She was trying to fix* men.

Jenny Erikson writes in Dear Mr. Unavailable … (H/T Aaron the Just):

I always thought I could fix you, Mr. Unavailable. That if I were patient enough, loving enough, kind enough, smart enough, enough enough, you would suddenly and magically transform into someone that wanted to go all in with me.

I say I want a nice guy, but instead I’ve been picking the challenging ones. The ones that don’t love Jesus, or the ones that say they do but don’t mean it. The workaholics, the underachievers, the closeted gays, the ones that aren’t over their exes, or the ones that only text at midnight after a few drinks — I’m not making excuses for you anymore.

* With her vagina.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Hold my beer and watch this, Jenny Erikson, Rationalization Hamster, Stantons Heroes. Bookmark the permalink.

662 Responses to She was trying to fix* men.

  1. Ras Al Ghul says:

    And having got divorced to chase the alphas, she’s finding she can’t hold on to them, or even get their attention.

    Beautiful to behold.

    She’ll always have her LGBF Jesus though.

  2. Funny how her sexy sensitive billionaire dream guy never showed up to be Hubby The Second. Gosh, if only someone had predicted what would happen to her.

    Oh, wait …

  3. sunshinemary says:

    After three months of first dates and an unrequited crush or two, I’m going to stop obsessing.

    It’s like someone wrote a manosphere opera and she’s the tragic main character. She’s making every single mistake, like she had a play manual or something. After the frivorce comes the round of P&Ds, and she’s doing it. It’s just surreal to watch.

    This must be how scientists feel when they develop a whole theory about something and then get to watch it happen in real life just like their theory predicted it would happen. The much-lower-SMP second husband can only be a few years away now, right, once the final wall is truly in sight?

  4. It’s like she’s trying to prove that everything we say in the manosphere is true. She’s been back on the dating market for three whole months and she’s already gone through enough men to be using words like “always” and talking about them as if they’re an endless series and categorizing them into types. How many dates would the average divorced guy get in the first three months — maybe a couple, if he works at it? But this woman, who was once pretty but is certainly no beauty now, and who has the baggage of children and a recent divorce, has been so inundated with men that she’s already tiring of dealing with them. Can we never again debate the question of how easy it is for women to get sex/dates?

    And as for whether it’s easy for them to get married, note that she admits herself that she’s going after the unavailable ones and avoiding the guys who would be likely to marry her. That’s exactly what we’ve talked about: when a woman doesn’t really want to get married, no matter what she says about it, she’s very good at keeping away the kinds of guys who would call her on that bluff. This is NOT a woman who is anxious to find a new husband, and she’s acting accordingly.

  5. Gives me chills. $50 still says “Jenny Erikson” is a decently elaborate hoax of Dalrock/Heartiste/SSM.

  6. Goodbye Forever,
    Jenny

    Promise?

  7. She’s real, Timber.

  8. deti says:

    From a manosphere blogger standpoint, Jenny Erikson is too good to be true.

    She’s the gift that keeps on giving;

    She is the living embodiment of literally everything the manosphere talks about.

    Jenny Erikson: the one-woman manosphere QED proof.

  9. “That’s exactly what we’ve talked about: when a woman doesn’t really want to get married, no matter what she says about it, she’s very good at keeping away the kinds of guys who would call her on that bluff.”

    I don’t know about that. A person who only has $50 cash to their name, very well may WANT to buy a house. Just not the condemned property that their $50 could actually get.

  10. Nah, she’s been around too long to be a hoax. She was just a standard Republican “conservative” mommy blogger until she got bored with her husband and decided Jesus wanted her to blow up her marriage. But this is how it works. There’s nothing unusual about her except that she’s proudly doing in public what goes on in homes and courtrooms every day more privately.

    She’s taking a beating in the comments on that one. She has a couple white knights, but they’re overwhelmed. I’m surprised she doesn’t delete the critical ones, but then she’d really have nothing left, and I suppose the controversy helps her sell her new persona.

  11. Booch, you’re right; to whatever extent she does want to marry again, her sights are set way too high. But that’s also part of the defense system and preparing excuses for later, making sure no man can be acceptable. Look at the way she describes the men she’s been dating; she sounds like Jerry Seinfeld (the character) the way she makes sure every one has a flaw she can use to reject them. She even claims some (again, how many guys can you “date” in 3 months?) were “closeted gays,” as if that’s common. That’s probably what she calls the ones who were too gentlemanly and she couldn’t find anything else wrong with them except that they didn’t try to bed her the first night.

  12. deti says:

    @ Cail:

    Co-sign your comment. 867-5309/Jenny can find guys willing to date her, but isn’t looking to get married again. If she were, she’d be looking seriously for men willing to offer commitment. But those men aren’t yummy fun hot wealthy men, so they get left by the wayside.

    Come on, ladies.

    If Jenny Erikson can find men willing to date her, then YOU CAN TOO.

  13. Toddy Cat says:

    I know that this woman is real, but you can’t really blame some feminist types for thinking that she’s a hoax. Jenny Erickson is, from the manosphere standpoint, almost too good to be true. She’s like a Communist dictator who takes power and famine immediately sets in, or a liberal immigration enthusiast who lives in a gated community. Amazing.

  14. Martel says:

    I can’t find the Return of Kings article where they hit all the feminist shaming tactics (small dicks, living in mom’s basement, etc.), but she hits quite a few of them here: http://www.jennyerikson.com/2014/01/24/a-note-to-the-people-that-leave-disgusting-comments-on-my-blog/

  15. Lion says:

    8675309, Jenny, Jenny who can I turn to… She’s a real nut case.

  16. Lion says:

    Ugh, Martel, I just read her words from the link you posted. She is one disgusting person.

  17. HawkandRock says:

    She has two young daughters. A sobering thought. Their father will probably be able to provide some saneness and stability to their lives but his capacity to do so has been significantly diminished by their mother and the state.

    To say women like JE are monsters, is not hyperbole.

  18. sunshinemary says:

    If Jenny Erikson can find men willing to date her, then YOU CAN TOO.

    And let the reader understand…”date” means “bang you senseless and then be ‘unavailable’ ever after”.

  19. sunshinemary says:

    HAR:

    Their father will probably be able to provide some saneness and stability to their lives but his capacity to do so has been significantly diminished by their mother and the state.

    Leif (Jenny’s ex) seems like a decent man. I was chatting on Twitter with Rollo about him, and it was my understanding that he was going to try to reach out to Leif in some way. I haven’t asked Rollo whatever happened with that, though. Maybe he’ll drop by and enlighten us.

  20. Martel says:

    @ SSM: “Leif (Jenny’s ex) seems like a decent man.”

    Unfortunately, that may be why she left him. Decent doesn’t necessarily spark the same tingles as Mr. Unattainable.

  21. MarcusD says:

    http://twitter.com/Tremorden (Leif’s twitter)

    (he recently added Psalm 69 to his description)

  22. jf12 says:

    We workaholic underachievers need, like a union or something.

  23. John Galt says:

    Timber: “Gives me chills. $50 still says “Jenny Erikson” is a decently elaborate hoax of Dalrock/Heartiste/SSM.”

    “Jenny Erikson” is real. I have mutual friends of hers. Not sure if the entire story is real because it is too true to script, but the woman does in fact exist.

  24. jf12 says:

    Re: “This must be how scientists feel when they develop a whole theory about something and then get to watch it happen in real life just like their theory predicted it would happen.” Yes, but the reason for developing an empirical theory is because of making prior observations that cry out for a theory. Subsequent confirmatory observations add to the glee, but the feeling of wild surmise begins with the prior recognition of the potential generality.

  25. jf12 says:

    @Cail “Can we never again debate the question of how easy it is for women to get sex/dates?” I think all the men agree.

  26. Lion says:

    I wonder how many dates it takes before the average guy realizes she’s a total basket case?

  27. HawkandRock says:

    “I wonder how many dates it takes before the average guy realizes she’s a total basket case?”

    That’s just the thing, though. In comparison to her peers, she’s really not a basket case at all. Sadly, she’s pretty typical except for the fact that she puts her life out there for all the world to see. Other than that, she’s just your typical post wall divorcee looking for her God given right to be fulfilled.

  28. Pitt Harman says:

    You all need to stop making fun of these women. My ex-wife divorced me for this same thing and my life has been a dream come true ever since.

    She was 45 years old, fat, unkempt and (I kid you not) handicapped. She said that I was holding her back from finding Jason, from General Hospital. Seriously. He is the 6’5″ gorgeous blond Neurosurgeon who hit his head and turned into an organized crime boss. Seriously.

    I used to sit and think about my future of pushing this miserable toad around in her wheel chair while she complained about the sun being too bright or the water being too wet.

    Her makeup was sugar residue from all the cookies she ate. Her hair was a mop.

    I’m old school. I took a vow and would not break it. Then she told me she was divorcing me. I thought it was a joke at first, but she honestly had friends and her 2 mangina brothers constantly in her ear. She was beautiful and too good for me, so divorce it was.

    I held my breath till the end hoping it was true.

    The happiest day of my life was my first day as a divorced man.

    You go girls! All you Jennies out there. Free that poor slob and his misplaced sense of honor. Jason is waiting for you.

  29. Dalrock says:

    @Martel

    @ SSM: “Leif (Jenny’s ex) seems like a decent man.”

    Unfortunately, that may be why she left him. Decent doesn’t necessarily spark the same tingles as Mr. Unattainable.

    One thing which strikes me is how easily her lament about players fits what she did to Leif. Leif could well have written:

    I always thought I could fix you, Mrs. Unavailable. That if I were patient enough, loving enough, kind enough, smart enough, enough enough, you would suddenly and magically transform into someone that wanted to go all in with me.

    Jenny can no more make a player into a good husband than a good husband can turn Jenny into a good wife.

  30. Bike Bubba says:

    If “Leif” is using Psalm 69 as a reference, pray for him. It’s David’s song of desperation. Having interacted with a bunch of the “frivorced” on forii like this, and having watched what my dad went through even in a divorce he “earned” pretty clearly, it makes sense that he feels like this. Takes a gal used and abused in life, gives her ten good years and two daughters, gives her freedom to take part in some pretty gruesome political activity and get drinks with her best dress, and then gets thrown to the curb.

    She had Mr. Unavailable and threw him away, and if Sunshine is right that she’s made the reasons for divorce Biblical–that is giving Leif the right to send HER packing–I don’t see things getting any better for her.

    It reminds me of a gal I knew at my former job–smart gal, pretty if a bit on the slender side, and really could have had quite a nice life. If, of course, she hadn’t thrown her poozle to anyone who would take it. Last I saw her, the “catcher” was, shall we say, not exactly a catch.

  31. jf12 says:

    If any one of you dares to aspire to some sympathy for Jenny, keep in mind this is the kind of man she really has in mind for herself:
    http://thestir.cafemom.com/entertainment/170023/jamie_dornan_shares_a_juicy

  32. Crank says:

    @HawkandRock
    “Other than that, she’s just your typical post wall divorcee looking for her God given right to be fulfilled.

    I don’t know about that. Maybe I just don’t associate with enough churchian type women to get an accurate view, but the hamster seems unusually strong in this one.

  33. Bike Bubba says:

    Pitt; Jason from General Hospital, or Jason from “Friday the 13th”?

  34. jf12 says:

    @Dalrock,
    maybe, just maybe, though, Jenny and other similar women will provoke a good husband into becoming a player.

  35. feeriker says:

    The ones that don’t love Jesus, or the ones that say they do but don’t mean it.

    PLEASE tell me she didn’t really just go there…

  36. Maybe I just don’t associate with enough churchian type women to get an accurate view, but the hamster seems unusually strong in this one.

    Nope, except for the publicity-seeking, she’s pretty typical of the post-frivorce woman. She’s certainly far from the worst — she (apparently) didn’t cuckold her husband, or give him an STD, or bankrupt the family at the track before leaving him. She just got bored with her nice-guy husband, blew up the marriage, and is convinced that she should get to choose a new man to make her blissfully happy from a stable of eligible bachelors who will fight over her wonderfulness.

    Completely typical.

  37. Martel says:

    For those who haven’t gone yet, the comments over at Jenny’s site are quite a crack. Soon enough, Queen Jenny’s Hamster is going to have the endurance of an Ethiopian marathon runnner.

    Either that or she’ll shut off comments any day now.

  38. theasdgamer says:

    “With her vagina.”

    Please, let’s be fair. She may have used her hands, mouth, and anus as well.

    Why would any guy mess with JE? There are so many pretty 20-somethings available.

    @Lion, deti
    Found on the bathroom walls in many states: “For a good time call Jenny 867-5309″

  39. livingtree2013 says:

    Gents (and SSM), Jenny is just finding out all the things that “normal” (that meaning non-evangelical) women find out in their first few years of “dating” about the current marketplace, and then quickly learn to stop making those mistakes as an adult. She married at, what, 12? So she’s a little behind the curve from the real world because she married the first and only man who seemed suitable to (ahem) fill the very teenage need for someone to have sex with. Like so many teenage brides, she never had a chance to figure out that her whole life doesn’t revolve around men (which I realize is exactly what you don’t want – this whole anti-feminism movement makes so much more sense to me now. Women finding out they have other needs, egads).

    Early marriage doesn’t reduce the risk of divorce. Not making bad choices prevents divorce. Of course, eliminating the option of divorce altogether would also prevent divorce too, which I’m sure you guys would all say you support (even though divorce was permitted in the OT!) I wonder how long it would be before the marriage rate would fall to zero if divorce were made illegal again? I suppose all the patriarchal family heads would instigate the practice of arranged marriage if that became a threat. Oh God! I can see the progression to the 2nd dark age so clearly today! Or, wait… are you already doing that now?

    http://tobingrant.religionnews.com/2014/01/21/living-around-evangelicals-bad-marriage/ On the contrary, it seems to make people incredibly frikking miserable, and come up with almost any excuse to divorce. http://www.gregoryforman.com/blog/2010/09/maybe-were-stretching-the-definition-of-adultery-a-bit-too-far/ (that’s in South Carolina, not coincidentally).

    What the tragedy is is how much attention you folks spend on her, its rather pathetic. She’s the worst Christian wife in the world because she didn’t bow down to the man she married like the OT told her to? So the entire manosphere wants to use her as a punching bag to take out all your frustrations about damned irresponsible modern women and their stupid “neeeeeds”, why can’t they just be satisfied with being subservient!? You need to shame her publicly for making the ghastly mistake of (gasp!) marrying someone she didn’t really want to under extreme social pressure? How do you think shaming her is HELPING ANYTHING? Maybe you should invest that considerable effort into preventing girls who aren’t suitable marriage candidates yet from getting married, or perhaps cultivating them into becoming marriageable women (presuming you actually know what that means), instead of pressuring them to hitch up to the best possible option they can score in the mad rush, a game of musical chairs to get to the altar/bedchamber before all the chairs are taken.

    I think the real issue that you have with her is her gall to still consider herself “conservative,” which she clearly is not. Her lack of authenticity irritates me too actually – she’s quite obviously a sheep dressed in wolf’s clothing. It annoys me profoundly how many Christian people are masquerading as conservatives but really they have dastardly liberal values. I wouldn’t blame you for wanting to disassociate yourselves from her version of “conservatism”, but for some reason, all you do is beat her down, mocking her for not being traditional enough or christian enough, making yourselves look bullying and weird and obsessive in the process. Its bewildering, frankly.

  40. pabarge says:

    Ah, Jenny Erickson. The gift that keeps on givingspewing.

  41. And here I thought the fix* would be “with a pair of pruning shears”.

  42. Someone needs to make Jenny aware of the Tinder app. There’s an unending stream of guys ready to give her exactly what she deserves wants.

    Or she could simply embrace Sexual Fluidity since no ‘man’ will ever be a Man for her:
    http://therationalmale.com/2011/09/01/sexual-fluidity/

  43. jf12 says:

    @LT2013, “learning from their mistakes” is the too-typical excuse for sowing wild oats. It doesn’t fly. Moreover, in this context, “learning to stop” dating unavailable men means getting married to an available man. That’s what she already did: she already had several macho boyfriends in her teens, at least one of whom she went all the way with, before “learning to stop” with Leif.

    It’s not just her pretend conservative values that gall me, it’s the whole “learning to stop” thing. While should a husband be the grateful recipient of a woman’s deciding to STOP having sex with men?

  44. I looked at Leif’s twitter. He has nice guy and good father written all over him. Not terribly bad looking and sort of young in a man vs woman sort of way. She is so going to regret dumping him. On the open market he is not bad at all and she is not a keeper. He is just that, a keeper. Its not surprising to hear he has been quite about what has been happening and now he has a girlfriend.

  45. Rollo—I was thinking Tinder, too. Anyone in SD willing to keep an eye out for her when she gets the app?

    (And yes, I realize my $50 is long lost.)

  46. Oops no Girl friend for Leif I misread that part.

  47. Oh don’t worry, I’m sure LT’s utopian village social collective will provide for the upbringing of Jenny’s daughter while she matures into a new understanding of her liberated post-Wall self.

  48. jf12 says:

    @Martel, very nice comment. Seriously, as nice as it could be.

    A subsequent commenter Bristlecone makes some very fine points in his comparisons of MMV and SMV, and he lands a direct hit (“Hit. Battleship.”) with “None of these groups of men are going to be as commitment-minded as the average man, even if Jenny were as commitment worthy as she was 10 years ago, which she isn’t.” AWALT. afaik, and women can correct me if they want to, no woman believes her marital value plummets as rapidly as men think. In other words, every woman who is not a spring chicken anymore erroneously believes her marriage value is a lot lot lot higher than men think her marital value is.

  49. Martel says:

    Thanks, jf12.

    Btw, I’m pretty sure that livingtree here and at Rational Male is Cheryl over at Jenny’s (in case anyone cares).

  50. @John Galt: I have a mutual friend of the Erikson clan as well, so hey, we’re two degrees apart, I think?

    @Pitt Harman: Same here. I never have to wonder what a good marriage is like, because I already had one, but thank God it’s over. The part of marriage I hated the most was the fear and worry that someday I’d end up divorced with no control over how badly my life got destroyed.

    @livingtree2013: Oh, hi, you’re back, and still spouting the same nonsense.

    Since you don’t believe in young marriage, what do you advise 18 and 21 year old women to do? Just go for pump ‘n’ dumps?

  51. deti says:

    Livingtree:

    “Gents (and SSM), Jenny is just finding out all the things that “normal” (that meaning non-evangelical) women find out in their first few years of “dating” about the current marketplace, and then quickly learn to stop making those mistakes as an adult. She married at, what, 12? So she’s a little behind the curve from the real world because she married the first and only man who seemed suitable to (ahem) fill the very teenage need for someone to have sex with”

    No. Jenny was not the sexual and relational babe in the woods you portray her. By her own writing she’s confessed to being an alpha widow. She had a sexual relationship with another man before Leif. So, it’s simply inaccurate to say that Jenny knew nothing at all about men, sex and relationships. Leif wasn’t her first rodeo. Leif wasn’t the prettiest, or even the first, horse she’d ever ridden, apparently.

    “What the tragedy is is how much attention you folks spend on her, its rather pathetic. She’s the worst Christian wife in the world because she didn’t bow down to the man she married like the OT told her to? So the entire manosphere wants to use her as a punching bag to take out all your frustrations about damned irresponsible modern women and their stupid “neeeeeds”,”

    The ‘sphere talks about JE not because it wants or needs a punching bag, but because JE is literally living, breathing proof of everything the ‘sphere talks about. She illustrates perfectly, IN HER OWN WORDS and FROM THE HORSE’S MOUTH, just about every single male-female relationships phenomenon we’ve ever seen. She’s useful because she shows young single men what NOT to do, and what kind of women to avoid.

  52. @Martel, you’re correct.

  53. jf12 says:

    So, JE is right at 32 with two young daughters and a nice-guy ex-husband. The exact sort of woman that has the lowest ratio of MMV/SMV. No man in his right mind would possibly want to be part of that situation.

  54. Anonymous Reader says:

    SunShineMary
    It’s like someone wrote a manosphere opera and she’s the tragic main character.

    No, it’s like someone wrote a mandrosphere comic opera (black humor, to be sure) and she is indeed the main character. Increasingly I’m seeing a Punch & Judy show here…one Judy and plenty of Punches, apparently.

    Of course, if the men of the Southern California Chapter of the Tribe of Jesus would just rise up and kill every PUA in San Diego, as some “red pill” woman blogger or other demanded, then I’m sure Jenny Erickson would be finally safe from them and come to her senses…right?

    Yah, you betcha. ‘Cause wimminz only commit sexual sins when led by some eeeeevil PUA, they never, ever think of that stuff on their own. Nuh-uh.

  55. I know I’m a new commenter here, but I read where some here wonder if Jenny Ericson is real. she is real very real http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/mom-tween-daughter-shop-victorias-secret-18655656

  56. JCclimber says:

    You mean with her “Magic vagina”.

  57. JCclimber says:

    I suspect that her husband was “committing adultery” because he had a porn viewing habit. I will give her some respect for not outing him on this like most other narcissistic mommy bloggers would do.

    Not that I consider porn committing adultery but I know many churchians hold that view.

  58. Anonymous Reader says:

    Cail Corishev
    Nah, she’s been around too long to be a hoax. She was just a standard Republican “conservative” mommy blogger until she got bored with her husband and decided Jesus wanted her to blow up her marriage. But this is how it works. There’s nothing unusual about her except that she’s proudly doing in public what goes on in homes and courtrooms every day more privately.

    Exactly so, and there are only two (2) unusual aspects to this case that make it atypical.

    1. The church kicked her out.
    2. She’s been dragging her dirty laundry around the web since before the divorce.

    Absent 2 we would not know about 1, frankly. And 1 matters because from what men have told me in various ways, it’s mighty unusual for a church, any church, to excommunicate a woman for this behavior. Rather the opposite, in fact, the pattern all too often seems to be the frivorcee is still welcomed while the frivorced man is shunned. And yes, tradcons, this includes your church, whatever it may be, more often than not.

    Where there is no public disapproval of behavior, there is no incentive for any individual to alter that behavior. When church leaders can’t bring themselves to do what Jenny Erickson’s pastor did, then expect more bad behavior rather than less. Rewarding frivorcees for blowing up marriages, while expecting young men to man up and marry is clearly failing.

    Returning to CC’s original point: aside from 1 and 2 above there is nothing unusual or exceptional about Jenny Erickson, and therein lies her significance. She’s every-frivorcee and is quite common in every city, metropolitian area and town.

    Femininsts should proudly own her actions. She’s the product of 50 years of their work. She is what they wanted 35 years ago…

  59. Martel says:
    March 25, 2014 at 3:51 pm
    Thanks, jf12.

    Btw, I’m pretty sure that livingtree here and at Rational Male is Cheryl over at Jenny’s (in case anyone cares).

    It’s gotta be her. Same sentiments. Same writing style.

  60. Slumlord says:

    Outstanding post Dalrock.

    I always thought I could fix you

    In other words, she knew they were bad when she picked them.

    She’s no crazy woman, she’s simply the average woman.
    I truly worry for my sons.

  61. Bike Bubba says:

    It’s worth noting that not only is “Livingtree” wrong about Mrs. Erikson’s sexual history, she is also wrong about divorce rates. They are only higher in Southern States when you use the wrong units–divorces per 1000 adults instead of divorces per 1000 married people. When you use the right units, the divorce rate in the South (specifically Arkansas where I’ve looked at the data) is about 40% lower than in New England. And that ignores the fact that in New England, presumably “shacking up” is much more common–and the parting rates for THAT are horrendous.

    It also ignores the fact that there is a Southern habit of going to church not because you believe, but rather because daddy did, granddaddy did, great-granddaddy did…..so when you get to those who are actually taking action on their faith, you’re getting to some really low divorce rates. Real faith in Christ–the kind that takes His prohibition of divorce seriously–is seriously sexy.

  62. Anonymous Reader, I’d forgotten about that aspect of it, but you’re right: the main reason we know about Jenny is that she went online to whine about how her pastor messed up her exit plan by warning her husband, and then had to gall to call her publicly to repentance.

  63. jf12 says:

    @Paige Roberts, he has a girlfriend? Do tell. The betting pool around here estimated it would take until early 2015, I think.

  64. theasdgamer says:

    @jf12 3-25 3:49

    “In other words, every woman who is not a spring chicken anymore erroneously believes her marriage value is a lot lot lot higher than men think her marital value is.”

    The same married hags don’t know how hot the older guys are that they are married to. I get pretty 20-somethings screwing their breasts into my chest hard when they grab me for a hug after a dance. Their girlfriends throw them at me. They have huge grins on their faces when they ask me to teach them to dance or when I ask them to dance. (Lots of guys at the bar are decades younger than I am and many can dance.) All the women have for tops are small patches of material covering their breasts. No bras. (Advertising “I wanna man!”)

    You go grrrrrl!

  65. Eidolon says:

    If the manosphere is just a bunch of people terrified of women etc., and their theories are all about protecting their fragile male egos and such, how come they were so right about this?

    You can say that so-and-so is a lousy person all day long, but if his theories are correct they’re correct. You can insinuate or state whatever nasty stuff you want about e.g. Dalrock, but he and other manospherians called this whole situation from the start.

    Unlike many shaky theories, the predictions held true here, not only what she would do, but how and why she would do it, and how she would feel about it. I think it’s probably terrifying to some women (some people, really) to think that their behavior and even feelings are predictable, since they seem so unique and special at the time. It’s useful to recognize that other people have done all this before, “there is nothing new under the sun,” so it may be wise to listen to the counsel of others who came before us. I notice that this is usually the first place defenders of this sort of evil go to — “well, this situation was unique; you can’t judge her, you weren’t there; he may have been a lot worse than she said; she may have had good reason.” None of us are all that unique, though, and our situations aren’t unique either.

    What’s also amazing about livingtree is that the destruction JE wrought on herself, her ex-husband, and her children is chalked up to “growing pains,” essentially. Nothing to be done, really, it just happened. You know, it wasn’t 100% her own choices freely made as an adult or anything, it was just that phase we all go through where we renege on all the promises we made to the people closest to us and destroy the lives of vulnerable people in our charge.

  66. theasdgamer says:

    @Aaron

    “Since you don’t believe in young marriage, what do you advise 18 and 21 year old women to do? Just go for pump ‘n’ dumps?”

    Facial splooge from:

    1. rock star
    2. actor
    3. porn star
    4. race car driver
    5. Wall Street broker
    6. addict
    7. serial murderer
    8. NBA star
    9. NFL star
    10. Olympic gold medalist

    All before 28 so that she can still find a chump to provide beta bux.

  67. Johnycomelately says:

    Closeted gays, heh, I’ll have to use that one when a date doesn’t match her profile pic.

    Sure, the world is filled with closeted gays trying to get dates with aging frumpy divorcees with baggage.

    ‘Unavailable’ must be chick speak for being ‘rejected’, you’ve got to give the hamster credit, it’s capacity for ego self preservation is without peer.

  68. It’s gotta be her. Same sentiments. Same writing style.

    It is, I have her email address from my blog comments and it starts with ‘Cheryl’

  69. Having been married to my own personal Jenny Erikson, I think it’s quite useful to discuss the archetype because the exact same script plays out for so many other men.

    If just one man can be saved, this whole venture is worth it.

  70. @Rollo

    LT (or “Cheryl” or whoever she is) really does seem to be obsessed with the manosphere. I never thought the obsession would extend to Ms Erikson’s blog.

  71. jf12 says:

    @Johnnycomelately, “‘Unavailable’ must be chick speak for being ‘rejected’”. I’m imagining hearing (hmm, those two words look strange together like that) the busy signal on the telephone.

  72. Elspeth says:

    “every woman who is not a spring chicken anymore erroneously believes her marriage value is a lot lot lot higher than men think her marital value is.”

    You do love hyperbole. Most maybe but not all. In fact I’m sure most do, but again, not all. Some even recognize their husband’s superior attractiveness and ability to trade up to YTH if he wanted, and are grateful when he doesn’t.

  73. Anthony says:

    “Closeted gay” = “not able to get it up for her

  74. Martel says:

    @jft12/johnnycomelately: “unavailable” means “rejected” for a relationship, or perhaps “intimacy”, but not necessarily rejected for sex. The most intoxicating Mr. Unavailables are those for whom not even the Magic Vagina can break his aloofness after She’s done Her best.

  75. Anonymous Reader says:

    Eidolon
    If the manosphere is just a bunch of people terrified of women etc., and their theories are all about protecting their fragile male egos and such, how come they were so right about this?

    Ding! Ding! Ding! Every winner gets a free cigar. Yes, how is it that men with small penes hiding in their mother’s basements can see what others do not see, eh?

    Wait, it gets worse. Hypergamy, alpha-widowhood, carousel riding – all these concepts proceed from the dreaded Game. So if Game is false, then there should be no Jenny Erickson type frivorcees. Except, oh dang, there are legions of such women. And Game concepts enable men to make predictions that more often than not are accurate about such women.

    Oh, my, dreaded Reality raises up again….

  76. Johnycomelately says:

    Unavailability.
    Challenging ones, don’t love Jesus, or say they do but don’t mean it, workaholics, underachievers, closeted gays, aren’t over their exes, only text at midnight after a few drinks…

    Rollo, do you have a post on this phenomenon? Women projecting being rejected to character flaws in men that preclude them from being ‘available’, a form of post hoc rejection for ego protection.

  77. jf12 says:

    @Elspeth, ok, fair enough, yes there are probably one or two unicorns and/or BigFoots around somewhere.

    If we played a game of “I Spy” (do people do travel games like that any more, or is it all apps now?) “I spy, with my little eye, a woman who is visibly grateful to her husband.”, and I spotted you one unicorn, how long would it take us to find the next unicorn? Four thousand years, approximately?

  78. Dalrock says:

    @jf12

    AWALT. afaik, and women can correct me if they want to, no woman believes her marital value plummets as rapidly as men think. In other words, every woman who is not a spring chicken anymore erroneously believes her marriage value is a lot lot lot higher than men think her marital value is.

    There is a kind of hamster fueled doublethink here. The modern woman desperately wants to believe that her SMV and MMV follow the same path with age as it works for men. This is why there is such a huge demand for entertainment focused on selling this lie to women. But women do viscerally understand the reality of their plummeting SMV and especially MMV if you frame it as a failing of men. This is especially true for women with children (single mothers). You can instantly call this visceral understanding of theirs to the forefront of their mind by repeating the hamster’s lament:

    What is wrong with men?

    Why won’t they commit?

    or (best yelled into a cavern for a suitably mournful echo):

    Where have all of the good men gone? (gone… gone… gone…)

  79. jf12 says:

    “closeted gay” = lousy dresser, just like (vast majority of) straight guys.

  80. jf12 says NO I miss read something she wrote. Sadly I think you are right. But he could have another girl in days if he wanted to.

  81. I figured “closeted gay” = “wasn’t overcome by my hotness enough to try to lay me on the first date.”

    Of course, “says he’s Christian but isn’t” = “tried to lay me on the first date.” So she has an excuse ready either way.

  82. FuzzieWuzzie says:

    Bike Bubba is right to be worried about Leif. Here’s a link to Psalm 69

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+69&version=KJV

  83. Elspeth says:

    @jf12:

    I was talking with a fellow homeschooling mother last week and she was complimenting her husband, noting that he is “the brains of this outfit.”

    Another mother who was listening in said, ” So you’re just the beauty, huh?” And she responded, “Not anymore! Are you kidding me? That ship has sailed. He keeps me around for my entertainment value.” I suspect she’s in her late 40’s, 6-8 years older than I.

    Count her among the unicorns I guess. And I know full well that I’m no where near what I was 20 years ago, which is saying something.

    Honest women know that they aren’t at 40 or 50 what they were at 20 or even 30, and don’t pretend otherwise. It’s only the women ready to ditch their marriages, who then run around that hamster wheel to psych themselves up to pull the trigger. Granted, that accounts for a significant percentage of married women, but again, not all.

    [D: Well put.]

  84. I can’t believe I’m about to agree with her, but LT is correct in one sense; one reason detonating a marriage at 32 is so seductive for women is that they convince themselves (with no small help from a feminine-primary socialization) they can finally participate in all the experiences they ‘missed out on’ – or had to live vicariously through their girl-friends – in their 20’s while they were raising children.

    JE is a prime candidate for this. Her daughters have almost reached an age of “out of diaper” semi-autonomy, she’s somewhat social media savvy and believes her online orbiters are sincere in their attentions for her. She obviously subscribes to a common, feminine-primary entitlement mental schema as evidenced by her public outrage at her pastor for laying bare her divorce plans (feminine solipsism). And, she believes she’s done nothing wrong in taking these measures to “do what’s right for her.”

    Granted, Leif was the dutiful Christian Beta husband archetype (though he’s made progress after this experience) and played the role of the boring schlub that women can easily feel justified in leaving to find the exciting Alpha she missed in her party years while she was breastfeeding babies and changing diapers.

    Only now she’s wondering why all those Alpha’s the get-a-divorce brochure advertised aren’t lining up to take turns at her 2 child single-mommy vagina, and they guys who do want to take a turn on her aren’t interested in anything long term ‘christiany’ with a woman who’s google profile may as well be a scarlet letter ‘A’ on the jumbotron at Staple’s Center. And she is ‘surprised’ that good Alpha-Christian men are reluctant to man-up and bang her until such time as she believes they ought to marry her.

    It all must be the fault of a decadent godless society that no brave men have the insight to see what a real gem they’re missing out on.

  85. Carlos says:

    The Gwenyth Paltrow/Chris Martin “conscious uncoupling” (i.e., divorce): “The two, who tied the knot in a secret ceremony at the Santa Barbara courthouse on Dec. 5, 2003, just recently celebrated their 10 year anniversary”.

  86. jf12 says:

    Re: MMV/SMV ratios. I think there’s been a broad consensus that a typical modern woman’s MMV graph is roughly proportional to her SMV graph. But many more (bad) men would have sex with (any) woman than (the good men who) would marry her; that’s part of what women mourn about. So, already, if we look at Rollo’s simple SMV chart and try to interpret it proportionally as MMV, already you have to knock the woman’s SMV down by a huge factor, like 300% or 400% or more, to get her MMV.

    But a single graphical representation of the effects of the relationship marketplace for a single typical woman, at e.g. age 32, doesn’t take other factors into account. For example a 32 year old woman dying soon of advanced breast cancer doesn’t quite fit the typical model, and probably will not find the dating and marriage marketplace quite as easy as an otherwise similar woman of more typical health. So with that in mind let me, we, all-us, introduce the concept that having children is a huge factor that greatly decreases MMV. And her having frivorced is an even bigger factor that truly enormously decreases MMV.

  87. @FuzzieWuzzie, if Mr Erikson is reading the Great Books For Men[tm], he’ll do well. I have yet to see immersing one’s self in the scriptures end badly.

    @Elspeth, my mother shocked me one day – she said “I do not consider myself a pretty woman.” I’ve always thought of her as above average, mostly because she managed to never become overweight, nor too thin, but was always “just right”. Her conversation at the time revealed she has always felt the need to be attractive in ways other than her body to my dad.

  88. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dalrock
    The modern woman desperately wants to believe that her SMV and MMV follow the same path with age as it works for men. This is why there is such a huge demand for entertainment focused on selling this lie to women

    We swim in a lake of feminism, and anyone not explicitly rejecting the false premises of feminism will find themselves implicitly accepting them. About 10-12 years ago I was talking with a female relation and Cormac McCarthy came up. At the age of 60 or so he’d had a child by his then-wife (#2 or #3, I dunno. I’m sure it’s on his Wiki page). My relation snorted, and said, “Well, she had a child and let him pretend it was his”. This was interesting and so more conversation ensued – long story short, my relative was just assuming that male fertility follows the same trajectory as female, and so in her mind there was no way a man of 60+ years could get a woman pregnant because that’s post-menopausal….because (all together) men and women are the same except women can have babies. She was adamant in this position despite medical evidence to the contrary, too.

    Sometime I should go visit and show this to her:
    http://mentalflossr.tumblr.com/post/16420466275/john-tylers-grandsons-are-still-alive

    Confirmation:
    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2012/01/president-tyler-grandson-alive.html

    Just for the fun of it.

    Anyway, there is a huge market of fodder for female hamsters, because those hamsters have been fed falsehoods from the very beginning of their lives, and the falsehood is very pernicious, can be very deeply rooted, and it is not always possible to remove.

  89. @jf12,

    Things that drop MMV to zero, but don’t really budge SMV much at all:

    1. Being divorced
    2. Having kids (unless she got fat/covered in stretch marks)
    3. Being certifiably crazy (e.g. just got out of a mental ward)
    4. Already being married, or already having a boyfriend/fiance

    And a few more things that for me personally take a big whack out of MMV:

    5. Being “spiritual” but not religious
    6. Having lots of sex partners
    7. Having had an abortion
    8. Having liberal political leanings

    But the SMV doesn’t really budge, and women seem to think their MMV = SMV.

    It would really help if feminists would quit telling women that (a) SMV goes up with age and that (b) MMV = SMV.

  90. jf12 says:

    @Elspeth, yes, and my wife talks to other people about how wonderful her husband is, whoever he may be, when I’m not around. But that’s part of making her look good, see, since she must have something somewhere (! maybe it’s hard to see in public) going for her to have gotten such a wonderful husband.

    Meanwhile, in the realm of visibly grateful, I still haven’t seen it.

  91. Anonymous Reader says:

    Aaron the Just
    It would really help if feminists would quit telling women that (a) SMV goes up with age and that (b) MMV = SMV.

    That would require feminists to tell the truth. Not going to happen. The Female Imperative does not like those truths…

  92. jf12 says:

    @Aaron, re: “Things that drop MMV to zero, but don’t really budge SMV much at all” yes. I notice none of your first four items include “dying soon of advanced breast cancer” and I agree. A frivorced woman with kids, for example, has much lower MMV.

  93. Elspeth says:

    @ jf12:

    Well okay then, sir. Your wife is every wife. Got it. For the record, I tell my husband to his face how grateful I am for him. And I show as much as I can. Doing anything less than that is like putting flowers on your grandma’s grave where she can’t smell them even though you never visited her once from the time left home for college till the day she died 20 years later.

    I’m sorry your wife is not letting you know that she appreciates you. My husband doesn’t have that problem. As for the woman I referenced? Maybe it was a show. Who knows? But I am just not inclined to believe the worst of every person I meet. I have come to expect that from the Internet crowd, though. Not just in the manosphere, but in general.

  94. Anonymous Reader says:

    Elspeth
    I was talking with a fellow homeschooling mother last week and she was complimenting her husband, noting that he is “the brains of this outfit.”

    And you assume that she speaks and acts that way in private, too? If so, do you have any evidence to support this assumption? I don’t know how to tell you this gently, but some people act one way in public and another very different way when they think no one important is looking.

    Ask me how I know this to be true.

  95. Elspeth says:

    @ AR:

    Most women I encounter denigrate and complain about their husbands in public, not compliment them. I found this woman to be a rarity in my experience. But I’ll take yall’s word for it.

  96. Bike Bubba says:

    Fuzzie, it’s not just the Psalm 69 link, but rather that plus what I’ve read from a lot of other rejected husbands. He’s not only been rejected, but has also had his ex drag the whole story out there in public, including how she used her favorite dress to get drinks by showing the world her assets while at Log Cabin Republicans events.

    And now she’s surprised that her second ex-husband isn’t rushing to sign up for this.

  97. @jf12,

    Women are plentiful with compliments about their husbands when speaking to other women, because complaining about their husband just makes them look bad – like they were losers in the marriage marketplace. (It takes young wives a few years to figure this out.)

    Women are stingy with compliments for their husbands – women really only go out of they way to make men they feel are alpha men feel good, so if their husband doesn’t match that description, and he acts like a beta, the relationship will instead be one centered around him making her feel good.

    To this day my ex-wife’s official story is “We loved each other but just weren’t compatible so we were happiest going out separate ways.” Along with some tales of when I was a great guy.

  98. Anonymous Reader says:

    Elspeth
    Most women I encounter denigrate and complain about their husbands in public, not compliment them.

    I see a fair amount of that myself, in various circles.

    I found this woman to be a rarity in my experience.

    It is rare, I agree. But just because she talks him up in public does not mean she does the same to his face. Might be so, might not be so. Book by its cover, and so forth.

    But I’ll take yall’s word for it.

    Okee dokey.

  99. Some Guy says:

    Here’s how to test the saintly woman. In a mixed group, ask the man a question that forces him to speak for his family as a unit. Something like… “what is something that you feel the Lord has taught your family over the n years of your married life?” Or, “how does your family handle ____.”

    When he states that his family has learned x or that the family handles y in such and such a manner… watch for when the woman overrules him and/or belittles him on the spot. “I always knew x and was always pushing you to get up to speed.” “If you actually took care of y then you would know that we actually do z.”

    It is very predictable because it is unthinkable for a man to even come close to acting in a leadership role in the home. Most women are happy to show their true colors under these circumstances. They are ready to correct him publicly and feel it is their job to keep him humble, yuck yuck yuck….

  100. deti says:

    “ Some even recognize their husband’s superior attractiveness and ability to trade up to YTH if he wanted, and are grateful when he doesn’t.”

    Only those women who are actually married to men to whom their wives are extremely attracted to them exhibit such recognition and gratitude. The only reason such women are attracted to such men is precisely because those men are fully capable of getting YHT, but don’t

    Rollo proved correct again. Women love a man who doesn’t cheat, but could if he wanted to.

  101. imnobody00 says:

    Holy sh*t. She is a walking manosphere cliché. It is like if she reads manosphere blogs and follows every manosphere idea. If someday there is a red pill textbook, she can give examples for all the concepts, chapters and behaviors.

  102. @deti

    The corollary to this is women prefer men who’ve had a few other sexual partners.

    Which is what leads us to this absurd race to the bottom. In essence, women intrinsically have a preference for men with sinful pasts. I should not have to discourse at length about how this is bad.

    The ultimate consequence of this is a world full of sex trafficking, child sex slavery, forced prostitution, fatherless children, and rape. This is one area where I concur with GBFM: Christian men must rise up and refuse to accommodate the desire for women to be tingled in this area.

    Or, more specifically: is it really a good thing that my own N count is so high I can’t even remember what it is, and can barely remember how much I added to it last year?

  103. Elspeth says:

    Here’s how to test the saintly woman. In a mixed group, ask the man a question that forces him to speak for his family as a unit. Something like… “what is something that you feel the Lord has taught your family over the n years of your married life?” Or, “how does your family handle ____.”

    That is an excellent test.

  104. The Sarlacc says:

    She was trying to fix men in the same way vets fix pets.

  105. FuzzieWuzzie says:

    The fact that Jenny Erikson has no qualms about going public with all this goes to point out that this is “business as usual”. She is undercutting confidence in marriage and without it, who will be willing to commit?
    This is damaging to both men and women but, more so to women.

  106. commandercornpone says:

    lots of good stuff above. also, general rule of thumb… women marry men hoping to change them. men marry women hoping they wont change.

  107. The Sarlacc says:

    Apologies for posting twice in a row, but something I glazed over on the first read (too focused on getting to the comments, I guess, which are highly amusing) on that linked article:

    “Jesus loves me, and if I’m good enough for Him, then I’m good enough for me too.”

    Just… Just _look_ at that. I’m not a religious man-eating desert-dwelling monster by any stretch of the imagination, but look at that. Not “Jesus loves me despite my imperfections”, or “Jesus’ love is so great he can even love someone imperfect like me”; not even “Jesus loves me so I try hard to be worthy of his love”. No, it’s all “I’m so freaking awesome that even Jesus loves me, and if you don’t, well, that’s clearly YOUR problem!”

    Wow.

  108. BC says:

    @Some Guy: That is an excellent test.

  109. tz2026 says:

    You missed the key passage:

    Why am I waiting for you to love me, Mr. Unavailable, when I’ve had a perfect love in front of me this whole time? Jesus loves me, and if I’m good enough for Him, then I’m good enough for me too.

    There are two equal and opposite stark raving lunacies. (Ironic that it is the Solemnity of the Annunciation today). Both may be simultaneously present. If you ever wanted an example of why Pride is the greatest of the cardinal sins, read the article.

    Oh, Jesus doesn’t need to be fixed? No Job like questions on the meaning of suffering? Jesus, who demands “You be perfect as the Father in Heaven is Perfect?”. Who demands a lot more in the Sermon on the Mount. If you can accept him with all his demands, the worst man – be it the workaholic, “bad boy biblical biker”, or reformed addict missing a few parts should be easy.

    Good enough for him? You’re too good for him. Like Lucifer! You are so good that you belong on his throne. Sin? The Fall? You didn’t eat that fruit, Eve did. Why should you fast or pray? Why repent? You are good enough for him. Jesus should be happy you condescend to allow him even a few minutes of your busy day.

    The answer to “Non Serviam!” is “Let it be done to me according to thy word”.

    Humble submission can change everything. For it is the greatest and most obvious expression of agape love.

  110. Piroko says:

    http://www.berfrois.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/wabbit19.jpg
    “Well what did you expect in an opera, a happy ending?”

  111. oblivion says:

    hey all, dont listen to listen living tree. I think she just on her period. somebody should post on jennys page and ask jenny to give her a chocolate bar.

  112. Yes, it’s not often that you see the essence of Churchianity, and the way it twists God’s infinite mercy into “do what thou wilt,” displayed as nakedly as, “I’m good enough for Jesus.”

    St. Paul didn’t think he was “good enough”; quite the contrary. A common feature of people whom others see as extremely holy is that they never consider themselves to be “good enough.” Sometimes they even call themselves “worms” or the “worst of sinners.” (Catholics consider the Virgin Mary to be the only person who was ever “good enough for Jesus” in any way, and that was only achieved by God causing her to be conceived without sin and filled entirely with grace to keep her that way.)

    But Jenny Erikson, recent divorcee and new dating expert, who calls men who don’t fawn over her liars and homosexuals, is “good enough for Jesus.” Amazing.

  113. 8to12 says:

    jf12 said: “closeted gay” = lousy dresser, just like (vast majority of) straight guys.

    Wrong.

    “Closested gay” means she threw herself physically at a man–literally letting him know in no uncertain terms that he could have sex with her–and he turned her down.

    Few women’s egos can handle the idea that a man (particularly a man she is attracted to) would find her soooo sexually undesirable that he wouldn’t even want to have sex with her if it was handed to him on a silver platter. It can’t be her; there must be something wrong with him; he must be gay.

    But he’s not gay, and neither were Ms. Erickson’s dates. The more likely scenario is they decided that sex with her was more time and trouble than it was worth.

  114. Frogmallet says:

    Her lack of self awareness is painful to experience. What a clown

  115. “I didn’t get divorced just so I could make the same mistakes over and over again”….but of course you did…

  116. theasdgamer says:

    @Elspeth

    “Well okay then, sir. Your wife is every wife.”

    Count another wife like jf12’s. My wife is a shrew. Maybe she loves me, but she is still very rebellious and very religious as well. She throws non-stop shit-tests which I just ignore for the most part. I go out without her almost every night of the week, but I’m almost always home by 10:30 on weeknights. I’ll stay out till 11:30 or 12:30 on weekends sometimes. I go out for dancing which fuels my weight loss plan and my eBook. She likely feels insecure with my weight loss and my going out and dancing with other women. Her rebellious attitude means that I pretty much ignore her most of the time. She says that she doesn’t want to divorce me. She also says that she would vigorously mate-guard me if she saw some woman hitting on me.

    @deti

    “Rollo proved correct again. Women love a man who doesn’t cheat, but could if he wanted to.”

    [See my comment directed at Elspeth.] I could easily have sex with pretty 20-somethings who are a decade younger than my kids. Does Rollo’s maxim still hold in my case? I have my doubts if “love” means “treat well.”

  117. Tom C says:

    P.J. O’Rourke once wrote that most people would rather be treated politely than loved, if they really thought about it.

  118. FuzzieWuzzie says:

    I went and read Jenny’s post that Dalrock linked to. Somebody should have told her what dating is like in the present day. She must have expected a line of suitable cndidates vying for her favors. OOPS!
    I would feel sorry for her but, she nuked her marriage and dating is even harder on men.

  119. BC says:

    @theasdgamer: In that case your wife’s shit tests are more likely insecurity tests rather than fitness tests. Relationship Game coupled with operate conditioning can help in these cases.

  120. b g says:

    Fuzziewuzie

    Well, haven’t seen you for a bit. Agreed Jenny is out of her mind, but who cares except Jenny herself.

    The skunk cabbage is now appearing out here, so the female bears will show up to remove her plug and her cubs will climb the Cottonwoods to eat the sugary buds. Things don’t change much. Never did.

  121. feeriker says:

    That is an excellent test.

    One that 99.99999 percent of women will fail, miserably.

  122. TMG says:

    I know of some “Christian” women who think Erickson is delightful. Although I haven’t seen them mention her in a while on social media so maybe they’ve moved on to another wish fulfillment fantasy.

  123. TMG says:

    Also: some great commentary in the comments here about the “loving Jesus” being misinterpreted as permissive love by many these days.

  124. Asteriks says:

    Anybody notice the (typical) double standards here?

    “I always thought I could fix you, Mr. Unavailable. That if I were patient enough, loving enough, kind enough, smart enough, enough enough, you would suddenly and magically transform into someone that wanted to go all in with me.

    “… Why am I waiting for you to love me, Mr. Unavailable, when I’ve had a perfect love in front of me this whole time? Jesus loves me, and if I’m good enough for Him, then I’m good enough for me too.

    “… Jesus likes me, and you know what? That’s enough for me.”

    • Unless the man (the husband) lets himself be changed (fixed) by the woman (the wife), he is a no-good @#$%^& who deserves to be abandoned, his children removed, and his money taken to support her new single lifestyle

    • By contrast, the woman is faultless; with Jenny, there is a religious element added (Jesus), but always it is that the woman was, is, and will always be (more than) good enough, and that when getting married she won’t be required to improve, for example, by relinquishing her hussy attitude or her teenage fairy tale ideas about romantic love.

  125. @TMG

    Indeed. At least I don’t pretend that living life like an unreformed PUA is somehow God-honouring or that Jesus loves me anyway because of it.

  126. jf12 says:

    @Aaaron “Women are plentiful with compliments about their husbands when speaking to other women, because complaining about their husband just makes them look bad – like they were losers in the marriage marketplace.” That’s what I was trying to say, but you said it more clearly.

  127. jf12 says:

    @Elspeth “For the record, I tell my husband to his face how grateful I am for him. And I show as much as I can.” That’s good, as it should be, and you have to know that is too rare. Hence my wife is too typical, being not as she should be.

    Here’s what would count as her showing gratefulness to me:
    1) Her physically doing stuff to please me. Her making much more of an effort and much much much more frequently. Her massaging my back at least 20x more often.
    2) Her not having me do stuff to please her. Me doing much less work and spending much much much less money on her. Me massaging her back at least 50x less often.
    3) Her being so far removed from criticizing the way that I do stuff to please her that she literally never “corrects” me privately or publically. Ever. At all. In any way. At all.
    4) Truthfully to me verbal compliments mean nothing to me, coming from women, because women never gave them to me before. I wouldn’t know what to do with them, and certainly wouldn’t believe them. Coming from women, I’d assume they were 101% deceptive in intent. Show me instead.

  128. Crowhill says:

    >Jesus loves me, and if I’m good enough for Him, then I’m good enough for me too.

    I think that is the saddest part of the post.

    Jesus (so people think) loves everyone unconditionally, no matter how awful they are, no matter how nasty or useless or wicked or stupid or … anything. But her logic is “if Jesus loves me I’m good enough.”

    That means there is never any reason to change anything. Ever.

  129. jf12 says:

    @oblivion “he’s extremely strange”. This is who women submit to: The Stranger. Not the familiar.

  130. theasdgamer says:

    @jf12

    “Strange” here probably means either “creepy” or “maybe I can fix him.”

  131. theasdgamer says:

    Lady Gaga: “It’s not good for relationships to tell men what to do.”

    Unless he does something that makes her unhaaaaappy.

  132. theasdgamer says:

    @Elspeth

    “But I am just not inclined to believe the worst of every person I meet. ”

    “But I am just not inclined to believe the worst of every _woman_ I meet.” It’s hamsterization.

  133. theasdgamer says:

    @jf12

    “Truthfully to me verbal compliments mean nothing to me, coming from women”

    Women will flatter to get advantage. It’s part of their nature. I never ever pay attention to compliments from a woman unless I can confirm it from a man. The only thing that flattery does is put me on the alert that I need to watch that woman more carefully and be more guarded around her.

  134. Elspeth says:

    @jf12:

    Talk is cheap. I agree that compliments and words without corresponding action mean absolutely nothing.

    Like I said, I feel some sympathy for you and asd. It’s too bad that your wives are shrewish. But my husband simply doesn’t have that problem. He hasn’t had that problem for the better part of a decade but even before that I respected him enough not to be a bitch towards him.

    It has been an enlightening conversation, guys. It’s not as if I can (or should even try) to prove that there is at least one married man whose wife appreciates him.

  135. Sisyphean says:

    Oh man Pitt, that comment of yours is hilarious. I don’t even care if it’s true or not… so great. It’s funny that you mention Jason from General Hospital. I am quite familiar with that show. The men they write into existence are complete fabrications, they have hypermasculine bodies but they talk and act like women. I even wrote a post about it a while back.
    Imaginary men of Daytime

    ~S

  136. Durasim says:

    Brian: You have a boyfriend?!

    Jared’s Mom: Yeah!

    Paul: And I’m a great guy. I’m unemployed, but that makes her feel useful in the relationship.

    Jared’s Mom: I’m gonna fix him!

    Paul: Our relationship will do fine on that basis.

    Jared’s Mom: If he had his life together, I wouldn’t be into it!

    Paul: But I don’t!

  137. jf12 says:

    Re: compliments. Somewhat off topic, sorry. “I really liked the way you put the forks in the dishwasher this time, dear.” is the opposite of a compliment. “Here’s your fork so you can eat the cake I made for you” is a compliment.

  138. Anonymous Reader says:

    oblivion, do not forget Occam’s razor. It is possible that Gaga has totally reversed from her previously stated “how my relationships must work” position. This requires a total change in her private persona. A simpler explanation is that Gaga has learned how to “backlead”, or in another sense to “top from the bottom”. Thus she’s still in charge, but will condescend to allow the illusion that he is. Of course we cannot know for sure, and frankly I for one have zero interest in finding out. I’m merely pointing out the obvious: things are not always as they seem to be.

  139. Elspeth says:

    “I really liked the way you put the forks in the dishwasher this time, dear.” is the opposite of a compliment. “Here’s your fork so you can eat the cake I made for you” is a compliment.

    I agree and understand the difference. I keep wondering when I’ll stop being surprised that few wives are regularly overcome with the urge to do something, anything nice for their men.

    This is the kind of stuff that keeps me writing and keeps me telling women in my real life circle uncomfortable truths, even when they get mad at me for it.

  140. Pingback: She was trying to fix* men. | Pavol Dzurjanin |...

  141. oblivion says:

    @a reader, the reason I posted this because it’s unusual for successful women to say that they act submissive at home. Usually when they do there is a big feminist backlash. I dont personally really care if a woman is very submissive in her heart, just as long as my needs of homecooked meals, sandwhiches and sex are taken care. And she better act happy while she does it.

  142. Bike Bubba says:

    Regarding the dynamics of shrewish wives, I’m also one who can say “NAWALT.” Cake with a fork, yes, and unsolicited affection, too.

    And for those men who are not so blessed? Well, read through the Prophets–it occurs to me that our Lord had a lot of unrequited affection for His People and His Church, no? So if indeed God designed the man to be the head of the family–and He did, see Ephesians 5–and if indeed God designed the man to be the image of Christ to the wife as the Church–see Ephesians 5 again–then we have to presume that the onus is on the man to take the initiative.

    Now a man may find that his wife has un-Biblical ideas on any number of subjects–again, the onus is on the man to help her recover. Look at the Scriptures for yourselves, see what they say, and try leading your wife in them.

  143. theasdgamer says:

    @Elspeth

    “I keep wondering when I’ll stop being surprised that few wives are regularly overcome with the urge to do something, anything nice for their men.”

    I have to be fair. My wife will cook a favorite meal for me if I ask her to. And she’ll make stuff that I can carry for a snack that I like without being asked. I guess that counts as “sammiches.”

    My wife will also rub my feet if asked and apparently enjoys doing it for me. She doesn’t want me doing that for her. Rubbing her back is Ok, but I don’t do it for more than a couple of minutes.

    My wife also does the housework, though not all that often, but I don’t complain. I have to clean my den if it gets cleaned and she will complain if it gets dirty since she travels through it to do laundry.

  144. jf12 says:

    @BikeBubba “man to be the image of Christ to the wife as the Church” Yes, husband is unjustly condemned and crucified no matter how many miracles he does for her. Sounds about right.

  145. jf12 says:

    @Elspeth, thanks for understanding. And for instructing women.

  146. Just Saying says:

    “She has two young daughters.”

    Ah…. That is what I enjoy – the young ones… Mama’s too old, but the daughters will be ripe soon enough and will have picked up all of Mama’s bad habits… That’s why I enjoy harvesting the young ones, most of all…. They don’t stand a chance… I love meeting the Mother when they ask, “How old are you?” And I tell them, then leave with their daughter for an evening of debauchery… The more the Mother protests, the most their daughters run to my bed – they teach them well without even realizing it… :)

  147. jf12 says:

    Re: backleading. I don’t know if you’re familiar with the Hindmost from Ringworld.

  148. deti says:

    Elspeth:

    “Like I said, I feel some sympathy for you and asd. It’s too bad that your wives are shrewish. But my husband simply doesn’t have that problem. He hasn’t had that problem for the better part of a decade but even before that I respected him enough not to be a bitch towards him. “

    Husbands who lack this problem lack it because the wife knows, and he has in no uncertain terms advised her, both in word and in deed, that he would not put up with disrespect or shrewish behavior from her for even one minute; and because they both know he could replace her or do without her quite easily.

  149. theasdgamer says:

    @Bike

    “And for those men who are not so blessed? Well, read through the Prophets–it occurs to me that our Lord had a lot of unrequited affection for His People and His Church, no? So if indeed God designed the man to be the head of the family–and He did, see Ephesians 5–and if indeed God designed the man to be the image of Christ to the wife as the Church–see Ephesians 5 again–then we have to presume that the onus is on the man to take the initiative.”

    So you blame the man. Very bad exegesis. Very blue pill. Very unhelpful.

    Paul addresses the wife first in Ephesians 5 since that’s where the problem usually starts. The onus is on the woman to subject herself to her husband and abandon her rebellion. The wives know all this, but blue-pill churchianity supports their rebellion, requiring that their husbands first meet some unachievable requirement to love their wives. “Love” is defined by the wives and churchianity, which is unscriptural. The man defines what “love” means for him.

    “Now a man may find that his wife has un-Biblical ideas on any number of subjects–again, the onus is on the man to help her recover. Look at the Scriptures for yourselves, see what they say, and try leading your wife in them.”

    These wives know what they should do, being religious, but are rebellious anyway. Churchianity supports their entitled view which they use to excuse ignoring the scriptures. They are rebellious against their husbands and against God. Confrontation is essential. If a man is doing it without the support of the church, it is very difficult. If a woman is confronted about her rebellion by the church as well as her husband, she is more likely to repent.

    NAWALT. Ok, but that is unhelpful and annoying. Mine was almost always nice to me once upon a time. Very few shit tests. Wait until twenty years have passed and you get weak or unemployed, etc. Then consider your words here.

  150. theasdgamer says:

    @deti

    “Husbands who lack this problem lack it because the wife knows, and he has in no uncertain terms advised her, both in word and in deed, that he would not put up with disrespect or shrewish behavior from her for even one minute; and because they both know he could replace her or do without her quite easily.”

    Ahh, my wife knows that I value my vows and takes advantage of that fact. I _could_ replace her easily (or cheat on her) except for my vows. The only real recourse is Dread. Gonna use it this weekend.

  151. Elspeth says:

    Wait until twenty years have passed and you get weak or unemployed, etc. Then consider your words here.

    I think Bike’s been married almost as long as I have (nearly 2 decades, with 6 kids born to the union). He’s no marriage newbie.

  152. deti says:

    A big part of me waits for the day if and when Leif starts dating again. I hope he finds a young, sweet, kind woman who treats him well.

    I hope he tweets it, one time, with maybe a couple of photos of him and her together. Bonus if he posts photos of her taking care of his daughters.

  153. theasdgamer says:

    @Elspeth

    I’m your senior by about twenty years. And Bike’s. You young ‘uns lack our experience. Things were good twenty years ago for me, too.

  154. Elspeth says:

    So asdgamer, you’re saying you’ve been married 40 years? And that at the 20-year mark things were just peachy but dismal by the 40-year mark?

    Every couple I’ve ever known whose marriage was heading downhill headed downhill way, way before 20 years. And my husband and I know lots of couples simply by virtue of the fact that we both come from very large families. That’s not counting friends, work, and church acquaintances.

    But I do sincerely appreciate being called a young’un, :) . That was something.

  155. mikediver5 says:

    40 is young. ask ayone who is 60.

  156. jf12 says:

    @theasdgamer, I’m surprised that the *nearly* overt Dread of you dancing cheek-by-jowl with young women hasn’t made enough of an impression on your wife already. I had, sort of ego-centrically I guess, surmised that if my wife actually saw even the bare beginnings of me picking up a young woman, that’s she’d weep suicidally or something. Hmm.

  157. theasdgamer says:

    @Elspeth

    Not quite 40 years of marriage yet.

    There were problems after 7 years and in the last 6 years. Both were related to problems with income generation. I also went into a depression for four years recently which didn’t help with income generation. My wife works. I was in the Greater Beta role and the bux stopped flowing. Then I found the manosphere. So I’ve switched to pure alpha until I can get income flowing again and there are problems adjusting. Pure alpha is a problem for me with my vows and all.

    Here’s a recent example of our problems. My wife is impressed by celebrity, unlike me. I thought that she would find it interesting that I had danced with a celebrity recently, but immediately she said that her coworkers didn’t like the celebrity. Then she suddenly wanted the radio turned way down despite the fact that we had been listening to it for twenty minutes on that volume. Insecurity tests.

  158. theasdgamer says:

    @jf12

    “I’m surprised that the *nearly* overt Dread of you dancing cheek-by-jowl with young women hasn’t made enough of an impression on your wife already. I had, sort of ego-centrically I guess, surmised that if my wife actually saw even the bare beginnings of me picking up a young woman, that’s she’d weep suicidally or something. Hmm.”

    My wife says that she trusts me. In 34 years of marriage I haven’t swapped spit with another woman nor propositioned one. I have flirted to keep in practice, but nothing serious. Being trusted is overrated.

  159. FuzzieWuzzie says:

    bg, I’ve missed you too. It’s good to hear about the cubs going for the sugary buds.

    Elspeth, you’re all right. Wishing there were more out there like you.

    Bike Bubba, there’s a lot of support out there for women in rebellion. It’s a pity because they’re making themeselves miserable and everyone around them. Putting it on the guys is the churchian answer and it’s only marginally effective. Putting it on the girls would be going to the source.

  160. A big part of me waits for the day if and when Leif starts dating again. I hope he finds a young, sweet, kind woman who treats him well.

    I was actually kind of hoping he’d run through a string of swimsuit models and Hooters girls (who are also all good Christians who treat him well), but if you say so,..

  161. Bike Bubba says:

    Adsgamer, look it up. The Scripture clearly tells the man what to do in Ephesians 5, and demonstrates this through the Prophets. Sorry, our Lord took it on the chin from the idolatry of Israel, He takes it on the chin from the rebellion of the Church, and He uses this example as our example in family life.

    Put gently, you are the head, it’s about time you started acting like it. The buck stops with you, so maybe it’s time to spend a little more time at home doing what Scripture commands–washing your wife in the Word. Or you can go dancing every night and come home only to sleep, and wonder why the relationship sucks. Gosh, why is that?

    And no, this does NOT let women off the hook, but rather provides the setting for the Matthew 18 reconciliation process. If one has a wife like Mrs. Erikson, one needs to mention the rebellion to her directly, then to the elders of the church, and so on.

    By the way, regarding my inexperience in matters of life, Mrs. Bubba and I are closing in on 18 years of wedlock, and we’ve got six kids. Plus, I’ve been through four layoffs. Through it all, with the “MPS” of “LAMPS” being decidedly low at times, it’s been good. A lot of it has to do with obeying what Scripture clearly says in this matter; the buck stops with the husband, whether he likes it or not.

  162. After perusing her blog I think I’m about done with the JE drama. It’s fairly obvious she’s a site traffic whore and essentially crafts posts she knows will pander to her Christian haters. She follows the Aunt Giggles click-bait / planned outrage model for site traffic with a deliberate ‘ignorant’ Christian twist she knows her niche will react to. And just like Giggles, she prunes, edits and deletes comments too off brand, solely so ‘sensitive Christian readers’ don’t have to read the vulgarity she genuinely inspires.

    “I’m done with Alpha cads (implying she’s dated many since her click-bait ‘divorce’), Jesus is my real boyfriend now.” is exactly the type of christo-pandering she knows her faked christian naiveté will make churchians hurl in disgust (those aware of her history) or engender some semblance of prerequisite christian compassion from readers who want to defend her or feel it’s their christian duty to do so.

  163. Joey says:

    She’s trying to fix men? Heh.

    I guess the Sheriff is near.

  164. HawkandRock says:

    Rollo,
    I think you may be imputing a bit more skill and intelligence to JE than she actually warrants.

  165. Bike Bubba says:

    One thing worth noting here, regarding “game” and all, is that Mr. Erikson didn’t do badly on Rollo’s LAMPS score. Decent looks, not a total porkpie, executive in a technical startup in a city that loves them. I’d say laMPS. So his travails would suggest that he was doing the attraction vectors reasonably well.

    The problem is not a lack of game. It is that–see her column today about how she failed at marriage–that he married an unbeliever. Look at the data; approval of gay marriage, refusal to submit per Ephesians 5, refusal to submit to the Matthew 18 reconciliation process, drinking to excess, getting drinks from men who were not her husband by wearing a dress that showed off her boobies, shopping for her pre-pubescent daughters at Victoria’s Secret. See a pattern here? It’s not that he failed at “dread game”, but rather that he missed the signs that she wasn’t in the faith, or at least did not address them.

  166. Steve H says:

    “If any one of you dares to aspire to some sympathy for Jenny, keep in mind this is the kind of man she really has in mind for herself:
    http://thestir.cafemom.com/entertainment/170023/jamie_dornan_shares_a_juicy

    wait, I thought jenny/matt walsh confirmed for us that: porn = adultery. now she’s obsessing over the christian grey actor? hmm.

  167. John Salt says:

    And you all have small penises, too. /sarc

    “Jenny Erikson ‏@JennyErikson 17h
    Why are these douches are so obsessed with my girly parts? They probably don’t even know what a vagina looks like. http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/03/25/she-was-trying-to-fix-men/ …”

    [D: Funny. Here is the link to the tweet.]

  168. bluedog says:

    Objections here to LT’s comment post both being expected and duly noted, she gets at something where she really has a point and I think it’s worth hearing that out.

    The single most powerful thing conservatives can do in this grand cultural superdialog is pound character.

    Pound, pound, pound, character, character, character.

    Advocating reversal of rights (or implying it) is, charitably, a dead end.

    But character is a dialect that crosses over every language except nihilism, and I think you … Dalrock and many of you who comment here, have a lot that’s worthwhile to say and to be heard. Stray too far from that and you succeed at giving the enemies of good character, in all forms they come in, ammunition.

  169. Bike Bubba, take another look at the meaning of LAMPS. The most important letter there is the P, and Mrs. Erikson’s attitude shows that he never had much of that, at least in her eyes. What standing he had in his industry is irrelevant if she wore the pants at home.

    You do have a point that marrying a woman with numerous vices is a bad idea, and can fail even if you have great Game. But how many of those bad signs you mention were visible before they married? I don’t see how he was supposed to know what she would turn into. Yes, it’s important for a man to marry a “believer,” but if he thinks doing so will mean he won’t need some Game to keep her in line, he’s in for a rude awakening.

  170. theasdgamer says:

    @Bubba

    Matthew 18 may work in some churches when a wife is in rebellion, but probably not most. My wife’s rebellion is quite subtle and fits well with the principles of churchianity. For adultery, sure, there’ll be more churches where that is an acceptable strategy.

    “Plus, I’ve been through four layoffs.”:

    Try it when you’re over 50. You’re really pissing me off with your ignorant arrogance. I bet you’re not autistic either, so you’re less likely to be laid off and more likely to be hired again if you are laid off.

    “Or you can go dancing every night and come home only to sleep, and wonder why the relationship sucks.”

    This is a question I’ve wondered about, but actually my wife is often awake when I come home but ignores me. I don’t usually go to sleep when I get home. And I always take a day per week off from dancing to recover. No, more time at home wouldn’t help. In fact, it would probably be detrimental, since it would seem like I was giving up my frame and my plan.

    I’ve been over Ephesians 5 with a fine-tooth comb. It doesn’t say what you think it does. If it did, all husbands would have to be literally crucified, die, then be resurrected, then baptize our wives, then teach them scripture. You can’t pick and choose what to read literally and what to read figuratively. The details of Christ’s examples in this passage are to show how thoroughly and completely Christ demonstrated His love for the Church, not how men are to behave towards their wives. The only conclusion to reach is that you are still a blue pill churchianity screwup, blaming men and using a faulty exegesis of scripture to justify it. That’s about as gently as I can put it.

  171. Bike Bubba says:

    Cail, agreed fully that she didn’t view him with respect, but then let’s face facts; if she won’t submit to God, exactly what man is she going to submit to? You could mix the physique of Schwartzenegger, the money of Gates, the spirituality of Graham, and the power of Putin, and it wouldn’t be enough. No?

    Now I’ll grant it might have helped if he’d confronted her sin as it became known, but that’s not “game” per se. That’s simply what Christ requires in Matthew 18, no?

  172. hurting says:

    Elspeth says:
    March 25, 2014 at 6:07 pm

    On women denigrating their husbands in public…

    Could it be an age thing? You’re in your 40’s right? By that time most women (and alot of men) have become a bit jaded in their worldview, up to and including that of their marriages. By middle age, women, who can safely criticize their husbands with impunity, are starting to see the apparently greener grass, so to speak, and more than a few have actually have detonated a marriage. In their 20’s, they might have been hesitant to dog their mates because at that point it’s still a status symbol to have one; by the time the kids are semiautonomous a husband is a drag.

  173. deti says:

    JE’s latest, containing more manosphere confirmations.

    http://thestir.cafemom.com/love_sex/170230/7_things_i_got_wrong

    She lists seven things she got wrong about being “a good wife”.

    Here are some excerpts which contain important lessons for men:
    1. “My ex is something of a homebody. I used to try dragging him out to things, but he was just so miserable most of the time that I eventually left him home, saying he had to work or something. Or take care of the kids, even though we could’ve easily gotten a sitter. Sometimes when his social anxiety got the best of him, I excused his behavior as work stress, or allergies, or something. I should have realized that was his battle, not mine.”

    Lesson: Social anxiety is beta to the core. Men need to learn to get past it, or at least manage it so it isn’t readily apparent.

    2. “It’s exhausting trying to keep someone happy all the time. I wish I had let him take ownership of his moods and worked harder at not letting them affect me so much.”

    Lesson: State control is important. You cannot let your wife see weakness, especially if it goes on for years.

    3. “Over the years I learned that if I could just tough it out through whatever it was that my husband was going through that made him a bear to live with, my fun, care-free guy that made me the center of his universe would eventually return. I longed for the day that guy would come back to stay, but I didn’t see him at all the last couple years. It broke my heart, but I had to let go of the fantasy and accept the reality.”

    Lesson: Make your mission, not your woman, your priority. If your wife is the “center of [your] universe”, you’re doing it wrong.

  174. bluedog says:

    Cail,
    re: “You do have a point that marrying a woman with numerous vices is a bad idea, and can fail even if you have great Game. But how many of those bad signs you mention were visible before they married? I don’t see how he was supposed to know what she would turn into.”

    I think that’s an onion that for all the observing, comparing notes and theorizing that goes on in the manosphere, we are only beginning to peel away.

    I really thought that I had what it took to judge character when I got married and I was woefully mistaken. In retrospect, not only did I not have what it took despite a powerful religious and cultural heritage, but I’m doubtful that anyone as an individual is ever likely to have what it takes … we need communities for this and our communities both no longer do this themselves, AND they have lost the competency.

    Judging character would be to ask: JE … are you, really and personally, committed to the idea of marriage and family?
    AND
    Leif…are you, really and personally, committed to the idea of marriage and family?

    From there, the judgment would be to advise either: “Leif, doesnt matter your feelings or attraction to/for J … this is about marriage and family and she isn’t about that.”

    Or … if Leif was the cad J laments now, then vice versa. Feelings and attraction wouldnt matter, she shouldn’t marry.

    And, judgment needs to be realistic. Rollo has articulated the importance of attraction and I think you and Dalrock echo it. This is a matter of realism that takes seriously the gravity of marriage. Absent sufficient and reasonably sustained attraction both ways a marriage is imperiled.

    I think there is an upshot of sensitivities (i.e. awareness of attraction) as well as cold calculated judgments (i.e.: judgments of character and attraction in both partner/genders) as well as community competencies for involvment in the marriage process and most importantly: adult character formation in both genders … all that needs to be explored and carried forward as a project. On the third point – communities – marriage is a community institution. People wishing to marry should be prepared to subordinate themselves to a community … other side of that is the community needs to rediscover marriage competency and reassert itself as an arbiter of marriage.

    All in all – superculture taken into account – it would be better if vastly fewer married, but if those who did, of both genders – were deadly serious about it.

  175. Elspeth says:

    Yes hurting, I am 42.

    But from what I’ve witnessed, It’s the young ones that seem more inclined to dog their husbands. I’ve seen it up close and personal as I am around a pretty wide age range of women in my current homeschool group. The younger ones are far more likely to feel comfortable criticizing their husbands publicly. Some have made me cringe, frankly.

    Among the older ones I have heard things like I described above. Another woman my age floored me by admitting that she knelt in front of her husband and asked him to pray for her because homeschooling/homemaking was getting hard. He was the only one she felt could pray a prayer for her that would go past the ceiling. That’s respect.

    I have met a few women who express great regard for their husbands. Admittedly just a few, but they do exist.

  176. Bike Bubba says:

    Adsgamer, it looks like your argument is not with me, but rather with the Author of Scripture. You’re more or less assuming that the structures for accountability, growth, and reconciliation as specified by Christ don’t work.

    And you’ve told us how it’s worked out for you. Maybe it’s time to consider doing it God’s way instead of your own. Seriously, I’m always struck when I visit the “manosphere” how many people more or less say “I suffered/am suffering with a miserable marriage, here, let me tell you how to work things.” It’s like listening to President Obama telling a man how to run a website or create long term jobs. Good grief.

  177. deti says:

    More JE goodness from her latest: “7 Things I Got Wrong About Being a “Good Wife”:

    “1. Being non-confrontational: I’m a people-pleaser by nature, so confrontation is definitely not my thing. What this translated to, unfortunately, was letting things slide when they really bugged me. Sometimes I tried to talk to him about it but was usually countered by my own fault in something. I figured if I wasn’t perfect, it wasn’t fair to be upset with him for not being perfect either. I wish I had stood up for myself more often.”

    Lesson: She was either unable or unwilling to “speak the truth in love”. JE was passive-aggressive in her marriage, and allowed the resentments to build on themselves. She either let everything slide; or let things explode into knock down drag outs. There was no happy medium, no “in between”.

    “2 Submitting to his leadership even when he was wrong: The church we attended for seven years excommunicated me for the “sin” of divorcing my husband. *** I had begged for years to leave there, but that’s where we went, so we went. Now I wonder if things might have been different if I had gotten our family out of there years earlier.”

    Lesson: She would not respect Leif and would not submit to him in all things. Submission to a husband requires submission even if you think he’s wrong.

    3. “A fake it ’til you make it mentality: I knew something was “off” in the weeks leading up to our wedding. But you know, I figured I just had normal wedding jitters.”

    Lesson: JE is an alpha widow, who married a man she neither loved nor respected. Don’t marry a man for whom you don’t burn with passion. Men need to suss out from a woman whether she’s “faking it”.

    4. A good wife would never abandon her marriage: My ex-husband and I ended up being very different people than the ones that said “I do” once upon a time. We not only had nothing in common, we had no common ground.

    Lesson: JE was not committed to marriage to Leif. She was unwilling to recognize the “common ground” they shared was the well-being and upbringing of their children

    The bottom line on this is, based on what she’s written, that JE did not love or respect Leif, and likely did not from the very get-go. A man should do his best to sense this and suss out her love and respect for him from the start. A man should never, ever marry any woman who does not respect him.

  178. deti says:

    I love this from JE:

    :Maybe a good wife recognizes that she will never be able to be what her husband wants, and she takes one for the team by ending the marriage when it’s obvious there’s no fixing it.:

    Notice what JE has done there. First, she deflects any responsibility for her divorcing Leif by asserting her own character flaws and inability to live up to what Leif wanted. So, the divorce is Leif’s fault, because he wanted something or someone else that JE couldn’t be.

    Then she claims “martyr” status by falsely asserting that by frivorcing her husband and blowing up her family, she fell on her own sword and ended their marriage.

  179. Now I’ll grant it might have helped if he’d confronted her sin as it became known, but that’s not “game” per se. That’s simply what Christ requires in Matthew 18, no?

    It’s both. Nothing says an application of Game can’t be scriptural.

    I’d say for a marriage to survive today, it probably needs both. The husband needs to have some dominance, and the wife needs to express some submission. You’re right that a seriously rebellious wife probably can’t be gamed into being a good submissive one. But if a man is a doormat at home, his good, submissive, Christian wife is likely to become rebellious.

    It would be a mistake to assume Jenny Erikson was always a hussy. It’s quite possible that when they married, she was overtly submissive and said and did all the right things to make Leif think she would be a good Christian wife. It’s not exactly unusual for a woman to start a relationship very traditionally submissive, reveling in cooking for her man, sitting at his feet, hanging on his every word, and so on — and then discard that some months or years down the road when she’s not head-over-heels for him anymore. A woman can even say all the right things about Ephesians 5 — and really mean them at the time — and then decide they mean something completely different when her feelings about the man change.

    So yes, a man should try to marry a good woman with the right beliefs, but he should also have some Game to help her stay that way. Yes, it’s her responsibility to be a good wife, but he can help her in that by being dominant. Just as it’s his responsibility to love her, but she can help him in that by not gaining 100 pounds and being a shrew.

  180. jf12 says:

    @Elspeth, “she knelt in front of her husband and asked him to pray for her because homeschooling/homemaking was getting hard.” Good stuff.

    I’ll try to emphasize more positive. You helped convict me of too much negativity.

  181. Deti, yes, that’s awesome: a good wife divorces her husband, to do him a favor by not making him the bad guy. Except that that clearly implies he wasn’t man enough to do what obviously (to her) needed to be done for everyone’s sake. So instead of being cruel, he’s a wuss, which is worse. Nice.

  182. Escoffier says:

    Of the seven things she cites, not only is there not a single one in which she admits to any fault on her own part … every single one is some perceived fault of his. None of which, needless to say, rise to the level of divorce. But it’s clear that she increasingly feels the need to “explain” herself and make some case, no matter how half-assed, that it was all his fault, he had it coming, she was justified, etc.

    Really, all seven reasons can be summarized with “I was not enough of a bitch.”

  183. jf12 says:

    @deti, “she takes one for the team by ending the [team]“. I’m frankly incredulous that a sane (at least can-put-two-word-together) person could say that.

  184. jf12 says:

    @Escoffier, one-upmanship impels me to say “My entire problem with women is that I haven’t been enough of a jerk.”

  185. Anonymous Reader says:

    Rollo
    After perusing her blog I think I’m about done with the JE drama. It’s fairly obvious she’s a site traffic whore and essentially crafts posts she knows will pander to her Christian haters. She follows the Aunt Giggles click-bait / planned outrage model for site traffic with a deliberate ‘ignorant’ Christian twist she knows her niche will react to. And just like Giggles, she prunes, edits and deletes comments too off brand, solely so ‘sensitive Christian readers’ don’t have to read the vulgarity she genuinely inspires.

    I read a term the other day in a different venue that may be useful in the mandrosphere:

    Outrage Porn

    Just as p0rn is intended to arouse one set of very basic emotional and physical reactions, “outrage porn” is intended to arouse a different set of emotional and physical reactions. Sexual p0rn provides the illusion of a huge harem (parallel for men, serial for women), and thus outrage porn provides the illusion of a fight, possibly for survival. By becoming outraged, with all the various systemic reactions in the body, and then expressing an opinion or engaging in an argument, the individual gets a synthetic version of winning a fight.

    Giggles has a definite component of outrage porn. Perhaps JE does as well. For them, it’s all good, because attention is attention is attention – even bad attention is attention, to attention whores, although it generally comes with a constellation of beta orbiters, too.

  186. deti says:

    @ Cail:

    “You do have a point that marrying a woman with numerous vices is a bad idea, and can fail even if you have great Game. But how many of those bad signs you mention were visible before they married? I don’t see how he was supposed to know what she would turn into. “

    Cosign this. By all appearances, Leif is a dyed in the wool “nice guy” Christian, blue pill through and through. As you and I’ve discussed before, anyone who’d spent a couple of weeks reading around here would have been able to spot JE’s red flags from a mile away. But your average Leif won’t see any of them. Not at all. So I’m not willing to criticize Leif for not seeing things that no one trained him to see or told him he should look for.

  187. Eidolon says:

    It’s interesting how women’s fears and insecurities can lead them to be more rebellious. I’ve observed on various occasions women saying that “you really don’t want me here, so I’m going to go” or “you obviously didn’t want to do this for me, so forget it” or what have you. My wife even broke up with me at one point because she was so sure I was going to do it, and she didn’t think she could handle it if I actually did dump her.

    I’m not sure if they think they’re being helpful or if they’re acting intentionally selfishly, but this always leads to problems — generally the woman ends up doing the exact opposite of what the man wants. Here we have JE saying that she “took one for the team” by doing what was best, what her husband would have wanted (I guess) if he was man enough to realize it, or maybe she thinks it’s what he did want but wasn’t able/man enough to do. Yet we know he didn’t want to divorce, by virtue of the fact that he did not discuss it or seek it himself.

    This psychoanalyzing on the part of women is practically always mistaken. I have to imagine that at least some of the time they really think they’re doing what the man really wants, but they’re pretty much always wrong. I think they’re imputing female behavior to men, assuming that because he acted a certain way that he really wanted something different, like they might have done. But of course the measure of whether a man wants to do something is whether he does it; if he doesn’t he either doesn’t want to do it or he thinks other factors mean it’s best not to do it, which amounts to the same. At least men generally are aware that women’s thought processes are different and difficult to understand; many women seem to act as though they believe that they can totally understand the inner workings of men.

  188. Anonymous Reader says:

    Bike Bubba
    The problem is not a lack of game. It is that–see her column today about how she failed at marriage–that he married an unbeliever.

    By your definition. However, by the definition of any number of churches, Lief did indeed marry a good Christian woman.

    Look at the data; approval of gay marriage,

    There are many churches that do, and that would accuse you of “hate” for your opposition.
    Next?

    refusal to submit per Ephesians 5,

    In many, many churches the reading of that Bible quote focuses on “mutual submission”, and you would be accused of misogynously misreading.

    Next?

    refusal to submit to the Matthew 18 reconciliation process,

    I can easily find churches where any reconciliation between a husband and wife absolutely must start with him admitting all the ways in which he falls short. Basically, until he’s “enough” like Christ, she doesn’t have to submit, and he does not get to decide when that is…she does, or perhaps she and the rest of the ladies of the church get to decide when that is.

    Next?

    drinking to excess, getting drinks from men who were not her husband by wearing a dress that showed off her boobies,

    In some churches you might get a frowny face because you are clearly counseling Lief to be “too controlling” of his wife, after all she’s his equal before God and therefore his equal in all ways, and therefore….who is he to tell her what to do?

    Next?

    shopping for her pre-pubescent daughters at Victoria’s Secret.

    This might get a frowny face to her from the older women, but the younger ones would likely take after you for daring to come between a mother and her children regarding a decision that is obviously not your business, for any male, any time.

    See a pattern here?

    Bud, we have been all over all those things for some time now. So, “yeah”. Turning the question back to you, do you see a pattern? It is not at all difficult to find online Christian forums, and physical Christian churches, where JE would be fully accepted and her decisions ratified, and your “misreadings” of the Bible would be shot down as “too literal” or “legalistic”.

    It’s not that he failed at “dread game”, but rather that he missed the signs that she wasn’t in the faith, or at least did not address them.

    I’m certain he never even tried any Game. Given JE’s obvious status as an alpha widow who married Lief on the rebound, it might have taken a whole lot of Game just to keep her from blowing up the marriage, nevermind getting her mind a bit right about him. But in the broader picture, if LE had known game before he married JE, then he might have at least laid down ground rules going into the marriage.

    Or maybe the night he tried to kiss her hand she hit him, he might have had the intelligence and self respect to say “NEXT!”.

    Your solution contains unacknowledged premises. You should examine all your premises sometime, it might reveal some things to you.

  189. Anonymous Reader says:

    jf12
    Re: backleading. I don’t know if you’re familiar with the Hindmost from Ringworld.

    I am familiar with that character / entity, and that ain’t backleading. Think of a man and a woman in a ballroom dance setting, where he’s supposed to lead and she to follow. Except she keeps nudging him and gently hipchecking him and pulling and pushing, to get him to “lead” her where she wants to go.

    Another term – chauffering.

  190. Marissa says:

    Lesson: Social anxiety is beta to the core. Men need to learn to get past it, or at least manage it so it isn’t readily apparent.

    Or he didn’t want to do the stupid shit she wanted to do (political activism nonsense). She’s framing it to make him look worse.

  191. Entropy is my god says:

    @ Bike Bubba

    Jesus has no issue letting those who reject him go to hell forever.
    In Matthew 13:42, Jesus says: “And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.”

    In Matthew 25:41, Jesus says: “Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire . . .”

    In Mark 9:46, Jesus speaks about Hell: “Where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.”

    Revelation 20:15 says, “And whoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.”

    So if your wife rejects her, according to Bike Bubba, the correct answer is hell.

  192. Anonymous Reader says:

    Deti to Cail
    By all appearances, Leif is a dyed in the wool “nice guy” Christian, blue pill through and through. As you and I’ve discussed before, anyone who’d spent a couple of weeks reading around here would have been able to spot JE’s red flags from a mile away. But your average Leif won’t see any of them. Not at all. So I’m not willing to criticize Leif for not seeing things that no one trained him to see or told him he should look for.

    This is how a man winds up marrying an alpha widow, and where that can go. Or to put it more pointedly:

    This is where manUP and marry the sluts is very likely to lead

    And that is why some men have a real problem with the standard traditional, conservative “it’s all men’s fault, just manUP and….” concrete life ring.

  193. Anonymous Reader says:

    Eidolon
    This psychoanalyzing on the part of women is practically always mistaken. I have to imagine that at least some of the time they really think they’re doing what the man really wants, but they’re pretty much always wrong. I think they’re imputing female behavior to men, assuming that because he acted a certain way that he really wanted something different, like they might have done.

    Of course, because for a couple of generations now virtually all people in the industrialized West have been inundated with feminist propaganda. And a fundamental premise of feminism is: men and women are exactly the same except women can have babies.

    Therefore when women try to figure out what men want, they project their own, female, outlook onto men. The reverse is obviously true as well, and can be seen in the sorry state of the average beta man or married AFC, who try mightily to think like women and fail, despite all the feminization they are generally subjected to while growing to adulthood.

    It’s a rare woman who can actually see a man’s point of view without having it either explained in painful, minute detail, or having it rubbed in their face some other way, due to innate solipsism…not to mention the fact that female solipsism is heavily rewarded in the YuGoGRRL culture.

  194. Anonymous age 71 says:

    Latest flunked i.q. test by Jimmy Carter. A news article on-line says Carter says he would join the Catholic Church if a woman priest asks him to. What an idiot!

    @Bike_Bubba: then we have to presume that the onus is on the man to take the initiative.

    Then, you presume incorrectly. There are few things the Bible is as clear on as the relationship of husband to wife. And, you are talking garbage when you say it is up to the man. Printed your own translation? Or is this another case of you feeling superior to all other men?

    The current heresy in Churchianity is that effective male leadership initiates effective female submission. I have a SIL who last time I visited him, in 2005, got all red in the face and screamed at me when I told him this is not only untrue, it is very clearly untrue if someone actually reads the Bible instead of listening to the Heresy Support Group. Did I mention he is a Baptist Deacon?

    He was, as most heretics do, digging around down in Ephesians, and not at all understanding it. To find out the truth read first Genesis. And, read what is actually says, not what some moron Southern Baptist pastor claims it means.

    I first learned this back in 1984. A local Father’s Rights Group had 35 members, and that summer two of them committed suicide. One of the two burned himself with gasoline like Thomas Ball. I was asked to come help them, and declined.

    Later that fall, they tried again and I accepted. I supplied free counseling services to divorced fathers and a few divorced mothers for ten years, average around 20 hours a week.

    A few months later, a Christian man called me. He had learned his wife was committing adultery and went for help to his pastor. The pastor screamed insults at him, telling him it was his fault she had committed adultery. I had been reading the Bible since my early high school days, and that seemed to contradict anything I had ever read. But, I admit I can be wrong. So, I got a current version of the Bible, and went through it line by line over some weeks of spare time.

    Any time I found any reference to men; women; husbands; wives; marriage; sex; divorce; family life; or anything that even seemed vaguely related to the topic, I noted the page number in the back cover. I know about Concordances, but chose to work at a higher level of confidence than trying to guess what words might relate to the issue at hand.

    When I found and noted all references, I went back and studied each one in detail, to gain 100% certainty. I do not like being wrong and the only way to avoid being wrong is to be sure you are right.

    At no time did I find any reference to men being at fault when a woman sins. It is simply not there. And, the men who do think it’s there suffer from swollen male ego. Or, have been swooped up by the Heresy Support Group.

    In Genesis, Adam was not Eve’s spiritual leader and teacher. God was. Read it for yourself, carefully. God Himself came down and walked and talked with them in the Garden. Yet, with God as her personal spiritual leader and teacher, Eve still sinned. These moron pastors, though, insist a mortal husband is supposed to have more control over a woman than God did. If it were possible for a heresy to be funny, this would be hilarious.

    In another place in the Bible, it says a man is better to live on the roof of a house than to be married to a contentious wife.

    Another place it says a man is better off living in the desert than being married to a contentious wife.

    And, yet another place it says he who can control a contentious woman can control the winds.

    So, the Bible basically admits there are rebellious women and gives no solution at all how a man can deal with it. That is because there is no way to deal with it.

    The Bible gives a direct commandment to women. Wives submit to your husbands. It also gives a direct commandment to men. Men love your wives. This precludes large amounts of violence to make women obey when they don’t want to.

    It also supplies informational statements to both men and women, in Ephesians, telling about allowing men to be the leaders. This is where the heretics jump off the tracks, and assume it is a commandment to men to lead their wives. Not so.

    If anyone has doubts or questions, apparently the best book on this topic is ME? OBEY HIM? by Elizabeth Handford. It may again be in print via Amazon, and is not expensive. Written by a Baptist pastor’s wife, it is the single book which gives the most information, including the Biblical support for effective female submission initiating effective male leadership, not the reverse.

    Be sure to get the Second edition. I gave this book to my daughter many years ago when she was in high school. She learned it, and in 17 years of marriage, they have not had one quarrel. And, she likes it that way.

  195. Bike Bubba says:

    Anonymous; yes, there are churches which ignore the clear implications of Matthew 18, Ephesians 5, Romans 1, and such. That’s why I counsel people to avoid them. My take is that the Bible gets to decide these things, not me, nor my pastor, nor my bishop.

    And for that matter, it occurs to me that a lot of the most bitter invective I’ve heard about “Churchianity” has to do with what happens with the liberal church (some may call themselves “evangelical”, but they are liberal) discards Biblical teaching on submission, reconciliation, divorce, and the like. Paul tells Timothy (2 Tim. 3:5) to not even eat with those who practice this.

    BTW, Marissa nails it (well done!) on Mrs. Erikson. Exactly why is it a bad thing if a man does not wish to be there while his wife bares (most of) her breasts in front of the Log Cabin Republicans, emulating Lady Gaga at that gay bar? And here’s, then, the “tell” that Cael and I were talking about “Leif” missing; his intended/then wife was something of a “party girl” who always needed attention. OK, exactly how is this the picture of a woman in humble submission? Are we going to tell Christian men that they need to plunge into the sleaze of a lot of politics in order to keep their women?

    (and yes, I mean “sleaze”–friends of mine divorced after the husband was seduced by a woman who used political meetings as a forum for cuckolding her husband…..the party atmosphere helped a lot)

    Now having been a “party girl” is not necessarily a deal-killer, but just as Salmon and Boaz presumably took a GOOD look at the spirituality of Rahab and Ruth before marrying them, a wise man needs to make sure he’s persuaded the “party girl” (or slut for that matter) of the error of her ways before marrying her.

  196. @Escoffier, one-upmanship impels me to say “My entire problem with women is that I haven’t been enough of a jerk.”

    The funny thing is, unlike Mrs. Erikson’s humble-bragging about how she wasn’t enough of a bitch, this could actually be true for a man. I know many of my past relationships with women would have been better if I’d been more of a jerk.

  197. Anonymous age 71 says:

    @BikeBubba: My take is that the Bible gets to decide these things, not me, nor my pastor, nor my bishop.

    But, when you post, what we read is not what the Bible says, but what you think, which happens to be totally wrong.

  198. Anonymous age 71 says:

    When you tell us what you think the Bible says, which is wrong, you “pick and choose” the verses which you think support your view and ignore everything else. That is why in 1984, I read the entire Bible cover to cover before I decided what it says about the topic of male leadership and female submission.f

  199. Bike Bubba says:

    Anonymous, in my copy of the Bible–and I’ve got it in Greek, Hebrew, German (two translations), and English (KJV, NKJV, NIV, RSV)–Ephesians 5:23 says that just as Christ is the Head of the Church, so is the husband the head of the wife. Ephesians 5:25-6 tells of the man’s responsibility to take part in sanctifying and cleansing his wife through the Word.

    Now it is entirely correct that not every woman will respond to the word. Like Mrs. Erikson, there are rebels out there. However, God’s instruction to men remains the same. Wash her in the Word. Love her as Christ loved the Church, and let the chips fall where they may.

    Now regarding the idea of submission begetting headship and not the other way around….OK, help me out here. Did Christ die first, or did the Church submit first? I’m thinking Christ died first, and so while the wives of unbelieving men may find the need to (1 Peter 3:1) win them without a word in submission, Ephesians 5 clearly tells believing men that they are to wash their wives in the Word, and does not make that command conditional. Christ took the initiative; the believing husband models Christ. Therefore believing men take the initiative in this regard.

  200. As you and I’ve discussed before, anyone who’d spent a couple of weeks reading around here would have been able to spot JE’s red flags from a mile away. But your average Leif won’t see any of them. — deti

    True, although I wonder if even we would have spotted them. I don’t follow her blog, but from what I recall being posted here, didn’t she claim to have had a fairly low N when they met? Of course, an alpha widow can have an N=1, but if she’s smart enough not to talk about him or have pictures and mementos of him out where the new guy can see them, how can he know? If she dresses modestly (at least when he’s around) and talks a good game about family and children and church and so on, even a savvy red-pill guy would have to do some digging to find the red flags.

  201. Bike Bubba says:

    Anonymous, if indeed what I say is completely wrong, I encourage you to explain why. It’s worth noting that as a rule, theological liberals are reduced to simply stating that they believe it’s a cultural interpretation, or that it’s all submerged under “mutual submission.” They will not flat out disagree with what these texts say.

    Good luck explaining how Matthew Henry, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Macarthur, John Piper, and a host of other eminent theologians have found.

  202. deti says:

    Cail:

    Yeah, I suppose JE’s red flags were difficult to spot. The biggest one she had was her status as a local party girl. But then a manospherian in Leif’s shoes would have known also that he was her beta orbiter and emotional tampon.

  203. feeriker says:

    …it’s unusual for successful women to say that they act submissive at home

    I’m sure it’s even more unusual for them to actually DO IT.

  204. Elspeth says:

    @jf12:

    Insomuch as I have encouraged you to think in a more positive way, I am thankful. Active pursuit and obedience of Phil. 4 in my marriage changed it in ways I couldn’t begin to list.

    It’s not that I am unaware of the nightmare many modern women, married and single alike, have become. I get it. I have men in my family and friends circle who have gone through horrendous ordeals at the hands of the women who vowed to do them good and not evil all the days of their life.

    However, once we veer off into the realm of “every woman does X” or “all men are Y”, we effectively negate Biblical truth, insisting that it can’t be lived. And since there are young men (and not so young men) reading here who still hold out hope for a godly wife, they need to know that such a woman can and does exist, rare though she may be.

    Sometimes, as was the case for me, her man has to husband her into the wife she is supposed to be. Of course that only works when she’s willing, but again, that does happen. Jenny Erikson is common, but she is not every woman.

  205. jf12 says:

    Re: Christ dying first and leadership. Matthew 20:25-28 explains unambiguously. The way Christ becomes Chief in a Christian’s life is when that Christian *lets* His service extend to him.

  206. feeriker says:

    Putting it on the guys is the churchian answer and it’s only marginally effective. Putting it on the girls would be going to the source.

    But remember: putting it on the women is a statement that the women have moral agency. Churchianity denies, at its core, that women have such agency.

  207. Elspeth says:

    but if she’s smart enough not to talk about him or have pictures and mementos of him out where the new guy can see them, how can he know? If she dresses modestly (at least when he’s around) and talks a good game about family and children and church and so on, even a savvy red-pill guy would have to do some digging to find the red flags.

    If I recall correctly, the woman posted that her friend Leif was comforting her in the wake of a breakup. He asked her to marry him and she said yes. Even the bluest of blue pill men would know better than to think her acceptance was based on anything real.

    She didn’t fill in the details but I just sort of figured that she’d slept with the guy she was crying over, and feeling particularly dirty and vulnerable because of her Christian upbringing. Leif saw an opportunity to 1) save her from that pain and humiliation ever again, and 2) seize an opportunity he’d been waiting for probably for years. The result was a wedding that she was never all that gung ho about to begin with.

    Now, this is was just what I speculated after reading her story. I have no way of knowing what really happened, but those are the thoughts that occurred to me.

  208. hurting says:

    deti says:
    March 26, 2014 at 2:29 pm

    Maybe it’s my own as yet not completely red pill view of the world, but maybe this guy Leif did see some of her flaws but also really believed she had repented. The whole sordid mess is an object lesson in the perils of marriage for men.

  209. Maybe she will take a Christian boobie/butt selfie and send it to her next victim. He gets bored and posts it for the all the world to see. She then can be famous and have her own reality show.

  210. Anonymous Reader says:

    Bike Bubba
    Anonymous; yes, there are churches which ignore the clear implications of Matthew 18, Ephesians 5, Romans 1, and such. That’s why I counsel people to avoid them. My take is that the Bible gets to decide these things, not me, nor my pastor, nor my bishop.

    You appear to be missing the point. One of your premises is that a man who marries a good, Christian woman – a believer – will not have the problems that Lief had. Except that it is trivial to find churches that would define JE as exactly that, a “good, Christian, believing woman”. So the actual issue underlying this premise is definitional – define the terms used, and it clarifies the point.

    Now, you may also be arguing that “those churches” are not “real churches” to you, but of course they would in return say the same thing about you and your church.

    Your premise needs clarifying if it is to be of any use to men. As it is, “just find a good, Christian believing woman” is a concrete life preserver. It looks useful, but hand it to a drowning man and he’s sunk. Because “good, Christian, believing woman” is a term that has multiple meanings, depending on the person(s) using it and the venue.

    Doubt me? Click on any of the Catholic Forum links that MarcusD has posted in the last 6 or so months, or look around christianforums.net, those are both places where the definition of “good, Christian, believing woman” would certainly include JE.

    Again, you need to examine your premises, because sometimes the words you use don’t have the same meaning when other people use them.

  211. However, by the definition of any number of churches, Lief did indeed marry a good Christian woman.

    For that matter, she may have been a good Christian woman when he married her. (I’m not familiar with her writing except what Dalrock has quoted, so if she’s talked about how she met Leif because he delivered a pizza to her porn set or something, ignore this comment.) That’s what I was trying to get at before: the fact that a woman is a bad Christian today doesn’t mean that she was a bad one 10 years ago, or that there’s any reason to think someone who knew her back then could have predicted where she would be today.

    It’s completely possible for a woman to be fairly chaste, even a virgin, and go into a marriage with the best of intentions about being a traditional wife and mother and sticking it our no matter what for better or worse — and then through a combination of ennui and societal urges and temptations and her husband’s passivity, all feeding into the curse of Eve, decide that she never should have married and she never really loved her husband and she was just settling for some reason she can’t remember and now Jesus wants her to leave and find herself.

  212. Anonymous Reader says:

    By the way, Bubba, when responding to Anonymous age 71, or to me Anonymous Reader, it will help communication if you take the extra second to copy/paste the appropriate label. Otherwise it looks like you are just blasting without bothering to pay attention to whom you are addressing.

    Precise communication requires accurate addressing.

  213. Martel says:

    I don’t think we can rule out Leif rationalizing away and red flags he might have seen. I know that in my White Knight phases, I’d see the flaws of a certain woman quite clearly. However, I was certain that if she were only to experience the depth of my caring for her that she would undoubtedly overcome any obstacles.

    Also, as much as a Christian beta might believe in feminine chastity, if a stripper wanted to marry them, they’d still agree.

  214. hurting says:

    Elspeth says:
    March 26, 2014 at 4:02 pm

    I think your synopsis of their situation is pretty accurate, but I think it’s entirely possible for even a ‘middle of the road’ blue pill man to believe that her interest in him was genuine because of a man’s worldview. As a blue piller, he assumed that she would learn from her mistakes like he would have (not to say they would have had the ooportunity to make the same mistakes in relationships, per se) and promptly recognize the value that he (Leif) had to offer.

    For the average man, the siren’s song of a fairly attractive woman, even one with a past, is pretty hard to resist. Layer on top of that the idea that a man is far more likely to abide by the practical notion that “a deal is a deal” as it relates to marriage (namely because it does, in fact, actually apply to him unilaterally and generally unjustly). The confluence of the two is deadly for men.

  215. If I recall correctly, the woman posted that her friend Leif was comforting her in the wake of a breakup. He asked her to marry him and she said yes. Even the bluest of blue pill men would know better than to think her acceptance was based on anything real. — Elspeth

    Uh, no. That’s exactly the sort of thing a blue-pill guy buys into hook, line, and sinker. (I wonder sometimes if it’s possible for women to realize how clueless guys can be about this stuff. I suspect not.) A blue-pill guy in that situation will think that she’s finally seen the light and realized that what she really wants is a nice guy who will be her friend first — and because of his persistence and sacrifice, he was in the right place at the right time when she realized it, so he’s won. Just like in the movies. The beta orbiter orbits because he’s waiting for exactly what she did.

    Sorry, I know that’s stupid, and it makes me vaguely ill to say it, but it’s true. That’s why he was letting her cry on his shoulder in the first place. If he had understood that any such “conversion experience” would be false, he would have told her to go cry to her girlfriends, and been out fishing or something.

  216. Martel says:

    Also, isn’t the scenario Elspeth describes the purest White Knight fantasy? Of all the times he probably had pretty girls cry to him about how badly some Alpha treated her, finally, one finally recognized the Goodness of His Soul enough to consent to marry him.

    He beat out the bastard who broke her heart, for his friendship healed it. That’s pure and unadulteraged White Knight Crack.

  217. Anonymous Reader says:

    Cail Corishev
    That’s what I was trying to get at before: the fact that a woman is a bad Christian today doesn’t mean that she was a bad one 10 years ago, or that there’s any reason to think someone who knew her back then could have predicted where she would be today.

    Agree, and that is an uncomfortable thought for many men (leaving aside the many places where calling JE a “bad Christian” would immediately start a big fight). Because the implication is stark: “You can do everything you think of, perform every test you know of, and still wind up with a detonated marriage and estranged children”.

    But it should not lead to despair, any more than seeing a 10-car pileup with multiple ambulances and fire engines on the scene leads to abandoning one’s automobile permanently. It should lead to living mindfully, carefully, even defensively, and always ready to learn of a new “tell”, or a new tool, that gives a man an edge. Like having the sun at your back…

  218. Anonymous Reader says:

    Martel
    I don’t think we can rule out Leif rationalizing away and red flags he might have seen. I know that in my White Knight phases, I’d see the flaws of a certain woman quite clearly. However, I was certain that if she were only to experience the depth of my caring for her that she would undoubtedly overcome any obstacles.

    Agree. There is probably no limit to the amount of rationalization a man can do when he lets romanticism take over his brain.

  219. hurting says:

    Cail Corishev says:
    March 26, 2014 at 4:12 pm

    And all of the social and legal proscriptions that would have served to dissuade a ‘bored’ but otherwise Christian wife from nuking her marriage are gone. Incentives matter. A lot.

    Consider an accounting analogy…

    Avoiding financial disaster resulting from the malfeasance of one’s employees requires both the hiring of trustworthy, ethical people AND meaningful systems of internal control that incentivize proper behavior (not stealing). While solid hires and good controls are both necessary for effective business management, neither are sufficient by themselves*. Likewise with marriage, picking a loyal mate of good character is important, but it is not enough. Not nearly so.

    *I’d argue that rigorous controls are sufficient alone in the near term (short of knowingly hiring embezzlers), but over time, even solid controls are subject to an innate weakness: collusion. And unscrupulous employees would be more likely to collude.

  220. Martel says:

    Regarding Jenny’s potential moral degeneration, it’s perfectly plausible.

    Imagine a modern girl married to a beta at 19. By the time she’s turned 29, she’s seen countless TV shows and movies, read countless magazine articles and social media posts, and heard repeatedly from all the girls at the salon about all the fun she’s missed out on by getting married too early. The carousel seems like a blast, and she’s been with this boring schlub the whole time.

    Combine that with the churchian ideals that if she’s not happy it’s his fault, that submission doesn’t really mean that, extra-maritial sex can be a learning experience, Jesus love ME no matter what, and that leaving your husband may be wrong but it’s not really that wrong and we’ll be supportive of you no matter what you do, and you’ll find it takes a very strong woman to resist.

  221. Dalrock says:

    @Martel

    Also, as much as a Christian beta might believe in feminine chastity, if a stripper wanted to marry them, they’d still agree.

    This is an excellent point, and underlying this is the belief that if a woman was promiscuous men must have somehow tricked her into it. She was after all only looking for love, and men made her give up sex to get it. That stripper wasn’t reveling in flaunting her sexual power, men must have somehow coerced her into doing something she hated doing. She just needs a nice guy to treat her well and she will be that naturally good woman Director Stanton tells us about. The denial that women are sexually motivated (vs coerced into giving up sex in their search for love) is extremely deep. We even see this kind of denial from time to time here in the sphere. Aquinas Dad argued the other day that women don’t experience raw sexual desire like men do:

    TFH,
    You wrote,
    “Actually, it [the "game" idea of female psychology] is obviously true.”
    Then why are women less liley to cheat within marriage than men? This is a well documented fact and, if the hypergamy theory and the ‘tingles’ concept were correct it would not be.

    This of course isn’t a biblical view of women, but it is by far the dominant view of modern Christians.

  222. jf12 says:

    @Elspeth, true that JE is not every woman, although maybe the old men should take the young men out behind the wood shed and have them memorize Ecclesiastes 7:27-28, Matthew 19:10-12, and 1 Cor 7:27 first (hitting the trifecta of Old Testament, Gospel, and Epistles) and then try to have the young men involuntarily committed if they still want to pursue marriage anyway. That’ll prove two things, whether they were paying attention and whether they really really burn and so have to marry.

  223. jf12 says:

    Cail wrote “she may have been a good Christian woman when he married her”. That’s why the No True Christian Woman arguments fail so miserably.

  224. She just needs a nice guy to treat her well and she will be that naturally good woman Director Stanton tells us about. — Dalrock

    Right. The blue-pill guy might admit that she’s made some mistakes, but that’s as far as he can go toward blaming her or holding her responsible. His assumption is still that she wants to be good, but is somehow prevented by bad treatment or upbringing. So as soon as she shows that she recognizes her mistakes and wants to change — which she shows by responding to his Nice Guy overtures, naturally — he writes off her past and assumes that she has too. Once she’s recognized the Goodness of His Soul (thanks, Martel) and seen that she can have romance and friendship, why would she ever give that up?

  225. Martel says:

    To piggyback off Cail, White Knights believe that deep down women truly crave respect, affection, great listening skills, and all that the White Knight has to offer; she only wanted badboys because of her low self-esteem. Once she’s truly LOVED by a great guy like himself, it could never possibly occur to her to go back to that.

    Bonus points for her if she cries when telling him about all the mistakes she’s made.

  226. jf12 says:

    @Martel, more bonus points if she exclaims about the WN’s goodness for putting up with her while crying “Goodbye Forever, to all those men!” I’m reasonably sure that after the WN hands her his handkerchief to wipe her running nose, the way for her to tell if He Really Loves Her is if he doesn’t insist she keep the hankie but instead he takes it back from her and tucks it back in his pocket.

  227. Anonymous age 71 says:

    @Bubba

    Sheesh, I already explained it with direct references to the Bible. I have been at this since 1984, when i went through the Bible every word, every page, looking exactly for what you are claiming is there. if it was there, I really wanted to know. And, it is simply not there.

    You are basically repeating Churchian Heresy 101. We all know men are supposed to lead, and it gives great details on the topic. But, you are determined to not note where it makes it clear this can only happen when women initiate it with effective submission.

    Why? Pretty much for the same reason most Churchian heretics refuse to note where it makes it clear that male leadership can only happen after women submit. They are not yet divorced, and with brazen arrogance assume, “Well, I must be correct. I am not yet divorced!” I have a smart-aleck brother just like that.

    Your basic message translates to: “Thank thee oh Lord that I am not a sinner like these.” All of you are still married for exactly one reason, no matter how you give your clever and dynamic personality credit for it. You are still married only because your wife has not pullled the trigger yet. Hard headed men like you tend to be the ones shot by SWAT teams.

    I also referred to the best book ever written by humans on the topic, second only to the Bible itself, and you also have no intention of reading it, right? But, you continue to tell me to show you why you are wrong. I have done so.

    I know exactly where you have gone wrong. But, after 30 years, I simply don’t care if you go to Hell or not. You have heard the word, and you have rejected it.

    It took me many years to find out why this heresy exists that studly men, as you imagine yourself to be, can essentially create submissive women. A few years ago, I went to visit someone far away. I had nothing to read so they gave me THE SCREWTAPE LETTERS.

    The demon explains we will tell these stupid humans they are doing God’s work and will be saved, but they will actually be doing Satan’s work and will not be saved. They will go to Hell. As soon as I read that, I understood what the heresy is all about.

    Yes, that is the heretics who preach MAN FAULT in divorce as you are doing. They misread the Bible, imagine they are real workers for God, while destroying men, in God’s name. But, actually by destroying marriage with a constant attack on husbands, they are doing Satan’s work and are going to Hell.

    An amateur theologian I know said that Christians were caught up in this heresy no later than 300 a.d. and this contributed to the destruction of the Roman Empire, just as you churchians are helping destroy the USA.

    There is something in the Bible about being better off in the ocean with a millstone around your neck, than causing suffering for chidren. By aiding and abetting rebellious women, that is you, when those women move their children into maternal custody look out; the millstones are heading your way.

    I wonder if you read this blog before you began to participate. Much of the blog has to do with the churchian concept which you preach so well, that all these problems in our society are “man fault.” You are actually not in friendly, supportive territory here, though you seem to think you are.

    You can continue to repeat the same heresy, continue to refuse to look at what I told you; continue to insist I have not shown you where my references are when I have. But, I am told by others that on Judgment Day that heretics who helped destroy the USA may find they have nothing to say in their own defense, and they will know they were indeed shown where their error was. Please carry on

    Oh, I almost forgot. An intellectual I know has actually read all of Gibbons and says Gibbons says it was Christians with their raising women above God, as you and your fellow Churchians are doing today, which destroyed the Roman Empire. I am trying to read it now. It is like watching snails engaged in amorous activities.

  228. Opus says:

    It is understandable that when a woman starts complaining about Alpha Dudes and crying about her past that she regrets the same and would prefer someone more reliable. I regret to say ( from painful experience ) that that is just not the case. What she wants is more Alpha Dudes, which will give her the opportunity to cry over their behaviour (hopefully on some other shoulder) thus setting her up for the next Alpha.

    Of course I am also a bastard for telling her that she is a slut (more copious tears). Women who attempt to turn men into LJBF shoulders to cry on are doing exactly what the married woman does when she cheats, that is to say she is treating her LJBF as a cuckold. Imagine how Leif must feel reading about all these other guys – for whom she gives it up on first date, when he remembers that she treated him before they became engaged as if he had leprosy as she regaled him with stories about how she was abandoned by those who did not love Jesus the way they said or at all (Lying P.U.A.s) Underachievers (good-looking bad boys) or Workaholics (Alpha guys who did not want a second date having already test driven the vehicle). She seems to have learnt nothing but thought it might be different.

  229. Anonymous Reader says:

    hurting
    [accounting analogy]
    *I’d argue that rigorous controls are sufficient alone in the near term (short of knowingly hiring embezzlers), but over time, even solid controls are subject to an innate weakness: collusion. And unscrupulous employees would be more likely to collude.

    My accountant would likely advise me to agree. So…Game = rigorous controls, that enable management in the short term, but as the saying goes, “personnel is policy”.

  230. jf12 says:

    @Cail “A blue-pill guy in that situation will think that she’s finally seen the light and realized that what she really wants is a nice guy who will be her friend first” of course. That’s almost the definition of how blue-pill betas, i.e. the majority of men, feel. “(I wonder sometimes if it’s possible for women to realize how clueless guys can be about this stuff. I suspect not.)” Since even Elspeth misses it, I don’t have to suspect: no woman really sympathizes just how badly beta males have it, nor realizes how many mental hoops beta males have to jump through to bother getting out of bed every morning.

    “How come all you, um, men, using the term loosely, didn’t realize that the fact that no woman wanted you meant that no woman was going to want you?” Someone somewhere summarized the content of this sort of advice as “Sucks to be you.”

  231. Even the bluest of blue pill men would know better than to think her acceptance was based on anything real. — Elspeth

    Hahah! You might want to read through this classic, before you reply next:
    http://therationalmale.com/2012/09/10/men-in-love/

  232. deti says:

    “It took me many years to find out why this heresy exists that studly men, as you imagine yourself to be, can essentially create submissive women.”

    Being a studly man simply makes submission easier, but it doesn’t create submission or guarantee that the woman will be submissive.

    Vox Day said it best recently. It’s simple, really. “At the end of the day, people do what they decide to do”.

    All the alpha in the world will not force a woman to submit. She will submit if and when she wants to and decides to. And she has to decide to do that every day.

    In like manner, alpha men don’t have magical powers and are able to charm a woman’s panties off. He can be as alpha as can be; but if she decides sex isn’t happening, then it isn’t happening. Any woman who has sex with an alpha (or any man, for that matter) does so because she wants to do so. Alpha traits merely make it easier for him to find the women who will have rapid sex with him.

  233. theasdgamer says:

    @Bubba

    “However, God’s instruction to men remains the same. Wash her in the Word.”

    However, The. Passage. Doesn’t. Say. That. It says that Christ cleansed the Church by washing her with the water and the Word.

    You are simply inserting your opinion into the reading. What you are doing is called eisegesis. Making stuff up. Telling lies. Twisting scripture. Who does that remind me of? “Did God really say….?”

    “Ephesians 5:23 says that just as Christ is the Head of the Church, so is the husband the head of the wife.”

    And the context for it is telling the wife to subject herself to her husband. It has nothing to do with a husband’s responsibility. Try to pay attention to context when you read scripture.

    Ephesians 5:25-6 tells of the man’s responsibility to take part in sanctifying and cleansing his wife through the Word.”

    Nope, it says that Christ sanctified the Church and cleansed it by washing it with water and the Word. Totally wrong.

    I’ve explained your exegetical bollox before. You have failed to defend it.

    “Good luck explaining how Matthew Henry, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Macarthur, John Piper, and a host of other eminent theologians have found.”

    Have any of these so-called experts discovered what the Gospel is? Nope, none of them has a clue. Yet it’s kind of basic to Christianity. If they don’t even know what the Gospel is, relying on them as authorities is foolish.

  234. Can men really not tell when a woman doesn’t love them?

    No, they can’t.

    Why? Because men want to believe that they can be happy, and sexually satisfied, and appreciated, and loved, and respected by a woman for who he is. It is men who are the real romantics, not women, but it is the grand design of hypergamy that men believe it is women who are the romantic ones.

    Hypergamy, by its nature, defines love for women in opportunistic terms, leaving men as the only objective arbiters of what love is for themselves. So yes, men can’t tell when a woman doesn’t love them, because they want to believe women can love them in the ways they think they could.

    This was Lief’s undoing, but he’s in the vast majority (Betas) so it’s hard to put too much personal accountability on him – especially considering the double whammy of his feminization conditioning paired with his christian nice guy conditioning.

  235. Anonymous Reader says:

    adsgamer, you may find this link interesting, it is the result of a trivial search using the terms

    “ephesians 5 calvin”

    http://biblehub.com/commentaries/calvin/ephesians/5.htm

    It appears to be a section or a chapter from a commentary book on the Bible by John Calvin.
    I do not see any support for Bubba’s claim.

    Perhaps he can provide support for his claim from the various authors that he cited? That would be useful.

  236. Anonymous Reader says:

    Hey! Rollo? I thought you were going cold-turkey on JE?

  237. FuzzieWuzzie says:

    Jenny Erikson should get some kind of an award for providing us with so much blogfodder.
    The way I am reading this thread, there is no way to avoid a potential Jenny going into marriage. To add to that, submission is voluntary for women. So, Game can be only mildly effective once you’re in.
    It sounds like the guys are behind the 8 ball on this.

  238. Novaseeker says:

    Combine that with the churchian ideals that if she’s not happy it’s his fault, that submission doesn’t really mean that, extra-maritial sex can be a learning experience, Jesus love ME no matter what, and that leaving your husband may be wrong but it’s not really that wrong and we’ll be supportive of you no matter what you do, and you’ll find it takes a very strong woman to resist.

    That’s true, Martel, although in this case what we have is a real rebel. She has bitched a LOT about the church that her family attended, and based on the fact that it actually excommunicated her for the divorce (we know how rare that is), she wasn’t getting this support from church. Not in this case. However, I do think it’s very likely that she was getting the ideas you mention from the broader church culture on the internet and elsewhere outside of the church she was actually attending with Leif (and that’s probably a part of what made her rebel against that).

    This is an example of a quite troublesome woman, from the traditional Christian perspective.

  239. Martel says:

    In Jenny’s case, you’re right. She’s the type who would have left her husband in 1918.

    Unfortunately, our culture is so warped that even some women who aren’t as “independent” as Jenny are going to fall for some of its traps. Unless a girl has a VERY strong father and mother teaching her feminine values, the overall cultural whirlwind is going to sweep most of the rest away.

  240. Random Angeleno says:

    If JE wasn’t real, she’d have to be invented. Maybe something to what Rollo says about the purpose of her blog.

    For Bubba’s edification, it’s been my observation that no amount of being in charge will work for the husband if his wife does not put herself back in submission mode.

  241. margaret59 says:

    OK, reality is..Jenny first decided what she wanted to do..and then, rationalized that what she wanted was what was right. I guess that is the definition of the rationalization hamster. She has NO integrity, no sense of absolute right and wrong, and refuses to see that she MIGHT not be on the side of Jesus and the angels. Honestly, she makes me sick.

    Jesus loves me..so I am good? Seriously? Dear God, has she two brain cells to rub up against each other? Please buy a bloody vowel. You chose to do what you wanted, because you wanted it. Please leave God out of it. You did not consider for one minute what God expects of you, what would be the impact on your children, or anything other than what YOU wanted.

    She makes me ashamed to share a sex with her. I wish I could totally excommunicate her from being a woman.

  242. MarcusD says:

    Be sure to read the ToC and the available excerpts (does it sound like something you’ve heard before?):

  243. Very late, but Elspeth:

    If I recall correctly, the woman posted that her friend Leif was comforting her in the wake of a breakup. He asked her to marry him and she said yes. Even the bluest of blue pill men would know better than to think her acceptance was based on anything real. — Elspeth

    I’m going to have to go with Cail on this one. Men have a hamster too, and it can be an EXTREMELY strong one.

    I’m (and here I’m going to modestly compliment myself in the fond hope it doesn’t come back to bit me later) aware enough to realize that such a proposal, even from a girl I really like, would be bunk.

    But trust me, if somebody I knew accepted a proposal in such a way, it would not remotely surprise me. The fact that somebody you like is proposing to you at all is already going to be clouding your judgment quite a bit.

    Sorry Elpeth, you’re great, but you’ve got this one wrong.

  244. Whoops, I got the wording of your comment wrong.

    The fact that she was willing to say yes clouds his judgment then. Same difference.

  245. FuzzieWuzzie says:

    Margaret59, i have missed you.
    Now, as to your comment, stop candy coating and tell us all how you really feel. ;)

  246. margaret59 says:

    lol..Fuzzie! Thanks. I am an older and perhaps, somewhat more nasty woman. :) Am Irish by ethnicity. My grandma taught us to say what is real, and shut up if you don’t know. Pretty sure I know in this case. Being a woman does not get you a pass for horrible behavior. Period.

  247. Martel says:

    I read Fuzzie’s link to the advice from a divorced guy. Men have hamsters, too….

    When there I saw a link to “A Woman’s Response to…” his blather. I clicked expecting “you go, girlyman!”, but instead it was actually pretty good.

    http://jamesrusselllingerfelt.wordpress.com/2013/08/22/a-womans-response-to-beautiful-advice-from-a-divorced-man-after-16-years-of-marriage/

  248. Martel says:

    Correction: MarcusD’s link.

  249. Maunalani says:

    I just feel sorry for this lady’s ex-husband who I am sure must see his ex-wife’s ravings. For me, that would cut like a knife every time. I have to give credit to the church leaders who apparently saw through this fraud of a wife and warned him, even though it ended up in her dumping him for her new feminist independent lifestyle.

  250. FuzzieWuzzie says:

    Margaret59,
    This may go a little off topic but, a few weeks ago, there was an arguement that SSM put forth that, since women do not police the herd anymore, it falls to men. I contended that men don’t do this and that they would be suseptible to “bribery”.
    You just demonstrated “old school” methods. It’s not dead and it should come back.
    What Jenny Erikson has done, along with her less visible cohort, is to damge confidence in marriage, perhaps irrepairably.

  251. b g says:

    margaret59
    Lol, I was going to post “tell us what you really think,” but FuzzieWuzzie beat me to it ;-D

  252. b g says:

    FuzzieWuzzie

    Men did have the ability to police the herd. There is no mechanism. My late wife thought the same as Sunshine Mary, but I just told her that the herd has bloody stampeded and there were simply not enough cowboys to circle them all. She laughed because she understood the ugly truths of it ;-D

  253. b g says:

    Sorry, meant, did not have the ability.

  254. jf12 says:

    @bg Just how many little dogies could any one cowpuncher be expected to git along?

  255. FuzzieWuzzie says:

    B g, I like your “not enough cowboys” analogy.

    Dalrock, Farm Boy linked this at JustFour Guys and I thought you would be interested.
    http://family-studies.org/divorce-its-way-bigger-than-we-thought/

  256. b g says:

    jft12

    Well, from experience, only those one can influence amongst your family and close friends…sadly not many. The stubborn is strong ;-D

  257. margaret59 says:

    I would need some link to SSM, to believe that she said that men must manage what women are not now willing to do. I absolutely agree if she said that women are no longer willing to step up and call out our fellow women for being..well..wrong.

    I hope that i could do it, if it were my daughter. At this point, my elder daughter has been married for over 7 years, and thinks, as do I, that her husband is totally awesome. If she changed her mind, and wanted to frivorce, I hope that I would be strong. Honestly, I don’t think she would do such a thing. She really does love her husband, and respects him. I hope she is not a bloody fool..she doesn’t seem like it, so far as I can tell.

    Jenny, however, was just not haaaapy. As she was not haaaapy, she found some way to get Jesus to be on her side. Something that cannot be found in scripture, nor, if she were Catholic, anywhere in the teachings of the Church. We can all find some stupid rationalization if we really, really want to. Does not ever make it right, as anyone with a brain in her head can see. It takes a really special snowflake to convince oneself that one’s own happiness is MUCH more important than your children’s happiness, or one’s husband. Fie upon her! She is just being a selfish jackass.

  258. b g says:

    FuzzieWuzzie

    Lol, I actually was a cowboy as a youth for a few years…yeah, big shiny trophy belt buckles and the whole nine yards. Immortal kid, dumb beyond belief. But My wife somehow love it in me, and she knew exactly what I was saying when I told her that.

    I will check your link, because divorce scares me, I have seen far too much amongst my family and friends…and there is no positive result, the pain runs through generations and seems to increase.

  259. margaret59 says:

    I want to make this absolutely clear. I do not give a f**k if you are not happy, be you man or woman. Once you have married, then you have to find a way to make it work unless your wife or husband abandons you, or is an unrepentant adulterer, or is a risk (a real one) to you and/or your children. If one of these situations is met, then I think you can apply for a civil divorce. I do NOT think that you have a right to remarry, or date around. If things are that bad, then you should be happy to get you and your kids out of it. We have no “right” to happiness. What nonsense. I would call that a “first world problem”. Happiness is ephemeral, anyway. Joy can last forever.

  260. MarcusD says:

    The inanity of celebrity:

    But not so fast: Under Paltrow’s post announcing the breakup, the actress has included some helpful information regarding conscious uncoupling which is, as it turns out, an actual separation method. According to Dr. Habib Sadeghi & Dr. Sherry Sami – longtime health and spiritual advisers to Paltrow – the process involves a reexamining of marriage and divorce itself.

    “To change the concept of divorce, we need to release the belief structures we have around marriage that create rigidity in our thought process,” the pair write on GOOP. “The belief structure is the all-or-nothing idea that when we marry, it’s for life. The truth is, the only thing any of us have is today. Beyond that, there are no guarantees.”

    http://arts.nationalpost.com/2014/03/26/conscious-uncoupling-isnt-just-a-paltrow-ism-its-a-five-week-program-gwyneth-and-chris-martins-split-method-explained/

  261. FuzzieWuzzie says:

    B G,
    You reminded me of the attempted long distance relationship with a gal who lived near Calgary. When I tried to explain where i grew up, I presumed she had heard of Salinas. Oh well.
    The last place i lived in California, the reponsibility of feeding two sweet Arab mares fell to me. I never got to ride them but, it did keep our relationship uncomplicated. They liked me.
    NEIGH!!

  262. FuzzieWuzzie says:

    Margaret59,
    It is a shame that Jenny didn’t hear that from anyone before she went down this road. Better to hear from a woman with more experience in life.
    That’s what I mean about women “policing the herd”.
    The exchange was between myself, SSM, and Elspeth a little before Ash Wednesday in a thread a little before Ash Wednesday, when she closed comments.

  263. Badpainter says:

    I have a question for the biblical literalists here.

    How does someone “wash” someone in the word?

    Yes, I know that seems willfully obtuse. However, words mean things and I am curious how the literalist understands the word “wash” in that context. I think at best this is a figure of speech. If so does that not create a situation wherein the scriptures are subject to some interpretation as being less than perfectly literal?

  264. b g says:

    FuzzieWuzzie

    Lol. I love a good mare. As long as you don’t break her spirit, she’ is more than willing to do what ever is needed. And she doesn’t ask for much more than an apple or even a carrot, and need only a kind rub down and a few gentle words to be contented. If you’re a friend, they not only know it but show it.

  265. b g says:

    FuzzieWuzzie

    Hmmm, I do not think that young women seek the advice of older women anymore and frankly, I don’t think that the last two generations of older women would be of much help anyway. My wife sought the advice of my grandmother, a great aunt, and my oldest aunt when we got engaged more than four decades ago. She would never tell me what they had said…claimed it was girls’ secret stuff ;-D But much later she told me that every single time we had encountered really serious grief, it was because she had stubbornly ignored those many years of accumulated wisdom.

  266. MarcusD says:

    @Dalrock

    This is an excellent point, and underlying this is the belief that if a woman was promiscuous men must have somehow tricked her into it. She was after all only looking for love, and men made her give up sex to get it. That stripper wasn’t reveling in flaunting her sexual power, men must have somehow coerced her into doing something she hated doing. She just needs a nice guy to treat her well and she will be that naturally good woman Director Stanton tells us about. The denial that women are sexually motivated (vs coerced into giving up sex in their search for love) is extremely deep. We even see this kind of denial from time to time here in the sphere. Aquinas Dad argued the other day that women don’t experience raw sexual desire like men do:

    Such a perception has been a mainstay for centuries amongst conservatives, but it was also actually something called upon in court cases as recently as the early 20th century (see: Reilly, Kimberley A. Sex Without Spheres: Labor, Marriage, and Citizenship in the Era of the New Woman. ProQuest, 2008.). I’ve already seen forth wave feminists resorting to the same arguments (it’ll all come full circle, with feminists returning to the purity campaigns of the 1890s (etc)).

    Anyway, for the issue of gender differences in infidelity, the NFSS (New Family Structures Study, a nationally-representative sample of 18-39-year-olds) has the following data:


    Yes
    Male 17.9%
    Female 18.8%

    Using the GSS I found that 6.4% of men and 5.8% of women aged 18-39 in the 2004 to 2012 surveys had cheated on their spouses (essentially no difference statistically). Given the fact that women do indeed lie about their sexual behaviors and partner counts (see: Alexander, Michele G., and Terri D. Fisher. “Truth and consequences: Using the bogus pipeline to examine sex differences in self‐reported sexuality.” Journal of sex research 40.1 (2003): 27-35.), the statistics for women could be higher.

    I’m fairly convinced that infidelity in women has increased over time, given, for example, their entry into the labor market, but I also think that they are more likely to report infidelity nowadays (though, still less than men, it seems). Though AD and others may have been right about women a few decades ago, it no longer appears to be an accurate reflection of reality.

  267. MarcusD says:

    statistics for women could be higher

    Should read: “percentage for women could be higher”

  268. HawkandRock says:

    “The belief structure is the all-or-nothing idea that when we marry, it’s for life. The truth is, the only thing any of us have is today. Beyond that, there are no guarantees.”

    And yet … My ex-wife is guaranteed that if I don’t transfer to her $2200 of my earnings every single month, I will be put in a cage (and yes, that’s just alimony. The amount of money I must pay to see my children every other weekend is more than twice that amount).

    The judge clearly needs to reexamine his belief structure.

  269. Spacetraveller says:

    Hahahahahahaha!

    I LOVE Margaret!
    Um, can I say that in public without sounding gay?

    I feel very sorry for poor Leif. I know it sounds like heresy, but I hope his wife repents and returns to him, rather than him going through other loose women. Two wrongs don’t really make a right…

    I wonder, if a divorce is undone, does it still count in the eyes of God?

    Margaret needs to get to JE and shake her up a bit!

    I wish for a happy ending to this tragic tale. And it all depends on JE doing the right thing by her husband and children…finally.

    Even if it takes years, I hope she can get there…

  270. Opus says:

    Jenny Erikson gives good fix.

  271. Casey says:

    Wow……….What a gold-rush we have found with the Jenny Erikson tragedy.

    I can’t think of a single man-o-sphere theory where she does not give apt representation to it’s validity.

    Given her nature to be an unpleasant bitch, she will likely spend her remaining SMV giving good fix (Thanks Opus).

    She will inevitably end up in the ashcan of dating…..in her late 40’s, early 50’s……..wondering where all the ‘good’ men have gone.

    I predict a life of bitter solitude.

    Better get right with your LJBF boyfriend, Jesus Christ

  272. Lurker no. 9 says:

    Okay guys, I notice a lot of you seem to be in a mode of “Yeah she fucked up and all that, though in the end a man should still live up to some standards to be a truly christian man, albeit different from the liberal enabling churchianity we despise.”

    My question to you is, why should a man live up to any standards at all? You rail against this woman for saying that Jesus loves her and if she’s good enough for Jesus etc etc, but what’s wrong with that? If (Christian) goodness isn’t everything, then goodness is nothing.

    Therefore, all that really should matter is whether Jesus loves us and thinks we’re good enough for him. We shouldn’t have to be alpha, or productive, or out of our parents basement to get what we want. To believe so is social darwinism, of sitting in judgment of what our peers deserve based on their ‘social status.’

    So choose. Either Christianity or Social Darwinism.

  273. Opus says:

    Alpha Fix: Beta Bucks

  274. Elspeth says:

    How does someone “wash” someone in the word?

    Yes, I know that seems willfully obtuse. However, words mean things and I am curious how the literalist understands the word “wash” in that context. I think at best this is a figure of speech.

    I don’t think I have ever met anyone, ever, who is a Biblical literalist, even though I’m fairly certain I’m the type of person you intend to address with your comment. If Bike returns, he can give his take, but this is mine.

    It is obviously impossible for a man to “wash” his wife in the word and frankly, there have been very few times when my own husband has quoted Scripture to correct me. This is partly because for many years I was much more well versed in Scripture than he given our different upbringings. However, in the years since he has become versed in Scripture, he still hasn’t done it a lot. It happens, but it is rare because it doesn’t usually get that far. I know right from wrong, I know what the Bible says, and he knows that I know. “You know better” is usually all that is required. Which brings me to the point I wanted to make.

    A wife is responsible for her own choices. A husband can wash her in the word, maintain frame, and do everything Scripture prescribes a husband to do, and still see his wife rebel and flee. That’s the thing that is hard for us to accept. That we can do every thing right and not see a right corresponding result. But them’s the breaks. Life isn’t formulaic and obedience to Scripture isn’t like witchcraft, that we can use to manipulate people into the position we want for them.

    I work extra hard as a wife. I think regularly about what I can do to make my husband’s life easier, take care of myself to look good for him, make myself physically available, take good care of his home and children, submit to him. But if he could still wake up one day and decide that grass is greener on the other side of town. Doesn’t negate any of what I’ve done. It just forces me to look for my reward from the Only One I should have been looking to in the first place.

    Submission is something that a woman must choose, the same as we have to choose every other Biblical command. This is what Scripture says about a woman determined to rebel:

    A constant dripping on a day of steady rain
    And a contentious woman are alike;
    He who would [i]restrain her [j]restrains the wind,
    And [k]grasps oil with his right hand.

    There are no guarantees. The best any of us can do is do our level best to vet and choose well, fulfill our vows to the best of our ability, obey the word, and pray. Whatever happens after that is largely beyond our control. Sucks, but control is really just an illusion. Something we delude ourselves into thinking we have so that we get out of bed in the mornings.Or that’s the case for those with faith in nothing Greater than themselves.

  275. jf12 says:

    @Badpainter, yes words have literal meanings by themselves, but the meanings of words change symbiotically when there are many words strung together. That’s usually the whole point to bothering to string the words together. As far as literalism, nobody rational is a hyperliteralist, although one must try to be a literal as possible, or else there is no point in reading at all: one may as well pull a Carnac The Magnificent on the whole Bible and simply imagine what it might say.

    For one example of the error of hyperliteralism, the KJV has a perfect translation of Hebrews 10:12 “But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God.” Nobody hyperliterally believes Jesus sat down on the *hand*, i.e. palm up or palm down; that would be kind of creepy. As Zippy is wont to remind people, the meanings of visible words depend on some things that are not visible at the time. In the case I brought up, it’s easy to see that the invisible includes the word or idea of “side”: not “right hand” by itself, but more like “right hand side”, probably. I’m not adding to the words, I’m rightly dividing, btw. In this case, it’s more amusing exercise than usual since, As We Know From Other Words, Jesus is the only bodily, er, embodiment of God, so that to the extent God has a hand or a right hand or a right hand side, then it’s in Jesus anyway, so “right hand” is undoubtedly more purely figurative of “right hand guy” authority than anything to do with geometrical arrangements.

    You ask about washing in the word in Eph 5:26. As others here have said, what that verse literally says about washing, along with the end of 5:25 is that Jesus had to give Himself for the Church in so that the “washing of water by the word” would be sanctifying and cleansing. It seems to me as clear as anything that Paul means that performing Baptism (washing of water) the Biblical way (by the word) is efficacized (my spell checker hate me) because of Jesus giving Himself (Paul interprets his own meaning in verse 2 “hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God”). Otherwise, baptism would just be people getting wet, without power or authority.

  276. jf12 says:

    Casey prognosticates “She will inevitably end up in the ashcan of dating…..in her late 40′s, early 50′s”. I seem to remember our betting pool here (it was at Dalrock’s, wasn’t it?) fixating on early 2015 for Leif to have found him a new gal. I tend to think Jenny will dally around with the few cute guys willing to give her a whirl only until that time, i.e. early 2015, and then by the time she is in her late 40s she will retrospectively realize she has been a cat lady already for 15 years when her original cats, who were kittens then, are dying of old age.

  277. You rail against this woman for saying that Jesus loves her and if she’s good enough for Jesus etc etc, but what’s wrong with that?

    I explained what’s wrong with that in a previous comment. It’s entirely unscriptural, and pretty much the antithesis of what Christianity is about. Yes, Jesus loves us, and yes, His mercy and love are infinite. But so is His justice. Christ himself commanded us to be perfect, as His Father in Heaven is perfect. He also gives us the grace necessary to do that, so when we fall short it’s on us. So unless you’re perfect, you’re not “good enough.”

    Or put it this way: yes, we’re “good enough” for Jesus to love us, because He loves us unconditionally. But “good enough” to get into Heaven and avoid eternal damnation? Ah, that’s different.

  278. hurting says:

    HawkandRock says:
    March 27, 2014 at 5:19 am

    Damn. Was just speaking with a friend who’s entering the divorce grinder who was looking for some advice. I told him that just when you think you’ve got it bad, you’ll hear about someone who has it worse.

    My condolences.

  279. aaronthejust says:

    More favourites from JE on Twitter.

    JE finds her SMV match:
    “No, 62-year-old emailing me on a dating site … Just no.”

    JE is on Tinder, too.

  280. Badpainter says:

    Elspeth & jf12,

    Thanks. I do understand what is meant by in context. However, my confusion arises from turning a figure of speech into an action, which is clearly called for in this case. I’m still unclear on that but I’ll figure it out.

    As well it seems that the extremes of scriptural interpretation make marriage a very bad idea as a practical matter. On the one end it’s potentially a sort of inescapable misery based on an all or nothing bet. On the other end it’s a vaporous and temporary arrangement easily discarded at whim. Makes life in a monastery seem like an exceptionally good choice at either extreme.

  281. jf12 says:

    @aaron, as a 62-year-old man, the very first hour I met a 32 year old woman, a cute high school science teacher I hit it off with, she began removing all of her clothing because she thought that was what I wanted.

  282. Casey says:

    @ jf12

    No, jf12, that is what SHE wanted.

  283. HawkandRock says:

    @ hurting “Damn. Was just speaking with a friend who’s entering the divorce grinder who was looking for some advice. I told him that just when you think you’ve got it bad, you’ll hear about someone who has it worse. My condolences.”

    My point was poorly made, I think. It wasn’t to say “poor me”. I personally know better men than myself who have it worse than I do.

    My intent was simply to poke fun at: (1) the prevalence of the female imperative — i.e., men, your only guarantee is this day, nothing more (and maybe not even that); women, you are guaranteed a standard of living for the rest of your life at your ex’s expense); and (2) the sheer idiocy of rich celebrities trying to bestow their enlightened world view on the rest of us benighted, unwashed slobs.

    Of course, Gweneth and her husband can hold these groovy views. It costs them absolutely nothing to do so. If they are divorced, their lifestyle and the lifestyle of their children will not be impacted at all because they are rich, famous, talented and well connected.

    Divorce to some middle class schlub like me, however, is financially devastating. This is not hyperbole. Forget emotionally…. financially it is like a bomb went off. It is literally something that I will never be able to recover from the rest of my life (barring winning the lotto). The lifestyle of my children has been drastically altered. No private school. Fewer activities. Limited college choices….etc. The list goes on and on.

    I don’t begrudge anyone their success, it’s just crazy to think that their world-view and choices should apply to people living in such radically different circumstances.

  284. Lyn87 says:

    My travel schedule since the holiday season has been horrendous, but it’s finally on the verge of slacking off. Consequently, I’ve had time to lurk a bit but only had the time or inclination to comment sporadically. But I have to echo what others have said about JE: she is a red-pill gold mine – the gift that keeps on giving. She is the Energizer Bunny of reasons to ignore guys like Marc Driscoll.

    The conversation and analysis in this thread is great, and I give special props to Martel: Dude, you are on FIRE!

    As for Lief – I don’t know… Even in the bluest of my blue-pill beta-orbiter days I’m not sure I would have bought into JE’s bull-crap. It’s one thing to know that a woman has a past – it’s another thing to propose to her on the rebound after she’s cried on your shoulder because the bad-boy she was screwing moved on to the next piece of tail. Hint: if she’s crying that he’s gone, it’s because she wishes that he was still there. In my single days I only even considered pairing off with one woman who I knew had a past… and in her case it was one guy, it was years prior, she was profoundly ashamed of it, she had been chaste since then, and even then it took a literal Divine revelation (that “still, small voice” smacked me upside the head like a mallet). I ended up not marrying her, but it was a valuable lesson about redemption all the same. None of those conditions were true for Leif – he just bought into the “born-again virgin” hype, lit up the White Knight Crack Pipe, and put a ring on a slut’s finger. His youthful lack of awareness of the nature of women is probably the fault of his parents and the culture he grew up in – his lack of discernment in marrying a woman like JE may be another matter.

  285. Casey says:

    @ Lyn87

    I’ll go you one better………J.E. is the Energizer Fuck-Bunny.

  286. It’s one thing to know that a woman has a past – it’s another thing to propose to her on the rebound

    I don’t think it’s clear how long it was between her crying about a lost alpha and his proposal. She just said he’d been her best friend (emotional tampon) for a while, then at some point they were watching a movie together and he kissed her, and proposed during the ensuing make-out session.

    So no, even in my blue-pill days I wouldn’t have proposed to a woman while she was still sniffling from a breakup. But if she cried to me about the breakup, and then started spending more time with me and talking about how she’d learned her lesson about jerks and seemed to be over him….yeah, I would have bought that easily enough and eventually proposed if things seemed good. I know that because that’s pretty much what I did once, and in hindsight it went just as well as we here would expect it to go.

  287. Sisyphean says:

    @Elspeth I love this comment about the homeschooling mom because it very well could describe my wife and our relationship. We homeschool and she often talks so well about me and my brains/talent/leadership of our home that it pisses off her divorced and feminist friends. I do indeed keep my wife around for the entertainment and companionship value, largely because she’s fun to be around. Even though I’m not religious I made the conscious choice when I was looking for a woman to date back in my 20’s that I wanted someone who was family centered, loyal, and fun to be with. She’s still like that in her 40’s and I’m not looking for the escape hatch.

    ~S

  288. earl says:

    “JE is on Tinder, too.”

    There’s a lot of men that need fixing on that too.

  289. earl says:

    In case you didn’t see the “retort” to what Dalrock proposed….

    Why are these douches are so obsessed with my girly parts? They probably don't even know what a vagina looks like. http://t.co/s5Z9max6AO— Jenny Erikson (@JennyErikson) March 25, 2014

    That’s not exactly denying what Dalrock proposed. Insults and saying you are sexually worthless are usually the first things thrown out when you get close to the truth of the matter.

  290. jf12 says:

    @earl, even with 459 channels, people will say there’s nothing on. There is a paradox of choice, but it’s mostly a paradox of desire. And it’s not because the desire is not focused enough, it’s because there simply isn’t enough desire.

  291. earl says:

    This isn’t saying something like that. This is an accusation about alleged promiscuity towards a woman…which is probably one of the worst things you can accuse her of. One would think if that is false she’d be shouting how much she can prove it.

  292. jf12 says:

    Hmm. When complaining that someone doesn’t want to go all in, it seems obvious that that complaint centers around that person going just a little ways in, instead of not going in at all.

  293. jf12 says:

    Yes, but “There’s a lot of men that need fixing on that too.” either means “I have a lot of work to do” or “I have too much work to do” or “I don’t feel like doing any work at all.”

  294. John Night says:

    > She even claims some (again, how many guys can you “date” in 3 months?) were “closeted gays,” as if that’s common. That’s probably what she calls the ones who were too gentlemanly and she couldn’t find anything else wrong with them except that they didn’t try to bed her the first night.

    Because the man she wants does not exist!

    She wants a guy who is good at pick up, who will sweep her off her feet in a whirlwind romance, bed her on the first night AND THEN that man will fall on his knee and propose marriage and commitment. She wants that alpha who will find his beta side on his own, having been enchanted by her feminine spell. A cad-dad.

    These things do not coexist in one man.

  295. @ Badpainter

    I have a question for the biblical literalists here.

    How does someone “wash” someone in the word?

    Yes, I know that seems willfully obtuse. However, words mean things and I am curious how the literalist understands the word “wash” in that context. I think at best this is a figure of speech. If so does that not create a situation wherein the scriptures are subject to some interpretation as being less than perfectly literal?

    http://deepstrength.wordpress.com/2014/03/05/husbands-win-their-wives-with-words/

    In any case, whether husbands will win their wives with words is up to God working through them and the choice of the wife in question.

    The wife will always have a choice to submit to rebel even if God does miracles in front of her through the husband.

  296. Also, refer to James 3 and the tongue for what it means to “wash” with words (rhema).

  297. Dear HawkandRock,

    Rather than reclaiming the legal system, home, church, and university with the spirit of the Great Books for Men, Dalrock advocates that you simply must “learn game,” (or should have learned game!) so as to better serve your wife’s butt and gina tingslslzoozzlo. Dalrock advocates this while his legions of followers deconstruct and dismiss the Great Books and Classics, teaching that Jesus came to abolish the law of Moses, while preaching that Game is superior to Homer and Honor, and telling all that Marcuse and the Frankfurt School are the true fathers of Christ.

    Have sympathy with Dalrock, for were he to do otherwise, he would never, never receive another instalanche again.

  298. Highwasp says:

    Churchian Heresy 101 ~ thou shall not criticize the women – ever!

    well …it seems a backlash of sorts is beginning to appear as one pastor is preaching for women to be silent so they can learn… and presented by a “Friendly Atheist” no less! Spreading the Red Pill in the comments section at the link below is like killing two birds with one stone… Atheists and Feminists, bashing Men and Christianity with a only a few courageous men (Christian and Otherwise) of Red Pill persuasion, pointing out the obvious to the oblivious! A ‘target rich environment’ if ever there were one:

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/03/24/christian-pastor-women-shouldnt-even-say-amen-in-church/

  299. jf12 says:

    Bury her in the bath of, drown her in the flood of, word. yeah, but. The washing is “washing of water”, not “washing of word”.

  300. I hope Leif doesn’t find a girl. I hope he realizes that he has responsibilities to God first and decides to stay (civilly) unmarried as an example to his children.

    I’m a Catholic, but even if I wasn’t it seems the divorce was not for adultery. Therefore, even for Leif, remarriage should be off the table.

    It sucks for him, but you know what? Nobody said being a Christian would be easy.

  301. Anonymous Reader says:

    JE finds her SMV match:
    “No, 62-year-old emailing me on a dating site … Just no.”

    Nah, that’s not her SMV match. At the age of 32, she should be looking only at men aged 50 and below…

  302. Some Guy says:

    “When the beloved object has lain for five years in a gutter, and has been drenched through, no one cares to know her again on meeting her in a dust-bin.”

    http://hca.gilead.org.il/top_ball.html

  303. Dalrock says:

    @Anon 71

    The current heresy in Churchianity is that effective male leadership initiates effective female submission.

    Yes. I certainly haven’t found any Scripture to back this up. Submission is the role of a faithful Christian wife. 1 Pet 3 makes it clear that this is her role even if her husband isn’t following the word.

    But you come close to making the same error on the other side:

    Why? Pretty much for the same reason most Churchian heretics refuse to note where it makes it clear that male leadership can only happen after women submit.

    I think you mean this from a practical perspective, that if the husband is faithful to his role in headship but the wife won’t submit she isn’t following his leadership.

    But others would take this the other way, that he can only be faithful to his role after she submits. There seems to be a great desire to put an order to these two obligations which Scripture doesn’t include. Neither one triggers the other. Instead, we have a ritual which signals when each must start honoring the biblical roles of husband and wife. Husbands have one obligation, and wives have another. The two are mirror images of the other, which gives us the elegant symmetry of wives being instructed to win their husbands (to Christ) “without a word”, while husbands are instructed to wash their wives with the water of the word.

  304. Katie says:

    I did a search on one of her posts regarding excommunication for the words “abuse” and “adultery.” I could not pull up either. What is her reason for leaving her husband, and if she has none, how dare she posture as someone who just loves Jesus so much? What about loving her husband?

    Yes, there are other extenuating circumstances. Drug abuse. Abuse of children. Alcohol abuse. Still, I found it odd that “abuse” didn’t pop up at all.

    In the rare cases where you have a compelling moral reason to get out, yet you prefer not to discuss your spouse’s behavior (and are able to hold to that), might be best not to blog about the divorce, either.

    I feel sorry for her husband.

  305. jf12, sure.

    Also, refer to James 3 and the tongue for what it means to “wash” with the water of words (rhema).

  306. jf12 says:

    @DeepStrength, well, James 3, and all of James, is mostly directed at church leaders (yes, husbands should lead wives), and doesn’t talking about washing (and certainly doesn’t advise multiplying such words “Be not many masters”) but instead talks about reining in wordship for the purpose of better directing. Less is more.

  307. MarcusD says:

    Speaking of the word “adultery” and JE, here’s a comment I found on her site:

    Proud: Dig a little deeper: Our Lord said, Mt. 5:32 “But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality. . . ” ( ESV); “sexual immorality” comes from “πορνείας” (BGT).
    Look up πορνείας. Here is one good definition:
    πορνεία, ας, ἡ unchastity, prostitution, fornication, various kinds of unlawful sexual intercourse.
    Now, you can continue to translate that as “only adultery” if you want, but that doesn’t mean everybody has to see it that way, and many conservative Churches do not.
    A better understanding of what Jesus was talking about is prohibited conduct that causes a break in the “one flesh” description of marriage (e.g. Mt. 19:6 “So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together let not man separate.”)

    I can think of a few things that would separate this holy unity, other than the act of the husband cheating with another woman.

    Was anything ever investigated? Of course not, because of the terrible haste and anger of her church.

    They totally failed her, and her children.

    That silly comment can be found here: http://www.jennyerikson.com/2013/10/14/i-am-as-a-gentile-tax-collector-aka-i-was-ex-communicated-today/comment-page-2/#comment-469659

  308. Katie, she doesn’t have a reason. I’m confident that, with the beating she’s taken over this, if Leif had done something wrong she’d say so. She can pretend she’s protecting their privacy and being noble by not airing their “dirty laundry,” but that wouldn’t stop her from saying, “Yes, there were valid scriptural reasons for me to divorce him, but I’m not going to talk about them.” Besides, as she herself says, talking about her personal life is what she does. Suddenly getting antsy about privacy is out of character.

    It’s not hard to read between the lines, though. She says he was a great dad. She says it wasn’t any one event, but a “death by a thousand cuts.” She says he thought everything was fine, which means he wasn’t out having affairs, and he probably didn’t have a porn habit — a guy who’s resorting to porn doesn’t think his marriage is fine.

    So it’s the usual story (and the reason I say she’s completely typical): she got bored with him, which made her unhappy in the marriage; and the unhappier she got, the more the little things bothered her. By the end, things like the way he chewed his food or sat in his chair probably drove her crazy. (By the way, in her articles on their last couple anniversaries before the divorce, you can see this starting to show through. Her attitude comes across as, “Yeah, I did kinda settle for him, but I’m happy anyway!”) She’s clearly a woman who craves excitement and attention and thinks she deserves it (from Jesus, even!), and he gave her comfort and security and devotion. Oops.

  309. Bike Bubba says:

    To those who assert that there is real doubt about whether Ephesians 5:23-26 tells husbands to teach their wives the Scriptures; why is it there, then? Now we can, as anon age 71 notes, be like the churches that ignore Scripture when it says “do not be drunk with wine” (Ephesians 5:18) or “whoever divorces his wife for any reason except for sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery”.

    That said, would you buy a used car from someone for whom words mean so little–someone who would claim that the Bible is the very Word of God, and then cannot bring himself to obey its most obvious teachings? I wouldn’t. They’d treat the legal contract the same way, wouldn’t they?

    Regarding Ephesians 5:23-6, what’s clear is that a husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the Church–and then Paul gives a list of ways Christ loved the Church. And so logically we would infer that husbands are in some way bound to do these things–unless, of course, we are in the category of “sleazy used car salesmen”. (no offense to sleazy used car salesmen intended–treating the Word of God like this is a far greater offense, of course)

    We can start with the premiss that a lot of this is metaphorical language, as Christ does not appear to call all husbands to crucifixion. OK, so love like that would imply a love unto death–willing to give up all (including nights out dancing or playing video games) for one’s wife. Going further, the Christ sanctifies and cleanses his Church–His Bride (see Revelation)–by the washing of water by the word. And I would argue that a husband is to do exactly what Calvin and Luther did for their wives–metaphorically cleanse and sanctify their wives in a similar way to that which Christ did.

    OK, so how did He do this? OK, He lived, healed, taught, and died for us. He gave us the ordinances of immersion and the Lord’s Supper to keep. He gave us the letters of Paul, Peter, John, Jude, James, and Hebrews. He gave us the church to come before Him in singing, teaching of the Word, prayer, and more.

    OK, sounds like we know what to do if only we will. And for those who think that the fathers of the Reformation didn’t know anything about the Gospel–well, I’m afraid you’ve said more about yourself than about Calvin, Luther, and others.

  310. Yup, that’s the point. Take it context.

    Direct wives back on the right path with rhema word — Spirit inspired utterances/words to lead them from focusing on the flesh to spiritual Truth… much like baptism is a symbolism of death and new life.

    The wife may not accept and change, but the headship and witness is there.

  311. Elspeth says:

    You know Bike, I think you’re on to something but I would add a caveat. When I said my husband doesn’t quote Scripture at me in a corrective way, that was not meant to imply that we don’t discuss/read Scripture. That happens here, but the whole “You’re wrong and here’s why right here in the Bible” type of stuff? No, he doesn’t do that.

    Mainly because when I irritate him Scripture is hardly the first thing that occurs to him, but also because the time to prepare for “war” is during peace time, not in the heat of a disagreement. By the time that happens, there should be enough word in your wife (or your older children for that matter) that using the Bible as a battering ram is unnecessary.

  312. theasdgamer says:

    @Bubba

    “To those who assert that there is real doubt about whether Ephesians 5:23-26 tells husbands to teach their wives the Scriptures; why is it there, then?”

    Already explained that before.

    Ephesians 5:22-24 is directed at the wives (oops, Bubba applies it to the husbands!)
    Ephesians 5:25a is directed at the husbands
    Ephesians 5:25b-27 describes how thoroughly and completely Christ loved the church
    Ephesians 5:28-30 is directed at the husbands
    Ephesians 5:31-32 describes a mystery about Christ’s relationship to the church
    Ephesians 5:33a is directed at the husbands
    Ephesians 5:33b is directed at the wives

    Was that really so hard?

  313. MarcusD says:

    @Cail

    Katie, she doesn’t have a reason. I’m confident that, with the beating she’s taken over this, if Leif had done something wrong she’d say so. She can pretend she’s protecting their privacy and being noble by not airing their “dirty laundry,” but that wouldn’t stop her from saying, “Yes, there were valid scriptural reasons for me to divorce him, but I’m not going to talk about them.” Besides, as she herself says, talking about her personal life is what she does. Suddenly getting antsy about privacy is out of character.

    Part of me wonders if she’s doing that in order to let people’s imaginations ‘fill in the blanks’ with valid reasons.

  314. theasdgamer says:

    @jf12

    “Bury her in the bath of, drown her in the flood of, word. yeah, but. The washing is “washing of water”, not “washing of word”.”

    Dude, you’re getting all picky and stuff, actually reading what the text says.

  315. Bike Bubba says:

    Elspeth: :^) Let it be said that, just as Peter’s preaching differed markedly from that of Paul’s, one husband’s washing of his wife may differ markedly from another’s. The key issue is whether it’s happening, and I write primarily to those who not only admit that it is not happening at all, but add to this by denying that the principle ought to apply for a believing man today.

    It’s also worth noting that a few of those I’ve been disagreeing with are more or less admitting that not only are they not performing the duty spoken of in Ephesians 5–and I concede that it’s a little bit of exegetical/hermeneutic work to get there–but also are most familiar with churches where far more obvious commands like “do not be drunk with wine” are ignored. In other words, the tragedy of “frivorce” appears to be somewhat, or even strongly, linked with theological liberalism–in a nutshell, the idea that the commands of Scripture, especially those of the Epistles, are not eternal, but rather are culturally derived.

  316. theasdgamer says:

    I’m still trying to figure out why GBFM ™ thinks that the Law of Moses is applicable since there’s no Jewish theocracy anywhere in the world. And it certainly never applied to gentiles anyway.

  317. Bike Bubba says:

    Adsgamer, swing and a miss again. For starters, verses 26 and 27 are part of the same sentence as verse 25 (in both the original Greek and the English). Are we to assume that Paul changes the subject mid-sentence?

    No, verses 26 and 27 are subordinate clauses modifying (further describing) verse 25, and this is reiterated in verse 28. It’s all about the same thing; giving the husband a verbal picture of how he is to love his wife.

    And really, let’s get down to brass tacks; a husband ought to be ready to be crucified for his wife, but won’t help her learn the Scriptures and grow in Christ? That is, effectively, what you are arguing; that somehow a husband will be willing to die for his wife, but cannot be bothered to stay home from the dance hall a few times per week to help her grow in Christ.

    The very idea is nonsense.

  318. Bike Bubba says:

    I’m still trying to figure out why GBFM ™ thinks that the Law of Moses is applicable since there’s no Jewish theocracy anywhere in the world. And it certainly never applied to gentiles anyway.

    Yeah, it’s not like Jesus quotes it when He is dealing with the Devil in Matthew 5, or cites it repeatedly in His interactions with the Pharisees. It’s not like Paul uses it often in the epistles, or an entire book of the New Testament called “Hebrews” builds extensively from it. Except that this is exactly the case.

    Adsgamer, I’ve got a hint for you. If this is the best you can do with the Torah, I’m going to suggest that you would do better to read Calvin and Luther instead of suggesting they don’t understand the Gospel. Or, for that matter, try reading the New Testament, and look up those middle/foot notes and see what Jesus, Paul, and others are quoting.

  319. hurting says:

    HawkandRock says:
    March 27, 2014 at 8:38 am

    The world needs to hear your story (and mine; I suspect we are travelling a similar path). You are absolutely right about the practical devastation of divorce. It’s been discussed here before that the middle class is really the segment that feels the financial strain of divorce; the poor don’t have much to lose anyway and the rich can absorb, at least from the a number of angles. Believe me, I truly understand the very real life changes that accompany divorce (e.g., paying for private school with retirement account liquidation; no meaningful ability to help my sons with college, retirement will be deferred by at least ten years).

    Co-signing your view of the idiocy of celebrities (and professional athletes, generally).

  320. theasdgamer says:

    @Bubba

    “Yeah, it’s not like Jesus quotes it when He is dealing with the Devil in Matthew 5, or cites it repeatedly in His interactions with the Pharisees.”

    Was Judea a theocracy in Jesus’ time? Is the United States a mosaic theocracy? Or even Israel today?

    “It’s not like Paul uses it often in the epistles”

    Ah, but how did Paul use it? Did Paul say that gentiles should follow it? (Hint: was Paul for or against circumcising gentiles, generally speaking?)

    “an entire book of the New Testament called “Hebrews” builds extensively from it”

    Sure, Hebrews is all about getting people to follow the law of Moses, good point. Except that it’s not.

    “I’m going to suggest that you would do better to read Calvin and Luther instead of suggesting they don’t understand the Gospel.”

    I have read them in the past and they really don’t get it. D. A. Carson knows which elements are part of the gospel, but he’s still very confused.

    Let’s see if you get it. Where is the gospel defined? Let’s start with that question. (By “gospel” I mean the primary message that produces salvation when it is believed. “Gospel” has several different meanings in the NT.)

    Consider that I am autistic (we autists tend to be thorough about our obsessions) and not a dilettante and have studied this thoroughly in great depth over almost three decades and have even learned Koine greek as part of my studies.

  321. jf12 says:

    Re: washing and water. Another ordinance that springs up is the Mandatum and foot-washing in John 13. How many times have ye washed your spouses’ feet?

  322. MarcusD says:

    O/T, but related in a more general sense.

  323. jf12 says:

    Yes, crucifixion. I think that of all things listed in Ephesians 5:25-27 illustrating how the husband should love, the “gave himself” is the most literal. Everything else, sanctification, cleansing, washing of water by the word, present it glorious, without pimples, etc. is figurative, exampling aspects of the purpose of him giving himself. Anyone who thinks otherwise ought to go drag their wife out to the backyard and hose the slime off as soon as possible.

  324. feeriker says:

    Margaret said Am Irish by ethnicity.

    Aha, I KNEW it! That would explain the aversion to sugarcoating! (The sugar-free versions are tastier, by the way, so keep doling them out!)

  325. Bike Bubba says:

    Well, you’re thorough all right….thoroughly wrong, and incapable of reading a simple sentence for clarity, it appears. You asked why GBFM, whoever they are, thinks that the law of Moses is applicable. Hence, I gave clear evidence that in the New Testament, it is exactly that.

    Your error, and it is a very big one, is to assume that one requires a theocracy in order to apply the Law of Moses. The clear testimony of the New Testament is that it does not, otherwise Christ, Paul, and others would not have brought the matter up. If a theocracy is required to use the Law, it’s the rebuke to the Pharisees exactly why?

    And the Gospel? In a nutshell, Romans 3:23-4; we are all sinners worthy of Hell (Romans 6:23), and are freely justified by Christ.

    BTW, visited your site, and it appears that you are in some need of the wisdom “flee from fornication” Paul speaks of in 1 Cor. 6:18. You openly brag (or perhaps lie) about your sexual conquests, and you presume to lecture D.A. Carson on his understanding of the Gospel? D.A. Carson, reformed theologian with affinity for the Reformed (therefore Calvin) and Lutheran (therefore Luther) positions, and whose partners in ministry include John Piper?

    Sorry, but you are going past heresy into incoherence, sir.

  326. feeriker says:

    H&R: The lifestyle of my children has been drastically altered. No private school. Fewer activities. Limited college choices….etc. The list goes on and on.

    I hope and pray that when your children come of age (if they’re not already there) that they realize that the blame for all of these privations can be laid squarely at their mother’s feet.

  327. Bike Bubba says:

    My last comment is, by the way, addressed to “theadsgamer”. I am noticing another interesting correlation; when I can check on the personal sites of those who accuse mainstream evangelical leaders of heresy, I find verbal or visual smut.

  328. JDG says:

    Dalrock says:
    March 27, 2014 at 11:36 am

    I thought what Dalrock wrote was spot on.

    Then from Bike Bubba:
    willing to give up all (including nights out dancing or playing video games) for one’s wife.

    I look at this type of thing as giving up all to follow Christ. I don’t give up or give in because my wife wants this or doesn’t want that. I look at what she needs, what our marriage needs, and what our family needs and go from there. I often (but not always) get her view before making a decision, but then I decide.

    We both have an understanding that the husband has the final say, and that understanding is based on scripture. Then there is the promptings from God’s Holy Spirit which makes all the difference.

    Here is the passage that is being disputed above:
    25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. 28 In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.

    Verse 28 does say that husbands should love their wives “in the same way”. To my ears this seems to include washing her with the word of God. It also seems pretty clear elsewhere that the wife is to submit to her husband whether or not he is a good husband.

  329. theasdgamer says:

    “And the Gospel? In a nutshell, Romans 3:23-4″

    Nope. Try 1 Corinthians 15:1-11.

  330. theasdgamer says:

    @Bike Bubba

    “Your error, and it is a very big one, is to assume that one requires a theocracy in order to apply the Law of Moses.”

    The Law of Moses specifies that the priests are to do certain things, including judging criminals accused under the Law of Moses. So how exactly do you have levitical priests without a theocracy?

  331. theasdgamer says:

    @Bike Bubba

    “You openly brag (or perhaps lie) about your sexual conquests”

    Nothing to be proud of. It was an example of using Game. Happened before I became a Christian. It’s not exactly something that a guy can undo, either. It does give a bit of credibility to my statements about Game.

  332. Dalrock says:

    @JDG

    It also seems pretty clear elsewhere that the wife is to submit to her husband whether or not he is a good husband.

    Yes. It isn’t just that 1 Pet 3 says wives should submit even to husbands who don’t follow the word, but why we are told wives should submit to their husbands. 1 Pet 3 says that wives who are faithful in this way might lead their husband to Christ, and that a woman with a gentle and quiet spirit is precious in the sight of God. Titus 2 tells us that wives should be “obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed”.

  333. Hey Dalrock,

    It’s awesome all of your chruchian frankfartian fnboyz are crucifying Jesus again and denying he came to fulfill the law of Moses.

    Please, Dalrcok, please deleted/censor this post of mine and the words of Jesus–thy will be done, Dalrockzkzkzk, and thy instalanch shall come! lzlzozozo

    http://greatbooksformen.wordpress.com/2014/02/02/dalrock-feeling-the-jealousy-of-cain-disobeys-god-moses-and-jesus-christ-and-tries-to-steal-game-from-the-great-heartistes/

    Our Lord Jesus Christ Honored The Law of Moses, which donalgraeme/dalorkca franfartain flock of fanboyz detesteth and scoffs at, considering only worthy of “brief discussion,” and only because GBFM brought it up. Well, long before da GBFM, our Lord Jesus Christ also brought it up–in these translations Jesus cites THE LAW OF MOSES directly:

    Matthew 5:17 (CEV) | In Context | Whole Chapter
    THE LAW OF MOSES
    17 Don’t suppose that I came to do away with the Law and the Prophets. I did not come to do away with them, but to give them their full meaning.
    Matthew 5:17 (ERV) | In Context | Whole Chapter
    Jesus and the Old Testament Writings
    17 “Don’t think that I have come to destroy THE LAW OF MOSES or the teaching of the prophets. I have come not to destroy their teachings but to give full meaning to them.
    Matthew 5:17 (GW) | In Context | Whole Chapter
    Jesus Fulfills the Old Testament Scriptures
    17 “Don’t ever think that I came to set aside MOSES’ Teachings or the Prophets. I didn’t come to set them aside but to make them come true.
    Matthew 5:17 (GNT) | In Context | Whole Chapter
    Teaching about the Law
    17 “Do not think that I have come to do away with THE LAW OF MOSES and the teachings of the prophets. I have not come to do away with them, but to make their teachings come true.
    Matthew 5:17 (TLB) | In Context | Whole Chapter
    17 “Don’t misunderstand why I have come—it isn’t to cancel THE LAWS OF MOSES and the warnings of the prophets. No, I came to fulfill them and to make them all come true.
    Matthew 5:17 (NOG) | In Context | Whole Chapter
    Jesus Fulfills the Old Testament Scriptures
    17 “Don’t ever think that I came to set aside MOSES’ Teachings or the Prophets. I didn’t come to set them aside but to make them come true.
    Matthew 5:17 (NCV) | In Context | Whole Chapter
    The Importance of the Law
    17 “Don’t think that I have come to destroy THE LAW OF MOSES or the teaching of the prophets. I have not come to destroy them but to bring about what they said.
    Matthew 5:17 (NLV) | In Context | Whole Chapter
    Jesus Teaches about the Law
    17 “Do not think that I have come to do away with THE LAW OF MOSES or the writings of the early preachers. I have not come to do away with them but to complete them.
    Matthew 5:17 (NLT) | In Context | Whole Chapter
    Teaching about the Law
    17 “Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish THE LAW OF MOSES or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose.

  334. jf12 says:

    Re: Eph 5:26 meaning. We seem to be disagreeing about the Greek word en (Strong’s G1722) here translated “by” in the KJV phrase “washing of water by the word.” Some of us are taking that phrase to mean “washing of water in the word”, i.e. primarily as a reference to Biblical baptism, while others have definitely staked out the position that that phrase means primarily “washing utilizing the word”, leaving out water but more importantly inserting the concept of utilization.

    In nowhere else is Strong’s G1722 translated “utilizing”, but better than discussing what’s not in the Bible we can more fruitfully discuss what is in the Bible. In this chapter alone, it is used ten other times always meaning “in”, probably since “en” is indeed that positional preposition whose defined is “in”. Maybe you don’t consider statistical or Bayesian reasoning valid. But surely you grasp appeals to context, ensamples, and to parallel formation. As well as the actual definition.

  335. jf12 says:

    I’m kind of surprised nobody has raised 1 Cor 14:35 in this context, so I will. A woman is supposed to follow their husband’s understanding of spiritual things. The only way this can happen in Christian households is if he expounds the Word unto her, but that expounding isn’t *only*, or even primarily, a washing.

  336. theasdgamer says:

    @jf12

    I think that the big exegetical question in this section is what “just as” in verse 25 means. Is Paul speaking of an example that we are to precisely and literally imitate or of an example of some other kind? As you pointed out, does verse 25 mean that the husband is to literally die for his wife? Or is the 25b-27 passage to be taken figuratively somehow? I’ve already expressed my view that this passage shows Christ’s thorough and complete love and provision for the church and that that is its point.

  337. theasdgamer says:

    @dalrock

    Interesting reference to Titus 2. I had forgotten about that. I’ve had a discussion with one of my daughters about submission v. obedience. It seems that submission is necessarily willing obedience whereas obedience alone might be done reluctantly as by a lowly slave.

  338. jf12 says:

    @theasdgamer “Or is the 25b-27 passage to be taken figuratively somehow? I’ve already expressed my view that this passage shows Christ’s thorough and complete love and provision for the church and that that is its point.” Yes. For that figurative reason, nobody is willing to argue for the notion that men are supposed be baptizing their wives in water. One thing I managed to remember is “Jesus himself baptized not” (John 4:2). Which fact seems significant in calling for men to do something “just as” Jesus didn’t do, whether figuratively or not.

  339. Bike Bubba says:

    Adsgamer, let’s deal with the website first. Genuine repentance for sin, the kind that accompanies salvation, will admit the sin, but does not dwell on the prurient details Does Scripture, for example, dwell on the physical attributes of Bathsheba or Gomer? There is a reason for this. Men who need it “spelled out” in lurid detail are simultaneously going to miss the point the Holy Spirit is making in the text. (and they’re also bad bets as husbands)

    In contrast, both your site and your comments here dwell on the prurient details–let’s just say you appear to have a fixation with breasts, just not those which happen to be attached to your wife. And then you wonder why your wife is a “shrew”.

    Duh.

    Regarding the theocracy, you appear to be a bit confused on the details and perhaps even the definition of the word. The New Testament was written under Roman rule, not Levitical, or even Davidic. So if we assume your logic, we would have to assume that….there was no time in Bible history, apart from a few brief periods under Moses and a couple of the Judges, where the Torah applied. Hint; that’s not what the Torah says.

  340. Elspeth says:

    Leif Erikson types have been around since…forever. A story I just read tonight, written in 1848.

    http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/d/dostoyevsky/white-nights/

    Perhaps Rollo has a point about how romantic most men are at heart.

  341. Novaseeker says:

    Dostoevsky had a keen insight into psychological types, and that’s one example of it there.

  342. Eliezer Ben-Yehuda says:

    >> Leif (Jenny’s ex) seems like a decent man

    “Leif” is not the name he used to record their real estate purchase, years ago.

    Peruse the California public records, folks. Jenny is real, it’s her legal name.

  343. Eliezer Ben-Yehuda says:

    >> Was Judea a theocracy in Jesus’ time?

    By the time Jesus was born, the Roman occupierss had already installed a non-Davidic, only-half-Judean guy who grew up abroad (Herod) as the stooge King.

    Aaron’s descendants were appointed to the Priesthood – but David’s were appointed as the Royal Family.

    At no time in history, ancient nor modern, did the Hebrew people live under a theocracy ( = Priests holding civil leadership). Even at the beginning, Moses was a different guy than Aaron. Same father, but different individuals. Aaron only ran the Mishkan tent; he did not administer daily life nor pass judgements.

  344. Pingback: Jenny, I Got Your Number | Alpha Is Assumed

  345. margaret59 says:

    Thanks to you all who do not think i am just a nasty old woman! Trust me, you wouldn’t like me so much if you knew me. :) I am not sooo nice, lol.

    Jenny is not my problem. I am disgusted by her attitude, but she is not my daughter, nor is she a Catholic. I do feel for Leif and the kids. God Bless them and help them..I bet it is a hard row to hoe.

    BTW, sorry to SSM and Dalrock about my (Irish) language. Trust me, neither my mam nor my da would have used my nasty language. I am just angry about what a so-called woman is using God to justify her behavior. So…sorry for my not so nice language.

  346. FuzzieWuzzie says:

    Margaret59, Whoever said you were a “nasty old woman”? Come to think of it, a few people have accused me of being a bear. Come to think of something else, being a “nasty old waman” might prove very useful in the company of a nasty old man. I am not talking about playing tiddlywinks.

  347. margaret59 says:

    Fuzzie..No, no one said I was a nasty old woman. I just thought that as I am not a young ,pretty woman, that men would consider me as a …not a woman who was worth anything.. who was important. Not able to have more children..that ship has sailed. Such is life.

  348. FuzzieWuzzie says:

    margaret59,
    I don’t feel so old and, if your user name is a clue, I have five years on you. I wish that I could say something comforting but, when self doubt overcomes me, I do something simple or watch a movie to take my mind off of it.
    It’s kind of a shame that we don’t know each other in real life. However, I do look forward to hearing what you have to say here.

  349. Here’s the thing, though: For Protestants, leaving the household and a civil marriage because of abuse of yourself or of the children is the right thing to do.

    BUT – getting remarried is not. Jesus (in the Protestant view) gave an exception for divorce ONLY for adultery, and nothing more. Even if you were abused, you cannot get remarried, because in the Christian sense you were not divorced and have no excuse for it.

    For us Catholics it’s all much clearer. You civilly divorce, then you don’t remarry till one of the two of you dies.

  350. …The relevance to that comment is really more for Leif than Jenny.

  351. theasdgamer says:

    @Bike Bubba

    “or perhaps lie”

    Let’s deal with this pussy accusation. What evidence do you have that I lied about my fling? Or perhaps don’t you realize that you are violating the commandment which prohibits bearing false witnesss? You know, one of the big 10?

  352. theasdgamer says:

    @Eliezer

    “At no time in history, ancient nor modern, did the Hebrew people live under a theocracy ( = Priests holding civil leadership).”

    So, who were the judges in the courts of Israel and Judea over their history? That is the issue. Was it the priests or not.

  353. theasdgamer says:

    @Bubba

    You’ve shown that you don’t understand the Gospel since you can’t even find where it’s defined. Let’s start with that and table the other issues. The Gospel is a much bigger deal.

  354. MarcusD says:

    The Monogamy Trap: How hard and boring it is to be faithful?
    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/04/the-monogamy-trap/358625/

    Hmmmm…

  355. 8to12 says:

    Bike Bubba says: I’m still trying to figure out why GBFM ™ thinks that the Law of Moses is applicable since there’s no Jewish theocracy anywhere in the world. And it certainly never applied to gentiles anyway.

    Yeah, it’s not like Jesus quotes it when He is dealing with the Devil in Matthew 5, or cites it repeatedly in His interactions with the Pharisees. It’s not like Paul uses it often in the epistles, or an entire book of the New Testament called “Hebrews” builds extensively from it. Except that this is exactly the case.

    The book of Hebrews was written to Christian Jews who were still trying to keep the law even though they had accepted Christ. The point of the letter is to convince them that they no longer have to keep the mosaic law, because they now have something better: Christ. The letter can be summed up by Hebrews 8:13:

    “By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.” Heb 8:13 NIV

    The old covenant did not become obsolete UNTIL Jesus died on the cross. Until that moment, everything you are reading in the 4 gospels is occurring under the old covenant and everyone (at least all the Jews) are still under the old covenant.

    Jesus was critical of the Pharisees for keep some parts of the law and ignoring others, because the Pharisees were still under the mosaic law at that time; Jesus had not died on the cross.

    When Jesus was tempted by the Devil, he was still under the mosaic law himself (being born a Jew), so there would have been no conflict with him quoting the law at that time.

  356. Elspeth says:

    Dostoevsky had a keen insight into psychological types, and that’s one example of it there.

    I agree. My daughter was the one who got me interested in reading his stuff.She’s been interested in human nature since she was far too young to care about such things. Before last night I’d read nothing of Dostoyevsky’s. I’m looking forward to reading his more well-known work.

  357. jf12 says:

    @MarcusD “Years later, she got better. As they bickered incessantly” Bickering is what women like to do, when they’re feelin fine.

  358. sunshinemary says:

    O/T
    Dalrock (or any reader) –

    I’m trying to locate an old post here in which you called on pastors to admit and repent of their role in changing biblical sexual morality and encouraging divorce. Can you (or anyone else) provide me with that link? I can’t seem to find it, and I want it for a post I’m working on.

    Thanks!

  359. sunshinemary says:

    O/T
    Okay, cancel that request. I’ve finally located the post I was looking for.

  360. Thinkn'Man says:

    When is Melvin Udall going to weigh in on all this?

  361. Looking Glass says:

    On the interactions between Bike Bubba, asdgamer and the 2 Anons, let me stretch for some Wisdom:

    Anon 71 is quite correct about the “main” issue, as most Men would understand it. There is no direct “do this, it works out” Proverb or instruction on dealing with a Wife. Not even a “spare the rod, spoil the child” instruction. This is quite important & reason the Churchian trap exists.

    But, it’s also why Paul reiterates that it’s better not to marry, if you’re able, than to marry. “More blessed”. That’s not something to skip over lightly. But, since the modern Church likes to ignore that point, we have to deal with the main topic: what to do?

    This is where Wisdom needs to take over and the reason it’s screwed up so often. Like practically all problems with Christians, this is a Faith issue. Matthew 6:33 “But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.”

    *This* is the context of “washing” from Ephesians. Your first priority is seeking God, His Power and His Righteousness. Because you can only “make things easier” for a Wife; no amount of Game, skill sets or personal Power will “change” a Wife. No, God does.

    Let me repeat that: “no amount of Game, skill sets or personal Power will “change” a Wife. No, God does.” Everyone has Free Will & Choice. In the very presence of the All Mighty, Eve rejected His authority. No one can be “made” to submit, they have to choose.

    This, however, does not make a Husband helpless. Do not put up with Sin. That’s what “love” (agapeo) will mean in that context. There are consequences, and they are to be met out in self-control. You aren’t getting something clean without scrubbing. God *is* Love, and he’s going to cast billions into Hell. “Love” as God means isn’t some happy, flappy & tingly experience. No, it’s harsh, clarifying and all-consuming as his Glory is Perfect. For Sin will be burned away. Emphasis should probably be more on the “burning” aspect than we like to think about.

    But, going back to the Churchian trap, by denying the separating & perfecting aspect of Love in the modern Church, the Christian Husband has little recourse. He’s supposed to, for all intents & purposes, “faith harder!” on a Faith that is filled with lies. It doesn’t go well because Lies don’t go well. You can’t just show up to more places and have that “work”. That’s not what God called us to do. And that is the key.

    We are called to be Holy as God is Holy. God doesn’t put up with Sin: why do we?

  362. Lyn87 says:

    malcolmthecynic says:
    March 28, 2014 at 12:27 am

    Here’s the thing, though: For Protestants, leaving the household and a civil marriage because of abuse of yourself or of the children is the right thing to do.

    BUT – getting remarried is not. Jesus (in the Protestant view) gave an exception for divorce ONLY for adultery, and nothing more. Even if you were abused, you cannot get remarried, because in the Christian sense you were not divorced and have no excuse for it.

    For us Catholics it’s all much clearer. You civilly divorce, then you don’t remarry till one of the two of you dies.

    That’s not really true on several counts. There is no Protestant hierarchy that corresponds to the RC hierarchy. So there really is no “official” Protestant position on these things. The general consensus among serious Christians is that the doctrine of “sola scriptura” should always apply: in other words, the Bible is correct and sufficiently complete, therefore anything that runs contrary to what it says (when rightly divided) is incorrect. The corollary is that there is no definitive answer (that applies in all cases) on a subject upon which scripture is silent – although it is important to understand that Biblical principles are to be used when possible in the absence of specific Biblical mandates.

    So your first statement is simply incorrect – nothing in scripture says that leaving a household and civil marriage for abuse is “the right thing to do.” Scripture is utterly silent on that topic, so there is no definitive “right” answer. Most modern-day Protestants would agree with the idea that such leaving is permissible – some of them would also agree that divorce is permissible in such cases. You are correct that any sola scriptura Protestant would agree that remarriage is not permitted in such cases, though – and for the reason that you correctly stated. As for re-marriage after a divorce brought about by the wife’s fornication – it was specifically permitted by Jesus himself (Matthew 19:9). So if my wife committed fornication I would be well within my Biblical rights to kick her to the curb and remarry, although she would not be free to remarry.*

    As for RC remarriage, you have a centuries-old extra-scriptural work-around – annulment. Let’s face it, Catholics get divorced and remarried with the blessings of the church all the time. Pretending that they were never “really” married by getting a piece of paper doesn’t change anything. It’s just a rationale – a literally paper-thin one.
    ___________________

    * I have a thought that perhaps others might chime in on. Matthew 19:9 says, “And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication (Greek word porneia), and shall marry another, committeth adultery: (Greek word moichaō) and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.”

    Porneia is a more-encompassing word, as it refers to all illicit sexual activity, including adultery. Moichaō, on the other hand, specifically means having sex with someone who is married to someone else. In modern English we tend to use “fornication” to mean “unmarried people having sex,” and “adultery” when it involves cheating on a spouse. In scripture “adultery” (moichaō – sexual sin involving someone married to someone else) is a type of “fornication” (porneia – sexual sin in general).

    It occurs to me that a man might not know that his wife was not a virgin until after the wedding night. If he finds out later, then he would be permitted to jettison her and marry again, since he discovered that his wife was guilty of porneia. According to the words of Jesus in Matt 19:9 she would be ineligible to remarry because to do so would be moichaō in particular – not just porneia in general. Words mean things, and that’s a significant distinction: she is considered to be bound in marriage (despite having been “put away”), since she had chosen to be “one flesh” with another man. The man who divorced her is under no such obligation because he was the victim of marital fraud. I would argue that the scripture would not apply in the case of a man who knew she wasn’t a virgin beforehand. (Obviously female rape victims would not be lumped in with sluts.)

    There’s nothing about a statue of limitations, either. There was a case in 2011 of a 99-year-old Italian man divorcing the woman he had been married to for 77 years when he discovered some old letters of hers from the 1940’s that proved she had had an affair in their first decade of marriage. Good for him.

    Story here – http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2011/12/man-99-divorcing-wife-of-77-years-over-her-1940s-affair/1#.UzWFdoVk

  363. Looking Glass says:

    @Lyn87:

    Luke 16:18 tends to make the context of Matthew a bit clearer for most people and cleans up a lot of the attempts at wiggle room. Jewish “engagement” customs were, as we’d understand it, “legally” binding. So if she was unchaste but you’ve agreed to the Marriage without the knowledge, you’re not consigning your Soul to Hell for “putting her away”. (Which generally means sending her back to her Father, something normally forgotten)

    Also see Joseph being called a “just” Man for seeking to put Mary away quietly. Which actually goes perfectly with what the Prophets were repeatably explaining Israel’s major problem: harlotry. The Lord “hates” divorce. And he “divorced” Israel for her harlotry. Something to always to keep in mind.

  364. Anonymous age 71 says:

    The second time this week I agree with Man-Fault-Bubba on something. The other time was on Captain Capitalism.

    Here, he has pointed out how disgusting it is that divorced men presume to tell us how to have a good marriage. Right on, Bubba.

    There is only one group of people who know less about how to be married than divorced men. They are married men who have never been divorced.

    They believe they can analyze their own marriage and tell you what they did while looking for a wife, and how they conduct themselves in their marriage. And, they conclude that is why they aren’t divorced.

    In truth, in the Anglosphere today, there is only one certain reason a given man isn’t divorced. His wife has not (yet) chosen to toss him out. Period!

    Doctors have said the only reason everyone doesn’t die of cancer is they die of something else first. True. Likewise, if men were to live long enough, all men would end up divorced eventually in our sick society.

    Anyone who thinks differently is seriously deluded. Please carry on.

    There are two good reasons for this.

    First, we humans, male and female, aren’t real adept at analyzing ourselves. We think we understand ourselves, and yet have no real clue. So, our opinions on the wonderful things we did to make our marriage successful (i.e. not YET divorced) may not be connected with reality.

    Second, men exaggerate their ability to control their wives. Only a divorced man can began to grasp how little control he had in his marriage. Women call the shots, and the Bible says so, for those who actually read it all. Men can only be leaders with their wives permission, which is why the Bible says for wives to submit to their husbands, not for the husbands to lead. Males were designed that when a wife submits, the husband becomes motivated to lead.

    I have consistently referred y’all to ME? OBEY HIM? by Elizabeth Handford. She not only explains the Bible on this issue, but she also makes it clear that both men and women do better with female submission, and why this is so. She gives a number of stories how women submitting induced their husbands to become leaders, whereas nagging and bossing as infinitum ad nauseum does not.

    I am going to tell a true story on my own arrogance in imagining I knew a lot about divorce. I learned early in the counseling work I did that most men think they are SPECIAL AND DIFFERENT. I knew this like I knew how to find my nether region with both hands. It is a basic human function of men.

    Yet, I imagined that I really was special and different, because of my extensive counseling work and activism.

    One day while looking around my section of high-tech technicians, it came over me that if we wrote the life story of each man on a paper, and crossed out no more than one or two lines for each one, INCLUDING MYSELF, we couldn’t tell them apart. INCLUDING MYSELF.

    I was one shamed and embarrassed individual, I tell you.

    I finally realized we men can’t even analyze our own marriages, ourselves in general. The only way we can learn to understand ourselves is to observe the men around us. watch them, study them, try to understand them. Once we learn to understand the men around us, we then can understand almost everything we have learned applies to ourselves. And, I guarantee you, the truth is not pretty. Not for thee; not for me.

    I have been married for nearly 38 years. I worked hard at my marriage and at being a father. Yet, the only reason I am still married has nothing to do with my hard work. A lot of divorced men worked hard at their marriage. WOMEN HAVE FREE WILL. Eve lived with God Himself as her personal spiritual leader and teacher. Yet, she ate the apple. And, you think your simplistic ideas on being a good husband are why your wife hasn’t left you (yet). Hee, hee.

  365. Anonymous age 71 says:

    A reminder that JE stayed married until she passed the ten year threshold for life time alimony.

  366. theasdgamer says:

    @ age 71

    Hear, hear. MMSL and the orthosphere not excepted.

  367. Elspeth says:

    @ Anon71:

    I see the point you’re trying to make. The reality is that none of us are God, and none of us has any guarantee that our mates aren’t going to decide one day to up and leave. That’s been true for just about everyone in the age of no-fault divorce. Control is an illusion. An intoxicating one, but an illusion nonetheless.

    That said, it’s silly to insist that there is no way for a man (or a woman) to have any inkling of the character of their mate. You seriously don’t think Leif Erikson received no signs that his wife had checked out of the marriage? Of course he did. Sometimes people get blindsided, but not most times. The signs that something is wrong are usually there if they dare to look.

    The idea that a person just *thinks* they have a happy marriage and then one day their spouse just springs it on them that it’s over may be something that happens on occasion, but I really don’t believe it’s the norm.

  368. Lyn87 says:

    A71,

    I beg to differ. And so does the Apostle Paul. Here’s why: your statement contradicts the idea behind I Timothy 3 and Titus 1 – the requirement that deacons and bishops be married men whose families are in order. Why would that be a requirement for men who would hold ecclesiastical position and counsel other men? Because they have proved – by the example of their own marriages and families – that they know what they’re talking about.

    Also, although everyone is capable of committing pretty much any sin, not everyone does commit every sin they can. For example, I cannot even begin to imagine any circumstances under which I would skin one of my cats alive (except under extreme coercion to prevent something even worse – but that sin would be on the hands of the person using the coercion, not me). Am I capable of doing such a thing? Sure… in the sense that I have a collection of fairly sharp knives and two working hands, but if I lived to be a thousand years old I would never do it. It is not true that Boomer and Duster still have their pelts because I just haven’t gotten around to vivisection yet.

    Frivorce is a sin and, like all sins, not everyone is particularly tempted to do that particular one. The sin of frivorce is tempting to a lot of women, but others are repelled by it; just as I am repelled by the idea of skinning a live cat for fun. Does that mean that it is literally impossible that – in a hundred years – my wife and I could get divorced? I suppose in the theoretical sense it is possible, just like it is possible for me to skin one of the cats sleeping on my bed right now. But then we’re stuck channeling Rebecca Watson, except that we’re all living in fear of being married to Schrödinger’s Frivorcee. My Bible tells me that prudence and caution and counsel are wise (Proverbs 14:16-26, as one example among many), but constant worry about things I can’t control is folly (http://www.biblestudytools.com/topical-verses/worry-and-anxiety-bible-verses/).

    Look: I’m not perfect, and neither is my wife, but after 26 years of marriage without raising our voices to each other in anger, it would be patently absurd to think that my wife is even remotely likely to detonate our marriage, or that my take on marital longevity is less valuable than a three-time divorcee precisely because I haven’t been though the divorce meat-grinder.

    Some guys do things right and still get the shaft… true. I imagine Lief did most of the things he was supposed to do and never gave Jenny any legitimate reason to pull the plug. But he did do something imprudent and incautious… he married a slutty alpha-widow on the rebound, fresh from another man’s bed. Had he sought out wise counsel rather than churchian platitudes, someone might have told him that marrying Jenny was a bad idea. I suppose we could cross out that one little line of his story – but that’s a pretty significant line to cross out. That’s not a detail of this story… that’s the pivot upon which the entire plot turns. And while Jenny’s sluttery did not make it inevitable that Lief would be the victim of frivorce, it certainly made it far more likely than if he had vetted his potential wives more thoroughly and rejected that one for being the unsuitable woman she was.

    I normally agree with you, but you’re wrong on this one.

  369. jf12 says:

    @Anon71, “And, I guarantee you, the truth is not pretty. Not for thee; not for me.” Keat’s words “‘Beauty is truth, truth beauty” and “Love is my religion” were written by a young man, a baby. Job 12:12 reminds us “With the ancient is wisdom; and in length of days understanding.”

  370. Anonymous Reader says:

    Elspeth
    I see the point you’re trying to make. The reality is that none of us are God, and none of us has any guarantee that our mates aren’t going to decide one day to up and leave. That’s been true for just about everyone in the age of no-fault divorce. Control is an illusion. An intoxicating one, but an illusion nonetheless.

    Just as there are women who believe that they can “fix” a man despite evidence to the contrary, there are men who believe that they can “fix” a woman. They then extend that mistake to all other men, and we wind up with the notion that a woman’s bad behavior is entirely due to failure on the part of her man – he failed to lead her correctly, he did not practice proper “headship”, he did not Game her hard enough, his “washing” was not diligent enough.

    This is just another form of pedestalization, in my view. Poor li’l wimmenz, they can’t help theyself from doin’ wrong, them menz need to do a better job of leadin’. The notion that women do not or can not have free will is pernicious and wrong. Yet it is popular within various segments of Western society.

    That said, it’s silly to insist that there is no way for a man (or a woman) to have any inkling of the character of their mate. You seriously don’t think Leif Erikson received no signs that his wife had checked out of the marriage? Of course he did. Sometimes people get blindsided, but not most times. The signs that something is wrong are usually there if they dare to look.

    Or if they know what to look for. You don’t seem to understand that generally speaking, men are blind to women in large part because we are taught to be that way – although certainly men do not do themselves any favors by denying evidence in front of their nose.

    If you look back up multiple threads on JE, I am certain you will find many comments not only observing what the warning signs were in general but in detail. It isn’t as if we are all sitting around sighing “Poor Leif! There was nothing he could do”, you know. We know what he could have done. We’ve discussed it. We’ve explained it. Why are you denying this fact?

    The idea that a person just *thinks* they have a happy marriage and then one day their spouse just springs it on them that it’s over may be something that happens on occasion, but I really don’t believe it’s the norm.

    “There is none so blind as he who will not see”. On the other hand, I don’t think you really grasp the knowledge base that Anonymous age 71 has – he walked a whole lot of men through the divorce machine, and if memory serves me the majority of those men felt blindsided to some extent, that is, they “never saw it coming”. So you are contrasting your opinion vs. the experience of hundreds of men, which one has more real-world evidence supporting it?

    So the real issue Anonymous age 71 appears to be putting forth is simple: women are responsible for their actions, just as men are, and claiming that the Bible holds men responsible for women’s actions is not supportable – not in the real world, and not in the words in the Bible either. I could be wrong, and if I am I”m sure he will correct me. That will be fine with me, I do not wish to misquote or misattribute.

  371. Lyn87 says:

    … women are responsible for their actions, just as men are, and claiming that the Bible holds men responsible for women’s actions is not supportable – not in the real world, and not in the words in the Bible either.

    Upon that I think we can all agree.

  372. hurting says:

    Anonymous Reader says:
    March 28, 2014 at 12:02 pm

    All very good points, AR. I would add that part of the blindsiding for men is how ridiculously lopsided the whole legal system is against them. There is simply no parallel in other legal spheres that compares to how targets of divorce are treated. If men knew how the rug would be pulled out from under them the way it is in family relations court, they might act differently on the front end, but this information is wilingingly withheld from them by any number of parties invested in their ignorance.

  373. Bike Bubba says:

    adsgamer; regarding my point that your blog could be either bragging about sin or lying, it’s simply a fact. You’ve bragged repeatedly, there and here, about your real or imagined sexual exploits, and it’s worth noting that this is not consistent with Biblical repentance, of turning away from sins.

    And if you’re so sure that Calvin, Luther, Spurgeon, MacArthur, and Piper don’t understand the Gospel–OK, if indeed Romans 3 does not have the Gospel (though it certainly claims to), but 1 Corinthians 15 does….exactly why would the Holy Spirit have put Romans 3 into God’s Word? Didn’t God say something about All Scripture is given by inspiration of God? I think He did. Your argument is, charitably speaking, nonsensical.

    Anon age 71, it would be absolutely true that it would be absolute folly to listen to a mere married man on the subject of marriage. That’s why I use God’s Word, which commends to us the idea that a man’s chances of fruitful, happy, marriage increase greatly when a man takes up the Biblical responsibility (1 Cor. 14:35, Ephesians 5:22-28) to use God’s Word to edify his wife. Moreover, life experience commends this; when I see a happily married man with 40, 50, or 60 years of marriage under his belt, it’s a pretty safe bet that he’s taken God’s Word seriously in this matter.

    Note here that I am not promising success to the man who does this. Rather, I am saying that doing this is a clear command of God, authenticated by the example of Christ and the Prophets, and that those who ignore this command do so at the risk of their marriages.

    Moreover, it would be even worse folly to listen to the divorced or unhappily married, as no one gets to this point without some level of sin, either on their part or that of their spouse. Put gently, the wisdom I want to hear from the divorced or unhappily married is “I brought this upon myself by…..” or “I failed to heed the signs that my spouse was…..” In other words, repentance, not a denial of the word of God like “Matthew 18 doesn’t work.”

  374. Elspeth says:

    that my take on marital longevity is less valuable than a three-time divorcee precisely because I haven’t been though the divorce meat-grinder.

    Yes. This is what I was getting at. And while I have not even an inkling of the experience Anon has dealing with men who have been through the “divorce grinder”, like almost any American over the age of 30 who hails from a large family, I have seen men I love decimated by faithless wives. Even seen one go through the devastation of cuckoldry.

    The idea that one has to have been divorced to have any sort of clue is fallacious.

  375. feeriker says:

    margaret: BTW, sorry to SSM and Dalrock about my (Irish) language. Trust me, neither my mam nor my da would have used my nasty language. I am just angry about what a so-called woman is using God to justify her behavior. So…sorry for my not so nice language.

    No need for apology. Many, many young women out there today (and more than a few older ones as well, and even a few men) could benefit from “Irish” language delivered by a woman wearing her “nasty” costume. Maybe the rarity of such today is part of the problem.

  376. Bike Bubba says:

    Anonymous reader, I’d point out that there are a few ways that a man can fail when his wife is checking out. At any point, he can fail to notice what is wrong, can fail to take action when something is wrong, or he can notice and take action, but that action is doomed because it is the wrong action. What I see with many parts of the “manosphere” is an unequivocal endorsement of taking the wrong action–using “dread game” and the threat of relationship loss–when things get difficult.

    Contrast that with God’s treatment of Israel; after 800 years of rebellion, God’s punishment is not “divorce” or permanent separation from His grace, but rather is a temporary exile to Babylon. In other words, Matthew 18, 1 Corinthians 14:35, and Ephesians 5:22-28 applied to a nation.

    And again, this does not guarantee success, nor does it excuse women for their part, as I’ve repeatedly noted before in this thread. However, it does happen to be God’s command to men, and since I am primarily talking to men here, that is what needs to be said.

  377. feeriker says:

    If men knew how the rug would be pulled out from under them the way it is in family relations court, they might act differently on the front end, but this information is wilingingly withheld from them by any number of parties invested in their ignorance.

    Many of them ARE aware of what awaits them should they be foolish enough to “put a ring on it.” Unfortunately, as was pointed out upthread, the male version of the Hamster leads to a “that’ll never happen to ME” attitude that is almost impossible to counteract with logic, even as he swims amid plenty of examples, up close and personal.

  378. hurting says:

    feeriker says:
    March 28, 2014 at 2:00 pm

    Agreed that many men may look past what even they know to be warning signs. I do think, and it’s not just my own ignorance, that few really accurately comprehend the tangible fallout from divorce. Family law jurisprudence is unlike any other.

    BTW, the red flags are really eay to spot in hindsight:).

  379. Some Guy says:

    We believe the propaganda. All those guys that we know that got divorced, we just know they were *abusive*. We believe all the stories without a hint of irony. It would never cross our mind that something like that could happen to nice guys like Leif Erickson. Gee, girls have been complaining about the bad guys as long as we can remember. We take that at face value, too. We have no concept that it’s projection or irony or misdirection.

    When we get married, we really believe it’s “forever.” We might be conditioned to think that it’s normal for women to us sex to control the marriage, but it’s a genuine shock when it gets dialed back to nearly nothing. Even then, our response is merely inarticulate rage. We’re not quite conscious of the fact that we’ve been had. Intellectually we are still sure that we are doing something wrong to bring this on ourselves.

    As our wives churn through their lists of complaints and demands, we still assume that we can negotiate our way through to some kind of compromise. Everyone told us how much compromise there’d be. I guess this is our cross…? Maybe if I don’t want to listen to my wife chew me out for an hour… maybe that means I don’t love her…?

    Only the guy that gets completely cleaned out will show up here. The average doofus will gladly play along with the most cretinous woman as long as he gets a lay once a month and is allowed to save some measure of face. They laugh about getting their kitchen pass and running the risk of ending up in the doghouse for the slightest offense. They think that taking abuse from their wives is a form of humility that can transform hearts and minds like nothing else.

    It never crosses their minds that women could be players to the extent that they are… and they never realize that their practice of 1 Pe 3 could be abominable in a man.

  380. Anonymous age 71 says:

    Dalrock says:
    March 27, 2014 at 11:36 am
    (Discussion on headship and submission)

    Actually it is possible to get caught up in an intellectual black hole, Dalrock.

    The Bible has no universal meaning to readers. It will be interpreted based on the reader’s culture, which is in most cases a result of the society he is in.

    That is the reason four Gospels were written, when you would think only one was needed. One was written for the Hebrews; one for the Greeks, etcetera. To appeal to the members of different cultures, each had to be written for, for comprehension.

    I find that most people simply do not understand what the Bible is. Even people who admit it is the True Inspired Word of God misunderstand it. This was a very hard lesson for me to learn, since I am not special and different, though I thought I was.

    They say, “IT MUST BE TRUE. IT’S IN THE BIBLE.” This confuses because while it isn’t a false statement, it is an incomplete statement.

    The whole truth about the Bible is, NOTHING IS IN THE BIBLE UNLESS IT’S TRUE. That may sound nit-picky, but the difference is critical. Nothing becomes true only because it is a mystical thing in the Bible. It only goes in the Bible if it is already true.

    So, when you look at something in the Bible which people argue about, you should understand that means their personal culture gives them a different understanding of the problem area.

    Is there a solution? Yes. Understand that True Inspired Word of God means BIBLE = REALITY.

    And, since = works both ways, that also means REALITY = BIBLE.

    So, if you encounter a disagreement with another person as to what something in the Bible means, by merely reading it and contemplating your own navel, you will know this is most likely a cultural issue.

    Now, wouldn’t you think God supplied a way to resolve these issues? Of course, He did. Stop and examine reality at length, and almost always you will resolve it. And, in some cases, you might have to do what I felt forced to do. That is, go through the entire Bible looking for a resolution to the conflict. Even then, it may take years to sort out reality, ergo Bible.

    Those who hang around Churchianity much, well know Bubba did not read the entire Bible and come up with the best verses on submission vs. leadership. Odds are very high that a heretic showed him those verses and told him they were the relevant ones. Heretics have a very strong support group, what with the help of Satan, and male ego, etc.

    In the case of whether effective male leadership can initiate effective female submission, it is a quick project.

    The Bible itself says a good woman can lead a man to Christ, but it does not say a good man can lead a harlot to Christ. That is because it simply does not happen. Some people culturally jump to the conclusion that a man can also lead women to Christ. That is our cultural EKWALATEE messing them up. The belief that men and women are really the same.

    I remember nearly ten years ago, my A’hole SIL all red in the face quoting the same verses Bubba claims settle the matter. He informed me at the top of his lungs that he lead his wife to Christ. Alas for him, she heard him, and came boiling into the room, to remind him at the top of her lungs that she was saved before he was. You simply can’t make up stuff like this, as MarkyMark says.

    The Bible also has at least three good verses on the impossibility of a husband controlling a contentious wife. Yet, the pissing contests continue on which is more effective, leadership or submission.

    Talk to your great-grandparents and you will find historically many wild young men have been brought to good behavior by marrying a good woman. But, you will find almost always when a good man, such as Lief, marries a harlot, in the end she destroys him. I suspect the Bible also says that.

    In fact, MRA boards and blogs include a large number of such failures. (By the way, does everyone know that a female jackass is called a Jenny? Check it out.)

    Dr. Laura wrote two books, TEN STUPID THINGS (MEN/WOMEN) DO. And, in the men’s book she lists men who take in junk yards assuming a Real Man can eliminate all her problems. Instead as he fixes one problem, she makes three more, like the mythological dragons who grow new heads as Prince Charming chops them off.

    For the women, by memory, it tends to be more women thinking they can stop boozing and drugs or wife beating. The difference is, in reality, a woman who makes this mistake can move on with her life. She is not permanently destroyed as Jenny is permanently destroying Lief. He will be working until he dies, no matter how old he lives.

    I can argue as to whether it was a blessing or curse to counsel over 1,600 men over the years. But, in any case, I observed a lot and learned a lot more. That is always the way with counselors, though.

    I don’t remember, ever, a man telling me that he took a harlot and turned her into a good woman. I do remember all sorts of horror stories where men thought they, the real studly men, could solve a messed-up woman’s problems. And, the resulting kids tossed into the Hell of maternal custody.

    Here, in my neighborhood in rural Mexico are two wives whose WN husbands found them in cat houses. One was an exotic dancer, and you can tell it at a distance. I call her La Diosa, and she does indeed have the body of a Goddess. A few months ago, she beat her sweet little girl almost to a pulp. Her own husband was going to have her arrested, and she took the little girl and ran off, returning only when the injuries were healed. I am confident she told people it was her husband who beat the crap out of the girl. That is what violent women do. And, stupids believe them.

    The other woman, I had thought, was a good wife. Recently, a friend told me at one point, she pimped her own niece to some guy for money.

  381. Some Guy says:

    >> The Bible itself says a good woman can lead a man to Christ, but it does not say a good man can lead a harlot to Christ. That is because it simply does not happen.

    This is a bombshell.

  382. Anonymous age 71 says:

    Elspeth says:
    March 28, 2014 at 11:18 am

    I understand you, Elspeth. However, until one has experience of divorce one does not fully understand what characteristics in a mate are important to cause divorce and what are not.

    It is easy to tell someone that “you should have known’. But, as I have pointed out, everyone who marries thinks they have screened their mate sufficiently. We humans are mortal and the only way to tell is to put your neck on the chopping block.

    As an expat, when I come back to visit, I am stunned at how the American women behave. A man whose wife is angry most of the time, well, that’s what all the women around him are like. How is he supposed to know angry is different from angry?

    It is hard to keep everyone straight, but haven’t you had serious problems early in your marriage? Just asking. I know one of the women regulars did and I cannot always keep them straight. Though that may have been SSM.

    As far as not being blindsided, I can only speak for the 1,600 men who called for help, though they involved a significant percentage of men who were divorced in my small rural city. Yes, virtually all of them were blindsided. Very seldom did they see it coming. I assume you are speaking as a woman which makes a difference. When a man got his papers, he was usually the last to know. Her family and friends and fellow workers knew months ahead of time it was coming. No one tells these men what is about to fall down on his head. And, if you do tell them, they don’t believe you.

    Things have changed, since Dalrock’s non-existent marriage strike started, around 1995. Today we have the red pill, and a lot of men are avoiding marriage because they have figured out the minute a wife wants out, nothing he does can stop her. Millions of younger men well know marriage means divorce (Divorce and Marriage go together like a horse and carriage) and kids to maternal custody and the man’s life is over. That is why they are not getting married. But, the men who do marry generally are blue pill types, and so I suspect it is still a surprise for them. After all, they are special and different!

    ###
    I have a general question for everyone. The men who come here and exude great moral superiority over everyone else, essentially claiming they know their opinions of marriage are the correct ones, because their wives have not YET divorced them. Does anyone here actually believe they treat their wives any better than their fellow man?

    I do believe Dalrock treats his wife well. Not because he says so, but because he tends to be polite and civil to everyone. I cannot say the same for a number of men on this blog who believe they are God’s gift to the world. That they are special and different.

  383. Thinkn'Man says:

    @71: “The men who come here and exude great moral superiority over everyone else”

    I think the (appearance) of “moral superiority” stems mostly from conducting oneself in an honorable way and being ignorant of the REAL operating principles of 99&44/100% of women (basically ZERO principles.) Most people expect the world to operate on the same beliefs that they have, and project good intentions onto those around them. Sadly, decent people are at a great disadvantage in this world.

    When a guy finally wises up to the Machiavellian ways of womenfolk, its easy to understand why he’s gonna spout bitter bile up for a time.

  384. jf12 says:

    @Some Guy, “The average doofus will gladly play along with the most cretinous woman as long as he gets a lay once a month and is allowed to save some measure of face. They laugh about getting their kitchen pass and running the risk of ending up in the doghouse for the slightest offense. They think that taking abuse from their wives is a form of humility that can transform hearts and minds like nothing else.” Man, that’s harsh, but true. It’s broken-glass redpill, can’t decide whether to chew it or just swallow it.

  385. jf12 says:

    @Anon71 “women thinking they can stop boozing and drugs or wife beating.” My sister, age 61, is on her 6th husband, each one a boozing wife-beating redneck with delusions of grandeur because some woman treated him right. She married the first one while she was in medical school, and although he claims he “put her through” med school, actually he was just driving around town drunk all the time in his pickup that she bought for him.

  386. jf12 says:

    @Anon71 re: “Does anyone here actually believe they treat their wives any better than their fellow man?” I know for a fact they do not. I presume you’re talking about the fella who smugly tilts his cap back, puffs out his chest, thumbs in the armpits, proclaiming “Yee-up, I got mine. Whyncha just find yerself a nice easy one like I did?” In every single case, they “allow” their wives to treat the husbands better.

  387. Lyn87 says:

    In answer to A71’s question: I haven’t seen many guys here who believe they are God’s gift to the world, or think they are special and different – those guys tend to hang out at places like Chateau and RoKs.

    There are a few guys here whose wives are certainly not going to divorce them, though.

    Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to find out if there really is more than one way to skin a cat… or not.

  388. Snowy says:

    Aaron the Just: “Her conversation at the time revealed she has always felt the need to be attractive in ways other than her body to my dad.”
    Herein lies the problem for the modern available woman looking for a decent bloke. The women are all so ditzy these days. Even if they’re good looking (physically attractive), they behave in very unattractive ways, as if there is nothing between the ears. They appear to rely solely on their physical appeal to draw-in men, yet their behaviour is repulsive. They seem to have no clue whatsoever as to how to be attractive in ways other than their physical appeal, and moreover are actually repulsive in their behaviour. If they say we men should just “Get it,” then I say why can’t women just “Get it”? They don’t appear to have a clue.

  389. Elspeth says:

    Anon71:

    Like every long term married person, we had our issues, but if you’re talking about serious deal breaker challenges that the couple overcame, you may be referring to Sunshine. And it’s worth noting that she stuck through some serious stuff without divorcing.

    I thought your question about husbands treating wives well was interesting. I think my husband does right by me. I have all that I need, and most of what I want. He even takes me out now and again. He’s affectionate, attentive. But if by “treats me better than most other men”, you mean letting me have my way, capitulating, letting me act like a shrew and taking it? Refusing to call me out on my B.S. Tailors his life, time, and hobbies around what I deem priorities at the expense of what he enjoys?

    Then no, he doesn’t “treat me better”. He’s a hard man in many ways, frankly. I have had women express real concerns to me about it. Women who incidentally seem far less satisfied in their own marriages. I feel God has used him to grow me up into a real wife rather than just a female with a ring and a name change.

    I ain’t going nowhere. Believe that.

  390. Anonymous age 71 says:

    Lyn87 says:
    March 28, 2014 at 11:53 am

    So, Lyn says he is special and different, right? I am not sure.

    Yes, if he and his wife have been married 26 years and never raised their voices in anger, their chances of being divorced are rather slim.

    However, Lyn, tell us exactly what you personally did to make this happen? The only reason you haven’t raised your voices in anger is because your wife wants to live that way. Not because you picked her better than we losers picked our contentious wives. Not because you live a Biblical life. Solely because your wife chooses to live that way.

    I well know what you are experiencing. I gave my youngest daughter the book,ME? OBEY HIM? by Elizabeth Handford, when she was in high school, and told her that is what it means to be a wife. She was a smart young woman, and observed other women and the nonsense they pulled, and internalized wifely submission. She has only been married 17 years, and she and her husband both admit the same thing you have said. They have never either one of them raised their voices in anger.

    Her husband admits she is the key, that if she fought with him, he couldn’t do anything about it. But, he well knows he is not special and different. She told me how iit worked. When they have a decision to make, they usually agree almost instantly. If not, she simply says, “You are the husband. We do it your way.” And, in exchange for this, in her own words, she has peace in her house.

    No matter how you twist it, Lyn, no man can control a contentious woman. Period.

    Frankly, I thought your example of skinning a cat was pure silliness. You can do better than that, I am sure.

    Interestingly, my A’hole SIL is a Baptist Deacon. Last time I visited him, in 2005, he got all red in the face because I refused to disconnect a car dolly I had behind a rental truck. The rental crew had hooked it up and checked it out, and I was about to drive it 1500 miles with a car on it on horrid USA infrastructure and didn’t want to risk an error in connecting it. It was not his business. It wasn’t on his property. He threw a major tantrum, which is his normal behavior, screaming at me as loudly as he could, while red in the face, telling me it was my duty to OBEY HIM any time I came to his house, apparently even if it was over something that was not his business, like disconnecting that trailer. Apparently, that was his version of RESPECT YOUR ELDERS. I solved that problem by not going back in 9 years, and do not expect to ever go back there.

    Some years later, he sent me a suck-up e-mail, wanting to work past our problems. I happened to know he was bucking for deacon, wanting to suck up so he can say his family life is cool, and I basically told him to go pound sand. He had never apologized for treating me like a dog. He threw another major tantrum, thus showing my attitude was correct.

    He and his wife are both tempestuous people, constantly screaming in the house over nothing. Yet when they walk into the church, it’s all sweet and holy. Y’all can go pound sand with your wonderful deacons.

    >>because they have proved – by the example of their own marriages and families – that they know what they’re talking about.

    Is that why it says that, or are you assuming it? I am not so sure. I can see why it can be so, but the minute you start ‘explaining’ what the Bible says, you are on slippery ground. I can also see that it is a requirement because no man fighting for his life with a contentious wife has time or energy or personal experience to deal with problems other people have.

    David Miller, I think, not sure, currently V.P. of Southern Baptist Convention, wrote a thesis many years ago in Seminary, in which he said he does not believe divorced men are permanently banned from being pastors or deacons. And, he based it on the Bible. He says when enough time has passed that their life is stable, they may once again be qualified. I lost the copy of that thesis, but by memory, I think his logic involved the fact that there is only one sin God does not forgive if the person is repentant, and that is not a divorce sin.

    Most Baptist churches make no exception for a man whose wife dumped him for another man. My elder daughter was divorced and re-married and she was allowed to work in the nursery with small, impressionable children. But, a very good man whose first wife committed adultery was refused to be a deacon because he had been divorced. Churchianity?

    Several years ago, I got on Facebook. Eventually, that elder daughter and her family found me, and in hopes they might have changed, I admitted them to my page. Most people on it are my friends, family, and loved ones here in Mexico. If I died, and woke up here, and it was the same village, but sickness and sin and crime were gone, and I realized it was Paradise, I would be very happy. These people were wonderful. I love it all here.

    My A’hole SIL started posting a lot on the Mexican illegal issue. I agree to some extent, but NOT ON MY PAGE WITH ALL MY MEXICAN LOVED ONES. I tried to communicate this to Mr. and Mrs. Holy Baptist Deacon, and they ignored it Finally, after someone on their page, linked over to mine, actually made racist remarks about the Mexicans, I pulled the plug on my Daughter;her husband, and both kids, assuming the parents postings would appear on my page.

    Anyway the daughter threw a major tantrum by PM. As soon as I saw the direction it was going, insulting remarks about thinking I had to be top dog (I can see why that would offend them, since they think they are supposed to be top dogs), I stopped reading. I should have pasted and copied the message to HD, I guess. At no time did she ask me why I did it.

  391. Elspeth says:

    Oh, one more thing Anon71:

    I just don’t see how it makes sense that only a divorced person can have a clue as to how to choose a mate. I understand why you say that, but it’s like saying only a recovering drug addict can see the signs of drug addiction.

    It implies that those of us married 2 decades or more and still going strong are *just lucky*. There is certainly a measure of good fortune we have been blessed with, yes. But choices have been made, or else we wouldn’t still be married, and it’s not just the husband who is keeping the vows.

    Can a divorced person give us some idea of what NOT to do? Certainly. But they are not superior authorities on how to stay married or choose a marriage worthy mate.

  392. Anonymous age 71 says:

    @Anonymous reader

    >>So the real issue Anonymous age 71 appears to be putting forth is simple: women are responsible for their actions, just as men are, and claiming that the Bible holds men responsible for women’s actions is not supportable – not in the real world, and not in the words in the Bible either. I could be wrong, and if I am I”m sure he will correct me. That will be fine with me, I do not wish to misquote or misattribute.

    You did not misquote me. That is exactly what I believe. Churchianity and its WN representatives on this blog do believe that one way or another women are not responsible for their actions and that men are at fault for the bad behavior of women. And, they claim the Bible says so. Thank you very much!

    Those who have not read the entire Bible, but merely memorized what other heretics have told them is important may not know this, but the Bible says, no one is righteous, no, not even one. It does NOT say, no man is righteus but all women are.

    Then, there is the one something like one man out of a thousand being righteous, but not one woman. Heh, heh. Why do you think that might be?

  393. xoxoxox says:

    If I recall my Sunday school correctly, yes, biblical men were responsible for their women’s actions but then again they had the authority to control those same women. This seems to have been the model of societal organisation in many many many societies back then, not just Judeo-Christian.
    I think it is fair that if a man could control a woman’s actions directly, then he would be responsible for her actions and responsile for her. However, once women became emancipated, it is only fair that she bears the burden of their own bad decisions. Like most things female and feminist, only the good bits of “patriachy” (good for the woman that is) are retained in the name of “equality”.

  394. JDG says:

    Here are the passages being alluded to about church Elder qualifications.

    3 The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. 2 Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.

    4 He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, 5 for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church?

    6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7 Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.

  395. Lyn87 says:

    Back in my teaching days a guy was coming to our school to give his testimony about how he royally screwed up his life and found redemption in Christ. One of the other teachers and I were in the teacher’s lounge and she said how excited she was about it. I replied that I thought it was a terrible idea to put that in front of kids who haven’t screwed their lives up. To someone in the midst of Satan’s trap, hearing from a guy who got out may be just the thing he needs to hear. To a bunch of adolescents struggling with growing up in a secular world, “*I did all the stuff you want to do, and I wish I hadn’t, but God made it all okay*” may be the last thing they ought to hear. Likewise, if I want to know about marriage I’ll 1) go to the Bible and 2) talk to solid Christians with good, long marriages. I’ll steer clear of advice from secular advisors, “game” practitioners, and divorced people.

    In addition to what I’ve already written, I will just second this:

    Elspeth says:

    March 28, 2014 at 4:53 pm

    I have nothing further to add.

  396. jf12 says:

    It is certainly better to learn from others’ mistakes than from one’s own. But “They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick.” Probably the worst possible physician is one who has never dealt directly with sickness before, but merely prescribes an apple a day or some other platitude. “Look at me! I’m healthy as a horse!” is not medical advice.

  397. Lyn87 says:

    Strawman.

  398. Elspeth says:

    In that case jf12, I’d rather hear from couple who was on the brink and found a way to stay married and build a healthy marriage in the wake of the storm. They have more to share than a divorced person. It’s not an all or nothing deal here.

    Still, to claim that happily married couples have nothing to share.Only a divorcee. That’s like asking an obese person for fitness advice.

  399. JDG says:

    Below are some passages describing different types of women.

    Proverbs 5:
    3 For the lips of a forbidden woman drip honey,
    and her speech is smoother than oil,
    4 but in the end she is bitter as wormwood,
    sharp as a two-edged sword.
    5 Her feet go down to death;
    her steps follow the path to Sheol;
    6 she does not ponder the path of life;
    her ways wander, and she does not know it.

    Proverbs 12:4
    An excellent wife is the crown of her husband,
    but she who brings shame is like rottenness in his bones.

    Proverbs 19:13
    A foolish son is ruin to his father,
    and a wife’s quarreling is a continual dripping of rain.

    Proverbs 21:19
    It is better to live in a desert land than with a quarrelsome and fretful woman.

    Proverbs 25:24
    It is better to live in a corner of the housetop
    than in a house shared with a quarrelsome wife.

    Proverbs 27:15-16
    A continual dripping on a rainy day
    and a quarrelsome wife are alike;
    to restrain her is to restrain the wind
    or to grasp oil in one’s right hand.

    Proverbs 31:10-11
    An excellent wife who can find?
    She is far more precious than jewels.
    The heart of her husband trusts in her,
    and he will have no lack of gain.

  400. Maunalani says:

    MarcusD says:
    March 27, 2014 at 1:53 pm

    What a pretty girl.

  401. Anonymous age 71 says:

    @Bubba: That’s why I use God’s Word,

    Not so. You use your own opinion of what God’s word means. Anyone who has read the entire Bible can tell that at a glance. And, you ain’t God, nor are you special and different. Nor is a man ever responsible for a woman’s sin which she commits of her own free will.

    @Thinking Man My opinion is different. I think the appearance of moral superiority is 100% “Thank Thee O Lord That I Am Not A Sinner Like These.”

    I told my son I had accused one of the heretics here of being a Southern Baptist Minister. He laughed, and said, “Man, you are harsh!” Hee, hee.

    @Elspeth I did not mean to say only divorced people can tell you how to conduct a marriage. I thought I said THE ONLY GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO ARE LESS QUALIFIED are those who have never been divorced. And, I explained why I think that is so. I do not think that even indicates divorced people can do a very good job at it. If you study that posting again, I think it strongly says divorced people really aren’t very qualified either. There is only one group less qualified than they are. Please stop misquoting me.

    Also, I wrote at length that often what is happening is not what people think is happening.That was the self analysis posting. The reason almost no one can tell others how to concuct a marriage is because most people do not really understand why their marriage works or doesn’t work. They have ideas, but are not always correct.

    My whole point, which I think has not changed much in years, is no one is a real expert on marriage. Not in the USA. In places like India where they arrange marriages for people who accept them, I do think they have match-makers who can interview men and women and know, almost like a special sense, who will be able to marry and who will not.

    Your marriage seems to be a very good one. Why? Clearly because of how you treat your husband. Not because of how he treats you.

    One of the women in the USA I most admire worked at the same factory. Many years ago, I walked into the cafeteria and saw her sitting with a relatively handsome young man. She looked at him as a fat girl looks at a double lemon meringue pie with a cherry on top. I thought, “Oh, crud! Another work ho’.”

    A few days later, I mentioned it to someone and they laughed, and said, “That’s her husband. They have been married ten years.” I could not believe my ears or eyes. I was smitten with envy.

    Some years later, I worked directly with Barb, and told her that story. She smiled and talked for several minutes about how wonderful her husband was. I think of her as The Woman Who Loves Her Husband. However, I am firmly convinced she made him that wonderful. She is his help-meet like the Bible says.

    This is key to my view of men, women, marriage. When a man hears praise for everything good he does, it is man’s nature to want to hear more praise ergo do more good stuff. Like the Sandra Dee movie a zillion years ago where she used a dog training manual on her boy friend, which worked good until he saw the dog book, heh, heh.

    Barb praised him to being a good man. If she had nagged him and found fault every day of his life, he would be an average worthless husband like the rest of us.

    I hope this following makes sense, Elspeth. If you or Barb married me instead of your current great husbands, I’d also be a great husband. You would not have married me, either, if you weren’t sure you could help me be the best man I could be. I may be wrong, but that is my opinion. Note that I am not saying we could marry you to any man on the planet and you’d make him into a great husband. But, that ability to choose whom you wed is a major issue in the book, ME? OBEY HIM?

  402. Anonymous age 71 says:

    Again, >>Still, to claim that happily married couples have nothing to share.Only a divorcee. That’s like asking an obese person for fitness advice.

    And, again, I did not say any such thing. Please stop making stuff up and read more carefully. This is very offensive, and Lyn agreed with you. Serious reading comprehension problems.

  403. JDG says:

    The choice in who you marry makes a big difference because the choices that a person makes will be due to the kind of person he or she is. People do change (especially women), which is why it is all the more important keep watch against the deceptions of the enemy of our souls.

    I ruled out many a potential disaster and only that by the grace of God. Had I not given heed to the council of the Lord, I very likely would have ended up married to an adulteress instead of the woman I have now.

    I think a husband needs to monitor the spiritual life of those under his charge, and that also means monitoring what types of influences his family will be encountering. He should set high the correct priorities and enforce righteous living in his household.

    Prayer is one of the highest priorities in our home. Reading the Bible is right up there with prayer. Keeping fellowship with like minded Bible believing Christians is also up there. I don’t compromise with these.

    None of this guarantees a successful marriage or anything else that depends on the choices of another. However, I have found that most women are easily influenced and it is best to keep Godly influences in her life. Also we should never discount the power of prayer. As James has written: “The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working.” And as Job says, “Though He slay me, I will hope in him.”

  404. Elspeth says:

    I beg your pardon for misinterpreting your statement, Anon71. I was actually responding to jf12 with my last comment, but it did seem initially to me as if you were conferring relationship authority on divorcees, but thank you for the clarification.

    You say that no person has the magic key to unlock the secrets to making marriage last, I agree with you, but only because it isn’t secret. I’ll share what I shared with a friend once, verbatim:

    “The solution to not separating or divorcing is simply to not separate or divorce. The secret to keeping sex going in your marriage is to have sex. The solution to avoiding not talking in the wake of a fight is to be willing to be the one to break the ice first.”

    None of this is rocket science. It simply demands that we swallow our pride and keep our word. To the extent that our culture (and the church) excuses the behavior of liars, cheats, and betrayers? That’s the extent such people will be able to break their vows and do the wrong thing without feeling guilty.

    And yes, women are currently offered wife latitude and lots of excuse. But that doesn’t mean that the answers are a mystery. It just means that we have shunned wisdom and honor in favor of folly and dishonor.

  405. jf12 says:

    @Elspeth “In that case jf12, I’d rather hear from couple who was on the brink and found a way to stay married and build a healthy marriage in the wake of the storm. They have more to share than a divorced person. It’s not an all or nothing deal here.” Correct. Remember, one of the strong points of Protestant pastoral marriage advice, compared to celibate advisors, is that Protestant pastors are married. I don’t want to take advice from an obese person on how to stay thin, but already obese people would learn a lot more from how an obese person became thin than from how an anorexic stayed thin.

  406. Pingback: Saturday Linkage. [quotage] | Dark Brightness

  407. margaret59 says:

    Dear Fuzzie, Yes, my name does indicate that I was born in 1959. So..you are five years older than me? I am sort of surprised. I thought you were roughly five years younger. Go figure. :) Perhaps I feel older because my parents were much older? Born in 1910 and 1915. Thank you for your kindness. Sometimes, I feel like men only care about young, fertile women..I am neither. Thanks again for not treating me as if I were an old, bitter woman.

    Although I am not in the market, I would enjoy meeting you and having a conversation. Would not want to waste your time, though. I think you still have a chance to find a good woman to marry. Best of luck.

  408. FuzzieWuzzie says:

    Mrgaret59,
    You’re not an old bitter woman. You’re just angry with what passes for modern day behavior.
    Could that make two of us? We do seem to have lots of company on this thread.
    It would be nice to have a conversation. About finding a good woman, I may be past the end of my string on that one.

  409. margaret59 says:

    Perhaps I shouldn’t ask..this is not a meeting up site. lol..But, where roughly, are you? Curiosity killed the cat, I know..but I am curious?

  410. FuzzieWuzzie says:

    Margaret59,
    I’m in central Indiana.

  411. margaret59 says:

    Meh..I thought I replied..I am in south central kansas. My Irish family is from Indiana..after Ireland, of course. I have family in Springfield, IL.

  412. Luke says:

    Anonymous age 71 says:

    March 28, 2014 at 6:16 pm

    “This is key to my view of men, women, marriage. When a man hears praise for everything good he does, it is man’s nature to want to hear more praise ergo do more good stuff. Like the Sandra Dee movie a zillion years ago where she used a dog training manual on her boy friend, which worked good until he saw the dog book, heh, heh.”

    Classic related (both humorous and wise) piece: “The Girlfriend Trainer” by “Brad Alex” (he compares training a girlfriend to a Labrador Retriever).

    ==========================================================

    Re “what are infertile women supposed to do (to get and keep a husband)”…

    They could always do what my wife did (didn’t meet til she was past her mid-40s). She agreed we would have children via an egg donor and gestational surrogate, inducing nursing if at all possible, being a stay-at-home mother, feeding them the organic food I wanted them to eat, and homeschooling them. THAT was very appealing to a UMC man with no children and a decently-paying career. (We have 2 happy, healthy little girls today that I’m just nuts over.)

  413. b g says:

    Margaret59

    Hmmm, suggest a sammich, a good one, toasted high quality toasted bread with peanut butter and honey…lots of honey and a big smile ;-D

  414. b g says:

    FuzzieWuzzie

    Just joking around, too many single malts can do that, but truly hoping for happiness for you.

  415. MarcusD says:

    How to make a CAF:

    Can I raise this child if I’m not the father?
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=870532

  416. Luke says:

    Marcus, presuming there are no other children already, that man at the Catholic forum is a lunatic if he stays with his current “wife”. (Him staying with a woman who bears a mulatto brat into their marriage = wearing a large sign around his neck for the rest of his life reading “I AM A PATHETIC CASTRATED CUCKOLD!! THROW S**T AT ME!!”. Screw that.

    He was told by one poster that that was likely not his wife’s first infidelity — and likely would not be her last. He needs to bail now, never looking back, excepting trying to take the lesson of screening would-be GFs/wives for slut tells better in the future.

  417. Luke says:

    Dalrock, did you see this short piece on U.S. divorce statistics?

    http://family-studies.org/divorce-its-way-bigger-than-we-thought/

  418. Lyn87 says:

    A71

    (You, quoting Elspeth) Again, >>Still, to claim that happily married couples have nothing to share.Only a divorcee. That’s like asking an obese person for fitness advice.

    (You, responding to Elspeth) And, again, I did not say any such thing. Please stop making stuff up and read more carefully. This is very offensive, and Lyn agreed with you. Serious reading comprehension problems.

    That’s rich… being injustly accused of being an unjust accuser. I never accused you of saying that: I simply addressed the assertion you made in your own words, which was that married men are the least qualified people to talk about marriage. Here is the quote you seems to want to back away from now:

    Anonymous age 71 says:
    March 28, 2014 at 10:40 am

    There is only one group of people who know less about how to be married than divorced men. They are married men who have never been divorced.

    That seems pretty clear to me. You specified that everybody knows more about being married than married men. That includes divorced men, married women, divorced women, and never-married men and women. You think men in successful, long-term, God-honoring marriages are especially unqualified to understand marriage. That is a bold claim and utterly lacking in evidence, and you are certainly welcome to believe that all you want, but you shouldn’t be surprised when people rightly reject it. Those are your words – no reading comprehension problems, here. Now if you want to walk that claim back, we can talk, but you should not pretend that I didn’t understand what you wrote, and then accuse me of misconstruing it.

    You claim to possess special knowledge, declaring, a priori, that the thoughts of others to be of little or no value based on… well… nothing. Then you claim that men who have successful, long-term, God-honoring marriages are the ones claiming special knowledge, moral superiority, and pride. The modern word for that is “projection.”

  419. Looking Glass says:

    @Lyn87:

    I believe Anon71 hasn’t been divorced, so I believe he’s including himself in the process.

    Which, actually isn’t an incorrect position. Most that are “successful” can’t accurately assess all of the details of an event. They have a picture that may not accurately reflect the outsider view that everyone else takes. This is Confirmation Bias. It’s very real.

    Anon71 is making a “Democracy is the Least-Worst form of Government” argument. And, frankly, he’s not wrong on that point. It’s easier for someone that failed to see the failures, but it’s much harder for someone that’s been successful to grasp the reality of “what worked”.

    But, and here’s the trick, you have to *do the work* to understand. Just being married successfully doesn’t qualify to give advice. There is legitimate work to understand the fundamentals. I’ve met a number of couples with “great” Marriages, right up until the Wife hit the Eject Button. But a successfully married Husband *that puts in the work to understand it all* would be the one most likely to get to the point to being able to teach. But that takes a depth of work most aren’t willing to do.

    While I’m not perfectly certain that’s Anon71’s point, that is the reality. Just because your Wife follows, it doesn’t actually mean that much on the ability to “teach” on a subject or act as qualification.

  420. Lyn87 says:

    I agree with you, but that’s not what A71 wrote: if it were I would not be disputing his assertion, which is that marital success, for a man, is simply based on being lucky enough to not have his wife reject him YET.

    I was willing to throw him a line – that not all people are tempted by the same sins – and he threw it back at me by rejecting my perfectly-valid analogy.

    The fact is that none of us are really master of our fate, and our wives have free will, but to assert that all married men are merely too stupid to realize that we’re just LUCKY is absurd.

    I’ll be in a class all day, so I have to drop out for now, but there ARE things a man can do to reduce the odds of frivorce to near-zero. Not ZERO, but pretty close.

  421. Tam the Bam says:

    Nil desperandum, chaps and chapesses, marriage just took a proportionately huge upswing here in History Island.
    One chirp that a seemingly still-disgruntled newlywed lesbian couldn’t restrain on the radio this a.m. did make me ponder and chuckle, though.
    “It’s by doing this that we can be a positive example to young people ..” and something about making it acceptable for kids to ‘come out’ to their families (or role-model or something, incomprehensible modern-speak, wasn’t listening as they’ve (the Beeb) been banging on about it non-stop since half-past bloody five in the morning, it’s only relented now the Man. U game is imminent).

    So Old Tam’s Almanac predicts one riotous generation of bridezilla gay weddings.
    And then .. oh yeh, “young people” .. where are all our gay “young people” for the next cohort of fabulous wedding-parties??
    Is teh Patriarchy hiding them in secret basements, as sex slaves? Or will they have to rely on the prolific spawn of the (koff koff) never-wed underclasses?

  422. jf12 says:

    @bg re: margaret re:sammiches. Good suggestions.

    @margaret59, excuse the the intrusion, but you mentioned projecting onto men the feeling that an older (i.e. postmenopausal) woman was “not a woman who was worth anything”. In the Bible, Sarah projected her feelings onto Abraham, too. As in most all cases of proejction, it’s probably not the men feeling that way. My wife is fully thirteen years past menopause (13.42364 years, not that anyone’s counting), and I’d greatly prefer it if SHE felt “worth anything” a lot more frequently.

    I associate with many older (the ages of postmenopausal women) men, and we all say the exact same thing: it is the older women’ lack of desire and even greater difficulty that drives older men (that can) into younger women’s arms, NOT some mythical sudden increase in younger women’s desire for older men. See? Men take the easy road if they can. Women *know* this, which is *why* they make themselves difficult. Right? If you wanted my advice, which I hope is at least as amusing as relevant, try to want to be an easy road for some man. If you’re not in the market, does that mean you have a man, or that you don’t want one?

  423. jf12 says:

    Things a man can do to reduce odds of frivorce to near zero. (Besides the Brady Rulez.)
    1. Don’t be No True Man, because No True Man ever gets frivorced.
    2. Invent a time-travel machine (the easy part) and go back in time and make your wife-picker better (the harder part) so you can have certainty that you dodged picking No True Woman, because No True Woman ever frivorces.
    3. While you’re there (in the past), invent the Wife-Keeper (the hardest part), a sort of aerosol spray that preserves wifely properties so they do not decay with time. Apply liberally all over your (younger self’s) new True Woman so she doesn’t change.

  424. he compares training a girlfriend to a Labrador Retriever

    Watch The Dog Whisperer. Virtually everything he says on there applies to dealing with women. Only reward calm, submissive behavior; never back down from aggressive behavior or let her draw you into emotional struggles; give her things to do so she’s not sitting around bored all the time. Even the part about taking her for a 45-minute walk every day — if a man did that, with her holding his arm and him leading the way and choosing the path, it’d set the right tone for the entire relationship. (Leash optional.)

    And yet Cesar ended up divorced. Of course, no one ever claimed Game is a 100% guarantee, and ultimately your wife does have free will. Also, it’s not unusual for relationships to get screwed up when there are radical changes in lifestyle, like suddenly becoming rich from a popular TV show.

  425. jf12 says:

    Re: Cesar Millan. They will surely say unto him this proverb: Physician, heal thyself.
    “It was unexpected, so usually when you are not expecting it, it is a different reaction. I wasn’t prepared. I was actually in England. So, here somebody is telling you, “We are getting divorced.” I said, “Why can’t you wait to tell me when I am back in America?” The way it went for me is I felt a sense of failure. I went all the way to the bottom and then I built myself back up. You ask yourself, “What didn’t I do right?””
    He is not the exception. He is the rule. This is how most divorces are.

  426. FuzzieWuzzie says:

    bg, margaret59, and jf12, Thanks for all the kind words and thoughts.

  427. Norm says:

    Anyone with a real Christian son or daughter should be reading this article as what type of woman not to marry and not how to act as a Christian woman.

  428. Cane Caldo says:

    I always thought I could fix* you, Mr. Unavailable. That if I were patient enough, loving enough, kind enough, smart enough, enough enough, you would suddenly and magically transform into someone that wanted to go all in with me.

    * With her vagina.

    If you want them all in, don’t let them all in your vagina until they’re all in.

    All in.

    Vagina.

    I got jokes.

    @Margaret59

    Although I am not in the market, I would enjoy meeting you and having a conversation.

    This should always be interpreted as: “I’m not supposed to want to have sex with you, but I want to know if I want to have sex with you.”

    If that’s not what you mean: Don’t say it. If it is what you mean: Don’t say it.

  429. Opus says:

    @Tam the Bam

    Perhaps you should have made it clearer to those Stateside that today is the day (from Midnight yesterday) that the nation has been relieved of the shackles under which it had been groaning since at least the time Julius Caesar made his abortive and unsuccessful attempt at Brit domination (in 55 B.C.,Veni, certainly, Vidi, maybe, but not Vici) and other than his dubious account the only other reference in literature to our island is from the nautical Greek, Strabo: for today is the day on which Her Majesty’s Government doubled the number of people that one can marry, yet strangely I am not rushing to the altar to plight my troth or rather to the Registry Office as the C of E is having nothing to do with it.

    So, naturally I wondered how long it would be before the first gay Divorce (for that at Dalrock is what we really like) and I was surprised to see that occurred back in the past, in 2006 to be precise for homosexuals get to marry twice; once under a civil partnership and now once under state marriage. This is of course desperately unfair on heterosexual women as civil unions do not apply to them and so I predict that the next barrier to fall will be the exclusion of heterosexuals from civil unions. If there is one thing a woman likes more divorce it is marriage, or rather ever greater incremental steps to the great day.

    I will now be able to fend off the charge (from women like Jenny Erikson) that I must be gay by replying that if that were so I would surely be married.

  430. margaret59 says:

    Cane, umm..no. Honestly, I don’t know how to convince you, doubt that I could. I am an older woman, not even remotely interested in being married again..and not at all interested in sex outside of marriage. We really do exist..women who have morals.

    You might be right that I shouldn’t have said anything. I can accept that. But if you are saying I am a woman of loose morals who is looking for a man to have sex..then we have a problem. I like most of what you say online, but I am not going to allow anyone, man or woman, to suggest that I am a slut without responding. I think the best attitude is to give the benefit of the doubt to people. When they say xyz, assume that xyz is what they really mean.

    I think you owe me an apology for insinuating that I am looking for illicit sex.

  431. boxer says:

    Brother Opus opines…

    I will now be able to fend off the charge (from women like Jenny Erikson) that I must be gay by replying that if that were so I would surely be married.

    Women are natural homophobes, in that they will throw around the word “gay” as though it were insulting. No offense to anyone in present company… Some of my closest homies, and all that. The odd thing is, it has usually been hurled at me by someone who has already seen me display my heterosexuality. “You banged me five times but don’t want to take our ‘relationship’ to the next level? What are you, gay?”

    Women: who can understand them?

  432. Micha Elyi says:

    Farm Boy linked this at JustFour Guys and I thought you would be interested.
    http://family-studies.org/divorce-its-way-bigger-than-we-thought/
    FuzzieWuzzie

    In that article, Kay Hymnowitz identifies “Boomers” as those born between 1945-1954. I have never seen anyone else use such a narrow period to identify Baby Boomers. I certainly haven’t noticed it in any of Ms. Hymnowitz’s other writings. Commonly used dates are in the range of 1946-1962, plus or minus a few years on each end. 1954? Nope, not common at all. (Note: Most who cast aspersions on Boomers in Internet blog comboxes haven’t a clue who Boomers are. For instance, someone born in 1954 would only be 10 years old during the Summer of Love in 1964, something often thought to be a Boomer phenomenon.)

    However, this demographic whittling-away by Ms. Hymnowitz is irrelevant to the main point of the article, that recent claims of divorce rates declining are greatly mistaken.

  433. Micha Elyi says:

    If there is one thing a woman likes more divorce it is marriage…
    Opus

    Weddings. Females like weddings, not marriage. They want to be Queen For A Day, the center of attention, and paaartay!

    After Her Big Day* marriage is a come-down for her. So buh-bye!
    __________
    *Brides wear white, signifying joy, but grooms wear black, as for a funeral.

  434. Anonymous says:

    Hmm, the Hamster is strong with this one…

  435. Anonymous says:

    Off-topic… our F’ed up dating/mating game explain in supply/demand terms by too much “empowered” sex-positive Feminist cheapened sex, sex, sex…
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO1ifNaNABY
    also in article on PJ Media:
    http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2014/03/28/the-best-kept-sexual-secret-on-a-hook-up-campus/

  436. Micha Elyi says:

    …something I glazed over on the first read… on that linked article:

    “Jesus loves me, and if I’m good enough for Him, then I’m good enough for me too.”

    The Sarlace

    Ahh, that’s such a sweet rationalization on Jenny Erikson’s part. She fails to notice that should she end up in hell, Jesus will still love her. A tragic love, to be sure, but His Via Dolorosa ending in His death on the cross shows us He is willing to accept horrible tragedy.

    The key question Ms. Erikson should ask herself is does she love Jesus? If she did, wouldn’t she at least try to love what He loves and hate what He hates? And Jesus hates divorce.

    Ms. Erikson might try to rationalize that if she loves Jesus then Jesus should also love what she loves and hate what she hates. Not so. For it is the place of the bride to follow the lead of her groom, for the younger brothers to follow the firstborn son. “Follow Me” said Jesus. Not vice-versa. “If you love Me,” Jesus said, “follow My commandments.” Not vice-versa.

    We are not to put God to the test yet that appears to be what Ms. Erikson with her “Jesus loves me” rationalization is doing.

  437. FuzzieWuzzie says:

    Cane, I took Margaret’s statement at face value. If you want to read anything deeper into it, how about as an affirmation of my humanity? Or, if you prefer, as to being a silly old bear.
    Now, please, say you’re sorry.

  438. Elspeth says:

    @ Margaret:

    Cane is on record that in his view all women are sluts to some degree. The idea that you were simply affirming Fuzzie’s humanity? I don’t think he thinks women are capable of that either. And I say this as someone who genuinely likes Cane’s persona and greatly admires his writing.

    Don’t take it personally. This is one arena where women, even the best of women (and I mean you not me), do not get the benefit of the doubt. It comes with the territory.

    @ Michael:

    The key question Ms. Erikson should ask herself is does she love Jesus? If she did, wouldn’t she at least try to love what He loves and hate what He hates? And Jesus hates divorce.

    Ms. Erikson might try to rationalize that if she loves Jesus then Jesus should also love what she loves and hate what she hates.

    This is the challenge of our time in the church; getting us to understand that loving Jesus means hating what he hates, not that we get to project onto Him our loves and hates and receive pardon for unrepentant sins.

    Great comment.

  439. Micha Elyi says:

    I’m a Catholic, …it seems the divorce (by Jenny Erikson from her husband Leif) was not for adultery. Therefore, even for Leif, remarriage should be off the table.
    malcolmthecynic

    Not even the act of a man (or anyone who is “from man”) called adultery can undo the act of God that is sacramental marriage according to the Christian teaching of the Catholic Church.

    1640   Thus the marriage bond has been established by God himself in such a way that a marriage concluded and consummated between baptized persons can never be dissolved. This bond, which results from the free human act of the spouses and their consummation of the marriage, is a reality, henceforth irrevocable, and gives rise to a covenant guaranteed by God’s fidelity. The Church does not have the power to contravene this disposition of divine wisdom.
    –Paragraph 1640, Catechism of the Catholic Church (underlining added)

  440. Micha Elyi says:

    I’m a Catholic, …it seems the divorce (by Jenny Erikson from her husband Leif) was not for adultery. Therefore, even for Leif, remarriage should be off the table.
    malcolmthecynic

    Not even the act of a man (or anyone who is “from man”) called adultery can undo the act of God that is sacramental marriage according to the Christian teaching of the Catholic Church.

    1640   Thus the marriage bond has been established by God himself in such a way that a marriage concluded and consummated between baptized persons can never be dissolved. This bond, which results from the free human act of the spouses and their consummation of the marriage, is a reality, henceforth irrevocable, and gives rise to a covenant guaranteed by God’s fidelity. The Church does not have the power to contravene this disposition of divine wisdom.
    –Paragraph 1640, Catechism of the Catholic Church (emphasis added)

  441. margaret59 says:

    Elspeth, I have the utmost respect for you. I don’t take things personally, unless they are directed at me. Cane specifically directed his comment at me. I will not allow anyone..man or woman..to accuse me, personally, of being a slut. I also do not allow anyone to say my mother was a slut, or that my daughters are sluts.

    He owes me an apology, and I don’t care what he thinks of women in general. I am not a woman, in general. I am an human being..a child of God Almighty. period..full stop. Obviously, I can’t stop him from saying whatever he wants. But I will assert that he is wrong..that he is sinning by accusing me of seeking illicit sex, that he is behaving like a Jackass. I am, frankly, not impressed by a man attacking a woman that he does not know.. Coward!

  442. greyghost says:

    Don’t apologize for shit Cane. One woman you are not trying to ass from is pissed off, so what.

  443. margaret59 says:

    OK, I am sitting here fuming. I know guys are pissed off by what the call the “pussy” pass. I understand that this is infuriating, and they are right. Just because we have a vagina does not give us a pass to treat men like sh*t.

    Oh the other hand, there is also not a “penis” pass. Just cause you have dangly bits does not give you carte blanche to act like a jerk and treat women like sh*t.

    We are required to behave with decency and charity towards one another. I would recommend “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, freedom; in all things, charity.”

    I think I am done for now. I do appreciate what I see as the aim of this site. Men are being treated as if they are ravening beasts, and women are being treated as silly, stupid victims. If anyone doubts how I feel about this..look upstream at what I have to say about J Erikson.

  444. jf12 says:

    @margaret59, if it’s any consolation, since I’m no Cane, I have no doubt that “I am an older woman, not even remotely interested in being married again..and not at all interested in sex outside of marriage.”

  445. margaret59 says:

    I assume that you mean that you actually believe me? So, thanks. If I am reading you correctly. :)

  446. enrique432 says:

    As a side note, as a guy with my own sinful past (lots of sex partners, and divorce), I have observed that women often kid about men’s penis size, seemingly unaware that for many men, fair or not, who have been with many women, it is clear that some women not only are HUGE, they have no idea they are huge (whereas men probably know at some point in adulthood). Surely women must realize, some of them are not exactly blessed with even “average” vaginas. I’ve found zero correlation to having had children, race, or overall size, btw.

  447. greyghost says:

    That came out of left field

  448. greyghost says:

    I watched all three of my kids as they were born and a pussy can do some things.

  449. b g says:

    margaret59

    Frankly, I took your comment on face value. That you would enjoy meeting FuzzieWuzzie. my joke about the sammiches is likewise, no more than face value.. a long running joke.

  450. enrique432 says:

    Luke said: “Marcus, presuming there are no other children already, that man at the Catholic forum is a lunatic if he stays with his current “wife”. (Him staying with a woman who bears a mulatto brat into their marriage = wearing a large sign around his neck for the rest of his life reading “I AM A PATHETIC CASTRATED CUCKOLD!! THROW S**T AT ME!!”. Screw that.”

    First, do you think the wife would be ok and stay with him (and receive support from other Catholic women to stay with him) if her husband had knocked up a black woman, who was then pregnant with his “black” child? Second, the race does matter, and matters for the child, because whether or not anyone likes it, it creates an obvious issue of awkwardness and explanation for both parents and later the child.

    Cracks me up. You think loyal, honest, decent black husbands would be encouraging a fellow A/A father/husband, to stay with his (black) wife who gave birth to a half-white baby that he had to walk around with? The reality is, no. He would resent it forever.

  451. enrique432 says:

    greyghost: I am catching up on the comments and read the one about common feminist put downs…I read the link and it was funny. I just think some women are unaware that they are not all created equal “down there” either. Some of the women saying these things, might live in their parent’s basement, unless their father already lives down there.

  452. b g says:

    greyghost

    That came out of left field

    Worse, it was absolutely nonsense. The vagina is a mere muscle…her primary sexual organ is her brain.

  453. FuzzieWuzzie says:

    Margaret59,
    I would give Elspeth’s comment great weight. She has been around these parts for a lot longer than I have.
    Months ago, Cane was making comments over at SSM’s. SSM suggested that he take it up with me. He dropped out. Farm Boy later said something about his not argueing on a co-ed blog.
    He may well be a bit of an odd duck. However, he was way over the top with something that wouldn’t embarrass the nuns at my grade school.

  454. paddy says:

    Concerning the Catholic man (still blue pill it seems from his posting), the only acceptable way to keep his wife is if the child is put up for adoption and she never sees the kid again. If she does not accept that as a condition, then it tells him of the true state of her contrition.

  455. Boxer says:

    Cane Caldo is an erudite gentleman of exceptional taste. I say this despite the fact that he banned me from his blog, which I still continue to read. The man knows theology and religious history like almost nobody else.

    [someone] later said something about his not argueing on a co-ed blog.

    I think it’s a sensible policy, particularly for those of us men, who like the mostly-male space of blogs like these, to respect the mostly-female space of our sisters’ blogs (SSM etc.) I occasionally comment on SSM et. al., but I wouldn’t indulge in protracted arguments there. If Cane bowed out of a potential scuffle, then he did right by my unwritten rule.

  456. Not even the act of a man (or anyone who is “from man”) called adultery can undo the act of God that is sacramental marriage according to the Christian teaching of the Catholic Church.

    You not only did not read all of my posts, you didn’t even read the entirety of my original post.

    To repeat: Of course, as a Catholic, I believe divorce is ipso facto impossible. But Leif, even as a Protestant, has no religious excuse for remarriage since adultery was not involved, and this is the only exception I’ve ever seen read into the text (which, after all, is pretty clear cut in that we can at least agree that there is either only ONE or NO exceptions in Jesus’s wording).

    @paddy,
    Am I the “blue pill Catholic man”? If so, I’m not sure what your response has to do with what I’ve written.

    If not, who is that comment directed at? I ask this in seriousness, I genuinely don’t know.

    Don’t apologize for shit Cane. One woman you are not trying to ass from is pissed off, so what.

    The “so what” is whether or not she’s right and Cane owes her an apology. You really think nobody who pisses a woman off should ever apologize? No male has ever actually said something to a woman that they should apologize for?

    I don’t have a dog in this fight really, but comments like that are just pointless. They add nothing except to say “Go team man!”.

  457. Luke says:

    HI, enrique432. Giving my take on your questions here…

    “First, do you think the wife would be ok and stay with him (and receive support from other Catholic women to stay with him) if her husband had knocked up a black woman, who was then pregnant with his “black” child?”

    No, she likely wouldn’t like it much. However, multiple things are different in your scenario, and the one on the Catholic forum.
    1) Employed, marriageable black men are in short supply for black women. This ranges from black women being in low demand period for marriage, to BW hypergamous effects (from so many BW getting degrees relative to black men, to so many BM being in jail, etc.), and the black culture mostly being one where most people don’t get, or stay, married in the first place.
    (They are overall less faithful than are whites/north Asians in sexual relationships as well.)

    2) The most fundamental things a husband must do to fulfill his role as husband (and hopefully father) is to materially provide for his wife (and children if any in his household). A wife’s most fundamental duty is to have sex with him, but ONLY with him. A husband’s “catting around” (especially before the historically recent and IMO unwise harsh extramarital child support laws) set a bad example and often demoralized his wife, but did NOT violate the fundamental basis of the marriage. Her cuckolding him does. Why would a man voluntarily deny himself other women and enslave himself economically to support another man’s blood progeny (which entered his household against his will)? The answer is that he probably is going to see that as a bad deal and leave. This is evolutionarily selected for, as men who didn’t mind being cuckolded were quickly removed from the gene pool. Think of brood parasites in birds such as magpies, whydahs, and cuckoos; no man should go along with being forced against his will to be the human equivalent of victims of those predatory creatures.

    “Second, the race does matter, and matters for the child, because whether or not anyone likes it, it creates an obvious issue of awkwardness and explanation for both parents and later the child.

    Cracks me up. You think loyal, honest, decent black husbands would be encouraging a fellow A/A father/husband, to stay with his (black) wife who gave birth to a half-white baby that he had to walk around with? The reality is, no. He would resent it forever.”

    Absolutely a BM would almost certainly resent the Hades out of it. The race thing makes it in everyone’s face, impossible to avoid or forget about, with it obvious even many years later after the family does a long-distance move. THE WIFE WOULD HAVE VIOLATED THE TOP COMMANDMENT OF WHAT SHE MUST DO TO BE A WIFE. And, her keeping the baby (with the unavoidable requirement that he feed and house it) would make this a CONTINUING, DAILY transgression on her part, brutally and constantly shoved in his face.

    Even a man with (figuratively) anything more than only one, below-average-sized testicle would have to either have that child go away, or leave himself, permanently.

    You might find this put better (the nonracial part, anyway) in Daniel Amneus’s “The Garbage Generation” and/or Roger Devlin’s “Home Economics”. Both are easily found for free on the internet.

  458. …Okay, never mind me, figured out who the “blue-pill Catholic man” is referring to.

    My take is that he really shouldn’t be asking anonymous internet strangers advice about something this personal and that involves other people.

  459. b g says:

    malcolmthecynic

    You really think nobody who pisses a woman off should ever apologize?

    The question is actually do some guys stupidly step on their dicks? And the answer is yes. Only because, admittedly too many is not all, and one would be wise to remember that…because otherwise, there is no bloody hope.

  460. They Call Me Tom says:

    “A big part of me waits for the day if and when Leif starts dating again. I hope he finds a young, sweet, kind woman who treats him well.

    I hope he tweets it, one time, with maybe a couple of photos of him and her together. Bonus if he posts photos of her taking care of his daughters.”

    That’s somewhat what happened to my dad, my mom wanted a divorce when he was 25, he’s still married to the woman he remarried at 30. My mom…three divorces since.

  461. MarcusD says:

    Canadian guilty of sexual assault after piercing condoms
    http://news.yahoo.com/canadian-guilty-sexual-assault-piercing-condom-150436188.html

    Although I wonder how readily a judge would convict a woman should she skip her birth control pills…

  462. greyghost says:

    malcolmthecynic
    Common sense and experience says you never apologize to a woman for anything. Wives women you are courting, daughters, family members yes maybe. That is a judgment call for each situation and man. That question you asked read like a supplicating fairy’s “all women deserve respect just for being women”. The woman in question said she is not marrying and she has no plans for sex. A cute way of announcing “I’m not doing a fucking thing for any of you assholes so don’t even try.”, “I am of no value to anyone so respect me for me.” Cane has shown some hard Christian game not supplicating for her approval.

  463. Spacetraveller says:

    As a fan of Margaret, I must agree that what was said to her was uncalled for. Whether an apology is warranted or not, however, in this situation is up to the transgressor. How bizarre that he chose to write what he did, though.

    I have a question specifically for Anon 71 and anyone else who has been discussing wifely submission on this thread.
    Thank you for suggesting the book ‘Me? Obey him?’. I often look up material proposed on this forum for my own personal education, especially ones relating directly to marriage. I guess you could call me your target audience, being a newly-wed.

    But I have a massive problem with this book. I haven’t read it yet, but I think I should NOT read it, from the reviews of it I have seen.

    Anyone who advocates BLANKET submission makes me nervous. I like the idea of submission, and I chose a man who I knew I could submit to, and I do. But suppose he asked me to do something which I KNEW was wrong. The specific example that comes up repeatedly in reviews of this book (and which is my particular bugbear) is the fact that the author of this book advocates that a woman asked to by her husband to have an abortion should do it.

    Now this is a case of two conflicting laws. One law is higher than the other. There is God’s law (do not kill) and then there is man’s law (kill – I am your husband and you do as I say). I do agree with Deti when he says that a woman should be submissive even when her husband is a bad husband. I have no problem with that. And I like the notion that such a submissive woman may lead an unbelieving man to God. I really love that idea! (Why she marries an unbelieving man in the first place is another matter, though!)
    The woman scores brownie points with God, and God gets a new convert :-) Everybody wins, LOL :P
    But when a sin is about to be committed, we have a problem. I do think women have moral agency. I as a human being, have moral agency. I am answerable to God for my sins too. Just because many women have taken leave of their senses these days does not mean that women in general have no moral agency.

    Did I pick a rare example to deflate the submission debate? I think not. We in the UK had this very issue in our faces recently when a woman named Vicky Pryce who committed an abortion years ago (as instructed by her husband) now cannot forgive herself or him. She has now wreaked havoc on him, and her family, such that they both ended up in jail, and now, the child born after the abortion is not talking to his father. Her actions were vile. But….knowing feminine nature rather intimately, I can see that her problems stem from her ‘submission’ to her husband when he asked her to do something that her very soul did not deem right and moral, but she did it anyway. Why an abortion in a legitimate marriage, you ask? He was an MP (member of parliament) and a baby at that time was ‘inconvenient’. Honestly… I have no words…

    Read about that case – and since that one, I have come across many similar stories.
    In the case of the cuckolded white man whose wife is carrying the child of a black man, if the question of abortion is brought up, at least you can understand why. There is a similar case I know about of an American devout Catholic white couple where the wife was raped by a black man (right in their own home in front of the husband) and she went on to have the mixed race child. Awkward for everyone involved, yes, but somehow they manage. Difficult case, and I still don’t know what the ‘right answer’ is, there…in an interview, the man says his first reaction was to ask the wife to abort the baby as soon as they found out she was pregnant, even though the child could have been HIS, but he eventually changed his mind. She was never keen on the idea of abortion, and I suspect she would have refused to have an abortion even if he had insisted on it…

    But the ‘conflicting’ laws issue is one that currently fascinates me. In the UK, lawyers are getting their knickers in a twist about Sharia Law where it comes to wills for the soon-to-depart. The reason I believe all this is a storm in a teacup is this: The law Society of the UK has clearly stipulated: Sharia Law (or any other law) is OK, and indeed one can leave whatever what one wants to whomever one wants upon death, as long as that law is compatible with English law. So if a Muslim man leaves all his wealth to his son and nothing to his daughter in accordance to Sharia Law, this is OK with English law, as long as the daughter is not a ‘dependent’, or a minor, for example, in which case English law requires her to acquire funds from Daddy, presumably so that the state is not then liable. Makes sense to me.

    So, to my mind, husband’s law is to be obeyed by wife, as long as a higher law (God’s law) is not violated in the process.
    Do the ladies here who are long-term married and godly agree with this?
    Do I need to reform my thoughts on this?

    This book advocates for submission. No problem. I like it for that reason. But submission AT ALL COST? Not sure about this.

    Vicky Pryce and husband are not just divorced, they vehemently hate each other. And now their son knows his father asked for his sibling to be killed off. I wonder if he is thinking – gosh, that could have been me…
    She should never have told the whole world this secret, years after the event. But now she has, we learn something. This woman has FIVE children. But she cannot forget the one she ‘let go’ on the orders of her husband. What a price (no pun intended) to pay for submission in this (horrible) case.

    Anyone care to help me out? My thoughts are not cast in stone on this – there is room for change if necessary. I just need some guidance on it, and hopefully, I would be more ‘sure’.

  464. Luke says:

    Well done, grayghost. You worded very adroitly what I was thinking. Daniel Amneus notes something similar, when he points out that a woman deserves nothing for the accident of birth that has her be female, rather only for fulfilling the role of a good woman (often at real cost to her).

    Even an age-barren woman can help with grandchildren/grandnephews/grandnieces, make a home for a man/comfort and inspire a man, act ladylike (as understood pre-1920s, ideally) in public, teach and guide young women/girls (domestic skills, morals, life lessons, humility/industriousness/continence/thrift, etc.) A difficult harridan good to no one (but expecting a thousand things to make her life easier that come from other people, mostly men)? Let her driveway stay piled with snow, her jar lids stay stuck on, the bats/squirrels/raccoons stay in her attic, her flat tire stay unchanged, her plumbing stay broken, ad in finitum.

  465. Luke says:

    Spacetraveler, re your hesitance to accept “submission at all cost”, as a wife in marriage: I’m curious how you feel about the reasonableness of expecting “fidelity at all cost” (WRT finances and time, as well as sexually/reproductively) from a man. I predict that you’re just fine with the latter, since it would benefit you, unlike wifely submission. (Like most virtues, it’s most needed when it’s least appealing.) The Feminist Imperative in action IMO…

  466. greyghost says:

    spacetraveller . You have also shown that there is no wife by laws of misandry. No matter what the article and conversation it is the laws of misandry at the end of the day. BTW a woman is better off listening to her husband

  467. Opus says:

    I would like to apologise on behalf of Spacetraveller: no one on this blog has the faintest idea who Vicky Price is. As for The Law Society, (also unknown to this blog) I trust they took Counsel’s opinion before rushing in with their Islam-o-philiac pronouncement (not that Counsel always gets it right).

    The bane of most of my married friends lives are their disobedient wives: women who even when financially bailed-out by their husbands still go out and acquire yet another credit card wanging the balance up to the limit and beyond. My own experience is that women do exactly what they want (and without any sense of responsibility); blind to reason and wreck-less of action.

    Perhaps there is some merit in Gay Marriage after all.

  468. Spacetraveller says:

    Luke,

    I am not sure whether you understand my request. I have no problem with submission per se. I am actually an avid fan of this concept!
    What I am struggling with is when one knows that what one is being asked to do is patently wrong. Fidelity is a virtue that is asked of, of BOTH spouses. So my answer to your question is that fidelity at all cost is to be the gold standard for both parties. However, each party has the free will (moral agency) to do what is right. Both are answerable to God. In the case of a wife who is being asked to do the wrong thing (and I have already presented the case of a woman who later regretted a heinous act against her unborn at the request of her husband), is it right to go ahead and do it just so she ticks the submission box? I can understand if it is something that she just doesn’t like, but doesn’t contravene a higher law, but here, we are talking about a SIN. In effect, what I am asking is, which is the greater sin – not killing your unborn child or not obeying your husband, knowing he is in a state of sin himself by asking you to do something sinful…?

    As men, you would never have this particular problem. But as a woman, I see that this is a potential issue. I hope never to be in this sort of situation, but I suddenly realise that this submission issue is not as clear-cut as I once thought. I think one of the older ladies here could really help me… If I ever suspected that Mrs. Pryce having an abortion would somehow lead her husband to Christ…but I cannot, and now I am in a quandry…

    Greyghost,

    “You have also shown that there is no wife by laws of misandry.”

    Forgive me, I don’t understand this statement. Could you rephrase so I know what you are getting at?
    I know that current laws are misandric, yes. I do not consider myself subject to them, but that is another matter which I deal with in my own head.
    I definitely agree that a woman is better off listening to her husband. But in this specific example? To my shock, this is not as uncommon as we think!

    What bothers me about this is that a woman ‘submits’ to a wrongdoing, and then later blames the husband for it. My thoughts are, why not do the right thing in the first place, even if it means going against the husband’s will, where he is clearly wrong? It may be that he is in a state of temptation at the time. In which case, he really needs the wife to be his anchor. More often than not, HE would be HER spiritual anchor, of course.
    Is this a reasonable thought? Or am I way off the mark?

  469. Cane Caldo says:

    I’ll address Important things before interesting things.

    @Boxer

    Cane Caldo is an erudite gentleman of exceptional taste. I say this despite the fact that he banned me from his blog, which I still continue to read. The man knows theology and religious history like almost nobody else.

    Bro! Unless you have posted under another name besides “Boxer” or the previous “8oxer”, then you are not banned. In fact, no one is banned. Some people are in moderation. You have never been among them. To wit…

    @Margaret, Greyghost, Malcolm & Space

    I said:

    This ["Although I am not in the market, I would enjoy meeting you and having a conversation."] should always be interpreted as: “I’m not supposed to want to have sex with you, but I want to know if I want to have sex with you.”

    If that’s not what you mean: Don’t say it. If it is what you mean: Don’t say it.

    What I gave was good, solid advice both to the listener and the speaker. Joy Davidman told C.S. Lewis she just wanted to meet him, too. Lewis ended up married to the divorcee*, and a step-father to two boys who had been moved an ocean away from their father.

    The fact is that a woman can change her mind in an instant from “want to talk” to “want to fuck”. Later, if you were to ask her about it she will be unable to differentiate her current intentions from the former; whichever intentions they might be.

    Women joke about reserving the right to change their minds on a whim. The lack of self-awareness such I described in the previous paragraph is the source of those jokes, reservations, and “rights”. It’s also why men don’t kill women for it: We know y’all simply can’t help it.

    IN summary: Your fuming, Margaret, is a problem for you to deal with; not me.

  470. John Galt says:

    hurting: (I think…or Cail?):

    “Avoiding financial disaster resulting from the malfeasance of one’s employees requires both the hiring of trustworthy, ethical people AND meaningful systems of internal control that incentivize proper behavior (not stealing). While solid hires and good controls are both necessary for effective business management, neither are sufficient by themselves*. Likewise with marriage, picking a loyal mate of good character is important, but it is not enough. Not nearly so.”

    I think you hit it on the head. To take your analogy a step further:

    In the US and Western Europe, embezzlement is considered a crime and a moral failing, and it’s prosecuted. What if embezzlement was considered the employer’s fault? For not keeping the employee entertained; for not paying as high a salary as (in the employee’s sole judgment) was desired? For not adjusting to the employee’s constantly shifting demands? What if, finally, an employee discovered embezzling wasn’t fired, forced to pay restitution, and imprisoned, but instead received a severance package worth 20% – 50% of their former salary along with benefits and perks, that would continue for years, all while being free to find another job?

    I’d think that every business in that country would quickly fail. Is this going to happen to Western marriage? When?

  471. lzozozozozo

    zl! pw3d!!
    “What The F*ck Happened To Dating In College?” askxks Briagenn Adams @ readunwritten lzozozo. DA GBFM ANSWERZ lzozozolzooz GBFM ECONOMICZ MAXIM # 1: A woman’s courtship value is equal or less than the lowest price she ever gave her pussy away for. lzolzoz

    “What The F*ck Happened To Dating In College?” is tantamountz to asking “Where have all the good guys gone, and why is my butt sore?”

    lzoozozozzlzozoozoz

    GBFM THONGZ zlozozo

    Classic GBFM Thong lzozozlzl Great Books for Men GBFM lzozozlzlo.
    http://greatbooksformen.wordpress.com/2014/03/30/what-the-fck-happened-to-dating-in-college-askxks-briagenn-adams-readunwritten-lzozozo-da-gbfm-answerz-lzozozolzooz-gbfm-economicz-maxim-1-a-womans-courtship-value-is-equal-or-le/
    zlolzozozozozozozo

  472. Spacetraveller says:

    Opus said: I would like to apologise on behalf of Spacetraveller: no one on this blog has the faintest idea who Vicky Price is.

    Indeed. Apologies to those who have never heard of this woman. It was a suspicion of mine that not many of you (unless you are British or were in the UK most of last summer) would have heard of her. This is why I mentioned the need to read about her. It is a global world now – all one needs to do is to Google ‘Vicky Pryce’ and the whole sordid affair appears before your eyes…

    This story was very important to me because it made me think of the whole submission issue in the run-up to my wedding. I simply clocked it up as a ‘what not to do as a wife’ lesson, but the ‘Me? Obey him?’ reviews jogged my memory on the issue.

    I have a lot of respect for some people’s comments/advice on this blog. So I felt safe in bringing up this topic again with this particular question I had in mind.
    I never ask simple questions :-)

    Again, I reiterate. Submission is not an issue for me. I would say I was a submissive girl, and I would also say I have become a submissive woman. But…my parents never asked me to do anything morally suspect, and my husband has not, either. So submission for me has always been easy. This is a theoretical question I put to the wiser, more educated people here whose opinions I trust. In the specific case of a woman being asked to submit to something she KNOWS is wrong (now there is a side issue of what is the definition of ‘wrong’ – fair enough – I think we all agree however that abortion is one of the ‘wrongs’ of life – so it is a good case to ponder here), what is the correct or (in God’s eyes) moral thing to do? I doubt that doing what Vicky Pryce did was a good option. This is why I think that whilst submission is a good policy for a woman, reserving judgment in some cases (albeit, rare, extreme cases) is also useful. If a happily married woman or man of decades-long marital bliss tells me otherwise, I would be happy to revise my thinking on this…

    I do not ask this question in some sort of rebellious spirit. I genuinely need to clear this up in my mind. If some here choose to beat me with the ‘feminine imperative’ stick, well, that’s a risk I take. But what I would like is for someone who gets where I am coming from to walk me gently through the steps I would need to take to come to a deeper understanding of this issue – if indeed they see that I am wrong in my thinking. But I have to say, I would need a whole heap of convincing that aborting a baby within a marriage just because the husband wants this is morally right and should be followed – just because a woman is to submit – to anything.

    Leaders have a great responsibility. But followers also have a certain responsibility. The nuances of ‘following’ is what I am trying to analyse. A good leader is easy to spot. But what makes a good follower? The one who says ‘yes’ to absolutely everything?

    What did Opus mean by ‘disobedient wives’? All of a sudden, I would like examples of this sort of disobedience to clarify this issue for me.

    I suspect that the examples he gives would be examples of disobedience that even I would agree with. The question is, was Vicky Pryce’s ‘obedience’ desirable? Bearing in mind the monster that it turned her into?
    I think too much…I know that. But it helps me to do this when it comes to serious issues that persist in bugging me.

  473. Ras Al Ghul says:

    Belated, but Elspeth commented on how surprising it is men are unaware that their relationship is over, but here’s a perfect example of the disingenuousness women engage in:

    Nikki Reed seemed optimistic about her marriage speaking to Us just two days before the couple’s split announcement. “We don’t have rules, but I think it’s just important to focus on what you love,” Reed said of keeping the romance alive at LeSport Sac’s 40th anniversary event in NYC on March 27.

    “We love just hanging out,” she said of their downtime. “He’s my best friend in the world and I love him so much.” When asked if they were planning to start a family soon, she replied: “Not currently.”

    She just announced their seperating and getting divorced after two years of marriage. This is in keeping with female resource retaining. They will feign love until their very last minute to make sure they keep a safety net.

  474. Tam the Bam says:

    Galt :-
    “What if embezzlement was considered the employer’s fault? For not keeping the employee entertained; for not paying as high a salary as (in the employee’s sole judgment) was desired? For not adjusting to the employee’s constantly shifting demands? What if, finally, an employee discovered embezzling wasn’t fired, forced to pay restitution, and imprisoned, but instead received a severance package worth 20% – 50% of their former salary along with benefits and perks, that would continue for years, all while being free to find another job?”

    I’m glad to see some people at least have been following the ongoing amazing adventures of our bankers and fund-managers since ’08.
    So that was it. Fred the Shred@RBS, Northern Rock’s Applecart&Diddley, and the Co-op urchins, including the Crystal Methodist and so on, were simply bored. Poor things. At least nothing bad has happened to them. Phew!

    Coincidentally, “Vicky Pryce” was an economist, and a Greek one at that, I believe, before she ditched her first husband and kids. What is it with economics and finance boffins and all the porkie-pies?

  475. Swithunus says:

    I’m in and of the UK, this is the first I’ve heard of any Vicky Pryce abortion, let alone it being the excuse for her being an utter bitch. She thought she could put him in gaol, end his career and just walk away despite the fact that her getting him gaoled required her admitting to perjury. I’m so glad that they both went to gaol, because they both deserved it. Bit late for her hamsterbation based abortion excuses to come out. Hideous woman, hideous man. The idea that she’s some kind of meek submissive woman is laughable. Her new found interest in women’s rights doubly so.

  476. Spacetraveller says:

    Swithunus,

    Hello fellow Brit…

    Well…

    I studied this case like my life depended on it. As I mention above, it was unfolding just as I was about to enter Holy Matrimony. It was better than my pre-Cana course in the life lessons it provided me.

    Don’t you see what happened here? The story first broke as a feud between husband and wife when she had admitted to taking on his speeding points and later said ‘he forced me to do it’. That was the iceberg. As the case progressed, the abortion thing came out. I hope you can see (as I did when I put two and two together) that the REAL issue between them was the abortion thing. It overshadowed the perjury issue in the end. Look, this is how female nature works – what you see is definitely not what you get when she is mad at you :P. The real problem comes out later. I know. I am sure you know too. Not our best quality, but there we are. (However, this ‘indirectness’ can also be put to good use by the way).

    This woman was in the habit of submitting to him in things she knew were wrong. Taking on the speeding points was a criminal offence, hence the perjury case against her – thanks for mentioning that, by the way…this is my very point.
    In my humble opinion, if she had decided to take on his speeding points and commit abortion at his say-so, she should have ‘forever held her peace’ as they say.

    But this is easier with the speeding point. A woman ALWAYS regrets an abortion. Which is why she unleashed her ‘inner devil’ for all the world to see years later.

    The only other alternative would have been for her NOT to commit the abortion. In other words, not to submit, in this case. This is my argument. Because now, it seems pathetic to use the abortion as an excuse. Anyone could have said to her (and they did): you were asked to kill a baby inside you and you agreed? On your head be it!

    Some things are not to be done. This case illustrates one of them, wouldn’t you say?

    They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I don’t know whether Pryce had ‘good intentions’. But I don’t like the path she travelled in this particular case.
    So when a book I would like to read starts advocating that what she did was a good thing, I start to get a little nervous…

  477. Kate says:

    Anonymous 71: Robert Burns agrees with you. You can’t know anything without knowing its opposite. As to those who don’t understand, its immaterial: “the cut worm forgives the plow.”

  478. mustardnine says:

    Spacetraveller says:

    (A) ‘Anyone who advocates BLANKET submission makes me nervous. I like the idea of submission, and I chose a man who I knew I could submit to, and I do. But suppose he asked me to do something which I KNEW was wrong. The specific example that comes up repeatedly in reviews of this book (and which is my particular bugbear) is the fact that the author of this book [ Mrs. Handford's "Me? Obey Him?" ] advocates that a woman asked to by her husband to have an abortion should do it.’

    and

    (B) ‘I do not ask this question in some sort of rebellious spirit. I genuinely need to clear this up in my mind. If some here choose to beat me with the ‘feminine imperative’ stick, well, that’s a risk I take. But what I would like is for someone who gets where I am coming from to walk me gently through the steps I would need to take to come to a deeper understanding of this issue – if indeed they see that I am wrong in my thinking.’

    Now comes my .02, Spacetraveller:

    1. Be completely at peace about this.

    2. We are ALL talking HYPOTHETICALS here — “what if, what if?” That is fine, to a point: we all agree that some events — that could really happen even though they haven’t yet — are best considered in advance and provided for (such as stocking up before the hurricane, whether we should keep guns in the house, etc.) But we must approach hypotheticals realistically — that is, they are hypotheticals. A real event carries with it many unanticipated considerations.

    3. I fully believe you when you say that your husband is someone you feel you can submit to, and you intend to do so. I feel sure that you do, and will.

    4. The Lord, speaking through the Apostles, has urged Christian wives that, if they have questions about His teachings, to ask their husbands at home. Perhaps you should do so on this very matter! If it really worries you at all, Ask your husband, “If you were ever to ask me to have an abortion, what should I do?” Take it from there. ( I’m expecting that he would think, “Why in the world is she worrying about such a thing; does she REALLY think that I would EVER . . . ?” etc. He might even wonder where you were getting such crazy worries, and you’d have to point to us, here. And then he might tell you not to fool with this site again!)

    5. Given that you love and trust your husband, and Jesus, Who gave him to you – – –

    6. Don’t worry about meeting Mrs. Handford’s approval. She is nothing more (or less) than a good Christian lady giving her best advice. You said, “Anyone who advocates BLANKET submission makes me nervous.” They SHOULD make you nervous!! Anyone who presumes to give you BLANKET ANYTHING advice should come in a DISTANT SECOND behind your husband.

    7. The same goes for ANY of us here at this blog. Some of us are good Christian men who care, and who are honestly grappling with major difficulties in the world, the Church, and our own lives. But we should NEVER be presumed to have an individual or collective wisdom that intrudes on the holy fellowship between Jesus, your husband, and you.

    8. Blessings to you, dear sister.

  479. Swithunus says:

    @ST
    used to drive me mad in my (ex)marriage that she’d get all mopey and I’d ask what the matter was…she’d say and we’d talk, then several hours of concerned conversation later it’d turn out that ‘the matter’ was something else entirely…such a waste of time and effort. But I don’t believe that it was her playing games, I don’t believe that it was anything other than her own lack of self-awareness. As a man, that idea appals me. A look inside her mind would have been terrifying, horrifying, fascinating.

    Now I’m NOT saying that I’d marry a man (how topical in the UK), but why can’t a woman be (just a bit) more like a man? (cue Rex Harrison)

    I’m also not saying that if I’d taken the red-pill twenty years ago, I’d still be married…because I’d probably not ever have got married in the first place. (ba-dum-tish)

    Didn’t hear about the abortion till you mentioned it, but I’ve recently read (somewhere online) something along the lines that an earlier abortion can have (is likely to have) permanent effects on a woman’s happiness, stability, chances of suicide, depression, requiring medication etc. That doesn’t surprise me whatsoever. How somebody, anybody, ever convinced any woman even superficially that killing her baby was nothing major amazes me. It appears that deep down most know what they’ve done.

    Good luck in your marriage and life. I used to be very egalitarian, but nowadays I would not even consider a relationship where who lead was even a question. Knowing one self to be leader should bring the best out in a man, but even the best leader relies on the woman to follow. There are no ways to guarantee that she never changes her mind, so it’s a risky deal these days, too risky for me even if I thought the idea appealing.

    Best wishes again.

    Good night

  480. feeriker says:

    @ John Galt @ 9:14am:

    Your analogy is PERFECT. Unfortunately, the obviousness of it would fail with almost all women and with most people of both sexes who are of the millennial generation. The absence of any moral framework, as well as a runaway sense of entitlement would lead to only one reaction: “your point being…?”

  481. enrique432 says:

    As a father of six, and father’s rights advocate (I am NCP to my three eldest and have spent my share of time in American (‘Sharia for women’) Family Courts), my view is as follows, regarding the Catholic dude, abortion, custody, resources preservation, etc:

    1. No man should ever be able to force a woman to have an abortion. That’s the libertarian in me.

    2. Abortion should be completely illegal. The baby has a right to live, regardless of the circumstances. That’s the libertarian in me.

    3. As long as “abortion” is legal, then “constructive abortion” should be lawful for men as a choice (particularly with some of the well-known, egregious “fraudulent” type of CS cases we’ve seen lately. Most of the reasons women ALWAYS gave to support Roe, could just as easily be articulated by men, with the one exception of course (actually carrying the baby, the physical aspect). Given the 18 year commitment to children, if women get to argue they are “not ready to be a parent” or “don’t have the resources”, all such arguments could similarly be made by fathers.

    4. Take CS completely out of the Family (“female Sharia-compliant”) System, and you will see women dropping their kids off like flies. You will find out who REALLY wants the kids when you remove the financial windfall of the custodial (female) parent. If you’ve been in and around the system, you’ve already known how common it is for women who happen to be NCPs, to only be so, because the father never pursued CS. Interestingly, as much as the state (feminist regime) claims CS is “for the child”, they never aggressively pursue mothers for it when they should be paying it.

    5. Until CS is completely eliminated, do just as the state does for men on CS issues, for visitation. There should be an Office of Visitation Enforcement, ready to send a SWAT team in, to kick in the door of any woman that is a minute late for a drop off, ec (men have been hunted down and arrested for being in arrears for CS they could not possibly pay). The power of the state can be used, exactly as women have demanded, to ensure the “rights of the children” to equal time with their father’s are supported. I’m sure they can understand. Also, a team of lawyers will be on standby, working for the County, to support the (father) children in this matter.

    6. Also, have an Office of Child Support Accountability, in which, TO THE PENNY, women are required to show where CS goes (fortunately, they already have granted themselves, via White Knight Legislatures, exemption for things like “food, generally”, “rent”, etc, all things which just happen to benefit the mother as well…despite the fact that she is an adult and should provide for herself. Also, a team of lawyers will be on standby, working for the County, to support the (father) children in this matter.

    A feminist once said that if men could get pregnant, abortion would be legal. Right idea, wrong conclusion. If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a crime punishable by death. Having said that, the point remains the same: When something is, or becomes gender neutral, as far as the law, it can be more fair. When women make up 50 percent of NCPs, you will see the CS/Visitation/Custody laws change dramatically. Lesbian divorce is considered a driving force to proving our points in the Father’s Rights Movement (FRM). Second wives have helped, but as more women are seen destroying each other, more women will appeal to their “better angels” before these pompous White Knights sitting in the State Senate/Legislature, and you will see more fairness in a variety of issues within American Sharia Family Law Courts.

  482. theasdgamer says:

    @Elspeth

    “That said, it’s silly to insist that there is no way for a man (or a woman) to have any inkling of the character of their mate. You seriously don’t think Leif Erikson received no signs that his wife had checked out of the marriage? Of course he did. Sometimes people get blindsided, but not most times. The signs that something is wrong are usually there if they dare to look.”

    Here’s how the blue-pill guy would see things. “My special snowflake would never do that to me. And, of course, she would never camouflage her behavior. She would never pretend to herself that she was being open and honest when she really knew that I would never get her message. She will always speak to me clearly in a way that I as a man would understand it. Women are always nice, nice, nice.”

    Of course, the FI would say, “It’s the man’s fault for not being able to read the woman’s doublespeak. Men ought to know the real nature of women even though they have been trained to think that women are nice, nice, nice. And, of course, women really are nice, nice, nice.”

    A redpill man has no defense, of course.

  483. Cane Caldo says:

    @Space

    I do not ask this question in some sort of rebellious spirit. I genuinely need to clear this up in my mind. [...]

    Leaders have a great responsibility. But followers also have a certain responsibility. The nuances of ‘following’ is what I am trying to analyse.

    Yes, the spirit behind this question is rebellious. A wife can say yes to her husband and no to abortion by bowing down and asking, “But for this one thing: What else can I do for you?”

    Your rebellion isn’t even subconscious. What you’re searching for is the answer to the question, “When do I get to tell my authority, ‘No’. That’s rebellion, Space.

    A good leader is easy to spot. But what makes a good follower? The one who says ‘yes’ to absolutely everything?

    Submission is not about saying ‘Yes’ to a series of questions, but saying ‘Yes’ to those who have authority over you. It has happened that my bosses and clients have asked me to perform acts like pirate software. I NEVER respond with, ‘No’, but instead with, “I am not allowed to do that. What else can I do to make this work for you?” Notice how my strength and protection as a subordinate is not in my ability to say ‘No’ to evil commands, or to assert my own authority. Instead, I go further into submission by claiming the authority of yet another over me–“I am not allowed to do that”.

    To a woman, the deliciousness of rebellion is almost incomparable. Women enjoy rebellion so much that (even if and when they consciously submit because of their faith) they fantasize and plot rebellion…just as you are doing here.

  484. Tam the Bam says:

    To exacerbate the topic derail even more, I think the ex-Mrs Pryce took one for the team over the points, not out of some quailing sense of duty, but because it would at that time and in that place have meant end of the hubster’s Prospects.
    Ergo, saddled with a loser. Bit of a waste of time getting rid of the first hub&kids in the first place.

    It only “mysteriously” leaked out after he didn’t make Home Secretary (basically 2iC to the PM, for you Usanians and others), just Energy Secretary (i.e. only just scraped it into the 1st XI), and had commenced Ugandan discourse with a minion. And crucially, had apprised Vasiliki of his intention to shack up with ole Carina, and jettison her and the nippers. Carina, meanwhile had ditched her substantially older wife (yes, you did read that) for Chrissy.

    So obviously at that time and in that place it was necessary to chop his career nuts off by telling the world what a bad man he is really, and after somewhat tardy consultation with learned counsel, discovered surprise surprise! that the Law takes a somewhat frosty view of those who try to pull the wool.

    I know, I know. Posh people. You couldn’t make this stuff up.
    But it’s the one thing the nobs detest, breaking ranks in front of the peasantry, no matter what the personal cost. It’s partly why Princess Di got such a roasting (and not just from rugger-players either), and why poor hapless Ms Courmouzis found out the hard way that Tory Wives Stay Schtum regardless, and the Law be buggered, something all Brits imbibe with their nanny’s whatever.
    [/ethnographic detour]

  485. Elspeth says:

    Women enjoy rebellion so much that (even if and when they consciously submit because of their faith) they fantasize and plot rebellion…just as you are doing here.

    I almost got all snarky and asked, “How would you know, mind reader?”

    But upon second thought I concluded that you’re right, so I have to accept it even though I didn’t like it.

  486. Tam the Bam says:

    lol Cane
    “I NEVER respond with, ‘No’, but instead with, “I am not allowed to do that. What else can I do to make this work for you?” “

  487. greyghost says:

    Looks like you handled that one Cane. Time for you to become a red pill televangelist.

  488. feeriker says:

    To a woman, the deliciousness of rebellion is almost incomparable. Women enjoy rebellion so much that (even if and when they consciously submit because of their faith) they fantasize and plot rebellion…just as you are doing here.

    “It’s a feature, not a bug.”

  489. jf12 says:

    FWIW I’m certain that the vast majority of women in my life are not sexually interested in me whenever they just want to converse with me, which is too often. I would believe any woman who said that, and 100% believe an older woman especially.

  490. Spacetraveller says:

    Dear Mustardnine,

    I most definitely have found peace already. Thank you for taking me through this. I appreciate it.

    I see what you mean about the hypotheticals. I recognise that I get all ‘hot under the collar’ about things that really should not concern me, but I make them my problem until I am happy I have ‘sussed them out’. It is a sort of intellectual ritual I go through on an almost daily basis. I turn it over in my head (perhaps needlessly?) for days and weeks, and I drop it when I get a ‘solution’. In many ways, a blog like this helps me to acquire other people’s opinions rather than me seeking my own counsel on such topics. I am pleased to hear yours and others’ perspective on this. Thank you. In this regard, I am living an introvert’s ultimate nightmare, LOL but I think I benefit from this exercise every time. It is how I learn.

    Yes you are correct that my husband would probably be alarmed if I asked him such a question. This is why I never even thought about doing this. I suppose (as I mention above) because this is not a real life issue for me, I just deal with it ‘in my head’, separate from real life, but it serves as a ‘life lesson’ nonetheless.
    But it is a great suggestion, thank you. I just might try it out sometime, at the right time, place and setting.

    All your points are well noted. You state everything in language I understand.
    Thanks for calming me down :-).

    Swithunus,

    I am sorry to hear of your troubles with this aspect of womanhood. Honestly, I don’t know why we do it. I put my hands up – I am guilty of this too, albeit with decreasing frequency.
    But I don’t suppose it is easy to ‘shake it off’. What a woman could do though, is not use it to cause disharmony. But this takes a certain degree of self awareness, yes. I don’t think it is about ‘playing games’ in the sense that it is not a ‘fitness test’. It is just how women are wired, but ‘reprogramming’ is possible, for sure :-). I have been ‘re-trained’ myself.

    Your point that Pryce was not actually being submissive at all is well taken. Perhaps she was up for the abortion too. It is entirely possible that her husband’s suggestion of an abortion was in line with what SHE wanted anyway. In which case I have no case. Fair enough. My genuine impression from the court case though, was that, or at least SHE said, that she never wanted the abortion, and like the speeding points, she was forced into it. She makes him out to be some sort of bully and she the innocent victim. I don’t like that. She either does what he wants and sticks with it, or she doesn’t do it. Either way, she sticks with her decision. Given that we are talking about a human life, my preference would have been that she didn’t have the abortion at all. But having done it, and then blaming HIM years later is woefully pathetic, I am sorry to be so uncharitable towards her.

    Cane Caldo,

    I disagree that the spirit with which I ask my odd questions is ever rebellious. This however is immaterial. I am not in the business of convincing you of anything. I am just grateful for the answers I get, so no worries :-).

    I must say, however, that I do like the alternative frame you propose. See, if I had known that this option were on the table, I would simply have adopted it as the ‘solution’ to my current ‘problem in my head’. But honestly, I didn’t think this was allowed. Isn’t this ‘cheating’?

    For sure, your suggestion of ‘what else can I do for you?’ is brilliant. I like it very much. It is perfect in its avoidance of conflict, confrontation and loss of face for the authority figure. Avoidance of all of the above problems is paramount in this situation I present. So, great suggestion.

    But… is this acceptable in the face of someone who is determined to have their wish fulfilled??

    Would Chris Huhne (husband of Vicky Pryce) have accepted a ‘in the case of abortion, I am not allowed to do that Darling, but how about an apple pie?’ from Vicky?

    Is this not simply a reframe of ‘no’?

    Wonderful if you think the solution is as simple as that. But somehow, I am not certain of its effectiveness in deflecting disarray. I suspect a man in receipt of this answer would feel as though his authority were being mocked, almost like the woman was laughing in his face. Though I think it depends on the concept, obviously. Do you see what I am getting at? It almost trivialises the request if an alternative (unsolicited) request were granted in lieu of the one asked for. A simple ‘no’ SEEMS to me to be more respectful, actually, albeit more ‘confrontational’ and invites wrath perhaps. Hm, I don’t know. Maybe other men have opinions on this?

    Remember that in this specific case, a woman is subject to some sort of law. I am not suggesting that a woman say ‘no’ to her husband (the most important man in her life – second only to God, and to her father (pre-marriage) and her father is a close third place after marriage) for the sake of ‘saying no’. She is saying ‘yes’ to God directly, rather than the normal route of saying ‘yes’ to God indirectly via saying ‘yes’ to husband, who is ‘subject to God’. In both cases, wife is still submitting to a higher order than herself. She is still submitting to SOMEONE.
    In my humble opinion, this cannot be rebellion. This is why I disagree with you on your assumptions, I am afraid…
    Rebellion is not one of my personality traits. Not at all. For some reason, I don’t reckon I would enjoy it even if it were handed to me on a plate. I am not sure why, but the very idea repels me. And I am someone who is quick to admit character traits of my personal self or what I know to be true of the collective female gender, myself included, to anyone who asks, similar to what I share with Swithunus above. I can honestly say that rebellion is not one of mine. Never has been. I just don’t see the appeal…I don’t ‘get’ rebels, and I know for sure I am not one – consciously or subconsciously…Go figure…

  491. Opus says:

    Mrs Huhne was doing what any wife (or husband) would have done, namely aver that she was driving for the purpose of saving her husband’s penalty points. I cannot see why that is so bad, after all countries are allowed to swap their carbon emissions! It all went wrong when Mr Huhne began to shag a younger albeit in her forties but frankly unattractive woman – which just proves – contrary to Man-o-sphere wisdom – that even Cabinet Ministers cannot pull hot women. Mrs Huhne was previously a frivorcee so he might have done better not to have married her in the first place. I rather suspect that forces within the coalition were only too happy to shaft Huhne. Mrs Huhne is thus a wronged woman and after a spell in Pentonville clink is now raking it in, unlike her husband.

    After the next election (when the LibDems are sent to electoral oblivion) we will happily never hear of these awful people again.

  492. Spacetraveller says:

    Ah, Cane Caldo,

    “Notice how my strength and protection as a subordinate is not in my ability to say ‘No’ to evil commands, or to assert my own authority. Instead, I go further into submission by claiming the authority of yet another over me–”I am not allowed to do that”.”

    I just re-read your comment and it seems I had missed this bit. It agrees with my earlier analogy of how Sharia law fits in with British law, one being considered superior to the other within the framework of British life.
    It would seem we are saying the same thing but in different languages, perhaps.

    It seems to me that in a roundabout way, you are in agreement that the highest law (God’s) supersedes a husband’s law in the (rare) event of him asking her to submit to a clear sin which contravenes God’s law.

    Your advice would be that not only should she decline his errant request, but she should do so in a way that acknowledges the higher law (God’s) so that it is clear to him that his (husband’s) law is not being flouted frivolously, just that it is being circumvented in a manner that is compliant with a superior law to which he (husband) is indeed subject. OK. That’s great. I like :-).
    Perhaps, this is what Deti refers to as a woman using her submission to bring a man to God, or if he is already godly, to return him to God.

    You don’t mean (my mistake!) to suggest something else, i.e. grant a random request that hasn’t been asked for…

    If I twig you correctly, then sweet. We are in complete agreement. Excellent. Peace reigns supreme all round :-).

    Marvellous, gentlemen.
    Thanks. This has been a good exercise. Honestly, I am pleased to get into the nitty-gritty of topics we sometimes just skim over. Sorry to be a pain and dissect it all the way to the bone…I like to be sure I have ‘got it’. You must be used to me by now :P

  493. Tam the Bam says:

    Oh yes you will, Opus, especially from La Pryce. After her brief sojourn in bangup, she’s taken up the cudgels on behalf of .. the futility and disutility of jailing teh wimminz for, well just about anything.
    Had that Jeffrey Archer on the radio the other night (Nolan).
    Now that’s how a Tory Wife stays onside. The ever-fragrant Mary is of course constitutionally incapable of speaking with porked tongue, hats off and a chorus of ‘For she’s a jolly good fellow!’

  494. @Cane

    Lewis ended up married to the divorcee*, and a step-father to two boys who had been moved an ocean away from their father.

    Well aware that my great admiration for Lewis might be blinding me slightly here, I do want to point that, while what you say is absolutely true, there are a couple of points obscured in such an off-the-cuff remark that work in Lewis’s defense:

    1) Joy divorced her husband because he was adulterous. For Catholics that’s no excuse but for Lewis, an Anglican, marrying her would at least not necessarily be contrary to his faith. Objectively wrong (in my view), but at least not hypocritical, necessarily.

    2) By the time Joy died he was apparently very much in love with her. “A Grief Observed” was all about accepting her death.

    Anyway, your response to me (and others) makes sense, and is perfectly good. As I said, I have no dog in the fight, and I think your advice is practical. I just don’t like it when the response amounts to little more to trash-talk for team man.

  495. Opus says:

    @Tam

    She will be yesterday’s woman, when Farrage and co are sitting where Clegg, Cable and the other one now sit. I swear if Clegg asserted that the sun rose in the East I would feel compelled to go outside and check. Coalition governments are clearly a bad thing but extremely good for entertainment.

  496. @b g,

    The question is actually do some guys stupidly step on their dicks?

    No, it really, really wasn’t.

    You apologize to people who deserve your apology, period. No more, no less.

  497. Tam the Bam says:

    “I am not allowed to do that Darling, but how about an apple pie?”
    From <a href="“>one space traveller to another.
    Cane is mistaken. But still gainfully employed.
    Unless one happens to be a robot in the original R.U.R. sense, with no free will, it’s dishonesty cloaked in temporising obligation, which any Boss worth their apex salts will quickly sniff out. And get all arsey because they know you’re lying to their face. Or else they’re a fool who doesn’t understand [a] their job and [b] the law, so the outfit is headed for the buffers regardless. Bail.
    The correct answer is “No” and “Because I say so”. End of.
    Decisions, decisions, render unto Caesar ..

    Oh bloody hell clocks gone forrard, night all.

  498. Tam the Bam says:

    Urgh grotesque tag Fail, try again and ignore the above.

    “I am not allowed to do that Darling, but how about an apple pie?”
    From <a href="“> one space traveller to another.
    Cane is mistaken. But still gainfully employed.
    Unless one happens to be a robot in the original R.U.R. sense, with no free will, it’s dishonesty cloaked in temporising obligation, which any Boss worth their apex salts will quickly sniff out. And get all arsey because they know you’re lying to their face. Or else they’re a fool who doesn’t understand their job and the law, so the outfit is headed for the buffers regardless. Bail.
    The correct answer is “No” and “Because I say so”. End of.
    Decisions, decisions, render unto Caesar ..

  499. Tam the Bam says:

    Still slightly aborted, but you get the gist ..

  500. greyghost says:

    Spacetraveller
    Your rebellion is not a trait you wish to be known by so that comment you made was well thought out rebellion that was normal in todays society. It was rebellion against God not the female herd. The people here don’t run in that herd. To live as a submissive wife is rebellion against the herd. To be a wife is special, let faith fill in the voids and remove your your doubts. A submissive wife living in peace with her husband is rebellious off the chart today. You don’t get to be a member of the female herd any more. You are a Christian women now your comfort and security comes from God and your husband. Use that brain energy of yours to find ways to make your house hold stronger not go over hypothetical reasons to affirm your status within the herd. Be a damn good helper and proud of it and good pussy.

  501. Spacetraveller says:

    Tam the Bam,

    “The correct answer is “No” and “Because I say so”. End of.”

    Hahahahahahahaha! Very funny :P

    My fellow spacetraveller vid was cool too. Nice one!

    Greyghost,

    Aha, YOU’RE the one who suggested the ‘good pussy’ thing just before my wedding.
    To this day, I am still being pressed for an answer as to why I couldn’t keep a straight face during my vows. My parish priest and the entire congregation want to know. I blame you for that one, just so you know :-).

    I hear you. Thanks again for the advice. Much appreciated.

  502. b g says:

    malcolmthecynic

    You apologize to people who deserve your apology, period. No more, no less.

    Then we agree, I must have misread you originally…and I apologize for that.

  503. Anonymous age 71 says:

    @Lyn

    >>which was that married men are the least qualified people to talk about marriage.

    >> There is only one group of people who know less about how to be married than divorced men. They are married men who have never been divorced.

    Note a subtle difference here. I said they are the “people who know less”; you change that “to the least qualified to talk about marriage” and insist you said the same thing I did. You and Elspeth both seem to want to make changes in what I said, then insist I said what you changed it to. If you are going to quote me, don’t change a comma nor a period.

    The problem is, men who have never been divorced think because they are still married that they are some sort of expert on being married. When as our whole debate is centered around the fact that the only reason they are not divorced is because their wives have not pulled the trigger on them.

    They imagine they are great experts on marriage, and actually don’t have a grasp of reality. Which is their wives are the reason they are still married. So, men who have no clue think they are the great experts.

    Divorced men don’t have much advantage but they do at least grasp the fact that doing your best to do all you were taught to do in marriage means absolutely nothing when the Jennies of the world decide to pull the trigger on you. The married men can with brazen arrogance assume that men who do what they are supposed to be doing will not end up divorced. And,that is a totally false belief.

    So, yes, I am saying with very few exceptions married men have no clue why they did not end up divorced. So, any advice they give other men is pretty much meaningless,no matter how puffed up they are in their own importance.

    I spelled all this out in some detail, in my self analysis posting. I can’t accurately analyze myself, and neither can you.

    The only reason I have any understanding of marriage is counseling over 1,600 divorced men, and I still can learn a lot. But, none of us can accurately explain why we are or are not married.

    It is this same ego problem which motivates so many men, such as Bubba, to get involved in man-fault heresies.

    >>You think men in successful, long-term, God-honoring marriages are especially unqualified to understand marriage.

    Lyn nails it. The male ego is totally amazing. Many men who thought they were in “God-honoring marriages” have been divorced. Including Lief. The only reason Lyn is still married is because his wife is honoring her marriage vows. And, she does that because that is how she is, but Lyn imagines it is his conduct which induces her to be that way. This is the basic crux of man-fault divorce in the Churchian churches. Sorry you can’t see that, Lyn, Bubba.

    Just how many times need it be said? Effective male leadership cannot initiate effective female submission. Can anyone suggest how to say it any better? Although the Bible makes it pretty clear.

  504. Anonymous age 71 says:

    Looking Glass says:
    March 29, 2014 at 7:38 am

    He explains it very well. Yes, that is pretty much what I was trying to say. thanks, LG

  505. Anonymous age 71 says:

    @Lyn again: >> but to assert that all married men are merely too stupid to realize that we’re just LUCKY is absurd.

    Note how he again changes what I said dramatically then argues against the changes. I did NOT say men were stupid. Nor that it was not being lucky. You made that up out of nowhere. We simply aren’t made to analyze ourselves. Is an elephant stupid because he cannot fly?

    And, women have free will. In an evil anti-male society.

    >>I’ll be in a class all day, so I have to drop out for now, but there ARE things a man can do to reduce the odds of frivorce to near-zero. Not ZERO, but pretty close.

    Yes, standard man-fault arguments. Since those men are divorced, they failed to do that which reduces the odds of frivorce. Right? NOT SO!

    Instead of ranting at things I never said, I really wishs you guys would stop and read what the Bible says for once.

    But, thanks for proving you have no useful advice to give to other men. Cool!

    You see, Lyn and Bubba, in the USA we have a 40% first marriage break-up rate. Of the 60% who do not get divorced, estimates are that at least (Oops, we have commenters who can’t handle at least, sorry) half live lives of quiet desperation. Which means at least 70% of first time marriages are not truly successful.

    If married men were so talented at giving advice, that would not be the case. No, all you guys are doing is saying ‘MAN FAULT’ in different words.

    I can’t give usefull advice to men how to stay married, and I spent 10,000 hours on the task, and 20 years later, I still seek the Holy Grail of marriage. Neither can you. The difference is I know I can’t tell them what to do, but you imagine that you can.

    I can tell you the risks are so high and there are no known solutions it is better to play Joseph and Mary and move to another nation.

  506. Anonymous age 71 says:

    Spacetraveller says:
    March 30, 2014

    Well, Space, that is what the Bible says. Yes, I can believe you don’t want to read the most effective defense of that in the Bible. The decision is yours.

    The whole thrust of this blog for some time has been to reject the man-fault heresy. At least that is how I have read it.

    In fact, Mrs. Handford discusses this very issue at great length, because it is central to the Submission issue. You want help, read her book. That is why I recommend the book.

    And, that is why I recommend the Second Edition. She updates the book to include all the whining and belly aching of women, ala Space, who assume it means her husband will be pimping her in seconds. Or forcing her to rob banks. Or, have abortions

    In fact, one wife told her she couldn’t submit to her husband, because he had her involved in wife-swapping. Upon investigation, Mrs. Handford discovered it was the woman herself who demanded wife-swapping.

    Another belly-acher said she could not submit to her husband because he was not honest. Turns out she said he sold wheat that was too wet. Mrs. Handford told her they run moisture checks on wheat (and corn, I know that because I long ago worked at a feed mill and had to run the tests.) The woman said, “yes, they ran the test and said it was okay, but I knew better.” Hee,hee.

    One of her answers was,”So has your husband ever tried to force you into sinful life? And, that is when you were sinning against God by rebellion against your husband. So, why do you imagine that when you repent and live in agreement with God’s law, God is going to leave you without protection?”

    This is the same sort of nonsense that makes so many churchians try to twist around man-fault by saying it in a different manner and then thinking they have disclosed great truths for all the other weak minded men.

    Yet, Mrs. Handford also tells of the cases where the woman did give unconditional submission and admitted their marriage turned completely around.

  507. Anonymous age 71 says:

    I just remembered another woman who resisted submission. She wanted to give more money to the church and her husband said, no. She said this was wrong, and went on at great length to Mrs. Handford about how wrong he was, and she thought it was wrong to submit to him.

    Mrs. Handford stuck to her guns and told the woman to pray on the issue. Time passed, and the man got a raise or a bonus, I forget, and told her to give it all to the church.

    Mrs. Handford encountered a lot of women who felt they could not submit, based solely on their fear that he would demand she do horrible things. She did not encounter any case where the husband of a submissive woman actually told her to do those horrid things.

    This is another case of people making stuff up.

  508. Anonymous age 71 says:

    mustardnine says:
    March 30, 2014 at 2:07 pm

    >>Anyone who presumes to give you BLANKET ANYTHING advice should come in a DISTANT SECOND behind your husband.

    Stop and think that over. So, telling a women to put her husband first in her life and submit only to him, is advice that is a Distant Second to your husband? Whoa! How does that work? Are you sure you meant to say that?

  509. Anonymous age 71 says:

    My favorite story in ME? OBEY HIM? involves a woman who said, “I can’t submit to my husband. He is committing adultery.”

    Mrs. Handford investigated further. Yes, he was committing adultery, and their children were druggies. But, she kept telling the woman to submit and God would take care of her.

    Within one year of learning to submit, the woman reported her husband had repented Big Time, and was now spiritual leader of the family, and the kids were off drugs.

    The issue is most of you women not only aren’t truly submissive, you don’t even know a woman who is. So, you just make stuff up out of fear. Your culture teaches you that you must be strong and independent, so giving up control of your life is just not something you can or will do.

    I only know a very few submissive women. To wit, my own daughter, to whom I taught this long before she left home, and a few of her friends. I suspect she taught them.

    I have known many women who say they are submissive, as Space does. But, i watch and listen and it almost never is true. Space’s postings are not consistent with a truly submissive woman, but a woman who will question everything her husband says or does.

    ###
    I once told a group or men that in every church in the land is at least one woman, if not more. Who on Sunday morning on the way to church, her husband is cowered behind the wheel, the two kids are cowering in the back, and she is red in the face and screaming insults at him as loudly as she can.

    And, when they get to church, she puts a cute Christian girl smile on her face, and prances into the church, telling the pastor, “Good morning, pastor. Isn’t God’s morning wonderful?”

    In a minute her husband trails along behind looking pretty much like he has just been beat up for 15 minutes, mostly because that is the case.

    And, the idiot pastor thinks. “Oh, my, what these poor sweet Christian woman have to put up with from these horrid men.” And, he starts mentally composing his Father’s Day sermon trashing out men on the only day set aside to thank good men for being good men.

    One of the men, a Fundamentalist, started laughing uproariously, and said, “Well, I can tell you there is such a woman in my church.”

    ###
    I do not talk much about my own family life nor history. On men’s boards and blogs men are really nasty, and there is little you can tell me, since few of you really know more than I do, which isn’t much useful.

    But, I can tell you my wife is no more capable of submitting than an elephant can fly. It is her nature, and nothing I could ever do can change her. And, I can see almost every day she is very unhappy, because as a woman she isn’t wired to be head of the family. So, she is afraid. I know very well if she relaxed and trusted me, her life would be so much better. Our daughter has told me the same thing. And, has tried to tell her that.

    But, before you heroes get up your dander and start trashing me out, this is exactly why I know nothing you studly heroes can do can control a rebellious wife, as you imagine you can. The Bible is exactly correct. And, man-fault hereticss are exactly wrong.

    I understand the part about men love your wives. It is hard. A Fundamentalist couple some years ago told me, when I described what it was like having a hyperactive wife and son, “You have to just treat it like your job, because it is. If you treat it like just part of your life, you can’t do it.”

    It really helped a lot.

  510. I mean come on… its like, whatever? It is plainly obvious to anyone who is remotely honest with themselves what is going on here.

    Jenny never loved Leif. And Jenny feels that in her feminine imperitive, she is entitled to love someone. End of story.

    That is really all this is. Many years ago, she said yes to his proposal probably because she was so young and didn’t have anything (or anyone) better to do. She had his kids and (well) that didn’t fulfill her. In fact, I’m not even sure if she could ever describe what would fulfill her. But she was sociopathic enough to not care in the least that what she did destroyed so many lives. The only thing that mattered is that she was entitled to be loved by someone that she also loved in return. Jenny is one messed up, spoiled rotten, dysfunctional, f-cked up, entitled, selfish, self-rightous bitch, who happened to know a thing or two about no-fault-divorce law and decided that she wanted to try and be happy in this short period of 90 years we call a lifetime that we are on this planet. And because she can’t love Leif, she would never be happy staying with him.

    The problem is the no-fault-divorce law. Thats it. It wasn’t Leif. It was the law. The law enabled her. We created these laws that allowed women to nuke their marriages because they aren’t in love and (well) that is all this is. It doesn’t make a damn bit of difference if Jenny thinks she is a Christian or what kind of wine she likes or whether or not Mitt Romney would approve of disapprove of what she’s done. It doesn’t matter if her old Pastor ex-communicated her or not, she’ll just find another church where they will enable her selfish behavior.

    Who gives a damn that she is not finding Mr Right? Not I. Not any of us. No one cares. And Jenny can keep complaining until the cows come home, it doesn’t matter. But she is going to keep complaining because she feels she is entitled to love and happiness (something she never had with Leif.)

  511. Opus says:

    Mrs Erikson was a teenage Alpha widow, who married Mr Erikson to feel validated in love. Mrs Erikson having rejected Mr Erikson is once again chasing Alpha dudes, and seemingly with the same result namely Pump and Dump rejection. God makes some women desirable and some less so and one has to cut ones coat according to ones cloth (as it says in the good book). Mrs Erikson is Anna Karenina but I do not expect there will be a terminal meeting between Mrs Erikson and a Railway engine. Sadly, were we to send her a copy of Tolstoy’s short-story I feel certain she would see it as a User Manual rather than a cautionary tale.

  512. hurting says:

    John Galt says:
    March 30, 2014 at 9:14 am

    Your analogy is very apt. I’ve used others before, and I suspect many here understand, but for the wider world, common sense is turned off when it comes to family relations law. Between the outright ignorance (mine, most assuredly included until about three and a half years ago) and the blatant obfuscation on the part of interested parties, a man has a tough hill to climb.

    No reasonable person with even a rudimentary understanding of contract law would ever think to associate the term “no-fault” divorce with the continued presence of alimony and embedded alimony in child support.

  513. hurting says:

    enrique432 says:
    March 30, 2014 at 3:04 pm

    incentives matter. A lot.

  514. Opus says:

    @Hurting

    I am not sure whether my understanding of Contract Law is rudimentary or not, but I fail to see any connection between No-Fault Divorce and Alimony and Child Support, though I think the point has come up before and Novaseeker who understands far more Law than I, had a legally sophisticated view on it. Either way I do not think any lawyer would feel confident in attempting to argue that No-Fault Divorce negated Alimony – though doubtless some have tried.

    Sorry to be depressing.

  515. Cane Caldo says:

    @Space

    You’re not quite getting me.

    It seems to me that in a roundabout way, you are in agreement that the highest law (God’s) supersedes a husband’s law in the (rare) event of him asking her to submit to a clear sin which contravenes God’s law.

    The husband’s law is God’s law; it flows through the husband. A command to abort a baby is not law, but lawlessness. Your rebelliousness is evident because you desire to seek out–to discover–the unrighteousness in husbands so that you know exactly when you can exercise rebellion.

    Submission is humble even when it is right. It does not seek out unrighteousness in others. It does not take advantage of those under authority. It certainly does not look for an opportunity to rebel against legitimate authority (even when unrighteous) and call the rebellion ‘prudence’. What’s important for you, Space, to understand is what I wrote specifically about you and your comments: You are in rebellion. Forget what you feel you think you know. Your own words betray you.

    Being submissive is very hard work for women. It really is.

    As a thought exercise: Consider my words as devilish. Then pretend the role of devil’s advocate; just for a few minutes.

  516. Some Guy says:

    I went to a marriage themed bible study class at a local church. They showed us a video of a guy complaining that no one covers the “real war” that underlies the cause of marriage problems– selfishness! The guy went over Matthew six for a while, but did not mention a single New Testament verse that spoke directly on marriage.

    I thought this was pretty audacious. Marital strife is not, in this view, due to rebellious women that cannot submit. It’s just due to some sort of ambient and amorphous selfishness. In fact, I bet if someone has marriage problems, I can almost guarantee that you can get away with blaming the husband’s selfishness… though I admit the presenter kept his talking points as neutral as possible. It’s almost like he wasn’t speaking about men and women at all, but rather the platonic ideal of neutered individuals who happened to he cohabitating and living in some sort of undefined contractual relationship.

    I tried to explain a little of this to the moderator afterwards. He could not fathom why I would have an objection to the material. I explained that semantic content of the sermon was nil… that it was so generic that it was completely useless for diagnosing what’s wrong in most marriages. (After all, who couldn’t stand to be less selfish…?) He then tried to corner me on what I was getting at, so I told him that the preacher was bending over backwards to avoid talking about the New Testament direction for wives to submit. I said, it’s like the speaker was treating all the verses about wives as if they were some sort of rattlesnake!

    He acted like he had no idea what I was talking about, so I pointed him toward 1 Pe 3. “Oh,” he said, “THIS passage is just for women married to non-Christian husbands.” He started reading, but it was from his cell phone… some sort of modern translation… and he could barely hide his contempt. He interpolated commentary and exceptions as he read it out loud. I couldn’t even tell what he was saying he was so heavy handed in his editing. All I heard was the words “lead” and “abuse” grafted in to the passages. I winced that these words and tried to tell him that they aren’t in the bible.

    That really ruffled his feathers. He switched over to Ephesians now… and very contemptuously read the passage about a husbands love and the washing of the word to me. “But… it doesn’t say the word lead there,” I repeated. “Oh,” he says, “so you deny the underlying principle then…?” This was in a mocking sort of sarcastic tone. I don’t know if he realized how combative and defensive he was being, but this tripped my “pearls before swine” trigger. As I backed away, he pivoted to saying that he’d really like to get with me to hear more of what I had to say on this. I declined, shook his hand, and said that I thought we were done here.

  517. GK Chesterton says:

    @Dalrock

    The reason God allowed stoning for adultery was women like JE. Hopefully she realizes at some point that she is committing adultery and as many have noted here that Jesus loves her _despite_ not _because_ of.

    @J12,

    I’ll try to emphasize more positive. You helped convict me of too much negativity.

    I haven’t posted as much in the last year because my commute has gone through the roof but I still do read. I want to say though that it isn’t so much negativity but empathy. Cane Caldo has touched on this a bit about a year and a half back with his post on being voted Batman by some women bloggers here. I think often we, despite claiming women don’t have general empathy, really don’t get what it is like to be them. In many ways the red pill helped me with that.

    Now before I get started there will be a few claiming that I’m disallowing women’s moral agency. I’m not, they have agency by virtue of being made in the image of God.

    We’ve all been in a room where there was someone bigger or stronger than us no matter how big we are. But _few_ of us are _consistently_ in the room with men that outweigh us by fifty pounds have six extra inches of reach and _dwarf_ our upper body strength. Vox has often mocked, and rightly so, women’s general martial ability. But stop and think for a second what it would be like to live in a world where you are _that_ vastly inferior. It isn’t being picked last. It is both teams claiming you are an outright _handicap_ if you play. Which is one of the reasons they force modern “office” sports to include a certain count of women.

    We also tend to talk about women and the apex fallacy. We know thanks to science that men sit at both extremes of the IQ curve. Our standard deviation is way higher even if our average IQ’s are very close to the same. But consider some of the realities of the apex fallacy. If the woman is married and her social group is roughly homogenous then _every man that she hangs out with is smarter than her_.

    We of the married really are demigods amongst our wives. Stronger, faster, smarter, and vastly more decisive. That is our position in the created order. Now imagine for a half second if your personal demigod didn’t cry for others ala Jesus but cried for himself. We are human, so we are going to do that, but post red pill I’ve been thinking about how challenging this is for the average wife. How insecure that sort of behavior can make her and why fitness tests exist.

    Look at how we fitness test God for heaven’s sake. Why the evil God? Why do I have to be stuck with you? Do you really care?

    And he is _much_ better at the job than we are. None of this excuses women any more than it excuses us in our relationship to God. But I think it does us well to consider it.

    @Annonymous,

    Of course, because for a couple of generations now virtually all people in the industrialized West have been inundated with feminist propaganda

    I think you are misreading history here. It goes much further back to right around the Garden. I’ve been very slowly rereading Sherlock Holmes and what has struck me is that while he’s very good generally about the nature of women he does fall into the habit of assuming, for example, that divorce law has to be changed because women need to be protected from bad men even where, in the story I’m thinking about, the murderer is effectively the woman. After all the push for divorce to “protect” women existed in 1880’s England.

    @Elsbeth,

    Leif saw an opportunity to 1) save her from that pain and humiliation ever again, and 2) seize an opportunity he’d been waiting for probably for years. The result was a wedding that she was never all that gung ho about to begin with

    After 9/11 some of the rescuers left their existing families to “protect” those families of men they died by becoming their new “husbands”. The Enemy is at his best when he comes closest to mocking Good. So no, I can even imagine red pill men falling into this stupidity. God knows I came close at one point, friend of my sister’s who was falling for dark triad. Thank God I figured it was probably not going to work out well for me and any potential children and walked away.

    And as Malcom rightly points out our savior complex is our hamster. Whenever a man feels that pulling based on a woman it is usually a good idea to just leave the room and find something else to do.

    @Anonymous,
    You appear to be missing the point. One of your premises is that a man who marries a good, Christian woman – a believer – will not have the problems that Lief had. Except that it is trivial to find churches that would define JE as exactly that, a “good, Christian, believing woman”. So the actual issue underlying this premise is definitional – define the terms used, and it clarifies the point.

    Nope. Up to this point in the thread Bike Bubba never said anything that implied he missed that point. In fact one of the things I like _most_ about this story is it does help undermine the “pastor’s never say!” narrative. The pastor told her off and she’s still smarting from it.

    He claims that we should try to wash and wives as Cane has also pointed out. They are our fields and we should care for them like we do our children. How they react to that, just like with our children, is ultimately between them and God.

    @Earl,

    This isn’t saying something like that. This is an accusation about alleged promiscuity towards a woman…which is probably one of the worst things you can accuse her of. One would think if that is false she’d be shouting how much she can prove it.

    Spot on. She’s shifting the goal posts away from her. And I am always extra amused when a women claims a father of multiple children hasn’t seen a vagina. One has to laugh.

    @Dalrock,

    There seems to be a great desire to put an order to these two obligations which Scripture doesn’t include. Neither one triggers the other.

    Very well put. They happen congruently in the best marriages and are not dependent.

    @Bike,

    willing to give up all (including nights out dancing or playing video games) for one’s wife

    Careful with that. You are right that marriage is sacrifice but you have to be _very_ careful with the wording here. I understand your intent but the wording is sloppy and as I read through this you are rightfully taken to the cleaners on saying something so boldly without being careful as to the direction of sacrifice.

    @Elsbeth,

    Perhaps Rollo has a point about how romantic most men are at heart

    No he’s spot on. Who writes almost all of the good romantic poetry again? Men. We are the romantics and the anti-romantics. We exist at the poles of every human endeavor.

    @Bike,

    Contrast that with God’s treatment of Israel; after 800 years of rebellion, God’s punishment is not “divorce” or permanent separation from His grace, but rather is a temporary exile to Babylon.

    I think you have to be careful here too. God does say, “feel free to walk out the door I’m not going to help you when it hits you in the rear.” Babylon was a nightmare. Probably over a million died in the resulting invasion and enslavement. It is the “Second Holocaust” the first being under the Egyptians. While I’m on the side of Cane with the use of the word “game” there is something dreadful about that.

  518. jf12 says:

    @GKC “We of the married really are demigods amongst our wives. Stronger, faster, smarter, and vastly more decisive. That is our position in the created order.” Yes, I keep telling my wife that, but she doesn’t listen very well.

  519. GK Chesterton says:

    Being submissive is very hard work for women. It really is.

    Being submissive is hard work for everybody. To the point I never considered using that line with my bosses in the past. Engineers can be especially snarky, “no sir, I can’t change gravity or the flow of electrons.” I firmly believe one of the reasons we don’t get promoted is because their is justifiable concern about how we would fit into the social hierarchy correctly.

  520. gdgm+ says:

    Related to the comments on the OP:
    Divorce is actually on the rise, and it’s the baby boomers’ fault

    To make a long methodology short, the United States has done an uneven and often inadequate job collecting divorce data over the decades. The Census Bureau, noting this “long-standing void in data on marriages and divorces,” added a battery of marriage and divorce-related questions to the American Community Survey in 2008. This paper is part of a first wave of research capitalizing on the new data and the new methods of analysis it allows.

  521. GK Chesterton says:

    @JF12,

    Yes, I keep telling my wife that, but she doesn’t listen very well.

    And she may not ever. Which would be deeply sad, but then you should move forward with your service to God whether she follows along or not. Let her damn herself if she insists on not following your lead. That being said women are paradoxically rebels and followers. They are “cursed” in that they must desire to follow as much as they desire rebellion. Thus the fitness test.

    If you have a chance Cane has written some good material on this topic when he wrote publicly to, I believe it was TacoMaster. Try it out and think through it. Cane does make mistakes but he’s got an amazingly sharp wit which is why Darlock and him get along well even if they disagree on some core topics. Both are very bright bulbs.

  522. Submissiveness,

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

    I think that ABC harping on Candice Cameron Bure’s unwillingness to dance sexy (or allow her male partner to take off his shirt) on Dancing With the Stars because sexyness is something she reserves ONLY for her husband, is part of what makes her so special. So (sadly) unique.

    Candice has gone on the record stipulating that she believes in female “meekness.” Because this submissive nature is so unusual for modern women, ABC found it interesting enough to have an entire segway into the nature of her relationship with her husband. I find that terrible that more women aren’t like Candice, but it is what it is.

  523. Anonymous age 71 says:

    I must disagree with GKC and his analogy of women living in the midst of those big strong men. Few women understand how much stronger men are, because men are prohibited, almost at pain of death, from hitting women. At least in the USA. There are many tales of women on the warpath and when a man runs away to avoid jail for pounding her obnoxious rear end to a pulp, she screams at him, “COWARD!”

    Of course, not knowing him personally, we cannot rule out the possibility that he hits women and thus has a different experience than we do.

    Years ago, I had some contact with the insane DV crew. The reason so many women are absolutely devastated when their husband hits them (usually after they file the papers, when he realizes his superior manhood didn’t save him from divorce) is because it comes over them that all those years she was screaming insults in his face, at any time he could have destroyed her. And, because most men simply don’t hit women, she imagined he couldn’t hurt her.

    >>We of the married really are demigods amongst our wives. Stronger, faster, smarter, and vastly more decisive.

    Hee, hee. Oh, wait a minute. He is serious. Another Man Faulter. Will this nonsense never cease?

    ###
    I agree with what IBB said. The problem is the law, period. If the law allowed men to mistreat and abuse their wives, they would also do it. Like they do in Mexico.

    ###
    Some anger about my statement that married people really can’t give much advice about how to be and stay married. I stand pat on that.

    Most married people still believe Marriage 1.0, which said that if you worked hard at your marriage and did what you are supposed to do, your marriage will be good. I was told that repeatedly before I got married.

    That is totally untrue in Marriage 2.0. Advice based on Marriage 1.0 is dangerous.

    Divorced men aren’t much better at telling people how to be married. But, at least they know nothing a man does can guarantee he will not be divorced, and can give the warning.

    ###
    A note here. I am probably going to be passing for a while the very dubious honor of reading all the Man Fault postings here. Which always amazes me, since Dalrock has hammered against Man Fault for a very long time. No matter what he says, on a new posting it is only a few minutes before a Man Faulter tells us how wonderful he is, and how great his marriage is, because he is such a superior dude.

    No, the reason I won’t be here is because my taxes are due soon, and I just got the papers from the States last night.

    Also, I have a lot of work to do with immigration on my residency.

    It’s not as if most posters here had anything useful to say. No matter what Dalrock says, the same men keep telling us how wonderful their marriage is. Man Fault. 500 or more postings, all claiming to be Biblical, and yet most insist the Bible says effective male leadership initiates effective female submission. And, no matter how may times you tell what the Bible really says, nothing stops these guys, and they never actually read the Bible except where the Heretic support group told them to look.

    Like Lyn, who tells us his marriage is a God-honoring marriage.

    For those who haven’t kept up, that is exactly what Mr. Erikson had. We know this because his church had a trial and found out he had no fault in the divorce, and excommunicated her rear end. And we also know it, because until Jenny filed for divorce, she said so repeatedly. God honoring doesn’t protect you from divorce.

    Actually, God honoring people have a higher divorce rate than non-believers.

    ###
    I predict Dalrock won’t be here indefinitely. I have been at this a very long time, and he is showing signs of burn-out already. He works hard to show that Man Fault is wrong, and it is a total waste of his time. He will not continue forever. In my case, I also got burned out after 10 years, and 10,000 hours of counseling and related activism, for the same reason.

  524. jf12 says:

    @GKC, yes “Tacomaster desires steadfast love” was one of my first manosphere links, prior even to Dalrock. And Cane it is to whom my opprobrious summation and valuation of his advice “I got mine” was directed.

  525. MarcusD says:

    I’ve been reading a particular CAF thread for a while now, and the latest post pretty much underlines the importance of not delaying marriage: http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=11851493#post11851493 (Post #338)

    I recommend reading the whole thread (http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=590280) if you have the time – it’s a decent gauge on the current ‘climate.’

    If you’re looking for your daily dose of annoyance, you can read the ‘Family Life’ section of CAF: http://forums.catholic.com/forumdisplay.php?f=12

  526. MarcusD says:

    ‘Do It For Denmark’ Campaign Urges Danes To Have More Sex
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/28/do-it-for-denmark_n_5050597.html

    Now they’re starting to realize (but probably too late).

  527. BradA says:

    Anon71,

    So no one can give advise on anything? That is not very logical….

  528. Elspeth says:

    @ anon71:

    I don’t think the comments from Bike and Lyn were meant to be Man-Fault, nor meant to convey that any man can do anything that guarantees is wife won’t divorce him. More along the lines of “choose your bride well, do what the Bible says, keep the faith, and your chances of success will increase.”

    The idea that a man can invoke submission from his wife through his stellar leadership and godliness is absolutely untrue. Does anyone really believe that? And regardless of the fact that the Erikson’s seem to have attended a sound church, every thing Mrs. Erikson has shared about her path to the altar (not to mention her public persona) indicates that she was never all that interested in living in a God-honoring way with her husband.

    Your thoughts on women’s understanding of a man’s superior strength were interesting. I know that my husband takes quite seriously the Scriptural admonition to love me as he would his own body. He would never hurt me. And yet… I have found the flashes of his anger that I have witnesses (which he usually keeps tightly controlled) very intimidating. I am not inclined to poke at that beehive for kicks. I’m not sure why any woman would, frankly.

    @ GKC:

    You have given me food for thought concerning the savior complex. Thank you.

    And thank you also for pointing out that submission is a hard pill for everyone to swallow. It goes against our nature as human beings, not just as women. Do women have a harder time of it because we don’t appreciate that there is a reward for it, although it is eternal rather than temporal? Absolutely.

    But rebellion is part and parcel of the human condition.

  529. The idea that a man can invoke submission from his wife through his stellar leadership and godliness is absolutely untrue. Does anyone really believe that?

    Elspeth is 100% correct here. And no, I don’t think anyone really believes that.

  530. Looking Glass says:

    @Elspeth:

    “The idea that a man can invoke submission from his wife through his stellar leadership and godliness is absolutely untrue. Does anyone really believe that?”

    Does anyone believe it? Pretty much the entirety of Modern Christianity. Thus the problem.

  531. Some Guy says:

    >> And no, I don’t think anyone really believes that.

    Then why is it that the only thing that churchians can do when the topic of marriage comes up is repeatedly thump the passage from Ephesians where it talks about how the husband should love his wife like Christ loved the church.

    It’s as if anything goes wrong then it must be because the husband hasn’t loved or sacrificed enough. They will carefully tiptoe around the submission and headship verses. Most chruches don’t even go through the motions of talking about how a husband needs to “lead” his wife anymore– even that sounds fundamentally offensive. The word still slips out occasionally, but only when people want to pressure a guy to “step up” or something.

  532. hurting says:

    Opus says:
    March 31, 2014 at 9:27 am

    You’re recollection is better than mine (we bandied this about a few months back) with some discussion of the esoterica about whether civil marriage is a contract or a status, etc.

    Perhaps I am hardheaded, but why should there not be a discontinuation of fault-based payouts where the plaintiff has not proven true fault? I can almost understand the idea that society is perhaps better served by not making people stay married to one another (including situations where the feeling is one-sided). Maybe it is more costly to adjudicate all those claims, etc., and maybe people will make up fault-based claims anyway, but on what principle of equity or justice does the current state of affairs rest (no fault divorce with residual fault-based remedies)? How could it possibly be equitable to allow one party in a legal relationship (contract or status) to unilaterally terminate the relationship with no expected nor actual proof of breach on the part of the second party AND demand that the second party continue to perform material portions of his (and yes, it’s typically HIS) obligations under the arrangement?

    I know far too well NOW the way the system works. I just didn’t know then and I’m pretty sure the average schlep does not get it because no person of reasonable intelligence would for even one minute think that it could work in the fasion that it does.

  533. John Galt says:

    Opus: @Hurting

    I am not sure whether my understanding of Contract Law is rudimentary or not, but I fail to see any connection between No-Fault Divorce and Alimony and Child Support, though I think the point has come up before and Novaseeker who understands far more Law than I, had a legally sophisticated view on it. Either way I do not think any lawyer would feel confident in attempting to argue that No-Fault Divorce negated Alimony – though doubtless some have tried.

    Sorry to be depressing.

    ————–
    I think that Hurting was trying to say that the marriage contract is the unique in contract law in that it allows one party both to breach the contract AND collect damages. It’s like allowing someone to claim an insurance loss after they committed arson.

  534. jf12 says:

    Re: “The idea that a man can invoke submission from his wife through his stellar leadership and godliness is absolutely untrue. Does anyone really believe that?” Yes. Absolutely everyone in the entire universe who give husbands advice as though the husbands can actually effect their wives.

  535. Elspeth says:

    @ Some Guy:

    Then why is it that the only thing that churchians can do when the topic of marriage comes up is repeatedly thump the passage from Ephesians where it talks about how the husband should love his wife like Christ loved the church.

    I agree that this is the party line. I didn’t ask what they say. i asked if we really think anyone believes it. When pressed, even the most ardent man-uppers have to admit that women can choose to be rebellious no matter how godly their husband is.

    Interestingly enough, while I have mostly submitted to my husband because I trust his leadership of this family more that I trust my own (at least 75% of the time for the past 20 years I’ve been a good girl), he had far fewer issues with me being submissive when he was godless than he did AFTER he converted.

  536. SomeGuy,

    Then why is it that the only thing that churchians can do when the topic of marriage comes up is repeatedly thump the passage from Ephesians where it talks about how the husband should love his wife like Christ loved the church.

    Because churchian pastors don’t have any other choice. What are their options? None that I can see. If they tell the truth and command women to obey their husbands in all things (as they should, as they are commanded in the KJB) then the women all go jihad and leave the church and find another church that accomidates their hamsterization and feminist imperative. Now the church is empty and no money is coming in, good bye pastor. So of course, that is a non-starter.

    So the only other alternative is to further marginalize men because the churchian pastors know that they are NOT the ones who decide what church to attend because they are not the ones who are typically empowered by “threatpoint.”

  537. Some Guy says:

    >> “When pressed, even the most ardent man-uppers have to admit that women can choose to be rebellious no matter how godly their husband is.”

    I haven’t noticed that. They seem to treat me like a heretic just for asking the question.

    If a guy actually presses a point about what the New Testament says in regard to women, they will go into a rage. If my wife made the right signals, they would be all over helping to assuage her conscious as she flushed me from my children’s existence on trumped up abuse charges.

    Maybe you have freedom of religion and freedom of speech as far as these inquisitors are concerned, but they will go nuclear on guys like me if we make any move that is anything other than total submission to our wives.

  538. Opus says:

    @Hurting

    I do not have a satisfactory answer for you. Clearly Marriage is not like other contracts.

  539. Cane Caldo says:

    @GKC

    Being submissive is hard work for everybody.

    When I see you, my friend, remind me to shoot you.

    It is exponentially more difficult for women to submit to those who are obviously in authority over them, but who are not obviously superior by the subordinate’s estimation. Women know this is true, but they don’t really believe it; due to…well…due to all the things we talk about in the Men’s Sphere.

    If someone were to say that it is difficult for women to benchpress their own bodyweight; no one should say that it is hard for both men and women. It ain’t the same.

  540. Desiderius says:

    “The idea that a man can invoke submission from his wife through his stellar leadership and godliness is absolutely untrue. Does anyone really believe that?”

    ‘Elspeth is 100% correct here. And no, I don’t think anyone really believes that.’

    I believe it. I also believe that submission is her duty regardless, so a good wife is on the lookout for ways to reinforce her husband’s leadership and godliness to make her submission easier to swallow. If done right, it’s not something to swallow, its a great relief.

    The problem comes in our understanding of Godliness. The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. A husband unfeared is not a Godly husband.

  541. Elspeth says:

    If done right, it’s not something to swallow, its a great relief.

    It is a great relief, Desiderius. But it’s a spiritual journey to arrive at that conclusion. I have a blog friend who like to point out that submission is a gift that God has given to wives. i heartily agree with her.

    A husband unfeared is not a Godly husband.

    i wouldn’t know where to begin with that one, LOL. It’s a provocative thought.

    I do know that when a woman does not look up to her husband (to piggy back on Cane’s point about the subordinate viewing the authority as superior and therefor legitimate), he’s got a hard row to hoe expecting submission from that woman, no matter how much she goes to church and reads her Bible.

  542. Spacetraveller says:

    Anon 71,

    “She updates the book to include all the whining and belly aching of women, ala Space, who assume it means her husband will be pimping her in seconds.”

    I used a real-life example that actually happened. I did not make Vicky Pryce’s story up. This does not mean that I think the same situation will apply to me.

    Funnily enough, all the examples of so-called ‘difficulty with submission’ you gave, I agree with you that they seem pretty frivolous when the matter is looked into more deeply by Mrs. Handford. None is quite as inflammatory as abortion though, you must admit. Can you give me an example of where an abortion was indeed the right thing to do?? In ANY context?

    I wanted a simple answer to the specific case of abortion, as in the real life case I had heard about, and because there were concerns about the case of abortion from many reviewers of the book you recommend. This posed a mental block for me, being Catholic and allergic to the idea of abortion to an unbelievable degree.
    But I think I got many wonderful answers. The need to stop obsessing (fishing out minutiae to dissect) is very appropriate for me, so I shall curb this tendency of mine, for a start, but I am sure it does not interfere with my everyday wifely submission, which remains intact by God’s grace. I like it, (submission) and I think it is intrinsic to my nature anyway, and the person to whom I do this really merits it for life – and not just because I promised/vowed. I enjoy it. I am sure this does not surprise you in the least. Many women enjoy being submissive. Easy when you know it is good, the recipient is the right one, and it makes biological/social and psychological, even physical sense because it is so natural. In tune with nature itself…
    Just because I have been curious about a specific detail of a principle doesn’t mean I shelve the principle itself. Never. If anything, it shines a light more intimately on the issue for me. I focus more on what I think about.

    Cane Caldo,

    Ah, I thought I read you right! Disappointing to learn that is not the case. You too answer my specific question that it is indeed not a good thing what Chris Huhne asked his wife to do.
    This is my clue:
    “A command to abort a baby is not law, but lawlessness.”
    Thank you. I just wanted that etched in my mind (you know when you think you already know something but you doubt yourself nonetheless? This is an example of it happening to me here).

    No-one here has agreed with the idea that the abortion of Vicky Pryce’s and Chris Huhne’s baby was ‘God’s law’. Thank God for that.
    Yes, I get that the principle of submission is a good thing. I would be the first to uphold that general rule. But on a practical level, it helps me too to see that even a good principle can be used in a bad way sometimes. Must not fall into that trap, as Vicky Pryce did. In many ways, I have to view this issue differently from you, because we are on opposite sides of the leader/follower spectrum. It is possible that our ideas on this will always be diametrically opposing on this one aspect. Perhaps this should not surprise or alarm either of us?
    In any case, you are free to interpret my motives whichever way you like. That really is your prerogative. I won’t interfere with that.

    In asking a seemingly stupid question, I think I have learned something. As I mentioned before, your suggestion of mentioning the ‘higher law’ whilst declining the ‘lawlessness’ is a very nice way of dealing with this type of situation, and deflecting confrontation. Something which adds a delicate touch to a potentially flammable situation. This sort of skill can be extrapolated to various aspects of one’s life, as indeed you gave an example. I shall gratefully take this lesson from you. It really resonates with me.
    In summary, in my assertion that a woman should say ‘no’ on this one issue, you not only agree that yes, indeed, one can say ‘no’ in some outright ‘out of the boundary zone’ situations such as this, you also suggested how to say ‘no’ in a very demure way. Surprisingly wonderful but unexpected outcome. I certainly do learn things in astonishing quarters…

    Look, I am just trying to figure things out. I am not (I don’t think) at immediate risk of Vicky Pryce’s predicament, for the simple reason that my husband is even more anti-abortion than I am – if that is possible – as my own reaction to it is pretty extreme. Neither is he about to ‘pimp me out’ – so no, I am not worried…
    Perhaps rather unfortunate that the reviews of this book concentrate so much on this abortion issue, which happens to be ‘red rag to a bull’ for me :-) Coupled with the Vicky Pryce thing which is still fresh in my memory from last year, and voilà, I get stuck in a mental rut…

    I am not looking to collect awards. What you call ‘rebellion’ or ‘pride’, I don’t interpret my musings as being compatible with this, and I think I am self-aware enough to critically appraise myself on this. But perhaps you are right, and therefore I lack insight. I don’t know! But I promise myself (and my husband and family) to do my best, as indeed it is my duty to do anyway, in whichever aspect of wifehood/motherhood applies. That’s what is important (to me). Always room for improvement. Asking questions is one of my ways of improving/refining my thoughts, clumsy though it may be sometimes. Sure, mustn’t obsess…but the occasional ‘what does this mean?’ or ‘how is this done?’ opens my mind to rare insights (here) that I probably would not commonly find in ‘the real world’ except with a few select individuals that I trust, respect, like and can discuss issues like this with.

    I am not actually as upset with Chris Huhne on this matter as I am with Vicky Pryce. What irks me is actually her blaming HIM for her lack of good judgment. I am more interested in the role of the woman in this type of situation, because that is what applies to me. Sure, I am not a fan of what he requested, but in this very (trying) time for a man, when he falls into temptation like this, how can his wife be of support? If she knows he has ‘fallen’, must she ‘fall’ with him? To the extent of abortion? How does this help them both, is my question? It’s a different matter if she too does not know he has ‘fallen’. Granted that most of the time, it is a man who upholds his ‘fallen’ wife (I agree that men are generally more moral than women – intrinsically so). But is there a role for the wife to support the husband should he stumble, as I believe Huhne did?
    I am not talking about a 50/50 arrangement here. It is more like a 99/1 arrangement, for indeed I am discussing an extreme case.
    I am coming from the point of view that marriage is a sacrament – a channel of grace not just for both parties involved, but also for their children and their wider community. This is a matter of great importance to us Catholics. (I think you are Catholic too, Cane??)

    I am not interested in ‘discovering unrighteousness’ on the part of the man, as you claim. I focus on the woman’s role/actions in a difficult ‘conflict of interest’ situation – perhaps the most difficult one there is….
    Anyhow, I got my answers. I should stop obsessing now :-).
    Perhaps Hunhe/Pryce would still be married today (not to talk of have an additional son or daughter) if she had used your suggestion, Cane.

    Of course we will never know, now.

    Again, I thank those who explored this issue with me. Much appreciated.

  543. feeriker says:

    ‘Do It For Denmark’ Campaign Urges Danes To Have More Sex

    Now they’re starting to realize (but probably too late).

    All of Europe is pretty much in the same boat. And yes, it IS too late.

  544. JDG says:

    Maybe you have freedom of religion and freedom of speech as far as these inquisitors are concerned, but they will go nuclear on guys like me if we make any move that is anything other than total submission to our wives.

    On numerous occasions I have explained the teachings in the Bible about male headship and wifely submission to the inquisitors and/or their husbands in my area. They don’t like it, but I give it to them just the same. Few have gone nuclear on me, but they may have gave it to their husbands later on. I recall one husband saying, “Well, I’m going to listen to my wife anyway.”

    Many of those folks just avoid me, which is just as well because I don’t think I could spend even a short amount of time with them before reminding them about the biblical teachings that they are ignoring. In fact, I’m sure I could not.

  545. b g says:

    Spacetraveller

    Can you give me an example of where an abortion was indeed the right thing to do?? In ANY context?

    Yes, medical conditions that risk the mother and have no chance of the baby survivng long. For example, when anencephaly, literally without a brain, will most likely leads to eventual miscarriage and the mother has the same or greater risk of surviving the birth.

  546. Opus says:

    The irony with Mrs Huhne, is that as Vicky Price she was a very highly paid economist and likely to be co-opted on to the Bank of England’s monetary policy board – the one that sets interest rates – yet apparently when it came to her marriage we are being asked to believe that she melted into the innocuous put-upon housewife who would not make a decision.

    I do wish women would get their story straight.

  547. Thinkn'Man says:

    “Can you give me an example of where an abortion was indeed the right thing to do?? In ANY context?”

    My wife was expecting our first child, and we were both elated. She went in for a rountine sono early in the first trimester. I got a phone call that day at work and my wife could barely speak.
    That day, I learned what an ectopic pregnancy is.
    We called our pastor, and he consulted a member of our congregation who is an MD. And much to my surprise, he (they) recommended a having the endoscopic surgery to remove the baby.
    I asked “how do I reconcile this with my adamant pro-life belief?”
    He said: Yours is the rare situation where 1) The baby cannot survive, no matter what you do.
    2) If you do NOTHING, your wife will almost certainly die from hemorrhage sooner or later.
    So the just thing to do would be to take action and save her life, because inaction will be fatal.

    My wife and I were devastated for months afterwards. And it still hurts to think about the whole thing.

    Hope this helps someone.

  548. Opus says:

    It might also be useful if I briefly advise as to what the law in England is with regard to abortion, for of course Roe -v- Wade is not our law. The Abortion Act 1967 provides that if the medical or physical welfare of the woman is at risk and provided the foetus is not yet twenty-six weeks of gestation (euphemistically regarded as viable) then provided two medical qualified practitioners certify in writing that is so then an abortion might take place.

    Naturally the law has not been implemented as intended and Doctors hand out certificates like well-wishers at a wedding.

    As with Divorce it is not technically on demand but that is the effect of the legislation.

  549. JDG,

    Many of those folks just avoid me, which is just as well because I don’t think I could spend even a short amount of time with them before reminding them about the biblical teachings that they are ignoring. In fact, I’m sure I could not.

    I am actually quite surprised (and pleased) that your pastor(s) haven’t given you your Joeseph of Jackson ex-communication tribunal yet.

  550. JDG says:

    IBB that’s probably because he believe’s as I do, and doesn’t let money dictate what comes from the pulpit. He was not always this way and is not completely ‘red pill'; however, he teaches wifely submission. In addition, he does not suffer under the delusion that women are somehow innately good and just need a good man to bring it out of them. I believe he has a heart for God and pursues the truth where ever it may be found. That’s what I have seen at any rate.

    Those that attend where I do and disagree with wifely submission usually don’t stay with us for very long. Although some encounters with feminist minded church goers were at the church I attend, there were even more of these exchanges with folks from other congregations.

    We have partnered with various churches in the area over the years in ministry and still do. I have shared scripture with more feminist minded church goers than I can remember in this way (Pastors included). Also there were/are frequent run ins with church goers outside of ministry (such as school, work, the local Walmart, ect.).

  551. jf12 says:

    Re: fixing men. Taz elsewhere made the brilliant crystallization of What Women Really Want: the just-in-time man. Leave her alone, except when she doesn’t want to be left alone. Since women refuse to be fixed, the fixing of men has been the gleam in women’s eye since day one (or Day Nine, maybe). An elegant treatise from a century ago entitled “Married Love” by Dr. Marie Stopes should be required TL;DR for anyone who likes such references. The short summary, dedicated as the book is to ardent young husbands, is to urge husbands to strike while the iron (the woman) is hot, and to refrain from striking (her) when she is “contrary”. It’s as saddenly dismissive of men’s needs, and therefore timely, as anything more modern.

  552. jf12 says:

    “Maybe sometimes the true faith is trusting that things will turn out OK when you do” whatev. Whatev.
    http://thestir.cafemom.com/love_sex/170441/5_things_i_used_to
    “Let God sort ‘em out” is not precisely the Biblical plan of salvation.

  553. Spacetraveller says:

    B G and Thinkn’man,

    Yes, I accept (and I think we all accept) that medical conditions are the exception. Of course I do. This is (I am sure), not what Mrs. Handford was talking about.
    And Thinkn’Man, I am especially sorry to hear about your wife’s ectopic pregnancy.

    In the case of ‘fetus-related’ problems, sometimes the baby is lost already (eg. the examples you give). Anencephaly is generally considered to be incompatible with life. Ectopic pregnancy (at least in the Fallopian tubes as is the case in Mrs. Thinkn’Man’s pregnancy, I presume) cannot progress till term. The tube will literally burst as the baby gets bigger. Ectopics in other places, eg. the free abdominal wall CAN sometimes survive till term, so in this sense not all ectopics are the same…
    Where it is a ‘maternal-related’ problem, the odds may be slightly better for a happier outcome, but still…
    St. Gianna Molla (a doctor herself) took this risk and died, her baby daughter lived. My mother took this risk and survived, I lived. The mother of Tim Tebow also took this risk and survived, he lived. I can give dozens of other examples I know of. Did I mention I was passionate about this subject? :P

    In all of the above cases, abortion was the medically-sanctioned and therefore (even I agree!) the sensible advice because of the serious odds against a happy ending for all concerned. I have no problem with abortion on medical grounds. (But note: I don’t mean here that for example if a child has something like Trisomy 21 or some such that medical advice to abort is right – I refer only to cases where the baby is literally dead or there is something that severely reduces their chances of getting born alive, as anticipated by neonatal paediatricians of good standing who have sought the appropriate counsel). I have looked into this before – The Church *usually* has no issue with this either.

    *I say ‘usually’ because occasionally one hears of bizarre cases. For example, there was a very sad case in Ireland 2 or 3 years ago where an Indian woman (I think she was a dentist?) died because after her miscarriage, the Catholic hospital would not ‘abort’ the already dead baby, on moral grounds, preferring to have her wait until it came out ‘naturally’. It was a bizarre case. When she died (septicaemia resulting from a partial miscarriage) there was an outcry against The Church. I never fully understood the hospital’s defence. For the most part, I think The Church is clear on such medical cases though – abortion and euthanasia alike.
    So yes, I agree this constitutes a notable exception! Thank you for reminding me…

  554. Desiderius says:

    “A husband unfeared is not a Godly husband.

    i wouldn’t know where to begin with that one, LOL. It’s a provocative thought.”

    An example, from this article:

    “Kennedy tells how this otherwise unfocused athlete channeled his troublesome energies into disciplined play under the tutelage and influence of his tough and well-respected father, Harry Francis Rose. The loss of his father played in Pete’s demise. ‘With Harry gone,’ Kennedy writes, ‘Pete did not care who he might disappoint.'”

    That’s fear too. The DV propaganda has done a lot of damage.

  555. greyghost says:

    Let me fix this abortion issue for you married ladies.
    Husband: I need you to get an abortion honey, and kill that unborn child. I have plans for when the youngest starts school.

    Submissive wife: I can’t do that baby. It is not your child to have killed.

    Exceptions are there to test faith. Only a churchian jackass out to empress other men with how Christian righteous they are would leave a death baby inside a woman that needs help.

  556. IBB that’s probably because he believe’s as I do, and doesn’t let money dictate what comes from the pulpit. He was not always this way and is not completely ‘red pill’; however, he teaches wifely submission.

    That is real good.

    I have never ever in my entire churchian life ever had a pastor like that, ever. I am envious of you.

  557. Lena S. says:

    J.M.J.

    Elspeth says:

    The idea that a man can invoke submission from his wife through his stellar leadership and godliness is absolutely untrue. Does anyone really believe that?

    Well I believe that – remember me? I’ve come to a realisation I thought I’d share with y’all today. This whole “submission is a struggle” thing is a manifestation of the Jezebel spirit/demon. No, really. You are struggling against Jezebel and don’t even know it. Jezebel cannot live with masculine dominance. Men who support the ‘submission first’ heresy are enabling the Jezebel spirit to flourish.

    It is laughable that a masculine benevolent man could not lead a woman into submission. Such a man should inspire a woman to trust him to guide her, protect her, and provide for her. She then counsels him, listens to him and binds her life to his in the triumphs and the struggles. (Note that she does not struggle alone to feign submission).

    If her struggle to rein herself in is done alone, she is not submitting and is topping from the bottom. This is the spirit of Jezebel that absolutely needs to be in total control and cannot accept guidance from a man. Jezebel pretends to be more aware, more moral, and smarter. Jezebel is in rebellion to the masculine and in rebellion to her husband.

    That many women claim that a regular woman would not feel secure under the ‘stellar leadership’ of a Godly man gave me a good belly laugh.

    Before you immediately attack me as usual, here is a decent talk on this subject for all of you that call yourselves Christians to mull over.

  558. JDG says:

    Hear that guys? It’s your fault after all.

  559. greyghost says:

    Yeah he should have kicked her ass

  560. They Call Me Tom says:

    “Sadly, were we to send her a copy of Tolstoy’s short-story I feel certain she would see it as a User Manual rather than a cautionary tale.”

    It’s funny that Anna Karenina is titled after one of the story’s foils. Maybe as Tolstoy wrote he was still debating, modernism or tradition? But, by the end of the story, both Anna and Vromsky are pitiful jokes thanks to their embracing the values of secular modernism. Meanwhile Kitty and Levin overcome the same vanities that Anna and Vromsky couldn’t resist, and find a way to live happily ever after. It’s obvious which worldview Tolstoy though had more merit by the end of the book.

  561. embracing reality says:

    “Jezebel spirit” again is it?

    It never ceases to amaze me how the charismatics/pentecostals/ churchian kooks constantly recycle crack pot theology pieced together from the old testament to reinvent religion. WHY is this alleged “jezebel spirit” never mentioned once in the entire new testament? Not by Christ, Paul, not by anyone?

    Lets try some bible. Got Bible?
    5:22,23 “Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.”

    1 Peter 3:1-22 ESV Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, when they see your respectful and pure conduct. Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious. For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands,

    Colossians 3:18 Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.

    Huh, no mention of the jezebel.. Who is told first to submit again? And who is told to lead???

    ” Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself ”

    ” Men who support the ‘submission first’ heresy”
    Until you can provide a scripture *from the bible* that teaches women naturally’ submit to “masculine benevolent men” then I say your theology is absolute garbage and the “jezebel spirit” is nothing more than weak women giving glory to evil by naming it all the while making excuses for the real culprit. WOMEN IN REBELLION AGAINST GOD, aka sin, plain and simple.

  562. embracing reality says:

    Should men take instruction from women on how they should… do anything?

    1 Tim 2:14 “And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.”

    So, if man was not deceived why was he thrown out of paradise?

    Gen 3:17 “And unto Adam he said, **Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife**, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

    Listening to the voice of a woman is exactly what got man thrown out in the first place. This is why women are not to teach men!

    1 Tim 2:12 “But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have authority over the man, but to be in silence.”

  563. Lena S. says:

    I wasn’t instructing men and I’m Catholic. And for the women’s consideration of Jezebel in the New Testament: Revelation 2:20

  564. jf12 says:

    @Lena, sister, “It is laughable that a masculine benevolent man could not lead a woman into submission.” Is it as laughable that a masculine benevolent God could not lead a person into submission? Why or why not?

  565. Lena S. says:

    @jf12

    Yes, God can do that, just as a benevolent masculine man can do that. Yet we all have free will. Leadership precedes the decision of the follower to follow.

  566. theasdgamer says:

    @Lena

    “Leadership precedes the decision of the follower to follow.”

    Leadership doesn’t _compel_ following. The wife may decide not to submit to her husband.

  567. jf12 says:

    I do feel like laughing, although I don’t find the subject funny at all. I’m glad you are admitting we are right, that it isn’t at all laughable how rebellious and unsubmissive so very many women are, even with a benevolent and masculine Lord.

  568. Lena S. says:

    @theasdgamer

    Freewill and leadership does not compel anything. You’re implyimg something I didn’t say or imply.

    @jf12

    It is only laughable that stellar leadership and godliness CANNOT invoke submission in a woman that is biologically attracted to her husband.

    Neverthess, that’s enough of playing stump the chump from the men, but I reserve the privilege to respond to any women who may choose to comment on this matter.

  569. RichardP says:

    Re. “You apologize to people who deserve your apology, period. No more, no less.”
    (and all who believe as malcomthecynic does)

    Because we, by ourselves, are the final arbiters of what is right and what is wrong, right? Because character assasination is so Christ-like, right? And because we are infallible when it comes to knowing whose character deserves to be assasinated, and who we have the right to offend, right? I know, Christ abhors humility. How embarrasing for Him to ever have to admit that one of his peeps could ever get it wrong.

    “Too much of life is lived as though one doesn’t need road manners if one is a Mac truck” (author unknown)

    “If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him.” (Luke 17:3)

    A rebuke strikes deeper into the heart of a wise man than a thousand blows into a fool. (Proverbs 17:10)

    Yeah – but what has that got to do with us? We’re men, right? That stuff is only for women. Don’t ever apologize. For nothing. To no one. Not even for sin. Not even to God. That’s how the Bible defines what a man is and what his responsibilities are, right?

  570. margaret59 says:

    Cane, I have avoided this conversation for a couple of days, in order to cool down. Having done that, I still think that you accused me of trolling for sex. Even if I didn’t know it..according to you.

    You are wrong. I don’t know how else to say it. When I say what I mean, I mean what I say. Should I say it? Maybe not. I try to be a good Christian..my yes means yes..my no means no. I can love my fellow man without trolling for an emotional or sexual bond.

    I get that you just don’t believe that a woman can do that. Fine..believe what you will. There are none so blind as those who will not see..none so deaf as those who will not hear. Suit yourself.

    I do think that you are a good man. I also think that your attitude towards good women is horrible. I suspect that you don’t think I can appreciate a good man who is not sexually attracted to me, You seem to think thatI am desperate to still be sexually attractive. Although, we would all LIKE to believe that we are attractive, I am a rational woman. I am no longer attractive in that way. I hope that people can appreciate what those of us who are older have to give. Perhaps a little wisdom, certainly more experience.

    I am no longer angry with you. I do disagree with what I see as your premise.

  571. RichardP says:

    Margaret59 – Cane has no Biblical authority for engaging in character assassination. You DO have Biblical authority for rebuking him. Note that the Scripture that I quoted above puts the lie to the idea that we should “forgive” people just because we want to. The spiritual model, as given by that verse, is that we are to forgive only when there is, first, repentance. No repentance, no forgiveness.

  572. Swithuunus says:

    “The irony with Mrs Huhne, is that as Vicky Price she was a very highly paid economist and likely to be co-opted on to the Bank of England’s monetary policy board – the one that sets interest rates – yet apparently when it came to her marriage we are being asked to believe that she melted into the innocuous put-upon housewife who would not make a decision.

    I do wish women would get their story straight.

    Exactly my issue with her and those like her. And until such people can take a single standard view on their own responsibility for their actions in all circumstances, I cannot regard them as adults, such people are permanent adolescents. That we assign them all of rights of true adults without the corresponding responsibilities is insane. I don’t think that this is only an issue for women, but I believe that it is a much more common issue in women. One reason for this is that our society does not raise adults anymore, it raises a state dependant voting class. A role particularly attractive to women it seems – big daddy government with all his superficial benevolence and inability to ‘parent’ responsibly.

  573. Elspeth says:

    Hello Lena. Hope all is well with you.

    You have read enough of my commentary to know that I go back and forth on the “which comes first?” issue. I am firmly convinced that the woman I was 20 years ago would not have submitted to a lesser man. I like that phrasing; benevolent and dominant.

    Frankly, I would hate to be a woman trying to submit to a wuss, and thank God that I am not in that position. This is so much better!

    The more I have committed to being a Christian rather than a Churchian however, the more I believe that we are duty bound to submit to our husbands, even if they are not stellar leaders or godly men. It’s the Christian standard and like others, there is very little wiggle room.

    So if a woman marries an unkind, subservient man, she has to suck it up and obey god anyway.

  574. Elspeth says:

    I had another thought as well. The church in the west largely teaches that benevolence and dominance are mutually exclusive. Doubly so if you’re referring to a husband. Dominance is interpreted as “domineering”.

    I have been rebuked because I fear my husband. I am not afraid of him. I mean reverential fear, the kind of respect that wants to please him and is tied to understanding that respect and obedience toward him is respect and obedience to God. Women (and a lot of men) find the very notion repellant in a very visceral way.

    The fly in the ointment here is the same as it has been for the past 100 years or so. Women have been taught that these things must be tied to desperate need or strong attraction. Otherwise, they don’t have to do them. And so husbands and wife both suffer in disordered marriages.

  575. Cane Caldo says:

    @Margaret

    Cane, I have avoided this conversation for a couple of days, in order to cool down. Having done that, I still think that you accused me of trolling for sex. Even if I didn’t know it..according to you.

    Ok.

    I also think that your attitude towards good women is horrible.

    Ok.

    I suspect that you don’t think I can appreciate a good man who is not sexually attracted to me, You seem to think thatI am desperate to still be sexually attractive. Although, we would all LIKE to believe that we are attractive, I am a rational woman. I am no longer attractive in that way.

    It would be a mistake for you to conflate me and my perceptions with the general milieu of the Men’s Sphere, and their habits of thought.

    @RichardP

    Cane has no Biblical authority for engaging in character assassination.

    That’s true. If I ever do so, I won’t claim Biblical authority for it.

  576. Oskisgirl says:

    Jenny gets what she deserves.

    I am a woman, age 42, married to a great guy. I’m not much into schadenfreude generally speaking, but it has been an absolute joy to watch my husband’s ex wife hit the wall hard at age 40, as a result of a distance running addiction and an eating disorder masked as Veganism, all the while cycling through 8 boyfriends in as many years. It’s been even more fun to watch her rip through a small inheritance and become broke. Best part, though, will be in 3 years, when the boys turn 18, child support stops, and she is left to fend for herself, her menagerie of household pets, AND come up with her half of the boys’ college expenses on a 14.00 per hour call center job.

    The wheels of karma grind exceedingly slow an exceedingly fine, but grind they do. All you men subject to frivorce, remember to take the long view.

    Love from a wife who has happily swallowed the red pill.

  577. GK Chesterton says:

    Ha! Will do Cane. To be fair though I didn’t compare relative difficulty. Lent is after all a time of submission and I’m not doing well.

    And to 71, given the flack I’ve taken for slut shaming I won’t cry much.

  578. embracing reality says:

    Lena S. says

    “It is only laughable that stellar leadership and godliness CANNOT invoke submission”

    It’s already been pointed out God himself will send the majority of humanity to hell because his “stellar leadership” will not “invoke submission”. Do you find God “laughable” as well or just the simple fact that mortal men “CANNOT invoke submission” laughable? something that God himself does not do.

    “Neverthess, that’s enough of playing stump the chump from the men”

    Translation, your meaningless church-a-nese clap trap can only be substantiated by repeating the rambles of some nobody church-a-nese preacher who has scant a scripture to support any of it. You’ve failed miserably here to prove that women who fail to submit are anything other than rebellious sinners, just like Eve millenniums ago… ‘ the Jezebel made me do it….

  579. Luke says:

    margaret59 says:

    March 31, 2014 at 11:04 pm

    “Cane..,

    I do think that you are a good man. I also think that your attitude towards good women is horrible.”

    No evidence that his “horrible” attitude is unjustified. As the saying goes about lawyers and cops, “95% of them give the rest a bad name”.

    “I suspect that you don’t think I can appreciate a good man who is not sexually attracted to me, You seem to think thatI am desperate to still be sexually attractive. Although, we would all LIKE to believe that we are attractive, I am a rational woman. I am no longer attractive in that way. I hope that people can appreciate what those of us who are older have to give. Perhaps a little wisdom, certainly more experience.”

    Try contributing LABOR. “Wisdom”? Observably, not many women these days have much if any of THAT to contribute. Anyway, for Christians, the Bible’s clear that women should only teach other women, WRT adults.

  580. Lena S. says:

    @embracing Ahab

    U mad bro? Why the butthurt?

  581. lgrobins says:

    God cannot force people to submit but he can and does inspire submission to those who are willing to hear his message and have an open heart. Bible verses, the holy spirit, grace, something moves a person to inspire and motivate them to submit and commit to a life with God. My choice in this regard is not cause out of the blue, with no reading of the bible, no clue of the Christian life, I said, “hey let me blindly submit to this God I know nothing of”, but rather because God moved a way in my life, His Words or a supernatural event, inspired and caused belief showing he is good and trustworthy. Anyone who converts, born-again, saved, does so because they were inspired or moved by God, to make that choice, submit and commit. God acted first and offered his gift of Grace and our choice is to respond by accepting or not.

  582. Cicero says:

    @ Igrobins

    God *cannot* force people to submit but he can and does inspire submission to those who are willing to hear his message and have an open heart.

    I would replace “cannot” with “will not”.

  583. Cane Caldo says:

    @Luke

    No evidence that his “horrible” attitude is unjustified. As the saying goes about lawyers and cops, “95% of them give the rest a bad name”.

    What Margaret sees as “horrible” is “clearly”, and I describe them the same. What it seems she wants if for me to not disturb the illusions.

    I like women, and I think that comes out in my writing. They seem to return the favor. Consequently, when I say something less than flattering it causes them to get angry for two days. If I don’t notice, then they come back and tell me about it.

    But they always get over it.

  584. Desiderius says:

    “I have been rebuked because I fear my husband. I am not afraid of him. I mean reverential fear, the kind of respect that wants to please him and is tied to understanding that respect and obedience toward him is respect and obedience to God. Women (and a lot of men) find the very notion repellant in a very visceral way.

    The fly in the ointment here is the same as it has been for the past 100 years or so. Women have been taught that these things must be tied to desperate need or strong attraction. Otherwise, they don’t have to do them. And so husbands and wife both suffer in disordered marriages.”

    Beautifully said and acutely observed. At some point the have to becomes a want to, or you’re doing it wrong.

  585. Lena S. says:

    Where’s Jehu when you need him?

  586. Elspeth says:

    Beautifully said and acutely observed.

    Thank you.

    At some point the have to becomes a want to, or you’re doing it wrong.

    This is true. I think that far too many women can’t imagine a scenario wherein they would actually enjoy their subordinate role, so they rebel against it. Or perhaps they are afraid that they will like it, and the herd will criticize them.

    Either way, it’s a hard sell. I know, as I’ve been trying to sell it for the better part of 15 years. Even among the most devout women I know, the rejection of the message is forceful.

  587. theasdgamer says:

    @Cane

    “Consequently, when I say something less than flattering it causes them to get angry for two days.”

    I didn’t say anything at all and my wife got angry. She expected me to check in when I was on a campout and I was too exhausted to remember and never promised to do it anyway. She also expected me to take her to church and I slept instead because I was too exhausted. (I had told her the day before to get my daughter to take her because I probably wouldn’t be able to.) I never promised to take my wife but her hamster must have told her that I had promised to do it, so she got angry. Kind of like women expecting an alpha to commit.

    “…it causes them to get angry for two days. If I don’t notice, then they come back and tell me about it.

    But they always get over it.”

    Ubetcha. My wife was hard to live with for a few days. I randomly gave 2x comfort and rebuke. Sexualized a small amount frequently to deal with her insecurity. She got over it.

  588. embracing reality says:

    Mad? Don’t flatter yourself jezebel, disgusted would be far more accurate. I was raised in the fraudulent movement you conflate with Christianity. Most of the manipulative women I knew from those days ended up alone and broke, exactly what they deserve.

    Still waiting for some biblical proof for your crack-pot theologies. I know you can’t offer any, you probably don’t even have a bible.

  589. embracing reality says:

    Hey Lena, when you finally pick up your first bible check out the verse Paul (ever heard of him?) wrote about you and your whole apostate legion. Ephesians 4:14

    “Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of people in their deceitful scheming.”

    Looks like he had your number.

  590. Lena S. says:

    Look at that asshole. No wonder his wife rejects him.

  591. Lena S. says:

    Maybe he fancies himself Jehu throwing Jezebaal down. But the funny thing is first he denies it altogether, but then he accuses me! Idiot! You can’t have it both ways, friends.

    First he accused me of being a “charismatic/pentecostal/churchian kook” and now trashes me for being Catholic. Anything to trash the truth I suppose. He challenged me over the OT saying “got Bible?” Well, last I checked, my Bible contains the OT, and I provided a scriptural reference to Jezebaal in the NT, which he dutifully ignored in the service of the lie he espouses.

    The truth for him though is that his accusations are accusations upon his wife – it is true of his wife, not me. He doesn’t even know me but from one comment, but he knows his wife. He is unwilling to face the truth and unwilling to do spiritual battle.

    Furthermore, I wasn’t even addressing the men, yet he keeps coming back to fight me when he needs to fight his battle at home. Avoidance won’t make it go away and making an enemy of me, whom he doesn’t know, will not help his situation. You people tolerate Jezebaal in your midst and attack the person who points it out and refuse to take the slightest responsibility. Absolutely pathetic.

  592. Cicero says:

    @ Lena S.

    “*You people* tolerate Jezebaal in your midst and attack the person who points it out and refuse to take the slightest responsibility.”

    And who exactly are these people you are referring to? I don’t remember condoning any Jezebel behaviour. If you think I did could you please highlight this to me.

  593. Lena S. says:

    @Cicero

    Look for yourself. Are there any shameless and scheming women around? Do women manipulate? This is the meaning of the word “jezebel”. Understand this and you will be more able to spot the jezebels. So long as these woman are tolerated, their behaviour is condoned.

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Jezebel
    http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/jezebel/

    One of the meanings given at the second link is “unhusbanded”. Now, this does not necessarily mean all married women (as defined by civil law or even by the Church) are safe, since husbanding is also a verb. One can have a husband who is not husbanding. Jezebel herself had a husband in Ahab, but he was ruled by her and thus was not husbanding, thus she could be said to be unhusbanded. Conversely, traditionally nuns, for example, were under the headship of a priest and are therefore potentially to be considered husbanded.

    I don’t doubt my words will be twisted and used against me, as they usually are, but that is the way of the world. If I cared about that, I would simply remain silent in the face of what I see and know. I will return to my silence soon enough either way.

  594. Cicero says:

    @ Lena S.
    “I don’t doubt my words will be twisted and used against me, as they usually are, but that is the way of the world”

    My question wasn’t with regards to how a Jezebel operates. My question was and request was the following.
    And who exactly are these people you are referring to? Which you did not mention by name and only referred to in a general term.
    I don’t remember condoning any Jezebel behaviour. If you think I did could you please highlight this to me. Which you did not highlight.

    So I ask the same question make the same request.

  595. Lena S. says:

    It is up to each person to determine who is trustworthy and who is not. You are asking me (or trying to trick me) to engage in libel; that is, the written publication of a defamatory remark that could damage the reputation or character of other persons.

  596. Elspeth says:

    Elspeth says:

    The idea that a man can invoke submission from his wife through his stellar leadership and godliness is absolutely untrue. Does anyone really believe that?

    Well I believe that – remember me? I’ve come to a realisation I thought I’d share with y’all today. This whole “submission is a struggle” thing is a manifestation of the Jezebel spirit/demon. No, really. You are struggling against Jezebel and don’t even know it. Jezebel cannot live with masculine dominance. Men who support the ‘submission first’ heresy are enabling the Jezebel spirit to flourish.

    I don’t really know for sure if the Jezebel reference was directed at me, nor do I care frankly, but I just thought I would direct Cicero to the exchange that introduced the notion.

    Whether it was directed at me or not, I actually agree with Lena that too often online there is thirst for blood in the water or some sort of indication that an Internet persona can or should be trusted in any way. What purpose would it serve to point a finger when there is no way of knowing if you’re pointing it erroneously? These are exchanges of ideas and opinions between people who are for the most part, strangers.

    Each person has to suss out what is worth accepting, deliberating, dismissing or distrusting for himself or herself.

  597. Elspeth says:

    On second thought I’ll call a spade a spade. The truth is that I have struggled against the “Jezebel spirit.” I’m not too proud or gripped by delusions of perfection to admit it.

    Through the Holy Spirit, and with a lot of husbanding, I have emerged victorious. And still married. Happily.

  598. jf12 says:

    It was actually “two or three” eunuchs who actually caused Jezebel’s downfall, I chime in helpfully.

    FWIW “driving like Jehu” is proverbial for speeding. It’s the sort of thing a preacher friend would say to me while I was trying to get us to choir practice on time.

  599. Lena S. says:

    I think all men can think back on a time they were weak and avoided taking responsibility, and I think all women can remember a time they acted like a shrew. So there is a bit of evil tendencies in all of us.

    That said, it seems those that say they have struggled the hardest to overcome these tendencies think they should be more highly praised than those who have not had such a struggle to overcome. The reformed women who went from feminist to Christian traditional submission often want to be more highly esteemed, but to grant them praise for this is akin to praising a former slut for not slutting around anymore and being faithful to one man in marriage. Or a former drug addict being more highly esteemed for quitting than the person who had the sense not to start in the first place. Should she be more highly praised for her fidelity than a low count woman or a virgin woman?

    I wrote what I did so everyone could reflect on their own past (and possibly present) actions and self-evaluate, not to accuse anyone in particular. Often the reason that people react negatively to something is because they self-identify with what was said and then they take personal offense when it was never personally directed at them at all.

    Also I was talking about a spirit, not a person. Is it not possible to anyone that the struggle some women describe with submission is actually a struggle against Jezebel manifesting in their own lives? And if this is so, should we tolerate the manipulations of women under the influence of a Jezebel spirit? And if husbands see this in their wives, wouldn’t it behove them to know what they are up against in order to deal with it effectively? Just like the recovering alcoholic must struggle to avoid backsliding, the reformed woman will necessarily struggle to maintain her overcoming. That’s just reality. Attacking the messenger isn’t going to help anyone.

  600. Lena S. says:

    @jf12

    2 Kings 9

    Jehu ordered the eunuchs to do it. As for the driving, from the same chapter: And the watchman told, saying: He came even to them, but returneth not: and the driving is like the driving of Jehu the son of Namsi, for he drives furiously.

  601. jf12 says:

    So, with just another eunuch or two, I’m confident I can get this Jezebel thing licked.

  602. lgrobins says:

    “Through the Holy Spirit, and with a lot of husbanding, I have emerged victorious. And still married. Happily.”

    So, are you saying it was his stellar leadership and godliness then? I’m not saying this to be a PIA, just seems inconsistent. Your husband did something that caused a response in you. Quelled your inner Jezebel.

  603. Elspeth says:

    That said, it seems those that say they have struggled the hardest to overcome these tendencies think they should be more highly praised than those who have not had such a struggle to overcome.

    I actually agree with this, no matter what the struggle it is we’re referring to. I read a lot of Christian wife blogs, lots of testimonies. It never once occurred to me that any of the women were angling for praise. Just trying to share what they’ve learned.

    My struggle in this area was always more internal than external anyway. My husband has never had any trouble with me being outwardly rebellious, mouthy, etc. I just came to the realization that my heart and actions needed to line up. Hence the “struggle”.

  604. Elspeth says:

    So, are you saying it was his stellar leadership and godliness then? I’m not saying this to be a PIA, just seems inconsistent.

    Cross posted, it seems.

    My answer is that it was both, like I said. I just truly believe that only God can change a heart, make it right. Did he use my husband’s husbanding to do that? Absolutely! If you’ve ever read my blog, then the ways that God has used my husband are on record.

    But even my husband would decline to take all of the credit.

  605. lgrobins says:

    “What purpose would it serve to point a finger when there is no way of knowing if you’re pointing it erroneously? These are exchanges of ideas and opinions between people who are for the most part, strangers.

    Each person has to suss out what is worth accepting, deliberating, dismissing or distrusting for himself or herself.”

    This was the point of my red pill woman post, but some women launched into hysterics over it and men brought out the catfight calls.

    There is a way to know for those who blog with their real names and volunteer a plethora of personal information. Simple google searching can be mighty illuminating.