From cornerstone to stepping stone; the mainstream Christian view of marriage.

empathologicalism suggested that during my limited blogging time I consider posting on several old threads he linked to on Christianforums.com.  I took a quick look at one of them (Is Marriage Meant to Make You Happy?) and decided to take him up on the suggestion*.  The OP framed the question as:

What do you say? Is the reason for marriage to make you happy. If you aren’t happy, should you just divorce?

Or is there more to it than [that]?

I’ll start with my own brief answer.  Lifelong marriage is the cornerstone of Christian sexual morality.  It is also God’s design for the family and the structure in which children should be conceived and raised.  If you want to have sex and/or have children, lifelong marriage is the only biblically sanctioned way to go about this.

Love and happiness are benefits which very often come with following God’s plan, and there are specific commands to men and women as to how they are to treat their spouse.  I also have argued strongly that in our current legal and cultural climate it is wrong to marry someone you haven’t been able to fall in love with.  But making marriage about love and happiness inevitably turns it into something different, especially in a world where the law provides direct incentives to wives who manage to become unhaaaapy.

There are as one would expect a range of answers to the question on the forum thread, but not surprisingly quite a few of the Christian women posting have very modern views on what God has in mind regarding sexual morality and the family.  For Mkgal1, God seems to be all about the freedom.  Her moniker quote is “His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33″, and her view on marriage fits right in:

I don’t see how it *can’t* “be about love”….not when our entire “mark” as Christians is “about love”.

Commenter jennimatts has a different take:

It seems too many have a selfish/lackadaisical approach to marriage. They don’t have a proper sense of commitment.

If someone isn’t happy so they just get a divorce, they are being selfish. This is simply not a justification to break your vows.

Dreamer1982 weighed in with her take, scolding those who frown on frivolous divorce:

I think it’s shortsighted to judge people who divorce because they have been very unhappy for a long time. The unhappiness is the symptom of what is seriously wrong with the relationship…and if that can’t be fixed (because one spouse is unwilling) then it can feel quite soul-destroying to stay, stay, stay. I believe in commitment and working for the marriage in the face of all kinds of adversity, BUT i think there needs to be more love and grace offered to those IN or even LEAVING unhappy marriages. “I’m unhappy” may sounds trivial on the surface, but that feeling is generally just the result of something more seriously wrong.

So now we know, I’m not haaaaapy is a valid reason for divorce.  No Christian woman would ever divorce for frivolous reasons, and never mind the cash and prizes she just happened to collect on her way out the door.  She follows up with an anecdote of a woman who was happy to learn that her husband was cheating on her which permitted her to exit her “loveless marriage” (no doubt with cash and prizes).  We of course have seen this sentiment before.  She closes with:

And I can’t emphasize enough that IMO, discounting LOVE as the purpose and foundation of marriage is seriously flawed.

Next commenter WolfGate tried to steer the conversation back to the original question:

All the happiness talk is nice, and I without doubt agree it is good to strive for and have happiness in marriage. Seems that is a different concept for the question initially posed though.

Ask yourself the original question worded slightly differently – “Did God create marriage primarily so men and women would be happy?”

Sapphire Dragon, whose moniker quote is Discovering my True Journey with Him has evidently discovered that God doesn’t want her to follow His commandments if it doesn’t make her happy.  She replied:

I think so. After all, women were created because Adam was lonely, so God made Eve… this set a precedent for all pairs afterwards, that women and men would keep each other happy.

Next up is JaneFW, whom you may recall as the woman with the plunger. She reiterates the point that if someone isn’t haaaapy, the validity of the marriage is in serious question:

I think it’s a more difficult question to answer than it seems to be at first glance.

Marriage vows in the UK for the past 500 years have been : “To have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part”

So, love actually is stated as an expectation. So is being cherished.

She backs this up with Ephesians 5:31 and then states:

IMO, I don’t believe that people divorce because of “unhappiness”. There may be something in the marriage that is causing people to be unhappy, but that’s not the same thing.

She then seems to suggest that someone being unhaaapy with keeping their vows is a sign that the other spouse is deliberately making them unhappy:

Happiness should come from within – joy from so many other sources. But a spouse deliberately working at making their spouse unhappy – that’s an all other ball game.

Dreamer1982 chimed in again asking what is the point of marriage if it doesn’t make people happy?

So people who don’t think marriage is about love and happiness, what IS the purpose? No one has really answered that.

She is right.  While several men and women commenters have suggested that love and happiness isn’t the core purpose of marriage, none so far have managed to point out what possible other purpose marriage might have.  She follows up with a comment which momentarily veers towards the crux of the issue, but then recovers and manages to miss the point entirely:

Personally, I think the purpose of marriage is not a simple one-word answer. I think it’s a way for Christ’s love for His people and the Church’s love for Him to be demonstrated in a tangible, here-on-earth way…I think it’s for companionship…to allow us to experience sex and have children and raise them in a home that demonstrates Christ’s love to them via their parents….I think it can cause us to grow and learn to love through adversity…to honour our commitments to God and others….

Is it to make us happy, end of story? No…our TRUE inner joy and peace is to be found in Christ…but a marriage that is functioning as God intended it will certainly contribute to the happiness of both spouses. So I do believe that God wants marriage to be a happy thing, something that is ALL ABOUT LOVE. Love is not a yeah, sure, that’d be nice too, bonus thing…it should be the crux of the whole relationship.

Wolfgate responded with:

God created everything not for us but for His purpose, for His glory, so He would be worshipped. That includes the things on this earth that may have been designed in a way that they could bring us happiness. The primary purpose of what he creates for us was never to make us happy – it was to make us more like Him and therefore more capable of worshipping Him the way He deserves. If making us happy is a means to that end, that is great (from our perspective). But the happiness is not the purpose.

There are other effects. Marriage in the correct design is a great model of the love God has for the church. But even that is part of us growing to worship Him more.

Dreamer1982 was troubled by Wolfgate’s departure from her Jesus wants to be your boyfriend (great post) view of Christianity, and responded with:

Your description makes God sound like a self-centred egomaniac! Honestly I believe that God is as interested in us as He wants us to be in Him. I DO think he cares about the states of our hearts and spirits…not just whether we’re worshipping Him, but whether we’re doing so with true joy and love…as anything without love is empty and meaningless.

So I agree with you to a degree…but I think you left about the part about how He cares about us and wants us to experience peace, joy and love too. I don’t think He wants emotionless slaves who worship Him because He is so awesome…I think He wants a RELATIONSHIP with us…a Father-child relationship. And the truth is, a healthy relationship always brings happiness to those in it. If it doesn’t, something is missing. And that something is probably true love as God created it to be.

JaneFW chimed in again, reinforcing the point that if keeping your promise and following God’s rules isn’t enjoyable, something is seriously wrong:

If God is love, it makes sense that love is important and a vital part of our lives. If we look for Christ in others, we look for their love as we see it shown to others. If we see harshness, judgement and cruelty, we generally do not expect them to say they are Christians – at least I don’t. No, I don’t expect perfection, but I do expect to be able to tell the Christians from the non-Christians to some extent. If not, then what the heck is the point?

I stopped reading after 4 of 35 pages, so it is very possible that somewhere along the line someone pointed out that marriage is the bedrock of Christian sexual morality, and not just a beefed up form of serial monogamy.

As I wrote above I don’t disagree that love and happiness are likely and extremely important benefits of marriage (when done right), but I think statements like the ones above show clearly that Christians as a group have abandoned lifelong marriage as the cornerstone of sexual morality.  If you abandon the cornerstone, then any other talk about sexual morality is simply nonsense.  If Christians really considered this it would be a sea change.  It goes directly back to the problem of seeing marriage as on the same plane as serial monogamy.  Marriage becomes just a more formal stepping stone along the path, one to be lingered on so long as it is enjoyable.  But if marriage is just a stepping stone then it never was marriage in the first place.

All of this reminds me of Sheila Gregoire scolding me (while making a moral case for serial marriage on flimsy pretexts) for focusing on holding women to their lifelong promise instead of making them haaaapy with actually keeping their promise.

I’ll leave it here and encourage any interested readers to try to make it further through the thread than I was able to and share what you find.

*Way to sucker me into writing a full post empath!

See Also:  The women at Christianforums are outraged!

About these ads
This entry was posted in christianforums, Church Apathy About Divorce, Fatherhood, Marriage, Motherhood, Serial Monogamy. Bookmark the permalink.

254 Responses to From cornerstone to stepping stone; the mainstream Christian view of marriage.

  1. jdgalt says:

    The notion of lifetime monogamy comes from a time when the average life expectancy was less than 40. It’s simply unrealistic to expect people to stay together or even stay friends over an 80+ year lifespan.

    Besides, the real purpose of marriage is to keep both parents involved in raising their children until they can leave the home. Once that happens, continued marriage isn’t really necessary.

    I find it counterproductive for anyone to try to foreclose debate on this sort of philosophical topic by blindly taking the word of some ancient writer that his opinions were “commands from God.”

  2. TFH says:

    As I have said before, the divorce rate of a society depends on one thing predominantly :

    Will the woman’s living standard go down if she divorces?

    If yes, that society has a low divorce rate.
    If no (via rigged laws), then that society has a high divorce rate.

    All the rationalizations of not being ‘haaaapy’ or ‘growing apart’ or ‘needing to find herself’ are merely excuses to cosmetically cover the financial decision. In societies where a woman cannot secure assets through easy divorce, all those excuses are miraculously absent.

    This lead to the other point I often bring up :

    Democracy and Marriage cannot coexist for more than a century or so. It will not be obvious to people who have an adult lifespan shorter than that, but Democracy inevitably leads to women voting for laws to be rigged more and more in their favor, until, after a delayed reaction, men just refuse to play along. Women cannot stop themselves from ruthlessly revising the rules in their favor, so Democracy simply destroys the institution of marriage.

    Conservatives think they are big on both Democracy and marriage. In reality, they have to pick one (they will usually pick Democracy since they don’t have the courage to address what is really destroying marriage).

  3. Ballista_GTOW says:

    I’m out to page 24 and nothing truly Biblically formative has been said about the topic of marriage. It’s just a bunch of prattling on about happiness and unhappiness, and making excuses as to why they should be happy in marriage and shouldn’t tolerate unhappiness, why they should be allowed to divorce for any and every reason, and rationalizations as to why marriage should be “until my happiness departs” instead of otherwise. It’s basically endless rationalizations mirroring what you quoted. There’s nothing about the Biblical foundation of marriage, the concept of what convenant is, the purpose of marriage in the sight of God, or marriage being the cornerstone of sexual morality (as you wrote).

    In the end, the “Feminists” tag is appropriate, because there is as much religious feminism out there (secular feminism cloaked in misapplications of Scripture and ignorance and demonization of other Scriptures) or more so in the world these days than secular feminism. The referenced thread on “christianforums” has been a brilliant example of such things as it relates to marriage. In the end, marriage in Christian realms is suffering because almost no one follows the Biblical pattern, and no one at all enforces any standards regarding those patterns.

  4. Ballista_GTOW says:

    Quoting TFH:
    “Democracy inevitably leads to women voting for laws to be rigged more and more in their favor, until, after a delayed reaction, men just refuse to play along.”

    This is already happening in society today in the form of the MRA & MGTOW movements, along with other signs in other places (“the grass eaters” in Japan). If men can’t win, they just won’t play. Of course media and the churches do the same thing, with it seems now bi-weekly shaming rants that men need to “man up” and continue to play along in the media. And it won’t take so long in a church to encounter shaming language from the pulpit. Or just go find any of Mark Driscoll’s material. News flash: all that does is strengthen the resolve of those involved.

    Quoting TFH again: “Conservatives think they are big on both Democracy and marriage.”

    Actually they’re one of the most destructive forces in the realm of marriage. They are the most willing to be blind as to what is going on, the most willing to white-knight for women, and the most willing to put out those onerous restrictions against men, along with the shaming language diatribes (Bill Bennett being the most notable recent example).

  5. Rmaxd says:

    For I do not allow woman to teach, or to exercise authority over men; but she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
    (1 Timothy 2:12-14)

  6. TFH says:

    I should add that in societies where men retain child custody, property rights, and can toss out his wife relatively easily, divorce is still pretty rare.

    Men tend to be responsible adults that way. Perhaps a tiny bit of leeway in terms of having mistresses or going to prostitutes is a feature of such societies in order to keep things glued together, but that is a vastly lower social cost than what things are like in mature democracies.

  7. Opus says:

    Allow me to draw your attention to the Book of Common Prayer [Anglican] which (I paraphrase) defines the purposes of marriage as follows:

    It was ordained:

    1. For the procreation of children.

    2. To avoid the sin of fornication.

    3. For mutual help and comfort in prosperity and in adversity.

    and further:

    It is not to be taken in hand unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly or to satisfy carnal desire.

    I can see no reference to happiness or its pursuit.

  8. TFH says:

    Sheila ‘Woodchuck’ Gregoire is a litmus test of the entire problem. She has the arrogance to ‘scold’ Dalrock for not agreeing that women can divorce (with cash and prizes) just for the husband watching porn.

    She is so certain of her own moral purity that the arrogance evident from this oozes out.

    Imagine if a man divorced his wife for watching Oprah and then trolling manosphere blogs in order to get gina tingles, while also demanding that SHE make payments to HIM under penalty of imprisonment.

    This seems to outside of what would appear acceptable, yet reverse the genders, and it IS what men experience.

  9. Legion says:

    Keep up the good work, empath…
    Oh, and Dalrock too.

  10. Jennifer says:

    Great post, Dalrock. Sometimes people make mistakes in getting married, by taking marriage loosely, but it is about far more than fleeting “happiness” as most people describe it today. One of the most disgusting things I read in Elizabeth Gilbert’s often sickening book was the asinine remark from one her of new friends, an older man at that: “Soulmates are too painful to even live with for long. You’re supposed to be with them for a short time, learn something, and move on”, or something to that effect. Literally, he describes the closest of partnerships as just a stepping stone in life. No doubt, then, he approved of her decision to divorce. I never read the whole book, and this is why. I personally, when I first saw the film (before learning what the book and her message often really was), considered her divorce a tragic mistake she was given the fortune to heal and learn from. Not the key to greater freedom and fulfillment, as so many of her foolish readers decided.

  11. Jennifer says:

    1. For the procreation of children.

    2. To avoid the sin of fornication.

    3. For mutual help and comfort in prosperity and in adversity.

    I prefer all the Biblical comments about it, which make it sound less dry.

  12. Ballista_GTOW says:

    I went back and finished the “christianforums” thread referenced here. Nothing really constructive was presented there relating to any of the points made within this post or within the comments.

  13. TFH says:

    *so outside of, not ‘to’.

  14. Carnivore says:

    Per the original question, the “reason” for marriage is not to make you happy. The 3 purposes of marriage given by Opus are the same for Roman Catholics. To dig into it a little deeper, permit me to quote:

    What food is to the individual, matrimony is to humanity in general. For as food serves to maintain the life of the individual, so marriage serves to maintain the life of the human race. Since the principal object of marriage, the right training of children, can only be attained when a man and a woman are united together by an indissoluble bond, the wise Creator in the beginning only created two human beings, saying: “They two shall be one in flesh” (Gen ii. 24).

    1. God Himself instituted matrimony in the beginning of the world, for the procreation of the human race, and the mutual assistance of husband and wife.

    Matrimony was instituted by God for the propagation of the human race: for He said to our first parents: “Increase and multiply and fill the earth” (Gen i 28). St. Francis de Sales calls matrimony the nursery-ground of Christianity, destined to fill the earth with believers, and complete the number of the elect in heaven. It was also instituted for the mutual support of the parties contracting it., for God said before Eve was created: “It is not good for man to be alone, let us make him a help like unto himself” (Gen ii. 18). The woman being weaker, needs some one on whom to lean; the man need some one to care for him. The man is characterized by greater strength and energy; he seeks a sphere of activity in the world. The woman’s nature is cast in a softer mould; her sphere of work is beside the domestic hearth. Thus the two complete each other, and each acts beneficially on the other. Matrimony has also a third object, that of preventing the sin of which the Apostle speaks in the first Epistle to the Corinthians (1 Cor. vii.2). He who would set marriage aside would give free rein to impurity. Many take a low view of marriage; they consider it as affording a legitimate means of indulging their lusts. Such persons will not be happy or contented, and will neglect the duties of their state. The happiness of matrimony depends to a great extent on taking an exalted view of its object.

    From “The Catechism Explained” by Rev. Fr. Francis Spirago, copyright 1899. I prefer old, dusty tomes because they are usually very precise in language and are not infected with modernism.

  15. Dalrock….Im just glad you did it.

    Im still “conservativation” on that forum, but I have been banned and allowed back so many times that I don’t go into the married area much,, besides arguing with the exact same women for years defines me as insane. One thing I do do though, because this is my primary activism, is if men are there are will listen I (and a handful of good guys) will get them in the Mens Area (which is on the same page but you get there by request for access only and its a safe place to post) and force feed red pill cereal to them. I dont mean my activism is in that forum….i mean its among Christian men and pastors.

    The more Christians look (if I said under the skirt I ought to be shot) in there, at Christianity…Modern Gal Version…..you will see that all the things that the secular world has not really worried too much regarding feminism because they are less concerned with so called traditional things, are just as badly feminized in the church, or, IMO, worse in the church.

    As Ive written time and again, the faith is another saddle to put on men. Its also a personal Jesus for her. The way he is used varies. One that you quoted early on is big time gnostic in the views she USES to get to the divorce rationale. others are just angry. And all, Im sorry to say, are less able to deal with disagreement than the average fem troll or soncon troll woman who comes here. That’s a distinction i cant figure out, the women who take a shot here are equally off kilter, but not quite as badly predictable in responses, and not AS bad about life being just whats at the tip of nose. The women there refure EVERYTHING with “I don’t do that”.

    The happiness one was the best one to look at, in all those pages it shows woman after women saying that marriage IS about happiness. Here is a canard, NOT ONE will agree with the simple statement 9I know Ive seen it discussed) “sex is of equal importance to other aspects of marriage”, preferring to say “sex is the offshoot to a happy marriage” or other such power holding conditional stuff. There is a thread where someone asked “why did you marry”….and some men said, for sex among the responses. Venom flew, comments like “well I certainly did NOT marry for sex, but for companionship”

    Anyway, its gossipy and petty but illustrative of something important. It should be important even for atheists and other faiths, because with all the high brow dismissals of faith that are fairly common in the manosphere, faith aint goin anywhere, there is not going to be in our lifetime the perfect faithless utopia where everyone is “as smart as” the faithless, so, their take on gender is an important part of the whole dynamic, and the men plundered by it are just as real. The few Christian men who are red pill addicts are badly outnumbered by white knight non thinkers, and the women you see.

    They have a way around every building block of the faith, and of faith based relationships.

    Submission, oy, you should read them on that….in fact it got so bad its a forbidden topic there (NO JOKE), sex, they have taken the Biblical “dont deny” and made that mean “dont deny being nice to each other”, divorce, well pretty much whenever ya want cause men look at women, happiness….look at the rationale, no one bothers to ask, hmmm, why is it that the Bible is filled with the admonishment to hang in tough things and learn from them, even count them as good, because longsuffering refines……nope, not in marriage dontche know, long term unhappiness is baaaad.
    The poster MK lays out her views of what marriage should be like, and if you can decipher her words, which is no small trick, it is like the alignment of the planets, the birth of a star, and the pulsing of a quasar, oh and the light bending near the event horizon of a black hole….all things in as she calls it “a unified approach”, full oneness, everything in agreement and as one, what she describes is nearly more oneness than the trinity possesses as marriage goal for petes sake. And thats supposed to be PRACTICAL information!

    Its a treasure trove for analysis for those Christian men who need a reminder what is being produced in the church. For single men…..its way more than enough to say do not marry an evangelical feminist (meaning any woman “involved” in church)

    Who can replace Jesus as lover….bottom line

  16. Dalrock, another recommendation…..maybe you know it……Elder George? His book

    Dear Brothers and Sisters, Gender and its Responsibility” and his site men’s action…I link to one article here…. http://mensaction.blogspot.com/2012/02/care-of-women.html

    His book actually was way back a part of my red pill dosing, in 2004 or so. its like anything else, take what you want.

    If this is redundant, sorry.

  17. RealitiCzech says:

    “As I have said before, the divorce rate of a society depends on one thing predominantly :

    Will the woman’s living standard go down if she divorces?

    If yes, that society has a low divorce rate.
    If no (via rigged laws), then that society has a high divorce rate.”
    Agreed. When you give cash prizes, you incentivize bad behavior.

    “Your description makes God sound like a self-centred egomaniac!”
    Is it self-centered for parents to expect their children to appreciate the good things they’ve done for them? How much more so the being that brought the universe into existence? People gave odes of adulation to Steve Jobs when he died, because of all the things he accomplished. Doesn’t the God that made all this possible deserve that, and then some?
    Some people don’t understand the notion of ‘superior’, and get the impression that God is somehow our equal. Not so. God is also not Mr. Rogers. He wasn’t above taking time out of his busy day to make a whip and start a fracas in the temple.

  18. TFH says:

    Agreed. When you give cash prizes, you incentivize bad behavior.

    Yes, but I would add that men commonly don’t toss out their wives even in countries where they could do so easily and without financial cost. So women succumb to these perverse incentives much more easily than men (in marriage/family matters, at least).

    I know so many people in India with unhappy marriages. The same people in the US would divorce, but in India, even one of my aunts told my Mom “Leaving would be worse than staying”.

    So she stays. And this aunt is a US citizen, but lives in India.

    And in India, 90%+ of children, even the poorest slum dwellers, grow up with both biological parents. The US was like that 50 years ago, before, you know, divorce was made financially attractive for women.

    The financial incentives are virtually 100% of the reason some societies have a 5-10% divorce rate, and others have a 45% divorce rate.

  19. Yes TFH but remember, as they are saying, “the divorce happens long before the papers are filed, thats just a formality”

    Blech

  20. SC says:

    In my opinion, marriage never stood a chance in our current culture.

    First, life is too easy. I think it’s telling that feminism took root when life got easy enough via industrialization for them to avoid manual labor. They didn’t think about going this far at most (not all) other points in history.

    Second, the welfare state replaces husbands and fathers, at least financially. Add to that the no-fault divorce laws, and the amount they have to gain in divorce. It’s like society seduces them into divorce.

    Third, the “women need to be protected” brand of chivalry that persists overinflates their sense of value. Marriage based on happiness seems to be a somewhat logical conclusion. I’m not blaming men for this necessarily but it is time to toss chivalry into the trash.

    I’ve always wondered how we got to a point where men ask women to marry. Logically it never made sense to me. Men take on extra financial responsibilities and risk getting reamed in divorce court, yet we court them, woo them with rings and get down on our knees for that “privelege”?Men never required women for survival, only procreation, however women required men for survival until VERY recently. Logically, they should have been asking the men to marry. How did we get sold this bill of goods?

    Methinks prostitution was only made illegal so that long-term prostitution (marriage) could flourish.

  21. TFH says:

    SC,

    Second, the welfare state replaces husbands and fathers, at least financially. Add to that the no-fault divorce laws, and the amount they have to gain in divorce. It’s like society seduces them into divorce.

    This is true, but remember that full democracy (i.e. women voting) forces all laws and government spending irreversibly in this direction. 70-80% of all government spending is a transfer from men to women.

    So your statement is correct, but the root cause is still one step upstream from what you have written. Democracy has a life-cycle, after which it is followed by a feminism police state. No other outcome is possible after 90+ years of women voting.

    How did we get sold this bill of goods?

    Remember that when people are asked if they support socialism, only 20% say yes and 60% say no.

    But when socialism is packaged as ‘feminism’, that suddenly changes from 70% in favor and just 1% opposed.

    Think about that. A change in packaging causes a massive shift in opinion. This is why Republicans end up supporting socialism even if they think they are against it.

  22. TFH says:

    “the divorce happens long before the papers are filed, thats just a formality”

    That statement proves my point. In a society where assets would not transfer so easily, women stick it out. People who say ‘the divorce happens long before papers are filed’ are once again just trying to cover up the financial decision and distract from it.

    Funny how divorce rates are under 10% in societies where a woman’s living standard would go down from divorce.

  23. EXCELLENT question about men asking women to marry….just outstanding….

    And yes I would agree on the financial aspects of divorce incentive, but see below

    I disagree about the goofy Christianese junk about the marriage being broken (divorced) before the divorce, mainly because i know these people saying it and they TRULY have not thought that far, they do not think in abstract, and it casts some doubt even on your theory that many women do not think in abstract. Thats why the majority phone the lawyer and want to extend the finality….its THEN they even think IN REAL TERMS about the money.
    I mean I guess the financial thing helps them along as compared to KNOWING they will be destitute, but they are so flippin clueless they see life as exact same minus the jerk…..these Christian women are rationalizing their way past scripture, way more than about money…..because most of those ladies posting there Ive been around online for 5 years, and pretty much every one of them is in the “garner support for me to divorce my jerk” mode, some women stay in that mode for ever…..always seeking just the next “you go girl” to reach critical mass.
    Lets not discount the fact that all these Christian women, you know those traditional conservative ones, they ALL want the right to have skid greasers on speed dial when their turn arrives

  24. van Rooinek says:

    The notion of lifetime monogamy comes from a time when the average life expectancy was less than 40. It’s simply unrealistic to expect people to stay together or even stay friends over an 80+ year lifespan.

    This assertion of shorter lifespans in the past — which is used to explain everything from divorce to cancer rates — is based on faulty reasoning. Yes, it’s true that the statistical average lifespan was a lot lower 100 years ago. However, its imporant to understand that MOST of our “increased average lifespan” is due to the dramatic decrease in infant and early childhood mortality — thanks to sanitation, antibotics, vaccines, etc. (Yes, I know some vaccines have problems… ‘nuther discussion entirely.)

    But back in the old days, if you managed to pass through the childhood disease gauntlet, you had ALMOST as good a chance to live to a ripe old age, as modern people do. Look at your own family tree, you’ll likely find — as I did — plenty of people who lived to ripe old ages, with little or no medical care. And the ones who lived til their 80s or 90s, stayed married til death did them part.

    Simply put, the “averge lifespan was 40″ doesn’t mean everyone dropped dead at 40. An equally simplistic picture, but one which is much closer to the truth, is to say that half the population died as infants, and the other half lived to 80, hence the “40 average”.

  25. I always find a dark humor in the hypocrisy of Christians on subjects when it pertains to talking about what a theoretical person should do as opposed to what they should do. Very often you hear them say things to other people like:

    “It’s all part of God’s plan. You/he/they need to suffer in order to grow stronger for a later opportunity he will present to you. Stay strong, stay committed to God, and let his love shine through you.”

    But when they are making their own decisions its more like:

    “Well, God is all about love and he loves me. He wouldn’t EVER want me to be unhaaaaaapy. I should just do what I want! That will make me happy, so its obviously what God wants me to do! Thank you for making everything so clear God!”

    Its sad that there’s no distinction in their minds between the day to day items and the big ones like marriage on that subject.

    I think Carnivore hit it right on the head with his quotes though. Marriage is about praising God and raising children to pass on correct values/civilization to the next generation. If you don’t believe in God, then its only the second. Which still seems like a pretty worthy reason to get married, if only we could avoid the divorce rape.

  26. Aunt Haley says:

    Thanks for the linkage, D. :)

    [D: My pleasure. I didn't notice until after this post was up that one of your links there was to a post of my own.]

  27. Dalrock says:

    @van Rooinek

    Simply put, the “averge lifespan was 40″ doesn’t mean everyone dropped dead at 40. An equally simplistic picture, but one which is much closer to the truth, is to say that half the population died as infants, and the other half lived to 80, hence the “40 average”.

    Yes, this “marriage lasts too long now” argument is 100% pure rationalization. Every now and then I hear it from a man, but the vast majority of the time it is from women. Either way it is the hallmark of frivolous divorce. The reality is men and women are marrying later now than ever before, so the length of expected marriage is reduced on that side. On the other side, divorce rates drop dramatically as women age. If the problem really were that lifespans are now “just too darn long” to practice lifelong marriage, given that women are the sex primarily driving divorce rates we would see the opposite of the trend on divorce rates which we now see. However, the facts won’t have any impact on the hard core rationalizers making this asinine argument.

  28. Brendan says:

    Very entertaining reading.

    This is just another indication of how the West is sowing the seeds of its own demise, thanks to liberalism and feminism.

    But it’s quite entertaining to watch, mind you.

  29. Anonymous says:

    Posted before but worth another… for feminists out there who’re offended, tough.

  30. Anonymous age 69 says:

    http://www.americanvalues.org/html/r-unhappy_ii.html

    One of many hits on a Google search for: very happy very unhappy five years study

    Thousands of married women were asked if they were happy in their marriages. Of those who said not, they were asked again 5 years later. Of those who chose divorce, on average, they were no happier then when in their unhappy marriage.

    Most women who stayed married though very unhappy, were five years later very happy. Same husband, but now happy.

    I supplied no-fee counseling over a ten year period to an estimated 1,600+ divorced men, and have a theory to explain this.

    The Bible talks about husband and wife being one flesh. And, no, this is not just theology. It is true. The problem is, it takes time for this blending to occur.

    Many years ago, I asked my daughter and her cousin in Mexico if they could take an apple and an orange, and squeeze them in their hands, and end up with a pomegranate. They admitted they could not. I told them that is what God does when a man and woman marry, and he turns them into one flesh.

    When a man and woman marry, they are two separate individuals. They cannot become one flesh until each surrenders some individuality and accepts into self some of the other person’s individuality. This is not easy, and it tends to hurt when it happens.

    I told them it takes time, and just before the final blending, the pressure hurts almost more than you can imagine. And, that pain is what, IMO, drives men and women to divorce, just before their marriage works. And, why waiting five years finds the majority of unhappy women, changed to happy in their marriages.

    This is only a personal theory, but it certainly agrees with this five year study.

  31. Anonymous age 69 says:

    Dalrock, I have a confession to make. As much as I hate divorce, I myself filed for divorce back in 1973. I went through a terrible 6.5 years of stress and hatred. My wife would shriek curses (I say literally curses) at me every waking hour with the full power of her voice. I suppose we would call it emotional abuse, at least if a man talked that way to his wife. Not just once every few days or once a month, but all day every day. When she woke in the morning I could hear those blood curdling screams through several walls from her bedroom. They only stopped when the door bell rang.

    She told her best friend she did not respect me because I would not hit her. If you haven’t read PRONE TO VIOLENCE by Erin Pizzey, this probably means no more to you than it did to me at that time. If you have read it, you understand her.

    I consider myself pretty strong, but after 6.5 years, she broke me. I realized one day with absolute certainly I was going to kill her if I did not get away from her, and the knowledge frightened me. I filed for divorce.

    Thirty-nine years later, long after she died of pancreatic cancer, I never have figured out a solution that might have worked to keep me in that marriage, and I did supply counseling to divorced men for ten years.

    The only choice that could possibly have existed was if I could go back, and give her what she wanted. But, I do not think I am capable of hitting a woman, not even to avoid divorce. Pizzey would seem to indicate when you encounter a woman like that, it is a question of who murders whom.

    Talking about more prayer is stupid when you encounter a woman like that. Telling me what I might have done to identify the problem and not marry her is also of no value.

    I even have contemplated the spectre of staying married and killing her, but that is also not acceptable, is it?

    I was given totally bad advice on finding a wife from my mother, who was very obviously highly disturbed. I do spend a lot of time on men’s boards trying to teach young men how to avoid bad marriages like I had.

  32. Höllenhund says:

    I’ve come to the conclusion – a rather self-evident one, as I now realize – that Christian morality – and any other type of strict tradition-based morality, be it Muslim, pagan etc. – used to be based on inexorable economic reality: the lack of a welfare state, the lack of female economic independence, the lack of cheap and reliable contraception, the lack of safe abortion etc. As long as this reality persists, traditional morality is taken seriously, for lack of other options. Once this reality is altered, traditional morality crumbles, because the economic underpinning simply isn’t there – and absolutely nothing can be done about it. Hence such forum threads, not to mention all the other stuff. It’s actually really simple.

  33. God created marriage to make us holy.

  34. Pingback: In defence of girliness.

  35. “No Christian woman would ever divorce for frivolous reasons, and never mind the cash and prizes she just happened to collect on her way out the door.”
    Usually it’s HER prize = HIS way out the door :\

    There are a few semantical problems with this discussion. One of the worst shortcomings of the english language is that it lacks distinction between romantic/erotic love and godly/brotherly/etc. love. If you discuss marriage and divorce you’ll inevitably have misunderstandings this way.
    Also, there should be a distinction between “active and passive” unhappiness. Way too often people mistake “unhappiness” for the lack of excitement, entertainment. That’s what I call the passive kind of unhappiness in this context. It’s the lack of positive feelings. The active one is when you have negative feelings towards your spouse or marriage.
    Now of course for women the active phase almost automatically follows the passive, so for them it might easily seem that there’s no real difference between the two, but there is. A “boring” marriage can be easily salvaged and the lack of cohesion is almost always the fault of the spouse who is bored. (Only boring people get bored.) But a “bad” marriage is often beyond salvation and sometimes it should be dissolved.

    Naturally the most important question is children. If you have any, you should not divorce, period. If you absolutely can’t stand each other then wait ’till the kids start their own life.
    And it goes without saying that if you want to leave, than the kids, the house, etc. stays with the other spouse. The marriage IS the family WITH all its possessions; if you want to leave the marriage, you also leave the family and its wealth behind.

  36. Lugo says:

    The notion of lifetime monogamy comes from a time when the average life expectancy was less than 40. It’s simply unrealistic to expect people to stay together or even stay friends over an 80+ year lifespan.

    Nonsense. Staying together 40-50 years has been done many millions of times.

    Also, that “life expectancy” number is misleading. It was low because so many babies died. The people who survived infancy generally lived to be 70 or so. Therefore, in past times, marriages actually lasted 40 or 50 years “till death do us part” – and thus that expectation is realistic.

  37. Joe Sheehy says:

    No Hollenhund, you can’t account for all changes in moral ideas that way. Society has historically alternated between periods of license and prudery, religious enthusiasm and indifference, and it can’t all be chalked up to economics. It is certainly true that economic factors have played a role in making the current situation possible. Sustainable? We’ll see.

  38. Opus says:

    ‘Lifelong marriage is the cornerstone to Christian Sexual Morality’, Dalrock write above, yet he says nothing about the sex of the respective partners to the marriage (unlike the Book of Common Prayer which makes it quite clear than one party must be male and the other female). I mention this as in today’s papers a certain Keith O’Brien from Scotland is suggesting that there is no objection to marrying more than one person at a time, if, that is, marriage is all about making oneself ‘happy’, (and indeed I, personally, have always felt it – taking this concept further – unfair that I am prevented from marrying my mother, my sister, my dog, or indeed someone under the age of sixteen – either separately or together). This enthusiasm for more than two parties to a marriage may seem strange coming from a man who is in fact a Prince of the Roman Catholic Church, but he does so as he can otherwise see no justification for two people of the same sex marrying (no matter how happy it may make them). In short he opposes the government’s proposal (entirely supported I may add by Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition viz Harriet Harman) to embark on (non-compulsory – so far) Homo-sexual Marriage . I know all this because it is trending on Twitter and the Tweetees support the government and are lambasting His Holiness the Cardinal. Given that there is a state religion in the U.K. (though obviously no Catholic) I can only presume Dalrock would regard the British – probably correctly – as beyond saving, but if marriage is about happiness then what can the possible objection be to either multiple-party marriages or the type of arrangement I appear to favour?

  39. Note that marriage happiness has been compared to a bubble bath and some chocolate, walking outside and seeing butterflies….these are late entries into the rationale for happiness being the definition of marriage.

    I first wanted to reject the comparison, then thought wait…they are saying exactly what they mean! They have stated, in a hear me roar tone, I have the RIGHT to pursue happiness in marriage just like a bubble bath etc. This adequately explains what they have as a yardstick, and if you read them, they even have all that buttoned up with scripture

    T shirts saying dont marry a Christian woman are in order, maybe soon to be ON order

  40. SC says:

    @Höllenhund
    I 100% agree with you about morality being based on economic reality. A lot of our past customs related to courtship, marriage and family used to be based on this. For example:

    1. The family of the bride used to pay for marriages because, in my opinion, the economic reality was that the groom was taking on a financial liability (and removing the bride’s father’s liability) by getting married. I also assume that this is the origin of the dowry.

    2. Historical rules surrounding premarital sex such as stoning, shotgun weddings, etc were created as a deterrent because, without a support system in place such as marriage or welfare, a lot of women and children would have been in abject poverty.

    3. Bastards were shunned. I think this was a two-parter. First, the marriageability of a woman was reduced if she had a child by someone else. Second, I wonder if older, wiser generations understood at some level that fatherless children grow up with more mental/emotional issues. Seeing some of these kids nowadays and knowing the statistical reality, I would do everything I could to keep my children from marrying a person who grew up without a father.

    Sadly, women shot themselves in the foot and threw out the baby with the bathwater, even throwing out good rules under the presumption that they were to control women when they were actually to keep society stable. These days you simply hear them lament the stable results of the rules without understanding that stability comes through sacrifice, discipline and understanding.

  41. SC says:

    Back to the topic of haaappppiness and marriage. I don’t know if any of you remember this but, about 10 or 15 years ago, people used to criticize single mothers for the damage that frivolous divorce and fatherless homes were doing to their children. Women’s response was “the child is happy if the mother is happy”. Pure narcissism.

    So I’m not surprised that women turn their back on religious marital values or that they so devalue their husbands. If they can justify the pain they bring onto their own children this way then nothing else will be holy to them either.

  42. Suz says:

    @ Hollenhund and SC,

    +1. Early rules of morality were rational. Morality wasn’t arbitrarily made up by men to control flighty, helpless women; it promoted (and still does) the kind of basic order that ensures a future for civilization. And yes, “economic” is the correct word – not in the modern sense of a complex “economy” full of variables and conditions, but the basic economics of survival – natural consequences.
    Some of the most wise words I’ve ever heard, came from an econ professor at a liberal arts college. “Ever decision is an economic decision, an analysis of cost and benefit.” In a world of surplus resources, it’s easy to become oblivious to the real costs and real benefits of our actions.

  43. lelnet says:

    The irony is, they’re partly right. Marriage _is_ about love. The problem they have is that they haven’t the first fscking clue what LOVE is about.

    Love isn’t something you FEEL, it’s something you DO. And real love involves SACRIFICE. When the Bible talks about love, the ultimate example it has to offer is the only begotten Son of God, going willingly to his own public humiliation, horrific torture, and painful death, all for the benefit of mankind, even though He (being omniscient, and all) nevertheless knew that even after this example, most of us wouldn’t Get It, and indeed even the overwhelming majority of those claiming to be His followers would seldom-to-never be willing to truly follow him in their daily lives.

    When they’re prepared to DIE for their husbands and children (whether you think they’ll appreciate it or not), as I would for my wife, then we can talk about how marriage is about love. Until then, there’s no point, because we’re not even speaking the same language.

  44. Anonymous Reader says:

    Anonymous Age 69 wrote regarding his wife circa 1973:

    She told her best friend she did not respect me because I would not hit her. If you haven’t read PRONE TO VIOLENCE by Erin Pizzey, this probably means no more to you than it did to me at that time. If you have read it, you understand her.

    I have not yet read that book, but would consider such a statement to be a huge, blazing-letters-in-the-sky warning. Was she like that prior to marriage?

    I consider myself pretty strong, but after 6.5 years, she broke me. I realized one day with absolute certainly I was going to kill her if I did not get away from her, and the knowledge frightened me. I filed for divorce.

    Living away from such a woman would be the only humane solution – the farther the better. I have heard of cases similar to this where indeed the man winds up killing the wife. Maybe Buck can share some of his experience on this.

  45. Samuel says:

    I have always heard it said that God is much more concerned with our Holiness than our happiness. He didn’t promise happiness, He promised struggle.

    The problem with the word “happy” and happiness is that the word itself is a lie.

    The word itself is ambiguous, arbitrary, and illusory.

    Also, what about the “happiness” and satisfaction that can be gained by perseverence and faithfulness and finding the tenacity within yourself when you fight through these difficulties instead of quitting?

    The problem is, these folks aren’t “happy” but they can’t see that quitting and chasing more pleasure and convenience will NEVER lead to the happiness they think they want, or that they think exists. The only real “happiness” comes in overcoming odds, having something to fight for, and the self-esteem that comes from having the guts NOT to quit when weaker or lesser people would.

    God wants what is best for us, when it comes to prospective mates, but it is the equivalent of God wanting us to eat vegetables while we whine like bratty kids who only want to eat chocolate. The vegetables might not make you “happy” but they ARE what is best for you.

    There is far too much selfishness for people to pledge their forevers anymore (and see it through), and so many distractions that create choice addiction and prevent loyalty. I tend to think, though, that the human race has devolved so severely that so few people are healthy enough to carry out a solid marriage, so many ill-equipped, mental wack-jobs, that the scarcity of llifelong marriages will only amplify. It really grieves me to hear of the brides at their weddings who apologize to the guests for having gotten married and dashed all that “potential” she had to rule the world by subjecting herself to archaic subjugations and commitments that mean she will actually have to serve someone besides herself.

    Who among us has the tools to carry out an effective and desirable marriage?

    Damned few.

    God said we should have servants’ hearts and that obedience is better than sacrifice…

    but nobody wants to serve anymore, and nobody wants to obey. We are not trained how to build successful families anymore, we are trained to seek pleasures and conveniences and fame among others. No humility, no modesty, no hard work. No self-restraint, no self-discipline.

    Discipline is a vehicle for joy, my friends.

    Those who wish to be “happy” need MORE self-discipline, not less.

  46. Kevin Hillton says:

    What was this, some kind of underhanded slap at those of us atheists who read your blog? Speaking on behalf of the happily married atheists (who by the way are less likely to be divorced than those who believe in imaginary bearded guys who live in the clouds), the constant insinuation that religion is the foundation of morality is based in YOUR religion comes off as pretty hypocritical considering how frequently it’s used to rationalize the worst behavior. These “good christian women” who like to rationalize their misbehavior will insist that they are doing what they think God wants them to do, same excuse that the Catholics did for torching the non-believers, or the Baptists in the south for enslaving Africans, or more recently to tie homosexuals to their rear bumper before going on a joyride. People who know what is right or wrong don’t need the threats of your imaginary friend, we do the right thing BECAUSE IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

  47. Anonymous age 69 says:

    Anonymous Reader, last night it actually soaked into my thick head she was exactly Prone To Violence, and her constant curses were indeed a desperate attempt to provoke me into violence. And, my knowledge that I was going to murder her is what she had been working for. How could I be so stupid all these years, when I had everything I needed to know in front of me, and only concluded she was LIKE something in Prone to Violence.

    No, there was no way to save that marriage.

    Here is the latest version: http://www.familyofmen.com/media/20-Erin_Pizzy__Prone_to_Violence.pdf

  48. SC says:

    @Kevin Hillton
    Is it the right thing to do to come to someone’s blog and criticize the writer for having a religious orientation? If the religious aspect bothers you so much, nobody is forcing you to read Dalrock’s stuff but it’s pretty well established that he chooses to write from a Christian perspective.

    If this disturbs you then find an athiest blog more to your liking but Dalrock shouldn’t have to censor his beliefs to please you.

  49. Suz says:

    “What was this, some kind of underhanded slap at those of us atheists who read your blog?”

    No Kevin, it’s not a slap. Dalrock IS a Christian, and he writes from within the framework of Christianity; I’m surprised you never noticed. Additionally, most of Western society views marriage through the Christian “lens.” Religion has always adapted and survived by accommodating cultural changes, and the results are often horrific. What you’re saying is technically true, but society willfully ignores the contradictions. The willing audience for a purely rational and atheistic perspective, is relatively small. Dalrock reaches far more people by addressing issues TO Christians, AS a Christian. And a very rational Christian at that. You’re not the only atheist here, but this isn’t an atheist blog.

  50. Kevin,
    Why would you ever view this as an underhanded slap to atheists? He’s writing about the hypocrisy that can be found in the opinions on marriage within the context of Church culture.

    Atheism has nothing to do with the post.

    Even as an Atheist you could gain from this post though by knowing what the average Christian woman believes and what she will act upon. That way you go into an relationships/marriage with them fully informed of the risk that she likely has no hesitancy in leaving if she’s unhaaaaapy.

  51. In respect of this modern obsession with happiness, Dalrock, you should read this: Does Seeking Happiness Lead to Loneliness?.

  52. Lavazza says:

    My guru says that you cannot build a moral code on love as a guiding principle, because love always contains a possibility of violence. It is not possible to promise to love someone. But it is possible to promise to not hurt others (or when that is absolutely impossible, hurt as little as possible). And love will often come as a by product of non-violence.

  53. Charlemagne says:

    It seems that the women in that thread have nearly no theological knowledge. They’re just there spouting off “God is love, la de da de da” stuff. There’s no serious consideration of what the Bible says, and their references to the Bible are all to popular stories and their inferences (often incorrect) about them, not what the Bible actually says. I’ve discovered that talking about theology to a woman is like trying to talk about politics with them. Even among the good ones, whose views are correct, their knowledge is shallow. They consult their feelings before they actually consult the Bible. In my opinion, the core problem here is lack of leadership. So many men and women aren’t properly being taught what Christian love and marriage is all about. Pastors are simply dropping the ball. My pastor did a sermon on divorce a few months ago and he basically left the door wide open for no-fault divorce. Half the time pastors can’t get the Gospel straight and won’t admit there is a hell, or do so very timidly, so what can we expect?

  54. Interested says:

    And why are they unhappy? I know what follows will not surprise anyone here but I had the following conversation with my middle school son today.

    Me: Do your teachers tell you, as boys, how to treat the girls in your school?
    Son: We are told that we should make them happy. Not to treat them badly.

    Me: Do the teachers tell the girls how they should treat boys?
    Son: No. Never.

    Me: So they don’t tell everyone to treat each other with respect?
    Son: No

    Me: What are you told to do if some girl hits you?
    Son: It’s like we are expected to apologize and find out what we did to make them angry. (He said this with disgust)

    This was a casual conversation while driving around in the car this morning. There was no pretense or set up to the questions. We weren’t talking about relationships. I just popped them out of the blue and did not express any anger or surprise at the answers. Later on I explained why this is wrong and that boys are entitled to respect.

    I know this is just my son’s perception, but he is pretty sharp and observant. So the drumbeat starts early and it creates some girls who grow up to expect some man to make them happy. And worse, it creates some boys who grow up to be men who “apologize and ask how they made some woman angry” no matter what the circumstances.

  55. ABM says:

    “I’ve always wondered how we got to a point where men ask women to marry. Logically it never made sense to me. Men take on extra financial responsibilities and risk getting reamed in divorce court, yet we court them, woo them with rings and get down on our knees for that “privilege”? Men never required women for survival, only procreation, however women required men for survival until VERY recently. Logically, they should have been asking the men to marry. How did we get sold this bill of goods?”

    This is one of the reasons why in traditional Indian marriage it was customary for the bride’s family to pay a large sum of money to the groom’s family for the marriage. It was to equalize the financial sacrifice and risk that a man took on for marrying their daughter.

  56. milchama says:

    What is a guy like me supposed to do anyway? I do not have the “gift of singleness.” I can hardly contain my desire for women. Where do we find good Christian women to marry? I’ve exasperated myself at this point. I even tried to choke down the blue pill again but that’s just impossible. I have no idea where to go. It’s just really tough, because I have no outlet for my desire. Porn isn’t ok. Boffin chicks outside of marriage isn’t ok. So where does a Christian guy like me go? It seems so hopeless. I know Christianity isn’t a life of candy canes and unicorns, but, clearly the Bible instructs men like me to seek a wife. Where, though?

  57. Eric says:

    Dalrock;

    The bottom-line that Christians can’t get around is the fact that their divorce-rates (nearly 40%) is still extremely high. Probably, Christians are the most culturally-educated in the Anglosphere towards traditional marriage and against divorce. And this is the best women in our culture can produce.

    The number of divorces, too, don’t take into account the number of marriages that probably would terminate if the wives’ moral code didn’t counter it.

    It’s obvious, with numbers like these, that the cause of the decline in committed relationships, marriages, &c., cannot be ascribed to a lack of religion or moral-framework alone. Women in our culture are educated from girlhood to hate and compete against men at all levels. An interesting follow-up to these statistics would be to find out how many of those Christian divorces occurred among women who were life-long Christians; as opposed to those who converted in their teens or later. I’m willing to bet the number is much higher among converts, since they received a feminist-oriented upbringing first.

    The feminist domination of our culture needs to change first. Women are, by nature, more susceptible to social influences than are men (this is a biological advantage for motherhood). This is why revolutionary movements always aim at converting the women first. The way to resolve the cultural decline is through, for lack of a better term, ‘social reverse-engineering’. Undo the damage by teaching women to value men; cultivate their own femininity, and re-instilling a gender polarity generally.

  58. Eric says:

    Milchama:
    Where you would find a real woman to marry? Buy yourself an airline ticket and get of the Anglosphere ASAP.

  59. 7man says:

    @milchama
    “Where do we find good Christian women to marry?”

    Wrong question! First learn how to be a leader and strong in your faith without bowing to what women say is Christian. Then find a woman that can be led, whether she is Christian or not.

    (You will likely find that it is easier to find a non-Christian woman that meets this criteria. If Christian women are in fact “better,” you must have a much HIGHER standard for them.)

  60. SC says:

    @ABM

    I can understand that but I’m curious about how and when men became convinced that the “begging” nature of courtship was the appropriate way to marriage.

    Courtship, for a long time, has consisted of men pursuing women when men have much less of a need for women than the reverse. Both need each other to procreate but only women have needed men to survive. So how did our culture evolve to where men compete and beg for the privelege?

    Furthermore, as I thought about this more last night, I wonder if women’s current POV regarding men, marriage and women’s happiness isn’t exacerbated by the whole courtship process. If men are putting themselves into a position where they please women via rings, pay for dates, etc then I’m not too surprised to see that women are taking advantage of us in the way that they do. It’s a lot like any other entitlement. First it starts as a nice gesture, morphs into an expectation, then gets abused.

    I don’t think we’re to blame for the mentalities of women but I think that this is one way we feed into the problem without knowing it. The reality of life just is not congruent with our actions, IMO.

  61. Kevan

    Nice. How typical , why are atheists such narcissists? The mere mention of God creates hysteria. This entire thread IS ABOUT CHRISTIANS, how the hell do you write that with a hat tip to atheists?

    This happens all over the manosphere and literally THANK GOD for Dalrocks blog, where no one is crowded out. If you think this is a problem for atheists, you have no clue what the rest of the manosphere is like for Christians. The funny thing is, the small but growing number of Christian men that are not white knights are the ones willing to not delve into Christianity and start witnessing and proselytizing. Contrast that with the supposedly open minded and tolerant atheists, who never fail to lash out at the Christians. Its amazing.

    Charlemagne

    Indeed, I post there a lot. Their knowledge is whatever it takes and no more, to get to where the beliefs line with the feelings. That’s it. But I beg to differ on the idea that lifelong Christians are less inclined to avail themselves to divorce. In fact I think if there is a skew its to the other side. People who converted as adults have perspective that the “I trusted Jesus when I was 4 yrs old” crowd. The pent up desire to follow feelings is powerful in the life long Christian, and they are so naive while they allow themselves to go off the reservation. Anyway, you nailed it they are gnostic in the mysticism that some of them follow into feelings, while others just stay shallow and all about :God is love, therefore of course we have love and happiness and Lisa Frank as a brides made riding a unicorn.

    Jesus is the personal Jesus, you know the its not religion its relationship that’s been carried so far as to be absurd. Their faith is empathy, as in the creator empathizes with them and adjusts himself to them.

    Eric

    The church may be the furthest gone institution, where men love to self efface and women use the faith to rule them, guilt them, control them, and/or dump them and FEEL GOOD about it. I know this comment drives lots of MRA’s crazy (the ones hostile to Christianity) but IF (I admit big if) you can get Christian men on a red pill drip, they/we are far more natural allies than progressive liberal environmentalist uber “tolerant” open minded soft spoken way smarter than everyone else metro-sexual men. Its just a fact, because our faith IS a masculine one, weve just screwed it up, and if men could adopt true faith with the same verve they use to cower to women, the church would be a dedicated force for men.

    All

    Do not marry Christian women today. Christian women are worse, they are the same as the rest, but with the added layer of having a religion where God is gynocentric because he is all emotion and love

  62. Eric says:

    Empath:
    I agree with your last statement; except that I would qualify it by saying that Western Christianity has largely been reinterpreted in the light of our feminocentric culture. Emotion, of course, is something that God cannot logically possess (at least not in a way that we understand it). As far as ‘God is Love': Plato articulated this concept best; and the early Christians understood it by his definition. It’s much different than how ‘Divine Love’ is portrayed in our churches today.

    Re: the comment about atheists as narcissists—On the previous thread, I mentioned a study by Gilbert Highet on the nature of cultishness. I should point out that Highet devoted an entire chapter to how modern scientists, academics, and so-called ‘sceptics’ fit a lot of the same patterns. If you’re interested, the book was called ‘Man’s Unconquerable Mind’, published in 1964. He had some really accurate analyses of future trends in that book as well.

  63. Dalrock says:

    @Kevin Hillton

    What was this, some kind of underhanded slap at those of us atheists who read your blog? Speaking on behalf of the happily married atheists (who by the way are less likely to be divorced than those who believe in imaginary bearded guys who live in the clouds), the constant insinuation that religion is the foundation of morality is based in YOUR religion comes off as pretty hypocritical considering how frequently it’s used to rationalize the worst behavior.

    I don’t question your ability to be committed to marriage* as an atheist. I do question those who call themselves Christian and aren’t committed to marriage*.

    *Real marriage, not a form of church or state sanctioned serial monogamy commonly passed off as marriage. I should add that you don’t have to be married or even want to marry to be passionate about the issue and committed to it.

  64. Legion says:

    Kevin Hillton says:
    March 4, 2012 at 10:35 am

    For the record: Atheist and divorced. Atheism isn’t a magic pill.

  65. milchama says:

    Thanks for the responses 7man and Eric. It seems totally impossible to find a submissive girl who is also Christian. Yet, the Bible does say do not be unequally yoked. So I don’t want to sin by marrying a nonbeliever. I believe I am good at game – I’ve been reading Chateau Heartiste and other blogs, and game books for awhile now, and I can get some hot girls, but none Christian. None at least, truly Christian. Either I’m not good enough because I’m “too worldly” (one girl rejected me based on the music I listen to – I didn’t even date her yet and she was telling me I can’t listen to rock), or, I am, in the words of one Christian girl, “too Christian.” I mean WTH. I’m ready to say to forget this and just find a girl, any girl, who is cool with being a wife and at least coming to church with me and following my lead. Right now I’m saving up for a trip overseas, I just need to pick the country and hopefully I’ll have the cash to go there within 1 year. Thinkin Estonia or Brazil.

  66. unger says:

    milchama: And Paul probably didn’t have the gift of getting his head cut off, and Peter probably didn’t have the gift of getting crucified upside down. Singleness may be your cross to bear. For the present time, it *is* your cross to bear. The fact that you don’t find it easy or pleasant, or that every fiber in you wants a simple and quick way out of it, has nothing to do with plain duty. You’re not the first person to be tortured for doing what’s right; you will not be the last; and, all things considered, you have it better than many others have had.

  67. milchama says:

    @Unger – Much of that is very true, and I agree that in the short term it is a cross to bear. Duty is duty. However, it is also wrong not to be proactive about the problem. It is better to marry than to “burn,” as Paul said, so I’m trying to do what I need to do to, well, stop burning…

    Thanks for the encouragement though, I appreciate it, and you’re right that I do have it much better than many others have had.

  68. Rmaxd says:

    @Milchima

    People like Eric are basically apathetic & hostile towards men having real solutions & success with women

    Notice how he offers no solutions, apart from expatting … which as usual doesnt even begin to address why men cant find decent women …

    Also btw Erics obsessed with cults, which is ironic considering he belongs to a cult …

    7Man hits the nail on the head as always take his advice

    “Wrong question! First learn how to be a leader and strong in your faith without bowing to what women say is Christian. Then find a woman that can be led, whether she is Christian or not. ”

    Women want to be led, its just a matter of finding women not too poisoned by feminism, you can lead women to a more masculine, stable relationship

    But you have to develop the necessary masculine traits first

    As 7Man points out, you have to realise the real submissive nature of women, & learn to dominate & control submissive women to your will & commands

    Women want masculine command, give it to them they’ll lap it up

    Just avoid marrying, co-habit is the only way to have a long term relationship, in todays society

  69. Dalrock, you are an inspiration. I’ve been a reader of writers with your courage on similar sites for years. Recently I finally reached my personal boiling point where I decided to speak my mind in a similar fashion. http://realisticagnostic.wordpress.com/
    This isn’t a shameless plug. After writing my last post I wanted to thank you for your inspiration. That, and to give you the courtesy notice that I was linking to you. If that’s a problem due to my content just let me know and I’ll edit the link to your blog out. Thanks.

    [D: I'm not sure which post you are referring to, but I don't mind the general link back to your own blog. Thanks for the kind words!]

  70. Suz says:

    “…you can lead women to a more masculine, stable relationship…”

    You can also lead women to a deeper Christianity; the way to start is to live it and set an example. On a practical level, I would suggest staying away from Evangelicals, since they’ve been over-educated in feminist “Christianity.” Find a gal who was raised Christian but non-fundamentalist, and who is fairly neutral about her Christianity. Those who are “devoted” have been completely poisoned, and you probably can’t un-teach what they already “know in their hearts.” You’re more likely to be able to teach genuine Christian principles to the relatively uninitiated. Just take it slow, and don’t cram your religion down her throat, or she’ll think you’r one of those “crazy, brainwashed fanatics.” Just don’t commit (for your own sake) until you know she’s on the right path.

    Don’t preach it, live it. Once she starts to follow you, she will be wonder what makes you tick. THEN you can tell her where you’re coming from, but show her WHO YOU ARE first. People (both sexes) who yammer on about their “Christianity” to virtual strangers, are not really discussing their theology. They are bragging about their lists of requirements, like they would on a dating site. Don’t tell women what’s on your list, live what’s on your list.

  71. tm says:

    Side note: she doesn’t say if she’s ‘Christian’ or not, but this brief story is a great example of the obsession with haaappyness and a self-centered, narcissistic attitude of many women divorcees:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jennifer-nagy/is-it-easier-to-deal-with_b_1295182.html

  72. TM, thats absolutely perfect. This woman is craving empathy for what she did to herself, all that silly language about finding self and rot such as that makes my stomach church. This is the story of the girl gone to find herself.
    If Christian that may add in that all that “anguish” was assuaged by God telling them He wants them to be happy.

    Good link, I may borrow that.

  73. Gabriella says:

    This article complains that the average Christian woman is not principled enough. Men are suggesting that men avoid Christian women and go after non-Christian women. If the problem is that women are not principled enough, then won’t a non-Christian woman be less trustworthy than a Christian one? Wouldn’t it be better to find that unicorn Christian woman who is very highly principled?

    Finding a woman who can be led doesn’t make any sense to me. The woman who is naturally “submissive” based on her personality type rather than her principles is the same woman who is more likely to be led *astray* by whoever is the most alpha person in her life in that moment. The non-principled submissive wife is the one more likely to sleep with her boss.

    Christian or not, the most trustworthy woman is one who is very highly principled and would rather fall on her sword than bring dishonor to her family. They may be rare but getting tangled up with any other kind of woman seems to be a risky proposition.

  74. FunderThuck says:

    Milchama –

    If I were in your position, I would seek a wife in the following pockets of Christendom ONLY:

    Traditional Calvinists – There are still a few of them around, especially in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and the Presbyterian Church of America. They are very rigorous and rationalistic, little given to emotion. I spent 15 years among them and never heard of a single divorce save one. Presbyterian women tend towards being more educated and more analytical as well. Missouri Synod Lutherans as well.

    Eastern Orthodoxy – Especially among the ethnic Orthodox. Orthodoxy has a masculine ethos that is not paralleled in any other Church, yet is not oppressive to women. It is very demanding, though, and preserves an ascetic lifestyle long abandoned by Western Christianity. Greek, Coptic Egyptian, Russian, and Lebanese girls are extremely beautiful, but they prefer manly, stalwart men, even the pious girls.

    Catholic Traditionalists – In my not so humble opinion, contraception has fscked everything up. It bollocks up women’s natural rhythms and emotions to the point where they don’t know what the hell they are. You do well to avoid any women who uses artificial contraception and instead has learned some form of self-mastery, or is still under the guidance of a strong father. I have been very impressed by the TradCath girls who comment in the manosphere. They put up with a lot and give as well as they get. Finding a TradCath parish may be a challenge, though, because the Catholic Church is supposed to be, well, catholic. It is supposed to be a pretty wide tent.

    Evangelical Christianity is so awash in estrogen it would be best to avoid it altogether. Most of the manly men I have met there seem to be “manly” for women’s benefit, rather than following their own internal masculine ethos.

  75. cane caldo says:

    @Rmaxd

    You said: “People like Eric are basically apathetic & hostile towards men having real solutions & success with women…Just avoid marrying, co-habit is the only way to have a long term relationship, in todays society”

    Access to sex is not the end-all-be-all for the Christian man. We are not allowed to simply ignore the ideals that are inconvenient to our urges.

    Besides, while you’ve removed everything else, you’ve still got the vagina on a pedestal. It’s childish, and a sure route to dissatisfaction. The unhappiness you regularly spread in comments bears this out.

    @Milchama

    I don’t know how old you are, (or where you live, which can make a difference) but you’re going to have to set your priorities. Be ready to dismiss the hot ones out of hand. That’s “be ready to”, not “you should”. It’s theoretically possible for universally attractive women to be good, biblical, wives, but…there’s so much opportunity for them that it’s unlikely they’ll make it to marriageable age as a non-feminist virgin.

    As general rules: Younger than you by at least two years (I assume I’m writing for an adult, but not yet a 30yo). Comes from an intact home. Admires her dad. Goes to church regularly. Does not display an overt entitlement attitude. (It’s too much to ask of any Western girl to not have internalized at least a little entitlement, but she should at least have the humility to not show it.) She thinks family is important, and spends a lot of time with them. Above all, she should desire to serve you: she wants to cook for you; watch you play ball…she generally wants you to be the center. (Of course, when you–the center of her attention–later reward this by making her the center of your affection it will pay off in dividends.)

    My hunch is your prioritizing looks too much. That’s not to say that you should look for someone you don’t think is attractive, but you may need to re-calibrate your threshold.

  76. Samuel says:

    @Milchima- Those too christian, or not christian enough type excuses were bogus excuses. If you made their little vaginas tingle, they’d be looking for ways to excuse your imperfections, not use them to blow you out. The chicks that told you that, you did not run good game with.

    I think I would generally be condescending and give some good verbal smackdowns to chicks that say that shit. It is much like a rebuke, and chicks like being rebuked, especially when they were clearly being bitches.

    You also need to know that all women are submissives, some of them just don’t know it yet. Zero in on chicks you like and inspire them to submit naturally to you, by leading naturally. Make decisions about where you are going, and what you are doing. Tell them “sit here” when you get to a venue. In fact, do that a lot. Just assume they want to be led, because they do, but if you have to check with them first, you’re hosed.

    Don’t just act dominant…. BE Dominant. Stop supplicating to those chicks and start telling them how it is, how it is going to be. They are practically begging internally for you to do this.

  77. deti says:

    I want to linger on this “real marriage” point for a minute.

    It’s what many Christians now are fond of calling “covenant marriage”. But leave aside the labels and consider what past American generations viewed marriage to be.

    One man and one woman join together and become literally one flesh. Their lives are tied and bound together so inextricably that removing one from the marriage while he/she still lives mortally wounds the other. The two of them are to be together until one of them dies. This is necessary because they need to support and rear the children they will probably have. But even if they don’t have children, the marriage is still good because a woman is likely to be poor and a burden on society without it; and a man is likely to fall into sexual frustration and crime without it.

    He has obligations to her: he must support her and their children, protect them from harm, and teach/discipline the children. He must take on the primary responsibility of leading her and directing the course of the marriage and their family. She has a marital right to these things from him. She has obligations to him: she must make a home for him, care for and nurture the children, and provide sex at reasonable intervals. She must submit to his leadership and accept the path her husband lays out. He has a marital right to these things from her.

    Short of one partner’s death, there are very few valid reasons for divorce: adultery; real and repeated physical abuse causing great bodily harm or risk of death; one partner has permanently abandoned the family and refuses to return; or life threatening addiction causing financial ruin to the family.

    You aren’t “fulfilled”? Tough. You decided to marry him. Stick it out.

    You aren’t “haaaaappy”? Give it a few months. You’ll feel better. Even if you don’t feel better, you’ll get over it.

    Taking care of a house and kids is hard and difficult? Yes, it is. Could be worse. You could be a spinster and have to take a job to support yourself. You could have to live with your parents until their death, and then have to depend on your brothers and sisters. You could be…. ALONE.

    You want to “find yourself”? You’re right there. Seriously, if you need something else, take a class. Read a book. Join a local club.

    He’s not as attractive as he used to be? You ain’t no great shakes yourself either, honey. Besides, you made a promise to him, his family, your family, and (implicitly) your children. You have to live up to that promise, if not for him, then for your children.

    He’s mean and nasty to you sometimes? By that you mean he’s had a hard day at work and he raises his voice or gets impatient? Tough. Deal with it. He deals with your “headaches” and fatigue.

    See, if you wanted it to be all about you, then you should not have married. When you married, it completely and totally ceased forever being “Just about you”. It’s about you AND him now. And it will always be so, until one of you is dead.

  78. umslopogaas says:

    @Milchama:

    I would suggest you try out the Philippines. It’s a deeply catholic country and the women are beautiful. If you are careful (because there *are* scams taking place as well there) and a good observer of human nature…you might just find the kind of woman you require for your life.

    Then, mayhap, get her back to the US and shield her from the corrupting influences of its society. You won’t have 100% security but you might just persevere with good leadership and a bit of luck.

    I’m also saying this with TFH’s estimate in mind that sooner rather than later the misandry bubble will pop. So in a sense if you get an uncontaminated woman now she might still be sufficiently unspoiled to stick it out with you until after the great breakdown that is coming.

  79. cane caldo says:

    “It’s about you AND him now. And it will always be so, until one of you is dead.”

    Small quibble: It should just be about the other. You tell a generally decent, earnest, but modern couple that it’s about both of them, and both of them will take it seriously: He’ll spend 90% of his concern on her; she’ll spend 50% of her concern on herself. It’s a recipe for feeding her selfishness.

    And that’s with a generally decent, earnest couple.

  80. deti says:

    +1, FunderThuck. Traditional Christian girls are very, very hard to find. Evangelical Churchianity is a dating wasteland. Most of them are so incredibly ultrahypergamous and their requirements for a man so stratospheric that not a man alive could meet their specifications. This is a result of their receiving a “personal Jesus” who gives them everything they want, allows them to do anything they want, and feeds the rationalization hamster. It’s also a result of their being “Daughters of the King” and that they need to “wait for God’s best for” them. He’s got to look like George Clooney and have money like Warren Buffett (oh, yeah, and he’s got to be able to preach a sermon at a moment’s notice too. Bonus.)

    Also, most evangelical churchian girls are incredibly cruel. The most nuclear rejections I’ve ever received were from churchian girls.

  81. deti says:

    +1 Cane

  82. Interested says:

    @TM

    I read that too and could not help but think of an earlier post Dalrock had where he highlighted how young women sleep around and never know about the good men that observed their behavior and decided not to engage them in any way except, maybe, for some casual sex. In other words they only see the men who interact with them. They don’t see the guys who refuse to waste one ounce of energy on them once they find out about some of their destructive behaviors or attitudes. They just see guys who try to bang them.

    So this women essentially advertises herself as a worthless long term bet. Good and decent husband? Check. Good life and home? Check. Not wanting for anything? Check. Still not happy? Check.

    But I doubt she will see her article as damaging to her future long term relationship prospects. She won’t believe that there are men who will read her article and decide not to commit any long term resources to her. So her offer is as follows. You commit to me physically, emotionally, and financially and I’ll stick around as long as I am happy. And this time she’ll try harder to stay happy!

    Anyone willing to take that bet? Anyone already done so and lost that bet? Anyone wake up to the fact that their marriage was not a true commitment, but actually the offer as described above?

  83. Rmaxd says:

    http://gameisarevelation.blogspot.com/2012/03/learning-to-spot-submissive-cues.html?showComment=1330938668377#c109567041371635334

    “If you look up to a man, in a basic way, it is hard not to show it in little ways. I catch myself asking my boyfriend’s permission for silly things. “Is it OK if I get my coat?”

    It just slips out. Sometimes he will say, NO. Which is very sexy. If you offer submission and it is accepted, that is the sexiest thing of all.

    OzGirlie”

  84. dragnet says:

    “On the other side, divorce rates drop dramatically as women age. If the problem really were that lifespans are now “just too darn long” to practice lifelong marriage, given that women are the sex primarily driving divorce rates we would see the opposite of the trend on divorce rates which we now see.”

    Well said!

  85. The arctic three toed camel is known to make ice blocks of its own urine and float away on them

    Thats as relevant as the post about game above

    But, thanks, you keep helping make the point, if you guys get a colonoscopy , the video would show game stenciled on the transverse colon.

  86. Gabriella

    No, the non Christian woman is no more or less trustworthy. Besides the focus here is about divorce, not trustworthiness as you are talking.

    The Christian woman is less reliable and less teachable because she has her personal Jesus telling her that she is ok, and deserves to be happy, standing by to “release” her from her marriage. She has a whole book of stuff that she has corrupted into tools of control and rationale for misbehavior, up to including leaving for haaaaapiness.

  87. Anon says:

    Lots of women marry because they’ve been trained to believe that this is the end goal in life. Once achieved, what do they have to look forward to? “I’ll be happy once I get my ____”. Fill in that blank with car, house, bigger house, kids, divorce, whatever. That is no way to live life, and it’s guaranteed to bring unhappiness. Couple this with no-fault divorce that almost always favors the women when it comes to the most important assets (children), and it’s no surprise that frivolous divorce is so prevalent.

    I like the MGTOW movement, because marriage is no longer treated as a real commitment for women. If marriage isn’t actually a commitment, then logically it has no purpose. Men, being the logical creatures they are, have begun to realize this and no longer buying in.

  88. Gabriella says:

    Emp-

    I am speaking of highly-principled women. Not your run-of-the-mill-Jesus-Loves-Me-This-I-Know-feel-good Christian. Highly-principled women are attracted to religion, especially the more strict denominations. You can find highly-principled women in all walks of life but if you are a Christian then marrying a highly-principled Muslim, Jew, or atheist would just be a source of conflict.

    There are two types of women- Those who make decisions based on their emotional whims and those who make decisions based on principles. Trying to constantly game a woman with no principles can get exhausting. What happens if you get sick or lose your job?

  89. ybm says:

    “I am speaking of highly-principled women.”

    Highly-principled women is an oxymoron on the level with military intelligence.

  90. Gabriella says:

    Then how do you explain female martyrs?

    Ever read Maccabees?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woman_with_seven_sons

  91. Dalrock says:

    @Gabriella

    I’m somewhat in agreement with you. Depending on your larger point, we might be very much on the same page. I don’t have time to elaborate, but I’ve made relevant arguments in my posts on interviewing a wife and gaming a prospective wife. Also related is this post. The only area where I suspect we might part ways is I think such a woman should still look to her husband for leadership.

  92. yjio says:

    Dalrock should REALLY post or comment about the Sandra Fluke Contraception Controversy. Almost everybody in the far-right has chimed in but his blog is empty about this. This stuff is entitled Feminism and Sexual Liberation 101 but he hasn’t even lifted a finger. Instead we got the stupid fat Rush Limbaugh fighting for us. How sad.

  93. Gabriella says:

    I believe women should be submissive in all ways except that which are sinful. Because I am a Catholic I define “sinful” as that which is a mortal sin in the eyes of the magisterium of the Church. Obviously, a protestant woman would define sin using some other source. It probably gets tricky with Sola Scriptura protestants because the Bible can be a bit cryptic and hard to interpret.

    That said, I don’t believe being submissive is the same as being in constant agreement. It is not sinful for a woman to make a good argument for her case so long as the final decision rests with the man.

    [D: Sounds like we are very much in agreement.]

  94. Pingback: The end of marriage? | Save Capitalism

  95. GKChesterton says:

    A quick note:

    The word most often translated “love” is in the Greek “agape” and in the old Latin translations “caritas” and was in the older English translations given as the much more appropriate “charity”. That is, God is Charity. This carries a different connotation than the modern word “love”. Feminist Christianity has re-crafted “love” to mean some sloppy combination of eros/phillia.

    If you mean _charity_ then yes, marriage can be seen as having the purpose of love. Both partners having to give themselves fully to the other and their needs. Happiness and sorrow may both be byproducts of that giving. That is no longer meant though.

    [D: Good to see you are still around GKC. I agree the definition of love is key, and the movie Fireproof shows how far away from the truth Christians have strayed. On Joy and Sorrow, it reminds me of this bit of German dark humor.]

  96. deti says:

    All this talk from Christian women about how disposable they think their marriages are reminds me of all the things I’ve heard from Christian women about their justifications for divorce.

    My husband and I weren’t Christians when we married. Now we are. I can see now that he was not The One God intended for me. I know this because

    –God laid it on my heart
    –God revealed this to my anointed pastor
    –I’m not attracted to my husband
    –I don’t have anything in common with my husband
    –I don’t orgasm during sex
    –I’m not haaaappy
    –I’ve never been haaaappy
    –we can’t get pregnant
    –I still have feelings for my first boyfriend, Harley McBadboy
    –it was revealed to me in prayer that my husband is not The One
    –his penis is too big
    –his penis is too small
    –he’s too skinny
    –he’s too fat

    So God has released me from my marriage and freed me to find The One.

    I’m a Christian and my husband isn’t. So because he’s not submitted to God, I don’t have to submit to him.

    I don’t have to submit to you because you’re not submitted to God! Pastor ___ said so!

    I don’t have to submit to you because you’re in sin by
    –looking at porn!
    –eating too much!
    –drinking too much!
    –not going to church enough!
    –not having found a job!
    –not leading our family!
    –not disciplining the kids!
    –not leading me in prayer!
    –not leading devotionals enough!

  97. milchama says:

    @Rmaxd – I figured Eric was just suggesting taking a trip, not ex-patting. I would never ex-pat. I also am very wary of marrying a foreigner because it would mess with my security clearances, and I love my job. So leaving is out of the question. Besides, I love America. It may be messed up, but it’s like the wayward son who knocks up a chick at 17, gets arrested every so often, and gets straight D’s. You still love him, despite his stupidity. I wouldn’t co-habitate. Maybe I would marry without getting a license, but I intend to get a pre-nup and spent a little time studying them – I found out you can even prevent your spouse from creating a Facebook through them, which is good, because I see too much cheating through FB.

    @Suz – I agree, I try to keep it normal. Even on some online profile I have, I am fairly brief on the subject. I stay away from the fundies for multiple reasons – few are attractive at all, and in my opinion, the legalistic Pelegian theology many of them espouse shows that they’re not even Christian, just hyper religious.

    @FunderThuck – I consider myself a traditional Calvinist, but I’ve actually never attended a Presbyterian church. I have to move to Georgia for awhile, which means I need to find a new church, so that is good advice. I’ll definitely keep that in mind. I was also thinking a Calvinistic Southern Baptist congregation would be good. I started being open to dating Catholics mostly out of the fact that Catholicism dominates the state I’m currently in, although it’s hard to find a traditional Catholic girl if you are not one, and marrying them is kind of complicated if you’re not a Catholic.

    @Cane – I’m 25. I don’t prioritize looks too much though. I tried dating a good girl who was real solid across the board but I wasn’t that attracted to, and it didn’t work. In my opinion, she has to be a 7 to me or higher. There’s no point in marrying a girl you’re not attracted to, it’s not fair for either of you and you’ll always see girls you are attracted to and you’ll desire them. My threshold is as flexible as I can possibly make it at this point. On the plus side, I honestly am attracted to girls who are full-figured or curvy (in the real sense – I don’t like fat girls) or weigh a little extra – nothing greater than that hourglass figure. I think a lot of those girls get passed up, so that expands the market for me.

    @Samuel – I agree with all of that man. You’re one of my favorite posters on this blog to read. I like what you say about being dominant and I’ve actually had the chance to put it in action recently. I took this girl out and we started off at a coffee place, and I picked the seats, told her what to do, etc, and to my amazement it worked all too good. She invited me back to her apartment for drinks right after, even though it was early in the afternoon. Unfortunately, she didn’t quite pan out, but I learned my lesson. Being dominant feels right and it feels good. The last few dates I had I didn’t ask the girls out. I told the girls they should meet me at so-and-so at whatever-time, and didn’t ask them where they wanted to go or what they wanted to do. They both just showed up. I never ask a girl if I can kiss her or anything anymore either, I just do it. I also found that being a bit firm physically with a girl really turns them on, like, if you’re kissing them on a bridge overlooking the harbor, and pull the back of their hair a bit and direct their head to where you want it, or squeeze them in close. I discovered girls really like it when you just grab them by the arm and start heading someplace. For example, if you’re in the mall with a girl, and you want to go into a store, just grab their arm and say “let’s go here.” Not too firmly, but firm enough so that she’s forced to go with you. Chicks love this stuff – I wish I discovered it sooner.

  98. Gabriella says:

    Christian women are right that they don’t have to submit to sin. For instance, if a husband suggests having a 3-some she should say no, for her sake and his. The problem is when they don’t have some objective source by which to decide what is and is not a sin and therefore must decide according to their interpretation of the Bible (which is probably heavily influenced by personal sentiment). Biblical interpretation differs widely, hence the 10,000+ denominations.

    For this reason it might be smart to seek out women who are long-term members of a denomination that has a strict code of morality.

  99. Gabriella says:

    There is a line between sexy dominance and actual “asshole game”. A woman whose responds well to asshole-ish behavior is a woman with masochistic tendencies beyond that of a normal woman.

    A woman worth marrying is a woman who has high standards for the men she dates. She isn’t just looking for the “tingle” but for a man who will be a good father to her children. If she isn’t repelled by rude, crass, vulgar behavior then her judgment must be questioned.

    [D: Agreed.]

  100. From a strict, scriptural perspective women can NEVER initiate divorce. The commands of Moses only allowed for Men to issue a certificate of divorce.

    Matthew 19:

    3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

    4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

    7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a [b]man give his wife[/b] a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

    8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his [b]wife[/b], except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

    10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”

    11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

    Of course ultimately, in the cosmic scheme of things, it make little difference whether or not marriage is for happiness since after the resurrection there wont be any marriage.

    Matthew 22:

    24 “Teacher,” they said, “Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and raise up offspring for him. 25 Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother. 26 The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh. 27 Finally, the woman died. 28 Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?”

    29 Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. 30 At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.

    Kind of puts the whole ‘soul mates’ myth into perspective now doesn’t it? Marriage is only meant to be a very temporal arrangement while we’re here on earth according to Jesus himself.

    Still got ONEitis now?

  101. cane caldo says:

    @Milchama

    Not to diminish your situation, but I want to be clear.

    I’m 25. I don’t prioritize looks too much though. I tried dating a good girl who was real solid across the board but I wasn’t that attracted to, and it didn’t work. In my opinion, she has to be a 7 to me or higher. There’s no point in marrying a girl you’re not attracted to, it’s not fair for either of you…

    I don’t argue that, but you need to be realistic: Are you the kind of man who can attract a quality 7? Though woman are far and away more likely to over-inflate their worth, they’re not the only ones. Avoiding this is the key to peace through your whole life. Periodically ask yourself: “Who do you think you are?”

    and you’ll always see girls you are attracted to and you’ll desire them.

    Bad news, Milchama: Marriage doesn’t solve this problem. That’s because you’ll bring this sickness into the marriage with you. Original Sin, Total Depravity…call it what you will.

    Keep in mind I said quality 7. Here’s a normal 7 in the 25yo world: She’s had 1-3 serious boyfriends. After at least one of them she took Slut Friend’s advice and went home with a guy from a bar–you know, to turn the tables; see how the other side lives; just be wild. But now she wants to take things slow. So, in the interest of modern slowness, she takes you home for drinks in the afternoon; you bang; and before you know it you’re in loooooove…with damaged goods. Vagina will do that to you. Then you have to decide: Rip your heart out now, or fifteen years down the line? You’re not special. This happens every day. Who do you think you are?

    Of course, I don’t know you, and I’m not pretending to. These points are meant to illustrate a way of looking at your situation; not specific instructions.

  102. Höllenhund says:

    @Joe Sheehy 6:16 am

    Don’t fall prey to your own version of the apex fallacy. The sexual libertinism and irreligion you can read about in history books was always confined to the privileged classes in the past. Many authors, philosophers etc. fantasized about an utopian society where women are sexually independent and accessible, but economically this used to be simply unfeasible because female economic independence was unfeasible.

  103. milchama says:

    @Cano – Definitely. I train for triathalons and have a good physique, been told by a lot of people that look really good, and I have a very high status profession. I was engaged a long time ago to a solid 9, so I know I can attract 9’s, and I’ve been with 7+’s when I was in college.

    I know that even when I’m married, I’ll want to have sex with every hot girl I come across, but, if I marry a girl I’m not that attracted to, then I’m 10 times more likely to stray. I know myself. When I was with the 9, sure, I wanted to sleep with other girls, but I never would think of acting on it because I already had a girl I loved and was attractive. When I dated a 5-6, I didn’t feel very compelled to stay faithful to her and kind of cheated on her. I broke her heart, and I wouldn’t want to do that to another girl, so I stick with 7+. I can’t really fall in love with a girl I don’t think is hot.

    But I see what you mean. I just won’t settle though. I want a good Christian girl who is a 7+, and I just have to learn where to find them and work on my game. I know I’ll make an awesome husband, I think a girl would be insanely lucky to marry me given what I bring to the table, so I should be able to demand some level of attractiveness.

  104. milchama says:

    @Gabriella – I think it’s good to be on the asshole side though. All my failures with women over the past year or so can be pinpointed to some kind of beta behavior. If you lean towards being a bit of an asshole, then you eliminate the beta fairly well. You can’t overdo it, but you also can’t be sufficiently dominant without occasionally crossing the asshole rubicon once in awhile.

  105. Gabriella says:

    A womans threshold for assholishness is a good test of her character. She should be able to tolerate some dominance but vulgarity should offend her.

  106. ybm says:

    That is about the only thing you have said that I have agreed with Gabby. A woman who respondes to your assholish tendencies may be good for a power fuck but she should absolutely be exterminated from having any investment on your part. Emotional, financial, or temporal.

  107. tony says:

    Lavazza,

    You can base a religion entirely on love. The catch is defining love. I would say love as how the Bible states it.

  108. Anonymous Reader says:

    A womans threshold for assholishness is a good test of her character.

    It could be a useful test. But not always. For example, some special snowflake princesses won’t tolerate any degree of spine in a man at all – any man who stands up to her is deemed to be an “asshole”. On the other hand, a quiet and submissive woman who has been very sheltered from the world might well be flat out bowled over by asshole game & would find herself tolerating all sorts of things. One exhibit would be Marion Beardsley nee Fahnestock, lately in the news.

    She should be able to tolerate some dominance but vulgarity should offend her.

    All women require some degree of dominance. They do not tolerate it, they need it. That is one of the aspects of Game that many beta men find quite unpleasant to think about. Most women are clueless about this aspect of their own nature, in my experience.

  109. milchama says:

    *Should* offend her. But every guy is going to be a tad vulgar. Sometimes you need to slap an ass. Like Tupac once said, it’s just the way it is.

    You can’t really test a girl’s threshold for assholeness, because you can’t really tell when you’ve done too much. Actually, if she stops going out with you, then you reached the threshold, and by then it’s a moot point. I think the trick is to remain dominant and she will definitely forgive the occasional asshole behavior, or vulgarity. Heck, she might even welcome it here and there. All I know is I’d much rather be an asshole some of the time than a beta any of the time.

  110. CL says:

    She should be able to tolerate some dominance but vulgarity should offend her.

    As AR said, dominance is not tolerated but desired and needed to some degree or another. As for the “vulgarity” question, it sounds rather tiresomely prim and proper to be “offended” by “vulgarity”. What level of vulgarity are you talking about? Should she be offended by fart jokes, for example? Where do you draw the line? And what if a man is somewhat vulgar himself, would he really want a woman who is going to get the huff over a few swear words?

    This is another example of looking at the surface for some comforting rule that doesn’t exist. For all you surmise from this it could just as easily mean she’s a boring prude.

    Furthermore, the implication in “tolerating dominance” is that she is “allowing” some dominance, but not the vulgarity. In other words, topping from the bottom or femDOM lite.

  111. milchama says:

    And by slap an ass I mean hers – I don’t mean her slapping me. Just wanted to clarify that.

  112. milchama says:

    I agree with CL – I think Gabby is delving a bit into being a dictator of what guys should and shouldn’t do. I say a good woman should tolerate a fair degree of vulgarity. Martin Luther had a mouth on him, so did St. Peter I hear. A girl who gets in a huff over an F bomb or a comment on her cleavage is a bore and would probably have to relegate herself to Omegas.

  113. Lavazza says:

    tony: Yeah, it works for agape, which is the love of what will always be there (fellow men, sinners, enemies etc.), as opposed to the love of what you don’t have (eros) and the love of what you have and love, but might lose (philia).

    But love of what you don’t have and/or what you might lose always carries the possibility of turning nasty/violent.

  114. Dalrock says:

    I read Gabriella’s comment about vulgarity in the context of a-hole game. I guess this is a matter of definition as well, but I’m thinking Roissy, etc. If a woman is drawn to practitioners of a-hole game, only a man for whom that is his natural state is a good match. At that point I wouldn’t advise marriage anyway. Pretty much all women claim they aren’t into men like that. The ones who don’t fall for such men are in a separate category.

  115. Anon says:

    Vulgarity is a problem when it places the man in a lower station (as viewed by a woman’s peers). A woman who has found a higher-status male will tolerate more vulgarity than a woman who is with a man of equal status.

  116. Gabriella says:

    I am talking about assholish behavior such as cussing AT a woman, or constantly referring to other women in the sexual context, “I’d hit that”, and the like.

    Dating is for vetting potential spouses.

  117. Gabriella says:

    In the dating phase you are “allowing” dominance because you are not obligated to obey until after marriage. No vows means no obligations.

  118. Ethan says:

    I also have argued strongly that in our current legal and cultural climate it is wrong to marry someone you haven’t been able to fall in love with.

    In our current legal and cultural climate a man shouldn’t get married at all.

  119. 7man says:

    @Gabriella
    ”In the dating phase you are “allowing” dominance because you are not obligated to obey until after marriage. No vows means no obligations.”

    Yet the dynamics set up before marriage will determine the roles in the marriage. Neither men nor women automatically change their behavior merely because they have a ring on their finger. Men would be advised to assess her behavior pre-marriage and assume she will be more troublesome after she has procured his commitment. They she no longer has the incentive to ACT nice to entice him.

    I guess it would be silly for a man be obligated to protect his girlfriend if it was at a cost to him. No vows means no obligations.

    And there is no obligation of premarital fidelity either. No vows means no obligations.

    Have you given much thought to the implications of what you believe?

  120. CL says:

    CL’s second rule of holes (Dalrock already did the first and 7man the zeroth): Don’t dig a bigger hole while trying to fill in the first one.

  121. Gabriella says:

    Whether or not it is a good idea to behave in a certain way during the dating phase of a relationship is not the same thing as saying one is *obligated*. An obligation is something you should do and if you don’t do it you are guilty of acting immorally. If you have not promised a commitment then you are not obligated to provide it. It may still be a *good* idea.

  122. milchama says:

    “In the dating phase you are “allowing” dominance because you are not obligated to obey until after marriage. No vows means no obligations.” – Gab

    This is just a very weird comment to make. It is silly if you think about it. Who is saying that a woman is obligated to obey? A woman better obey, or else she isn’t getting married. If she won’t submit while dating, then she isn’t marriageable material. Besides, as Samuel said, all women are submissives, when you get down to it. Women like to submit, and they want someone who leads. Sure, you might not be obligated to sit at the table the guy chooses in a restaurant, but why wouldn’t you?

  123. Gabriella says:

    I am not sure why my use of the word “tolerate” is getting picked apart. If you are looking for some indication that I am your definition of “femDom” then I guess you have it. But I don’t really know what all this “femdom” business is about so I clearly can’t defend myself against the allegation.

    It is a smart idea for women to behave submissively to attract a man for marriage, but she isn’t under any obligation to act submissively until vows are made. I figured that would be common sense.

  124. SC says:

    “In the dating phase you are “allowing” dominance because you are not obligated to obey until after marriage. No vows means no obligations.”

    And

    “It is a smart idea for women to behave submissively to attract a man for marriage, but she isn’t under any obligation to act submissively until vows are made. I figured that would be common sense.”

    In all honesty, I have to agree with Gabriella on this one. If dating creates an obligation to obey then this creates a dilemma when one compares dating to marriage. If a woman is obligated to obey during dating like she would in marriage then, in many ways, it largely makes marriage a redundant and purposeless act. The declaration of marriage vows are what create the obligation, that’s what they are by definition.

    I think this is one of the reasons why many cultures have had (and some still have) arranged marriages, precisely to avoid this dilemma.

  125. 7man says:

    @Gabriella
    Why did you feel it necessary to point out that there was no obligation before vows if you were not intending to use that as a reason to act defiant? What is the purpose in stating the obvious? Of course there is no obligation and this entire train of discussion is moot and a distraction from the main point.

    Men understand vows, contracts, terms, obligations, responsibilities much better than women do. A man’s word is his bond (the same is not said of a woman). Women should stop schooling men on matters which the majority of women are sorely deficient (principles).

    And if “dating is for vetting potential spouses,” then shouldn’t each be acting at least somewhat “as if” to find out if it will work? How are you supposed to vet someone if they refuse to do something because they are not “obligated” and then they only *say* they’ll do it after marriage because then they’ll be obligated. Does this mean that they will do it after marriage only begrudgingly because it is an obligation?

    Behaving submissive sounds like an act to attract a man. This is not a mask to put on, but a way of being. If you are submissive and he leads wrongly, then dump his ass, but don’t be defiant and remain in the relationship. Remember that right now marriage is a bad deal for men, so he better take extra care in his selection. This is why we are making an issue of your words. They are “tells” revealing your inner thoughts, which you may not be conscious of.

  126. CM says:

    The Christian scriptures do not require a woman to obey her husband, and they do not allow a husband to demand obedience or submission. They tell her to submit to her husband. They also tell husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the Church.

  127. SC says:

    The promise to obey is made in the marriage vows.

  128. Gabriella says:

    If women are deficient in principles then this is a problem that should be rectified. Women should be principled and I think they can be trained to be if it doesn’t come naturally.

    Submission is a behavior. I don’t know what you mean when you say “act of being”. My inner thoughts are that a good woman is a woman who is self-disciplined, highly-principled, and believes in traditional marriage. I am not sure why my subconscious feelings are relevant to the discussion.

  129. CL says:

    A good test of a woman is if she can concede a discussion when a man uses logic to reveal the implications of her beliefs. This is humility. If on the other hand she must change the discussion and deflect, then she is like a typical modern woman and has not demonstrated her quality or an ability to be led (or, in other words, to submit). If she uses shaming tactics or plays victim this is also a bad sign.

    It is pure hell for a man to be married to a woman who will not admit it when she is wrong. Such a woman usually demands a man admit his error while she refuses to admit hers and then the relationship becomes a power struggle between adversaries, which only leads to everyone losing.

  130. Dalrock says:

    @CL

    CL’s second rule of holes (Dalrock already did the first and 7man the zeroth): Don’t dig a bigger hole while trying to fill in the first one.

    Outstanding diplomacy CL. You manged to place both of us in first place, yet with 7Man in front (as it should be). I’m impressed.

    I’m not sure Gabriella is digging a hole here though. I think the only risk is if she bolts and provokes a hamster hunt. Too bad I have that post down for maintenance or I would reference it.

    Hang in there Gabriella. No need to qualify yourself to everyone who challenges you.

  131. Gabriella says:

    If I am wrong for using the word “tolerate” I do not know why. I never held myself up as a quality woman so I don’t think analyzing whether or not I am based on the subconscious feelings my words express is necessary.

    It seems logical to me that a woman of high-principles is the best bet for marriage. If someone disagrees based on a different line of reasoning that is the kind of discussion I am interested in engaging in. If I wanted to be analyzed I would go to a shrink, not a blog. lol.

  132. I Art Laughing says:

    Welcome to the morbid fray friend.

    You didn’t even witness the hog-scalding that my thread on Divorce was.
    I’m so tired now.

  133. CL says:

    @ Gabriella

    When you use words in a discussion to transmit an idea, those words will be analysed. That is the nature of a discussion of ideas and if that’s beyond you, you are in over your head. You talk about principles seemingly without much insight into what constitutes a principle .

  134. Gabriella says:

    I am very obviously over my head. Maybe you guys can just ignore my feeble attempts to talk about principles and the other simpletons on this blog can engage me at my level.

  135. DXM says:

    ““I am speaking of highly-principled women.”
    Highly-principled women is an oxymoron on the level with military intelligence.”
    If you don’t know any highly-principled women, then you run in very strange circles indeed. I know a number of highly-principled women and men, and some of both genders who have few or no principles at all (save self-interest). The idea that only men can have and hold to principles is simply false – it isn’t Biblical, and it isn’t supported by reality. The people who claim it is so either associate with a very low class of people, or are completely wedded to the idea that women are morally inferior beings.

  136. CM says:

    “The promise to obey is made in the marriage vows.”
    It isn’t in all marriage vows, and it is extra-Biblical. If a woman vows to do that, fine – she should uphold her vow. But the Christian scriptures don’t require it.

  137. tacomaster says:

    Deti,
    I love that list you posted regarding why women dispose of their marriages so quickly. I’ve actually heard several of those. One in particular that I don’t recall seeing on your list is “I don’t have to respect you because I’m a Christian woman and your’e not a Christian man”. Have you heard that before?

    One other thing—I’ve seen the “you look at porn” as a reason for divorce several times although the woman has put an embargo on the vagina for the last 5-10 years and hasn’t given the husband any outlet for his sexual frustration. Nice.

  138. tacomaster says:

    Okay, you did put “I’m a Christian and my husband isn’t. So because he’s not submitted to God, I don’t have to submit to him”. Same thing.

  139. Anonymous Reader says:

    Deti
    “I don’t have to submit to you because you’re not submitted to God! Pastor ___ said so!”

    Also appears as this variant: “I’m supposed to submit to him but he’s supposed to be like
    Christ to me except he’s not nearly enough like Christ yet so I don’t have to submit”.

    Have heard/seen it personally in the presence of a rather embarrassed Churchian friend. No,
    it wasn’t his wife. But the did go to the same church.

  140. SC says:

    “It isn’t in all marriage vows, and it is extra-Biblical. If a woman vows to do that, fine – she should uphold her vow. But the Christian scriptures don’t require it.”

    I fully agree with you. The Biblical requirement is that wives submit to their husbands as the church submits to Christ (or something like that, I’m going off of memory here so forgive me if I’m off on this) and you correctly point out that many, but not all, women declare non-Biblical vows to obey their husbands. I’m not altogether sure, in practical terms, how a woman would obey without submitting (or vice versa). In either case, if a woman does one of these with someone she is dating as she would with a husband then marriage becomes purposeless.

    I think that this cuts both ways though. Although I personally believe that I am obligated to behave honorably and courteously with everyone I come in contact with, including any woman I date, I would never extend husbandly obligations to a woman that I’ve been dating until we were engaged. And I’d laugh in the face of any woman who expected me to.

  141. TFH says:

    I guess this is a matter of definition as well, but I’m thinking Roissy, etc. If a woman is drawn to practitioners of a-hole game, only a man for whom that is his natural state is a good match.

    This point often causes confusion for people.

    The point is not that ‘chicks dig jerks’, which, taken to an extreme, explains why serial killers get tons of love letters from women as soon as they are notorious enough to get on TV.

    It is not mandatory to be a jerk. But what *is* mandatory is to be the complete opposite of an appeasing, pedestalizing niceguy. Women are as repulsed by this as a man would be from an obese feminist advertising her private parts at a slutwalk.

    So, what are the opposites of a needy, supplicating niceguy? There is more than one answer :

    A smooth, suave, teasing, yet dominant male.
    A sharp comedian who teases away the woman’s serious-sounding demands (s*** tests).
    A brusque macho man.
    A tough, iron-fisted authority figure.
    A rugged outdoorsman who looks very tough and speaks in the briefest one-liners.
    A complete jerk.
    A slimy, seemingly cruel and ruthless lawyer.
    A hardcore, violent thug.

    All of the above are attractive to women, since all of the above are very different from the needy, pedestalizing niceguy. One does not *have* to be a jerk or a criminal, once one realizes that it is not quite the jerk traits that women find attractive, but rather the absence of needy niceguy traits.

    Some people grasp this easily. Others do not (since 80% of men and 99% of women just cannot comprehend the basics of Game). A man can choose any of the above to build their persona around (and yet another reason that those who say ‘Game does not work’ are merely advertising their own inability to rise beyond the lower half of Maslow’s hierarchy).

  142. Ybm says:

    The people who claim it is so either associate with a very low class of people, or are completely wedded to the idea that women are morally inferior beings.

    Nort morally inferior, amoral. Morals are useful for a woman when they are useful, otherwise they have no utility. There is nothing inferior about that, and dare I say, when it comes to the things women value, it is quite useful to be amoral. While men wax endlessly about morals and human rights for classes and peoples an ideas they are not linked to, the woman will simply embrace the morality of ones own interest. Women are the ultimate utilitarians, it is your interpretation that utility is inferior to the abstract.

  143. Eric says:

    Rmaxd:
    You are a complete idiot.

    ‘Look at Eric’s obsession with cults…ironic since he belongs to a cult.’.

    Post your contact info so I can sue you for libel, Moron. (That is assuming you actually have a home and are employed).

  144. I Art Laughing says:

    Well, I got banned for a week from there, I guess they didn’t like what I had to say.

    I think it stemmed from the argument I made about the bankruptcy of the Church in Europe after it swallowed the philosophies of George Bernhard Shaw (Fabian Socialism) and stood by while a generation was marched off to the gas chamber.

    JaneFW called “Godwin”.

  145. 7man says:

    @Eric
    At least Rmaxd didn’t call you an incomplete idiot.

  146. Rmaxd says:

    lol Crazy mangina’s like Van Rooinek wants me arrested for stating the vagina lives on, & his mangina bozo wants to sue me for libel …

    Heres a fact Eric, you belong to an anti-gamer cult, the same cult run by idiots like novy & his sock puppets ..

    The retarded behaviour from the cult Eric belongs to, that brought you such gems as behaviour doesnt create attraction, …. lmao & dont game women, let evolution decide who women want to be with …. Omfg …

    These anti-gamer clowns couldnt think their way out of a paperbag, no wonder they cant stand game …

    Seriously whoever lobotomised you idiots, lets just say you got your moneys worth … lmao

  147. Rmaxd says:

    Btw I’ve been posting for years, & I’ve never come across crap like “behaviour doesnt create attraction”

    & dont game women, let evolution decide who women want to be with … & not be serious ..

    The sad fact is if you look at anti-gamers in general, they spout the above on a daily basis

    Their newest bs is game puts women on a pedestal, when games really about destroying a womans self esteem & their u go grl attitude, by dominating her & bringing out her submissive biology

    Of course success with women implies women want their biological worth measured, not their words

    I have yet to be meet a woman who telegraphs her biological needs correctly, ie in a logical rational understandable behaviour

    A womans clueless seduction technique is completely based on plausible deniabilitiy & hiding her slut reputation

    Women are so good at plausible deniability the only clues you have, is the fact she’s trying to hide her attraction under an avalanche of shit tests & irrational behaviour

  148. Anonymous Reader says:

    Say, folks, it is getting interesting out in the main stream world. First the WSJ’s James Taranto not only got the word hypergamy into a major newspaper, he used it correctly.

    Now we have up and coming writer Kevin Williamson in the online version of National Review writing an article with the title Yes, Chicks Dig Jerks and frankly it is very interesting to see some basic principles of Game in a conservative publication (those who wish to play “No True Conservative” are free to do so but I ain’t gonna be part of it). There likely is controversy – I don’t read comments on that site – but it does not matter. He specifically mentions “dark triad” and Peter Jonason. It’s a good first step.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/292424/yes-chicks-dig-jerks-kevin-d-williamson

  149. milchama says:

    We also have Dr. Helen on PJMedia now too Anon Reader. I know PJM isn’t quite mainstream like the WSJ, or even the conservative National Review, but, it’s a fairly big conservative media network and a lot of conservatives are being exposed to the red pill.

  150. Rmaxd says:

    Game will change the face of social structure … thnx to manginas playing captain save a hoe & taking the carousel riders off the market

    Once game becomes mainstream, women wont even have the comfort of a mangina to pay for her liberal arts degree in her old age, ie 32 …

  151. Perhaps one main purpose of marriage is holiness and the fear of God. Why else – and how else – are we one with Christ? If marriage is an earthly reflection of our union with Christ in any way at all, it is certainly a sanctifying relationship where we are washed by the Word and made holy.

    “And ye shall be holy unto me: for I the LORD am holy, and have severed you from other people, that ye should be mine.” Leviticus 20:26

    Ephesians 5:21-27:

    21Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God. 22Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.24Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. 25Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; 26That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, 27That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

    One main purpose God has is that we would be sanctified people, in Him, and He is Holy! Part of this sanctification is likely the joy of Godly love in structure of authority and submission.

    Of course not all will marry – but for those who do God must be working his purpose for a holy people for his glory. There are many scriptures warning men not to take strange wives: what fellowship can we have with death? To marry an unbeliever is to have unity with a corpse. (2 Cor 6:14)

    Certainly childbearing and rearing is a crucial and wonderful purpose (Jeremiah 29:6) as well.

    What do you men think about the acceptability of divorce in light of Matthew 19?: understanding that God’s purpose for marriage is a reflection of our oneness with Christ, how can divorce even enter the realm of acceptability?

    “6Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

    7They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

    8He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.”

  152. TFH says:

    Say, folks, it is getting interesting out in the main stream world. First the WSJ’s James Taranto not only got the word hypergamy into a major newspaper, he used it correctly.

    This is in no small part due to hundreds of hours of flyer-posting in highly visible locations by myself and 5-6 other dedicated individuals.

    Too bad there are only 5-6 people who got up and did something. The manosphere still is mostly about chatter rather than activism.

  153. Odds says:

    I got a sample earlier today of a real-life, face-to-face discussion of this issue; mainstream exposure to game/manosphere ideas may be happening, but if the response is anything like I got, expect to hear from a lot more screeching divorced mothers in whatever mainstream venues manosphere data infiltrates. Game, I think, will go mainstream relatively simply, once more geeks like me start ignoring women’s advice and seeking answers on their own, and once more girls start liking the results. Manosphere data is goign to have a much, much tougher time, even with all the weight of reality behind it.

    [seriously, one unguarded question, in a discussion about divorce, and I'm physically surrounded by five screeching women while four guys are telling me I deserve it... ugh, never mind]

    When it comes to divorce and manosphere ideas, I feel like the wildcard is really the grown children of divorce. It’s one thing for them to grow up and decide the divorce was unjust and start a manosphere blog, but I’d bet a lot of them would take statements about single mothers as insults to their mothers. People get defensive, but a lot of them are potential allies.

  154. van Rooinek says:

    Rmaxd: lol Crazy mangina’s like Van Rooinek wants me arrested for stating the vagina lives on

    No, based on your excuse-making for rape, I’m confident that someday you’ll be arrested for it. And that the accusation against you, will NOT fall into the 40% of rape accusations that are false. No, you’ll actually be guilty. Interestingly, Officer Buck, above, notes that the criminal elements within his own family, make arguments similar to yours.

    We rightly condemn feminists for blurring the lines of rape, to include retroactive regret, normal courtship behavior, etc — but you are making the opposite error: you refuse to acknowledge that it’s really rape unless the woman is visibly injured. By your sick “logic”, a girl who was raped at knifepoint or gunpoint, wasn’t “really” raped because there’s not a mark on her, because she complied rather than be stabbed or shot. You are truly psycho and you can’t even see it.

    These anti-gamer clowns couldnt think their way out of a paperbag, no wonder they cant stand game

    I’m not an anti-Gamer. I fully acknowledge that Game works — I’ve seen firsthand. I have moral objections to some of the uses to which Game is applied. But I’m not categorically against it. Just for the record.

  155. So your whole argument boils down to we’re rapists and criminals. Fascinating. Fits right in with mine that you deny reality and logic in favor of name calling and slander.

  156. Suz says:

    TFH
    ” One does not *have* to be a jerk or a criminal, once one realizes that it is not quite the jerk traits that women find attractive, but rather the absence of needy niceguy traits.”

    THANK YOU! Please keep saying it!

  157. Suz says:

    ybm:
    “Not morally inferior, amoral. Morals are useful for a woman when they are useful, otherwise they have no utility.”

    The same is true for men. EVERY “moral” act has “utility,” or motive/justification. The only difference is, men are better able to understand the rationale behind their motives; therefore men are more likely to make “moral” decisions which are logically valid. In other words, Male morality is USUALLY far more likely to be rational morality. A man’s morality is more likely than a woman’s to cause “more good than harm.”

    Women being LESS capable of morality, doesn’t make women INcapable of it. Ironically, women might actually be “morally inferior,” simply because our capacity for logic is inferior.

    If you doubt me, please list some “moral” acts which have no rational positive use.

  158. Joe Sheehy says:

    “The Christian scriptures do not require a woman to obey her husband, and they do not allow a husband to demand obedience or submission. They tell her to submit to her husband. They also tell husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the Church.”

    That is rationalization hamster dishonesty. St. Paul and St. Peter and 1900 years of Church teachings say one thing, and feminist churchianity say the opposite, and sad to say, plenty of ostensibly Christian men have no problem going along with the dishonest brushing aside of this teaching, and neutralization of it in practice, by women.

    St. Peter:

    As Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters you are, doing well and not fearing any disturbance.

    St. Paul:

    Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord:
    Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church. He is the saviour of his body.
    Therefore as the church is subject to Christ: so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things.

    And later:

    Nevertheless, let every one of you in particular love for his wife as himself: And let the wife fear her husband.

    Fear and obey her husband, like Sarah who called her husband Lord. 1900 years of Christian tradition have taught one thing, but the feminist pseudo-Christianity teaches that somehow “submissiveness” doesn’t really mean anything, and is neutralized by the requirement of the husband “love” (submit) to his wife.

  159. empathologicalism says:

    Van Roo

    Dont you realize that anything short of wild eyed adulation is anti game? Come on man, its (more than) all…….or its nothing

  160. empathologicalism says:

    The scripture DOES require a woman to submit to her husband, of her own volition, not because he forces it. he is there though as a safety rail, a gentle corrector,.

    Yes yes and men lover your wifes etc etc…..I say yea yea because the poster felt the need to throw that in. Thats the conditionality women use when there should be none.

    Ever seen christian men and women posting on submission? goes like this:

    Man: wifes are to submit
    women: YES BUT men are to love as Christ
    Man, agreed men love as Christ and wives submit
    Women: Yes but men are to love as Christ

    I made the statements short but this is the gist of whats said. The women, unless they get that last word (which elicits a certain FEELING that they crave at the end of any topic) they will not stop. The other reason is this is how preachers teach, they APOLOGIZE for submission, and they dilute it with husbands call to love. SO, given that, its time for a period of full on no apology preaching JUST on submission, skip the husband altogether, or at another time or something. The constant linkage of these 2 volitional things has created a feedback loop in the minds of Christian women thats unbreakable.

    When that fails they raise the kafka trap of abuse, head wags, no woman need submit to no man who is abusing her” stop head wag… then the topic is off submission and on abuse…..or they raise she neednt submit if it is a sinful thing, or she neednt submit of he looks at porn….in the utter lack of comprehension of exceptions and rules, they discuss 5% of the population to inform the 95%, simply because it FEELS right. Then they get to do another thing, the venom and bile spit when talking about the abuse or porn allow all women to vicariously experience righteous anger and the little personal Jesus on the shoulder is dancing a saying GO GIRL

  161. SC says:

    I’m still unclear why so many people want to make a distinction between the words obey and submit. How do you have one without the other or how do they differ?

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/obey

  162. elm says:

    Hey! I have a question (which I hope is OK…not really familiar with blogging rules). What are your thoughts on the following:
    ‘A modern, Western married couple can have a good marriage without the man knowing (or using) game.’

  163. empathologicalism says:

    Elm

    I agree, but some will say that men who lack game are wasting oxygen

  164. 7man says:

    @elm
    Maybe, but the wife must respect her husband and he must be confident enough to cause her to respect him. In this way the aspects of non-game success are the same as aspects of success with game. This respect is difficult without the man having some of the traits that men can learn from game, but he may have developed them without actively learning game. And he also must know how to handle her emotionality and the means may be natural or the things he learns from game, so in the end it is all the same, no matter what it is called.

  165. Dalrock says:

    @elm
    I’ll pose this back in the form of a slightly modified question. What are your thoughts on the following:

    ‘A modern, Western married couple can have a good marriage without the wife being attracted to or in love with the husband.’

    Based on the way women feel/experience love, you might also throw in “without the wife feeling loved by her husband”.

    To the extent that you can answer yes to the above, the answer to your question is yes.

  166. Legion says:

    DXM says:
    March 5, 2012 at 7:31 pm

    Is that our first NAWALT? I really can’t remember as I read the comments several times a day.

    DXM, I know principled women too. It doesn’t excuse unprincipled women. Giving the Not All Women Are Like That excuse is considered weaseling out of the point.

    Justify women filing 70% of divorces, filing false Domestic Violence charges to get the upper hand in the divorce case, then taking the man’s children away and turning them against him. She also gets most of the marriage assets and the ex-husband gets the debts as well as pays alimony and Child Support based on what a judge ‘feels’ he should always be able tro pay. Explain the degenerative use of those courts that then throw the men into debtor’s prison because they live in the real world and can’t pay the money because their job dissapeared.

    Stop being a weasel, DXM.

  167. tony says:

    Another way you can argue from the Bible that women are to submit (be ruled) if you cannot get around the “you’re not acting like Christ so my submission is not required” is to use Genesis 3.
    “Hey, the snake still craws on his belly right? Women have lots of pain during birth right? The ground is still cursed right (you see thorns and weeds in the world? Yes you do), people don’t live forever, everyone physically dies eventually, right? Well I guess the only thing that doesn’t apply is that the husband rules over her, right? WRONG.

    The beauty is, we are already doing our part (the ground is still cursed and we die) so they can not use the same line of “your not doing X first so i dont have to do Y” (unforunately for women, this dont work too because women were addressed first).

  168. Legion says:

    Rmaxd says:
    March 5, 2012 at 10:09 pm
    “Once game becomes mainstream, women wont even have the comfort of a mangina to pay for her liberal arts degree in her old age, ie 32 …”

    Don’t you mean pay off her liberal arts degree? The loan debt of which is now 6 figures because she has missed several minimum payments along the way.

  169. Legion says:

    Joe Sheehy says:
    March 6, 2012 at 5:00 am

    You are not understanding the logic behind her writing. Focus below:

    “The Christian scriptures … …they do not allow a husband to demand.. …submission. They tell her to submit to her husband.”

    Get it now? Scriptures do not allow a husband to demand submission. She must submit to her husband.

    I hope you will understand this bit of logic. Then you can explain the stupid thing to me. Thank you for your efforts in advance, Joe. (Yes, it’s sarcasm, in case that didn’t come across.)

  170. Joe Sheehy says:

    [quote]Get it now? Scriptures do not allow a husband to demand submission. She must submit to her husband.[/quote]

    Where is it said he may not demand it? For nearly 19 centuries men were entitled to chastise their wives according to the law. I don’t see anything in the Bible that forbids a man from chastising his wife.

    The distinction between obedience and submission is bogus. If a woman is supposed to follow her husband as she follows the Lord, to act as Sarah who called her husband Lord, to be in fear of her husband, she’d better consider herself bound to obey him, if she wants to consider herself a Christian.

  171. Joe Sheehy says:

    Men are entitled to demand what is theirs by right, that is, the submission of their wives. Every time a man asks a woman to do something, he is demanding this right. Does that mean every request, no matter what it’s nature, must be granted? No, but certainly women do not have the right to rationalize away their duty. And men have the right to insist on a woman doing her duty.

  172. Joe Sheehy says:

    Ultimately, the entire men’s rights movement depends on our autonomy from the courts. The autonomy of the male led household, and the delegation of authority to that household. So long as a man’s authority is one 911 sob story away from being taken away for good, so long as women have the police at their beck and call as bully boys, men cannot have authority in their own homes, except at the sufferance of women. A man who causes his wife serious injury can be arrested and tried. The police should not answer domestic violence calls. If a woman doesn’t like the way her husband treats her, she should leave.

    Where you stand on this really determines which side you’re on. You can’t believe in patriarchal marriage while believing that men are not entitled to demand the submission of their wives. If you think a husband demanding his wife’s submission entitles her to resort to bully boys in blue, you’re a “white knight” – not an authentic conservative.

  173. ybm says:

    100% spot on post Joe.

    The only alpha in your home, no matter how much you game her, is your wife. The police are the “game” of your alpha wife.

  174. Dalrock says:

    @Joe Sheehy

    A man who causes his wife serious injury can be arrested and tried. The police should not answer domestic violence calls. If a woman doesn’t like the way her husband treats her, she should leave.

    The problem isn’t that police respond to authentic domestic violence calls. The problem is that everything is now considered abuse, and there is a profound bias in the system to always take action against the man. There should be a degree of deference by the police and the courts when dealing with the family. But this doesn’t mean the police should never respond, or that cases of real abuse shouldn’t be prosecuted if the abused party brings charges (with a different standard for abused children).

  175. Joe Sheehy says:

    I understand where you’re coming from Dalrock, but in all honesty, how can the police get to into a home to stop an act of violence?

    If a man seriously injures his wife, then the police can be alerted by the wife at the hospital. I don’t see how the police entering into an argument where a few blows might have been exchanged and a few bruises received can prevent any serious acts of violence or serious injuries. Someone who doesn’t like the treatment they’ve received where they live can leave. I really can’t see how a police response to “domestic violence” will prevent any serious acts of violence. And if they aren’t serious acts of violence, no one should be arrested or locked up for them.

  176. Joe Sheehy says:

    A man can’t be the lord of his own house if a woman can call the police to have him dragged out of it.

  177. Joe Sheehy says:

    The idea of that there is a such thing as “marital rape” is another farce. If a woman lives with your husband, she should expect to perform her conjugal duties, and shouldn’t expect any sane person to take a claim of rape seriously. If she doesn’t like those duties, she should leave. In the past juries were male of course, and the law exempted husbands from being charged with rape. It really hasn’t been that long since these changes have occurred. That’s what amazes me about so-called traditionalists, is how quickly they adopt politically correct sensibilities. It’s beating a dead horse to say it, but most of what traditionalists say about abortion and sexual morality is just empty posturing, sad to say. Conservatives these days are wimps who follow phonies, most of the time. It’s very very sad.

  178. Dalrock says:

    @Joe Sheehy

    I really can’t see how a police response to “domestic violence” will prevent any serious acts of violence.

    Of course it can.

    You are making the same straw man arguments feminists would accuse us of making.

  179. Joe Sheehy says:

    I suppose it’s theoretically possible. Maybe if you have some guy like that Austrian with the dungeon. I really don’t see how police crossing the threshold of a house makes sense unless someone is being confined. If a husband is a criminal assailant like a street criminal I would expect a woman to flee the premises. If she stays and calls the police I have a hard time believing she actually believes she’s in any danger. For a man to be arrested as a criminal in his own home I think it’s reasonable he actually be committing a serious crime. I think we should ask the question: “What would have been done before telephones?” How would people in that society have reacted to such situations?

    I’m not sure how my statement is to be regarded as a straw-man. I’m not imputing the position that anyone who thinks police should answer domestic violence calls is not on the side of men’s rights. I would say, I don’t believe you can be on the side of men’s rights if you think a woman can on a flimsy pretext (we might debate just what is a flimsy pretext) can call the police and have her husband dragged out of the house.

  180. deti says:

    Joe:

    A police response to domestic violence – REAL domestic violence — will prevent serious, REAL domestic violence.

    1. PUNISHMENT: Individuals — both men AND women — who are beating their spouses will know they will be arrested and, if the evidence warrants it, tried for battery or aggravated battery. All that’s necessary is that the law be applied fairly, swiftly and surely.

    2. DETERRENCE: Swift, certain and fair application of the law to everyone (men and women) who batters their spouses will deter others from doing so.

    The problem is that police are involved or called to handle everything. We live in a society in which one numbskull actually called 911 because a McDonalds restaurant refused to serve her a Whopper. Everything is domestic violence:

    “He isn’t being nice to me.”
    “He YELLED at me.”
    “He pushed past me because I was in his way.”
    “He had sex with me and I kinda sorta didn’t want to but I didn’t tell him that.”
    “He’s arguing with me.”

    THAT’s the problem — Good LE officers like the Bucks of the world having to deal with dipshits who don’t know to go to a Burger King to get a Whopper. And having to deal with women who get the cops involved because hubby had a bad day at work today.

  181. Joe Sheehy says:

    Okay Deti, yes, I agree, arresting a man as a criminal for seriously beating his wife could possibly deter future acts. At the same time, if a woman really regards her husband as a dangerous assailant, I would expect her to leave the house, if he really is dangerous. The “future acts,” should they occur, are no longer occurring in a man’s home, but where he has gone to pursue his wife. No longer “domestic violence” so to speak. The same way I would expect someone mugged at a street corner not to return to that location while the mugger remained at large. I don’t think you can have a system where women call the police on their husbands as a kind of warning or deterrent. Either a serious crime of abuse is committed in the home, and the woman should leave the home, ending the situation, and press charges in case of serious injury, or a not so serious act of “abuse” is committed, in which case, having the cops crash through the door in response is a crime in and of itself.

  182. deti says:

    Joe:

    Agree. If he has given her a black eye and a broken clavicle, then yes, she’s fully justified in calling the cops, he should be arrested and tried and put in the clink for battery. If he used a baseball bat then that’s aggravated battery. And she leaves him and has grounds for divorce, naturally.

    A loud argument is not abuse.
    Him yelling at her is not abuse.
    Him pushing her out of the way to get away from her because she’s haranguing him is not abuse.
    Him putting her on a budget is not abuse.
    Him telling her that she cannot spend money on that thing she wants because we can’t afford it is not abuse.
    Him shoving her to defend himself against her shoving him is not abuse.

  183. TFH says:

    deti,

    A loud argument is not abuse.
    Him yelling at her is not abuse.
    Him pushing her out of the way to get away from her because she’s haranguing him is not abuse.
    Him putting her on a budget is not abuse.
    Him telling her that she cannot spend money on that thing she wants because we can’t afford it is not abuse.
    Him shoving her to defend himself against her shoving him is not abuse.

    But the LAW says it is abuse, and the LAW is always fair!!! Always!!!

    There is but one God, and that God is the LAW. Just ask some recent trolls.

    Note that in France, there is a law to fasten men with an electronic tracking bracelet if they conduct ‘verbal abuse’ onto their wives. Sad, because I thought the French were more realistic about male-female nature…..

  184. Joe Sheehy says:

    The bottom line is this: however you want to deal with men who inflict injuries on women, if the police can come and drag a man out of his own home on his wife’s say so, while she remains in the house, a man ultimately does not have authority in the house except at the sufferance of his wife. Whenever “Christian” women are confronted with St. Paul’s injunction to obey or the teaching of conjugal duty, they surely, in the back of their minds, know that legally the power over the household and children is effectively in their hands.

  185. Legion says:

    Joe Sheehy says:
    March 6, 2012 at 9:35 am

    You did not understand that I was going after the complete lack of logic in the “CM says:, March 5, 2012 at 6:24 pm” quote that you made.

    As you accepted it at face value before arguing against it, it seemed useful to point out to you that you were arguing against something that made no sense what so ever. Hence my note of sarcasm.

    I need you to see I wasn’t agruing against you, just slagging the inconsistancy of CM’s statement.

  186. Joe Sheehy says:

    Consider this clip. I bet the white knights are howling at rage at this guy. (who doesn’t seem to bright) The women know they can kick men out, keep their stuff, push their buttons and tape it and they will get boundless sympathy.

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1a0_1330992056

  187. an observer says:

    A late reply to Michalma,

    Your question deserves serious thought. For some time now, i have recommended christian men marry only if they consider losing their children and most of their assets an acceptable risk. This usually provokes screeches of outraged indignation, even from my own family that has experienced divorce and seen assets robbed.

    Given tne deplorable state of christendom and its heavily feminised thinking, encouraged by a white knighting mangina brigade, this leaves few options.

    However, there is one alternative that came to mind. Assuming your self assessment of smv is accurate, have you considered an arranged marriage? If you are a high status male, you should have little trouble getting offers from the parents of attractive, much younger women of lower social status. With a larger status differential (note she should still meet your other requirements), a younger wpman witj children to shortly run aftet may be less likely to be swept into the careerist brainwashing that affects most christian girls.

    On the issue of attraction, marriage has only in the recent past required love before the ceremony. Most of what i have read suggests this is a recent development, probably driven by the suffrage movement and the illusion of choice that early peaking smv women are deluded by.

    As a man, your smv is more durable though it too will fade.

    I acknowledge the difficulty of your situation and wish you well. The coming economic conflagration will make a lot of women even more unhappy. But to misquote Charles McKay, this will probanly continue before a few return to their senses.

    You should not have to wait that long. In the meantime, pre nups should also be on your agenda.

  188. Dalrock says:

    @Joe Sheehy

    The bottom line is this: however you want to deal with men who inflict injuries on women, if the police can come and drag a man out of his own home on his wife’s say so, while she remains in the house, a man ultimately does not have authority in the house except at the sufferance of his wife.

    This is true, but is somewhat beside the point. Whether the wife has her finger on the eject-the-husband button marked “claim DV”, or the eject-the-husband button marked “I’m not haaaaapy!”, she has her finger on the button. Remove either one of those two buttons and the other is still there.

    What I would say though is it is possible that we reform the system without disregarding real cases of DV. Such a system would be imperfect, and some false DV claims would be acted on while some real ones not acted on. However, right now the system isn’t even trying to really sort it all out while showing maximum possible deference to the institution of the family. The system is designed to blame and punish men, pretty much no matter what actually happened. We can work towards fixing that without denying that real cases of abuse do occur and finding a way to respond accordingly. Ironically, this would take away another of the out of control wife’s weapons in her arsenal, the “go bat shit crazy” and antagonize and/or abuse the husband until the police come and take him away. If women knew the bat shit crazy option came with consequences, they would find they could control their emotions after all.

  189. The lists of abuse determining factors are recruitment devices. Empathy and vicarious lust for revenge (even revenge in advance of experiencing anything) drive women to include women in abuse. Read some woman telling about arguments at home, this woman may be sincere, wanting to get advice to get along, some harpy will ALWAYS say “oh sweety you do realize THATS ABUSE don’t you”

    WHY? Why the need to call everything abuse? And the most pathetic and ridiculous is the “weepy voice….verbal abuse is worse than physical because , cause cause….well, those scars dont show and they dont heal as fast” whaaaaaaaaa…..
    Bullshit

    Ask the woman pinned against the wall, air closed off from being choked….hey you, would you prefer he let go and yell at you?
    Or, visit the woman in hospital with punctured lung, would you have preferred he yell?
    And finally, the mere idea of physical abuse that doesnt include yelling as well, yelling that is loud and violent, is so stupid its just silly.

    The women invested in that claim, verbal is worse than physical, have never been beaten and as much as they accuse others that we just dont understand, uh, yea…..I do…..been there, watched it happen, cleaned up the blood after as a child. And yelling would have been far far far far better. This crap pisses me of fast when it comes up, because I earned a license to be pissed off about it.

    Verbal abuse is as follows

    Women nags man….and nags….and argues and nags, and uses female mental meandering that creates circular reasoning that men know they cannot penetrate. he tries to ignore, disengage….she corners his logic with her silliness….finally he blows up and yells….she cries…..she claims abuse

    Verbal abuse victims are 99/100 simply the losers of an argument where they pushed too freakin far.

    In the family law code in texas in 2004 it said something paraphrased like this, in factors considered for the asset split deviation from 50/50…..”verbal abuse real or alleged”…..I am not making that up, not sure if its still there.

  190. Baskerville has that quote from the NJ judges conference where the judge teaching said “its not our place to worry about his rights, its our place to get his ass out and on the street”

  191. Suz says:

    Joe Sheehy
    March 6, 2012 at 2:40 pm
    Thanks for that clip, Joe. It IS so easy to become furious with the male jackass in the video. There’s no excuse for him to punch anyone so much smaller than himself, and he certainly had the option of defending himself by restraining her.
    What NOBODY will do is criticize HER for either provoking him to an agitated state, or hitting him and inviting a physical response. If he has a history of hitting her, she already knows the consequences of doing either one, even if those consequences are a “wrong” committed by him. If she feels that he’s dangerous, why is she in the same room with him? If she’s afraid of him, why is she getting between him and the TV? And for God’s sake, WHY are the children anywhere near him?

    Both of them behaved abominably and illegally, but only one of them will be vilified, she knows it’s safe for her to poke a caged tiger with a stick.

    It’s the slutwalker mentality. “I can do whatever I want, but you have to behave.” What kind of sick women will invite victimization instead of preventing it, just to make a point?

  192. an observer says:

    Suz

    Any woman that is protected from the true consequences of her actions is who.

    Any government that defines the marriage contract and intervenes in it effectively changes the price tags on certain behaviours. Like any other market intervention, the result is mispriced outcomes.

    The victim role is especially prized as it is rewarded with extra cash and prizes courtesy of the thief in the room and its hired goons with guns.

  193. cane caldo says:

    @Tony

    “Hey, the snake still craws on his belly right? Women have lots of pain during birth right? The ground is still cursed right (you see thorns and weeds in the world? Yes you do), people don’t live forever, everyone physically dies eventually, right? Well I guess the only thing that doesn’t apply is that the husband rules over her, right? WRONG.

    Genesis 3 is completely relevant, but you’re misunderstanding it. The curse is different than you think. Here’s the KJV, verbatim: “And thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” But in our words it would read “And your desire shall be to rule your husband, yet he shall rule over you.

    The curses are excruciatingly fitting consequences: The wife was deceived by the serpent. The serpent did this by appealing to her inflated sense of self and her lack of attention to what Adam actually told her God commanded. Can’t you just hear her swear she’s listening while buffing her nails? Adam’s sin was Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree. So, the wife–with a superiority complex and a blase attitude towards life–now has to put up with the rule of a husband who is Mr. Nice Guy. She’s going to hate it.

    Brutal.

    @Joe Sheehy
    Where is it said he may not demand it? For nearly 19 centuries men were entitled to chastise their wives according to the law. I don’t see anything in the Bible that forbids a man from chastising his wife.

    The distinction between obedience and submission is bogus. If a woman is supposed to follow her husband as she follows the Lord, to act as Sarah who called her husband Lord, to be in fear of her husband, she’d better consider herself bound to obey him, if she wants to consider herself a Christian.

    It’s not bogus. The difference is in the attitude of the heart. Submission is a willingness to not just obey, but shares goals and ends. If you ask your wife to make breakfast, and she makes you cold cereal, she has obeyed. If she asks you what you want she is submitting. If she knows what you want, and makes breakfast without you asking then she is in beyond-rubies territory.

  194. Suz says:

    @ an observer:
    Yes. What I’ll never get is women’s inability to see the more subtle, long term, and INEVITABLE consequences. Women like that are willing to live in misery for years on end just to prove a point. Win a battle, lose a war, over and over again. Don’t they get tired?

  195. Retrenched says:

    Nowadays, “abuse” simply means “any male behavior that women do not like”.

  196. an observer says:

    I would hazard that playing the victim role is reinforced by codependency with the state.

    Government imposed fascism is supported by female voters. Why bother thinking independently when the state promises to do it on your behalf, and intervenes to maximise the probability through brainwashing citizens that men are the cause of all evil, should be drugged as children, taxed heavily as adults and get to do all the dangerous dirty jobs that may kill them sooner?

    The process will of course roll along happily there are generous wealth redistribution schemes for women who have children out or wedlock, or decide to dump the spouse because he no longer makes them tingle.

    I cannot answer your question. But i do note that democracy promotes a high time preference, a focus on what is best for here and now. If women are the less rational gender, then they may be more susceptible to this mindset and less inclined to rationally anticipate the consequences of their actions.

  197. @milchama: it sounds like you need a trusted Christian social circle. If braving the teeming masses around the coffee urn after services is unappealing, you should be forging bonds with people who share your interests. For me, I’ve made good friends (and dates) out of Latin masses, small Christian colleges, pro-life work, and the Catholic blogging world. If you find “your people,” your dream girl will probably be there.

    Practicing on hot girls who respond to asshole game might skew how you approach those trad girls, though. Not saying trad girls aren’t hot… ;-)

  198. TFH says:

    Suz,

    What I’ll never get is women’s inability to see the more subtle, long term, and INEVITABLE consequences.

    Repeat after me :

    Women don’t understand cause and effect very well. That part of their brain is only on par with a 10 year old boy.

    Much the same way that subtle social cues are something a 14 year old girl can detect better than most men.

  199. an observer says:

    Tfh,

    Cause and effect become meaningless when intervention always negates the consequences. Hence, actions and behaviours never get to provide a feedback loop so that changes are made.

    The soft skills more easily demonstrated by women underwrite a number of white collar industries. Hr, pr and and media come to mind.

  200. women do not think in abstract, consequences past an hour out are abstract, what if? she cant think about that. If she has to, she will decide the “if” in advance, and it will be the “if” that grants her the feeeeeling she wants on that subject, then goes with that.

  201. Suz says:

    TFH,
    “Much the same way that subtle social cues are something a 14 year old girl can detect better than most men.”

    I never did figure out those #*@^% subtle social cues! But I’ve met 10 year old boys with much better judgement than their mothers.

  202. TFH says:

    But I’ve met 10 year old boys with much better judgement than their mothers.

    Well, yes. But even biologically, cause and effect simply not something they process as well as males over age 10.

    she cant think about that. If she has to, she will decide the “if” in advance, and it will be the “if” that grants her the feeeeeling she wants on that subject, then goes with that.

    Heh. That is why Game works. One prominent school of Game specializes in getting women to talk about what makes them most happy, and then use NLP to anchor those feelings onto the PUA. She thus ‘feels great’ in his presence, and is hooked.

  203. Eric says:

    Dalrock:
    Off-topic, but needs to be addressed.

    While I appreciate your commitment to free speech and open dialogue; and have resisted calls to ban or censor certain here (myself included in that list frequently, I’m sure!)—I have to draw your attention to the fact that none of these committments sanction or tolerate slander, libel, or defamation.

    Our Founding Fathers and the Courts have recognized this fact. Even offensive views, rudeness, and hate-speech are protected liberties. Malicious impugning of a person, by presenting as facts knowingly false information is legally actionable. As a publisher, I’m sure you’re aware of this.

    On three occassions here, the writer calling himself ‘Rmaxd’ has stated—as fact with no evidence— that I am not writing under my own name; that I belong to a cult; and finally that I’m a follower someone called ‘navy’ whatever that means. I don’t know whether he’s done the same to others here, I don’t read everything he writes to other commenters.

    I’m not complaining about his kooky arguments; I’m informing you that such remarks are outside the pale of legal protections. Giving him a forum to preach his kookiness is one thing; giving him a forum to make false and baseless accusations is another.

    I hope you’ll give this some attention.

  204. ruddyturnstone says:

    Joe:

    “If a husband is a criminal assailant like a street criminal I would expect a woman to flee the premises. If she stays and calls the police I have a hard time believing she actually believes she’s in any danger.”

    I completely agree with you that the DV thing is out of control, but I can’t really buy into the above statement. I think, in at least some of the cases, the abused person can’t leave because his or her children are in the house. Is a parent who is being physically attacked in his or her own home supposed to just run away, and leave his or her children in the care of the attacking parent? Another factor might be the lack of somewhere else to go. And then there are logistical concerns…who is going to get the kids ready for school the next day? And how long must he or she stay away? Won’t they need things, like clothing, that are still in the home.? Another consideration is that the marital home is the home of both spouses. Why should anyone have to leave their home because someone else is attacking them? As you say, assault is assualt and battery is battery. If either spouse commits these crimes, and there is evidence amounting to probable cause of those crimes, the police should arrest whoever that evidence incriminates. That should be as true of violence in the home as it of violence anywhere else.

    What should not be allowed is “mandatory arrest” policies. Or mandatory arrest of the “primary offender.” Or arrest for behavior that does not amount to crime, like shouting or incidental contact or arguing about how money should be spent and so on. Nor should the mere report of subjective “feelings” of fear be the basis of arrests. Specific threats, such as would be adequate to justify the arrest of one stranger when made to another, are one thing, simply feeling afraid for no or inadequate reasons should not. Nor should arrests be allowed if the supposedly injurred party refuses to press charges. And, when there are arrests, any subsequent proceeding should be in a criminal court, with full Constitutional protections for the rights of the accused in place. And spouces who file false charges or testify falsely in court re DV allegations should be prosecuted for perjury. And that should include such allegations made in connection with divorce cases.

    Dalrock:

    “Whether the wife has her finger on the eject-the-husband button marked “claim DV”, or the eject-the-husband button marked ‘I’m not haaaaapy!’ she has her finger on the button. Remove either one of those two buttons and the other is still there.”

    I agree, but only up to a point. No fault divorce, and the slanting of settlements towards women is one thing (“I’m not haaaaaappy”). False DV accusations are another. They both are bad, but the latter is much worse. Divorce today is, rightly or wrongly, not much of a stigma. But being tagged as a wife abuser sure is. And beyond the social stigma, it can hugely and negatively affect a man’s business and professional life. Not to mention him being left at the mercy of some kangaroo court DV tribunal. And the potential effect on the man’s relationship with his children is much worse in the latter case too.

  205. van Rooinek says:

    realisticagnostic: So your whole argument boils down to we’re rapists and criminals. Fascinating.

    No, I’m only saying that about Rmaxd. Based on his own quite damning words. He may not yet be guilty of rape, but his strange definition of it pretty much guarantees that someday he will be.

    Gaming a woman not your wife, into bed, is fornication — not rape. I oppose this on moral grounds but it’s not criminal. Gaming, after all, is simply a method of obtaining consent; hence gaming is the very opposite of rape.

    Fits right in with mine that you deny reality and logic in favor of name calling and slander

    I have at no place on this blog — or anywhere else — denied reality or logic. Rmaxd is the one doing the name calling and slander, in case you hadn’t noticed.

  206. van Rooinek says:

    deti: Traditional Christian girls are very, very hard to find.

    True. I had to resort to the internet.

    Churchianity is a dating wasteland. Most of them are so incredibly ultrahypergamous and their requirements for a man so stratospheric that not a man alive could meet their specifications…

    Sad, and true!

    Also, most evangelical churchian girls are incredibly cruel.

    I wouldn’t say “most”, but, far too many.

    The most nuclear rejections I’ve ever received were from churchian girls.

    True, true, true!

  207. Lavazza says:

    It is fascinating that no or few men can use the law to hurt another man, merely by lying to the law, but most or all women can. Men must be very accomodating to women (in the shadow of the law), otherwise women would abuse the system even more.

  208. dhurka says:

    There shouldn’t even be domestic violence laws and police should never enter your house on the basis of those laws. If it is domestic violence law it is about screwing over the man. Now if the police want to act on a violence law like assault and battery then I have no problem with it. There will generally be evidence of these crimes.

    Verbal abuse would be protected free speech if it was said in another venue. I can tell a politician that he is a fat idiot and I don’t want him spending another cent of my money. But if you said it to your wife you could legally be thrown in jail. This is because any DV law is only about screwing the man.

  209. Twenty says:

    Malicious impugning of a person, by presenting as facts knowingly false information is legally actionable. As a publisher, I’m sure you’re aware of this.

    On three occassions here, the writer calling himself ‘Rmaxd’ has stated—as fact with no evidence— that I am not writing under my own name; that I belong to a cult; and finally that I’m a follower someone called ‘navy’ whatever that means.

    I agree that a banhammer is definitely in order here. It’s exactly this kind of prissy, lawyerly chatter, veiled bullying, and litigiousness that has contributed to the ruin of a great nation.

    Or was that not your point?

  210. I don’t believe the concept of ‘game’ and ‘pua’ is a always an improvement for our society. It seems an artificial construct easily countered that does not have a positive long term impact on either the target or the practicioner when it is overused. I have personally found that a few of the ideas or methods, such as how to interact with people can be used for good but like anything else it is how they are used in relation to the user and their state of mind, intentions that has a larger effect than simple mechanics. Much like binge drinking it may provide a temporary feedback look but does long term damage both to the user and collateral damage to those surrounding. Versus social drinking as bonding with old friends or as a recreational relaxation technique that isn’t overused and the limits are verified.

    In regards to Joe. It seems that there are different parties on both side of the gender aisle who believe that power is like both sides of a pendulum, either all on or all off for one or the other. When the healthiest range is when it moves in a narrow range in the center, where both parties have influence and understanding with each other and none dominating the other. Friends in the force, definitely agree on the need for domestic violence support in our society. I’m not denying the system is imperfect.

    I find it an easy temptation for both men and women to paint the other with a broad brush. I force myself to temper my own passions with the empathy that we all need for the other sex. Anger affects us all, but I do not wish to become a worse human being simply as a result of my experiences. Harder than it sounds sometimes.

    to:van Rooinek

    My apology to you good sir.

  211. Yea, I agree that lawyerly chatter is the wrong way to go. I also think that myopia on something ends up wasting bytes of space, but hell there are clouds fiull of it.

  212. Johnycomelately says:

    Wow, dude voluntarily comes to your forum and then threatens you for someone else’s comments. I’d be looking for another host Dalrock.

    God bless America……

  213. “”””In regards to Joe. It seems that there are different parties on both side of the gender aisle who believe that power is like both sides of a pendulum, either all on or all off for one or the other. When the healthiest range is when it moves in a narrow range in the center, where both parties have influence and understanding with each other and none dominating the other””””
    —————————————————————————————-

    This is one of those white knight isms that sounds good. Everyone can select an EQUALLY tasty dish from this nebulous buffet. It may be the meaning of the words, but I disagree with the pendulum analogy, which is very common, where I once thought it was the holy grail. The issue isnt one pendulum of power, its many pendulums that represent various aspects of gender relations. Sure, in family law, balance would be good. Women love the “balance” word, heck look at TV commercials, balance your hormones, balance your nutrition, even get a life coach and balance your whole life!!! Yeah and kumbaya and all that….now back to the word outside the gates of Shangrila. Women will swarm to talk of balance, because it doesnt mean anything tangible to them. Since cause and effect, abstract thinking escapes the majority of them, the reason they take balance with wonderment is that it FEELS good to say….full stop. This is how most non rabid feminists but hopelessly gynocentric women think, genteel, balance, cooperation, not 50/50 oh no 100/100! Yippee we are makin progress in this meeting, someone write up the notes so we can show the progress, make a balance mani-freakin-festo out of these wonderful concepts.

    But balance doesnt look like the amalgam of power at a centered pendulum. It looks like a teeter totter, where at any moment the male side can use legs to support and “balance” the two sides, level, but both sides know that if he releases his legs, his side “wins”….thats the best representation of the overall power in gender relations, not the pendulum, because the teeter totter is gut honest about reality.

    There are dozens of pendulums and they are so specific in describing one power balance aspect that its tedious to look at every one of them. Few of them are even balanced….by nature…..and those that are are still subject to the cooperation of the males. This the raw, clinical, cold stated truth. And we have tried so hard to ignore it, because thats polite. When you give someone something then they take it as an entitlement, flaunt it, even use it against you, its time to UNgive it. The pendulum if kept in the middle in other words, is where we are today, though some would say its swung to the womens side. Nope, the pendulum is mid way, and they are able to corrupt the 50% they have for advantage, because the pendulum is a facade, a fiction, a creation again to make her feel good.

    “””””I find it an easy temptation for both men and women to paint the other with a broad brush. I force myself to temper my own passions with the empathy that we all need for the other sex. Anger affects us all, but I do not wish to become a worse human being simply as a result of my experiences.”””””
    ———————————————————————————

    More white knight code, no broad brush allowed. But yes, there are actual valid broad brushes. To not use them is dishonest pandering. It represents pure statistical reality. Its de rigueur to deny gender differences these days, because everyone wants to be men and no one wants to be a woman, this while claiming “Wom Is The Sa” (that was a stupid slogan that the fems on my uni campus cooked up in the early 80’s, it was the words Woman is the Same as Man…with those abbreviations darkened to make the slogan Wom is the Sa…..) If won id the sa, why the hell does no one wanna be Wom?
    We rely on broad brushs for the medicines we take, statistics show efficacy for x% and side effects for Y%, thats a broad brush hate to break it to you. Without broad brushes imagine treating psychological issues for men and women, or counseling couples. Truly each and every case would take years to establish the “specialness’ of these unique creatures and then the therapy would be determined. By starting with broad brushes we skip steps, efficiently. Broad brushes are a must, they are not bad except in gynocentric slogans.

    As to empathy, I dont think we NEED empathy for the other gender. Thats maybe controversial statement, but Im an 100% certain that in the true definition of the word, i CANNOT empathize with a woman , or it would be lets say extremely rare, nor her me, because we get to our feelings so incredibly differently. Women CRAVE empathy like men crave sex. They acceept the faux empathy men are taught to give (listen…..dont fix) and they cast about all day with their friends in conversations seeking the empathagasm, thats the climax where two women talking say “I KNOW EXACTLY HOW YOU FEEL”….Now thats euphoric.
    Men are the side rails on the bowling alley, we dont have to feel empathy for the ball, just stop its entrance to the gutter. Sympathy, yes….thats why we do it, empathy, not so much.

  214. Suz says:

    Wow, Eric. Just…Wow. Maybe you SHOULD go back and read more of Rmaxd’s comments. His “slanderous” (and over-the-top) statements serve a useful purpose on this forum. His inflammatory and occasionally offensive diatribes, get people to THINK about their own opinions.

    Nearly every commenter with a strong opinion has been insulted here, and not only by Rmaxd. The best part about the “comments” section of this site, is that people feel safe voicing their opinions. You yourself have made many thought provoking comments, so why are you throwing a wet blanket on the dialog? Old canards like, “If you can’t stand the heat…” come to mind. Dalrock reins commenters in when he thinks it’s necessary, and I don’t doubt he would ban someone for cause. Anger, vulgar language, and random pot shots do not appear to be “cause,” and most of us appreciate that fact.

    If you are so disturbed by the occasional flinging of insults, where were you a while back when Joshua called me a “dumb cunt” and a sociopath? Or do insults only bother you when you are the target?

  215. I cannot find the useful purpose. I have no interest in banning, nor am I so personally offended that it causes me distress, but I can agree with the idea that a conversation on ice sculptures being turned into a pro or anti game issue is not a useful purpose, except for maybe others who are that committed to proselytizing for game.

    Personal insults, “idiot anti game manginas” etc. essentially serve zero purpose for anyone save the person writing them.

    I can agree that the seemingly pro-rape stuff tests the thinking of those open minded enough to get past the offensiveness of them. Im all for pushing boundaries like those even if I stop way short of where he takes it.

  216. Brendan says:

    What I would say though is it is possible that we reform the system without disregarding real cases of DV. Such a system would be imperfect, and some false DV claims would be acted on while some real ones not acted on. However, right now the system isn’t even trying to really sort it all out while showing maximum possible deference to the institution of the family. The system is designed to blame and punish men, pretty much no matter what actually happened. We can work towards fixing that without denying that real cases of abuse do occur and finding a way to respond accordingly. Ironically, this would take away another of the out of control wife’s weapons in her arsenal, the “go bat shit crazy” and antagonize and/or abuse the husband until the police come and take him away. If women knew the bat shit crazy option came with consequences, they would find they could control their emotions after all.

    I would say that the system we have is designed as an extreme prophylactic — it’s designed to prevent possible abuse at the expense of everything else (here: constitutional rights, interests of children and fathers, etc.). Any law is going to involve a balancing of interests, and most of them are more or less balanced, although favoring one side or the other to some degree. Some laws, however, are crafted in a deliberately imbalanced fashion specifically to bend over backwards, legally, in favor of one interest or another. The DV laws are not the only example of this — the securities laws are, too (anyone who has read through a securities prospectus, which is mandated by the federal securities laws and regs of the SEC, knows this, never mind anyone who has actually ever written one).

    Taking the case of the securities laws, we had a stock market crash which focused everyone on the “need to do SOMETHING!!! 11!!!1111!!” kind of legislative hysteria that generally results in really crappy, overdone laws. It’s not that regulation and law wasn’t needed — it was. It’s that legislation was drafted in an atmosphere of hysteria, which tends to lead to legislators voting for crappy, one-sided legislation that is emotionally satisfying in a time of hysteria and actually doesn’t serve the goals of what it was intended to do (most people don’t read prospectuses, and most prospectuses are written in a very legal manner so as to avoid liability, primarily). And so the same problem comes up again, in which case the legislature tends to double down — which also proves ineffective. Not because regulation isn’t needed, but because regulation that is based on emotional hysteria rather than a calm assessment of the problem (in this case, fraud) will inevitably overreach and, ironically, still fail to meet its desired goal. And the doubling down just makes it all the more dysfunctional in terms of legislation. You don’t get rid of fraud, you just channel it into increasingly arcane and clever ways of expression, while the “main market” is slapped with huge amounts of cost, regulation and compliance that is largely not actively used by the market as a whole.

    DV is another example of this. The key part of the story as to why we ended up with the crazy DV laws we have is that the feminist movement (and especially the DV wing of it) created an atmosphere of hysteria around DV beginning in the 1980s. The way the bloody shirt was being waved about at the time, you would have thought that almost all American wives were living terrorized existences, being beaten senseless routinely by their husbands, and having no way out of their miserable, beaten-up lives. To state that this was a gross exaggeration is not to state that there wasn’t DV taking place — there was (just as there was securities fraud). But the nature, degree, and intensity of it was not at all what was being bandied about in the narrative — yet the narrative was purposely bandied about. Why? Because by creating an atmosphere of hysteria on the issue, some very, very extreme, imbalanced legislation could be passed — the kind of “OMG WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING 111!!!!!!!11!!!” type of atmosphere that creates an emotional/political environment wherein legislators will sign up to extreme legislation without really thinking about it, just to please the hysterical frenzy of the mob. Were the feminist groups the ones behind this? Sure. And they also well realized that what they were asking for went well beyond “protecting women”, and was aimed at nothing less than changing the entire dynamic of power in American marriages — that was the fucking POINT, really. That was the GOAL. But they couldn’t get that goal by asking for it outright. So instead, they created a situation of hysteria around DV (based on false statistics, as the feminist movement has done for pretty much everything else from rape to wages), which in turn created tremendous legislative pressure to pass some extreme legislation that was aimed more at disempowering American husbands than it was at protecting American wives. Some women (it appears to be about the same amount as before) are still being beaten up by their husbands, and many of the guys who are doing it are getting away with it just as they were before VAWA. Why? Because there is obviously an odd dynamic taking place between the women and men in question in most of these cases of regular physical abuse — a dynamic that is not really touched by this legislation. But VAWA (and its state implementing laws) have structurally changed the rules of marriage for everyone else, while at the same time handing women a nuclear weapon that can be used at any time in a divorce process (and the people who came up with VAWA knew damned well that this was what they were doing). And, to boot, everyone “felt good” about VAWA — it’s still a piece of legislation that most legislators can’t say jack about, because if they did they would get the Limbaugh treatment.

    It’s a case study in how to get extreme legislation passed: create an atmosphere of hysteria (or capitalize on one that already is happening). If you do that, you can wrap all kinds of nonsense up into laws that are passed almost without question due to the hysterical atmosphere, and no-one will be able to question it. In the case of VAWA, it’s the latest example of what feminism generally does: capitalize on the general societal sympathy for women by whipping it up into a hysterical frenzy, and in the context of that frenzy get some extreme laws passed that have more to do with a broader social agenda than they do with the specific issues they are claiming to address. The same thing is being attempted, with less success, in rape law –> the current push is to redefine “consent” to mean “enthusiastic, affirmative consent only”, and such consent to be proven by the defendant rather than its absence having to be proven by the prosecutor. That’s where they want to take rape law next. If you read the literature about this, the idea is not to protect women from rape (marginally it may eliminate some date rape situations), but to change the accepted script around sex of male initiation and female response to one of female sexual power ruling supreme in heterosexual sexual encounters — because a woman can always deny consent — under the proposed rules, most such cases would end up as convicted rapes because the defendant won’t be able to “prove” her consent against her words, and her words alone would be able to convict him. This is the next phase of where they want to take rape law — as a means to an end of reordering the sexual script in a way that empowers women at the expense of men. It’s a repeat of what they did with DV law. And it’s one reason why the bloody shirt about rape is still being bandied about — the hope is to create enough hysteria around rape to support these kinds of extreme, unprecedented (and unconstituional) changes to the criminal law of rape so that feminists can legally rewrite the heterosexual sexual script. I think that the window for rape hysteria may have passed, but you never know.

    Feminists are not stupid, folks. Misguided, yes. But not stupid.

  217. Dalrock says:

    Rmaxd has been a nuisance on this site, and has made outrageous comments about topics like rape as well as in regular conflict with other commenters for reasons which aren’t clear to me. No longer.

    Eric’s comment is quite strange, and I’m not the only one who reads it as a possible threat. While I don’t see how this will actually help his internet reputation, I presume he will be happy to learn that Rmaxd is now banned. As is Eric.

    Eric: If you have links to specific posts where you feel Rmaxd wounded you, you may post a comment with links and I’ll retrieve it from the filter for consideration.

  218. slwerner says:

    Brendan – ”It’s a case study in how to get extreme legislation passed: create an atmosphere of hysteria (or capitalize on one that already is happening). If you do that, you can wrap all kinds of nonsense up into laws that are passed almost without question due to the hysterical atmosphere, and no-one will be able to question it. In the case of VAWA, it’s the latest example of what feminism generally does: capitalize on the general societal sympathy for women by whipping it up into a hysterical frenzy, and in the context of that frenzy get some extreme laws passed that have more to do with a broader social agenda than they do with the specific issues they are claiming to address.”

    Very well thought-out analysis, but also very, very sobering. As usual, you have the ability to present the “bigger picture” on a given issue in a very accessible way.

    But, I though I might try to lighten the mood here by interjecting a bit of humor:

    ”94% of Gen Y women 22- 35 years old believe that they’ll be able to achieve a balance in their personal and professional lives, with 46% stating they’ve already reached that point and 33% claiming that they will eventually reach the top of their professions.”

    A presentation on the “scholarly work” is available as a PDF here (http://www.accenture.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/PDF/Accenture_Millennial_Women_in_the_Workplace_Success_Index_Striving_for_Balance_January_2010.pdf), although it looks more like a Power Point presentation than a serious discussion of the research.

  219. Brendan says:

    @slwerner —

    It’s very humorous indeed. Why do people feel entitled to reach the height of anything in life, especially a work-related thing, and at the same time lead a “balanced life”. LOL. No-one who is at the top of any damned thing leads a balanced life — it’s about choices and consequences, and choosing what you want to do with your life.

    The real issue here is not “leading a balanced life”, but the jealousy about some high-achieving professional men who have SAHMs and are able to have the high-end “top of the profession” type career *and* a family due to this. Women could do this, too, if they were as willing to have SAHDs, but, as we know, most are not (and Stephanie Coontz basically chiding women that they *should* be won’t change that much). But, instead of whining about this reality, we’re going to see advocacy of more work flex time and subsidized child care and so on in favor of “families and balanced lives”, when in fact what they are looking for is resetting the rules of work and family in a way that matches female interests –i.e., subsidizes their hypergamous mate selection choices by externalizing the “cost” of marrying a high-powered career man (which today is generally experienced by many women as a scaling down of their own careers) through the means of mandated flextime (which is nothing more than an attempt to level the playing field at work between families that divide roles and those that don’t) and subsidized childcare (ditto). But it will all be about the children, and balance, and health and all that song and dance — when it’s really about who gets her hot, whom she wants to mate with, and how the laws and business practices must be changed to facilitate that by lowering the cost to her of choosing such a mate.

    it’s all a part of the same story, really.

  220. slwerner says:

    Brendan –
    “…capitalize on the general societal sympathy for women by whipping it up into a hysterical frenzy, and in the context of that frenzy get some extreme laws passed that have more to do with a broader social agenda than they do with the specific issues they are claiming to address.”

    “VAWA (and its state implementing laws) have structurally changed the rules of marriage for everyone else…”

    “…reordering the sexual script in a way that empowers women at the expense of men.”

    “…what they are looking for is resetting the rules of work and family in a way that matches female interests…”

    “…how the laws and business practices must be changed to facilitate …”

    You offer a number of solid observations. Now, if only there was some way of thematically tying them all together…:)

  221. Legion says:

    Brendan says:
    March 7, 2012 at 8:52 am
    “That’s where they want to take rape law next.”

    If that happens, the only way every man can stay out of prison is to record all sex with every women, every time and store it on DVD’s placed in a safe deposit box.

    That one will bring down Western civilization quicker than it’s happening now.

  222. GKChesterton says:

    “It isn’t in all marriage vows, and it is extra-Biblical. If a woman vows to do that, fine – she should uphold her vow. But the Christian scriptures don’t require it.”

    An ignorant evangelical rears his/her head. Traditionally the word that is commonly translated in the NIV as “submit” was translated into English using words like “obey”. For example the 1899 Douay-Rheims:
    “Wives, be subject to your husbands, as it behoveth in the Lord.”

    A subject obeys.

  223. TFH says:

    Slwerner to Brendan :

    You offer a number of solid observations. Now, if only there was some way of thematically tying them all together…:)

    How about this, oft repeated but still new for new readers :

    Democracy has a life-cycle, after which it is followed by a feminist police state. No other outcome is possible from democracy. This is because while men vote for what benefits all people, women vote for what benefits women only, and manginas can be shamed into doing the same endlessly.

    This is not obvious to people who think what they see in their adult lifetimes is a permanent status quo. But only a 5-6 countries have had 90+ years of full democracy (women voting), and only a dozen more have had even 60-90 years. That is far too little vetting upon which to assume this is a sustainable state of affairs, particularly when the effects accrue over decades.

  224. Eincrou says:

    van Rooinek, I’m just curious to know how you did that. I’ve never seen anything like it. It must be a complex story of tragedy and woe, lol.

  225. Twenty says:

    This is not obvious to people who think what they see in their adult lifetimes is a permanent status quo.

    This is an absolutely key point. Humans suffer a “permanency bias” — they assume that the way things are is a steady state. This was a good assumption on the savannah, but it’s been a lousy one since we got this civilization thing going. History moves very, very quickly as most things are reckoned, but just a little too slowly for the human eye to perceive.

    In particular, history moves much faster than evolution. This is why Beta male genes survive/thrive: Any society that shuts Betas out from sexual access destroys itself in short order.

  226. Most people see not only their adult lives, temporally, as the status quo, but also spatially, meaning the world revolves around the borders of theor domicile, with little tendrils extending out to a supermarket, a school, maybe a church a restaurant….looking like a gerrymandered congressional district. What little cross pollen they get, sociologically , will be limited to those areas. That’s why almost all women, and half or more of men tend to refute rules with exceptions. They not only see life as it is now, in a larger context (they actually know little of life outside theor sphere, this is especially true to Americans) they see life as it is within their sphere, drawing conclusions based on their herd. They adopt the beliefs of their group politically, not even realizing that no one in the group has ever thought things through, they adopt the morals of the group, and they react to any sociological facts that dont fit their group as the oddity, the exception, while they are the exception.

    Couple that with, in women, they dont even realize that they have so bent reality to fit their emotional filing system that to have an average women describe something, its cause and effect, where it may lead will be an exercise in futility if sensible pontification is desired

  227. I Art Laughing says:

    In other words emp, they are vain…..so to speak.

  228. GKChesterton says:

    @TFH,

    I buy your claim with _modern_ democracies but I don’t think it holds for _all_ democracies. Rome, Carthage, and Athens never went this route. I’m sure with a little work I could cite others.

  229. Pingback: Pathological denial | Dalrock

  230. Anonymous Reader says:

    Twenty
    In particular, history moves much faster than evolution.

    I’m not sure of that anymore. In history there have been multiple “bottlenecks” through which a relative handful of humans survived – the Thera supervolcano likely provided one. Blue eyes and the ability to digest milk is another example. But there is quite possibly an example from the last 1500 or so years as well. Please see the popular-science book “The Ten Thousand Year Explosion”, in particular the chapter on Askenazi Jews, for details.

    This is why Beta male genes survive/thrive: Any society that shuts Betas out from sexual access destroys itself in short order.

    I’m inclined to agree with this. However, in the process of self destruction such a society can cause some serious changes in the “local” genotypes, where “local” may be on a continental scale.

  231. Twenty says:

    In history there have been multiple “bottlenecks” through which a relative handful of humans survived – the Thera supervolcano likely provided one.

    To clarify: My claim is that evolution happens too slowly relative to human history for evolutionary pressures resulting from any particular social arrangement to have much effect on the genetics of a population; in particular, no large number of humans will ever evolve to conform to a particular social arrangement.

    However, in the process of self destruction such a society can cause some serious changes in the “local” genotypes, where “local” may be on a continental scale.

    I think this is unlikely to be true in the sense that I think you mean it; I claim that the destruction will move too quickly for genotype changes to progress very far in almost all cases, and that the vacuum left by the collapsing society will pull in its neighbors, resulting in population replacement. The latter mechanism means that even if you had a society in which (say) only Alphas got any tail, and even if that society were stable over many generations, it would also be (or become) a very small proportion of the population in its “local” area.

    I’d note that we see evidence of population replacement throughout the West, where it’s called “immigration”. It doesn’t matter who Swedish feminists prefer to mate with if 14% (and rising) of Sweden’s population is foreign-born.

  232. van Rooinek says:

    van Rooinek, I’m just curious to know how you did that. I’ve never seen anything like it. It must be a complex story of tragedy and woe, lol

    Not sure what you’re talking about…. Did you mean when I accidentally reposted half the thread into a post? LOL, simple copy paste error. Or finding a wife on the internet? (Woe, woe, woe, woe…. and finally, Whoah!) Or learning the hard way that Game theory is true?

  233. van Rooinek says:

    realisticagnostic says:
    March 7, 2012 at 4:55 am
    to: van Rooinek
    My apology to you good sir.

    Gratefully accepted.

  234. Adam says:

    had Christianity adopted this as a storyline, things might be different today…

    Dear Lilith,

    Ok. You can be on top. We can take turns wielding the power. Just come home.

    Love,

    Adam

  235. van Rooinek says:

    People who know what is right or wrong don’t need the threats of your imaginary friend, we do the right thing BECAUSE IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

    Since it is logically impossible to derive any binding moral standard, without reference to a transcendant authority, atheists cannot know what is right or wrong. Many atheists do lead ethical lives, it’s true, but their ethics have no foundation other than their own feelings and cultural preferences. In most cases they just go with the crowd, in a few cases they sink far below it.

  236. Just1X says:

    “In most cases they just go with the crowd, in a few cases they sink far below it.”

    So, generally speaking, the same as the churchians?

  237. Suz says:

    Just 1X,
    +1

    van Rooinek,
    “…it’s true, but their ethics have no foundation other than their own feelings and cultural preferences.”
    Ethics are (or should be) based upon a rational understanding of the logical consequences of any act. This is where religious “morality” can fail; it is religion that follows “feelings and cultural preferences,” since religion relies on supporters to exist. Religion is subject to the collective whims of it’s followers, therefore religious morality is arbitrary. Usually it’s also logical, but that is due to the laws of cause and effect, not because it’s in an ancient text. Faith, which is the foundation of religion, can overcome logic.

  238. Pingback: Why so many wives wish their husbands would cheat. | Dalrock

  239. van Rooinek says:

    “In most cases they just go with the crowd, in a few cases they sink far below it.”
    So, generally speaking, the same as the churchians?

    Yes, quite true. The Bible even says as much. Most non-Asperger humans just go along with the crowd like dumb sheep, so the best way to help them live a sensible and moral life is to surround them with a community that is doing so. (Modern churches often fail badly at this, a fact discussed at length on this website).

    Ethics are (or should be) based upon a rational understanding of the logical consequences of any act.

    You can’t get “should be” from “are”. If there’s no transcendant standard, why even bother having ethics? They’re just an epiphenomenon of our socially evolved brain.

    This is where religious “morality” can fail; it is religion that follows “feelings and cultural preferences”….Usually it’s also logical, but that is due to the laws of cause and effect, not because it’s in an ancient text.

    You are quite right that the historically long-lived religions persist because of “cause and effect”. If the text gets it empirically right, centuries later that ancient text will still be revered; if the text gets it wrong, it will be discarded, forgotten, or supplanted. For example, sexually promiscuous cults (eg, ancient Canaanites) tend to die out due to fertility destroying STDs, whereas marriage-promoting, sexually restrained religions (eg, Orthodox Judaism, the arch-rival of the Canaanites), are fertile enough to persist down through thousands of years even in the face of planet-wide hostility.

    Many other examples could be cited but I think that the comparison between the Bronze Age Sexual Revolution of the Canaanites, versus the right wing rejection of such by the Jews, makes the point.

    The question is, did the surviving religions get their wisdom empirically, or by being told by God? Discussion for another day, as I have work to do. (That ol’ Puritan work ethic from an ancient text… )

  240. Pingback: Hole Digging Rules « Complementarian Loners

  241. Anonymous Reader says:

    Twenty
    My claim is that evolution happens too slowly relative to human history for evolutionary pressures resulting from any particular social arrangement to have much effect on the genetics of a population;

    Time was, I would have agreed with you. But the case of the Ashkenazim is a serious problem to that view. They have higher median intelligence, as demonstrated in a number of ways. They also have a higher incidence of Tay-Sachs disease. Both have genetic components, and the Sephardic Jews are not the same as Ashkenazim in this regard. Something happened to differentiate the Ashekenazi from other humans, and it happened in the last 2,000 years.

    So what’s your explanation for this anomaly? And what is to prevent something similar from happening to another group of humans?

  242. Pingback: Privacy alert - Page 6 - Christian Forums

  243. George Booth says:

    I rely upon 1st Corinthians Chapter 7.

    If you burn, then marry. If not, don’t.

    So, the purpose of marriage is deal with one’s corporal nature, to have sex, in such a way that it has the *least* detrimental effect on living a devout life. Not that marriage is a particularly good thing, for the pair will be drawn to pay attention to each other rather than God.

    According to the King James version, it is my understanding that each spouse commits to care for the sexual needs of the other, that they are not to “defraud” one another by neglect, denial, or finding sexual relief outside of their union. I see, in these verses, the ultimate expression of the principle to love one’s neighbor as one loves oneself. The body of the husband becomes the wife’s and the wife’s becomes the husband’s. The husband is to treat the needs of the wife as if he felt those needs himself, AND VICE VERSA.

    It’s hard, really hard, not to phrase all this in the vernacular.

    There are many other verses that describe how one should act in marriage, but this is the only one I’m aware of that describes its purpose. Further, trying to extrapolate what the purpose of marriage *might* be from advice on its manner and execution is – to me – a terrible mistake. One doing so is then attempting to read the mind of God, to “put words in his mouth”.

    Reading the Bible, I make special effort to read what is actually *on* the page, rather than what I hope is there. I’m sure love makes marriage more effective – love is, in fact, commanded and makes all relationships more effective – but marriage’s purpose is sexual relief.

    While it is never a surprise to me to see people work the Word to fit what they wish it said, the contortions that Christian women apply in order to make their manipulations pure and noble is especially and tragically entertaining.

  244. Credo in Unum Deum says:

    All of this writing, and not once does the word “Sacrament” appear…

    That is what marriage IS. Marriage is a Sacrament instituted by Almighty God by His presence at the Marriage at Cana.

    Here is a question for Protestants: Is marriage real, or is it just symbolic?

    From the writings on here, and on that forum, it is clear that it is only viewed as symbolic. If it is just symbolic, then one can enter and leave it at will as nothing has really changed. If something has changed with the participants, then that option is closed off, and restrictions are placed on the husband and wife.

    If you don’t believe that is just symbolic, then why not?

  245. Dalrock says:

    Credo in Unum Deum,

    I’m not sure I fully understand your question, but I think we are on the same page. Here is what I wrote in my post on wives wishing their husbands would cheat:

    Divorce is an act of immense destruction. This is true even in cases where it is fully justified. Families aren’t designed to be broken apart. It takes an act of terrible destructive power to make this happen. You can’t just unfasten a few bolts and neatly remove one part from another. The only method available is something akin to remodeling with dynamite.

    I think we are both getting at the same thing, although perhaps from different directions.

  246. George Booth says:

    @Dalrock

    Credo is asking after a point I have tried to make elsewhere on your website. Is marriage a spiritual union or merely a contract, an agreement, to symbolize the idea of marriage?

    @Credo

    My experience of marriage is that of an actual spiritual union, that the ‘sacrament’ does occur and the marriage is real. So real is it that I’m not sure I believe in divorce. That is to say that I’m not sure divorce exists. I know that there is a civil procedure, and as civil procedures go I can approve of it, but the connection between my ex-wife and me continues despite every effort to erase it. We sin but it doesn’t seem to matter.

    My problem with the word ‘sacrament’ is it has become the possession of the Roman Catholics. They in turn have burdened it with requirements and styles to make themselves indispensable.

    Your question is important and to the point, though, for the whole of the complaint of Dalrock and his co-travelers is that “Christian” women largely see it as symbolic, an agreement whose terms are negotiable.

  247. Pingback: Women are innately good. | Dalrock

  248. Pingback: Threatpoint | Dalrock

  249. Pingback: Threatpoint - The Spearhead

  250. Pingback: The Case for Christian Pre-Nups | Christian Men's Defense Network

  251. Pingback: - In the war of playas against sluts, I’m Sweden. | The Woman and the Dragon

  252. Pingback: Feral love | Dalrock

  253. Pingback: BD #2 – The Damage of Divorce On Children | The Society of Phineas

  254. Pingback: Lovestruck | Dalrock

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