by stress and other factors liked tiredness, etc. Over time, the libido wanes so one cannot expect a 40 year old too perform as frequently as a 20 year old, male or female. Although they say women are at their horniest late 30s-mid 40s. I’ll have to find out for myself someday. Maybe that’s the appeal in young men for divorced cougars, and the appeal of young 20 something bucks to those same cougars. I just confused myself. Anyway, point is, libido is not steady over a lifetime.

  310. Passer_by says:

    Jason:

    What if a wife suggests the husband watch cable porn while she blows him on the sofa? Hypothetically speaking, of course.

  311. MIX says:

    “Or maybe they rightly reason that they haven’t gotten any worse in the sack than they were back when she was quite into it.”

    Ha. Maybe she was faking. They all do at one time or another.

  312. Jason Rennie says:

    @Dalrock,
    Twice a week? Are we talking health problems here or something?

    Is that a joke? I believe 2 -3 times is fairly typical for married couples (not newly weds).

    Jason

  313. Jason Rennie says:

    @MIX,

    Of course. As I’ve said before, all things are subject to negotiation and whatever leaves both parties more or less satisfied (no doubt one will always want it more/less than the other, this is also fairly normal).

    Jason

  314. Jason Rennie says:

    @Passer_by
    What if a wife suggests the husband watch cable porn while she blows him on the sofa? Hypothetically speaking, of course.

    This is an odd question. On some level, do what you like, but do you not see that this is ultimately a defective setup that is going to distort the way sex is supposed to work and dilute the unitve good it is designed to acheive?

    Also, I find it odd a wife would allow her self to be used in such a fashion, let alone endorse it. Something is screwy there.

    Jason

  315. Anonymous Reader says:

    Mix
    To be fair to Dubious Wonder, the original topic was wives who sexually withdrawn from their husbands, or unwilling to do such and such in bed, so obviously attraction was already there at some point or she wouldn’t have married him.

    ;That is the issue that Dalrock addressed, and I added to the points he made. It is assumed that attraction existed but has waned. I have no idea what Dubious is trying to claim, but it has nothing to do with this.

    Men seem to be ok with the fact that their wives might lose attraction to them for being increasingly betaized or omegaized (!!!???) in the marriage, but appear to be very uncomfortable with the idea that they just might not be all that in the sack itself.

    It appears to me that you do not understand what Dalrock or I am saying. No man should be comfortable with being reduced to a lesser beta, that kills a woman’s attraction. All the technique in the world won’t do any good if she’s not attracted in the first place; attraction precedes sex.

    Since you don’t seem to understand the vocabulary used in discussing attraction, you should use a search engine on the terms that are new to you.

  316. Dalrock says:

    @Jason Rennie

    Is that a joke? I believe 2 -3 times is fairly typical for married couples (not newly weds).

    No joke. We really need to get Athol’s book more exposure… No wonder these men are one armed browsing! Brutal.

  317. MIX says:

    “@Passer_by
    What if a wife suggests the husband watch cable porn while she blows him on the sofa? Hypothetically speaking, of course.

    @Jason
    This is an odd question. On some level, do what you like, but do you not see that this is ultimately a defective setup that is going to distort the way sex is supposed to work and dilute the unitve good it is designed to acheive?

    Also, I find it odd a wife would allow her self to be used in such a fashion, let alone endorse it. Something is screwy there.”

    Exactly. People are free do to as they wish, I won’t stop them. However the very fact that involving porn in your marriage is being considered normal by spouses is a sign of the times, and our times are not all that wholesome.

    2-3 times per week. I’m assuming most middle aged married people are having sex less than that.

    I’ve found that when I make long luxurious all night (3-6 hours) love , I’m satisfied for longer periods after.

    an every night quickie just doesn’t do anything for me.

  318. Anonymous Reader says:

    Mix
    2-3 times per week. I’m assuming most middle aged married people are having sex less than that.

    Why do you assume that?

    I’ve found that when I make long luxurious all night (3-6 hours) love , I’m satisfied for longer periods after.

    Clearly you have never had any children in your house. No wonder you don’t understand what Dalrock is writing in regard to attraction issues.

  319. MIX says:

    Mix
    2-3 times per week. I’m assuming most middle aged married people are having sex less than that.

    AR
    Why do you assume that?

    Uh, because of all the middle aged married men online complaining about sexual disinterest from their wives. And appearantly, if the comments here are to be believed, its epidemic amongst Christians.

  320. RL says:

    JR says: “Of course. As I’ve said before, all things are subject to negotiation and whatever leaves both parties more or less satisfied (no doubt one will always want it more/less than the other, this is also fairly normal).” Indeed, dalrock is correct. JR needs to get off his ass and read Athol’s book, sex aint no subject to negotiation but subject to attraction. Actually you could negotiate sex (price) but this is another business! :D

  321. Anonymous Reader says:

    Mix
    2-3 times per week. I’m assuming most middle aged married people are having sex less than that.

    AR
    Why do you assume that?

    Uh, because of all the middle aged married men online complaining about sexual disinterest from their wives.

    So? How do extrapolate from a small set of middle aged men to the much larger set? You might benefit from reading about this logical fallacy:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition

    And appearantly, if the comments here are to be believed, its epidemic amongst Christians.

    See my previous line, I don’t need to repeat myself.

  322. ;That is the issue that Dalrock addressed, and I added to the points he made. It is assumed that attraction existed but has waned. I have no idea what Dubious is trying to claim, but it has nothing to do with this.

    I would say that this is a flawed assumption. Women may be attracted to men for many reasons beyond the sexual, and sexual attraction does not necessarily equal sexual satisfaction. I would contend that the issue isn’t necessarily that wives have lost attraction for their spouses, but that the sex act itself isn’t satisfying to many of them, leading them to see it as a duty.

    Beyond that, society (and many religions, including Christianity) puts pressure on women to repress their sexuality prior to marital commitment (and those women who don’t are known lovingly on this blog as “sluts”). When you reward women for sexually repressing themselves, it’s extremely difficult to make the transition to openly sexual.

    Furthermore, many super religious guys may also do things that further repress their wive’s budding sexuality, such as criticizing her body, criticizing her for her sexual performance, etc. Those things can and will cause your wife to shut down sexually. There also can be a double standard in the types of conduct men want to see from a girlfriend and from a wife.

    If your wife is not putting out sexually, it’s easy to attribute all of this to some cause outside of your marriage. However, the odds are high that you are involved in her sexual shut-down in some way. Instead of howling curses at feminism and bitching about how women are frigid uptight bitches, maybe you should consider that you might play a role in the problem.

    Maybe there is a smell issue. Maybe your hygiene is slacking and isn’t all that it could be. Maybe it’s a technique issue. Maybe you aren’t getting her off. Maybe she wants it a little rougher, but you don’t do it like that; maybe she wants it a little more gentle and delicate, and you don’t do it like that. The other part is: when your sexuality has been repressed for years, and even masturbation is forbidden to you, how do you learn how your body works? Alot of women aren’t comfortable with their own bodies, they don’t know how to bring themselves to orgasm, so how can they possibly talk about it with you? Beyond that, they may not be comfortable with exploring their own sexuality if you don’t make that a very safe proposition for them.

    And, some guys aren’t very open to their own sexuality, either, and only want to do it in certain places (i.e., the bedroom) or in a specific position (missionary).

    Most women don’t orgasm via vaginal penetration (I am one of the rare exceptions to this rule–and I can’t do it clitorally). If you aren’t doing what gets her off, it becomes really frustrating over years to be brought to the bring and never achieve climax. You’d get bored/annoyed with it, too.

    Let me just say this…if your wife doesn’t want to have sex with you anymore, the odds are high that you’re playing a role in it. Because…everyone likes to orgasm. I will never, ever turn down a multiple orgasm. If she’s turning you down, she probably isn’t regularly having one.

  323. Where exactly do you see pseudoscience in my post?

    Please provide scientific evidence of omega tendencies in humans. What you’re doing is repeating a theory of behavior that exists in specific (non-human) species, but has not been shown to exist amongst humans. You can’t generalize theories like this across species, they are too different.

  324. Or maybe they rightly reason that they haven’t gotten any worse in the sack than they were back when she was quite into it.

    What fades is the newness…the emotional high of that new connection. And, the simple fact is that as you age, you do get worse at it. You hit your late 30s, early 40s, and it starts to get harder for your to orgasm, or you develop ED, or you develop premature ejaculation.

    That 5 minute blowjob that was fun to give when you were 25 turns into a 30 minute sucking and bobbing marathon that leaves your wife’s cheeks aching, her neck cramped, and her tongue sore when you’re 40.

  325. Clearly you have never had any children in your house.

    Yes, children are the reason that sex becomes businesslike and perfunctory. (nice excuse, bro)

  326. Sandy says:

    2 Jason

    ==========================
    Really I thought it was pretty straightforward.
    ==========================

    No, it’s pretty convoluted, illogical and baseless.

    ==========================
    You are seeking sexual release with someone other than your spouse. Even if it is just an image.
    ==========================

    How can an image be someone? Image is something, it’s a thing. Some porn is 100% computer generated (porn cartoons)

    ==========================
    Really? That is your point of confusion?
    ==========================

    It’s looks like you are pretty confused, not me

    ==========================
    I wouldn’t recommend this behaviour as it turns out to be destructive, but clearly I had in view
    what nearly all porn used by men is used for. For the purposed of solo masturation instead of having sex with your wife.
    ==========================

    So did you mean watching porn, masturbation while watching porn or just masturbation?

    ==========================
    “What if a husband accidentally watched some porn (due to porn banners
    opened by malware), can he be called sexually unfaithful?”

    And then closed it? No of course not.
    ==========================

    Every porn video is closed at some point, nobody watches porn for days in a row

    ==========================
    Sandy are you a man or a woman because you seem to have a rationalization hamster going in over driver.
    ==========================

    No, it’s you making bizarre and bogus statements, like “watching porn” = “sexual unfaithfullness”. Those things are not based on the Bible, and do not make any sense in general

  327. Sandy says:

    2 Dubious Wonder

    ===========================
    Please provide scientific evidence of omega tendencies in humans.
    ===========================

    What omega tendencies are you talking about?

    ===========================
    What you’re doing is repeating a theory of behavior that exists in specific (non-human) species, but has not been shown to exist amongst humans.
    You can’t generalize theories like this across species, they are too different.
    ===========================

    I’m not doing anything like that, you just completely misunderstood what I wrote.
    I just wrote about Omega in the context of Game (Omega is a man who is sexually repulsive to most women, for example a street corner hobo)

  328. MIX says:

    “Clearly you have never had any children in your house.”

    Oh, we’ve got children alright. We just make sure we don’t go “out” for date nights.
    ;)

    Dubious Wonder, you left one of the best comments I’ve ever read from a woman at 8:19 pm. Thanks for articulating what I suspect many women find difficult to get across on the internet, and who knows, maybe even face to face with their partners.

    One curious thing is this idea of “putting out”. Putting out what exactly? It makes it sound as if the desire for orgasm is a male thing and “putting it out” or giving it, is the duty of women. But like you said, everyone likes to orgasm, so if your wife sees having an orgasm as a chore, you need to ask yourself, “hmmm… maybe she’s not even have one”. Then YOU might be the one who has to “put out”.

    “I would say that this is a flawed assumption. Women may be attracted to men for many reasons beyond the sexual, and sexual attraction does not necessarily equal sexual satisfaction. I would contend that the issue isn’t necessarily that wives have lost attraction for their spouses, but that the sex act itself isn’t satisfying to many of them, leading them to see it as a duty.

    Beyond that, society (and many religions, including Christianity) puts pressure on women to repress their sexuality prior to marital commitment (and those women who don’t are known lovingly on this blog as “sluts”). When you reward women for sexually repressing themselves, it’s extremely difficult to make the transition to openly sexual.”

    Yes. Yes. Yes.

    And this idea that masterbation is “bad”…. gotta go! How else is a girl supposed to discover her clitorous and all it can do for her (and her husband, later on).

  329. Eincrou says:

    Dubious Wonder: “Beyond that, society (and many religions, including Christianity) puts pressure on women to repress their sexuality prior to marital commitment (and those women who don’t are known lovingly on this blog as “sluts”). When you reward women for sexually repressing themselves, it’s extremely difficult to make the transition to openly sexual.”

    There are only two choices. A society that “represses” sexuality, with a certain emphasis on female sexuality, will be able to sustain civilization. A society that allows female sexuality and hypergamy to go unmitigated will soon cease to exist.

    The men and women on this blog who are willing to use the term “slut” have obviously chosen to enjoy the benefits of sustained civilization for themselves and those who will live after us.

    They understand, in great detail, that the negative consequences of allowing females to pursue their ancient sexual proclivities far outweigh the transient benefits.

  330. MIX says:

    “There are only two choices. A society that “represses” sexuality, with a certain emphasis on female sexuality, will be able to sustain civilization. A society that allows female sexuality and hypergamy to go unmitigated will soon cease to exist.”

    Whenever someone tries to convince you that you have only one of two choice, laugh. There are always alternatives.

    My wife and I have a third way of raising our children. We don’t teach them that sex is bad or that their bodies are sinful. We don’t teach them masterbation is a sin. Heck, humans figure out at about age 2 that the hoo-haa feels good when you rub it. Rather we teach them one’s own body should be respected and explored until they are in a committed relationship, wherein they can then explore their partners body too.

  331. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dubious
    Women may be attracted to men for many reasons beyond the sexual, and sexual attraction does not necessarily equal sexual satisfaction.

    These statements may be true, but they are irrelevant to what Dalrock and I are stating.

    I would contend that the issue isn’t necessarily that wives have lost attraction for their spouses, but that the sex act itself isn’t satisfying to many of them, leading them to see it as a duty.

    That may be true in some cases as well. But not nearly as common as that which you deny; a man in an LTR or marriage becomes more beta for any of several reasons, becoming less attractive to his partner who in turn begins – unconsciously – fitness testing him more often, in increasingly abrasive ways, which in turn leads him to tune her out or otherwise avoid her, leading to yet more fitness testing. If left uncorrected, this spiral crashes the relationship. Note that all of this can and has happened in couples where the man’s hygene is fine, his bedroom technique used to be satisfactory prior to loss of ‘gina tingle, and the woman in question genuinely liked the man. Add in the danger of the divorce industry and very real damage can be done to the man.

    Feminism has exacerbated normal human relationship problems by creating and expanding the entire divorce industry that constitutes marriage 2.0, by unleashing hypergamy in part and by fostering an entitled attitude among women. Feminism also, by holding women as superior to men, makes it even more difficult for a beta man to restore his masculinity.

    If you would get off of your feminist know-it-all pedestal and admit, at least to yourself, that there are Things You Do Not Know, maybe you might learn something. At the very least, stop creating armies of strawmen — er — strawpersons to vanquish.

  332. Anonymous Reader says:

    Me
    Clearly you have never had any children in your house.

    Dubious
    Yes, children are the reason that sex becomes businesslike and perfunctory. (nice excuse, bro)

    You dishonestly removed the context of the remark I replied to. Mix claimed to have regular sexual sessions of 3 to 6 hours. I am certain that is very, very unlikely with children in the house.

    You’re not very good at this, sis.

  333. Anonymous Reader says:

    Mix
    “Clearly you have never had any children in your house.”

    Oh, we’ve got children alright. We just make sure we don’t go “out” for date nights.

    Hmm…I’m skeptical of this being a weekly thing, frankly, unless you have a lot of relations in the area who can take children off of your hands for an entire night. If you do, good on you. Most people I know do not have any where near that big a support network.

    If you seriously believe that women’s sexuality in this day and age is repressed, I have to ask where you live. Where I live, every grocery store has half a dozen magazines devoted to women, and every one of them regularly features tips on orgasms. Where I live, colleges often offer sex toy parties to undergrads. Where I live, the female orgasm is paramount and “She Comes First” is a mantra chanted to many men. “Sex In the City” is endlessly on reruns on TV, teaching a new generation of young women their vast importance vs. men and their right to a totally unfettered life most specifically including a no-limit sex life. Seems to me you and Dubious are posting via time machine, from somewhere a generation or more in the past.

    PS for you , Dubious and others: the word you are attempting to use is “masturbation”. There is no “e” in the word at all. There is only one “i”. Stop writing this word as if you are scrawling it on the junior high school locker room wall, please.

  334. Jason Rennie says:

    @Sandy,

    “No, it’s you making bizarre and bogus statements, like “watching porn” = “sexual unfaithfullness”. Those things are not based on the Bible, and do not make any sense in general”

    That seems to be pretty much exactly the point Jesus is making in Matt 5:26-30.

    And are you making the mistake of assuming that sexual unfaithfullness == adultery? I’ve already said a few times they are not identical. All Adultery is sexual unfaithfulness but not all sexual unfaithfullness is Adultery.

    And I find it odd that you had trouble with the idea that what was in view was sex as a solo activity and the use porn normally plays in that sort of activity for men. Why are you so desperate to make using porn ok?

    Jason

  335. Passer_By says:

    AR is correct. There is still good sex after kids enter the equation, but 3 to 6 hour sessions would generally be impossible (short of binding and gagging them), unless you are doing it between 11:00 PM and 5:00 AM, in which case you’re going to have other problems throughout the day.

    @DW

    I thought you were a 27 year old innocent Christian virgin bride? What’s this about fun blow jobs at age 24 or 25?

  336. Twenty says:

    I agree they are not the same, although they are clearly not _entirely different things_. I said above the using porn or denying a sex to a spouse are both acts of sexual unfaithfulness. Adultery is also an act of sexual unfaithfulness, although a more extreme one and reasonable grounds for divorce. So to say they are entirely different is silly.

    Let me try this my own take on this.

    I agree that flying and falling are not the same, although they are clearly not _entirely different things_. I said above that falling or gliding are both ways of moving rapidly through the air. Flying is also a way of moving rapidly though the air, although a more controllable one and a reasonable way to travel. So to say that they are entirely different is silly.

    All things considered, I’d rather be silly than foolish.

  337. Eincrou says:

    MIX: “Whenever someone tries to convince you that you have only one of two choice, laugh. There are always alternatives.”

    I make a statement about the functioning of civilizations, and you respond with…. fake amusement, a cliché, and irrelevant anecdotes. Not really a respectable contribution.

    I agree with the others who have said you aren’t yet knowledgeable enough to even begin to challenge the ideas and conclusions that are routine around here. Your weak debate skills and inability to stay on topic precludes the possibility of providing any meaningful dissent.

  338. Sandy says:

    2 Jason

    ==================
    That seems to be pretty much exactly the point Jesus is making in Matt 5:26-30.
    ==================

    No. “Adultery of the heart” is a man coveting a married woman (married not to him)

    ==================
    And are you making the mistake of assuming that sexual unfaithfullness == adultery?
    I’ve already said a few times they are not identical. All Adultery is sexual unfaithfulness
    but not all sexual unfaithfullness is Adultery.
    ==================

    No, I’m saying that assuming that watching porn == sexual unfaithfulness is a bizzare and wrong statement

    ==================
    And I find it odd that you had trouble with the idea that what was in view was sex as a solo activity
    and the use porn normally plays in that sort of activity for men.
    ==================

    If a woman says “my husband was sexually unfaithful to me and that’s why I divorced him” then she will get understanding and support in society (and probably in a church). Case in point – the movie “Fireproof”. You argue for equating sexual unfaithfulness to things which have nothing to do with real sexual unfaithfulness. If more people will accept your bizarre views, then more Christian women (and maybe men) will feel that they have a right to a frivolous divorce (he looked at porn one time, so it’s cheating, so I can leave now). So in fact you advocate for frivolous divorces and it’s highly immoral. In this thread you show yourself as a hyper White Knight

    ==================
    Why are you so desperate to make using porn ok?
    ==================

    I’m not desperate, I’m just showing that your arguments about porn == sexual unfaithfulness don’t make any sense

  339. caballarius1 says:

    Jason, I can’t find your term “sexual unfaithfulness” in the Bible. In Matthew 5:27-30, the word translated as “adultery” is moicheuseis, which specifically means “adultery”; that is to say, a married woman copulating with a man other than her husband. There is another word which is translated in the King James as “fornication” in v.32 which is porneia. It is also translated in more modern English versions as “sexual immorality” and that term was used to cover all the sex sins of the OT law, including adultery. Breaking any one of these is cause for divorce, per Jesus, probably since the death penalty for these sexual crimes went away when the Romans took over. Is the “porneia” list what you mean by “sexual unfaithfulness?”

    Perhaps you’re thinking of this passage, “do not break faith with the wife of thy youth” in Malachi 2:14. This is a reference to the practice of sexually ignoring the senior wife in favor of newer women in the harem or in the case of those with only one wife actually divorcing her to replace her with another, a practice Jesus equates with adultery.

    Please direct me to the correct passage you are referencing as a source for the offense of “sexual unfaithfulness.”

  340. Jason Rennie says:

    @Sandy
    “No. “Adultery of the heart” is a man coveting a married woman (married not to him)”

    What sin incolcing lust involves the use of the hand and the eye? Read the whole passage.

    “No, I’m saying that assuming that watching porn == sexual unfaithfulness is a bizzare and wrong statement”

    So you are claiming that the use of pornography for the purposes of masturbation is not an act of seeking sexual “fulfillment” with someone other than your spouse?

    “If a woman says “my husband was sexually unfaithful to me and that’s why I divorced him” then she will get understanding and support in society (and probably in a church). Case in point – the movie “Fireproof”. You argue for equating sexual unfaithfulness to things which have nothing to do with real sexual unfaithfulness.”

    This got covered above. You will notice I also said refusal to meet the sexual needs of a spouse is sexual unfaithfulness as well. But you seem to leave that bit out. Plus you ignore that I said several times that sexual unfaithfullness (excluding adultery) is not grounds for divorce.

    “If more people will accept your bizarre views, then more Christian women (and maybe men) will feel that they have a right to a frivolous divorce (he looked at porn one time, so it’s cheating, so I can leave now).”

    Do you really think that those who divorce frivolously are doing anything more than grasping for excuses to divorce? You act like many of them are not divorcing because they haven’t found a suitable excuse yet.

    “So in fact you advocate for frivolous divorces and it’s highly immoral. In this thread you show yourself as a hyper White Knight”

    This is false on both counts. I have at no point advocated for frivolous divorce and have actually repeatedly stated that sexual unfaithfullness like use of porn or refusal to have sex are _not_ grounds for divorce at all.

    Jason

  341. MIX says:

    “You dishonestly removed the context of the remark I replied to. Mix claimed to have regular sexual sessions of 3 to 6 hours. I am certain that is very, very unlikely with children in the house. ”

    Anon Reader, if you scroll up to the original comment it was where we were discussing frequency. Jason said 2-3 times per week was regular or a decent amount and Dalrock questioned that and gave a plug for Athol’s book. Athols supposedly has sex daily or mutliple times daily, or, er, something. I chimed in that I can go longer periods without sex because the sex I do have is elaborate love making trysts that fully satisfy me on mutliple levels and for a longer period of time.
    Of course with kids and work this isn’t going to be daily, hence why my wife and I don’t go “out” on our date nights.

    I get the feeling quickies and using one’s spouse as a masturbatory tool to get a “release” is considered “good sex” by some, but not by me. This quick release type sex is also whats pimped out by the porn industry so it becomes a vicious cycle if you are in relationship and watching porn to “get off”.

    Another commenter mentioned the book Cupid’s Poison Arrow and it covers why, from the neuro-science perspective, such type of sex is unsatisfactory and could be at the root of our relationship problems. I’d recommend some “Tantra” reading as well. And then there’s the whole Chinese perspective.

    Whole body orgasms exist, as do multiple orgasms for men. I recommend reading “The Multi Orgasmic Man”

    Back to porn. Its not a benevolent, wholistic industry by any means. I can’t speak for secular people but as someone who is practicing living a God centered and benevolent life, supporting that industry in any way, either financially through buying it or verbally through cheerleading for it, is not in congruence with my personal ethics and flies 100% in the face of my religious principles.

  342. Jason Rennie says:

    caballarius1
    “Jason, I can’t find your term “sexual unfaithfulness” in the Bible.”

    Of course not, just as you wont find the word trinity either. What is your point?

    The marriage bond is exclusive and supposed to be for life, we find that in the new and old testaments. That is the ideal, even if in practice the ideal is not always met. To be faithful to a spouse it to, as the vows say, “forsake all others”. So to be unfaithful is, in part, not to “forsake all others”.

    Marriage is repeatedly used as an illustration for the relationship of God and Israel in the OT and between The Church and God in the NT. Given that is the analogy God uses for his relationship with Israel, and how they behaved, why exactly do you think the concept of sexual faithfullness/unfaithfulness is not taught in the Bible?

    Jason

  343. Sandy says:

    2 Jason

    ==================
    What sin incolcing lust involves the use of the hand and the eye? Read the whole passage.
    ==================

    I’ve read the whole passage. The meaning of the passage is that’s wrong for a man to covet a married women (adultery of the heart) because that could lead to real adultery. There is no other possible meaning that makes any sense at all

    ==================
    So you are claiming that the use of pornography for the purposes of masturbation is not
    an act of seeking sexual “fulfillment” with someone other than your spouse?
    ==================

    First of all watching porn is not the same as masturbation while watching porn. Secondly porn is a thing, it’s not “someone”. Masturbation is a solitary act.

    ==================
    This got covered above. You will notice I also said refusal to meet the sexual needs of a spouse is sexual unfaithfulness as well. But you seem to leave that bit out.
    ==================

    So what? Using your bizzare logic you are making “sexual unfaithfullness” to mean anything. The fact that you include other things there changes nothing

    ==================
    Plus you ignore that I said several times that sexual unfaithfullness (excluding adultery)
    is not grounds for divorce.
    ===================

    But it’s not up to you what is grounds to divorce and what’s not for other people. If people take your definition of sexual unfaithfulness it doesn’t mean that they would care what you think about grounds for divorce

    ===================
    Do you really think that those who divorce frivolously are doing anything more than grasping for excuses to divorce? You act like many of them are not divorcing because they haven’t found a suitable excuse yet.
    ===================

    For some it’s so. Feeding them excuses based on flawed logic is immoral

    ===================
    This is false on both counts. I have at no point advocated for frivolous divorce and have actually repeatedly stated that sexual unfaithfullness like use of porn or refusal to have sex are _not_ grounds for divorce at all.
    ===================

    I didn’t say that you openly advocated for frivolous divorces, you just laying some groundwork to increase their number, while trying to hide under flimsy disclaimers

  344. MIX says:

    Anon Reader, “If you seriously believe that women’s sexuality in this day and age is repressed, I have to ask where you live. Where I live, every grocery store has half a dozen magazines devoted to women, and every one of them regularly features tips on orgasms.”

    Doesn’t matter. It takes two to tango. I recently read a study wherein young women who hook up in college report much fewer orgasms, much less sexual satisfaction, and much fewer instances of receiving oral sex than their male counterparts engaging in the same activity report. ANATOMY. Being sexually open and knowing what will satisfy you doesn’t mean you are going to get it. Much of that depends on the quality of your partner. We men can “get off” and get our “release” and orgasm much easier than women solely due to our anatomy. Pretty much all a woman has to do is show up naked and we can do the rest to get our’s, provided she’s not putting up a fight. I guess that’s what’s meant by “putting out”. Married men need to get out of this mentality.

    My advise to those college women would be, get your’s before you give him his.
    Because we know if he gets his first, you’ll NEVER get your’s.

    Everyone likes to orgasm. If you wife is not interested, it may be because she’s not getting her’s.

  345. You dishonestly removed the context of the remark I replied to. Mix claimed to have regular sexual sessions of 3 to 6 hours. I am certain that is very, very unlikely with children in the house.

    You’re not very good at this, sis.L

    I manage to have 3 hour sessions of sex on a pretty regular basis with my fiance (and I have two teenagers in the house). Yes, they sometimes occur from 11 p.m. – 2 a.m. on a Friday night, but they are totally worth it. I will happily be tired for days for something that awesome.

    I can see if you have toddlers, but if sex is a priority for you, you will make it a priority.

  346. I thought you were a 27 year old innocent Christian virgin bride? What’s this about fun blow jobs at age 24 or 25?

    Your mistake, bro.

    [D: He isn't the only one then. You have presented yourself as a woman who naively married a pathological narcissist at age 27 because the church pressured you into marriage. Please keep us up to date as the story changes to prevent further confusion.]

  347. I’m not doing anything like that, you just completely misunderstood what I wrote.
    I just wrote about Omega in the context of Game (Omega is a man who is sexually repulsive to most women, for example a street corner hobo)

    There is no scientific basis for the game paradigm.

  348. I agree with the others who have said you aren’t yet knowledgeable enough to even begin to challenge the ideas and conclusions that are routine around here. Your weak debate skills and inability to stay on topic precludes the possibility of providing any meaningful dissent.

    Your statement was based upon a logical fallacy called a false dichotomy, which posits two possible options when many more exist. An individual with strong, logical debate skills wouldn’t fall prey to posting a fallaciously constructed argument. Nice try with the ad homs, though.

  349. My advise to those college women would be, get your’s before you give him his.
    Because we know if he gets his first, you’ll NEVER get your’s.

    My advice to my 18-year-old daughter was that she’d better figure out how her body works before she ever lets a guy lay a hand on it. Too many men approach our delicate little flower with all the grace and precision of a sledgehammer.

  350. Dalrock says:

    @MIX

    We men can “get off” and get our “release” and orgasm much easier than women solely due to our anatomy.

    I can’t be the only one who is surprised to see you refer to yourself as a man. I don’t mean this as an insult. Your thought patterns are incredibly feminine, whether you realize it or not.

  351. Dalrock says:

    @Dubious Wonder

    My advice to my 18-year-old daughter was that she’d better figure out how her body works before she ever lets a guy lay a hand on it. Too many men approach our delicate little flower with all the grace and precision of a sledgehammer.

    Seriously? That is your advice to your daughter? Learn how to ride the carousel well?

  352. Sandy says:

    2 Dubious Wonder
    =========================
    There is no scientific basis for the game paradigm.
    =========================

    Definition of omega is completely autonomous, it doesn’t require acceptance of any other ideas from Game.

  353. van Rooinek says:

    they’re called Alphas these days, but back in violent, unsettled times of the Bible, they were more common than today and betas and herbs were naturally selected out.

    Don’t kid yourself. In today’s SMP, the difference between “Alpha” and “Beta” can often be found in the Alpha’s LACK of self discipline, which creates a superficial appearance of dominance. Betas play by society’s rules even when everyone else won’t, and suffer for it. And not just individuals — the corporation I work for, is much more ethical than its competitors, and we sometimes suffer commercial disadvantage for it. (However we’re still #1 in our market.)

    In the lawless frontier, or the lawless desert of the Old Testament, instinctively law-abiding, rule-following men were not shackled by social rules, so the playing field was a lot more level. A high IQ “nerdy” beta in our society, let loose of his social shackles, could be absolutely LETHAL. How do you think beta genes got so common in the population in the first place? We killed off legions of alphas in one Bronze-Age Columbine after another. And took their cheerleaders into our harems.

    Jason: I think the real problem is that you have women who are not really interested all that much in sex, especially as they have likely had plenty of empty and unpleasant sexual experiences prior to marriage, who are using sex as a lure to “bag a man”

    This is why legions of nonChristian men report that the “wonderful” sex lives they had with their girlfriends, came to a screeching halt when they got married. A Christian woman (married) who spoke on this topic at our marriage ministry, said that these women associate sex with a very unpleasant part of their life, and once they finally get married, they think, now they can be happy and forget about all that horrible sex stuff and just be “friends”….which strikes the husband, rightly, as betrayal.

    Dubious: society (and many religions, including Christianity) puts pressure on women [nb. AND EQUALLY ON MEN --- van R] to repress their sexuality prior to marital commitment…When you reward women for sexually repressing themselves, it’s extremely difficult to make the transition to openly sexual.

    My wife and I had no such problems. But I’m a science geek, I read all the right books in advance. The most useful of all was this:
    http://www.naura.com/item_10/HOW-TO-SATISFY-A-WOMAN-EVERY-TIME….htm

    Also… even though they are no longer binding on us, it helps to follow the old testament ceremonial cleanliness laws — for cunnilingus! Let me explain: An OT Israelite woman was off limits during her cycle, and for a 7 day cleansing time afterward. On the 8th day, she took a ritual “mikvah” — bath — and then she was all clear for sex. Well.. it just so happens that this is exactly the reverse of the rhythm method, designed to maximize fertility. It also happens that this is when the woman smells the best, tastes the best, and is the horniest!. So… wait til the 8th day after the cycle ends, have her jump in the shower, and then go down on her. And keep at it for the next 2 weeks. Basically, it’s 2 weeks on, 2 weeks off.

    many super religious guys may also do things that further repress their wive’s budding sexuality, such as criticizing her body, criticizing her for her sexual performance, etc.

    None that I know. But those things certainly would turna woman off.
    There also can be a double standard in the types of conduct men want to see from a girlfriend and from a wife

    Yes, of course. Girlfriend — no sex. Wife — lots of sex. Serious “double standard” there…

  354. van Rooinek says:

    There is no scientific basis for the game paradigm.

    Except the unfortunate fact that legions of men have learned that it works. It holds up to the test of experimental repeatability, therefore it is scientific.

  355. Just1X says:

    “I can’t be the only one who is surprised to see you refer to yourself as a man. I don’t mean this as an insult. Your thought patterns are incredibly feminine, whether you realize it or not.”

    Could just be young?

    I was still getting a grip on reality when I was mid-twenties, even then I still got married at the end of my twenties…the divorce was character changing too (not that many years later).

    I heard ‘somewhere’ that the human brain doesn’t fully mature until 28 or so. Not going searching for references, but it has a ring of truth AFAICS.

  356. Just1X says:

    I realise that my last comment makes it sound like I think that women think like immature men, that’s pretty much because I do think that. NAWALT but YMMV

  357. Just1X says:

    NABALT is something I readily agree to. It depends on your life to date and the society you were raised in, I reckon.

    Modern society is probably quite a handicap to ‘growing up’, too much entitlement as a result.

  358. [D: He isn't the only one then. You have presented yourself as a woman who naively married a pathological narcissist at age 27 because the church pressured you into marriage. Please keep us up to date as the story changes to prevent further confusion.]

    So, not being a virgin automatically equates to not being naive about human character? I had a couple of wild years in college, repented, came back to my childhood beliefs, and tried to make things right with God. I understood that I’d sinned in some of the things I’d done in my younger years, but was trying really hard to live up to God’s standards when I married my ex. Is repentance part of your worldview?

  359. Dalrock says:

    @Just1X

    Could just be young?

    I was still getting a grip on reality when I was mid-twenties, even then I still got married at the end of my twenties…the divorce was character changing too (not that many years later).

    I heard ‘somewhere’ that the human brain doesn’t fully mature until 28 or so. Not going searching for references, but it has a ring of truth AFAICS.

    I suppose so. If he really is a he, I’m more likely to chalk it up to having fully bought into feminism. His/her first post on this site was a defense of both Fireproof and EPL. After that it was a jihad against blowjobs and porn (going so far as to claim a man viewing porn is committing adultery), with the odd you go girl to female posters. More recently it was comments worrying that carousel riders don’t get enough orgasms, and comments like:

    I chimed in that I can go longer periods without sex because the sex I do have is elaborate love making trysts that fully satisfy me on mutliple levels and for a longer period of time.

    What man writes like that?

    Not to mention suggesting that whenever a wife withholds sex it is the husband’s fault and the wife will be aware of what she actually wants:

    Women have the capacity to for mutliple orgasms and to enjoy sex at a far deeper and greater level than men, largely due to anatomy, and yet we are supposed to believe that women would purposely deny this oppurtunity to themselves? Hog wash. If your wife doesn’t want to have sex with you, start asking her why. And really listen. Listen closely.

  360. My wife and I had no such problems. But I’m a science geek, I read all the right books in advance. The most useful of all was this:
    http://www.naura.com/item_10/HOW-TO-SATISFY-A-WOMAN-EVERY-TIME….htm

    Also… even though they are no longer binding on us, it helps to follow the old testament ceremonial cleanliness laws — for cunnilingus!

    I think this is good stuff. Unfortunately, I suspect that people often approach sex in the same way they approach parenting. They think, “I was genetically designed to do it, how hard can it be?”

    Well, every woman is different. Further, even though I’d been sexually active prior to marriage, I still didn’t know how my body worked (and it took me years to figure it out). Being more sex positive (even if that sex positivity is only directed at sex in a biblical context) could only help most marriages.

    I am not religious, anymore. Nor am I anti-religious. I do feel like a lot of rhetoric about wives diminishing sex drives glosses over some of the real issues.

    It is more complicated than men think. I had a difficult pregnancy with my daughter, resulting in a huge episiotomy. Sex was excruciating for about a year (though I forced myself to do it to provide that release for my husband). I also breastfed both of my kids. I found that the tactile sensation of having a child attached to my body for what amounted to several hours a day for months really made it difficult to be touched…I felt overstimulated and got annoyed when I was touched. My body changed…I went from a size 4 to weighing 176 pounds at L&D (again, problem pregnancy with pre-eclampsia–I swelled up everywhere), which left stretch marks on my stomach and other places. I hated the way I looked. I lost the weight, but the stretch marks remained.

    I didn’t stop having sex with my ex-husband, but between the pain and discomfort with my own body, I wanted to. And, that was really weird for me, because I have a higher than average sex drive.

    I’m sharing this stuff only because I’m not sure that men go through anything which changes them so substantially, short of testicular cancer or something. I also developed hypothyroidism during pregnancy, which–you can probably guess–also affected my sex drive.

    I tried really hard not to let my end of the bargain down in the sex department, but it was really hard. Hard on a level that I’m not sure that most men could relate to (i.e., how much sex would you want to have if doing so was painful and made you want to climb out of your own skin?) I never once said no. But, I’m sure I wasn’t demonstrating the proper enthusiasm. It hurt. I did my best.

  361. Eincrou says:

    MIX: “I recently read a study wherein young women who hook up in college report much fewer orgasms, much less sexual satisfaction, and much fewer instances of receiving oral sex than their male counterparts engaging in the same activity report. ANATOMY.”

    See, this is why Dalrock and his regulars are frustrated with your postings. You’re trying to teach people who are far more knowledgeable than you. That never goes over well.

    You are telling Anonymous Reader, a man who has great knowledge and interest in game and evolutionary psychology that a study shows that women have a harder time orgasming.

    You see, those of us who have this kind of perspective not only already knew that, but we know why beyond your superficial “ANATOMY” explanation.

    The truth is, the female orgasm is completely, 100% irrelevant to the primary (do not miss seeing the word primary) purpose of sex. The sex act’s primary function is to provide stimulation to the male so that he will ejaculate. The male orgasm is fairly easy and simple to achieve because it has to be for the species to survive. It is required for reproduction.

    All our conscious efforts to maximize the pleasures associated with sex for men and women is fine and good, but trying to make men feel guilty that they “get off” more easily than their wives shows just how myopic your perspective is.

  362. Dalrock says:

    @Dubious Wonder

    So, not being a virgin automatically equates to not being naive about human character? I had a couple of wild years in college, repented, came back to my childhood beliefs, and tried to make things right with God. I understood that I’d sinned in some of the things I’d done in my younger years, but was trying really hard to live up to God’s standards when I married my ex. Is repentance part of your worldview?

    I don’t mean to be cruel, but do you realize your life’s story reads like a manosphere cliché? You had your wild years until age 27, when you suddenly realized you wanted commitment. You then found religion and married the church alpha, who turned out to be a textbook case of the dark triad personality type.

    I mention this because you are extremely resistant to the very world-view which predicted your life’s story. It could just be an amazing series of coincidences. Or it just might be that you have more to learn than to teach.

  363. Eincrou says:

    Dubious Wonder: “I had a couple of wild years in college, repented, came back to my childhood beliefs, and tried to make things right with God. I understood that I’d sinned in some of the things I’d done in my younger years, but was trying really hard to live up to God’s standards when I married my ex.”

    If anyone doubts the morality of Pro-Male/Anti-feminist Tech’s explanation for why he’s picking up women in churches (which I sort of did at first, to be honest), let them read this comment.
    If he had been on the “born-again-virgin” prowl sooner, PMAFT could have saved that man from being an “ex”.

  364. P Ray says:

    Dubious Wonder sounds like someone who says that fantastic mantra
    “Only God can judge me”.
    And as a bonus,
    “Judge not, lest ye be judged!”

  365. passer_by says:

    @Dalrock
    I had the same reaction to MIX. The writing style and points of view were very feminine – I was surprised when he made comments to the contrary.

  366. Chels says:

    What man writes like that?

    A gay one?

    [D: Thanks Chels. I needed the chuckle. At the very least I find Max/Mix boring.]

  367. caballarius1 says:

    Jason Rennie says:

    ‘“Jason, I can’t find your term “sexual unfaithfulness” in the Bible.”’

    “Of course not, just as you wont find the word trinity either. What is your point?”
    XXXXXXXXXX
    My point is that you’re just making stuff up. Trinity is a theological hypothesis based on God’s assumption of three different manifestations found in scripture it is not some kind of sin or rule to live by. Your creation, “sexual unfaithfulness” is something you, or someone you heard/read, just made up with no scripture to back it up. There is no need to add to the law.

    XXXXXXXXXX
    Jason Rennie says:
    “The marriage bond is exclusive and supposed to be for life, we find that in the new and old testaments.”

    That must be why God Almighty portrays Himself as a polygynist with two wives, Judah and Israel, and why His lawgiver, Moses, had at least two wives in his harem that we know of. Not to mention why God spilled so much ink in the Law, laying down the rules of polygyny. Again, you’re making statements contrary to those found in scripture.
    XXXXXXXXXX
    Jason Rennie says:
    “That is the ideal, even if in practice the ideal is not always met. To be faithful to a spouse it to, as the vows say, “forsake all others”. So to be unfaithful is, in part, not to “forsake all others.”

    It may, or may not, have been the ideal in the Garden, we don’t know because the Bible never makes that claim. In either case, that was over and done with when Adam and Eve were sent packing. A little thing called “The Fall.” Look it up. “All creation trembled.” Plus, the vows you quote are extra-biblical. There was no such vow exchanging done in the Bible or in biblical times. Not to mention the fact that many Christians do not use those vows at all. They are man made. They may have good stuff in them, but it ain’t holy writ.

    XXXXXXXXXX
    Jason Rennie says:
    “Marriage is repeatedly used as an illustration for the relationship of God and Israel in the OT and between The Church and God in the NT. Given that is the analogy God uses for his relationship with Israel, and how they behaved, why exactly do you think the concept of sexual faithfullness/unfaithfulness is not taught in the Bible?”

    You mean the Lord and his two wayward wives, Judah and Israel? God finally wrote out a bill of divorcement from Israel, you know, and know she’s called “The Ten Lost Tribes.” In the NT, it is not the institution of marriage that is likened to Christ and the Church, but rather the wedding feast and the bride’s move into the Father’s House. There’s a tremendous difference.

  368. Seriously? That is your advice to your daughter? Learn how to ride the carousel well?

    Do you really think that was my ONLY advice? Are you just used to thinking of people outside your paradigm as morons? It was a piece of volumes of advice I’ve given her about how to be a woman (and avoid my mistakes).

  369. If he had been on the “born-again-virgin” prowl sooner, PMAFT could have saved that man from being an “ex”.

    I was never a “born again” virgin. I was a repentant sinner….My ex had a sexual history before meeting me, as well, which he’d also repented for.

    Is sex the only sin for which no forgiveness can be obtained, in your worldview?

  370. Dubious Wonder sounds like someone who says that fantastic mantra
    “Only God can judge me”.
    And as a bonus,
    “Judge not, lest ye be judged!”

    Actually, I don’t give a crap if you judge me. Hope that clears things up.

  371. passer_by says:

    @DW

    “which he’d also repented for. ”

    Or not, apparently. :)

  372. MIX says:

    “I had a couple of wild years in college, repented, came back to my childhood beliefs, and tried to make things right with God.”

    What did you do in college that was “wrong with God”? Premarital sex?
    Challenge: Quote me the biblical passage where it says its a sin.

  373. MIX says:

    @Dubious Wonder
    My advice to my 18-year-old daughter was that she’d better figure out how her body works before she ever lets a guy lay a hand on it. Too many men approach our delicate little flower with all the grace and precision of a sledgehammer.

    @Dalrock
    Seriously? That is your advice to your daughter? Learn how to ride the carousel well?

    Dalrock, how do you equate “figure out how her body works” with riding the carousel? Ever wonder why most men would prefer sex with almost any woman over masturbating alone, but for women its the opposite? I asked my wife about this once.

    Don’t know where you got the idea I “defended” Fireproof. Never saw it. The way you reviewed it made it sound like both spouses contributed to the demise of their marriage. EPL, I saw it. Its a mediocre film with nice visuals of the Bali tropical country side, but nothing to write home about. The audience did not cheer in orgasmic bliss during the divorce scene. They came out of the theatre discussing yoga and meditation, not cuckholding and divorce.

  374. I should point out that I suggested to my daughter that she figure out how her body works…in lieu of having sex with boys. The idea being two-fold. First, I want her to have a satisfying sex life as an adult. The better she knows herself and her own body, the greater the odds of that occurring. Second, I want her to postpone actual sex as long as possible, to give herself time to grow up and mature emotionally. I am not religious anymore. My goal isn’t for her to be a virgin at marriage, it’s for her to make responsible decisions as an adult. My daughter has good values. She isn’t in a hurry to become sexually active, nor do I think she will do so indiscriminately.

    What did you do in college that was “wrong with God”? Premarital sex?
    Challenge: Quote me the biblical passage where it says its a sin.

    I am fairly certain that premarital sex falls into the category of fornication. Am I wrong?

  375. Definition of omega is completely autonomous, it doesn’t require acceptance of any other ideas from Game.

    There is zero scientific evidence for applying omega to human interaction. It’s an imaginary concept that exists only in the minds of pseudoscientists, most of whom wear stupid furry hats and way too much eyeliner.

  376. Just1X says:

    DW

    you’re saying there aren’t men that women find repulsive? seriously?

    the fact he wants to call such men, which clearly exist, ‘Omega’ doesn’t change the fact that they exist.

    And if game didn’t work (not saying all the time), it would have been abandoned years ago. So clearly it does work for some men on some women – whether you want to recognise this uncomfortable fact, or not. I don’t blame you, game makes women look very poor in judgement, taste and morality, but you not liking it, doesn’t make it false.

  377. van Rooinek says:

    There is zero scientific evidence for applying omega to human interaction. It’s an imaginary concept that exists only in the minds of pseudoscientists, most of whom wear stupid furry hats and way too much eyeliner.

    Science is based on experimental repeatability. (It’s what I do for a living.) Game theory has been tested over and over and over, and unless legions of PUAs are lying — and unless many Christian men (including myself) who made the exact same observations as the PUAs but chose to respond differently, are also lying — then we must conclude that Game theory works. Indeed, I did apply it in nonsexual ways a few times while still single — one time, quite accidentally! — and was shocked and horrified to realize that yes, sadly, Game theory really is true.

    That said, your description of Mystery is hilarous. He should probably get rid of the professional magician hat and eye makeup now that he’s not doing that any more; in any other context it’s just silly. Sort of like KISS going to the supermarket in full concert face paint.

  378. A Lady says:

    Encouraging self-focus and self-absorbed sexuality is not going to help a daughter find a worthwhile man to marry and have a pleasing sex life with. It will sow discontent and leave said daughter vulnerable to sexual issues in her marriage.

  379. hurpadurp says:

    Game theory has been tested over and over and over, and unless legions of PUAs are lying — and unless many Christian men (including myself) who made the exact same observations as the PUAs but chose to respond differently, are also lying —

    Isn’t that pretty much what they’re saying over at A Voice for Men? Look at that whole debate thing between the proprietor and Frost. I sure don’t have a stake in that fight, but I’m just sayin, there are a few “legit” MRAs who take an equally dim view of Game, if not a much dimmer one.

  380. you’re saying there aren’t men that women find repulsive? seriously?

    How many woman do men find repulsive? I’m saying that it appears to me that there is a shoe for almost every foot…if people have realistic standards.

    Encouraging self-focus and self-absorbed sexuality is not going to help a daughter find a worthwhile man to marry and have a pleasing sex life with. It will sow discontent and leave said daughter vulnerable to sexual issues in her marriage.

    That’s an opinion. On the other hand, it may make her less vulnerable to bouts of impulsive sex and more selective about the partners she chooses. You have extremely rigid views on this subject, shaped by your religious beliefs. I don’t believe you are an expert, so what makes your opinion on the subject more valuable than my own?

  381. Science is based on experimental repeatability. (It’s what I do for a living.) Game theory has been tested over and over and over, and unless legions of PUAs are lying — and unless many Christian men (including myself) who made the exact same observations as the PUAs but chose to respond differently, are also lying — then we must conclude that Game theory works.
    I have experience with program evaluation, let me put it like this: I’ll believe it when I’ve seen it scientifically validated in a peer-reviewed study. :)

  382. Or not, apparently.

    Superficially, at least. I’ve come to the conclusion that he really doesn’t understand the concept. Narcissists are good at saying the word, but not so great at actually living it.

  383. passer_by says:

    @dw

    “How many woman do men find repulsive?”

    A lot fewer than the other way around, and it’s usually due to extreme obesity, which can be controlled.

  384. Dalrock says:

    @Dubious Wonder

    That’s an opinion. On the other hand, it may make her less vulnerable to bouts of impulsive sex and more selective about the partners she chooses. You have extremely rigid views on this subject, shaped by your religious beliefs. I don’t believe you are an expert, so what makes your opinion on the subject more valuable than my own?

    Keep in mind that female promiscuity tends to be highly selective. It also tends to favor serial monogamy. There is a popular misconception about this.

  385. Anonymous Reader says:

    What man writes like that?

    Well, a SNAG would.That’s one explanation. Occam’s razor does not support it, though.

  386. A Lady says:

    It’s not an opinion that is popular, but only because it is more true than not. The fact is, a woman with self-absorbed sexuality will find it harder to learn together with a man she marries and grow in sexual enjoyment together. When you encourage an atomic, me-first and me-only view of sexuality, you don’t make it more probable that your daughter will find a man who wants to learn with her and share and be all mutual with the old sexin’s. You make it far less probable.

    There is a whole big world between the kind of self-focused masturbatory ‘knowing myself first’ crap preached as ‘sex-positive’ or ‘open minded’ sexuality and ‘sex is dirty, save it for marriage’.

    Pretending that the former is holy and works out great when reality says otherwise is doing a big disservice to your daughter, as big as the one done by your approach in your first marriage (hint: if it hurts, it’s on him to NOT HURT YOU. it’s not part of Christian sexual theology that a wife suffer needlessly to be a good sex partner in the marriage, but it’s not like you actually are aware of actual practical Christian sexuality resources).

  387. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dubious
    That’s an opinion. On the other hand, it may make her less vulnerable to bouts of impulsive sex and more selective about the partners she chooses.

    Her hypergamous nature will automatically make her selective. That is a given. THe question for you is, what criteria will apply to her hypergamy? What traits in men will be sufficiently Alpha to induce the tingle, and how will she deal with that tingle?

    How much of a future-time orientation does she have, vs. a present-time orientation? How well does she control her impulses? What attractors is she carrying around in her head regarding men, and how will they influence her? These factors have a heck of a lot more to do with her life than whether she learns how to masturbate to orgasm now vs. later.

  388. P Ray says:

    @Dubious Wonder:
    If you don’t give a crap how/whether people judge you,
    why are you trying to justify yourself or disqualify/make unreasonable, others’ opinion of you?

  389. caballarius1 says:

    Dubious Wonder says:
    “I am fairly certain that premarital sex falls into the category of fornication. Am I wrong?”

    Early English versions of the New Testament translated the Greek word “porneia” as “fornication.” Now that the modern English usage of “fornication” has evolved to mean copulation between an unmarried woman and an unmarried man, it no longer carries the meaning of the original “porneia.” For that reason, modern English translations of the New Testament typically replace “fornication” with “sexual sin” or “sexual immorality.”

    The way “porneia” is used by the New Testament writers is somewhat nonstandard, in that they use it to refer to all the sexual sins addressed in the Mosaic Law found in the books of Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy. Those sins are basically adultery (defined as a man copulating with the wife of another man), male homosexual acts, bestiality by man or woman, rape of a married or betrothed woman, certain types of incest, non-virgins being married off as virgins (marriage theft). Those all get the death penalty. Menstrual sex gets a quarantine of a week or so. Parents are instructed not to prostitute their daughters, but no punishment is prescribed. That about sums up “fornication” as it is used in the Bible.

    Having said all that, Exodus requires that nonmarital sex involving a virgin female be shortly followed by a shotgun marriage and payment of a virgin’s bride price to the family. This is to compensate the family for the drop in their daughter’s value in the sexual marketplace. A non-virgin daughter was essentially out of the running to be first wife for a well off young man her own age. And that’s about all the Bible has to say about the subject.

  390. Sandy says:

    2 Dubious Wonder
    ==================
    There is zero scientific evidence for applying omega to human interaction. It’s an imaginary concept that exists only in the minds of pseudoscientists, most of whom wear stupid furry hats and way too much eyeliner.
    ==================

    I didn’t write anything about “applying omega to human interaction”. You can replace the word omega in my post with “a man sexually repulsive to most women” and the post’s meaning will be exactly the same. My post didn’t rely on any theories

    ==================
    I have experience with program evaluation, let me put it like this: I’ll believe it when I’ve seen it scientifically validated in a peer-reviewed study.
    ==================

    You don’t have sufficient reading comprehension for peer reviewed research. You completely fail to understand very simple posts. If you take some classes to help you remedy your reading comprehension, then after some time you may be ready to read peer-reviewed research

  391. van Rooinek says:

    myself: Game theory has been tested over and over and over, and…many Christian men (including myself) who made the exact same observations as the PUAs…are also lying —
    .hurpadurp: .I’m just sayin, there are a few “legit” MRAs who take an equally dim view of Game, if not a much dimmer one

    Oh, I don’t doubt they take a very dim view of Game. I myself take a very dim view of Game. In fact, I was heartbroken beyond words, when I realized that it was TRUE!!!!!! It was quite sickening to realize that the “good Christian women” I hoped to date, were rejecting me for precisely the “good Christian man” qualities that I worked so hard to cultivate and which they so vehemently insisted that they wanted.

    To be fair, they probably DO want those qualities, but they want them in a man whom they ALREADY find attractive for quite different reasons — which is what Game is all about. I had the height, the physique, and the looks, and my “nerdiness” and refusal to be a jerk, in the end were not nearly the problem I thought they were — because when I crossed a certain income threshhold, all of the sudden women could seemingly smell it, and I was transformed from Mr. Rejection to Mr. Hot Ticket almost overnight. Too bad this didn’t happen til my mid 30s. It’s tragically obvious that if I’d forsaken the Lord and become a jerk, per Game, I could have had a lot more female attention at a much earlier age.

  392. The fact is, a woman with self-absorbed sexuality will find it harder to learn together with a man she marries and grow in sexual enjoyment together. When you encourage an atomic, me-first and me-only view of sexuality, you don’t make it more probable that your daughter will find a man who wants to learn with her and share and be all mutual with the old sexin’s. You make it far less probable.

    First off, my daughter is not self-absorbed. Knowing how your body works is not “self-absorbed sexuality.” Secondly, I don’t think you understand the difference between a fact and an opinion. And, if you don’t understand something that basic, I’m not sure that I trust you on something as complex as human sexuality.

  393. THe question for you is, what criteria will apply to her hypergamy? What traits in men will be sufficiently Alpha to induce the tingle, and how will she deal with that tingle?

    At current, she is drawn to what I’d call “nerdy hot.” The guys she is attracted to are super intelligent, and extremely supportive/nice, but not so nice as to appear to be doormats (they have boundaries). She doesn’t date bad boys, nor is she attracted to bad boys from what I can tell. Sadly, I think she’s gotten enough of that from her dad. She appears to be drawn to guys who are similar to my fiance (extremely smart, bordering on nerdy, and nice). She’s highly intelligent and seeks intellectual stimulation. As far as how she deals with that tingle, she didn’t even kiss her current boyfriend (a biomechanical engineering student at Georgia Tech) for several months, so I’m not terribly worried about her falling prey to the standard “girls gone wild” scenario.

    I have pretty much been brutally honest with her about my own personal mistakes, and the problems they’ve caused. I don’t know that every kid learns from his/her parents’ mistakes, but she appears to have taken quite a few lessons from mine, and is considerably smarter and more well-adjusted than I was at 18. Of course, we are quite open in our family. We have talked about sex, dating, drugs, alcohol, and pretty much any other thing that you can think of that would impact a teenager since she was in 16th grade. She has several friends that are quite sexually active. I’ve openly discussed the ramifications of their behavior with her, on every level, from the reputations to the risks of STDs.

    I would call my child “sexually careful.” I don’t think that she sees sex as a negative, but she is also well-aware of the risks. And, with the boys she’s dated, we’ve basically conducted a post-mortem after every break-up to dissect the pros and cons of each of them. The boy she is dating is the best so far. I would not be surprised if they eventually get married.

    I would not consider him alpha in any sense of the word.

  394. You don’t have sufficient reading comprehension for peer reviewed research. You completely fail to understand very simple posts. If you take some classes to help you remedy your reading comprehension, then after some time you may be ready to read peer-reviewed research

    Gosh. Coming from someone as intellectual as you, this really smarts.

    (You’re a rank amateur at passive-aggressive insults)

  395. jmperry says:

    As far as how she deals with that tingle, she didn’t even kiss her current boyfriend (a biomechanical engineering student at Georgia Tech) for several months, so I’m not terribly worried about her falling prey to the standard “girls gone wild” scenario.

    It sounds like she’s fallen prey to the standard “girls gone frigid” scenario instead. She wouldn’t kiss him for months, and you really think there’s a chance they’ll get married?

  396. van Rooinek says:

    Lady – Encouraging self-focus and self-absorbed sexuality is not going to help a daughter find a worthwhile man to marry and have a pleasing sex life with.

    Dubious Wonder – Knowing how your body works is not “self-absorbed sexuality.”

    I’m with Dubious Wonder on this one. If a single woman refuses to have sex with a man prior to marriage but, being desperately horny, regularly gets herself off by hand, toys, etc, I think her transition to a married sex life would be a lot easier. The party is already in progress; all the new husband needs to do, is join in. Since all sane men enjoy seeing a woman get off, for the new bride to focus on her own pleasure is not “self absorbed sexuality” at all, but lovemaking in its highest and hottest form.

    Writing that made me hot….. #&#@$…. and I have 8-10 hours of work before I can go home….

  397. van Rooinek says:

    It sounds like she’s fallen prey to the standard “girls gone frigid” scenario instead. She wouldn’t kiss him for months, and you really think there’s a chance they’ll get married?

    Plenty of religious people avoid or delay kissing, not because they are frigid, but precisely for the opposite reason: it gets them way too turned on and might inspire them to go too far before marriage.

  398. Passer_By says:

    @van Rooinek

    “Plenty of religious people avoid or delay kissing, not because they are frigid”

    Who said she’s religious? DW says she no longer is, so I doubt her daughter is terribly religious.

  399. van Rooinek says:

    “Plenty of religious people avoid or delay kissing, not because they are frigid”
    Who said she’s religious? DW says she no longer is, so I doubt her daughter is.

    Good point, but ANYONE who is both wise and sexually cautious, may adopt the same policy. I mention the religious only because they are the ones I know best. Many religous people avoid alcohol too, but not every teetolater is religious. Same principle.

  400. It sounds like she’s fallen prey to the standard “girls gone frigid” scenario instead. She wouldn’t kiss him for months, and you really think there’s a chance they’ll get married?

    Genetically, she’s my kid. She expressed to me that she was thinking about sex a LOT, during middle school, which is why I encouraged her to “get to know herself” versus having sex with a boy like many of her friends were doing. She has my high sex drive, which is both a blessing and a curse.

    We aren’t religious. Just cautious and self-controlled.

    I’ve told my daughter that if she had sex with a guy in high school, she should be prepared for every other guy in high shool to know about it on Monday. She’s since seen it happen to her friends, and it played out just like I told her it would. Not being a dumb girl, she’s learned from other people’s mistakes.

  401. jack says:

    Two questions worth asking any girl:
    1) “Are you in favor of premarital sex”.
    2) “Are you in favor of post-marital sex”.

  402. Anonymous Reader says:

    Jason:
    I think the real problem is that you have women who are not really interested all that much in sex, especially as they have likely had plenty of empty and unpleasant sexual experiences prior to marriage, who are using sex as a lure to “bag a man”

    van Rooinek
    This is why legions of nonChristian men report that the “wonderful” sex lives they had with their girlfriends, came to a screeching halt when they got married. A Christian woman (married) who spoke on this topic at our marriage ministry, said that these women associate sex with a very unpleasant part of their life, and once they finally get married, they think, now they can be happy and forget about all that horrible sex stuff and just be “friends”….which strikes the husband, rightly, as betrayal.

    These two observations are among the most important on the entire thread. It presents yet another reason for men to avoid carousel riders as a rule, or to associate with them only with full knowledge of their history “eyes wide open” going into an association. It offers a clear cautionary lesson to any young would-be carousel riders: the short term fun will come with long term costs.

    Of course, this is because women are not the same as men. Don’t tell the feminists….

  403. Omnipitron says:

    A lot of comments here, haven’t read them all but I wanted to add my two cents.

    Dalrock, sorry you had to see that POS movie, but thank you for taking the time. As an FYI, this movie is recommended to couples going through infidelity at a website I used to frequent. While the site itself was decent, I simply assumed the movie was also topnotch. This message is nothing but complete and utter crap, telling men to put on a sweater with EVERLAST or WELCOME emblazoned on it for the sake of their marriage.

    Ridiculous.

    It’s a crying shame really, anyone who supports a movie like this doesn’t support the real meaning of marriage. Does someone really have to actually state that marriage is about compromise, seriously? I know TFH has explained to me a few times that many women don’t comprehend cause and effect, but I’m still surprised that so many women don’t comprehend that supporting a movie or any sentiment of this style makes them look much worse than they already do. Supporting crap like this undermines their own position, why can’t they see it?

  404. Pingback: Boundless is their foolishness. | Dalrock

  405. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dubious
    At current, she is drawn to what I’d call “nerdy hot.” The guys she is attracted to are super intelligent, and extremely supportive/nice, but not so nice as to appear to be doormats (they have boundaries).

    Those would be betas, possibly upper/greater betas. We can only hope that they all learn about hypergamy from web sites like this one.

    I would not consider him alpha in any sense of the word.

    Naturally not. Your years riding the carousel guarantee that you would not. In fact I am coming to suspect that carousel riders are likely to be more prone to fall for Dark Triad Game, because they literally can’t see normal men anymore.

    And I must ask, why does it matter whether you see the alpha in him or not, hmm?

  406. UK Fred says:

    Starting with the original premise of this discussion, in the movie the marriage was clearly in some trouble when we get beyuond Catherine’s flashback scene. We do not know what caused it and which came first, the porn or the refusal.

    Refusal is a sin, befcause it goes against the teaching of 1 Corinthians7 vv2-5 “But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer.” It is therefore clear that the wife was sinning by refusing her husband. Incidentally, there is some anecdote that this was used in church discipline in the 17th Century by a Puritan woman against her husband for failing to keep her sexually satisfied.

    The part of the film that I thought unbelievable was the husband going through the “love dare” because I would have thought that this is the one thing that would have been totally ineffective in bringing his wife to her senses. But it is clear that if the marriage is to be saved, at least one of them needs to do something drastic.

    I would argue that the husband was sinning by viewing porn because porn is viewed not just as entertainment in its own right like, say, watching Indycars, but because of the sexual feelings it develops in the viewer. How many men can honestly say that if they have watched porn they have not thought that they “wouldn’t mind doing her” when thinking about the actress. I will agree that cartoon porn is an unusual case, although I would contend that it is designed to do exactly the same in terms of generating sexual feelings in the viewer. I would also contend that this is exactly what Jesus was talking about when he spoke of “adultery of the heart”

    From my very restricted viewing of porn IRL, it appears that there is no need for any relationship between the performers before sex can take place, all that is needed is the presence of another person. This may be the norm for older teens and twenties now, but in my day both sexes expected some sort of relationship before sex was available. It is dangerous because it encurages young men to think that they do not need to have any relationship before having sexual relations with a woman, and so plays directly into the hands of those who seek to devalue marriage simply because the husband sees marriage as a convenient way to get sex without having to work for it by having a relationship and the wife becomes increasingly embittered because she does not get the feminist dream of having it all, and a husband who does 50% of the housework while she brings in 50% of the money. So, yes, if a wife caught her husband viewing porn, I would think she had a right to be angry with him.

    But what would constitute grounds for divorce. Again, going to first principles, when one considers the marriage vows, it is not a contract but a covenant. There is no requirement for performance of some or any duty on either side to make the contract valid. The covenenat that is marriage lays down duties on both parties and breach of some of those duties would bring about a situaltion in which the covenant could be dissolved. However it does not have to be the end of the marriage, as many who have restored their marriages after adultery or other breaches of covenant have demonstrated. In Joshua 9 there is the story of the Gibeonitwes who deceived Joshua and the Israelites, but because of the covenant, the Israelites did not kill the Gibeonites.

    While the following will not be to the tastes of all those who are not Christian, I think that this delivery has much to commend it (From Job29man on http://www.themarriagebed.com):

    “My dear wife. I’m going to expose all my cards here and put myself at a place of vulnerability, but also I have a serious message to deliver to you.” (Her eyes got big.) :shock:

    “Honey. I am unhappy in our marriage.” Her: “gulp”.

    “Now… here’s where I show you my cards…I’m going to tell you my negotiating position. I am totally committed to this marriage. I will never, ever leave you. That’s not the man I am. I am not threatening you with anything because I have no intention of following through on any kind of ultimatum that involves me leaving you. Just not gonna happen. If you and I come to NO agreement today you will still have me as your committed husband until the day one of us dies.”

    “But honey, I am not a happy husband. You have my body and support until I die, but you are losing my heart.”

    “This is not the marriage we both committed to. If you have rebuke for me. I am all ears. I want to be the best husband for you that I can be. You can lay it on me and I will not resist, but will redouble my efforts. I will withhold NOTHING from you. I will give up ANYTHING that you feel is needed. You just say the word. But if you will permit me now to state my own complaint to you in the same spirit… I am a sexually miserable man. I go out into the world of … temptation… every day. Women like me. I ignore them. But you are not making it easy for me to resist temptation. For the first time in our marriage, it is difficult to turn my face the other way. Yes, I DO it! I turn away. But it used to be a no-brainer. It was easy. For the first time in our marriage, if a man were to ask me “Isn’t marriage great?” I wouldn’t know how to answer him. :( Now … I’m a sexually frustrated man who is not happy in his marriage bed. You are a wonderful mother and a great person. You are a better person than this. You can do better! I respect you too much not to give you notice of my feelings. I thought you deserved a WARNING SHOT ACROSS YOUR BOW.”

    Those who do not claim to be Christian may not appreciate that it is to this situation that Christian marriage takes us. Both parties should be committed to the other. This commitment shows itself in sacrificial love on both parties’ parts to the other party and to the relationship. Job was showing this commiment to his wife (“..I will never, ever leave you…”) but also in the assertive telling it how he saw it (…This is not the marriage we both committed to….)

    There is no way that someone not committed to the marriage could adopt this position, but equally, a wife committed to having a loving husband would have to take note and make some changes to her life. There is no way that a wife (or husband) on the receiving end of this speech could be under any misapprehension afterwards. A flighty wife would probably be off on hearing this. But then, when it only takes one to bring the marriage to a crashing halt….

  407. Dalrock says:

    @UK Fred

    From my very restricted viewing of porn IRL, it appears that there is no need for any relationship between the performers before sex can take place, all that is needed is the presence of another person. This may be the norm for older teens and twenties now, but in my day both sexes expected some sort of relationship before sex was available. It is dangerous because it encurages young men to think that they do not need to have any relationship before having sexual relations with a woman, and so plays directly into the hands of those who seek to devalue marriage…

    I think the very line of thinking that you mourn the loss of is a great danger to marriage. The assumption that promiscuity isn’t promiscuity if done according to the female preferred form of promiscuity is worse than nonsense. It is a license for serial monogamy (with or without fancy parties where the woman promises to remain with her husband for life, and with or without state sanctioned cash and prizes when she decides she isn’t haaaapy and ceases honoring her vows). Simply put, marriage isn’t a beefed up long term relationship. This is of course one of the primary reasons the movie is such a disaster.

  408. Pingback: Promiscuity is good, so long as it is done on the woman’s terms. | Dalrock

  409. Pingback: Submitting to the patriarchy in their heads | Dalrock

  410. Badger says:

    “Too many men approach our delicate little flower with all the grace and precision of a sledgehammer.”

    You know, I was thinking recently about anatomy and how they reflect our gender psychologies. Yohami has analogized the inward-facing vagina with the female tendency towards indirect communication and layered innuendo, and the penis as outward-facing like the archetypal male is dominant. I add to the thought:

    The male (erect) penis is VERY tough – in one axis. Hit it from the side and it is very vulnerable, though.

    Meanwhile, the vagina is not a “delicate little flower” – it stretches to pass a baby through for crying out loud, and horny women want to get pounded hard. That doesn’t mean you can just start going to work though, it requires a lot of workup to get to the point that it will accept rough treatment (much like it takes time to stretch to pass the baby through).

  411. rmaxd says:

    @dalrock
    “Simply put, marriage isn’t a beefed up long term relationship. This is of course one of the primary reasons the movie is such a disaster.”

    Interesting point, women dont consider divorce or being attracted to a hotter more attractive guy as promiscous

    Like all divorce porn, its all about validating the womans point of view on promiscuity, while never stating or validating the patriarchial view on promiscuity

  412. rmaxd says:

    @badger
    “Meanwhile, the vagina is not a “delicate little flower” – it stretches to pass a baby through for crying out loud, and horny women want to get pounded hard. ”

    No offence badger, but its no wonder walsh loves you & yohami … lol

  413. Jason Rennie says:

    I don’t know if this will interest anyone but I recorded a talk I wrote called, “Porn Probably a Bad Idea” for my podcast Christian Meets World, last night. You can find it at

    http://christianmeetsworld.com/cmw028

    I hope it isn’t inappropriate to post the link here.

    Jason

  414. Aqua Net says:

    “Meanwhile, the vagina is not a “delicate little flower” – it stretches to pass a baby through for crying out loud”

    Very painfully, you seem to be forgetting.

    “…and horny women want to get pounded hard. ”

    Yes but they are already horny, wet, lubricated and ready. Without that, its more like a delicate flower. Like the penis. The penis can pound hard but it hurts to get squished or pulled or squeezed too hard. Both sets of family jewels need to be treated kindly.

  415. Aqua Net says:

    Dalrock, I for one see seriel monogamy less promiscuous than mutliple parallel random hook ups and one night stands.

  416. Pingback: Warn men: Beware Christian marriage doublespeak and hair trigger for wife initiated divorce. | Dalrock

  417. Pingback: Warn men: Beware Christian marriage doublespeak and hair trigger for wife initiated divorce. « Patriactionary

  418. njartist49 says:

    If this is a “Christian” movie, then there is no reason to darken a church threshold.

  419. Pingback: Warn men: Beware Christian Marriage Doublespeak and Hair Trigger for wife Initiated Divorce – By Dalrock | Christian Feminism Watch

  420. Dasugo says:

    I really like your blog but i think you rail on Fireproof unnecessarily. The goal of the movie is to indicate sacrificial love. As much as his wife was exhibiting some piggish behavior with the doctor, this story was about God healing a marriage when there seemed to be no way.

    At the end, they got back together and stayed married right? That is what you want right? Men and women married and committed to each other.

    it isn;t divorce porn. I can see some of your points but your analysis takes away from the central message of the story that marriages can be healed.

  421. Theo P. says:

    I never saw this movie (and now I don’t need to!), but I do remember when it made the rounds through my church and this certainly explains the reactions the movie got. I was 24 when the movie came out, and:

    The generation older than me loved it.
    My generation thought it was stupid.
    The generation younger than me had no time for a boring movie.
    My parents’ generation (and older) reacted with confusion or indifference.

    None of them had words for how they felt, really, but that was the consensus.

  422. Martha says:

    Disgusting but typical. This is the primary reason I left Christianity and am teaching my son never to date a Christian woman. Most “good Christian girls” have taken about a thousand cocks by the time they marry a virgin, and have a thousand ways to justify their own pretend virtues.

  423. Chere says:

    Evangelical Christianity is the failsafe fallback of the misogynistic solipsistic impotent male. Your pathetic self-aggrandizing is patently obvious.

  424. André says:

    Picked this one up somewhere: you’ll never hear of a woman in the doghouse or buying a man flowers and jewelry to apologize to him. Is too much to ask for. Must have to do with the different approaches to justice each sex (use this word always, not gender) has.

  425. Marriage is a union that a couple is promising each other the rest of their lives will be together – when you both understand that divorce is not an option (at least it shouldn’t be) you have a choice…how good, or how bad, your marriage is going to be.

  426. Pingback: This Is My Fireproof Thread - Page 7 - Christian Forums

  427. Pingback: Shattering the forcefield of denial | Dalrock

  428. Andrew says:

    “In Leviticus 18:20 adultery was defined as a man having sexual intercourse with his neighbor’s wife…If a man has an affair with an unmarried woman, the act is not considered adultery. Married men were free to visit prostitutes. A man who committed adultery did not commit a wrongful act against his own wife, but rather against his male neighbor.” “Deuteronomy 24:1 describes the procedure for obtaining a divorce. This can only be initiated by the husband, not by the wife…” “Numbers 5:11-31 describes a lengthy magical ritual that women were forced to perform if their husbands suspected them of having had an affair… There is no similar magical test for husbands suspecting of having an affair with another woman. ” http://www.religioustolerance.org/ofe_bibl.htm
    Or must one have to go to the N.T. for Jesus & Paul’s statements about wives & the married state? Contemporary fish.. xtian womyn for ya… (female pron aka “romance novels” fine & dandy though… with fabulous Fabio on the bodice ripper cover engaging in Unbridled Love (“date rape”)).

  429. Mike Singer says:

    Allow me to point out the the woman is having a “emotional affair” along with “emotional pornography” which is commonly overlooked.

    Kudos to Dalrock for taking the time to write this blog. I saw the movie and was disgusted by the wife’s unrealistic expectation ( Btw, I was married for 17 years).

    This was in NO WAY this a Christian film. NO WAY.

    It was filled with humanistic / secularism ad naseaum and in no way portrayed sacrificial love & obedience as mentioned in the scriptures.

  430. Jennifer says:

    Your viewing of this film was very selective, Dalrock; Caleb was more angry in the first scene you mentioned than Katherine was, and definitely in the second scene. Taunting him? She didn’t taunt him about holding out sex, she said she wouldn’t compete with porn, and somehow all the men around here seem to think that porn isn’t that big a deal. You said he wasn’t obsessed with it, leaving out mention of the scene when Katherine comes home and finds him looking at it, after those first few attempts to placate her. You’ve focused on only one person’s faults here. I agree, she should have apologized, but your summation of the film’s purpose is quite wrong.

  431. Jennifer says:

    Wow Andrew, GREAT example of why women would gravitate to this kind of film.

  432. Jennifer says:

    Thank you, Dasugo.

  433. Andrew says:

    Well let us see shall we by going to the New Covenant… what the Creator of women has decided for anyone that desires to line up with Him:

    http://home.earthlink.net/~thogmi/woman/woman.html

    The way it has always been, until that is, the past few generations of religious(?) women.

    God doesn’t accept as far as situational ethics a woman of Contemporary Christendumb even in for example her paranormal mindgames white witchcraft (even if she claims to be “the power of god” playing row dominos ala Benny Hinn causing the significant other of somebody alongside him to fall backward & grind in the lap of somebody’s husband seated behind her) torturing a pre-born infant thru abortion.
    Any more than He accepts a satanist priestess in her black witchcraft Torturing a born infant with the athame… and I’ve “Known” both types of women in my day, just don’t ask me at the moment if there is much difference between both kinds of women in matter of fact…. God doesn’t accept a notch or two better than the Status Quo.

    Any woman who takes her cues from other women in the World & excusing herself thusly “I’m acceptable because I’m a notch better than the norm”, is making up her own religion – the opiate of the people… a lie
    Without a doubt what we are almost entirely stuck 95% of the time out here in the West is actually open-ended(?) relationships with what amounts to defacto Mistresses (Serial Monogamy or semi-Monogamy….grin), approaching True Love, Soulmate or otherwise. Who, incidently in the 21st Century in most cases exceed the Scriptural definition of whore (2+ men prior to husband) by a CAPITAL W.
    Didn’t Gallup and other pollsters have a recent poll with the results that most Americans who self describe themselves as some sort of “christian” believe that Jesus sinned & nearly all queried don’t believe in absolute truth or moral absolutes?
    You have magnified Your word above Your name (Ps 138:2)… If they speak not according to this word, there is no Light in them (Isa 8:20). He that is of the Truth heareth My words (John 18:37).

    Ears to hear? as God implicitly told the former Saul of Tarsus…
    “In the Latter Days perilous times will come” namely the rise of the “phantasm counterfeit” revealing itself in the guise of feminist etc. pandering Evangelicdumb-Christendumb (2 Tim 3:1-5). Let us do evil (wickedness) that good may come; whose DAMNATION is just…(hey, I didn’t say it)… Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft…

  434. Dirt Man says:

    I’m late to this party. Riv just linked to this. Holy fuck, this movie sounds barf-worthy. The worst part is, so many dudes will watch it with their heifer wives and not see what you’re pointing out. They’ve been so brainwashed that they’ll see nothing amiss in it. Hopefully more will visit your site and be educated.

    I kind of want to make a version of this movie that goes completely fucking different. Where Caleb is a real man. Now, if only Hollywood had the balls to do so.

  435. Pingback: Don’t Hit Me I’m A Girl! | Dalrock

  436. Pingback: Marriage 2.0 and The Church « Elephants & Trees

  437. Pingback: Why so many wives wish their husbands would cheat. | Dalrock

  438. Pingback: Fireproof

  439. Pingback: Felt-Needs, Relevance, and Frivolous Divorce | Christian Men's Defense Network

  440. Pingback: Craven | Dalrock

  441. Bocaj6487 says:

    John Piper has said that the three biblical justifications for divorce are abuse, neglect, and unfaithfulness/adultery. Even if one could construe that unrequited lust is adultery, these misguided women are missing that the woman’s neglect of her husband’s needs was already grounds for him to divorce her.

  442. I keep reading people saying that the husband started the porn before the wife began to cut off sex. I really don’t see any evidence for that in the film.

    She started denying sex, and he started looking at porn before the movie started. She also gave two reasons for denying sex: Saving for the boat, and “pleasing” himself. Now, what does pleasing himself mean? Well it could be in reference to the porn, or it could be in reference to doing things like getting beer, or resting at the house and recreating since he’s on call 2 days strait before getting his off day. If it’s that second case, then his seeking of porn may well be a direct response to her refusing her marital duties to him. Is it still his choice, and is he still responsible for it? Yes. But he didn’t make that choice in a vaccume. And the wife is responsible for the results of cutting off sex.

    If she is refering to porn, then it may well be that she is refering to it as a reason to cut off sex, even if that reason didn’t exist when she first cut off sex over saving up for a boat. Even if he did look at some porn first, denyal of sex likely resulted in his habbit becoming more frequent.

  443. Pingback: Why Christians need game. | Dalrock

  444. Pingback: Losing control of the narrative. | Dalrock

  445. L says:

    Dalrock:

    I’ll preface this comment with the fact that I’m not a Christian but an atheist who abhors the selfishness and lack of personal responsibility people often present in their relationships be it friend, family or marriage relationships.
    Do not expect a cinematic masterpiece with Fireproof. It has a lot of heart and challenges our society’s easy-out attitude on divorce and marriage. It is incredibly corny but there is no other film like it. Yes, fireproof is poorly acted (it is so bad I cringed a number of times and laughed at non-comedic parts). Also, it has an outspoken homophobic as the leading man. I looked past that as he is acting out a role for a movie. The character of Michael, the black fireman who counsels Caleb (especially the salt and pepper scene), along with the apology scene at the end where Caleb finally does take personal responsibility for 7 years of treating his wife poorly, make the film worth watching.

    You missed the point entirely of the movie as the husband’s journey towards personal responsibility to become a better husband and prevent his wife from leaving no matter what it takes. The message of the movie can be summed up as this, taken from day 2 of the love dare: “It is difficult to demonstrate love when you feel little to no motivation. But love in its truest sense is not based on feelings…but a determination to show thoughtful actions….even when there seems to be no reward”. The wife is not given a free pass as she is called out on her bad behavior (of flirting with a married man) by an older woman with whom she works. Perhaps they should have showed her apologizing to Caleb as well, you are right about that. It’s revealed at least three times that the husband had treated his wife poorly for 7 years before final agreement that it is time to divorce. Also anyone commenting should watch it themselves before agreeing with your assessment. Cheers.

  446. Tertioptus says:

    Wow, it’s great to know that not everyone is drinking the “It must be good, because it’s ‘Christian’” Kool-Aid. That movie was awful. My dad sent it to us as a gift, and I cringed at the thought of watching it with my wife. I made sure to watch it first by myself, so I knew what kind toxic propaganda that might be unleashed in our house.

  447. Pingback: Christian denial and institutional resistance to change. | Dalrock

  448. nord says:

    I saw the movie again after reading some criticism of it. The woman in the movie is supposed to be an unbeliever, so I don’t see her as being presented as a ‘good guy.’ An old woman at work tries to talk her out of dating the doctor, but she shuts the woman down and won’t listen. Her husband repents and after his life turns around, the wife reconciles with him and tells him she wants what she has.

    Sure, the wife is a bad guy in the movie. So is the husband at first. It shows the power of a husband repenting. It does not help with the problem of the divorce fantasy, but that’s not what it’s about. The wife is changed through male leadership.

    Endless courtship?.. that’s another issue.

  449. Sharrukin says:

    The wife is changed through male leadership.
    —————————–
    The change comes in the movie when she finds out hubby ponied up $24,000 in cash. She was on her way to the doctor for an affair when she found out he only put up $800.

    If the husband hadn’t paid for her would she have stayed with him? The movie seems clear enough that she would not have.

    It wasn’t leadership, it was cash and giving her what she wanted.

  450. Pingback: The watchmaker is dead « Jim’s Blog

  451. Pingback: Feral love | Dalrock

  452. Pingback: Lowering the boom. | Dalrock

  453. Pingback: BD #2 – The Damage of Divorce On Children | The Society of Phineas

  454. Michelle says:

    I gained weight. I wasn’t thin when I married him, and genetically I never will be. We were married for 26 years when he left because he wasn’t haaaapppy. Of course, he’d been shopping for my replacement for 3 years and sleeping with them as a form of audition. Even his new wife was quoted as saying “You know men only think about one thing.”
    I guess my weight entitled him to be that way. Apparently size 16 is acceptable “christian” grounds for divorce.

  455. Pingback: Only if you make my husband do it too. | The Karamazov Idea

  456. Pingback: What Kills Love? | The Karamazov Idea

  457. mackPUA says:

    @michelle

    Once you go fat, you’re husbands guaranteed to look for new ass …

    You’re husband deserves a hot sexy wife

    Size 16 is grounds for joining the hungry hippo zoo exhibition … lol

    Stay hot, if you want access to a mans bank account …

  458. mackPUA says:

    gdmit didnt check the post date … gah

  459. Michelle says:

    Actually Mark, my bank account is larger than my ex’s. I have a better job and a PhD.
    I deserve better than what he put down, and I definitely deserve more respect than your uneducated, cave man comment.

  460. Michelle says:

    Oh, and by the way, his first affair was with a woman that outweighed me by at least 40 lbs.
    So much for your evaluation of the situation!

  461. Rmaxd says:

    Wow 40lbs, huge difference …

    Do you walk around with bathroom scales, weighing your ex’s hoe’s? lol

    Also the fact you’re airing your dirty laundry in public, pretty much spells out how much respect you deserve … ie none …

    Seriously lay down the feminist Oprah attitude & try & learn the meaning of real morals & ethics …

    Again if you cant stay hot & slim for your husband, you dont deserve him, or his bank balance …

  462. Michelle says:

    And real morals and ethics include men who betray their vows before God and get a pass from you? Obviously you know NOTHING about ethics or morals!

  463. Andrew Richards says:

    This movie would be gynocentric trash on all counts if it weren’t a case of art imitating life to such a degree. As it stands, it’s a sad indictment on society.

    For everyone who believes that all men should adhere to the paradigm of “men are conquerers, providers and protectors”, this movie shows exactly why that paradigm turns men into nothing but lemmings.

  464. Andrew Richards says:

    Honestly, the notion that people are going to keep looking like they’re in their 20s for the whole of their married lives is ludicrous – especially if people are taking their vows seriously (which is next to noone in this age of no-fault divorce). If someone is entering into marriage, then they have to accept that over time, bodies will change. Many guys are going to face baldness and middle age spreads. Women are going to have their bodies be the first casualties of childbirth and their breasts are going to fall prey to gravity, to bring up a couple of examples with both men and women and aging.

    If people aren’t prepared to accept that, then they really shouldn’t be getting married period.

  465. Michelle says:

    Amen, Andrew! And thank you for speaking the truth!

  466. deti says:

    Michelle:

    Taking what you say at face value, yes, your husband was wrong to cheat on you. Gaining a large amount of weight and letting your body go is not a ground for your husband to divorce you, nor is it a suitable reason for him to cheat.

    Having said that, it does explain (but does not justify or excuse) his conduct.

    On another thread, we talked with a man who is a lawyer with a six figure income, from southern California. He claimed he “deserves” a beautiful, sexy virgin wife. He met with forceful responses that, to put a fine point on it, “deserve’s got nothing to do with it”.

    Believing that one “deserves” a particular kind of mate is the wrong way to think about long term relationships and marriage today.

    You don’t “deserve” any kind of husband. There is only the kind of husband you can attract and keep. So it is for men as well — women have explained as a gender in no uncertain terms that no man “deserves” a woman. He has to be able to attract her and keep her through alpha traits of confidence, dominance, power, looks, and status. Many women today have shown over and over again that when her man is flagging in one or more of these areas and she is losing attraction, she starts looking because the hypergamy subroutine kicks into high gear.

    So, despite the size of your bank account and your Ph.D., you don’t “deserve” a husband. You were unable to keep your husband attracted because you gained weight . I’d venture there were other things going on as well — I doubt very much it was simply your weight gain that brought an end to your marriage.

  467. Michelle says:

    First off, we are not talking about a large amount of weight. I wasn’t thin when I married him. Second off, when the weight issue came up, I starved off 4 dress sizes. No, I wasn’t tiny, but that took a great deal to fight my genetics to that degree. For those of you who actually have looked at overweight in the news, you will see that science is finally realizing what all of us who are overweight knew in the first place – it is not just a matter of eat less and lose weight. The body fights to gain in some people and it is VERY DIFFICULT to beat that. Third, this isn’t about me DESERVING a husband. It’s about the fact that we took vows and he should have kept them. I kept mine. Fourth – isn’t it interesting that NO ONE is asking about what happened to his appearance or the changes that I had to accept from him, and yet I did not look outside the marriage. What I deserved was for him to honor the same commitment!

  468. mackPUA says:

    @michelle

    You betrayed your bows before god, by ballooning into a hungry hippo …

    You denied him sex by becoming overweight & turning him off sexually …

    Denial of sex IS breaking your vows

    So yes, he was justified in him finding someone who knows how to please a man …

  469. mackPUA says:

    “isn’t it interesting that NO ONE is asking about what happened to his appearance or the changes that I had to accept from him”

    We cant comment on what you dont state … lol

    Michelle, you basically put down your ex by stating he doesnt find your overweight attractive … your words …

    What sort of response do you want?

    If YOU gain weight, & he leaves , whose fault is it? Basic logic …

  470. Michelle says:

    LOL! We went to the marriage counselor for about six months. Our sex life was absolutely normal and from his own mouth he told the counselor that we were “fine” in that area. So again – your words are worthless.
    The truth is the weight was not the big issue. It was an excuse.

  471. Michelle says:

    And I didn’t state anything about what happened to him because I took vows. No matter WHAT happened to him, I would not leave. Period. That is called honoring your vows. It’s what a marriage commitment truly means.

  472. mackPUA says:

    @michelle

    You do realise we’re not telepathic …

    You specifically stated you’re husband left because of your weight

    Michelle – “I guess my weight entitled him to be that way. Apparently size 16 is acceptable “christian” grounds for divorce.”

    A relationship always has two sides, cheating never happens in a vacuum …

    Also you really dont want to see what the bible says about divorce … it involves donkeys & a neighbour … lol

  473. Michelle says:

    My initial comment was Sarcasm, my friend. Obviously, weight is not acceptable “Christian” grounds for divorce, and that was my only point.

    And as for cheating, it is a symptom of a much deeper problem within the person who does it. The fact is, he could have (and should have) left the marriage without the cheating. There was no reason whatsoever for him to do that. If he was unhappy, I didn’t need him for survival. I have a good job and make more than enough money to survive. We had no young children. He wasn’t trapped in any way. Just LEAVE! Instead, he made the immoral and unethical choice to stay and cheat.

    Vows are vows. I kept mine. He should have either kept his or ended the marriage. NOTHING entitles him to stay and cheat.

  474. Keoni Galt says:

    If he was unhappy, I didn’t need him for survival. I have a good job and make more than enough money to survive.

    More than the weight gain, I’m betting it’s this that is the real root of the reason why he strayed.

    We men want our women to need us. You didn’t need him. I’m sure he got the message loud and clear, as you’ve already made it clear to all of us in this thread how independent and empowered you are financially. You have a career!

    So you didn’t “need” your husband.

    So he found a woman who made him feel like she needed him.

  475. Opus says:

    This time Michelle, and although I am sorry to hear about her weight problems – it does rather put guys off, it is true – consider some of her frivorce- rhetoric:

    ‘He could have and should have left the marriage
    I didn’t need him.
    I have a good job’.

    Has it ever occured to her, that, regrettable though it may be, cheating means very little to a man (as compared to a woman) and that it is not a sign that he has any desire that his marriage should end. I get the impression that Michelle, was only too happy that her husband cheated, so that she might present herself as a victim and escape. This, holier than thou, with my vows, – a Beckmesser type attitude – does not wash, I am afraid, especially given men’s greater Testosterone, though as he seems to have cheated with a fatter woman, using the weight gain as the reason he walked out, seems unlikely.

    I wonder what the PhD is in – and how does Michelle know so much about his new wife?

  476. Michelle says:

    Yes, I can see why you would think that, but I wasn’t that type. I kept my marriage in a Christian model. He was the authority and had the last word in the home. I didn’t lord over him or try to make him feel inferior in any way. When I walked in that door, I was his wife – I was not my job or my income.

    And please note – the only reason I brought up my income in this thread was because it kept being pointed out repeatedly that I wanted access to his bank account. I was pointing out only that wasn’t an issue. Again, It was not something that came up in our home.

    However, it is probably significant that the marriage lasted for 23 years before it went bad, and the difficulty period of 3 years coincided with a time when he was in danger of layoff and my income would have been the only one in the house. Though I NEVER ONCE brought up my income, he did. And never once did it even occur to me to compare my income to his. To me, it simply didn’t matter. The only time it was ever discussed was when he threw out that I made more money than he did. Again – I didn’t do that and would never have done so. But the job insecurity thing was a factor beyond my control.

    He said to me that he could not be the man I wanted him to be. I don’t know who he thought that man was, because all I ever wanted was him – not his job, not his bank account – just him.

  477. Michelle says:

    Wrong again Opus. Truth is, I trusted and believed in him so much that I never even suspected him of cheating. I didn’t find out any of this until one month after the divorce, when his first mistress chose to contact me on Christmas day. So no – I wasn’t playing victim. Another cliche that simply isn’t true.

  478. MGHOW says:

    Michelle:

    The primary reason why men cheat is because they feel unappreciated by their wives.

    It would appear that you did not sufficiently and demonstrably love & appreciate him.

    Not that I am trying to justify his actions, but I don’t think that you are without fault.

    Also, for some reason I find it hard to believe the whole of your story.

  479. mackPUA says:

    @Michelle

    Are you looking for reasons for why he left you?

    Or are you just looking to place all the blame on him for leaving you?

    As I said before cheating never really happens in a vacuum … there are always extenuating circumstances …

  480. I can’t understand how almost every man commenting here is giving excuses for infidelity.

  481. Michelle says:

    Neither looking for reasons why he left or placing blame was my goal. I made one comment: That weight was not an excuse for leaving the marriage. When you take vows, “for better or worse, in sickness and in health” there is not an escape clause for weight gain. Nevertheless, if he wanted out because of the weight, then leave – don’t dishonor my 26 years of commitment by cheating.

    I would NEVER claim to be without fault. NOWHERE in this discussion did I claim to be without fault nor did I place blame on him for the demise of the marriage. This was not about fault. My comments were about breaking marriage vows only.

    A marriage doesn’t break down without plenty of blame to go around. I think that it was hard for him to turn to me when things started going sour with his job. I wish it had been different, and had I realized how much he was struggling during that time, I could have tried to find a way to ease his distress. I should have been more sensitive to his needs at the time. A man deserves a safe harbor when the storm blows. I didn’t even see the storm, so I did not help him deal with it. However, I will not accept that cheating is acceptable because he was not happy. It is NOT.

    And the beauty of telling the truth is that it does not become any less true because you choose not to believe it. I know I’m not lying and that is all that matters.

  482. Michelle says:

    But again, there is enough blame to go around. My needs were not met either. But I had respect for my vows. I did not cheat. There is NEVER an excuse that justifies cheating.

  483. Keoni Galt says:

    I can’t understand how almost every man commenting here is giving excuses for infidelity. Without clicking on your link to find out, this statement indicates you are most likely either a woman, or a Churchian White Knight.

    The hilarious thing about Michelle’s story is considering the thread she’s posting it in….in which Dalrock exposes how Fireproof the movie places all the blame on the husband, while the wife is absolved of all accountability for her role in her marital troubles.

    There is NEVER an excuse that justifies cheating.

    You’re mistaking our “Mansplaining” for justifying or rationalizing. We’re just trying to help you understand WHY it happened from a male point of view. As you’ve continued to provide more details, it’s becoming more and more obvious.

    You’re general attitude emasculated your husband. When he lost his job, it was the final blow to his self-image. Afterall, he had a wife that surely reminded him often that she didn’t NEED him…but then he got laid off and now he NEEDED her. From the masculine perspective, this is degradation piled atop humiliation resulting in emasculation.

    It’s a virtual certainty that the woman he cheated on you with, made him feel like a man again.

    Do you want agreement and solidarity in your judgement that you were pure and kept to your vows while he strayed? Coming to Dalrock’s is the last place you should come if that’s what your looking for.

    Here, we deal with the ugly truth. If you can’t bare to look, then don’t.

  484. Michelle says:

    Shrineofvirtue, you should not be surprised. That is just how men roll. He cheated, so it must have been my fault because I wasn’t making him happy. They completely ignore the fact that mature adults are responsible for their OWN happiness. It is not the job of someone else to make you happy, but they completely justify his cheating. Now if the shoe was on the other foot and I cheated because he wasn’t making me happy, I am certain they’d see plenty wrong with that and be calling me a whore.

  485. Michelle says:

    Mr. Gault, your story makes for good press, except he never lost his job and had to come to me for anything. I said that his job was under threat of layoff for several years. He NEVER even missed ONE single paycheck! So no, he was not emasculated. Again, he never had to come to me for money. He was most definitely stressed by the idea that his job could be eliminated, but when he talked to me about it, I simply reassured him that he was well regarded, an excellent worker, and would be retained. He was and is one of the hardest workers anyone could ever find.

    All I said is one thing: That cheating is never justified. He should have just left. And there is no untruth in that statement.

  486. Keoni Galt says:

    So tell us then, Michelle. What do you think his motivation for cheating was?

  487. mackPUA says:

    @michelle

    No one’s trying to excuse cheating

    Basically all you did was give a one sided rant against your ex … which is unfair to your ex-husband

    Looking at your comments above, the best comment to your post is by Keoni

    http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/10/30/firebombed/#comment-83346

    This wont makes sense to you, because we’re referring to biology

    When a man feels he isnt needed by the wife, his leadership is undermined & he looks for a woman he can lead & be the head of the household

    This is WHY most men leave marriages & relationships … looks & sex play a part, but the underlying reason will always be his need to biologically lead …

    You might not agree, but from your posts, this is the underlying biological cause for most men

    Remember these arent criticisms of you, these are comments on your posts

    Avoid taking the comments personally

  488. Michelle says:

    For the record, going back to the original discussion of the movie, I was disgusted by the wife’s behavior. I thought she was never justified in anything that she did. She was unfaithful and while she did not commit adultery in the physical sense, she deserted the marriage and committed emotional unfaithfulness when she should have kept to her vows and cleaved to her husband, helping him through his troubles instead of using them as an excuse to break the marriage That this is endorsed as a Christian ideal makes me unhappy. We should be calling it as it is.

  489. Michelle says:

    Please understand that many of these comments WERE intensely personal. General discussion is one thing. Calling me a happy hippo is both unnecessary and intensely personal.

  490. mackPUA says:

    @michelle

    “It is not the job of someone else to make you happy”

    It most definitely is your job, if you’re married to them, especially if you’re the wife …

  491. mackPUA says:

    @michelle

    You can take the comments as personal as you want

    They were never meant to be, which is how a mature adult should take them … do you really think hungry hippo’s applies to you? … lol

  492. MGHOW says:

    “Avoid taking the comments personally”

    I think women take everything personally.

  493. Michelle says:

    Why did he cheat? Well, looking at what you all have said, I have to say that based on your explanations, it comes to this: He married a woman who had a job that came from a vocational education, who didn’t even believe she was worthy to be chosen as his wife. After 23 years of marriage, he had a wife that was earning her PhD and was making more money than he was. He always said that would never bother him. I actually asked him if I should go back for the PhD. Had he said no, I wouldn’t have enrolled. But he encouraged me to do it. The reality is, it was a test. He was kind of like many women in that regard. He wanted me to figure out on my own not to do it, but I didn’t read that correctly. He didn’t want a wife that was more accomplished.
    I didn’t ever lord it over him. Truth is, I didn’t even know I was making more money than him until he left because we always had separate finances, but apparently I didn’t have to say a word – just the fact of it was more than he could bear.
    I don’t know how I could have changed that. I grew, and he didn’t want me to.

  494. Michelle says:

    “Once you go fat, you’re husbands guaranteed to look for new ass …
    You’re husband deserves a hot sexy wife
    Size 16 is grounds for joining the hungry hippo zoo exhibition … lol
    Stay hot, if you want access to a mans bank account …”

    Please explain to me what part of that is not intensely personal.

  495. Opus says:

    Do tell more.

    It is Xmas Day, you are in the bosom of your family, eating mince pies and sipping sherry, when there is a ring at the door-bell. Who ever can it be, you wonder; one of your relatives who lives out of State perhaps keen to wish you Seasons Greetings. No, it is a woman, you never met, who phones to ruin your Xmas by explaining that your former husband is a rat who dumped her after she dumped you. This is the stuff of Prime Time Soaps.

    Wow, some bitch!

  496. Michelle says:

    No, it is not the job of another human being to make you happy. Your happiness is between you and God, and is a part of your maturation as an adult. Marriage is to be a place for sharing the love and happiness you have within you – not for someone to make it happen for you.

  497. deti says:

    Shrine: You are confusing explanations with excuse. I don’t see anyone here saying Michelle’s husband had an “excuse” to cheat.

    Michelle: Taking again what you say at face value, you are correct that your husband had no excuse to cheat. He had no right to cheat. Again, I don’t see anyone saying your husband was justified in doing so. However, there are explanations for the end of your marriage, and your weight is probably only a small part of it.

  498. Michelle says:

    Opus, she did that because she didn’t know he had already left and divorced me. He apparently had told her he would never leave the marriage. He broke with her at the end of October. She plotted that revenge for Christmas Day only because she though he broke with her to rededicate to the marriage. She intended to blow up the family Christmas in revenge. She had no idea that he had quickly filed for divorce and that it was final in November, so her act was totally off the mark. And she left unhappy because only when she found that I was smaller than her by several sizes did she understand what he really thought of her as he complained about my size.

    I don’t blame you if you don’t believe it. Think how I felt as it was happening to me. It FELT like my life had become a soap opera! It also felt like I had never known the man I’d given my all to for 26 years.

    Despite how painful this discussion has been, I actually appreciate all the comments (except the very unnecessary ones about my size.) It has helped me to understand his distress. He signed on for the marriage with one type of woman and turned around years later to find she had grown into another type he likely never would have dated, let alone marry. Sadly, I don’t think there is any possible hope for a situation like that. I had to become who I was meant to be. My changes apparently just made me very wrong for him.

  499. mackPUA says:

    @michelle

    “Please explain to me what part of that is not intensely personal.”

    Explain to me how anyone could take something that hilarious personal … lmao

    “Marriage is to be a place for sharing the love and happiness you have within you – not for someone to make it happen for you.”

    That is you deliberately trying to rationalise a very simple statement about marriage…

    Everyone knows the whole point of a marriage is to make the other person happy … why are you trying to hamsterify this basic tenet of marriage?

    Arent you prepared to do what it takes to make your husband happy?

  500. Sharrukin says:

    Michelle says:

    I had to become who I was meant to be. My changes apparently just made me very wrong for him.

    What changes do you mean here?

  501. Michelle says:

    I’m sorry – referring to my size in that way is not hilarious. It is just plain rude.

    As a Christian, I believe that no one can make you totally happy. That is asking way too much of another human being. God is meant to be part of that equation. Your happiness is your own responsibility. You share your joy in marriage and multiply it in that way. But you have to be a mature and complete human being that is happy within yourself or you are not ready to enter into a marriage to begin with.

    I don’t expect my husband to take the God role of making me happy and helping me to be whole. But that is a matter of faith.

  502. mackPUA says:

    “It is just plain rude. ” The best humour is often rude … stop being so sensitive, you very well know it was stated for its hilarity intent …

    Your fake protests, only make my comments even more hilarious … lol … which you’re clearly aware of …

    “Your happiness is your own responsibility. ”

    Thats a disgraceful way for a woman to talk about a husband & marriage & you know it

  503. Michelle says:

    The changes were in my post above. I went from someone who made half the money he did and had only a vocational certificate for an education to someone that made more than he did and had a PhD. To me, that had nothing to do with who we were as a couple. But to him, especially since there was the threat of layoff for 3 straight years and the possibility that mine could end up being the only income, it must have really mattered. He never did lose his job and never missed a single paycheck, but the possibility was always there and I guess that was enough to keep him looking at how it could be. I’m guessing now from what you all have said that it was emasculating for him to even face the distant possibility – though I reassured him repeatedly that it would never happen (and it never did), that wasn’t enough to kill the fear. I didn’t see it as a big deal. To me, it didn’t matter where the money came from. So what if it was from my job? But he came from a very traditional upbringing where his mother never worked and his father was always in charge. I guess that scenario of me supporting us would have been his worst nightmare.

    At any rate, I didn’t do anything wrong by advancing, but it was apparently wrong for him.

  504. Michelle says:

    I’m sorry Mack – I don’t believe God made us to find all our happiness in another human being. I’m not talking just about my husband. I’m also talking about me. It is not his responsibility to make me happy either.

  505. Novaseeker says:

    He signed on for the marriage with one type of woman and turned around years later to find she had grown into another type he likely never would have dated, let alone marry. Sadly, I don’t think there is any possible hope for a situation like that. I had to become who I was meant to be. My changes apparently just made me very wrong for him.

    This is exactly what happened in my marriage as well, although it happened much faster than 26 years.

    The problem with what you have written is that spouses definitely DO have a responsibility, men and women alike, to NOT change in ways that make them unappealing to their spouse. Not just in terms of te physical, but in terms of the total package of what you are. That doesn’t mean you’re stuck in stasis for 50 years, but it does mean that large changes to who you are as a person that effectively make you into a different kind of person, a different type of person, with different goals, different lifestyle, different work hours and income and so on, should not be undertaken simply because you wish them without carefully evaluating the impact on the marriage. Again, this works for men and women alike. It’s not hard to follow who you were meant to be into a place where you are someone he/she never would have married in the first place. Exactly what happened in my marriage.

  506. Opus says:

    I am never one to mention size, no sirree, so please note that Michelle’s-ex went with someone considerably larger than Michelle. Fact is, the guy is obviously a chubby chaser; he rejected Michelle because she was too skinny. :) We, too, here at Dalrock’s have a zero-tolerance policy when it comes to Beached-Whales, and Wilderbeats, and like our women just-so.

    Did I mention Michelle has a PhD?

  507. Sharrukin says:

    Michelle says:

    “Your happiness is your own responsibility. ”

    “I didn’t need him for survival.”

    “I think that it was hard for him to turn to me when things started going sour with his job.”

    “had I realized how much he was struggling during that time”

    “I did not help him deal with it.”

    What were you even doing in the marriage if this is what you believe? I am not justifying his infidelity but you seem to have bailed on the marriage as well.

  508. Michelle says:

    Novaseeker, the thing is that I ASKED him about what I was doing. He was the one who urged me to go back to school in the first place. But now that you mention it, he wanted me to get an associates degree. He never told me to go back for the bachelors, the masters, and the PhD., though I did ask him about each one. I had NO IDEA that what I was doing made me unappealing to him until we got to the marriage counselor and he complained about my work hours and lifestyle. I just don’t understand why he didn’t just TELL ME he was not happy!

    I’m not even certain he even realized how uncomfortable it would make him feel when my salary went up until it happened since he always said it wouldn’t bother him if his wife made more money. When it happened, it apparently did bother him.

    I just wish there was some way he could have been more straightforward about his feelings.
    All the lying and cheating, and having that horrible woman be in a position to dump it all on me on Christmas Day was just SO unnecessary and hurtful!

  509. Novaseeker says:

    Novaseeker, the thing is that I ASKED him about what I was doing. He was the one who urged me to go back to school in the first place. But now that you mention it, he wanted me to get an associates degree. He never told me to go back for the bachelors, the masters, and the PhD., though I did ask him about each one. I had NO IDEA that what I was doing made me unappealing to him until we got to the marriage counselor and he complained about my work hours and lifestyle. I just don’t understand why he didn’t just TELL ME he was not happy!

    That’s because he was likely a beta who was afraid to confront. I was the same, until things got out of control, and then everything spiraled from there. Moral of the story for me is (1) as a man, don’t be a pussy and simply confront and (2) as a man or a woman realize that if you make big changes, even if he/she says it’s ok, it probably isn’t. Very few people are ok with big changes with their spouse, I think and that works both ways really.

    All the lying and cheating, and having that horrible woman be in a position to dump it all on me on Christmas Day was just SO unnecessary and hurtful!

    Yes, it was. No excuses for the lying and cheating — sins and immorality. And her behavior was typical for a mistress, really.

    My point, though, is that normally when these things happen, there is an underlying reason. That underlying reason never excuses the immoral choices that one spouse makes in response to it — not at all (and I was on the receiving end in my marriage as well). But it does explain the situation, which is the best we can do in terms of take-aways. We can evaluate character, but under extreme situations even people who have seemingly good character can do very immoral things. What we can more likely do is try to avoid situations from developing that create a temptation for our spouses to behave immorally. I’m not saying that’s what you did, but what I am saying is that this kind of change in the context of a marriage creates huge interpersonal stress, whether it is expressed or not. It’s true that the spouse who is stressed about it should not be a pussy and should simply confront, but it’s also true that the other spouse needs to understand that making these kinds of changes is going to create problems much more often than not because it per se changes the dynamic of the relationship, and changes who you are as a person.

  510. Michelle says:

    No, I didn’t bail on the marriage. My ex was the kind of person that does not reveal his inner feelings to anyone. Even his own family says they don’t really know him. I could not help him because he does not talk about anything. I would have to be a telepathic to know what was going on with him. He would not turn to me because he has never turned to anyone. It didn’t matter how much I tried to talk to him – he wasn’t a communicator. There was no way for me to know about his inner struggle or to help him with it because he was closed to that type of communication. As a matter of fact, his communication with mistress number one was a shock to everyone who knows him because in his entire life he has never confided in anyone. Just his luck that he chose someone that shady to be his first confidante.

    Please don’t take a string of comments out of context and try to make them one statement to prove your point. I stated that it was a matter of faith that God made us to need HIM to be totally happy and for that reason you are responsible for your relationship with God that leads to your total fulfillment. You are not meant to find your happiness in another human being. Not only do I believe this, but my ex subscribed to the same faith, so please don’t act as if I am some type of uncaring witch.

    No, I didn’t NEED him for physical survival, but he was the center of my world. He knew that I loved him and that being his wife was always the thing in my life that was most important. I mentioned not needing him to physically survive only in the context of the fact that he wasn’t trapped in the marriage. Some men are because there are kids and a dependent wife. That wasn’t his situation, so he could have left at any time instead of staying and cheating. That was the only point in referring to my abilities to support myself. This was NEVER a topic of conversation within the marriage.

  511. Michelle says:

    “what I am saying is that this kind of change in the context of a marriage creates huge interpersonal stress, whether it is expressed or not. It’s true that the spouse who is stressed about it should not be a pussy and should simply confront, but it’s also true that the other spouse needs to understand that making these kinds of changes is going to create problems much more often than not because it per se changes the dynamic of the relationship, and changes who you are as a person.”

    I hear you, Nova, and I realize you are correct. I never knew that before and appreciate your explanation. Lesson learned – in a very hard and costly, extremely painful way.

    The only good thing about this is that should I meet someone else, I am already “finished” and he will know what he is getting.

    By the way, Opus, I wouldn’t want to leave you with the wrong impression. The woman that was first mistress who outweighed me by so much was just a practice run – an introduction to adultery because that was the first opportunity that presented itself. Once he had the mechanics of cheating down, he moved on and kept her only as his confidante. The woman he ended up marrying is only a size 10, and had a career as a part-time model/actress and an flight attendant. He does not have to worry about her changing into someone else.

  512. Jason says:

    Hi Michelle,

    I agree with your point that your husband took vows so he should honor them.

    I am curious though. You mentioned the PhD several times. What discipline is it in? Something serious or some flavor of “greveiance studies”?

    Also, it isn’t worth saying your husband said “sex life was fine”. Men won’t often open up about such things and anyway, marriage counseling is basically worthless and won’t deal with much of anything usually. Counseling of the sort that gets on, even the Christian variety, will generally only make things worse. It isn’t geared to the way men solve problems or deal with things it is geared to the way women do.

    Also, rather disturbingly, you said you didnt need your husband. If you ever communicated that to him, even indirectly, in the marriage that more than anything else would probably contribute to his emasculation and eventual cheating. It doesn’t excuse it, and I think you are mistaken to say, with the possible exception of MackPUA, that nobody has said his choice was justified.

    Also, taking your story at face value, look at the crazy ex that turned up on the door step. Mre than a few of the guys around here have been married to, or involved with wackos like that. There bad experiences colour their view of things.

  513. Michelle says:

    Jason, since you asked, the PhD is in nursing. It is a research degree, not some fluff stuff. Again, I mentioned it ONLY in rebuttal to Mack’s assumption that I needed or wanted my ex’s bank account. This was nothing that was ever mentioned in the marriage. As I said, I didn’t even know I made more money than he did until he decided to leave and the financials had to be done. We always had separate accounts. Since he was the boss in the marriage, I never got to see any bank statements or pay stubs of his.

    My husband’s exact statement regarding sex is that “we do pretty good there.” And the reality is, we did, until the very end when I assume he met the replacement.

    Again, when I said I didn’t need my husband, that was something I discovered only after he left, when I had to handle all the expenses on my own. I guess he knew that before I did because he knew both what I made, and what he made. I didn’t know until we went through mediation what he made and what he had in the bank. I know that sounds crazy, but I never even (to this day) saw one of his pay stubs.

    I didn’t emasculate him by speaking in that way, but the 3 year threat of layoff and the possibility of my being the only income was probably what did it. It was during that 3 years that the marriage fell apart. That’s obviously not a coincidence. And there was one thing I did in love that probably was the last straw, given his frame of mind. I told him that if he got laid off, we could live on my salary and he could go to school to augment his training in electronics by training in medical electronics since it would give him a more stable career. It seemed like a good idea, and a loving solution to the layoff problem, but now I see that it likely upset him even more. I just didn’t understand that at the time.

    As for the crazy ex…he was actually shocked that she betrayed him after he cut off communication with her. He said, “I never thought she’d tell you. I thought she was someone that I could trust!”

  514. Novaseeker says:

    I hear you, Nova, and I realize you are correct. I never knew that before and appreciate your explanation. Lesson learned – in a very hard and costly, extremely painful way.

    The only good thing about this is that should I meet someone else, I am already “finished” and he will know what he is getting.

    The lessons are always painful when they come through experience — my case as well. I understand what you are saying.

    You’ll keep changing, of course, but likely from here on out less dramatic ones, and the incremental changes aren’t the ones that cause problems in marriage, because everyone changes incrementally, and more or less everyone expects incremental changes over time.

  515. @Keoni Galt: To clarify, I am male, agnostic and 100% anti-feminist. I do not support women who want to get away with adultery, shit-testing, goalpost-moving, or any other kind of psychological abuse against their husbands or the men courting them. I also do not support men who want to get away with these things. Responsibility and goodwill are not zero sum games. They are not something either one’s self or one’s potential partner should avoid.

    I have dealt with a lot of feminist-minded people who were all too eager to stack responsibilities on men while guarding women from accountability. The reverse seems to be happening here.

    @Deti: What I’m referring to specifically are MackPUA’s comments. For instance:

    “@michelle

    You betrayed your bows before god, by ballooning into a hungry hippo …

    You denied him sex by becoming overweight & turning him off sexually …

    Denial of sex IS breaking your vows

    So yes, he was justified in him finding someone who knows how to please a man …”

  516. Opus says:

    So let me see if I have this right: Michelle is a Doctor, but she is not a ‘Doctor’. Michelle is a Nurse, but as we always say, Fuck the Nurses, and Marry the ‘Doctors’.

    We at Dalrock’s never let a woman go away neglected. Here you may be sure that endless men will minister to your every ego need for a few hours (or at least until there is a new thread).

  517. Hannah says:

    Dalrock, what a great review of Fireproof! I watched it and couldn’t work out exactly why, but couldn’t STAND the wife! Your review helps me see why the film was rubbish :) Nice one.

    [D: Thanks!]

    Wow Michelle, where do I begin?

    YOU were the one to bring up your weight to insinuate a weak reason for your ex-husband leaving you!!!!!!!!

    As soon as people like MACKpua used that against you, you say you weren’t really MEANING anything by it…
    If you’re asking a group of guys what might have caused your husband to look elsewhere – don’t be at all surprised if they tell you the truth!!!

    Truth can sometimes be painful, but if you’re willing to grow (or shrink) it is extremely beneficial.

    My own take on your situation for what it’s worth (with only the information you have provided because I can’t go on what you’ve left out):

    1. Your husband wasn’t NEEDED by you (regardless of you thinking you didn’t give him this message, the message was sent to him at least as clearly as you’ve shown it to us in your comments, so the message, subtle as it may have been, pervaded your martial atmosphere nonetheless.
    2. You let yourself get fat
    Your husband no longer desired you either as the weaker sex (point 1), or physically (point 2).

    The next part is your husband sinning by committing adultery. I’m not condoning his actions.

    However, just because the woman he moved on to was larger than you, by no means proves that he didn’t care about having a slim and attractive wife. (yes I believe they are connected!).
    Perhaps he met a woman that provided relief from his not feeling manly (point 1) and only later he realised that point 2 actually DID matter to him despite years of minimising this truth due to having to cope with the reality of an overweight wife.
    You’ve said yourself that your weight DID matter to your husband, as he mentioned it to his mistress.
    Proof is in the pudding!

    Now how that proof has anything to do with the Fireproof discussion I don’t know! This far down tand the comments have a way of turning into self-help psychoanalysis :)

  518. Dalrock says:

    FYI,
    I suspect Michelle is the reincarnation of Original Trouble/Dubious wonder. I’m pretty sure I’ve heard her story before and the location matches. I’ll have to check out the old comments starting on the Blame Feminism post when I get the chance.

    Edit: I see Dubious Wonder made some comments on this same thread before. Another coincidence.

  519. Perspective says:

    @Novaseeker

    “it’s also true that the other spouse needs to understand that making these kinds of changes is going to create problems much more often than not because it per se changes the dynamic of the relationship, and changes who you are as a person.”

    How should a wife navigate these changes so as to not disrupt her marriage? For example, suppose she’s been working at her job for many years is offered a promotion (and promotions can be offered at jobs too, not just careers) with an increased salary/wage which is more than what her husband is earning? I realize an obvious thing to do would be to not rub it in, and to continue trying her best to make her husband feel wanted and needed. But what if her increased income continues to be an issue for him in spite of all her reassurances? Should she quit or ask to return to her former position?

  520. Michelle says:

    Actually, I never read the full discussion which was my first mistake. I really did not understand the whole or character of the thread when I made my comment or I might have never opened my mouth.

    When I did speak, I spoke freely from my pain. If anyone here has the ability to understand that, despite the bitter nature of my first posting, losing my husband who had been the center of my entire adult life totally devastated me. I honestly didn’t know how to go on living. Many days I didn’t even want to live.

    Though speaking here was actually inappropriate (and again – had I bothered to read I would have known that) I’m actually glad that I made that mistake. Yeah, I got attacked in ways that really weren’t necessary and were actually pretty rude, but in the end the men here helped me to realize how much I was to blame for what happened to the marriage. In that vein, I am especially grateful to Novaseeker. I think his take on what happened is correct. Yes, it was my husband’s idea that I go back to school, but he asked me only to get my RN. Why did I then insist on going further? I think I then became so focused on what I wanted in terms of achievement (and maybe even drunk with the excitement of climbing the ladder) that the marriage became secondary and I wasn’t there for him.

    Truly I never meant to emasculate him, but even though I never spoke to him in that way, I changed in a way that did that very thing. He was desperately unhappy and because he was not a communicator, i missed that. I now see that I was self-absorbed, and I wasn’t the wife I should have been. No, he shouldn’t have committed adultery, but he was trapped in a situation he could not tolerate. What further trapped him is that his family adores me and no one in their family has ever been divorced. The pressures on him must have been horrendous, but I just couldn’t see it. I didn’t help him as a wife should have.

    Let me say that I don’t know who Dubious Wonder is or what she did, but I am not her.

    I am certain I will hurt for the rest of my life, and at this point I can’t imagine ever having another husband, but if I am ever blessed that way again, I won’t be so selfish as to make the same mistakes.

    Again, Novaseeker – thank you so much.

  521. Andrew Richards says:

    @Michelle “The fact is, he could have (and should have) left the marriage without the cheating. There was no reason whatsoever for him to do that. If he was unhappy, I didn’t need him for survival. I have a good job and make more than enough money to survive. We had no young children. He wasn’t trapped in any way. Just LEAVE! Instead, he made the immoral and unethical choice to stay and cheat.

    Vows are vows. I kept mine.”

    Did you? I notice you also said:

    “I don’t know how I could have changed that. I grew, and he didn’t want me to.”

    So why was that then? I notice you said that you didn’t need him on the grounds of utility. So on what grounds did you need him? On what grounds did he feel needed?

    You say he didn’t want you growing, but was that the case, or was it you moving on in a context of him feeling unneeded and having every reason to fear being left behind and outgrown?

    You say:
    “My ex was the kind of person that does not reveal his inner feelings to anyone. Even his own family says they don’t really know him. I could not help him because he does not talk about anything.”

    Yet when you agreed to marriage, you agreed to making a relationship work with someone that reserved. You claim you’re not a mind-reader, yet the fact is that over time, people get to recognise when “ticks” (otherwise known as “tells”) their partners have. I find it incredibly hard to believe that there was no way of knowing there were things going on.

    The fact is that “just staying” in a marriage is the key to a dead marriage. It takes 2 to make a marriage work, and it takes 2 to make a marriage fail.

    Honestly, what you have said reads like you creating a situation where your husband could not feel valued traditionally, yet you did little to nothing to show him how you did value him besides that. Then when you were on the up, in a situation where he has no reason to feel needed, he had every reason to fear being left behind. You might have stayed in the marriage, but figuratively speaking from your own admissions, you appear to have just sat on the couch rather than working at it – or needing him enough for who is is to feel the need to work on your marriage.

    And people wonder why I so vehemently oppose gynocentric masculinity….

  522. Andrew Richards says:

    @Perspective “I realize an obvious thing to do would be to not rub it in, and to continue trying her best to make her husband feel wanted and needed. But what if her increased income continues to be an issue for him in spite of all her reassurances? Should she quit or ask to return to her former position?”

    Wouldn’t the logical thing to be to make him feel sufficiently appreciated and needed for what he does bring to the marriage, so that it becomes a negligible issue at worst?

  523. mackPUA says:

    Seriously I think michelle is a troll

    Her ““Your happiness is your own responsibility. ” is pure troll bait

    Everyone knows a woman never puts happiness & responsibility in the same sentence …

  524. Opus says:

    I have had a look at that older thread from 2011, and I must say Dubious Wonder and Michelle do appear to be not entirely dissimilar. Their essential similarity (other then style) is that their husbands abandoned them after breaking their marital vow not to sleep with other women. The woman is thus justified in Divorcing the Pig and thank God for Feminism so that she can do just this and in any case she has a better job and earns more than her husband so this becomes viable and their children are sensible mature people with better taste in men than their mother who only married a Beta (despite the promiscuity) or something like that. Perhaps Michelle and Dubious Wonder are both right, but if that is the case, why do they feel the need to come here and white-wash themselves?

    What is it about Dalrock’s two essays, seems to bug them.

  525. Andrew Richards says:

    @Opus “What is it about Dalrock’s two essays, seems to bug them.”

    The short answer – that gynocentrism is challenged. The fact is that men and women who have yet to break free from gynocentrism, invariably have severe cases of a phenomenon very similar to Stockholm Syndrome. They’re thoroughly convinced, to the point of almost religious zeal that either gynocentric masculinity, or gynocentric femininity is an incredibly powerful force in their lives.

    To expose gynocentrism for what it is, is for those individuals, to turn everything they have ever based their identities and self worth by, on its head. Such a critique deeply unnerves them and deeply threatens their sense of self – solely because their sense of self is based on a fraudulent and toxic paradigm.

    If you’re lucky, you might break through to them, but in my experience, there is no reasoning with someone that brainwashed – their brainwashing has washed away their ability to reason.

  526. @Michelle I am very sorry to hear about your ex husband. I do find your situation quite interesting (my background is in biotech /medical sales and hence my interaction is with surgeons / nurses). I think I can say this comfortably, your hard work, dedication, and education took a toll on you and your marriage.
    In addition, it is quite obvious your (ex) husband was a bit underwhelming in the IQ / interest department compared to those you spent the most time with. Btw, I am really surprised how you managed to work, go to school, and attend to husband/household needs.
    It is quite obvious – “his needs” were not being met as “your needs” were not being met. While your husband sought to have his met, you didnt seek out to have your emotional needs met in any way (sorry Michelle – I don’t buy this). I know / have seen what occurs between males / females in a hospital selling -it is a androcentric/testosterone charged environment with submissive females – while they complain about the MD’s they get the tingles by the IQ & the absolute authority.
    You should know given your education & profession the following:
    - Outcomes are quite predictable
    - A person needs will ALWAYS get met
    - You are a psychologist / behavioral specialist without the official title- this cannot be denied.
    You threw in the towel on your marriage by ignoring the “obvious” signs and not getting professional help early on.
    In addition, I can speculate quite comfortably on the reason why your husband “shut down” and kept to himself – the mind/word games from a higher education (pride) create inferiority complex and shutting down to keep the peace and avoid arguing.
    While I love beautiful higher educated women, the word games, sh_t testing, lack of values/morales, and overly inflated self worth, and lack of feminine qualities are instantaneous huge turnoffs.
    Allow me to congratulate you on the completion on your higher education – I sincerely hope”all the cost” associated with it was worth it.
    Shalom

  527. Perspective says:

    @AR
    “Wouldn’t the logical thing to be to make him feel sufficiently appreciated and needed for what he does bring to the marriage, so that it becomes a negligible issue at worst?”

    I concur, and that’s what I thought I was conveying in my original question. I had stated, “I realize an obvious thing to do would be to not rub it in, and to continue trying her best to make her husband feel wanted and needed.”
    So, what if a wife is already doing all she can to make her husband feel needed and appreciated, but he’s still troubled by the fact that she out earns him?

  528. Dalrock says:

    @Opus

    I have had a look at that older thread from 2011, and I must say Dubious Wonder and Michelle do appear to be not entirely dissimilar. Their essential similarity (other then style) is that their husbands abandoned them after breaking their marital vow not to sleep with other women. The woman is thus justified in Divorcing the Pig and thank God for Feminism so that she can do just this and in any case she has a better job and earns more than her husband so this becomes viable and their children are sensible mature people with better taste in men than their mother who only married a Beta (despite the promiscuity) or something like that. Perhaps Michelle and Dubious Wonder are both right, but if that is the case, why do they feel the need to come here and white-wash themselves?

    What is it about Dalrock’s two essays, seems to bug them.

    Good insight/summation Opus.

    I only did a cursory check but I didn’t find any smoking guns beyond what I mentioned previously and what you pointed out here. I’ve removed the moderation restriction and freed her most recent comment from moderation. I’ll revisit this decision later if my trolldar goes off again, but in the meantime feel free to engage with Michelle (at your own risk). I’ll give her the benefit of the doubt for now.

  529. mackPUA says:

    Kudo’s to Novaseeker for getting through to michelle

    That was some skillful hamster negotiating … lol

  530. mackPUA says:

    @Perspective

    “So, what if a wife is already doing all she can to make her husband feel needed and appreciated, but he’s still troubled by the fact that she out earns him?”

    If its a 25+ year marriage, she cant say anything

    If the husband finds it demeaning or feels threatened, the only solution is for her to get a lower paying job

  531. Cane Caldo says:

    Dalrock said I suspect Michelle is the reincarnation of Original Trouble/Dubious wonder. I’m pretty sure I’ve heard her story before and the location matches.

    Opus replied: I have had a look at that older thread from 2011, and I must say Dubious Wonder and Michelle do appear to be not entirely dissimilar. Their essential similarity (other then style) is that their husbands abandoned them after breaking their marital vow not to sleep with other women…What is it about Dalrock’s two essays, seems to bug them.

    This makes sense. Women like Michelle and DW–and their troubles–are what the system is designed to churn out. It trained them to be divorced.

  532. Michelle Offutt says:

    Opus, I did not divorce my husband. I never would have. I don’t believe in divorce. The other thing is that until the bizarre Christmas incident with the mistress, I had NO CLUE that he was cheating. Had she not chosen to do that, I would never have known, so even that didn’t factor in. It was he who filed for divorce – even as I begged and pleaded for him not to give up on us.

    No matter – the whole thing was still my fault. I got an education here in this thread. I learned that you can emasculate a man without realizing it and without saying a word. And Michael, there weren’t word games and playing on my education. I hated the hospital environment and the power plays by the physicians.. My education was a way of getting out of that environment because the rude superiority of the doctors grated severely on my nerves as I got older. I needed to get out before I told one off and got fired. But as I thought over all that happened after reflecting on the comments here, I realized there was one other important factor: in a sense, I committed emotional adultery. I adored our younger son (who was in his early 20s), and because he loved to spend time with me – going places, watching TV – he was there when his father wasn’t – my energies went into that relationship instead of into the marriage. I worked days, my ex worked evenings, so it was all too easy to do the wrong thing in not meeting his needs in favor of spending time with our son. Add that to the insecurity that came from my climbing the career ladder, and how else could it possibly end? But of course I was so busy that I just didn’t see it coming.

    Had I realized what I was doing, I would have acted very differently. I wish I had run into a forum like this and had someone educate me about these things two years ago before my ill considered actions ruined a 26 year union.

    I can’t speak for any other woman that posts here, but Andrew,. I can tell you that I get it. Unfortunately, I just got it way, way too late.

  533. mackPUA says:

    @michelle

    You would’ve got a much better response, if you gave a fair & balanced account, at the start

    A one sided comment blaming the other partner, trivialises the whole thing

    Anger is a very powerful tool for healing & getting yourself back on your feet, it builds strength & character …

    Remember your philosophy is … your happiness is your own responsibility

    That kind of philosophy also leads to a life of not reciprocating happiness, as your so called independance will only alienate the people, you’re supposed to make happy in the first place

    Its an alienating philosophy, as women arent supposed to be independent & I hope you see how badly its served you …

    Everyone is responsible for making somebody happy, you have a responsibility to make your children happy, your family, your relatives etc …

    When you dont, its called alienation … its also known as arrogance & neglect …

  534. Michelle Offutt says:

    Hmm…Mack, I think I may have represented that poorly. Being responsible for my own happiness (and my spouse for his) is coupled with the idea that God is a part of the equation. We were actually taught that at church and we both embraced it as truth. It’s not supposed to be about independence – it’s supposed to be about reliance on God as the center of your life and that being the beginning of all happiness, so it is rooted in dependence. No one person has the capacity to keep another totally happy. You are still obligated to serve others and put others first , so you are contributing to their happiness, not neglecting it – that’s the part I didn’t make clear(also the part I wasn’t necessarily so good at doing), but it’s just a philosophy that you cannot expect to be totally successful in always keeping the other happy. Their faith walk is also a part of their happiness.

    The other thing is this: not understanding how I was emasculating my husband (or never even having considered it) I actually could not give a “fair and balanced account at the beginning.” That was born and developed along the way.

  535. Andrew Richards says:

    @perspective “So, what if a wife is already doing all she can to make her husband feel needed and appreciated, but he’s still troubled by the fact that she out earns him?”

    And herein lies the great challenge for men and boys in terms of our identities. Modern science, modern technology and modern medicine are here to stay and with them, the factors which have defined our society have radically changed while the paradigm has remained. Ergo we’re doing the same thing, in a fundamentally different society, and expecting the same results.

    What we need to do is redefine masculinity – discerning what is biological as opposed to what is social and rejecting the social aspects which reduce us to “human doings” rather than “human beings”.

    The fact is that not only is a man basing his worth on his ability to provide and protect in this world increasingly becoming an exercise in fatalism, but even if things were how they used to be, he’d be selling himself incredibly short on why his life has value.

    Yet so many men violently rail against this notion for fear that if they strip away the provider, the protector and the notches on the belt, there will be nothing there. Ironically, this could not be further from the truth.

  536. mackPUA says:

    @michelle

    “It’s supposed to be about reliance on God as the center of your life ”

    Erm, nope absolutely false … for women its husband first & god second

    Only your husband can lead you to god, which is why the bible specifically & quite clearly tells the wife to submit to man, ie her husband

    The bible makes it clear, women can only follow god, through the husband

    By trying to follow god independently, you undermine your husbands authority

    By trying to follow god independently, you also violate gods command to men to lead their families

    As for fair & balanced, do you realise its actually wrong to trivialise a 25 year marriage, by giving a one sided account?

    You didnt have to throw your husband under the bus in front of complete strangers …

    Everyone knows it takes 3 to cheat …

    Basically if you actually showed some sort of admission you were at fault too, for him cheating, you would’ve got a much better response

    You also have to realise, we were responding to your lack of honour & respect for a man who stayed with you for over 25+ years

    Over here at Dalrocks & us men as masculine men are more concerned about fairness, emotions are useless …

    Use strength, & feminity, they’re your greatest weapons

  537. mackPUA says:

    erm that should read …

    The bible makes it clear, a wife can only follow god, through the husband

  538. Michelle Offutt says:

    Mack, I think I already addressed how and why I came here. Also, we already covered the whole Dalrock’s treatment. Lesson learned. I have learned I was responsible for emasculating him by virtue of the change in my education and financial status. However, I was not responsible for the cheating. That was his improper response to the situation.

    A comment and a question: One, my ex-husband did not believe as you stated. He subscribed to each of us being responsible for our own faith walk. Eventually, he left the church altogether, so he could not lead.

    Question: How does the single woman come to God if a woman can only follow God through her husband?

  539. Michelle says:

    Understand, I’m not trying to be flip about all of this. I take these matters very seriously. I’m trying to learn from another point of view.

  540. Ton says:

    A woman should always be under the authority of a man. If she doesn’t have a husband then she has a father, older brother or some other male blood relative. Look to them for the various guidance required

  541. Opus says:

    I used to have clients like Michelle. They would come and see me, but at the end of the meeting I was really no wiser than I had been at the beginning, and I realised that they were probably a bit low and were seeking validation as females (that was my gigolo phase). No woman can tolerate being rejected for another and Michelle may well have been badly let down, but she would be well advised to stop beating up on herself, and of course, we cannot re-write the past. Gaining weight or losing looks is unfortunately something that all the affirmative action in the world (including PhDs – a woman’s go-faster stripes) cannot change; would anyone here want to date – as they are now – Elke Sommer or Claudia Cardinale or Sylvia Sims?; yet what else apart from beauty at a Helen of Troy level did they have going for them?

    The above paragraph does not in any way seek detract from the criticism of Firepower. Christianity, does rather have a tendency towards sentimentality – and it seems to be Nietzsche’s main criticism thereof, although there is always that muscular version, which has more cojones.

  542. Michelle says:

    Advice heard, Opus. I will now try to take it in and act accordingly.
    Again, I do appreciate the input of all the men here. Understanding what happened and the likely why makes it possible to finally work towards moving on and not repeating the same mistakes.

  543. Opus says:

    Michelle – you are in danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

  544. @Micelle “I have learned I was responsible for emasculating him by virtue of the change in my education and financial status.”
    I think there is a little more here than you are telling.
    Are you saying that you never used intellectual snobbery or higher altitude arguments to create a inferiority complex – NEVER ????
    Sorry Michelle, but real life experience (professionally and personally) tells me otherwise. Unless a higher education and greater $$$$$ is accompanied with high values/morales it is great way to destroy oneself and those around you. Chances are the reason why the guy shut down was due to “nagging” which is a class effect of American women and the degree is quite often proportionate to their expectations due to education.
    Btw, I have yet to meet a intellectually honest woman to date (some better than other but none when the rubber hits the road – they buckle and start crying when confronted with the truth)
    The “pickle” that women ignore post divorce that the movie ignores is a womans options after divorce,
    There are very few. While your education has made you a interesting and self supporting person (as many other divorcees). Good luck competing against younger women and cougars and even more lcuk finding your intellectual equal/superior.

    Interestingly, the movie falls flat and depicts a delusional not yet divorced psychopath woman who hope to land good looking MD and the good looking single MD is really going to be interested in her. That is a one big fat lie and women are stupid to believe due the massive gynocentric brainwashing.

    We both know that good looking single MD’s and few far between and MD’s enjoy their choice of women and marry a “trophy wife” unless they get in a jam and get a nurse pregnant – this cannot be denied.
    ~Shalom

  545. @ Michelle – more thoughts.
    The “emotional incest” (yes this is a clinical term / diagnosis and is generally accompanied by domestic violence & substance abuse) that occurred between you & your son has serious consequences. Your son will have a very distorted view of women and relationships. Every action has a consequences and outcomes are predictable – you know that. To think otherwise is a all encompassing panacea.

    In regards to your ex husband dropping out of church. I dont blame him. The current state of evangelical Christians is impotent, money grabbing, and feminized. They are simply to terrified to teach the OT and the writings of the Apostles & Christ regarding men/women/relationships. I have even heard a pastor refer to Paul as being legalistic & a male chauvinist (Interesting enough the marriage laws/customs that govern the majority of the world for centuries are from the Torah).

    There are a few Christian men who will take Pauls advice in 1 Cor 7 and not seek marriage. However, I dont see/know many women that are virgins as Paul described (btw, this virginity applied to men & women since the consequences for fornication were equal) and in fact quite the opposite.
    The mainstream church (aka Driscoll) has been pushing 2nd time marriage despite frivorce and so called reformed sluts on Christian men which is square against scriptures.

    Best of luck finding a real Christian man. Btw, in my experience, women dont want one. They say they do, but in reality what they want is a Sunday only church attender. The scriptures (OT/NT) and following Christ are far more important than education, vocation, family, and even Oprah.
    ~Shalom

  546. Michelle says:

    Michael,
    Believe it, don’t believe it – but we did not argue and it was not because he “shut down due to nagging.” He is a naturally quiet person. Has been all his life. We talked, but never really argued throughout our whole marriage, largely because I subscribed to the Christian model that as the husband, his was the last word, even when I didn’t like what he decided. And to be honest, most of the time we agreed on a course of action anyway. The lack of conflict is one of the things that made it hard for him to leave. On his way out he told someone that ” I know I will never find another woman like Michelle.” I almost wish it had been argumentative, bitter and ugly because it would have been easier to accept and would have been a relief. Instead, the grief of something that I could not make sense of nearly destroyed me.

    The degree did not change my “expectations.” My expectations were that the degree would lead to higher earnings that were supposed to help fulfill the dreams for retirement – that we could afford to travel and see all the places we always wanted to see. The reality is that the final PhD degree was not something that I wanted. I was tired of school after becoming a nurse practitioner. However oldest son pushed and pushed for me to get the PhD. When I discussed it with my ex, he said to apply. So I did, hoping not to be chosen for the fellowship. But of course because I didn’t want it, I was chosen.

    Finding men? Not a problem. Finding real men – very much so. I don’t want a “Sunday only” Christian because that does nothing for becoming the kind of people I believe God wants us to be. What the movie depicts is ridiculous, but I was disgusted with it not because it wasn’t realistic about her options, but rather because it supported her having those options in the first place instead of turning her energies towards her marriage, where they belonged.

    Right now, my pastor is teaching from Job. He is not afraid of the old testament and he makes no apologies for strong opinions that go against the mainstream. Fact is, my ex’s dropping out of church coincides with the beginning of the cheating, so I suspect there is cause and effect there.

    I have dated men that are my intellectual superior or equal, but that model doesn’t seem to come in a truly Christian package as yet. However, I do have faith that when I am truly recovered and ready, he will be there. If not, I am still going to serve God as a single woman and enjoy my life.

    Emotional incest – That is quite a charge to levy without knowing a thing about me or my son. He is well-rounded and a credit to our family. He is currently a cadet at one of the elite military academies and is doing very well. Remember that his mother actually IS a praying, practicing Christian. We are close, but not abnormally so.

    And btw, I don’t watch Oprah. In my opinion, she sets herself and her new-age philosophies ahead of God’s word. That just doesn’t work for me.

  547. @Michelle – consider your two statements
    - ” However oldest son pushed and pushed for me to get the PhD. When I discussed it with my ex, he said to apply.”
    -”Emotional incest – That is quite a charge to levy without knowing a thing about me or my son.”
    -”He is well-rounded and a credit to our family. He is currently a cadet at one of the elite military academies and is doing very well.”
    As they say – “the proof is the pudding” my dear.
    While I am not a professional counselor – it would appear with your emotional AND intellectual connection / interest is at.

    As someone stated earlier -”It takes 2 to make a marriage work, and it takes 2 to make a marriage fail”. Allow me suggest “four” and probably more.
    Theodore Dalrymple has a fantastic book “Life at the bottom” and he wonderfully illustrates the compartmentalized thinking that occurs with men & women (specifically nurses) in his book. It is a great read and highly recommended.
    I think if you were be very honest with yourself – you might be surprised.

    I am going to quote Andrew Richards because I have found what he wrote to be 100% true with the “Christian” women that I have “courted” (ie abstinence) who have higher education beyond my bachelors and sometimes higher earnings.
    “To expose gynocentrism for what it is, is for those individuals, to turn everything they have ever based their identities and self worth by, on its head. Such a critique deeply unnerves them and deeply threatens their sense of self – solely because their sense of self is based on a fraudulent and toxic paradigm.

    If you’re lucky, you might break through to them, but in my experience, there is no reasoning with someone that brainwashed – their brainwashing has washed away their ability to reason.”

    In summary, when a Christian woman meets a “real disciple” of Christ – she looses all of her “power” (ie sex doesn’t work) and the soundness of her education, spirituality, morality, feminine virtue, and physical, mental, spiritual, emotional wellbeing, her individual disciple walk w/Jesus comes into plain sight (not to sound arrogant – I have had smart / successful women “break down” due to G_D convicting them or HE will reveal their past to me. As a result, they are at the bit of loss, embarrassed, and it gets very interesting from there).
    Feminized “Christian” American women are not used to strong educated, intellectual, spiritually, physically, mentally, emotionally conditioned men (the “insight” is quite unnerving for them if they lie. It is always found out one way or another).
    The “Hellenistic” mindset/education has done incredible damage to the OT/NT interpretation of scriptures (specifically Paul) which has consequences currently seen in the decline of Western civilization( If People Fail to Believe in God…They Will Believe in Anything – GK Chesterton) and even worse by believing that there actions have no consequences in this life and the age to come.
    The best to you moving forward.
    ~Shalom

  548. Michelle says:

    Michael, I think I confused you. The comments you highlight are not quite right. Each refers to a different man.

    It was older son who pushed for the PhD, and with good reason. When I first began teaching part time, a Masters degree was good enough to keep you competitive. As time went on, the bar was raised and PhD began to become the standard. He wanted me to go back while school was still fresh in my mind so that I did not have to worry about falling behind later. This was both logical and urgent. At that time, I could apply for a fellowship that would pay for the whole thing. In retrospect, I can see that this created a bad scenario for my ex. Even if it made him uncomfortable, the need of it probably made him reluctant to express his real feelings, which may be why he told me to do it when he obviously must have not wanted me to.

    As for the cadet….we never pushed the kids. Each went the road they wanted to go, and as luck would have it, none traveled the path I wanted them to take. Younger son didn’t know what he wanted when he graduated from high school, so I got the bright idea to send him on a missions trip to Peru. After a summer there, he came back a changed man. He wanted to be a doctor so that he could do surgery on deformed little ones there so that they could live better lives. He decided enlisting in the military would give him the discipline he felt he needed for medical school. I didn’t like it, but I did not protest. He excelled in the enlisted ranks, and that tagged him for a special program that we did not even know existed. Turns out they reserve 40 slots in each class of incoming cadets for promising enlisted people. He was selected for one of those. I had nothing to do with it and again would have chosen differently for him, but of course I supported his wishes, and thanked God because even though I didn’t like it, there was tremendous opportunity for him.

    Ex and I did go to counseling and I assure you these things were discussed. Emotional incest is not a proper diagnosis here. Unfortunately, counseling could not change the basic fact that I am no longer the woman he married – which means he had no reason to want to stay and he still divorced me within a few months.

    I will certainly take the rest of what you say under advisement, but I will say this: I tell my students never to assume all cases will behave exactly the same. People are too varied and you will kill a patient if you assume that because you have seen this disease before, you know how it will act in a new patient. Nine times out of ten, you can get buy doing that, even if what you do is not quite right for the new patient and you could have done a better job for them with a little care. The tenth time you will harm someone by making the wrong assumption. It is always best to assess each one with an open mind.

    I learned early on not to lie – childhood, in fact, because I have been cursed with the world’s most expressive face and a very over-active guilt gland. To this day if I were to try and even fudge the truth a little, anyone can read it on my face – even strangers, unfortunately can see what I am thinking, so even if I didn’t believe in telling the truth, it would still be the best choice to keep my butt out of trouble.

    I do have a past. I’m thrilled that God lifted me out of it. I do not hesitate to discuss it openly when it is proper because I will not give that for which I’ve been forgiven new (and inappropriate) power in my life.

  549. @Michelle – I love education and the more the better. But how one can work, teach, and take care of kids/home/hubby is a bit beyond me (ie jack of all trades and master of none).
    Everything has a cost. In business, it is called opportunity cost of which your kids / husband footed the bill for.
    In regards to the emotional incest – I’ll make a go at this more more time since it has the appearance of a unsociable/taboo title when in fact is quite common in broken marriages. Since it is a tad difficult to diagnosis and depending on the style of the counselor- they may not choose to bring it up. It takes a very skilled and gifted counselor to recognize it (when going through my sessions with my ex-wife – it wasn’t recognized till i brought it up and then it was confirmed. Btw, I had the best in San Diego, CA from MD’s that I knew in addition to passing my personal criteria ). Regardless, I think you missed the point:
    - You discussed it with your son who is ” currently a cadet at one of the elite military academies and is doing very well” and then your husband.”
    -It was older son who pushed for the PhD, and with good reason.
    This is my dear is bypassing your husband. I can go a tad deeper to support this and a intellectual and emotional bond that should be between you and your husband.
    In addition, there is a prestige and feminized society/programs that play a major influence as well as a certain vicarious lifestyle that avoids the dull home life in favor of a scolar association (ie mental/educational masturbation)
    Btw, I do agree every situation (patient) is unique and no two will be treated “exactly” the same (btw, my background is immunosupression in solid organ transplantation where every single patient and their “situation” really is unique and hence the treatment is tailored).
    The reason I bring this up is people are either a victim of their circumstances and hence lack the introspection to realize what has occurred is self inflicted or they recognize it and are willing to sacrifice/change ( I am a bit of a Machiavellian regarding this – people will only change to avoid increasing pain).
    If I can offer some insight regarding a “expressive face”.
    It doesn’t mean a thing.
    I have seen / known people do something and then go through elaborate forms of self denial / compartmentalized thinking (simply amazing to say the least). Only when there is a witness or a videotape, it is still difficult for them to comprehend. I am quite sure you have run across the same thing in your nursing days. Btw, Soloman brings up amazing “disappearing acts” in Proverb 30:18-20 and one is in regards to a woman “This is the way of an adulteress: she eats and wipes her mouth and says, “I have done no wrong.”
    As you mentioned, you have a past (we all do). Allow me to suggest forget about finding a man / relationship as Paul directed in 1 Cor 7. The last thing anybody wants is to be divorced again.
    The statistical odds are simply against you given “your unique situation” as with everybody (younger women, looks, physique ) and it would appear it would appear that intellectual stimulation/education would be your strong suite. It is too bad you are past your child bearing years ( this is a big deal to older unmarried men) . Once that is gone, the only incentive left is mostly glandular.
    Concentrate on real repentance (forgiveness is dependent of repentance-If you doubt this try to continually cheat on a spouse and continually ask for forgiveness – its a bit ridiculous when one puts it in marriage / relationship terms). G_D is a person and is no different. Whoever said love / forgiveness is unconditional is incorrect.
    This isnt so bad. When a real relationship with Jesus is established you will forget about finding a partner or G_D will bring a “good fit” / needle in the haystack along. Regardless, what is taught. G_D want to bring one to joy. The OT says “You open your hand and satisfy the desires of every living thing.”.
    This is the word of G_D and cannot be broken. Its better to behave/act justly and live a holy life that puts Him first.
    Btw, the not so obvious is be carful what you desire, not matter what happens ones desires will be met.
    ~Shalom

  550. Permit one more – this is directed at current evangelical feminist based theology and this movie.
    From Titus 2, one can logically deduct that younger women DONT love/obey their husbands and children and need to taught.
    “Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good.
    Then they can urge the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.”
    The only hope for apostolic power/revival is for men to pray and practice as the apostles did.
    ~Shalom

  551. Michelle says:

    Still not clear in sequencing. I never discussed going to school with the cadet. He was not a part of that decision.

    The night I stepped off the stage with my Masters Hood in place, older son walked up to me and literally the first words that came from his mouth were, “Now you have to go back and get the PhD.” It was not a matter of my choosing to discuss it with him. I remember wailing out “No! How could you ruin my night by bringing up more school!” He is a married man with an opinion and it made logical sense to him so he presented it – unbidden. I then took it back to my husband and told him what had happened. I expressed that I was tired of going to school and didn’t feel like starting again, but I also could see the logic and what should I do? He said, “Apply for the fellowship.” So, I did. Believe me when I tell you that I DID NOT favor PhD studies over being in my home. I had a horrific case of imposter’s syndrome and it was an emotional strain to attend classes.

    My mistake was in doing what seemed logical instead of approaching this prayerfully and with a deeper conversation with my husband, because clearly in retrospect he said one thing but meant the opposite. It may not have changed the outcome in terms of the marriage (my income would still have surpassed his and that apparently was a problem) but at least I would have had more peace about the choice that was made. Unfortunately, because my ex was very private in his approach to spirituality, he didn’t suggest we pray about it either. I applied, got the fellowship….and the rest is ugly history.

    IF (BIG IF) I were ever to marry again, it would be only to a man that can see more than “glandular” benefits to being with me. I have dated men who are looking specifically for intellectual stimulation (because really, glandular is very easy to find, and no one comes to a woman like me for that). Marriage has even come up because these men want someone to grow old with. Unfortunately, Christianity seems to take a back seat to their intellectualism and I don’t find that appealing. But if a man that truly walks in faith wants to share that walk with me, I’ll go with him and consider myself blessed.

    I do appreciate all the input and will give it prayerful consideration.

  552. mackPUA says:

    @michelle

    What kind of intellectualism dont you find appealling? …

    Most women dont find intellectualism appealling, I’d recommend you avoid discounting them, as i’m pretty sure its your glandurism talking …. lol

  553. Highwasp says:

    Michelle – through being successful, you failed…? how’s that for feminist ‘Orwellian’ double speak? I was and am a successful father, provider and protector but I failed as well… because the ‘mom’ of my first born decided I wasn’t good enough, so she left me for many more ‘alpha’ males. I was and am therefore a failure. I succeeded but I failed. Using the jackboots to enforced her will, forcing me to not only accept my lower status as rejected father, lover and husband – but to also pay her bills (child support) while she sexed other men – yes ‘my’ child was present for the pornography because I was ‘unfit’ to be the primary ‘custodial’ parent – but hey – no problem – I only I lost my honor, dignity, self respect and hope – so that she could be just like you – a ‘success’? You are welcome to it – and now you gets to jump into the freezing waters just like “ole shine” did. Choke on it.

  554. @Michelle “Christianity seems to take a back seat to their intellectualism and I don’t find that appealing”
    With that being said – they are not “Christians”.
    Welcome to “christianmingle.com” – where there are plenty of pew warmers and no disciples.
    Any intellectual “Christian” from a Hellenistic school of education that can “walk the talk” and make sense of Pauls writings is a exception to the rule ( I know of very few non Jewish Christians who understand the strict “de rigueur” as Dietrich Bonhoeffer outlined in the “Cost of Discipleship”.

    Intellectualism and Judeo Christianity go hand & hand – the writing of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, CS Lewis,
    Nee, Sundar Singh, the apostle Paul (there are many more as well as worthwhile secular) are simply profound when applied in real life. The mind that doesnt see the light in the Holy writings is the unenlightened mind.

    As previously mentioned Michelle- what a “man” is looking for in a “ezer” is to replicate ones dna and the associated glandular joys associated with it.
    Any man who tells you they are looking for a woman to grow old with is only telling you 1/2 the story. ——Finding a older woman to marry is quite easy – it is liken to shooting fish in a barrel.
    -Finding a worthwhile woman to marry is a rare.
    -Finding a feminine, worthwhile woman to marry that is “easy on the eyes” is a gift of G_D.
    To many women (ie American & educated) focus on “personal autonomy” – that is a instantaneous killer (this is quite difficult for American women not to – even older ones). Their rationalization hamster is well conditioned.
    Btw, in reference to the incident you mentioned with your son and PhD- the connection started long before that. When your emotional / intellectual needs were not being met and you became conscious that they were never going to met – soon after that is when it started.
    In review of what you have written, I believe I could comfortably speculate who “wore the pants” in the relationship. However, there are always two sides to every coin. Always :)
    ~Shalom

  555. Ton says:

    Educated ladies who don’t like intellectual men was my stock in trade. Interesting how common that is

  556. @ Michelle – Here is a little gem from “His needs / Her needs ” by William Harley (great read btw):
    The top 5 for Men
    #1 SEXUAL FULFILLMENT:
    #2 RECREATIONAL COMPANIONSHIP:
    #3 AN ATTRACTIVE SPOUSE
    #4 DOMESTIC SUPPORT:
    #5 ADMIRATION/RESPECT:

    The top 5 for Women
    #1 AFFECTION:
    #2 CONVERSATION:
    #3 HONESTY AND OPENNESS:
    ‎#4 FINANCIAL SUPPORT:
    #5 COMMITMENT TO FAMILY:

    I have a funny story regarding this book. My ex-wife gave this to me to read and I suggested we” work out” together & “we” could get in shape (Truth was, I was in shape and she was not).
    I wanted her to be attractive (and #1, 2, 4, 5 as well)
    Needless to say this pi__ed her off “big time”. When we went to counseling – she was put in her place (slammed) by all three counselors by not appreciating the honesty and willingness to work at the relationship (btw, she cheated on me).
    Interesting enough, I know women say they want 1-5 but in reality they don’t- #1 through 5. It is too unexciting.
    ~Shalom

  557. ~Jon “Educated ladies who don’t like intellectual men”
    Women today prefer moral relativists as mates, friends, because they are afraid of being judged and rejected by people who are too serious about religion and morality. The problem is that if you choose someone who doesn’t take religion and morality seriously, then you can’t rely on them to behave morally and exercise spiritual leadership when raising children or have good relationship etiquette .
    Women are especially resentful of being supported, of being corrected on facts, and of being judged by men on moral grounds. Any authority that constrains their freedom to pursue happiness at any moment will be harshly criticized.
    This is one of the main reasons for the decline of Christianity / Impotent Church.

  558. 8oxer says:

    Dear Highwasp:

    I only I lost my honor, dignity, self respect and hope – so that she could be just like you – a ‘success’?

    Umm, no. You lost a bit of money that will take a while to earn back. That is all.

    She lost *her* honour, dignity, self-respect and hope. She went from being the respectable “Mrs. Highwasp” to just another of those banged out bar skanks that we feel simultaneously embarrassed for and derisive towards, when they assume they are worthy to hit on us.

    It’s a sad state of affairs, but she chose the bed she lies in now.

    Regards, Boxer

  559. Michelle says:

    What kind of intellectualism don’t I find appealing? The kind that substitutes for faith.

    I dated a man of my age who said that his attraction was based upon the fact that he liked “women with intelligence.” We talked, and he asked me what I was looking for. When I told him of the type of faith I hoped to find in a man he promptly accused me of “getting way too elitist.” He told me I was “narrowing the field way too much” and that I would never be successful in finding what I hoped to find. That was over a year ago and unfortunately, so far he has been right.

    Michael, thank you for insightful comment about older son. I honestly reflected on what you had to say. Sadly, I can now see that you are 100% correct in how I came to rely on his judgment over that of my ex-husband without really being aware of what I was doing. Hubby worked evenings, I worked days, and we essentially saw each other only once a week. I made the mistake of letting older son fill in the gap. Since he is married and didn’t live with me, we actually spent very little physical time together. I didn’t realize until now how often I turned to him for advice. He is a charming and persuasive MENSA that is fast rising up the corporate ladder – an alpha that has now taken the place of his father in many decisions that are made, “taking care of mother because she is alone.” At the time, it just did not seem significant that he had input – after all, it seemed like just another opinion to consider.

    Your wife was fortunate to have a husband that wanted to work to save the marriage. I wanted that desperately but he was just….done with me.

  560. greyghost says:

    Michael Singer
    What women say they want is never what they want. Ask a woman to describe a man they want and than ask to see the last penis she had in her mouth and I guarantee you that will not be the guy she says she wants.

  561. @ Michelle “What kind of intellectualism don’t I find appealing? The kind that substitutes for faith.”
    Those are very broad brush strokes ( ie labels) that beg for definition.
    What is your definition of “faith” ?
    Is what you are referring to is when logic / reason / science contradicts the OT/NT. Could you be a bit more specific ? This one had piqued my curiosity. I rarely run across educated people in Christian circles ( I have more educated friends in Jewish & Messianic circles )

    Btw, your welcome for the free counseling session (I am quite surprised the counselors involved didnt pick up on this – it is a classic son/mother pattern that has existed throughout centuries (ie as far back as Semiramis & Damu). Glad I could be of assistance As you know – acknowledgement = start of treatment which will now effect future outcomes hopefully for the better.
    Thank you for the kind words regarding my ex-wife. My “situation” was a bit different – she wanted a open marriage( this was a big time shock for everyone – she is rather “conservative” in demeanor / appearance). She liked my money & the provided lifestyle but didn’t like the morality / discipline. She was brought up in broken home of emotional incest and had unrealistic expectations of a wife as well as emotionally, physically, and verbally abusive (Needless to say, when I see these red flags – I am immediately out the door- This can be confirmed by my two ex-fiancé of which one had her Masters /PHD ).
    As a side note, I do like smart/educated and will make accommodations on physical appearance – I dont any accommodations when it comes to a being “equally yolked” in discipleship/spiritual walk and temperament. The bullets are live and the casualties are real and they are to the body of Christ of which carries some very very serious consequences (If anyone causes one of these little ones–those who believe in me–to stumble, it would be better for them if a large millstone were hung around their neck and they were thrown into the sea ~Mark 9:42). With that being said – proceed with caution as you move forward in any relationship with a Christian (Col 3:9) and keep stern obedience, holiness, and righteousness to Jesus in center and you will do just fine (it wont “be pretty” but it will bring joy).
    ~Shalom

  562. @greyghost – I have to agree with you on that one. It will be a alpha / bad boy.

  563. Michelle says:

    @ Michael Singer – Your questions concerning my meaning on the faith discussion are interesting and I am sure I would learn a great deal from you because you are so deeply studied on such issues. However, I am uncomfortable getting into a discussion of that nature here in this forum. If you wish to continue that discussion elsewhere, I would welcome the opportunity for further enlightenment.

    As for the counselor (we only saw one) picking up on the son issue: It did not come up because of course I was unaware and ex was unengaged in the process. He did not want to be there and did not really participate beyond rudimentary answers to direct questions. As I said, he was just plain done with me.

    I consider myself an infant Christian at this point because I am not nearly as studied as I would like to be, but time and dedication will improve that situation. However, the husband situation seems beyond improvement. In my experience, it seems the more mature ones that are really seekers in faith are all married already. Relationships with single “Christians” have been very disappointing. Without exception, within 3 dates we end up having the same fruitless confrontation about the obvious and when it doesn’t end as they would wish, I don’t hear from them again.

  564. mackPUA says:

    @michelle

    What dont they agree with? Your christian expectations?

  565. Michelle says:

    Ultimately, that is what it boils down to.
    They are all Christians, until it is more convenient not to be.

  566. mackPUA says:

    @michelle

    Erm what are your christian expectation from the men you talk to? Do they all want sex or something?

  567. @ Michelle – you are on the correct path and consider yourself fortunate if all you had was 3 dates.
    Welcome to the wonderful world of Christian Dating / Courtship Round 2 :)
    You have discovered the all important truth of not all who say they are Christians are disciples (previously noted – all disciples are Christians but not all Christians are disciples).
    Dont feel bad – the scripture speaks of this.
    It happened to the prophets, Paul, and Christ himself had the largest back door revival in history (John 6:66 btw, interesting numeral correlation).
    Allow me to suggest a worthwhile blog that I have learned quite a bit regarding Christian courtship/dating.
    Here is a great writing if you haven’t seen it:
    http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/08/31/the-rules-for-friendship-and-courtship-between-christian-men-and-women/
    And certain writers here on Dalrock that I find to be very insightful – here are a few (Deti, Opus, Imnobody, and very recently Jack – which there are couple different ones )
    If you havent read this thread – allow me to suggest reading Deti’s comments – they are very insightful and spot on imo
    http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/04/26/advice-to-a-single-woman-in-her-30s-looking-to-marry/#comment-83666
    In addition, if you wish to pickup the discussion on “the definition of faith”- read Hebrews 11 and meditate on it and add me on Facebook if you have a account.
    ~Shalom

  568. Pingback: How long for a relationship to recover? - Page 5

  569. AdmiralBenbow says:

    At AR15.com a guy posted a solicitation for advice because his wife had become unhaaaaapy and wanted to separate. Since it is an almost exclusively male forum, and a male forum of guys who like guns etc, I thought I wouldn’t be out of bounds to suggest he learn some game and peruse this site and Spearhead for starters.

    Immediately some folks suggested the whole Fireproof love dare idea. I pointed out this was a great way to destroy his marriage completely. Linked to this article for him.

    Like clockwork, I proceeded to receive flaming about how I was sexist and wanted women to be beaten and in the kitchen and 24/7 sex slaves and so on. You know, the usual.

    It’s amazing this happens even in an extremely conservative forum like AR15.com. It only goes to show just how far feminism has infiltrated even nominally right-wing parts of our culture.

    Oh yeah, and then there was the whole, “Love dare is great because husbands need to learn to love their wives like Christ.” Still haven’t found in my Bible where Jesus Christ supplicates himself to any woman’s irrational mood swings and solipsism. Maybe its in the Book of Oprah.

  570. Dohn Joe says:

    The fact she “chose” Caleb after he sacrificed his goal to and submitted to her whoretastic demands is completely unrealistic. He should have upstaged the doctor’s $300 and donated a Bag of Skittles instead:

    http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2009/05/19/be-a-skittles-man/

  571. Pingback: How Porn and my Wife Ruined my Marriage | The Reinvention of Man

  572. Yorgos says:

    uh and what would have happened if the handsome doctor had ALSO given $24, 000? (so she had $48,000). Would she went back to her husband. Now her hamster head (if we are honest) would think: “ok both did the right thing but my hubby took a while to come to do it while mr doctor did it right away without even being married to me. bye bye hubby!”

    Secondly, the only reason the guy was looking at porn was because SHE WAS DENYING HIM SEX. he was no addict or pervert or whatever. She was (as Paul would say) “defrauding him” in terms of her sexual obligations (yes you read that right feminists our there God obligates people in marriage for sex too).

    What an evil woman and a typical modern Churchianity female.

  573. Pingback: In Defense of Fireproof « Middle of the Narrow Way

  574. Pingback: “The Story of My Wife” [or: how to be a sexually-revolting, female-worshiping, neutered Xtian man.] | Sunshine Mary

  575. Bluepillprofessor says:

    I remember seeing this movie with my wife.

    My response at the end?

    ARE…YOU…FUCKING…KIDDING….ME?

    The wife is disrespectful, rude, disobedient and rebellious. Caleb the hero firefighter/husband is polite, loving and respectful at almost all times despite her behavior. The wife is egged on by team woman the entire movie to deny her husband sex and pursue another man while married. Then when her husband clicks on porn and denies himself release his wife viciously TAUNTS him with her rebellion and denial of sex because…literally…he won’t do what SHE wants. Note the husband risks his life every day and is seen by everyone as a hero. NOBODY counsels the wife to look at her husband as a hero though. Team woman is all behind her the entire way.

    This movie was shown at my church and I would have walked out had I been in attendance.

    Also, this movie features THE WORST acting I have ever seen. Cameron as Caleb is the only professional actor. The dad who gives Caleb the list of supplicating tasks for him to perform is so bad even my wife was cringing and laughing at both the “acting” and my horrified expression.

    Thanks for breaking this down for us, Dalrock.

  576. Bluepillprofessor says:

    Somebody should do a Red Pill version of “Fireproof.”

    I would call it “Redproof”

    –When the wife starts acting bitchy he shuts down the shit test immediately.

    –When denied sex he freezes her out, completely ignores her, joins Tinder and starts dropping heavy dread unashamedly.

    –When the wife has her emotional affair she finds all of her stuff on the porch. Our hero kicks her out of the home.

    –The Wife runs to her Alpha doctor lover and finds out he is married/has a GF

    –Wife looks in a mirror and notices her wrinkles and baggy eyes and has an epiphany. She runs back to husband and begs forgiveness. He takes her back (this is a Christian movie favorable to marriage so shut up).

    The Husband hands HER a “challenge” list of requirements.

    1. On the first day you must make clear to your husband that you are sexually available to him at all times.

    2. On the second day initiate (preferably with a BJ to start the day right).

    3. On the 3rd day continue initiating, and now tell him that you want to submit to his decisions and follow his lead from now on. Tell him you want to be his Executive Officer and he your Captain. Discuss this with your husband.

    4. On the 4th day, continue everything and resolve to be a woman with a sweet, charming demeanor graced with child like innocence and purity. Repeat this resolution to yourself over and over today. In all of your interactions try to be a Godly woman, especially with your husband. Show him your charm and sweet grace in all of your interactions.

    5. On the 5th day continue everything, repeat the words or continue the discussion if your husband is amenable and then begin demonstrating them. Defer to him whenever a decision needs to be made as the Executive Officer defers to the Captain. A good EO will not be afraid to express her opinion or act independently, especially where there is an understood and established blanket authority over an area (children, provisioning, etc).

    6. On the 6th day, start to discuss these areas of blanket authority and the boundaries and limits on your behavior as EO. Be specific to your situation- what is the budget on household furnishings? Does your husband want to be contacted before the kids are disciplined? and so on. Remember to be sweet and defer to your Captain on the final decision but don’t be afraid to help him reach a good one.

    And so on….

    At the end of the move the couple is cuddling in a hot tub with view of the islands through the window. Husband is watching Sportscenter while the wife is gazing adoringly at her husband, and professing her love and adoration while rubbing his shoulders and telling him how she cannot get enough of him………………

  577. Luke says:

    van Rooinek says:
    November 1, 2011 at 2:59 pm

    “I would agree, an orgasm is an obligation, although many wives it seems have never been told the simple reality that if they want a faithful husband who lasts in bed, then they need to have sex with him regularly.

    I meant, FEMALE orgasm is an obligation.”

    Except for these:

    1) Female orgasm is not necessary for impregnation; male for all practical purposes is.

    2) Substantial percentages of women have NEVER climaxed at all, seemingly having no ability to do so under any circumstances. Easily 20% cannot do so with a partner present (some can with solo masturbation). Might as well demand that every husband be 6’2″ and make a million dollars a year, as expect him to ever (let alone regularly) make such a wife climax. Apparently, female orgasm in humans is an atavism, to some extent on the way to being selected out.

    3) Re husbands being as obligated to provide cunnilingus as wives to provide fellatio, I disagree. Oral sex is to a certain extent associated with submissive behavior, such that arguably more than a few men with willful wives would be better off giving it a miss (doing everything else mutually acceptable, to be sure). Super-alphas undoubtedly receive far more oral than they give, especially from women significantly below their SMV, with full willingness on the part of the women for it to be this way.

  578. Luke says:

    Anonymous Reader says:
    November 2, 2011 at 10:59 am

    Post script: all of the previous statement assumes normal humans with normal healt[h]both physical and mental. I’m not referring to a woman who is still healing from a difficult childbirth or some plumbing problem, or some emotional problem such as a death in the family, past sexual abuse, etc.”

    You have justified men making a point of finding out premaritally (by conversation, not experimentally) if prospective wives have issues like vaginismus, sexual abuse/rape in their history, etc., and then probably not marrying those women. In my preChristian days, I was involved with one woman with the former, and several with the latter; they can be worked around in many cases. But, if the woman is going to be what I call an “after marriage, MAYBE” wife, not honoring the sex part of God’s commandments on marriage, it’s best she never marries, instead living celibately (and barrenly, so no AI while single) until death.

  579. Pingback: A Helpmeet Shootable | Things that We have Heard and Known

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s