Lowering the boom, a testimonial.

Previously I shared Joel and Kathy Davisson’s message that a wife who is unhappy has an obligation to God to lower the boom and crush her husband with the family court.  Today I thought I would share a testimonial they published from one of the women who followed their advice:

Things are GREAT and things are really hard at the same time. The great things are that the boys are both doing so much better emotionally than they were five months ago. HalleluYAH!

My son seems much more relaxed and happy now. He hasn’t been in tears (except occasionally over his dad and the divorce) and saying how much he hates life and wants to die for months!!!! No more poetry about cutting himself either! No more dark and morbid pictures and his bitterness and cynicism has declined a lot as well. My other son’s behavior has started to even out as well, with fewer and fewer meltdowns. He isn’t punching himself in the face anymore and saying what a bad boy he is either. However, he is still very clingy towards me and refuses to sleep in his own bed. I have tried to move him after he is asleep out of my bed and into his own but after a few nights he wakes up immediately and starts to cry. I have also discovered that he is sleep walking at night too. I wake up immediately, since he sleeps with me, and coax him back to bed where he cuddles up and goes back to sleep. So far this has not been a major problem.

Note:  Unfortunately this isn’t satire, and children were harmed in the lowering of this boom.

See Also: 

About these ads
This entry was posted in Child Custody, Church Apathy About Divorce, Divorce, Joel and Kathy Davisson. Bookmark the permalink.

85 Responses to Lowering the boom, a testimonial.

  1. Cautiously Pessimistic says:

    Sick.

  2. Brian says:

    “children were harmed in the lowering of this boom.”

    You know, from reading her description, it sounds like the behavior of the boys before was a result of how things were before they split. Also, if the husband was having an affair (she does say he’s now married to the “other woman”), that seems like pretty clear grounds for divorce. Granted, whether he abused her or “abused” her is completely unknown. But the behavior described with the boys sounds a lot more consistent with real physical abuse, as opposed to the “he abused me by not making me feel loved 24/7″ type of “abuse”.

  3. Brian says:

    Good Lord. I just read their statement in the preceding post on that thread. So to them, God commands men to essentially worship their wives, and wives have no responsibilities in return. So if there’s a divorce, it’s 100% his fault…no matter what.

    This is why I don’t date women in church at all.

  4. T says:

    Seems like it would take more than a divorce to cause this mess.

  5. I have a bit of a disagreement about their response to her, “God works hard to bring a woman and her children back to a good place.” – Right…Because those horrifying statistics of children from divorced homes are just made up.

  6. Mike Bracken says:

    Those two are dangerous and ignorant. Digoranous.

  7. Joseph of Jackson says:

    I volunteer to put the skank back in line.

  8. 8oxer says:

    From the comments by Kathy & Joel at the “testimonial” on their divorce pr0n scamster web forum:

    One of our early wives (four years ago) whose husband would not come out of abuse, is three years on the other side of divorce. We had to rescue that wife and kids, letting them live in our home for a few days until she found shelter.

    O LOLOLOL! It wouldn’t surprise me if either skank-ho Kathy or her fat omega ex-husband weren’t banging this newly separated woman and/or banging her husband while they were “giving her shelter” (queue up the Rolling Stones singing Gimme Shelter… it’s just a kiss away).

    I predict that within the next couple of years, either/both Joel and/or Kathy are indicted for some serious misbehaviour. Probably financial, but possibly sexual.

  9. LoweredBoom says:

    Time to remove the ladies’ unearned “rights” guys. It the only way. This woman above needs to be restricted and banned from decision-making. I do not joke.

  10. IrishFarmer says:

    Wow. Well at least she can rest assured that she made the right decision because at least the psychological trauma on her kids is a tiny fraction better than it was.

  11. Art Deco says:

    You know, from reading her description, it sounds like the behavior of the boys before was a result of how things were before they split.

    Her description is time-stamped 24 June 2008. She reports that the husband married someone else on 15 March 2008. If they had a separation of ordinary length (around 17 months), one can guess that one or the other departed the family home in the fall of 2006 or earlier. The proceedings she is referring to concern child custody after the divorce. From her description of her younger son, I would guess he is not much older than eight. The older son sounds like an alienated adolescent about 17. She said the older son had not cut himself or written odd poetry ‘in months’. She did not indicate when he began doing these things, but if it be readily attributable to the domestic life of the marriage, the point of origin would be most likely in excess of two years past.

    Her husband is evidently a minister, so the precipitate remarriage would be a scandal. She keeps saying abuse abuse abuse (“daily and systematic”) but it does not make you any smarter to listen to her about it.

  12. Art Deco says:

    Good Lord. I just read their statement in the preceding post on that thread. So to them, God commands men to essentially worship their wives, and wives have no responsibilities in return. So if there’s a divorce, it’s 100% his fault…no matter what.

    Or God commands them to play to their target market. Seen that before.

  13. Marmot says:

    The amount of hamster is killing me!

  14. Mathetes says:

    This is so infuriating! The older boy cries over his dad and the divorce. I find it hard to believe that he would cry so that his dad could come back and abuse him. He’s doing a little better because he is finding some way to internalize his pain and make the best of his life.

    And the younger boy is tragic. He calls himself a bad boy. When parents divorce, so many kids blame themselves for the divorce, since they can’t understand why it is happening. They think it must be something that they did. It is quite common. And he is clingy. The reason is obvious – one parent has already left. He probably thinks the other might too, and he’ll be abandoned. He doesn’t want to let go for fear of loss. His only security was his parents, and that security has been shattered.

  15. koevoet says:

    Abuse that doesn’t have a corresponding police report and evidence is not abuse.

    All the same, I’d be interested to know what happened before the divorce. Either way, it sounds like a few more school shooters in the making.

  16. Feminist Hater says:

    They’re all Adam Lanza mothers now!

  17. UnicornHunter says:

    My ex moved out and the kids were with me full time for a year before we started shared parenting time. I wonder how much that served them well versus the other way around.

  18. Ospurt says:

    So how would they reconcile Jeremiah 3? If God hates divorce, why does God Himself identify His One and Holy Self as divorced? It seems reasonable that God would be compassionate, but first and foremost He is Holy, Pure and Full of Integrity. Sometimes you have to divorce to maintain your integrity.

    So is is it Treachery, or poor treatment of your wife, to act to preserve your own integrity toward her rebellion? Sure, men are not God and we are not perfect, but the sheer number of divorces and the attitudes of women just reeks of rebellion more than systematic domestic abuse. The state is all too willing to arrest people on suspicion of that activity, so lack of an arrest, or police reports, in my book is very suspect.

  19. Ras Al Ghul says:

    “How do you move on? I struggle with this on a daily basis. I was displaced from my church family because he was the pastor. Spiritual counseling was not forthcoming from the church community. They only attempted to use my gifts in the church. I know that what God wants from this relationship, He wll get. So, how do I move on when I know the divorce was wrong?”

    A little farther down was this gem.

  20. @T: Nothing more than divorce is required for that kind of destructive pain. There is a good reason God hates divorce.

  21. Art Deco says:

    ,The amount of hamster is killing me!

    Dunno. The man is a clergyman and was remarried before the custody arrangements were completed. Smells baaaad. I do think the manner in which she refers to his ‘abuse’ sends up some red flags about her, but that sense could be misleading.

  22. Art Deco says:

    I predict that within the next couple of years, either/both Joel and/or Kathy are indicted for some serious misbehaviour. Probably financial, but possibly sexual.

    Who’s collecting for the pool? The thing is, these people aren’t as flamboyant and Jim and Tammy Bakker, so their implosion will be less entertaining.

  23. Farm Boy says:

    She has eyes, but cannot see.

  24. Farm Boy says:

    That thread over there reads like Oprah, lots of identifyable details, victimology, preening, etc. If she wants to do all of that to herself, that is fine. However, she should think of her children.

  25. greyghost says:

    That mom is crazy. Don’t worry mom the cops will be blasting those two boys of yours in a few years. I could watch THAT woman burn alive with her screams of pain having the effect of song birds on a cool spring morning.

  26. sunshinemary says:

    I remember discussing this at CMD-N this past summer and just being horrified by this story. At first I could not understand how the woman could write those words and not see what she had done to her sons. Then I remembered 2 Corinthians 4:1-6:

    Therefore, having this ministry by the mercy of God, we do not lose heart. But we have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways. We refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God’s word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God. And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake. For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

  27. Barsad says:

    Good Lord, what a disgusting individual.

  28. Crank says:

    I don’t like to use this word too much, because it is thrown around too much, but those two (Joel and his wife) are really creepy. Not to mention obviously in it to make a buck.

    As to the testimonial, it’s not clear to me from that snippet, but it appears the husband was seeing another woman who he later married.

    However, those of you saying he was a pastor seem to be conflating two separate letters from different women.

  29. Michael says:

    Interesting.

    I’ve questioned women who have divorced their husbands before. None divorced for physical abuse or adultery. When I called the kids well being into question I was met with the following explanation:

    Women divorcee: “It would be more harmful for the children to grow up in a house where the parents don’t love each other” “therefore getting a divorce is the right thing for me and my kids”.

  30. T says:

    “Women divorcee: “It would be more harmful for the children to grow up in a house where the parents don’t love each other” “therefore getting a divorce is the right thing for me and my kids”.

    I’ve heard this and “happy mother, happy children ” and “what’s good for the mother is good for the children.”

  31. Solomon says:

    Me: I think you’re gonna end up blowing up this family, and ruining everything, and realize that you still aren’t happy. It’s a mistake.

    Ex-wife: That’s a chance I’m going to have to take.

    And we had it all, too.

  32. Mark Minter says:

    Rollo had a post this week where he commented on how “Hypergamy doesn’t care” was met with such outrage that it has become a manosphere meme.

    I would say “Lowering the Boom” is now the second major Dalrock contribution to the same “Mount Rushmore” of manosphere memes along with the “Cock Carousel”, and for me personally, “Hunky Handyman Millionaire”.

    I have decided that if a person could figure out some way to tell women what they wish to hear to allow some specific sort of Hamster “Energy Drink” to super fuel the Hamster, to give them any and every moral “escape capsule”, that they could make a very good living. Oprah did very well, dontcha know?

    There are so many commercials now like weight loss or exercise programs that I can append the following “And then you can then dump that husband and return to being ‘Classy and Fabulous’ and find your own Hunky Handyman Millionaire that you deserve”. Think of it just like appending “in bed” to the end of a fortune cookie message. There are so many of these type of commercials and products that I have this idea that it is the fundamental driving emotion for most married women, “First I lose the weight and then I dump this loser”. I spend a lot of time in checkout lines and see all the headlines of all those crap women publications like “Us”, “People”, and “In Style” and divorce is the dominant theme, followed by pregnancy, cheating men, and weddings. Husbands are only mentioned in one of these lights and I could count the number of times in a year on one hand where some story mentions “My wonderful husband and how happy he makes me.”

    I see my older sister a lot and she constantly watches the conservative woman’s standard TV fare. She doesn’t really use the internet like a younger woman. She still mostly watches cable TV with the typical fare of Fox News, crime shows like CSI, Law and Order, and tons of reality shows especially anyone or anything planning a wedding.

    And I notice this consistent theme about some miracle technique or product that would return SMV to this woman. Other people might think it was to look good to her husband or for self improvement for health reasons.

    Me, I think they are looking to “Lower the Boom” before it too late to find Hunky Handymen Millionaires.

    I don’t how you lower the boom on a woman. Married men are pretty “boomless”.

    Roissy had a post on “Declining Intimacy vs Declining Attraction”
    http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2013/01/08/declining-intimacy-vs-declining-attraction/

    In it he has a list of signs of both declining intimacy and declining attraction. I would read this article if I were you.

    I would pay particular attention to those signs, particularly those of declining attraction. If your woman is not having regular sex with you, and I mean regular, if there is no casual touching of you by her, if she is consistently aggressive and demeaning and seems to run you down all the time then you are entering the “Boom Lowering” zone.

    Get to a lawyer now. Start hiding money. Start finding places to live and start looking at them. Get ready for war. Get ready to learn how to find a room somewhere and get in it and hunker down.

    And join a gym now. Start lifting weights like a madman. Go straight to the gym after work and screw anything else. Stay there until 7 pm every night. Buy new underwear. Get very selfish and stubborn about this. Buy protein powder at WalMart or Target. Stop eating breakfast and lunch and drink the milk and protein powder at 8,10, and 12. Two grams of protein per 1 pound of your body weight. Usually a scoop of the power has 20 grams, so 200 pounds is 5 scoops a day. If you put two scoops in a glass of milk and drink it at 8,10, 12 then you won’t be hungry and can go until dinner before you eat. At dinner, eat a chicken or fish, potato or rice, and some vegetable. Look at the palm of your hand. No serving of anything other than the vegetable should be larger than your palm. If you get hungry after dinner, drink the milk and the protein again. In 90 days, you will see a massive difference.

    And it will instill both “Dread” and possibly change the dynamic or your relationship. But if doesn’t then at least you are getting the jump on things. Don’t mess with any stupid other yoga or aerobics or stairmaster crap. Lift weights. Studies have shown that lifting weights causes you to lose weight 150% faster than dieting alone and 75% faster than other exercise regimes other than weight lifting. Your problem with your wife is not any stupid Dr Phil or Oprah bullshit. Your problem is that she is not attracted to you. Everything else is horseshit rationalization. Change that dynamic and everything else with fall in line. And if doesn’t then you are in better position for what will come at you.

    Also, if you look at porn. Stop now if you see any of those signs that make you think a divorce is coming. Stop anyway. I stopped looking at porn 3 years ago. I had ED. Bad ED. Even Viagra didn’t work. Levitra did, mayb but not always. I stopped looking at porn because of fear over computer viruses and no other reason. I started noticing a return of normal erectile functioning. I had thought it was other lifestyle changes. I don’t drink alcohol anymore. But I saw a website that described what I had experienced during masturbation when I used to look at porn. My erections were barely erections. I could orgasm but only because of masturbation and because my hand was “intelligent”. And the erections were at least 20% shorter than when I was younger. Today, I get “wood” in the morning when I wake up before I urinate, every day. And I mean “wood”, you can’t even bend it without pain and I am 57 years old. The length of erections has returned as they were 30 years ago. My doctor had said “Oh well, that comes with age”. No it doesn’t. It’s in your head. Porn is frying something up there. I am not a moralist and have no moral issues with porn. I used to think it was a “Liberator” to break the women’s cartel over sex and orgasms. But now I am certain that it leads to ED. The rise in ED among men started exactly when the internet began to be adopted in the home.

    Also, sometimes I wonder that if my wife thought that I would fight like the dickens, that I would not just go quietly and give her the settlement that she wanted “for the sake of the kids”, that if she would have known that I would dragged the divorce out and ate up every joint dollar we had in legal fees, that I would have forced the sale of the house and pushed her out of it in order to pay lawyers, whether or not she would have divorced. If she would have known right up front that if she crossed that line then I was going to war for every ounce of strength I had and had every intention of running the financial position of both of us into the wall, I wonder if she would have been so quick to do so. Just hint before hand that you would never agree to arbitration. If she were to suggest arbitratio, you would give her the finger and said “Arbitrate this, bitch. We’re going to war. Get a very good attorney.”

    So maybe you can’t “Lower the Boom” but maybe you “echo boom” her. If she doesn’t have the welfare of the children in mind, then why should you? Maybe you can recalibrate of her definition of “welfare of the children” if divorcing means moving to widow’s row and renting.

  33. Art Deco says:

    However, those of you saying he was a pastor seem to be conflating two separate letters from different women.

    No. The first several commentaries and bits of correspondence all concerned client “Judy”. They are labeled as such.

  34. An Northern Observer says:

    “Abuse that doesn’t have a corresponding police report and evidence is not abuse.”

    Sir, you have absolutely NO clue what you’re talking about.

  35. when they rewrite “paraphrase” that verse in Malchi, I believe that the original meant that divorcing your wife was the treachery. They twist it to be that if you deal “treacherously” (arbitrary definition dictated by wife), then the man is forcing his wife to divorce him.

    But it does seem like he may have been the cause because of the whole “other woman” comment she made. But maybe he moved on quicker than she anticipated, and she’s just being catty like saying”other woman” its just a polite way of saying “that bitch”. If she wasn’t messed up with those two, i would have been more inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt.

  36. Jacob Ian Stalk says:

    @Mark Minter

    Your 9:58pm comment is loaded with excellent advice that is good for men in general, but in the context of divorce it sounds awfully like you’re advocating that men submit to female hypergamy. A marriage that falls so easily to the dictatorship of the female sexual demiurge is in a need much deeper and more dire than improved physicality can resolve. Lifting weights may renew attraction but the simple fact is that the hypergamous divorcing wife has allowed her animal urges to undermine her marital covenant, which renders her unfit to be a wife or a mother.

    Vox Day recently wrote something along the lines of “women domesticise men; men civilize women”. If we can believe this, a civilised husband’s responsibility is to ensure his marriage is not guided by the estrogen/progesterone demi-urges of his wife but by the value system under which the marriage covenant was made. Marriage vows at their very core are promises to keep the marriage covenant in the face of all sin and this applies equally to hypergamy as it does to porn. If we respond to hypergamy (and its myriad manifestations) by making ourselves better men, all we’re doing is enabling its dictatorship.

    Brother, while your treatise is inspiring and wise as general advise, responding to hypergamy and its excreta is kinda like picking undigested oats from horse manure. Better to get your oats elsewhere than sift through shit.

  37. Hisoj says:

    the most vile and cruel people I have ever known were very religious.

  38. BC says:

    Women divorcee: “It would be more harmful for the children to grow up in a house where the parents don’t love each other” “therefore getting a divorce is the right thing for me and my kids”.

    Any time you run across a variation of the above theme, respond with this:
    http://www.bakadesuyo.com/2012/08/whats-the-single-strongest-predictor-you-will-38240/

    The total nine sets of aunts/uncles + kids on both sides of my family can be divided into four families that have stayed together from the original marriage, and five families that have splintered. All break-ups were initiated by the wife (half of whom are now multiple divorcers up to counts three and four), and most if not all used some form of the above as an excuse. Looking at my siblings and the cousins from the two different sets of families, I would have to say that the average difference in lifespan will turn out to be even greater than the 5 years noted in that bakadesuyo post.

    There are few things crueler and with longer lasting repercussions for children that a parent can do than divorce.

  39. Al says:

    She abused her kids. I can recognize it because the same thing happened to me. My dad got real beta after my sister was born and my mother became a tyrant. My father withdrew and spent a lot more time working so my mother was left to rage at me.

    People often don’t understand the difference between abuse and punishment is. Abuse is punishment without reason. Someone who is abused can’t tell what they did that caused the punishment. My mother kept up a steady stream of verbal attacks all day long. Anything and everything gave her license to take out her anger at my father on me. At 8 years old I wanted to kill myself. I planed to stab myself in the heart at 9. I tried to strangle myself at 10. I started spending as much time as possible away from my mother. My childhood was a pretty nasty affair. I internalized it as I’m a bad person and that’s why I’m always being attacked by my mother. I did a lot of self destructive things because of it. This was a Christan home.

    When my mother was past menopause she realized what she had done and apologized. She explained that she was very unhappy with my father and she took it out on me. For my money my dad tried the best he could to provided a good life for us. He simply couldn’t figure out how to make my mother happy.

  40. greyghost says:

    Jacob Ian Stalk
    men live in a different world with actual rules and pain. Hypergamy just is you don’t surrender to it hell even the damn woman that has it has to keep it in check. legally there is nothing a man can do or say to any woman about a damn thing. Haven’t you been reading the comments from the female commenters here, they know it. What is happening in marriage happens by law nothing else. Mark Minters comment is just how it is under the law. I’m in the process of doing the same thing right now without even knowing what the next guy did. My focus is more on being in shape for a civil war. (that is a whole semi related topic within itself)
    The spearhead had an article about what is happening that will open a man’s eyes to the hopelessness of ever actually having a wife http://www.the-spearhead.com/2013/01/16/game-theory-and-divorce/ This is purely by law. It is not based in reality.
    I can’t say it enough that Dalrock is a cultural leader. What he is doing here is the way back to civilized society after the fall. Maybe a few people can be spared but it is the law that is hurting marriage. My best hope is that what all we have discussed here makes it’s way as the foundation of family law based on constitutional law. Besides that any man that wakes up with an unbendable hard on in the mourning at 57 isn’t wrong about much especially if he had to do some things to make it so.

  41. taterearl says:

    Well her youngest sounds like a school shooter in the making.

  42. Sign up and receive these JK blasts of bliss in your email!

  43. it would take more than a divorce to cause this mess.

    Christian divorce explained further.

    Women, the” champions of empathy” have no capacity for unconditional empathy for/with men. Watch a woman as she encounters another woman who may be in dire straights over the most vile despicable behavior, and the women will have a reasonable Christian response for that other woman. Watch that same woman as she encounters a man wallowing in his own mucus from being jettisoned from his home and her response to him will be to cross the street and avoid that awkwardness.

    To say it would tale more than a divorce to cause that mess just pisses me off. The mind of the Christian woman is corrupted by its absorption of the idea of divorce as some life challenge to get past, not as the death of something vowed and sacred. This applies to all divorces, but the emotional back turning to the millions of males who have been tossed for trivial reasons (trivial in Gods scheme) has done some damage to my whole outlook, jaded would be an understatement.

    The difference level of desire FOR the marriage between men and woman cannot be overstated. Women do not drop off the grid for months and become physically sick, often lose their jobs, and yes, even commit suicide. And women are called the experts on relationships.

  44. Brendan says:

    Women, the” champions of empathy” have no capacity for unconditional empathy for/with men. Watch a woman as she encounters another woman who may be in dire straights over the most vile despicable behavior, and the women will have a reasonable Christian response for that other woman. Watch that same woman as she encounters a man wallowing in his own mucus from being jettisoned from his home and her response to him will be to cross the street and avoid that awkwardness.

    I had a similar experience a few years ago. I was in a car with several work colleagues and we were driving back from lunch. At one of the intersections there was a homeless man, begging from the cars stopped at the light. One of my colleagues (a female one) said that she might consider giving money to the homeless person if it were a woman, and the two other female colleagues nodded their assent to this. This is considered perfectly normal and acceptable.

    My own way of understanding this is that women have a demonstrated, measured (in studies) in-group preference for other women — men have no such measured preference for other men. What this means is that although women can be competitive and catty within their in-group, nevertheless there is a strong, visceral preference for members of the in-group over members of the out-group (i.e., men). This is a visceral thing. Perhaps it is an adaptive evolved response to females being captured as war booty and brought to a strange tribe (with strange women as well as men), where it would likely have been adaptive to have in-group preferences for women even though they were not blood relatives, as a kind of counterweight to the in-group preference among the men of the tribe who *were* blood relatives. But for whatever reason, women *do* have this in-group preference, and it explains quite a bit about female behavior in these contexts. Manipulating this in-group preferences was the political genius of feminism, really.

  45. Cautiously Pessimistic says:

    koevoet-“Abuse that doesn’t have a corresponding police report and evidence is not abuse.”

    ANO- Sir, you have absolutely NO clue what you’re talking about.

    I can’t speak for koevoet, but I would say the same as he does, and I’ll explain my reason for making such a statement. It is entirely possible for abuse to occur and not be reported. However, women have so thoroughly poisoned the well with false cries of abuse and RAAAAPE!!! that they no longer get the benefit of the doubt with me. If she wants to cry abuse, let her prove it. Simply saying it happened is less than worthless. It’s harmful, in that it lowers my inclination to take future abuse claims from other women seriously.

  46. Brendan says:

    in the context of divorce it sounds awfully like you’re advocating that men submit to female hypergamy.

    No, I think what he is saying is that if you find yourself in a marriage where your wife has lost attraction to you (and this is a LOT of marriages), you can take these measures as an effort to regain that attraction and, even if they don’t work to regain her attraction, they will leave you better off anyway. That’s sound advice.

    The main driver of divorce is really women losing attraction for their husbands coupled with the female-favorable legal regime. Since the latter isn’t going to be changed anytime soon, and certainly not within a relevant period of time for any guy who is currently married, if you find yourself in this kind of situation you need to respond. And by the time things get to that stage, trying to “reframe the paradigm of the marriage” isn’t going to work — it’s too late for that. The kinds of things he is talking about there have an off-chance of working, but even often it’s too late for that, too — as my ex-wife once said quite openly “once the thread is dropped, it’s hard to pick it back up again” — meaning, once attraction is lost, it’s hard as hell to regenerate, because what caused it to be lost is always staring you in the face, even if the person changes.

    So, yes, the paradigm of marriage is screwed up — we live in an age of hedonic marriage. That doesn’t mean you have to frame yours that way, but if you don’t want it to be framed that way you have to make sure it isn’t from the very beginning, even before you are married. If you don’t. you’ll be in the default setting, which is hedonic marriage — and hedonic marriages as last as long as both people are “haaaaaapy”, because augmenting personal happiness is their raison d’etre and core function –> to the extent they cease to function to provide that, they are jettisoned, and this is the basis for the entirety of the legal system we have around marriage as well. It’s all based on the hedonic marriage paradigm. So if you find yourself in a marriage which is at the default setting (which will be most people), you have to deal with it as it is.

    I would say in addition to Mark Minter’s comment about women wanting to lose weight to ditch their husbands, more generally any significant change in relative SMV between spouses that is not coordinated is a huge blinking red flag. Sure, people lose weight for health reasons — and that is usually done in coordination with a spouse, or at least in open discussion with one. It’s when you see unilateral, uncoordinated with the other spouse efforts to better the SMV that there is trouble brewing in river city. This also holds true for men, although men are less likely to leave their wives than women are to leave their husbands. But in general, again, because we live in an age of hedonic marriage, if the SMV ratio shifts significantly, the person with the out of whack “higher” SMV — especially if it’s the wife — will often seek an exit visa in the months or year ahead.

  47. This is the end result of Lowering the Boom (h/t SSM):
    http://www.eewc.com/Articles/son-protector/

    So powerful is this sense of entitlement, so consuming and convinced of the correctness of their purpose is the feminine that women will literally breed and raise generations of men to better satisfy it. Hypergamy is cruel, but nowhere more so than in the relationship between a mother overtly raising and conditioning a son to be a better servant of the feminine imperative.

    Replace ‘feminine imperative’ with ‘holy spirit’ and you’ve got the Christian Kosher® adaptation that the Davisson’s are selling. They are selectively breeding the next generation of christian beta males.

  48. CL says:

    One of my colleagues (a female one) said that she might consider giving money to the homeless person if it were a woman, and the two other female colleagues nodded their assent to this.

    It would be bad enough to think this and not say it, but dang. Even if I don’t give them anything material every time I at least say hello and perhaps talk to them for a few minutes, male or female. I don’t like seeing them there while everyone walks past without even acknowledging their humanity. The least anyone can do is make them feel less like ghosts. It seems that ‘empathy’ has been redefined to mean something other than what it actually means.

  49. Seems like it would take more than a divorce to cause this mess.

    That’s wishful thinking. Yes, divorce, along with the acrimony that accompanies it, could cause this all on its lonesome. Don’t kid yourself.

    Her son is only “occasionally” in tears now and she’s singing hallelujah and telling herself things are going great. Satire indeed.

  50. Titanium says:

    That’s messed up. I anticipate difficulties for those two boys into adulthood.

  51. Looking Glass says:

    @CL:

    Truth is that most street walkers want to be there and/or are trying to get drug money. There are a few exceptional cases, but, sadly, they’re there to abuse kindness. Kind of drains the purpose. (We give to the local mission)

    @Topic:

    Wow… just, wow.

    The divorce alone could cause that issue, but it’s likely what the home life was leading up to the divorce that started off the measures. But, well, if she’s that… problematic, I would probably assume she was the cause of the dysfunction in the first place.

    On “abuse”, the truth is that the actual stuff is pretty much rarely ever reported due to “Bad Boy Alpha Hypergamy Attack” mode. Which is why the “awareness” stuff is pretty much worthless. You can’t stop Hypergamy’s love of the Dark Triad traits.

  52. Tatiana7yu says:

    @Brendan – Apparently there’s two options: changing the legal regime away from liberalism (how on earth will that be done?) or going into the legal regime yet handle it somehow. The first one is more preferable than the second one. The second one is a non-starter. There’s a third option that is more popular: getting away from legal marriage (and most legal issues) and living in a semi-criminal state (segregation from the wider community).

    Since legitimate marriage is dying, illegitimate marriage is taking it’s place (for lower class whites), alongside soft polygamy (for blacks and hispanics). Illegitimate marriage = Cohabitation, mistresses, bastards, soft monogamy, etc.

    In flyover country a lot of younger families (whichever race) are not getting legally married anymore. The children are bastards (e.g. illegitimate). The problem is that the higher number of Hispanic and Black populace (states like MA, NY and VT are full of white liberals), gives a bigger rise towards single motherhood and polygamy, so prejudiced neo-Victorian white liberals from Maine, Vermont and Massachusetts think that there’s a lot of white single mothers in Southern states (Bristol Palin?) but in reality the couple that exist typically sire children with Blacks and/or Hispanics and live in big cities.

    Most this phenomenon of white single motherhood and wiggers (white kids who like black culture) is concentrated in bigger cities but some SWPL white liberals who are merely middle class and cannot afford to live in either coasts, come to these cities and push out Blacks/Hispanics towards suburbs. It’s gentrification and white flight in reverse but hey since it’s white liberals doing it, it’s not racist. And then crime soars. But somehow rednecks or creationists or whatever are blamed for this.

    I do think Brendan that liberalism has this strange aversion towards hierarchy and cherishes equality and autonomy far too much. They either take the position of the elitist (superior equality) or the common man (inferior equality), but never see both living in the same society and happy with inequality.

    Real relationships are not 50/50. They are 60/40, 40/60, 70/30 or 30/70.

    Both 50/50 and 100/0 and 0/100 are deeply unrealistic. To liberalism it’s either equality or Nazis/Genocide/Fascism/Oppression/Subjugation. Now that I think of it, the Nazis were pretty secular and had liberal tendencies themselves…

  53. Dalrock says:

    @Art Deco

    However, those of you saying he was a pastor seem to be conflating two separate letters from different women.

    No. The first several commentaries and bits of correspondence all concerned client “Judy”. They are labeled as such.

    Judy posts the letter I excerpted in the OP as a quote. It isn’t her letter, she is posting another woman’s letter to Joel and Kathy, and Joel comes in below in red with his analysis. This is even more confusing because his analysis starts by talking about other cases before he turns and starts referencing this specific letter with:

    Following is another letter from a wife. She was the subject of an e-mail from a couple years ago. The subject was about the damage that happens when a wife just “stands” forever. Her husband became a hopeless case, and at the time, there was no reaching him.

    To make matters worse, this second wife did not take a stand. She found us two weeks before SHE had to leave the home, losing everything. She was losing income (she did not work) she was losing the kids, and she would be homeless.

    You have to filter all of this through the Joel and Kathy lexicon and world view which I explained in the original lowering the boom post. It is certainly possible that the ex husband committed abuse and adultery and left her. However, understand that if he merely “rejected her heart-cry” (I’m…. Not….. Haaaaaaapy!) and then remarried instead of groveling after having the boom lowered on him this story would read exactly as it does. For those who doubt this, note Joel’s closing comments on this letter:

    God is the restorer. Keep your eyes lifted up toward Him. He is the lifter of your soul! (mind, will and emotions) When a husband flat refuses to be a good husband, GOD will step in and pick up the slack.

  54. Miss Smeeg says:

    I am a 23 year old girl and a newbie to this blog it is refreshing and you talk a lot of sense!!!!!! Read this in today’s Daily Mail and instantly thought of you. I know that you get many articles articles of this kind, but this is still interesting how this woman thought of her fiance and their relationship, and how she regrets that she walked away from “dear, devoted, loyal Matthew, convinced that somewhere out there, a better, more exciting, more fulfilling life awaited me.
    Only there wasn’t.”

    Enjoy reading the article, lol. ;)

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2263518/I-left-love-life-I-thought-I-better-Now-Im-childless-42.html#ixzz2ILSjzxiK

    [D: Thank you, and welcome to the blog.]

  55. women have a demonstrated, measured (in studies) in-group preference for other women

    Brendan, yes there is absolutely this factor. Add though that in my opinion there is something extra in the Christian woman, a sort of spiritual-ish in group preference. One pastor I had referred to many women as having what he called “the gift of mercy”. Hogwash, it is a gift of overt displays of empathy which are a fountain of empathy shared. In other words she gets a piece of the action.

    When the Christian woman displays empathy for the single mom, she knows she is going to generate a empatho-magnetic field around her and attract morsels for her own consumption. None of this am I suggesting is done after thinking it through, its a drive that manifests and bends reality to sate it.

  56. Dalrock says:

    @Empath

    empatho-magnetic field

    Brilliant. I am working on a post where this fits perfectly.

  57. Highwasp says:

    “Both 50/50 and 100/0 and 0/100 are deeply unrealistic. To liberalism it’s either equality or Nazis/Genocide/Fascism/Oppression/Subjugation. Now that I think of it, the Nazis were pretty secular and had liberal tendencies themselves…”

    hmmm… now that I think about it, this pattern of (either/or) thinking (“100/0 and 0/100 are deeply unrealistic”) predates liberals and nazis by 1000’s of years… at least all the way back to the inception of the “heaven or hell” school of thought. I wonder where the liberals and nazis obtained their tendencies towards ‘all or nothing’ ways of thinking…

  58. Just as a reminder, if anyone wants a refresher course on Christian women and divorce and the opinions thereof, and if you have control of your anger so as to not smash your keyboard, have a look:

    http://www.christianforums.com/t7714851-12/

  59. @Rollo
    “Replace ‘feminine imperative’ with ‘holy spirit’ and you’ve got the Christian Kosher® adaptation that the Davisson’s are selling. They are selectively breeding the next generation of christian beta males.”

    Was that a swipe at the Davissons or at Christianity itself? Your target is not altogether clear here via the written word, as we are lacking your tone of voice, etc. My guess would be the Davissons after giving it a little thought, but my first impression was you were slamming Christianity.

  60. CL says:

    @CL:

    Truth is that most street walkers want to be there and/or are trying to get drug money. There are a few exceptional cases, but, sadly, they’re there to abuse kindness. Kind of drains the purpose. (We give to the local mission)

    This is true. Some are obviously scammers while others seem genuinely sad, down and out.

  61. gdgm+ says:

    Perhaps slightly off-thread, but has anyone else noted that “Lowering The Boom” is UNDER-reported in the press as a contributor to children’s problems? Parts of the US state of Delaware have seen more teenager suicide attempts in the last couple of years, and a Sunday paper published a story featuring a ‘sample’ family. A teenage boy was ‘acting out’ and attempted suicide in a family led by a divorced mom and with sisters, no other men involved:

    Anthony has little memory of the day he shot himself.

    He doesn’t remember the month before it, either. And most of the four months that followed were spent in the fog of a hospital.

    He recalls a few things he was struggling with, though. He had broken up with a girl. His dad was not part of his life. He had totaled his mom’s car on New Year’s Day when he drove it out to Port Mahon, got caught in the mud and sparked a fire.

    He was at odds with his mom again and didn’t know what he would do if she actually kicked him out of the house. He was feeling bad about his life, “maybe a little bit depressed,” he said.

    And then there was the Percocet.

    “His father did not respond to requests to be interviewed for this story.”

  62. Art Deco says:

    You are right, they are two different clients referred to by “Judy”.

  63. Dalrock says:

    @unwobblingpivot

    @Rollo

    “Replace ‘feminine imperative’ with ‘holy spirit’ and you’ve got the Christian Kosher® adaptation that the Davisson’s are selling. They are selectively breeding the next generation of christian beta males.”

    Was that a swipe at the Davissons or at Christianity itself? Your target is not altogether clear here via the written word, as we are lacking your tone of voice, etc. My guess would be the Davissons after giving it a little thought, but my first impression was you were slamming Christianity.

    I can’t speak for Rollo, but as I read it he is pretty clear he is taking a swipe at the Davisson’s and what he calls “Christian Kosher”, which is as I understand it the tendency of “Churchianity” to stamp a veneer of faux Christianity on whatever the popular fad is. I don’t see it as a slam on Christianity, but as an indictment of how foolish many Christians are making Christianity look by turning away from the Bible. Joel and Kathy are really just the most visible example of this. Where someone like Dr. Mohler dances around the issue, Joel and Kathy outright compare a man’s wife to the Holy Spirit. I pointed out this excerpt from Joel and Kathy to Rollo in a previous thread, so he may have had this in mind:

    Have you ever heard it said to wives, “Don’t play the Holy Spirit?”

    Sorry. Wrong answer.

    A wife is called to help her husband just as the Holy Spirit is called to help individuals.

    A man may not hear the Holy Spirit but he cannot claim to not “hear” his wife.

    Tune her out? Yes, but he hears her!

    He may hate the very sound of her voice… but he hears her.

    A husband says, “I am sorry, Lord. I just did not hear your voice!”

    The Lord replies: “Your wife said the same things that I was saying to you. You ignored her just like you ignored me! What is your excuse for that?”

  64. Frank says:

    What’s the upside to getting married again? I forget.

  65. Yeah, what Dal said.

  66. Mainstream, evangelical culture has assimilated the feminine imperative to such an extent that it’s interchangeable with the holy spirit now – and christian men are among this dynamic’s most eager supporters.

  67. Lowering The Boom” is UNDER-reported in the press as a contributor to children’s problems

    The flow charted life paths to most social pathologies pass through the box labeled “parents divorced”

  68. One of the more insidious aspects of “women channeling for God” is that any man challenging this authority must do so from a rational perspective. There are precious few men with the patience or accumen to research the scripture which would actively contradict this, and fewer still are the men who’d develop their argument to the pont that they’d actually make that challenge.

    And once this rare Man had his case ready to present, he’s still arguing from a rational perspective with an emotionally invested feminine perspective. The first accusation would be that he was rationalizing his own viewpoint to fit his purpose.

    Maybe we’d do better to ask Joseph from Jackson about his recent ‘summation’ with his church elders?

  69. Anonymous Reader says:

    Truth is that most street walkers want to be there and/or are trying to get drug money. There are a few exceptional cases, but, sadly, they’re there to abuse kindness. Kind of drains the purpose. (We give to the local mission)

    CL
    This is true. Some are obviously scammers while others seem genuinely sad, down and out.

    I used to know a man who, time permitting, would stop and talk with street people, back when “Will Work For Food” was a common sign. He’d offer them work for food. A few, not many, accepted and he gave them some light yard work and a meal. Most of them did not really want to work. Some would ask for food, and when he offered them a meal at a hamburger joint within sight, a few accepted that. He’d buy, and they could eat. He told me, sadly, that most just wanted money. And he wasn’t going to enable them to buy booze or drugs, period. But he was always willing to give a man a chance. I miss that feller.

    A lot of the men on the street have mental problems. I consider alcoholism to be one of those, but it is likely that some number of men with severe depression, or other problems are self-medicating with the booze. Bear that in mind when you give money. Giving a voucher to a shelter, especially in cold weather, is a good idea. Estimates vary, but it appears a substantial plurality of men on the street have one or more mental health issues; I’ve seen 40% to 60% in estimates, but frankly I suspect that is never going to be an accurate number for various reasons.

    Some are bipolar and off of their meds, I have met a few of those. They can be a bit alarming; most of us don’t talk about ourselves in the third person (“Don’t hassle Jimmy!”), or about radio stations affecting our mind. Most of them are not dangerous, but they don’t wear signs, so talking with them face to face can be a bit uncertain. It is sad that as a society we’d rather have these men die of exposure than build institutions to take care of them in a more controlled, but safer, way.

    Some of the men on the street have been released from prison, and do not have any place to go where they are going to be tolerated. They drift from shelter to shelter. Some wind up working the front desk at shelters, for a while, then get itchy feet and move on. They may or may not use the money they are given for booze, by the way.

    And finally returning to the context of the OP:

    I am certain that some number of men living on the streets are divorced men who are behind in child support and don’t want to go to prison. Bear in mind that child support arrears continue to accrue while a man is in prison. It is debtor’s prison in a very real sense. It should not be a surprise that some men would rather drift from city to city, begging for money and picking up odd jobs off the books (no Social Security number) than go back to prison for the crime of being divorced. Because once they’ve been inside prison, their chances of ever getting any kind of job that would enable them to pay off the full arrears is pretty much impossible.

  70. sunshinemary says:

    AR wrote:

    I am certain that some number of men living on the streets are divorced men who are behind in child support and don’t want to go to prison.

    Homeless dads tend to live in their cars or spend an occasional night in a very cheap motel rather than directly out on the street. My father lived in his car for about eight months after my parents divorced. This situation is going to become markedly worse in a few months when federal legislation goes into effect allowing states to electronically debit child support arrears (with NO limit) from federal disbursements for things like Social Security and Veteran’s benefits. I’ve written about this on my site. It’s going to be really bad.

  71. Rico says:

    Just as a reminder, if anyone wants a refresher course on Christian women and divorce and the opinions thereof, and if you have control of your anger so as to not smash your keyboard, have a look:

    http://www.christianforums.com/t7714851-12/

    HAMSTARS BE RUNNIN WYLD!!!

  72. CL says:

    @AR

    Thanks for the input. I realise that a lot of them will spend any money they get on booze or drugs. It gets damn cold at night here and it’s almost hard to begrudge them their booze, but it’s also true that a lot of them scam government money and live in bigger apartments than I do but come from another area of town dressed down to bum more money. (I know of one woman who bums money around here who does that – on disability – and I find it pretty irritating being asked for money by someone who has more money than I do but spends it all on junk. Why should she benefit from my tightwaddery? Forget it!)

    Anyway, sorry for the OT. Laters.

  73. CL says:

    Oh, and I have offered food and been refused as well. I’ve also been told to “fuck off” for not giving someone a quarter. To which I responded, “Well, since you put it that way, let me reconsider!”

  74. Pirran says:

    @8oxer
    “I predict that within the next couple of years, either/both Joel and/or Kathy are indicted for some serious misbehavior. Probably financial, but possibly sexual.”

    Ahem…On that theme, I’ve just noticed a couple of incidents from the “Ripoff Report” concerning the activities of Kathy & Joel (inc). I don’t know if anyone here has noted these before, but I particularly refer everyone to the comments section from the first complaint and see personal replies from none other than Kathy & Joel themselves! Abusive, sarcastic and obnoxious in the extreme, you might even think they were just in it for the money (if not for their sacred purpose). Their paper-thin insecurity and passive-aggressive hostility is a wonder to behold. The second complaint precisely demonstrates the consequences of following their disastrous advice.

    http://www.ripoffreport.com/family-services/joel-and-kathy-david/joel-and-kathy-davison-joel-6yb3f.htm

    http://www.ripoffreport.com/cult-organizations/joel-and-kathy-davis/joel-and-kathy-davisson-your-m-dd09d.htm

  75. 8oxer says:

    Dear Pirran:

    Yep, I’m a prophet, like old Brigham Young himself. It seems Joel and Kathy are well on their way to pissing off their exploited sheep. At some point, these types hit “critical mass”. I’ll start that magic countdown until the day one of their victims has a brother working in the Attorney General’s office. May it come soon.

    The comments about these two hucksters down in the rebuttal section of ripoff report are hilarious, by the way.

    Regards, Boxer

  76. Hurting says:

    A divorce is plenty enough impetus to throw kids into a tailspin. I have the report cards (but thankfully no police reports) to prove it from my convenience sample of two.

    The ‘good divorce’ lie is just that where kids are concerned except in where physical and sexual abuse are concerned.

  77. Pirran says:

    And deeper down the rabbit hole we go…..
    Further research into the snake-oil sellers has produced more indictments of their cynicism (who knew they were so infamous?). In particular, the YouTube user “TheAssOfBalaam” has produced a whole series on their cult-worship and just how profoundly un-Biblical their views are. It seems they learned everything they know from some psychotic nut-job spiritualist named Paul Hegstrom. If nothing else, the analysis of how such cults can take hold is quite worthwhile. Check out the interview with Kathy’s mentor Paul Hegstrom in particular. It’s a hoot.

    http://www.youtube.com/user/TheAssOfBalaam

    http://www.sidroth.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8021&news_iv_ctrl=0&abbr=tv_

    http://thetruthaboutjoelandkathydavisson.wordpress.com/

  78. Pingback: Selling divorce to children | Dalrock

  79. DisillusionedBeta says:

    I am deeply saddened to read about these type of situations. I know of women who are emotionally abusive, narcissistic children who want it their way because they are special, and this “I know better” attitude is exactly what causes men to go AWOL or retreat emotionally. Oftentimes, the husband has communicated his desires, wants, needs, but she demands that he fulfills hers and rarely if ever, fulfills his. Even if a guy is not cheating on his wife, if he is not a supplicating fool, this situation will almost always end in divorce. Relationships with women have turned into one-way, goddess worshipping.
    Having fools like the Jacksons socially validate divorce in Christian marriages does more harm than good, spiritually and emotionally to the family. I would have said, the onus is on you: treat your husband as how you would like to be treated. More often than not, he will come around. “Dont listen to what she says, but pay attention to what she does”. The Mrs. said A LOT but did nothing constructive.

  80. Anonymous says:

    And that was a “good” example? (Heck, I don’t want to see what they’d consider a “bad” one.)

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

  82. Pingback: Links #4 and Comments | The Society of Phineas

  83. LiberalFascism101 says:

    “Hisoj says:
    January 18, 2013 at 2:18 am
    the most vile and cruel people I have ever known were very religious.”

    ^^Useful Idiots for Cultural Marxism are everywhere.

  84. Bike Bubba says:

    Dal–heard you’d be interested in knowing some churches that take marriage seriously. So here goes:
    Bethany Baptist Church, Boulder CO (defunct, sadly)
    Fourth Baptist Church, Plymouth MN
    First Bible Church, Decatur, Alabama
    Grace Baptist Church, Waseca MN
    Northern Ridge Baptist Church, Erie, CO
    Bread of Life Church of Torrance, CA
    Sunago Grace Covenant Church of Compton, CA

    I’ll also note that I’m pretty sure good counsel was given to struggling couples at Flatirons Baptist Church of Boulder CO, Christ Community Church of Waseca MN, and First Baptist Church of Kasson MN. An attempt, but less effective, I’ve seen at First United Methodist Church of Chesterton, IN. (mostly smaller churches; I wonder if the big gap is in bigger churches where the pastor can’t get close enough to the members?)

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