A husband’s plea to Catholic Answers Forum: Stop sowing discord in my house!

housewifedynamiteA little over a week ago a Catholic woman by the handle Be Courageous was disturbed that her husband wasn’t properly submitting to her headship, and decided to break out the detonator with a forum post Is There Hope for My Marriage?

In her post we learn how truly awful her layabout husband is, and how his laziness, boringness, video game “addiction”, smoking, and stock investing are destroying the family:

I am typing this a very tired and extremely frustrated mom of two little boys at 2:30 a.m. because I cannot sleep due to my husband and his video game addiction. I am starting to wonder if there is hope for my marriage? We have been married for 5 years and the video gaming has been a major problem. It even caused problems for me and breastfeeding both of my boys as infants because I was so exhausted and not getting any help from my husband while he hid away upstairs in our office playing this video game he has played for over 15 years of his life. He refuses to go anywhere with me and the kids as a family and prefers to stay at home if he is not working…

He also smokes heavily and plays the stock market as if he is gambling with our money. He is in charge of all of our finances, and when I ask him about things he always has an answer, but things just don’t add up. He also doesn’t warm up to me emotionally unless he wants to me to be intimate with him and then it seems like he rewards me for it. I get extremely depressed at times because I feel like I am on an emotional roller coaster and I wish he was a better role model for our little ones and present for them more instead of glued to the computer with his game or stocks or outside smoking constantly. I feel like a single mother much of the time. Any advice? He doesn’t think he has a problem and refuses counseling, I have already tried that.

Not surprisingly she wasn’t reminded of Saint Peter’s instruction to wives in 1 Pet 3*, but instead was very quickly advised to give her husband a wakeup-call by commenter Christy Beth:

Personally, I think it’s time to play hardball with him. Tell him you want a separation (and mean it) if his game playing continues. Check to see if you can stay with someone in your family at least temporarily. This will give you a break and maybe show him where he would be without you…

Commenter Cat agreed with the need to “play hardball”:

I agree with this.

I would actually check with an organization that deals with addictive behaviors, like Al-Anon, and ask them how to best deal with your husband.

At the moment, you’re enabling him to continue his destructive behavior. I’m NOT saying that his behavior is your fault. Heavens no! It’s HIS decision to play games. But you are making it easy for him to keep playing.

So I think that Christy Beth’s advice is very good.

Do you have a family that you can go home to and live with for a while? Or a really good female friend who will take you in?

Commenter bmaj advises Be Courageous that she has a moral duty to not submit to her husband, and that God wants her to be happy:

Our Lord wants us to love our husbands, but He also doesn’t expect us to be doormats – and He truly wants us to be happy.

Others offered less overt ways to bring her husband back into submission, including insisting that he take classes she chooses for him, or go to marriage counseling.  This reaction continued for a few days until her husband spoiled the fun of sowing discord by showing up and sharing his own side of the story.  He also pleaded with this online community to stop spreading toxic anti marriage advice (emphasis mine):

Hi Everyone,

Just thought I’d share a little. I’m the husband in this scenario, I happened to look at the internet history when I came home from work and nothing had been done (laundry piled up, dishes over flowing in the sink, house is a disaster) and I see my 2.5 year old unaccompanied in the pantry where we have things that he should not be in to, some even dangerous. My wife is on the computer not paying attention to anything when I come in, I figured she’s on Facebook again as so much of the day I catch her staring in to.

I wanted to see how much of the day she had spent on it so I could confront her about her time on the computer during the day when she (in my humble opinion) should be contributing to the household. Is it wrong to think that a family has one person that stays home and watches the children should also try to keep the house in order if time permits?

That’s when I see “Is there hope for my marriage”, which comes as a HUGE surprise to me. Reading the posts, I’ve got a few things to say.

First, she failed to mention that 75% of my time is spent either at work were I have spent a lot of trying “climbing the ladder” to try to secure a better future for my family, on work, or studying. I just completed a Master’s Degree, full time school, while trying to stay on top of everything at work, I DO MY SHARE OF TAKING CARE OF THE CHILDREN after work when I’m home (which she seems to have failed to mention), as well as study for the EXTREMELY tough CPA exam, again to further my families financial security. In a self assessment, I personally think I manage a fairly busy schedule quite well, and although it didn’t seem that way in previous posts, balance time with my family as well as career (or at least make every effort). The SATURDAY night that she refers to, I just finished a week of studying for the CPA exam, on top of a very stressful work week, and completed a three hour exam; yes I do enjoy video games but not as an addiction. It is a pass time for me, a way to cool down and let me mind relax a little bit before I have to hit the ground running again. I don’t drink or do any drugs, I think video gaming is a fairly responsible thing to do to unwind, personally. (Please note, this was 2:30am, when the children are sleeping…)

Just wanted to make a quick note, and maybe ask that everyone do some self reflecting. The person that mentioned that she “should play hard ball”, you about (and still might) cost us a family. The thing is, if anyone has to put up with unfair things in this marriage, it’s me. But I generally don’t complain, I don’t bother trying to change things. So long as everyone ELSE is content, comfortable, and safe, I don’t really mind. My place is to provide, and yet I constantly get stepped on. With this thread, I about had enough. The dangers of these “helpful” threads are that you don’t know all the circumstances, but still you give advice that might be taken seriously. Would you trust a doctor to diagnose you with something over an email? Everyone wants to swoop in and “help” or “save” a needy stranger, but without knowing any of the details other than what was given.

Context is important, and in the current day that seems to be forgotten.

Thanks for making me last 24 hours hell, and probably ruining my family.

Predictably this lead to him being accused of being an abusive husband by FrenzyJen.  More striking is that while the thread was eventually closed (after an endorsement of Mom’s Night Out by FrenzyJen Xanthippe), the moderators never stepped in and reminded the participants that as a Catholic forum intended to “Explain and Defend the Faith”, the focus should not be on sowing feminist rebellion and discord, but on reaffirming Catholic teaching on submission and divorce.

With this in mind, I echo the husband’s plea to the moderators of Catholic Answers Forum.  Shut down these poisonous threads which whisper destruction and rebellion into the ears of wives and remind those participating what Catholic teaching actually says*.  While it may be enjoyable for those participating, there are real living breathing people (including children) who are being terribly harmed by this.

*I understand that Catholics do not rely solely on the Bible, but also on RCC teaching.  As a non Catholic I’m not aware that RCC teaching has overturned Saint Peter’s instruction to wives in 1 Pet 3, but if this is the case I humbly ask my Catholic readers to correct my error.

Update:  Shortly after I posted this Catholic Answers Forum made the shameful thread I wrote about hidden, although for now at least you can still see it in cached form.  Based on this reaction I can only assume they are aware of the plea to stop enabling the destruction of families and felt enough shame to hide the evidence.  What isn’t clear is if they will make an appropriate policy change at the moderator’s level.  I invite the moderators at Catholic Answer’s Forum to explain what steps are being taken to stop this from happening in the future.

Original housewife image by Tetra Pak (creative commons).  Dynamite detonator from this picture by Lilu under WTF Public License (NSFW)

About these ads
This entry was posted in Armchair Husbands, Attacking headship, Book of Oprah, Catholic Answers Forum, Church Apathy About Divorce, Feminists, New Morality, Rebellion, Wake-up call, Whispers. Bookmark the permalink.

475 Responses to A husband’s plea to Catholic Answers Forum: Stop sowing discord in my house!

  1. Pingback: A husband’s plea to Catholic Answers Forum: Stop sowing discord in my house! | Manosphere.com

  2. donalgraeme says:

    I understand that Catholics do not rely solely on the Bible, but also on RCC teaching. As a non Catholic I’m not aware that RCC teaching has overturned Saint Peter’s instruction to wives in 1 Pet 3, but if this is the case I humbly ask my Catholic readers to correct my error.

    Catholic teaching, aka Tradition, only affirms the central teaching of Saints Peter and Paul when it comes to submission and headship in marriage. The early fathers of the Church never supported any interpretation like what is being argued for now.

  3. earl says:

    I’m not aware of any Catholic teaching that would overturn that Bible verse. If it did it would have overturned many of Paul’s teachings too.

  4. jf12 says:

    re: “Context is important”

    Interesting it is he who is defending (to an extent) marriage who is the one that raises the issue of situational details and context. It seems like it “ought” to be she who is attacking marriage who must explain why her situation is so specially incompatible with marriage.

  5. Boxer says:

    Thanks very much for this article. I hope the CAF staff can also take a hard look at the message their members are sending to distraught people with little kids, and adjust accordingly.

  6. Velvet says:

    I am Catholic, and you’re correct, Dal, there is no skirting the 1 Pet 3 instruction. The Catholic position is one of reiteration and explicit, unequivocal adherence. No “hard ball” mentioned in the catechism when I do the word search.

  7. Cane Caldo says:

    @Boxer

    I hope the CAF staff can also take a hard look at the message their members are sending to distraught people with little kids, and adjust accordingly.

    It’s counter-productive for the admins to consider the message when the participation is so high. It reaffirms them in their rebellion. They must be doing something right…

  8. Michael Neal says:

    I was banned twice for actually defending Catholic principles there, the place is a den of iniquity

  9. bluntobj says:

    As someone who had and has a very similar life situation (profession, MBA, CPA exam, kids, gaming), I have compassion for this father. I thank God every day that my wife is traditional, and honors the fact that I have engineered our life so that she can be a traditional mom. I set the expectation that it will happen that way, and I use game techniques to ensure that it does. This man needs to see the redpill, or at least have the seeds planted. Going on the attack on the forum was a good move, one that puts some dread into the relationship where it needs to be.

    For anyone who objects to the dread part, may I ask what the function of purgatory and hell are in Catholicism or other Christian type religions? Should I dread those? What is the function of dread? Perhaps that it may modify behavior so those end results are avoided?

    It is no different in a marriage. Without a regular perception of consequences from actions, the gender that values rationality less in its relationships can make some quite destructive choices, and spend the rest of their lives hamstering the consequences away.

  10. Michael Neal says:

    The catechism unfortunately fails to mention the submission of the wife and highlights “Mutual submission.” Even though the catechism is just a summary of the Catholic doctrine this is now used to sow the seeds of rebellion, the Church dug itself in a hole all by itself on this one.

  11. earl says:

    “Our Lord wants us to love our husbands, but He also doesn’t expect us to be doormats – and He truly wants us to be happy.”

    Incorrect, commenter. It’s respect. If you know how to respect someone…you will never be a doormat.

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+5%3A+33&version=NASB

  12. donalgraeme says:

    @ Michael Neal

    The Baltimore Catechism mentioned it, but the latest version seems to have… somehow… omitted it. However, that doesn’t mean it isn’t still part of official doctrine. When anyone brings this up, I direct them to Casti Connubii. You can find a link here: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii_en.html

  13. Cane Caldo says:

    With this in mind, I echo the husband’s plea to the moderators of Catholic Answers Forum. Shut down these poisonous threads which whisper destruction and rebellion into the ears of wives and remind those participating what Catholic teaching actually says. While it may be enjoyable for those participating, there are real living breathing people (including children) who are being terribly harmed by this.

    I’m reminded of a kerfluffle Rush talked about a couple years ago. The Vatican, having had enough pro-abortion talk from some American nuns (members of The “Leadership Conference of Women Religious” [LCWR]), issued a directive that said the LCWR was, “focusing its work too much on poverty and economic injustice, while keeping ‘silent’ on abortion and same-sex marriage.”

    The bolded part is liberal code for “endorsing abortion as a solution to poverty”. While I’m sure the code was meant to keep from embarrassing the nuns and assume the best intentions, it was poorly received by the LCWR, and they gave Rome the finger. They still are.

    Liberal news reports supported the nuns pro-abortion stance as obvious and sensible. Conservative ones played a subtler hand of capitulation: Those Catholics are a minority, and they aren’t don’t represent American Catholicism.

    But Rush reported the truth: 80% of American nuns are members of LCWR.

  14. Boxer says:

    A minor point (which I know only because I was writing a letter about this yesterday): It’s not Frenzy Jen who suggested the “Mom’s Night Out” film, it was a character named Xanthippe, who seems conspicuously present much of the time that the “whispers” are being generated. It was suggested after some feminist reader of this blog suggested a literal “night out”.

    Anyway, they all ought to feel deeply ashamed of encouraging a struggling family to divorce rather than do the right thing for their little kids (of which there are, apparently, at least two).

    [D: Thanks for the correction. Fixed.]

  15. Pirran says:

    The saddest, but most predictable, response on CAF to the man-hating screeds of RabidJen was to ignore them completely. Xantippe and PhiloMed even boasted of CAF’s anti-feminist stance whilst Jen was citing the Duluth Model. Not a whisper. Complete silence when she spouted her hypocritical and bigoted bile without a word in moderation or (God forbid) opposition.

    Despite the Attorney General’s office themselves calling the model a failure, the damn thing just won’t die and like good Catholics CAF collectively turn their heads away and obsess over pedantic pieties whilst families are torn apart for the pleasure of poisonous misanthropes like Jen.

  16. Chad says:

    There is no catholic teaching overturning Peter and Paul. In fact, Catholic teaching is much more in support of submission in all circumstances than protestant. The foundation for this comes from the Holy family’s make up.

    Catholic tradition has that, after Christ, Mary is the most holy person ever to live on earth; yet that even she AND CHRIST submitted to Joseph. It was their duty, and they did so out of love. Catholic traditional teaching holds that Joseph was responsible for teaching Christ everything from how to pray, how to treat his mother, and how to be a carpenter. This, despite the fact that he is God as part of the trinity, demonstrating how valuable head of household and submission are. He was the one given visions and instructions by the angels, not Mary.

    Catholic teaching has no room for lack of submission. Whether that is actually taught or not, usually not, is a whole other story

  17. Michael Neal says:

    @ donalgraeme

    Yes I know that that it is still part of the doctrine but that fact that it is missing from the catechism is the rationale that is used to dismiss it, The Church was trying to be political and conciliatory and is reaping what it has sowed.

  18. Michael Neal says:

    I am tempted to start a website dedicated solely to discrediting and exposing CAF

  19. Boxer says:

    Dear Pirran:

    Xantippe and PhiloMed even boasted of CAF’s anti-feminist stance whilst Jen was citing the Duluth Model. Not a whisper. Complete silence when she spouted her hypocritical and bigoted bile without a word in moderation or (God forbid) opposition.

    While I don’t know PhiloMed, I have noticed that whenever a disgruntled wife shows up, complaining about a husband who isn’t properly following her orders, Xantippe is usually among the first to jump in and start up the “whispering”. It’s like that little kid in the class who, whenever there’s some sort of problem or trouble, always seems to be close by. She’s much more outwardly reasonable than a kook like Frenzy Jen, which makes her all the more dangerous and more difficult to dismiss.

    Michael Neal:

    I am tempted to start a website dedicated solely to discrediting and exposing CAF

    This week I sent off a letter to the Diocese of San Diego, with screenshots of this nonsense. I don’t like launching larts, but I think its justified in this case. Please feel free to send your own (respectful) letter if you have the time. I doubt that the clergy know just what sort of abominable nonsense is being done in the name of their church and faith, and it will probably be helpful to point it out to them.

    Regards, Boxer

  20. deti says:

    Seems like a usual pattern here.

    1. Wife is unhaaaaappy

    2. Wife talks amongst her family/friends/parents/parishioners/other sympathetic people. Of course, only her complaints and not her faults are discussed

    3. Sympathetic people whisper about “abuse” and “you deserve better” and “he’s wrong” and “what’s his problem” and “kick him to the curb” and “stop having sex with him” and “he needs to shape up or ship out”

    4. Wife gives “wake up call” with full approval of church

    The purpose of all this is to help the wife reestablish dominance, thinking this will make her happy. She does this through

    –gathering allies close, banishing enemies, and forcing everyone around her to take sides

    — getting validation and affirmation from others that (1) she’s not nuts; (2) she’s in the right and (3) her husband is in the wrong; and then

    –tightening the thumbscrews and brandishing the sword of Damocles by reaching for it in a threatening manner:

    “Give me what I want or else.”

  21. Professor Hale says:

    The Catholic church has a lot of unbiblical practices. This is because they are mostly made up of … people. It certainly isn’t because the church is promoting those practices. But you still see heresies like Mary worship and worship of the dead. Like most other churches in the USA, the Catholic church is choosing to not look at the traditional Biblical teachings and instead promote touchy-feely sunshine and happy thoughts.

  22. desiderian says:

    Chad,

    “Catholic teaching has no room for lack of submission. Whether that is actually taught or not, usually not, is a whole other story”

    Teaching like http://wgsp.georgetown.edu/?

    Yeah, not so much.

  23. Professor Hale, you are confusing “worship” and “prayer”. To pray is to ask something of one who has greater authority. Catholics do not “worship” Mary or any saint. We ask them to pray on our behalf just as we would ask any other brother or sister in Christ.

  24. theshadowedknight says:

    Poor bastard is getting a raise just in time for the alimony to set that as his level of ability. If she divorces him, does that mean he is stuck working that hard as long as she extracts his money? If so, then he is going to have a hard time making it.

    I cannot imagine how that must feel, coming home from a day like that to find that he is being portrayed as abusive and neglectful. Thanks, helpmeet, real helpful.

    The Shadowed Knight

  25. Dalrock says:

    One other comment which strikes me on that thread is Xantippe explaining (in a Catholic forum no less) that caring for two small children is more than a stay at home mom can bear (emphasis mine):

    I hope both of you understand that having a toddler and a baby is really HARD and it’s probably the hardest thing you’ve ever done. Having both a toddler and a baby to take care of at the same time will stretch both of you to the limit and beyond, and if you are struggling, it’s not that either of you is necessarily doing anything so very wrong–it’s just that hard. And when both of you are doing all you can and are still miserable, it’s easy to blame the other person.

    If you have any responsible relatives locally and any surplus funds of any kind, seek out help to lighten your load.

    Definitely consider preschool or mother’s day out for your oldest.

  26. zodak says:

    this is why it’s important to check up on her internet, phone, etc. and a reminder that all women do is destroy each other’s lives.

  27. Pirran says:

    @Boxer

    It’s reminiscent of the women on “Father Ted” (Youtube it. Particularly the episode, Night of the Nearly Dead). The frisson of family destruction without being held to account seems too much for them to bear to ignore.

    @Deti

    There might be obvious parallels with the Churchian model as you’ve pointed out, but I wonder what the post-divorce world would be like for divorced Catholic ex-wives and mothers these days. Are there any vestiges of clerical and community disapproval left?

  28. If caring for two small children is beyond the capacity of a SAHM, the human race never expanded in population, and thus does not exist, q.e.d.

  29. Boxer says:

    Dear Zodak:

    this is why it’s important to check up on her internet, phone, etc. and a reminder that all women do is destroy each other’s lives.

    Someone (I think it was Sunshine Mary) wrote a great article on this, a long time ago.

    Miserable women like Frenzy Jen are motivated by envy, when they see a woman who has landed a quality man and has a family. They spread around the “whispers” in order to encourage that superior woman to become as mediocre and miserable as they are.

    Hence things like virgin shaming, slut walks, and Catholic Answers divorce prep. It’s not that virgins and married women are “bad”, but that they’re a walking illustration of the shortcomings of the sluts and divorcees, who are now the norm.

    When you see things from this angle, much female behavior which was previously incomprehensible, suddenly begins to make sense.

    Boxer

  30. mmaier2112 says:

    “Hence things like virgin shaming, slut walks, and Catholic Answers divorce prep. It’s not that virgins and married women are “bad”, but that they’re a walking illustration of the shortcomings of the sluts and divorcees, who are now the norm.”

    I’m pretty sure that a woman I know is advising her daughter to be loose sexually to justify her own shortcomings as a teenager. Beyond screwed up.

  31. Velvet says:

    Catholic teaching is much more in support of submission in all circumstances than protestant. The foundation for this comes from the Holy family’s make up.

    Best description, Chad, thank you.

    But you still see heresies like Mary worship and worship of the dead.

    I was about to argue the “naCalt” angle, Prof, but you’re right. Those are great examples of un-Biblical interpretations of the teachings. The Priest who oversaw our families conversion was a young Irish zealot, determined to stop the infection of the various cults that were abundant where we lived. He was quite adamant that the veneration of Mary was our duty, but too often an excuse for avoiding and supplanting her Son and His Father.

  32. Velvet says:

    If caring for two small children is beyond the capacity of a SAHM, the human race never expanded in population, and thus does not exist, q.e.d

    Word.

  33. Opus says:

    Dalrock says he is a non Catholic. That seems a strange thing for a non Catholic to say – defining oneself in the negative in relation to another’s belief. Would one say non Jew or non Atheist or even better non Protestant.

  34. deti says:

    “There might be obvious parallels with the Churchian model as you’ve pointed out, but I wonder what the post-divorce world would be like for divorced Catholic ex-wives and mothers these days. Are there any vestiges of clerical and community disapproval left?”

    I don’t have personal knowledge as I’m not Catholic. From the outside it looks like the only real enforceable official disapproval to Catholic ex wives is refusal of remarriage in the Catholic Church. I see divorced wives in what the RCC considers adulterous relationships participating in parish business; being Sunday School teachers, even receiving the Eucharist, etc. It’s the same for divorced and remarried Catholic men, really – it seems they can do pretty much everything else except have their remarriages celebrated and officiated by a priest or taking place in an RCC church.

  35. Joey says:

    The catholic (small “c”) church is subject to the same rot as every other worldly institution is. Some combination of mushy headed post Vatican II liberalism and the steady seep of leftist/feminist rot into society has caused a lot of church members and hierarchy to become Churchians. It’s rather distressing.

    The Church, however (large “C” church) is the mystical body of Christ along with His believers and it is doing alright. Many worship, struggle hard to obey His laws and to do as he directed in living the faith, performing charitable works and so on. We are faithful (albeit flawed) Christians like any others, we try and fail and try again.

    Very often, however, the small “c” church gets in the way of the large “C” Church. It tries to come between us, and our Lord, never moreso than when it inflicts some trendy secular thinking into the middle of that relationship. This is intensely frustrating to us faithful Catholics, and some Catholics – including the last two Popes, a lot of bishops and priests (small “c” church administrators) have been fighting to fix this. To some extent, the church hierarchy is at war with itself, with piety in a fight with clerisy, obedience in a fight with willfulness, wooly-headed political engagements at war with His eternal truths.

    I try to accept that the church is made up of humans doing human stuff to run the institution, while the Church is made up of Christ and us, His body, and I try to keep that straight in my mind. But fractious feminist believers (Oh, the Obama-ites with their pro-abortion stickers in the parking lot…) and the men who refuse to lead and be men make this difficult (the Holy Name Society started accepting women members… holy God… Literally…)

    The last Pope said that the time was upon us where perhaps the wheat would start being separated from the chaff, and that perhaps such separation would not in the end be a terrible thing for the church. I think he meant “church” in both senses of the word when he said that and hearing about what is starting to pass for Catholic orthodoxy on marriage, I am starting to agree with him.

  36. Scott says:

    Dalrock – “I understand that Catholics do not rely solely on the Bible, but also on RCC teaching. As a non Catholic I’m not aware that RCC teaching has overturned Saint Peter’s instruction to wives in 1 Pet 3, but if this is the case I humbly ask my Catholic readers to correct my error.”

    and Donal-

    “Catholic teaching, aka Tradition, only affirms the central teaching of Saints Peter and Paul when it comes to submission and headship in marriage. The early fathers of the Church never supported any interpretation like what is being argued for now.”

    Absolutely. The CCC doubles down on these ideas. They are just compeltely undermined in marriage enrichment classes (as a mentioned in a previous thread).

  37. TFH says:

    I hope that husband manages to come here to discuss. The lives of himself and his children may depend on it…

  38. TFH says:

    Boxer,

    I have noticed that whenever a disgruntled wife shows up, complaining about a husband who isn’t properly following her orders, Xantippe is usually among the first to jump in and start up the “whispering”.

    This is why, in the old days, society found it necessary to designate some women as witches, and exile them from society…

  39. Having raised more than one baby+toddler myself, I agree that it’s hardly a crushing burden or even a full-time job. Yeah, you have to be on call 24/7, but it’s nothing like 10+ hours of complex financial analysis and executive presentations. I’d take raising babies every time.

    That being said, I get the feeling this situation would be significantly helped with some medium-level game by the husband. Submission or not, some intuitive social/sexual dominance (while maintaining an outcome-independent frame) by this guy would undoubtedly help.

    I feel bad for him, though–his mindset, life choices, and career path make him a brilliant target for frivorce. Game, not Bible verses, are what his wife needs.

  40. crowhill says:

    I used to participate in a lot of Catholic online forums. Modern Catholics — even the so-called conservatives — are either clueless about male headship, hostile to it, or both. I’m sure you know that some of the passages of Scripture that teach male headship have been designated as “optional” in the lectionary. That’s how awful it is.

  41. crowhill says:

    Of course I am painting with a broad brush in my comment above. There are some conservative Catholics who believe in male headship. They are few and far between.

  42. Martian Bachelor says:

    This is why, in the old days, society found it necessary to designate some women as witches, and exile them from society…

    -about one third of whom were men.

    I’ve got a few to nominate myself.

  43. Elspeth says:

    I have a standard M.O. when I hear from any wife complaining about her husband, and I’ve heard from quite a few over the years. This was the latest.

    My standard line is basically, “So sorry you’re hurting, but have you looked at plank in your own eye instead of pecking at the speck in your husband’s eye? Everything you say may be 100% true, but since I don’t know him, I don’t really know you, and I’m only getting your side of the story, the best advice I can offer you is to do what is right as a Christian wife. Don’t be judgmental of your husband, understand his point of view, and pray.”

    What I have found is that even with an audience where the women are largely sympathetic to a husband’s point of view, someone inevitably accuses you of beating up on the wife. I don’t think online forums are necessarily the best place for anyone to seek marital counsel, but you’d think that a Christian forum would offer better counsel than most. It seems you’d be wrong.

  44. Boxer says:

    Of course I am painting with a broad brush in my comment above. There are some conservative Catholics who believe in male headship. They are few and far between.

    When I was a kid, I used to shoot baskets with a large group of guys, one of whom was an older (40s or 50s) Roman Catholic priest. One evening, after our workout, I mentioned that there were a group of “pro-choice” women loudly protesting something or other, on the other side of campus, and asked him if he had noticed.

    “Not really,” he said. “I don’t care what those types of people think, and if you’re smart, neither will you.”

    This was a subtle but very profound bit of red-pill thought for me at the time, and it’s one I’ve carried with me. Wherever you are, and whatever the circumstance, do the right thing, and don’t worry about what the rabble makes of it.

    Regards, Boxer

  45. Ted Cunterblast says:

    But you still see heresies like Mary worship and worship of the dead

    The proper word is venerate, and it’s not a heresy.

    On another note, it’s amusing to see Protestants criticize divorce culture, since Protestantism itself was a founded on a rebellion against and divorce from God.

  46. I wonder what the post-divorce world would be like for divorced Catholic ex-wives and mothers these days. Are there any vestiges of clerical and community disapproval left?

    In a typical Catholic parish, none whatsoever.

    CAF is entirely hopeless. I discovered that years ago, before I was involved in any red pill stuff, when I was participating in other, more traditional, Catholic forums. They’re pure neo-Catholic, which is pretty much our version of Churchian. That means that for them the Catholic Church was founded in 1962 at Vatican II. Their pantheon of saints is headed by Pope John Paul II (whom they began calling “Saint” the moment he died, although he wasn’t canonized until this year) and Mother Teresa (who has not been canonized and may not be). They’re aware that the Church existed before 1962, of course, but they consider it to have been superseded by Vatican II and the modern liturgy in much the same way that constitutional amendments supersede previous ones. They’re vaguely embarrassed (as were the Vatican II modernizers) by anything that’s too overtly traditionally Catholic — in that thread, for instance, did anyone ask whether her husband leads the family in a nightly rosary, or suggest that she pray to St. Monica, patron saint of wives, for guidance? I don’t really have to look to know the answer.

    It’s a tragedy that they control the most obvious web site address for Catholics needing help and seeking answers about their faith.

  47. LOL says:

    On another note, it’s amusing to see Protestants criticize divorce culture, since Protestantism itself was a founded on a rebellion against and divorce from God.

    Hear hear! Not to mention that it was Protestantism that approved the use of contraception, divorcing sex from its proper place and function. What do you expect? And to call the veneration of Mary a heresy (without even understanding it) when Protestantism is itself a heresy! Gotta give ‘em props for the unintentional humor!

  48. deti says:

    “What I have found is that even with an audience where the women are largely sympathetic to a husband’s point of view, someone inevitably accuses you of beating up on the wife.”

    You’re absolutely correct about this Elspeth. I’ve seen it too. The reason for it is a widespread belief that women are just “better at relationships” than men are. Women have a higher “emotional quotient” and are “more in touch with their feelings” than men are. This gives women a special ability to judge the life and health of interpersonal relationships. Women are thus deemed better able to diagnose the problem and prescribe a remedy than men are.

    The other thing I find is an insistence that because the wife is tasked with child care, the female viewpoint on the marriage and relationships should be given more weight. After all, the husband is at work all day and isn’t as “close to the situation at home” as the wife is. She is more “responsive” because she is “dealing with it first hand”. She therefore “knows more” and is “better informed” and, it is clearly implied, she “cares more” than he does.

    So any suggestion that the husband might be correct about something is viewed not only as wrong, but as hostile to the wife.

  49. deti says:

    And so, since women are deemed to be emotionally “smarter” than men, they arrogate to themselves the right to diagnose the problem and prescribe a remedy.

    The diagnosis is almost always “wife is unhappy; husband is the cause”. Therefore the husband needs to fix the problem, or be “fixed” himself. He needs to “communicate better”. He needs to “talk about his feelings.”. He needs to be “more open and sharing”. He needs to “stop groping” her and “stop demanding sex all the time” (i.e. once a month) because he’s not being “sensitive to her needs”. He needs to “help me with the things I have to do around here”. He needs to “appreciate” her more. He needs to do/say things he’s not doing/saying. Or he needs to stop doing/saying things he is doing/saying.

  50. But Rush reported the truth: 80% of American nuns are members of LCWR.

    LCWR and many of its member groups were completely destroyed by feminism, witchcraft, and group therapy methods designed to break down their faith and turn them into social justice warriors. It worked. That’s the bad news.

    The good news, harsh as it is to say, is that the members of LCWR have an average age of something like 70. They’re dying out. The orders which are getting new, young novices and growing are very traditional, wearing full habits and focused on prayer, teaching, and nursing just like the old days — and very much NOT members of LCWR.

  51. APB says:

    Game, not Bible verses, are what his wife needs.
    ====

    You mean a standard showing of testosterone from hubby, right? Of course.

    Why make this out to be more difficult than it should be? “Game”? LOL.

    Common sense, more like it.

  52. Pirran says:

    @mmaier2112

    “I’m pretty sure that a woman I know is advising her daughter to be loose sexually to justify her own shortcomings as a teenager. Beyond screwed up.”

    This is the SWPL norm. Hanna Rosin is a big fan of advising her kids (particularly her daughter) to eventually sleep with anyone who gives her tingles. I can’t wait to read her Mommie Dearest memoir in 20 or 30 years time. What a triumph for the Matriarchy.

  53. Pirran says:

    @Cane Caldo @Cail Corishev

    “But Rush reported the truth: 80% of American nuns are members of LCWR.”

    This did make me wonder whether FrenzyJen over at CAF was a nun. Not a thought I would have entertained previously.

  54. TFH says:

    All this demonstrates that marriage is an impossibly rigged situation for men. I mean, how can the typical man parry all of these threats? Any man who thinks his marriage is stable can be destroyed by outside whispers in the wife’s ear, at any time….

    Game can help, but even then, to master Game just to avoid ruination is a tall order…and that same level of Game can keep a single man scoring as often as he wants…

  55. feeriker says:

    Thanks for making me last 24 hours hell, and probably ruining my family.

    To which the bitch coven at CAF responds: “the pleasure is all ours, you lazy, worthless, abusive man-boy! Man up or move out!

    “Oh, and by the way, it’s HER family, not yours!”

  56. Opus says:

    I had always rather liked Nuns; that was until I met one in D.C. The mutual dislike was, I am sure, obvious, as I implied that she was not properly dressed and that (she not being married) it was thus open season for romance. Taking on Feminist Lesbians : I am always up for extreme sports.

  57. Gunner Q says:

    Ted Cunterblast @ 2:55 pm:
    “On another note, it’s amusing to see Protestants criticize divorce culture, since Protestantism itself was a founded on a rebellion against and divorce from God.”

    Christians are saved through faith in Christ, not loyalty to Rome. I recommend against alienating your allies while facing a common threat.

  58. Dalrock says:

    @MarcusD

    For anyone looking for the cached copies:

    Ha. So they made it private. This means they saw the plea and were at least embarrassed enough by it to hide it. The real question is will they handle it differently the next time a family is being torn apart by a harpy feeding frenzy?

    Edit: For reference, the post was still available but just locked for future comments when I published my post earlier today. How many hours after I published my post did they decide to hide that shameful thread on their forum?

  59. Ted Cunterblast says:

    If one is alienated by a Christian defending his Faith, then I would suggest examining the sturdiness of your own beliefs.

  60. Indignation

    http://therationalmale.com/2011/10/17/indignation/

    In the absence of indignation, women will actively manufacture it for themselves.

    Blogs, forums and social media are the most direct access to vicariously fulfill this need for indignation.

    On the surface, women have a social responsibility to present the perception that their interests are those of the uniter. Everything should revolve around home and hearth and security above all, but their behaviors tell a much different story about their appetites. Women need indignation. Watch one episode of ‘Dance Moms‘ and you’ll get a much clearer picture of the value indignation holds for women. Whether the source is gossip, living vicariously through third parties or eating it up in popular media (Oprah, Tyra Banks, romance / fan fiction media), in the absence of indignation, women will actively manufacture it for themselves. A lot of men believe that this need for indignation is the calling card of a “high drama” woman when in fact it’s really psychological predisposition for women.

  61. Boxer says:

    Funny how quickly they pulled the thread. I have screenshots of kooky Frenzy Jen, and her attempt to break up this family, on my machine at the office. If anyone wants to send me copies of the entire thread, I’ll put them up on my blog.

    Just for fun, the registrar for Catholic Answers claims to live within the Diocese of San Diego. The Diocese can be reached at:
    3888 Paducah Dr
    San Diego, CA
    (858) 490-8200

    Again, I think it’s appropriate that any concerned brother who wants to should contact the diocese, and let them know what’s going on at a web page that pretends to speak for the Catholic faith. Please be respectful if you do this (it’s doubtful that anyone there knows exactly what’s going on at CAF, and I suspect they’d be aghast at the shenanigans we’re discussing, as we are).

    You might also copy a letter to Mr/Ms. K. Keating, who is responsible for the domain:

    Domain Name: CATHOLIC.COM

    Registry Registrant ID:
    Registrant Name: Catholic Answers
    Registrant Organization: Catholic Answers
    Registrant Street: 2020 Gillespie Way
    Registrant City: El Cajon
    Registrant State/Province: CA
    Registrant Postal Code: 92020
    Registrant Country: US
    Registrant Phone: (619) 387-7200
    Registrant Phone Ext:
    Registrant Fax: (619) 387-0042
    Registrant Fax Ext:
    Registrant Email: kkeating@CONCENTRIC.NET

    Always happy to help in these matters…

    Boxer

  62. Ted Cunterblast says:

    @ LOL

    Their rebellion against God continues to reverberate, and yet they don’t see the connection between it and the deleterious effects is continues to have on society.

  63. LOL says:

    @Gunner Q

    You can’t face the “common threat” with the same lie that created it.

  64. Velvet says:

    But you still see heresies like Mary worship and worship of the dead

    The proper word is venerate, and it’s not a heresy.

    Yes, but as I read it, Prof was pointing out that idolatry and worship are different than veneration (maybe not, perhaps he’ll let us know). It’s a fine line, but an important one.

  65. Cane Caldo says:

    @Opus

    I had always rather liked Nuns; that was until I met one in D.C. The mutual dislike was, I am sure, obvious, as I implied that she was not properly dressed and that (she not being married) it was thus open season for romance. Taking on Feminist Lesbians : I am always up for extreme sports.

    Hahahahaha! Hilarious.

    @Cail

    I hope you’re right.

  66. MarcusD says:

    Here are images, too, for anyone who wants them (one per page):

    http://imgur.com/UxO6bXM

    http://imgur.com/FHRwSg6

    http://imgur.com/DuBECkV

  67. Ras Al ghul says:

    TFH says:

    All this demonstrates that marriage is an impossibly rigged situation for men. I mean, how can the typical man parry all of these threats? Any man who thinks his marriage is stable can be destroyed by outside whispers in the wife’s ear, at any time….

    Game can help, but even then, to master Game just to avoid ruination is a tall order…and that same level of Game can keep a single man scoring as often as he wants…”

    Game is just damage control if you’re married, unless you are one of the lucky 1%. The church, the government, the media and culture, music, television, books, magazines, her friends, and often enough her family are actively sabotaging the marriage.

    It is a war of attrition over time, and the vast majority of men cannot win it. The average marriage supposedly lasts 8 years, I would say that’s probably the outside range for how long a man just gets worn out from trying to keep it together.

  68. Patrick says:

    Casti Cannubi, a papal document from 1930, elaborates Catholic teaching on wifely submission very well. St. JPII spent a lot of time in recent decades working to obscure the truth, especially with his Mulieris Dignitatum and “Theology of the Body.”

  69. Pingback: Divorce Prep on Catholic Answers | v5k2c2

  70. Dalrock says:

    I’ve added an edit at the bottom of the OP since the thread has now been hidden. I hope the moderators at Catholic Answers Forum make a change in policy and stand by it, and aren’t just hiding a shameful thread because it was exposed.

  71. gdgm+ says:

    Indirectly related to the OP, and also interesting because Dalrock referenced W. Bradford Wilcox in a recent post. This is from the Washington _Post_, by Wilcox and another writer:

    One way to end violence against women? Married dads.

  72. Mike-in-TX says:

    What struck me upon reading the cached copies was the utter lack of shame by those harpies when the husband confronted them with their sin. In fact, one of those witches decided to diagnose him as abusive for daring to speak back on his own behalf.
    As a relatively new manosphere reader, I am still having a hard time understand in these women. My wife of 15 years submits to me, but this is a result of me stumbling into a couple of game principles by accident as well as some natural dominant tendencies. Now, having found the red pill world a lot of stuff makes sense – I can see the wheels behind the wheels, you know?
    But I feel for any man married to a woman who would go to an Internet forum to complain about him; that would be treason in my house, and dealt with accordingly.

  73. MarcusD says:

    @Boxer

    Happy to.

    Sadly enough, there are many, many threads like that one on CAF.

  74. jf12 says:

    Does or does not JPII *explicitly* disavow and unaffirm the primacy of the husband in marriage (as in paragraphs 26-29 of Casti Cannubi)? As far as I can tell, his defenders gleefully say he merely deliberately didn’t mention it. From everything I’ve ever read about marriage from JPII, he puts only responsibility on the husband, and no entitlements.

  75. St. JPII spent a lot of time in recent decades working to obscure the truth, especially with his Mulieris Dignitatum and “Theology of the Body.”

    “Obscure” is a good word for it. The new catechism is the same way: it doesn’t directly contradict any traditional teachings of the Church, but sometimes it either gives them short shrift or dresses them up with enough technical theology terms that they’re easily misinterpreted by novices or those wishing to lead novices astray.

  76. JDG says:

    I hope that husband manages to come here to discuss. The lives of himself and his children may depend on it…

    He was invited.

  77. Gunner Q says:

    I see that obscuring in the Protestant world, too. It’s so bad I’ve reached the point of asking for synonyms when other people use words like “love” and “submission”. The Churchians keep the words and change their meanings to cover their agenda.

  78. TFH says:

    gdgm+,

    From that article, and the ‘Ten Ways to Improve Marriage’ at the Marriage Project, I continue to see that W. Bradford Wilcox is not much different than Glenn Stanton or any other blue-pill SoCon…

    Why is W. Bradford Wilcox considered to be different?

  79. JDG says:

    Dalrock says he is a non Catholic. That seems a strange thing for a non Catholic to say – defining oneself in the negative in relation to another’s belief. Would one say non Jew or non Atheist or even better non Protestant.

    It seems perfectly normal to me. But then maybe I’m not perfectly normal.

    Elspeth says: June 11, 2014 at 2:37 pm
    Yep!
    Proverbs 18:17 – The one who states his case first seems right,
    until the other comes and examines him.

    On another note, it’s amusing to see Protestants criticize divorce culture, since Protestantism itself was a founded on a rebellion against and divorce from God.

    Sorry, I don’t buy it. Where does it say one must identify as Catholic to follow Jesus?

    Dalrock:
    Edit: For reference, the post was still available but just locked for future comments when I published my post earlier today. How many hours after I published my post did they decide to hide that shameful thread on their forum?

    A CAF administrator could be monitoring this site. Right after “Be Truthful” was invited here, “A Warning” registered over there and began slandering those who comment here as well as your blog.

    If one is alienated by a Christian defending his Faith, then I would suggest examining the sturdiness of your own beliefs.

    Do you realize that this works both ways?

    Yes, but as I read it, Prof was pointing out that idolatry and worship are different than veneration (maybe not, perhaps he’ll let us know). It’s a fine line, but an important one.

    Yes it is. My experience with Catholics from Latin America is that they literally worship Mary and rely on her for salvation. No Jesus without Mary. Literally!

  80. Zippy says:

    The main “real world” sanction I’ve seen (other than failed actual attempts to remarry in the Church without an annulment) is when divorced or invalidly “married” Catholics attempt to act as witness to a Catholic wedding, confirmation sponsor, or the like. Because the Church keeps records of these things it isn’t uncommon for someone in a sacramentally irregular situation to be rejected as a Confirmation sponsor, for example. It isn’t done consistently, but I have myself been required to document that I am Catholic in good standing to be a Confirmation sponsor.

    Basically when the bureaucracy makes checking on something straightforward, it sometimes does (and sometimes does not) get checked. And the RCC does keep a record of baptism, first communion, confirmation, matrimony, etc — it all goes into the files of whatever the Church of baptism was of the particular Catholic.

    How uniform this kind of background verification is I have no idea. But I have seen it in action personally. There are advantages to being the world’s oldest slow-moving bureaucracy.

  81. Pingback: Grain. of. Salt. | Unmasking Feminism

  82. Dalrock says he is a non Catholic. That seems a strange thing for a non Catholic to say

    Not when he’s writing specifically about a thread on a Catholic forum, and is making clear why he doesn’t know what Catholic teaching says about it. I think we can assume that he doesn’t walk up to strangers in other contexts and say, “Hi, I’m Dalrock the non-Catholic.”

  83. Scott says:

    ” I hope the moderators at Catholic Answers Forum make a change in policy and stand by it, and aren’t just hiding a shameful thread because it was exposed.”

    D– After I read the initial post, I went to the marriage and family forum of Catholic Answers. I was able to find at least 3 threads within the first 2 pages with essentially the same progression of: Wife identifies husband as addicted/abusive/negligent/poor leader followed by all the same advice.

  84. Scott says:

    Zippy– having been in one of those sacramentally irregular situations at the time of my convalidation, I can attest to this–at least in our Diocese. Several steps had to be taken to remedy the situation before we could proceed. The priest and the deacons involved (even the Byzantine priest who technically had canonical jurisdiction over my part) were very thorough.

  85. Johnycomelately says:

    “Besides, they get into the habit of being idle and going about from house to house. And not only do they become idlers, but also busybodies who talk nonsense, saying things they ought not to. ”

    Social media is chick crack (promotes idleness, gossiping, busybodies etc.), akin to porn.

    I’ve noticed a tendency among women to deliberately give advice to blow up other women’s lives, given the knowledge of female intra-sexual competition it would be wise for wives to accept advice from other women with a grain of salt.

    You see it all the time when women denigrate their husbands in groups, it’s just a version of seeking social proof similar to putting their husbands in an orbiter role to increase intra-sexual status and proof standing.

    More time needs to be spent showing women how other women deliberately ruin lives by intra sexual competition anxiety.

  86. infowarrior1 says:

    @Velvet

    Do you see carrying statues and kneeling before them as mere veneration or worship?

  87. shadowofashade says:

    The Catholic Answer Forum ought to heed the words of Solomon in Prov 6:19: “There are six things the Lord hates, seven that are detestable to him: ….a person who stirs up conflict in the community.”

    I’m not saying I’m perfect, but having experienced the Divine 2×4…

  88. Do you see carrying statues and kneeling before them as mere veneration or worship?

    It’s off-topic, so I’ll be brief: it could be either one. The distinction lies in the heart and mind of the one praying.

  89. tz2026 says:

    Reading the cached thread is worth it. Housewife doing a mediocre job of it wants her sacrificing husband who has broken the candle on half so he can burn 4 ends is resented for needing some quiet downtime in isolation instead of listening to the wife prattle or even talk. Burnout is the expected sacrifice of the husband.

  90. lavazza1891 says:

    It almost sounds like a joke. Like someone is playing both the wife and the husband to check forum reactions.

  91. JDG says:

    Sorry I know its OT. but this is too much.

    Their rebellion against God continues to reverberate, and yet they don’t see the connection between it and the deleterious effects is continues to have on society

    Are you seriously trying to contend that the reformation was rebellion against God and not action against the corruption of church officials? Are you also asserting that had there been no reformation all would be well in society, with no contraceptives, abortion or rampant divorce?

    What about examining the connection between rampant church corruption as the cause of the reformation? What if the reformation wasn’t a separating from God, but rather a separating from those who stopped following God?

    Those who refuse to follow human teachings that do not correspond to scripture are not in rebellion, for they choose to obey God rather than man.

  92. tz2026 says:

    The Reformation was a response to the corruption, yet it broke the unity. There seems to be some controversy as to how far a wife should submit to a corrupt husband or instead seek a divorce. If Jesus commanded a hierarchy (episcopus, presbyters, deacons), at what point should that be irretrievably shattered? “I think God said…” is used for the feministization of the church.

  93. Lyn87 says:

    Those who refuse to follow human teachings that do not correspond to scripture are not in rebellion, for they choose to obey God rather than man.

    Careful, JDG, I was ganged-up on over the last couple of days for daring to suggest that the authority of men in church leadership positions was not absolute. Some guys were defending the notion that a Christian man was under the authority of deacons and elders every minute of every day, and in every thing, including his conduct of conjugal relations with his own wife. It’s not like the Bible declares that every Christian is among the priesthood of believers, or that the husband is the head of his house, or that Christians are called to compare what their teachers say to what the Bible says, or that we are all to study the word ourselves… oh, wait… it says all those things.

    Kneelers gonna’ kneel.

  94. Luke says:

    infowarrior1 says:
    June 11, 2014 at 6:35 pm

    @Velvet

    “Do you see carrying statues and kneeling before them as mere veneration or worship?”

    That does sound a bit like idol worship, i.e., the golden calf/Baal worship for which God condemned Israel to severe punishment, doesn’t it?
    Going to the source, to the raw data, we have this for guidance:

    From The 10 Commandments in Exodus 20:2-17

    “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me.
    “You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.”

    As Will Rogers once said about the televangelists of his day:

    “They tell you to give money to God, but they always give you their address.”

  95. Gunner Q says:

    JDG, I think we’ve been trolled. In hindsight, I suppose a name like Cunterblast should have been a red flag…. but lately I’ve developed respect for crass pickup artists for teaching how women work. *sigh* Sign of the times, when that kind of name gets a pass.

  96. Longtorso says:

    If caring for two small children is beyond the capacity of a SAHM, the human race never expanded in population, and thus does not exist, q.e.d.

    “Being a mother is the most difficult job on the planet?,” he asked. “Oh yeah, all those mothers that die every year from black lung from inhaling all that coal dust.” But that wasn’t the only dangerous profession he was poised to compare motherhood to.

    Our favorite argument was in the way a mother can rid herself of her charges at any time. “Would you rather be up in the sunshine,” he asked in comparison to drilling into the earth, “Running around with a couple of toddlers that you can send to bed anytime you want on some sort of trumped-up charges because you want to have a drink and watch ‘The Price Is Right’?”

    Burr may not have been politically correct with his arguments against motherhood being the most difficult job on the planet, particularly when he said the only reason we allow women to pat themselves on the back all the time is because we want to “get” with them, so to speak, but he was definitely funny. “These mothers are bending over at the waist putting DVDs into DVD players,” he said astonished. “I don’t know how they do it.”
    — Bill Burr

  97. patriarchal landmine says:

    this makes me happy to see.

    women are so toxic, so intolerable to be around, that even supposedly safe spaces are in shambles. marriage is dead everywhere. men are facing the consequences of female liberty in every avenue of life.

    this will only end with violent subjugation.

  98. Scott says:

    For what it’s worth, my wife was moved by this post. She signed up for an account and is perusing the family section in hopes of finding an opportunity to minister at this very moment.

  99. I’m disappointed but not surprised that Catholic women are urging the wife to blow up her marriage. The average Catholic priest won’t touch this issue with a ten foot pole because women pretty much run his parish in every position that doesn’t explicitly require a priest. Church tribunals hand out marriage anullments like candy to the point most people think of them as “Catholic divorces.” A married friend of mine told me that before his wedding, the marriage prep instructor vigorously urged him to omit the verses about wifely submission for the Scripture readings. He told her to go pound sand and the verse stayed, but the priest gave a homily that undermined it as much as possible without outright denying it.

  100. Bee says:

    @Michael Neal,

    “The catechism unfortunately fails to mention the submission of the wife and highlights “Mutual submission.” ”

    Does the catechism say anything about the wife being a helpmeet to her husband?

  101. The catechism unfortunately fails to mention the submission of the wife and highlights “Mutual submission.”

    I asked this the last time someone made this claim, but I may have missed the answer: can you tell me where you see that? It wouldn’t surprise me, but I was unable to find it in my copy. Thank you.

  102. Scott says:

    “A married friend of mine told me that before his wedding, the marriage prep instructor vigorously urged him to omit the verses about wifely submission for the Scripture readings. He told her to go pound sand and the verse stayed, but the priest gave a homily that undermined it as much as possible without outright denying it.”

    We did the same thing. (Specifically requested those verses be read). With similar results. You can feel the squeamishness around those verses that clergy has.

  103. JDG says:

    Lyn87:
    Careful, JDG, I was ganged-up on over the last couple of days for daring to suggest that the authority of men in church leadership positions was not absolute.

    I wanted to stay out of that one because I believed (and still do) that I could learn a lot more by watching you and Cane work through the contraception issue than either of you would learn from me.

    I am in the “contraception is wrong” camp, but I couldn’t get very far with thinking it through in either direction. I just believe it’s wrong for the very basic reasons I stated (God decides who lives or dies), not because of the hierarchy in body of Christ.

    I do believe there is human authority and a hierarchy as stated in scripture (and I believe Cane pointed to some examples that I agree correlate with Scripture), but not as stated by some of the Catholics on this thread.

    I am open to learning the truth, but as of yet no Catholic has made a valid argument supporting the belief that the “Catholic Church” is the true Bride of Christ in such a way as to make non-Catholic (sorry Opus) followers of Jesus Christ heretics.

    If anything, I think they may have a big enough job trying to convince others that they indeed are not the heretics.

    One can easily argue that the corrupt Popes and Bishops who sold salvation for money, commanded men of God not to marry (even Peter was married), and claim to speak for God (even when contradicting what God has previously spoken) were not followers of Christ at all, but impostors and wolfs in sheep’s clothing.

    And how does a Christian reconcile the following:

    “…as she was in a special way close to the Cross of her Son, she also had to have a privileged experience of his Resurrection. In fact, Mary’s role as co-redemptrix did not cease with the glorification of her Son.” – Speaking of Mary, Pope John Paul II, the Allocution at the Sanctuary of Our Lady of Guayaquil, Jan. 31, 1985

    “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” Speaking of Himself, Jesus the Son of God as recorded in the Gospel of John (14:6).

    If Jesus and a Pope (who speaks for God) are in disagreement, what does that say about the institution that gets behind this Pope?

    And these attempts to parallel Protestants with a rebellious wife are equally unconvincing. That analogy implies that the Catholic Church is some kind of divine groom, or at best that Protestants are a rebellious second wife.

  104. Cane Caldo says:

    @Lyn87

    Some guys were defending the notion that a Christian man was under the authority of deacons and elders every minute of every day, and in every thing, including his conduct of conjugal relations with his own wife.

    I saw that thread, too, but you’re reading it all wrong. Some prince named Lyn was throwing a hissy fit about how he ought to be able to do whatever he wants, and no man was going to tell him otherwise. Those other dudes were trying to reason with him; to explain that he’s not special and that there is no shame in recognizing our authorities.

    The foolishness of Lyn’s argument it may be revealed to him if his wife decides to revolt against him and, say, withhold sex. I hope that does not happen, but if it does he will find that he has cut himself off from being able to 1) render himself to his church for encouragement and support, and 2) to render his wife to the church elders for correction and discipline, as Jesus instructs us. (It’s all in the Bible, but it’s no good to just say you accept the teaching and then do and say whatever you like. You actually have to believe it.)

    What we know is happening is that prince Lyn is furthering the discouragement of other men who–right now–suffer rebellion and fraud at the hands of their wives. Take the husband (Be Truthful, “BT”) and his wife (Be Courageous, “BC”) in this very post as an example.

    If Lyn is correct, and the church elders have no authority to say anything about the conjugal relations between a husband and wife, or to actually enforce an obligation on her, then BC can tell her husband to pound sand and there’s nothing the church can or should do about it except point to a Bible verse. In Lyn’s world the authority of the Bible is real, it’s just that God is not powerful enough to send that authority forth from the Bible into the hearts and actions of men and bring forth fruit. It’s a kind of existential authority that one has to experience for oneself, or otherwise it is meaningless.

    Well, that’s crap. Lyn’s resistance to authority and his casting of submission as a shame is effeminate and powerless; not to mention hopeless, faithless, and loveless. It is the exact same argument queers make when they get on TV to shriek and pout that no man should stand in judgment of what they do in the privacy of their bedrooms because queers are free too and no one is above them.

    It’s baffling to me that a Christian man would choose to stand in solidarity with queers and rebellious housewives, but I can’t say it is surprising.

    Kneelers gonna’ kneel.

    I understand that it seems silly to you. That’s because you’ve got a gay spirit, and so all you can see are assholes.

  105. BrainyOne says:

    I suppose biblical headship or even red-pill philosophy would constitute sufficient conditions to tell this woman to stop behaving like an entitled bitch, but I don’t think they are even necessary ones. All he needs is proper self-respect – the definition of which is certainly not based on whether a given women’s wishes are fulfilled at any given time.

    And yeah, the RCC has fallen for feminism hook, like, and sinker while proudly proclaiming how “anti-feminist” they are.

  106. Lyn87 says:

    Wow, Cane, all I can think of is one of TFH’s favorite sayings, “Whenever someone makes an accusation that is wildly incorrect, it is projection.” Not only did you completely misrepresent my position on authority, but you declared that my alleged belief in your wildly-inaccurate parody of my clearly-stated position marks me as a homosexual.

    (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/478472/projection)

  107. Cane Caldo says:

    @JDG

    I am open to learning the truth, but as of yet no Catholic has made a valid argument supporting the belief that the “Catholic Church” is the true Bride of Christ in such a way as to make non-Catholic (sorry Opus) followers of Jesus Christ heretics.

    I agree, and their own arguments are all convoluted. The Council of Trent clearly says we are excommunicated, i.e., not in the Body of Christ. Yet that is not what the RCC teaches now. Now they teach that we are in some kind of state which is not in communion, but yet is not separate. As far as I can tell they might as well say we’re Protoplasmic Christians, or somesuch. I figure it’s best to let them sort it out.

    My take is that denominations are various parts of the body; none of whom are any less God’s People than when the kingdoms of Israel and Judah split. A tragedy, but all will be reforged before it is all said and done.

  108. Velvet says:

    @Velvet

    Do you see carrying statues and kneeling before them as mere veneration or worship?

    Veneration. As for Mary, she is the example women are blessed to know and to follow, and why wouldn’t I venerate her and her example of perfect obedience? She is the Mother of our Lord, after all. Her statue is a reminder of her physical and very real existence, because we humans appreciate beauty and often need material encouragement. It’s not unlike the way I way venerate my husband by wearing his photo in a locket, and look at it often. It’s not worship – no one would think so. It is deep appreciation for the mortal obedience of another. The kneeling is for God and only God, in fear, gratitude, and submission, for providing such examples, and to produce the physical example of that same submission – there is value in the ritual, as the posture so often informs the spirit. The least I can do is bow low, it’s not like I’m watching my Son being crucified, or being burned at the stake. I’m giving thanks and displaying gratitude and humility for the sacrifice of Christ, and for those who have died proclaiming His name.

    That does sound a bit like idol worship, i.e., the golden calf/Baal worship for which God condemned Israel to severe punishment, doesn’t it?

    It’s not worship, and it’s not for the adulation of falsehoods or demons.

  109. jf12 says:

    Re: eating meat sacrificed to idols. Apparently it used to be important doctrine to avoid leading others into idolary by doing worship-like things that the others might have good reasons, under their own rules, for misinterpreting as you being idolatrous. When did that doctrine cease?

  110. jf12 says:

    @Cane, “Now they teach that we are in some kind of state which is not in communion, but yet is not separate.”

    So we’re in some kind of limbo, eh? Funny, it don’t feel like I imagined limbo would feel.

  111. Velvet says:

    As far as I can tell they might as well say we’re Protoplasmic Christians, or somesuch. I figure it’s best to let them sort it out.

    Yes, it’s very much like that. You can say you’re Baptist Fundie Offshoot Bonkers, but really, Proto, here’s your pew, please sit down, you’re blocking the Power Point about the school in El Salvador. Like the worst Thanksgiving, ever.

  112. Cane Caldo says:

    @Lyn87

    Wow, Cane, all I can think of is one of TFH’s favorite sayings, “Whenever someone makes an accusation that is wildly incorrect, it is projection.” Not only did you completely misrepresent my position on authority, but you declared that my alleged belief in your wildly-inaccurate parody of my clearly-stated position marks me as a homosexual.

    Haha! You just quoted a source who maintains that:

    1) Improved vibrators (sexbots) are going to change the world for the better
    2) The problem with birth control is that it is taken by women instead of men
    3) Sexual perversion is doing the Lord’s work

    All very gay stuff. I stand by my charge and urge you to think about what I have written.

  113. Bubbles says:

    The modern Catholic church has given into theological liberalism. What they call “modernism”.

    You should not expect virtue where it is rarely taught.

  114. Luke says:

    Beefy Levinson says:
    June 11, 2014 at 9:25 pm

    “Church tribunals hand out marriage anullments like candy to the point most people think of them as “Catholic divorces.””

    Yes, but the Catholic denomination still explicitly charges for them (instead of funding them out of donations/tithes). Annulments are the modern-day equivalent of purchased indulgences, and equally objectionable the way the former are handled, especially funded.

    Ephesians 2:8 is pretty clear that we are forgiven our sins by repentance, which we do directly by sincere prayer to God. Yes, it should follow genuine turning away from sin, but we can know what that is clearly enough by reading the Bible. Working overtime for months (at financial and time expense to one’s immediate family) to save up thousands of dollars to make a bequest to some place with men with neither families nor property of their own to maintain to make some calls and fill in some forms, so they’ll recognize a spouse abandoned a marriage (not infrequently YEARS ago, so is already an established fact)? Can’t see it.

  115. embracing reality says:

    I too have observed this scenario and have been warned by numerous older, worldly wise men about the conniving harpies who actively ‘advise’ gullible, usually younger, stupid young wives to implode their marriages and families. The reasons for a wife’s unhappiness are irrelevant, all women can think of a list of complaints about virtually anything in short order. The objective of the miserable, envious, conniving sow is to work with anything she can find to further the destruction of another woman’s life, all the while pretending to be helpful. Most mature women know they have very few real friends among other women, their competitors. I expect this is why being an single old woman is such a bitter road, they have almost nobody unless you count their cats. Meanwhile old men can golf, fish, shoot the breeze and all is right with the world. Ain’t life grand?

  116. Luke says:

    Cane Caldo says:
    June 11, 2014 at 10:25 pm

    “1) Improved vibrators (sexbots) are going to change the world for the better
    2) The problem with birth control is that it is taken by women instead of men”

    Obvious silver linings (not justifying, especially Biblically, but still genuinely SLs):

    #1 could forseeably go a long way towards breaking the power of wayward/sinful women to cause harm in the West.

    #2 being reversed, with men being the ones who took it, would likely result in considerably fewer children born outside of marriage, while probably little reducing those born within it (certainly not as much as the reduction of illegitimate births). All else held equal, those aren’t bad things.

  117. feeriker says:

    The reasons for a wife’s unhappiness are irrelevant, all women can think of a list of complaints about virtually anything in short order.

    I’m tempted to say that the root of most of this, at least here in the Western World, is the prosperity and high standard of living that has made life easy enough for women (especially married women) over the last three quarters of a century to allow them the luxury to be full-time shallow, selfish malcontents. The dark side of me is looking forward to the inevitable socioeconomic implosion that will jolt them back into the real world and make them look back at that “abusive brute” of a husband (you know the type: guys like the husband in the OP who work their asses off to allow their own shallow, selfish malcontents to be lazy, slovenly, FB-trolling SAHM princesses) with nostalgic longing. That day cannot come too soon for me.

    Most mature women know they have very few real friends among other women, their competitors.

    Absolutely true, but the key phrase here is “mature women.” Not quite an oxymoron, but so rare these days (at least here in Norte Amerika) as to be an insignificant percentage of the whole population (we are of course blessed to have some of these women post regularly here). These “mature women” are those precious and rare beings who have, not to put too fine a point on it, grown up. While they are an invaluable source of wisdom to the younger generation of girl-children, their sharing of their wisdom and experience is, unfortunately, akin in practice to the casting of pearls before swine. Some of these pearls of wisdom might plant themselves as seeds in some lost young girl-child and ultimately save her from a lot of pain and suffering in the future, so it’s definitely worth the mature woman’s while and spiritual energy. But the odds of their successfully reaching their target is a very, very long shot in the current culture.

    Veering back to the topic of the OP, in perusing some of the “marriage” threads on CAF, I see circumstantial evidence of my contention of how rare these “mature women” (especially those who are spiritually mature) are. Exhibit A: the mere fact that for every female poster there who counsels wisdom, restraint, and prayer to her fellow Catholic women, as well as at least hints at submission to their husbands, one hundred others go the CrazyJen/Xantippe route.

  118. JDG says:

    Cane and Lyn87: I’ve been reading what both of you have written, and I honestly believe you both have over stated each others positions at times. I could be wrong, but I think you are closer in agreement then you realize.

  119. as so many here teach and preach that jesus came to abolish the law of moses,
    should you not all be happy
    that the law of moses is being abolished
    and that marriage is crumbling?
    lzozozozoz

  120. Cane Caldo says:

    @Luke

    Obvious silver linings (not justifying, especially Biblically, but still genuinely SLs):

    [Improved vibrators] could forseeably go a long way towards breaking the power of wayward/sinful women to cause harm in the West.

    That’s nuts.

    First of all: Modern Internet porn is already a sort of improved vibrator, and what it is doing is providing escapism to men (and a lot of women, but we’re talking about men); men who would otherwise do something instead of anesthetize themselves while simultaneously feeling ashamed.

    Second, The tech-obsessed introvert sees the sexual arena as a market place, and therefore robots as competition for women. They extrapolate that they can use the market forces of supply and demand to increase their own price by flooding the market with an alternative to women. The flaw here is this: Women don’t think that way, and tech-obsessed male introverts shouldn’t either because the market place is not always a good model for the sexual arena.

    Women take a very dim and unsexy view of men who masturbate; especially to porn. It’s crazy to imagine that an improved vibrator that brings together porn and vibrators will make women take a second look, and think: “You know what? I’d like him to hit this for the rest of my life.”

    If we want to make the comparison to a market place: It will drive the price of the non-sexboters up, and the price of the masturbators down. This should be intuitive because separately porn and vibrators have harmed sexual relations. Bringing them together into one masturbation monolith is going to be severely damaging to sexual relations. All it will do is confirm that it is better for her to traded around in the harem milieu than to marry a loser who would be nearly as happy masturbating into a robot.

    Third, Pretend I said to you that what we really need–the silver lining that could give men an edge in the sexual arena–is Choose Your Own Adventure romance novels for men. Do you think that would put pressure on women to choose and commit to men? I hope not.

    [birth control] being reversed, with men being the ones who took it, would likely result in considerably fewer children born outside of marriage, while probably little reducing those born within it (certainly not as much as the reduction of illegitimate births).

    This is nuts for all the reasons I said above. We can add to that the fact that the uses of contraception, sterilization, and abortion have never been higher…and OoW births are through the roof. Again, it is not always a good idea to compare the sexual arena to a market place, and even when it is we must remember that people are not merely rational actors.

    No way would I take a pill to make me shoot blanks, or the equivalent. I dig the idea of impregnating women. That’s not because I’m naturally a one-woman-kinda-guy who thinks each act should create a baby. It’s more visceral than that. I like the danger. So, there are freaks like me out there.

    More pressing though is the fact that the irresponsible sociopaths who will further dominate the even larger fornication harem under the regiment of sexbots and male birth control will remain irresponsible sociopaths. They’ll forget because they don’t care about anything. They’ll not bother because they can’t be bothered to do anything. They’ll shrug off pregnancies as not their problem as they already do.

    All else held equal, those aren’t bad things.

    I strongly disagree.

  121. MarcusD says:

    CAF’s Bloody Terror:

    So under what circumstances should we discuss a family problem on CAF?

    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=889241

    Husband caught watching porn-what to do?

    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=889104

    BlueEyedLady (that is, “Lady” – check her posting record) states: “I would not hesitate to walk out of my marriage if my husband started watching porn anymore than I would hesitate to walk out if he started soliciting prostitutes.” – which is quite self-contradictory (if read quotes from her before), even for a Jezebel feminist. And yes, in case you were wondering, she is indeed quite insecure.

  122. MarcusD says:

    On the other side of things:

    Newly married sexlife

    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=889150

  123. BradA says:

    A question for the mother noted in the OP:

    If caring for two young children is tough with help, how easy do you think it will be completely on your own, even with “cash and prizes”?

    I doubt many really think that part through., And the children will be the ones who suffer for it.

  124. amanhiswife says:

    Great post- Thank you.

  125. hoellenhund2 says:

    Churchianity is a pestilence, and these women are twats. ’nuff said.

  126. Pingback: An elegy for a lost Anglicanism. | Dark Brightness

  127. Lonely Catholic says:

    Catholics literally have the gold standard of marriage. To summarize the 2,000 year old christian position, catholics see the miracle at Cana as well as Jesus’s teaching on marriage as elevating marriage from a mere human institution and making it a sacrament – a vehicle of God’s grace. As Jesus spoke of, the spouses become one flesh, and no one should separate them. Thus, catholics do not believe in divorce: once marriage, always married until death do us part. No exceptions, no escape clause.

    Some will be quick to cite Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 has an exception clause. Those are the same people who are quick to forget Jesus makes no exception in Luke 16:18, Mark 10:11 and the reaffirmation by Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:10,11. Is there a contradiction? No, but there’s some really lousy translations. In summary, if you dig into the phrase “except for fornication” or any other translation, you’ll see the greek use of the word porneia is much more serious. The catholic position is this exception clause in in Matthew as that gospel is written to address the nitpicky lawyer types of the time, and if Jesus didn’t add this clause, he would have been hit with Leviticus 18.

    Remember the context of Matthew 5. This whole chapter isn’t a set of legal rulings. The theme is Jesus calling us to a MUCH higher standard of love than petty legal debates (see v17-20). The whole theme is ‘you have herd the standard is X, but I say to you X to the power of X.’ This shocked the listeners as they expect to find out if he’s the equivalent of liberal or conservative, but he escapes our petty labels with profound teaching. The point isn’t to affirm levitical law and find the minimum, it’s to fulfill the law and go beyond the minimum and be holy. In this context, why would Jesus merely echo the existing law. He didn’t when talking about other laws. Maybe, just maybe, it’s like the other gospels state, and the exception is only when it’s not a licit marriage.

    The catholic position is that the exception clause describes not infidelity, but an illicit marriage that would be thus invalid. (I have a link to a summary of the debate on this below.) Thus, catholics don’t have divorce, but there is the possibility that the marriage was not licit or valid to begin with, but there is not separating a valid marriage. This investigation is known as seeking and annulment (the marriage never was and therefore, is annulled). The bishops in the US are extremely fond of promoting this as their only “solution” to divorced couples. None of the rest of the catholics worldwide come close to the US on this topic. This is much easier than doing the nasty, hard business of trying to help couples in trouble and to guide them from sin (divorce is a sin – again, I cite below). In fact, the law of the church if full of references defending marriage at length. Just the laws pertaining to separation are cited below.

    To affirm the message of this blog, it’s not just the protestant church that are casting a blind eye towards biblical teaching on marriage, but also the local (US) catholic leaders. The only teaching a catholic will hear, and hear often is about annulment. In effect, annulment becomes catholic “divorce” and in effect, promoting this as the only option to a couple in trouble, is in fact promoting divorce. This is NOT consistent with official church teaching. The US tribunals (church courts) ARE scolded every year by the roman rota (the church supreme court) and one example is cited below.

    While official 2,000 year old tested and proven teaching of the church is the gold standard of marriage, catholics in the US at this time also suffer from the same bile from the pulpit harming marriage.

    Dalrock, thank you for being a voice for sanity and sanctity.

    P.S.:
    In response to anti-catholic screed: This isn’t the forum for that debate, but if you’re tempted to go and argue catholic vs. not, do yourself and the world the courtesy of knowing what you’re arguing about. I know it doesn’t fit the paradigm, but intelligent debate is worth it, even if it’s hard.

    The entire teaching of the catholic church is online and free. Notice, unlike internet screed, it has full citations at the bottom to church documents, and it’s mostly scriptures. If this backwoods illiterate can spend a half hour and have authoritative research on my position, I think the other sides can step up their game rather than merely yelling louder.

    Citations:
    Wikipeadia on divorce exception clause: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_5:32#Debate_over_the_exception
    Law on separation: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P45.HTM
    Roman Rota scolds US tribunals: http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=14170
    CCC teaching on marriage: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c3a7.htm
    CCC teaching on adultery (divorce): http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

  128. Jason says:

    Cane, you just don’t get why the sexbots thing is a thing.

    It’s because a lot of men (rightfully) really don’t like women that much. They want to fuck them, but they don’t want to hang out with them. They don’t want to spend any money on them. But they still have biological, hormonal needs.

    Most of these men take care of these needs by masturbation, or by prostitutes. A proper sexbot basically is an upgrade. Properly executed, they never need to spend a dime on a woman again, and can be happy with their robotic woman substitute for the rest of their lives.

    If they’re wealthy, and want children, that can happen with surrogates and no female custody issues are involved. Another win.

    Sexbots make women obsolete. Unlike the feminist fantasy of removing men from the Earth (which would cause civilization to collapse world-wide.) Removing women from prominence simply causes the death of feminism.

    In any case, it’s going to be an interesting 20 years.

  129. Lyn87 says:

    Cane,

    Now you’re are REALLY reaching. I said that you are exhibiting the behavior of someone engaging in projection (which you are – your behavior is right out of a textbook), and because I gave credit to the guy who is well-known around here as using that particular phrase (so as not to plagiarize), you maintain that I am now – ipso facto – in agreement with everything he has ever written. What are you, 12? Do they teach logic at your school?

    I wasn’t going to write this, but you force me to it: you accuse me of being gay (which is absurd, and perhaps you ought to read what the Bible says about false accusers – you are on seriously dangerous ground here), but it is you, not I, who wishes to be on your metaphorical knees before other men. (I leave it to the rest of the readers to draw their own conclusions about the symbolic meaning of that.)

    In any case, I’m going away for work for a few days, and may be out of the loop. Just as well, since you seem to have an odd obsession about me and other men (yeah… that’s not weird at all), and my absence may allow you to concentrate on less… disturbing, things.

  130. greyghost says:

    I’ve added an edit at the bottom of the OP since the thread has now been hidden. I hope the moderators at Catholic Answers Forum make a change in policy and stand by it, and aren’t just hiding a shameful thread because it was exposed.

    Dalrock
    This is most likely the best compliment you can have. It shows they have people looking over at what you have here. And most importantly there are most likely people actually going to Catholic answers in emotional pain looking for answers founded in scripture. They were getting the usual feminine imperative founded double down of the blue pill lies This time backed up by the church “so it must be right . ” Now those same people come here to see the red pill. The people running the site are losing their flock.

  131. Junok says:

    Hello everyone,
    I’ve lurked around Dalrock’s for some time now but this is my first post.
    I’ve got a wife and a son, and last time my wife told me that taking care of our little one was too much work for one woman, I told her if she really feels that way, I can always find a 2nd wife so she’s no longer alone. That was some time ago now, but she never complained since :o)
    I wonder why…

  132. Novaseeker says:

    Obviously a ridiculous thread over at CAF.

    I do think, though, that it wasn’t really a good idea for this guy to be playing video games at 230am. Just not a smart thing to do if you are a parent of young children, even on a Saturday evening. Sleep so you have energy for the wife and kids the next day, especially on famliy-oriented day like a Sunday.

    On video game addiction — it’s a thing, certainly. It’s not the case that because someone is playing video games at 230am that one is addicted (although that’s not a good idea generally for a young parent, imo), but there is such a thing as video game addiction. I don’t think we know enough here to say either way, really, but generally when it gets to the level of addiction there are very tangible real world impacts in terms of job/professional life in particular (missed days of work, late arrivals, constantly tired at work) as you would see in other addicts. Not sure if that’s the case here.

    For people who do spend significant time gaming (but not to the point of being an addict), it probably makes sense to try to find a mate who shares that hobby. The reason is that people who do not game at all tend to not view it the same was as people who do game. A “mixed marriage” situation between a gamer and a non-gamer can often be a problem due to that, unless the non-gamer spouse is unusually neutral on the issue (almost no-one is).

  133. Opus says:

    What puzzles me, is: why, given their views, are people like FrenzyJen in any way associated with the Roman Catholics. If there is one organisation in the world which is strong on Marriage1.0 it has to be the Catholics: imagine one were to join a Marxist forum and then go stir-crazy in support of the free market, yet the like seems to be what goes on at CAF.

  134. greyghost says:

    Opus
    Nothing purifies a slut or jezebel more than the title of Christian woman, Christian mother, or when a whore wants to feel like a princess again rape victim. It is high status to be considered Christian.

  135. Scott says:

    “A “mixed marriage” situation between a gamer and a non-gamer can often be a problem due to that, unless the non-gamer spouse is unusually neutral on the issue (almost no-one is).”

    Parents and kids too. When I see my son sitting there with his stupid game controller staring at the screen all day on a saturday–no exercise, no shower, only getting up to eat and go to the bathroom–I want to knock it out of his hand. It usually leads to bad grades and crappy scouling sarcasm. Which then leads to losing the game for 6 month, his attitude and affect getting much better and brighter. Then he gets the game back and the cycle starts again.

    I do not understand the collosal waste of time playing video games is.

  136. Luke says:

    Cane Caldo:
    I did not argue for porn and male contraception overall. Rather, I pointed out that in a time of gross, preposterous, women-have-most-of-the-power-and-men-mainly-just-have-responsibilities, that they push power back in the direction it should have resided all along.
    For example, porn keeps more than a few men (otherwise good, but weak enough under certain extreme conditions) with children who are wrongly deprived of sex with their wives from infidelity or divorcing their wives (arguably justified, but still bad for the children), or going postal. Given that only sex can be adultery, and that murder and abandonment of children are worse than adultery, a pretty fair case can be made for excusing porn use by married men under certain conditions.
    The same can be said for the coming sexbots (watch the movie “Cherry 2000″ with Melanie Griffith, and try to tell me if that level of sexbot isn’t superior companionship to many women that we lampoon here on Dalrock’s site on a regular basis.)

    The time that those won’t have a conceivably legitimate (as society sees it, if not the Bible) place? For porn, it’s when women are put into arranged marriages at early ages (like before age 22), ones that they can’t leave without catastrophic consequences, and that within them they can’t refuse noninjurious nonadulterous sex. For men’s contraception, it would be when fathers get virtually automatic custody in the event of children existing outside of marriage. Not until.

  137. Michael Neal says:

    http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c3a7.htm, note 1616, but no mention at all of wives submitting to their husbands

  138. Dalrock says:

    @Jason

    Sexbots make women obsolete. Unlike the feminist fantasy of removing men from the Earth (which would cause civilization to collapse world-wide.) Removing women from prominence simply causes the death of feminism.

    This is one thing feminists don’t need to worry about. Sexbots won’t replace women except for a very small percentage of men on the fringe. This doesn’t mean the technology won’t be disruptive, as right now we have an irresponsible combination of delayed marriage, widespread culturally approved promiscuity, and a flood of internet porn. Mix for a decade or more to see what comes out. As the head of the Marriage Project put it in the title of his recent article, “What could go wrong?”

    Sexbots are just an enhancement in masturbation technology. They will add additional fuel to the fire of sin and dysfunction, but they won’t change the fact that men very much want what marriage offers.

  139. Novaseeker says:

    Parents and kids too. When I see my son sitting there with his stupid game controller staring at the screen all day on a saturday–no exercise, no shower, only getting up to eat and go to the bathroom–I want to knock it out of his hand. It usually leads to bad grades and crappy scouling sarcasm. Which then leads to losing the game for 6 month, his attitude and affect getting much better and brighter. Then he gets the game back and the cycle starts again.
    I do not understand the collosal waste of time playing video games is.

    That kind of thing.

    I think it can be harder in situations like that because the kid and parent don’t get each other about the video games. I am also a gamer, but it’s also something that is done in moderation and not at the expense of work, sleep, other things happening in life and so on. So that’s where my son takes his gaming model from. When I say that it’s time to go out and do something else, he doesn’t really complain, because he knows that I won’t get on his case for wanting to game for a while later on. He also gets good grades, so it hasn’t been an impact there as well, although I also expect that’s because he’s also learned to set his own limits from watching what I do. Although I will say that we don’t do console gaming – only gaming on PCs, and the games are a bit different in many cases, really (although not necessarily less addictive for people who refuse to put limits on themselves). I do think it’s easier when the parent has “gamer cred” in terms of times when it comes to imposing limits, or just suggesting something else to do.

  140. Thanks, Michael. You’re right, it doesn’t cover wifely submission, but that’s not the same thing as pushing mutual submission. It comes closest in #1642, where it quotes Ephesians 5:21 by itself, but it doesn’t try to stick verse 22 onto it as mutual submission pushers usually do. I do find this in #1605:

    The woman, “flesh of his flesh,” his equal, his nearest in all things, is given to him by God as a “helpmate”; she thus represents God from whom comes our help.

    That’s not nearly as strong as I’d like, of course, and I’d bet the “she thus represents God” part was a way to try to make up for the icky word “helpmate.” But as I said before, just because something isn’t in the catechism doesn’t mean it’s not part of the Deposit of Faith. The requirement for wives to submit to their husbands is written into scripture in multiple places, was demonstrated by the example of the Holy Family, and has been confirmed by multiple popes, saints, and councils. No modern catechism writers can contradict doctrine so well established (that’s why there’s a second edition; the first one had a couple things like that and had to be redone quickly), so if there’s something they don’t like, the best they can do is gloss over it and then throw in a lot of flowery language to distract the reader.

    I’m no fan of the 2005 catechism, or the modernists who produced it, to be sure. But usually it’s not outright wrong, but rather misleading through omissions and obfuscation.

  141. greyghost says:

    The artificial womb and surrogacy brought about for old vagina to make babies will be the tool most likely to be used by MGTOW family men. The dread of MGTOW and seeing family men thrive with out women and the results of male parented children as members of society will definitely have an effect on female behavior. The trick is will it be a double down on misandry or a turn to traditional pleasantness to earn love and commitment from a man. My bets are on a double down on misandry. Women are just not the swift in these matters. Best thing for a family man to do is know his bible and how to shoot. The good thing about men like Dalrock is women on the margins that choose to be pleasant will have a place to go with their natural wicked selfishness. Maybe pleasantness will return as a way for a woman to be the typical worthless burden that they love to be. And lazy irresponsible men can go back to projecting their romantic feelings bound to be generated by pleasant women (looking out for themselves in a civilized manner) and pedestalizing the cunts once again.

  142. Luke says:

    Dalrock says:
    June 12, 2014 at 8:07 am

    @Jason

    “Sexbots make women obsolete. Unlike the feminist fantasy of removing men from the Earth (which would cause civilization to collapse world-wide.) Removing women from prominence simply causes the death of feminism.”

    “This is one thing feminists don’t need to worry about. Sexbots won’t replace women except for a very small percentage of men on the fringe. This doesn’t mean the technology won’t be disruptive, as right now we have an irresponsible combination of delayed marriage, widespread culturally approved promiscuity, and a flood of internet porn. Mix for a decade or more to see what comes out. As the head of the Marriage Project put it in the title of his recent article, “What could go wrong?”

    Sexbots are just an enhancement in masturbation technology. They will add additional fuel to the fire of sin and dysfunction, but they won’t change the fact that men very much want what marriage offers.”

    Dalrock, have you seen the movie “Cherry 2000″? Other movies showing what fembots of the future might be like, would include “Pleasantville” and “Ruby Sparks”. Can you really say that the kind of women who post on feminist hate sites will nearly always be found preferable by men to the “women” portrayed in those movies? Right now, with the marriage strike (22% of young single men, according to the famous Rutgers study) explicitly don’t intend to marry, ever. It’s not showing up much because men are quiet about such things (being “deeds more than words” people), on top of the routinely-spoken-of female delaying for careerism and/or a decade-plus of carousel riding. So, if over a fifth of men would apparently choose “alone” over marriage if that was the choice, you don’t think that not only many of them, but many of the “hold my nose and propose” group of men, wouldn’t pick Cherry or Ruby over b*tchy spendy tubby annual-lousy-sex whatshername? I don’t see how you can come to that conclusion.

  143. I do think, though, that it wasn’t really a good idea for this guy to be playing video games at 230am.

    Their stories are so far apart on this — she says it’s a constant, 15-year addiction, he talks like it’s an occasional way to wind down after a very long week at work — that it’s hard to guess the truth. It’s possible that they both suck.

    It’s interesting, though, that when both spouses are unhappy with the marriage, this is how it often goes: the man works longer hours, spends more time on his hobbies, or otherwise finds ways to take his mind off it that don’t directly hurt anyone. The wife takes their dirty laundry to others, presents him in the worst possible light and herself as his victim, and claims she’s tried everything and is at the end of her rope, so there’s little others can do except help her plan her exit. To be fair, at least in the part Dalrock quoted, she didn’t bring up leaving him, so she may have been genuinely looking for help improving the marriage. But usually, a woman writing like that knows what kind of “help” she’s going to get, and she’s counting on it.

  144. Luke says:

    Cail, let any unhaaaaapy wife “at the end of her rope” do this for two weeks:
    fix her husband decent meals daily,
    confine herself to ONE mild complaint a day,
    and give him happy varied sex daily.

    Let’s see if her marriage is about to die or not after that.
    (If she can’t do those things for 2 weeks, she values something more than her marriage, on whose behalf she’s already fatally poisoned it.)

  145. Opus says:

    There is something else, which puzzles me: why, when things are tough do people (in this case Roman Catholics) – and frequently as a form of shaming – suggest that to improve matters that what one needs is counselling and therapy: I am told that they are not the same and that one is actually much more expensive than the other. Without wishing to offend Anon72, I would say that Therapy and Counselling are 20th century mumbo-jumbo – a scam which never achieved anything, to make money out of what Catholics do for free in the confessional. What did the Romans do about Counselling and Therapy – or the Greeks or Christians or even the Victorians? Nothing, absolutely nothing; at least nothing that history bothered to recall.

  146. Cane Caldo says:

    @Lyn87

    Now you’re are REALLY reaching. I said that you are exhibiting the behavior of someone engaging in projection (which you are – your behavior is right out of a textbook), and because I gave credit to the guy who is well-known around here as using that particular phrase (so as not to plagiarize), you maintain that I am now – ipso facto – in agreement with everything he has ever written. What are you, 12? Do they teach logic at your school?

    Logic is a good thing, but context is always important. You continue to show that your context is aligned with the homosexual agenda. I think you should see that, but you don’t so I’ve rubbed your nose in it; I’ve pushed you to logical conclusions.

    As JDG says above, I imagine we live on similar terms. If it were a road we could say we’re on the same road, but you’re at least facing the wrong direction. That’s what got Lot’s wife turned to a pillar of salt.

    I wasn’t going to write this, but you force me to it:

    Why have you couched your will to fight in terms of victimhood? What kind of spirit urges you to say such passive-aggressive things?

    you accuse me of being gay (which is absurd, and perhaps you ought to read what the Bible says about false accusers – you are on seriously dangerous ground here),

    No, Lyn. I warned you that you have an effeminate and rebellious spirit whispering in your ear. It is clouding your judgment and your ability to see what is in front of you.

    but it is you, not I, who wishes to be on your metaphorical knees before other men. (I leave it to the rest of the readers to draw their own conclusions about the symbolic meaning of that.)

    And here you are saying exactly what I predicted and warned you about. (“I understand that [legitimate submission to legitimate authorities] seems silly to you. That’s because you’ve got a gay spirit, and so all you can see are assholes.”)

    In any case, I’m going away for work for a few days, and may be out of the loop. Just as well, since you seem to have an odd obsession about me and other men (yeah… that’s not weird at all), and my absence may allow you to concentrate on less… disturbing, things.

    Again with the effeminate tactics of passive aggression. Anyone can look at this thread and see that at 7:55pm yesterday you goaded me; as I was the principle man defending submission and authority in the other thread…the one you brought because you wanted to fight. Well, here I am!

    What you are calling obsession is perseverance, and I have no shame to admit that I persevere for you and other men. That’s not gay. You’ve been lied to, and they’re still lying to you. You are right that there is projection going on in your vicinity, but you’ve identified the wrong source.

    I’m telling you, Lyn: Shake off the gay stupor that really has afflicted you, and be on your guard! Stop sentimentalizing what you think you accomplished (in the military or the church), and take up training your mind to see where you are, and who surrounds you.

  147. BradA says:

    People who don’t play games tend to view any game playing for more than a few minutes as a waste and probably an addiction. I am sure my wife thinks I am addicted to them, as I have played them throughout my adult life. My MS was even work on on a computer game.

    My wife was and is not a game player, though she loves to watch movies and some TV (Fox News, HGTV, Food Network) which is just as bad in my view. I play plenty of games, but I also get paid decent money and get plenty of work done. People jump to the “addicted” accusation far too easily.

    I know I may play something far too late after getting home late to relax a bit, even if it ends up being too late. Not great losing sleep, but it sometimes seems necessary to relax. Are all of you who dislike this going to say you always go immediately to sleep after a long day at work/study? It sounds like the guy in question had a lot of long days.

    Do those who see no value in game playing do anything themselves that takes time like hunting, fishing, reading, sports, etc.? How are those innately different? I find games stimulate my thought processes, though I don’t follow the example of the child noted above.

  148. DrTorch says:

    That being said, I get the feeling this situation would be significantly helped with some medium-level game by the husband.

    I think something that needs to be pointed out, and I don’t recall having seen here or at Alpha Game Blog is this: for a man who is exhausted tending to the thorns and thistles of the garden, he doesn’t have much energy for game.
    I believe this is why the Bible *commands* women to submit to their husbands, b/c his energy is being spent obeying God’s Dominion Mandate.
    That doesn’t mean you’re wrong about using Game, it just means that it’s not always so simple. It also means that it may be that we teach young men NOT to spread themselves so thin that they don’t have energy to use Game once married. The husband’s excuse that his overworked life was to provide financial security for his family could be seen as idolatry and/or a love of money.

    What struck me upon reading the cached copies was the utter lack of shame by those harpies when the husband confronted them with their sin.

    Prov 30:20 This is the way of an adulterous woman:
    she eats and wipes her mouth,
    and she says, “I’ve done nothing wrong!”

    Several years ago I spent some time on Crosswalk.com, wh/ was supposed to be a Christian gathering site. One of the articles I remember was by a woman (I think maybe involved in church ministry) who separated from her husband. They’d only been married some months, but she was unhappy (honestly, I can’t think of a legit reason she gave, and this really sums up what she expressed). Of course it was just temporary, and I believe the husband fell in line and repented so that proved she did the right thing. Plus she was in ministry, and she wasn’t effective when she was unhappy!

    I wasn’t fully red pill then, but I still remember thinking “WTF?”

    Crosswalk forums were just as bad as this Catholic forum, and the moderators were quite stern if you bucked the feminist ideals they wanted to spread.

  149. hurting says:

    I went to CAF seeking guidance on how to save my marriage about four years ago. What I got was basically the same treatment as the husband in the post to which Dalrock refers.

    As Cail and a few others acknowledge above, the official teaching of the Church on marriage has really not changed over time, but the interpretations and emphases of its writings have softened so much so as to cause one to believe that they have. The views of CAF posters are largely congruent with the modernist pastors shepherding their home parishes and the likeminded bishops to whom they answer. Regarding the clergy, I suspect that the overwhelming majority really do believe the mush they propagate, and the few who don’t have adopted the view that caving to the zeitgeist might keep a few marriages intact, even if it means husbandly submission to the wife.

  150. Dalrock says:

    @Luke

    Dalrock, have you seen the movie “Cherry 2000″? Other movies showing what fembots of the future might be like, would include “Pleasantville” and “Ruby Sparks”. Can you really say that the kind of women who post on feminist hate sites will nearly always be found preferable by men to the “women” portrayed in those movies? Right now, with the marriage strike (22% of young single men, according to the famous Rutgers study) explicitly don’t intend to marry, ever. It’s not showing up much because men are quiet about such things (being “deeds more than words” people), on top of the routinely-spoken-of female delaying for careerism and/or a decade-plus of carousel riding.

    As I’ve written a fair amount about, the much bigger problem for women (in my estimation) isn’t that men will go “on strike”, but that the loss of a marriage culture will change the motivations of young men in such a way that when the marriage delaying women want a husband their choices will be incredibly slim. This isn’t much of a bold prediction though because we already see this in the data. Strikes can be broken, and the most vocal anti marriage voices can turn on a dime if the right offer presents itself (I assume you are familiar with Mark Minter).

    What can’t be turned on a dime is undoing a lost decade, or decade and a half. Marriage delaying women are making an implicit assumption that the men of their generation will blink when the time comes, and accept an ever pared back definition of marriage:

    You want to marry a virgin? Tough luck, all of my peers have done as much or more in the last decade. Suck it up or go without!

    Generally speaking they have been correct. When faced with the choice of going without or sucking it up, nearly all men are sucking it up. But what the marriage delaying women haven’t considered is the unintended consequence, where they will more and more be forced to accept something very different from what a traditional husband brought to the table. Its a good thing she has that fabulous career, because a very large percentage of the available men haven’t bothered. She thinks she pulled one over on her prospective husband by spending her youth on everything but him. What she finds out is he didn’t spend his own youth preparing to be the husband she expected. There is a brutal irony here.

    Sexbots are just another poison in the already toxic stew.

  151. Cane Caldo says:

    @Luke

    I’ve dominated Dalrock’s posts enough already. Perhaps I’ll write a post about sexbots, but I’m not terribly enthused about doing so.

  152. Farm Boy says:

    My wife is on the computer not paying attention to anything when I come in, I figured she’s on Facebook again as so much of the day I catch her staring in to.

    I can believe that about Facebook. Woman may complain about guys and their video games, but for guys it is a silly fun timewaster. For women, the incessant posturing, seeking validation, etc. is not just a time waster, but harmful to their psyche. Imagine going through your whole life like it was high school all of the time.

  153. TFH says:

    Cane Caldo lied :

    1) Improved vibrators (sexbots) are going to change the world for the better

    Nope. Never said that. Provide a link (preferably less than 2 years old).

    I do think VR Sex will adjust search costs, as only a portion of men (30% or so) will cease making an effort with real women.

    2) The problem with birth control is that it is taken by women instead of men

    Where did I say that? Quote the exact sentence, not your own spin. That is lie #2 from Cane Caldo.

    When you have to lie about the positions of another person, particularly one you are not even debating with at the time, that shows how empty your own intellect is.

    3) Sexual perversion is doing the Lord’s work

    er….. if slutty women go to church to meet men with whom to have casual sex, then the man who does this is merely adjusting to market forces. You still don’t think the women have any agency. To the extent that this saves blue-pill betas (like you) from predation, this is the lord’s work.

    Cane Caldo has rapidly become the butt-end of a moral compass. If he is against something, it is usually a good idea to endorse what he opposes.

  154. Scott says:

    “There is something else, which puzzles me: why, when things are tough do people (in this case Roman Catholics) – and frequently as a form of shaming – suggest that to improve matters that what one needs is counselling and therapy: I am told that they are not the same and that one is actually much more expensive than the other. Without wishing to offend Anon72, I would say that Therapy and Counselling are 20th century mumbo-jumbo – a scam which never achieved anything, to make money out of what Catholics do for free in the confessional. What did the Romans do about Counselling and Therapy – or the Greeks or Christians or even the Victorians? Nothing, absolutely nothing; at least nothing that history bothered to recall.”

    Opus– you are on to something profound with this. I am a clinical psychologist and I came into the profession during the last decade.

    The strictly “psychology” part of PhD progams in clinpsych are still very scientific. We spend quite a bit of time picking up where the BA in psych leaves off, and it actually starts to get interesting and useful for understanding behavior–especially abnormal psych/psychopathology.

    However, therapy/couseling (discussion on the difference in a second) in the relationship/marital realm are always geared toward improving communication. In the fem-centric world of behavioral science, that is code for “the man needs to learn something about communicating. He does no listen to, nor understand his wife’s true feelings, intentions, or motivations.” This has now trickled down into the general population, and is really the subtext. It is almost always advice given to a woman, in some form of “you need to get him to agree to counseling.”

    The presupposition is that somehow if only the man could understand his wife better, the relationship will improve. What I have learned from reading on these sites is this–men do not have a prooblem understanding their wives much at all. They just disagree with their entire approach to things like authority, risk, aggression, committment, self-disclosure, and a whole host of other things. No amount of communicating about that is going to improve things.

    As far as the distinction between therapy and counseling, it is a little slippery, but I wouldn’t agree that the dimension of the price is the prominent factor. From a legal/ethical perspective they are one in the same in most states. (In other words, it is a crime in most states to say you are providing either one on a fee basis if you are not licensed to do so.) Therapy and counseling are terms that patients/clients use to describe something they aren’t always sure about.

    Best example is when I am doing a history and physical and the person says “when I was a teenager, my parents sent to counseling for anger.” Upon further investigation, I find they were seeing the counselor for 15 minute session once every two months and receiving medications. That was probably a psychiatrist. But it could have also been a PA, an NP or even a family practice doc.

    There may have been, at one time a distinction that one could rely on with regard to therapy/counseling but you really have to ask “what do you mean, therapy?” to get a realy idea of what is happening. It would have been along the lines of an additional term–psychotherapy, which comes from the dynamic schools of thought. It was shortened to “therapy” and then usurped as a legal term, like I mentioned.

  155. Luke says:

    Oh, no question that’s already well along, Dalrock. The justice of beta men’s response is even more apt, when you consider how many men were pushed aside by women less smart than them for places in professional schools and jobs. The women swiped their would-be husband’s careers. They will face either cats, lesbianism, single mothers (via “dudes” or turkey basters) or just being FWBs when they pass the Wall. Not remotely what they thought they were promised…

    When a woman says online or to me IRL that she has faith that the “perfect guy” will be waiting for her when she’s “ready” (kicked off the carousel due to the wall being about 6 months away, more likely), I like to ask them this: “What if he was ready for you 10 years ago, gave up on waiting for you, and married his second choice (whom he’s still with today, being an awesome guy)?” Apoplectic, incoherent rage is the most common response.

  156. TFH says:

    Now to be clear, I have clearly said, for years, that sexbots will not change the marketplace.

    What *will* happen is that VR Sex (which is entirely different from sexbots) will change the marketplace substantially, as it will :

    a) Reduce the search costs that men bear, as more of them will decide not to leave home as often, etc. This may not even be a conscious choice, but rather just a default into the path of least resistance.
    b) Move the attraction curve upward. 8s in the real worl will be seen as 5s, and 7s and below will be seen as unbangable. We already see this happening to men via Internet porn, so VR sex would warp the male brain further.

    Overall, a 30% reduction in male search costs/effort expended, and a 2-3 point shift upward in the cutoff of when a woman is considered attractive.

    Men may still want marriage, in theory, but women will have to do more of the searching. The good news is that less ‘demand’ will force women to improve themselves to remain competitive.

    That has been my position, and has been consistent since The Misandry Bubble, 4.5 years ago. If Cane Caldo wants to lie about what my position was, that is just the Coup de Grace on his now-non-existent credibility.

  157. lliamander says:

    Historically, Xantippe was the wife of Socrates and considered to be the greatest of shrews. To be fair, Socrates knew this ahead of time and took a firm “challenge accepted!” mentality to his marriage.

    In any case, she is now one of the great saints of Feminism, so I don’t expect anyone uses her name as their forum handle to be anything other than what we witnessed.

  158. Farm Boy says:

    So she was lying on the forum to get advice and validation. But mostly validation it would seem, as she would know that the advice would not apply. Chicks sure have this intrinsic need for validation. This fact should be a staple of sex ed classes.

  159. Luke says:

    TFH says:
    June 12, 2014 at 9:43 am

    “Men may still want marriage, in theory, but women will have to do more of the searching. The good news is that less ‘demand’ will force women to improve themselves to remain competitive”

    That “force women to improve themselves” could take many forms, most of them desirable IMO.
    Women considering seeking a husband could collectively lose weight, bring less debt to marriage, have lower Ns, volunteer for ironclad prenups, volunteer to contract for a # of kids the man agrees to/frequency of sex HE decides, once again castigate homewrecker females/cuckolders, etc., etc.

  160. TFH says:

    Luke,

    Women considering seeking a husband could collectively lose weight, bring less debt to marriage, have lower Ns, volunteer for ironclad prenups, volunteer to contract for a # of kids the man agrees to/frequency of sex HE decides, once again castigate homewrecker females/cuckolders, etc., etc.

    Yes.

    VR Sex (again, which is entirely different from sexbots, which will NOT be a major factor) will force women to do what you have listed, simply due to a shift of the the supply/demand curve, and the warping of the male brain (for better or worse) due to VR Sex…

  161. zodak says:

    @Scott:
    “When I see my son sitting there with his stupid game controller staring at the screen all day on a saturday–no exercise, no shower, only getting up to eat and go to the bathroom–I want to knock it out of his hand.”

    are you taking your son to the park to ride bicycles? are you taking him to his little league games? are you playing basketball with him & your friends? taking him to the gym to work out with you?

    be his father.

    and he can play games after he does those things with you.

  162. Luke says:

    Cane Caldo says:
    June 12, 2014 at 9:29 am

    @Luke

    “I’ve dominated Dalrock’s posts enough already. Perhaps I’ll write a post about sexbots, but I’m not terribly enthused about doing so.

    I’d read what you wrote, Cane. Likely we’d disagree on some parts, but that’s what makes a forum.

  163. Scott says:

    “are you taking your son to the park to ride bicycles? are you taking him to his little league games? are you playing basketball with him & your friends? taking him to the gym to work out with you?”

    Actually, yes. He also has plenty of opportunity to make a little cash (hes 17) because I regularly let him do stuff around our ranch for money when he wants. But if there is a free second, he is right back in the chair. It is a motivation problem. There is no lack of opportunity or invitation to do things outside. it’s just that whatever we are doing, he would rather be on the game.

  164. Scott says:

    Novaseeker had pointed out the issue of self-regulation. I have no problem with playing for an hour or two. But a person who self-regulates looks at their watch and says “whoa. I have been sitting here for 2 hours! Need to get up and do something else.” This is not a skill he has developed. We talk about it constantly. We even had a timer that shut down the game automatically to train him to this naturally. He just waits until we are all asleep, unplugs it from the timer and plays all night. Then he can’t stay awake in church.

  165. Farm Boy says:

    More striking is that while the thread was eventually closed (after an endorsement of Mom’s Night Out

    I saw a preview of that flick. These wives and mothers were getting super dolled up with fancy hair for a girl’s night out. What is wrong with this picture?

    And of course, there were doofus dads.

  166. Farm Boy says:

    .Men may still want marriage, in theory, but women will have to do more of the searching. The good news is that less ‘demand’ will force women to improve themselves to remain competitive”

    Maybe. Or perhaps the rules will be changed again

  167. Scott says:

    “doofus dads.”

    This is now redundant terminology.

  168. Cane Caldo says:

    @TFH

    Cane Caldo lied

    No, I didn’t, and that will become apparent the more you keep writing. For example, there’s no real distinction between sexbots and VR sex, and you’ve already said that it will bring improvement.

    But, that’s all sidetrack. In addressing me, you seem to think that when I said I persevere for Lyn and other men, that I include you among them. I do not.

    So go crazy.

    @Luke

    I’d read what you wrote, Cane. Likely we’d disagree on some parts, but that’s what makes a forum.

    Thanks.

  169. Farm Boy says:

    “When I see my son sitting there with his stupid game controller staring at the screen all day on a saturday–no exercise, no shower, only getting up to eat and go to the bathroom–I want to knock it out of his hand.”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cayu32uXCM0

  170. TFH says:

    Cane Caldo,

    er… attributing things to me that I have not said (I see you cannot provide links), is lying.

    And using those lies to dismiss everything I have ever said as invalid (your response to Lyn87 said that I should not be used as a source for anything).

    there’s no real distinction between sexbots and VR sex

    Strawman (which we can rename as ‘Caneman’, now, given how frequently you use it). You are changing the subject to distract from the fact that you lied more than once.

    You, sir, are a liar (and lying is a sin, btw, in case you didn’t know that). It is a demonstration of cowardice to not retract falsehoods stated about another person, and to indeed double down when corrected about them. It is also evidence of poor social skills to attack someone who you were not even debating at the time. I am blessed that I don’t have someone like you ‘persevering’ for me.

  171. Farm Boy says:

    the moderators never stepped in and reminded the participants that as a Catholic forum intended to “Explain and Defend the Faith”, the focus should not be on sowing feminist rebellion and discord

    And then there is the “bearing false witness” part

  172. jf12 says:

    Re: video games. The popularity of and near-obsessive levels of engaging in video games by a huge proportion of males who can, proves several things.
    1. Males will do almost anything for the reward of the feeling of accomplishment.
    2. There is a huge variety in what the accomplishment is to effect this feeling. Almost anything will suffice, whether it be clanking a ringer in horseshoes, or racing to obtain a prize, or self-judging one’s progress in form in shadowboxing.
    3. Males so deeply require this feeling that when constrained from acceptable outlets they sublimate it and it finds, too often, unacceptable outlets.
    4. There is a grave dearth of acceptable outlets.
    5. It’s not the males’ fault that there is a dearth.

  173. Scott says:

    Farm Boy-

    For all my complaining about him being lazy (he does have a lazy streak) he responds to accountability. When i get on him, he gets things done, and it’s not like hes on drugs and ruining my life. In the end, he likes rising to the challenge of accountability–he just has this one thing that drives me crazy.

    Kind of related to the “doofus dads” comment, really. I wonder–do all these boys growing over the last 20 years expereince a huge amount of cognitive dissonance when the culture essentially reinforces this stereotype. I mean, my son sees me leading my wife, working hard, being accountable, not drunk, etc. I am not unique.

    Do these boys think “the tv tells me all dads are lazy stupid retards who need their wives to straghten them out. But mine isn’t like that. My friends dads aren’t. Where are all these retarded dads?”

  174. greyghost says:

    TFH
    no one thing will be the cause of anything. The combined weight of the Thugs and psychopaths that were always there with PUA, MGTOW, the American “grass eater” types, and the red pill geeks. PUA to me are the young versions of the MGTOW or I should say more sexually active. These are the real threat to the status quo because they are capable men that aren’t playing. The peter pans are men that just are not trying and were undesirable any way. They won’t be missed by women but the state will miss the effort these guys used to put in to finance the beast. Different motivations and types of men will now do to the red pill geeks have tools made for their benefit and not societies. (women) Male birth control pill, Surrogacy and artificial wombs, virtual sex, may be first tried at the old peep shows. I can also with the legalization of ‘Pot” the same states will see a relaxing of the rules on brothels. Not all men will turn away from the churchian family man chump. This is where the manginas and white knights and the churchians will preach man up blue pill lies and the double down on the feminine imperative. The margins will see choices being made between cat’s or Christian submission and peace. It is the numbers a large enough percentage of Involuntary childless spinsters and we will see entertaining hysteria and slut pussy everywhere. (dirty little secret the church is in on it so the cunts won’t know any other way)
    Best bet is to own a rifle and learn how to produce food and water from dust. Being able to keep machines running , manufacture soaps and cleaners for sanitation or weapons also would be a good skills set. (I like the PUA,MGTOW male pill surrogacy route as a Christian warrior family man.)

  175. Novaseeker says:

    @Scott —

    Well, that’s obviously more of a problem. It’s best if they are self-motivated to do other things. My own likes to shoot baskets or do an hour or two in the batting cage or what have you, and is self-motivated to do that, and then he plays games when he gets back.

  176. Farm Boy says:

    Do these boys think “the tv tells me all dads are lazy stupid retards who need their wives to straghten them out. But mine isn’t like that. My friends dads aren’t. Where are all these retarded dads?

    Who are they going to believe: TV or their own lying eyes?

    TV shows can have a great influence. They are credited for making gays “acceptable” to the public in general. The fact that people are so easily influenced by contrived sitcoms is not a good sign

  177. Dalrock says:

    @TFH

    and the warping of the male brain (for better or worse) due to VR Sex…

    Yes. We are on the same page here. The problem VR Sex poses (in my opinion) for feminists isn’t that it will become an accepted replacement for a wife or LTR, but that feminists are implicitly counting on men being ready for marriage once the women tire of the carousel and are ready to be “drafted” (with much contrived and loud complaining) from the career track to the wife/mother track. You can get a sense of this by observing the white hot anger response you get when you ask women what they expect men to be doing while they dally on the carousel/career track for 10-15 years (as someone above noted). They can’t bully their way past this. They know that in a large number of cases they can break the vocal anti marriage man, but they can’t bully him into going back in time and spending his formative years differently.

  178. Farm Boy says:

    Scott,

    I wonder if your son already sees that the rewards for “manning up” just are not there.

  179. DrTorch says:

    Do these boys think “the tv tells me all dads are lazy stupid retards who need their wives to straghten them out. But mine isn’t like that. My friends dads aren’t. Where are all these retarded dads?

    There are many answers to your question. But one obvious start are the boys who are forced to grow up w/ only their mother. They are taught early and often to pedestalize their hard-working, sacrificing, single mother. So any perception of how incompetent fathers are is met with general acceptance.

    These boys then grow up to be white knights, uber betas, etc.

  180. jf12 says:

    @Farm Boy, re: lack of rewards. Yes, that is the problem. If there aren’t going to be more rewards for him stopping doing what he is doing, then the other solution is punishment.

  181. There is something else, which puzzles me: why, when things are tough do people (in this case Roman Catholics) – and frequently as a form of shaming – suggest that to improve matters that what one needs is counselling and therapy:

    Scott covered the enthusiasm for therapy, so I’ll just add this: Catholics aren’t as different from non-Catholics as non-Catholics tend to assume, especially since Vatican II, which tried to downplay the Catholicity in Catholicism in hopes of drawing more Protestants to the Church (it didn’t work). For the most part, we breathe the same air (laden with the same -isms), watch the same TV shows, and even vote for the same candidates (50% of self-professed Catholics vote for pro-abortion candidates on a regular basis).

    The numbers improve if you look only at Catholics who attend Mass every Sunday (the bare minimum). But in general, if the question is, “Why are Catholics screwed up about X?” the answer is, “For the same reasons everyone else is.”

  182. Farm Boy says:

    .and the warping of the male brain (for better or worse) due to VR Sex…

    Oculus Rift is pretty effective. And competitors are furiously working on their versions. Game AI techniques are getting good also. Internet pr0n has its limitations. VR sex should have an definite impact at the margins, and in more general, with expectations.

  183. Scott says:

    “I wonder if your son already sees that the rewards for “manning up” just are not there.”

    We have discussed that extensively, and wil continue. He has our permission to go his own way if he feels that is appropriate. I have essentially told him–“the generations before you have basically ruined the family. And it remains to be seen if your generation can fix it. We have handed you a big mess.”

    We have also told him our prefence for him would be marriage to a young girl and lots of babies when he is in his early 20s, and he is aware that we want to help him find that (I am sure you have seen our site). In that case, we are actively encouraging him to forgo a state marriage license. This is one way he can screen for a godly woman, who by our estimation would be OK with a sacrament only marriage.

    His mom has only recently begun biblical submission and he loves it. He often tells her how happy he is to see her obeying and not making me miserable. The tension is basically zero with a sweet mom making sammiches around the house. I think he also realizes the odds of him finding something like are about a million to one.

    It’s hard to tell though. He has aspirations–but a very difficult time placing those big aspirations into smaller, managable, incremental goals.

  184. TFH says:

    Dalrock,

    Women who meet a high threshold of quality as a perspective wife have relatively little to worry about.

    But feminism has ensured that very few meet this threshold, so the less-suitable women who are currently getting a free ride, will see a ‘re-pricing’ if even 30% of men just have no libido for any real woman below an 8 anymore. It won’t even be a conscious choice for most men, but rather that they will simply not leave the house to meet women as often. Shaming language also won’t work on them, if they aren’t seen in the first place.

    by observing the white hot anger response you get when you ask women what they expect men to be doing while they dally on the carousel/career track for 10-15 years

    It is as though men exist only to be useful to women no matter what choices a woman makes. Too bad TradCons believe the same…

  185. greyghost says:

    Don’t any of you fool yourselves a large number of boys do see men man up and then see their mothers and society shit all over them. There will be no white knight to the rescue. Captain save a hoe is in jail for contempt of court for not being able to pay the child support on the thugs kid he adopted. They know nice guys get no ass. Where do you think that douche bag thing in England came from. Dalrock has it right the delusion doesn’t go away but the assumptions that made the delusion real is gone. The inertia is where the fun is at. with women trying to be nice with no male takers with the sluts still getting their fertile years wasted. The men will still be in the woman are whores misandry survival mode. The double down on the misandry and the slut will make it look like nothing has changed. women will still be talking about how bad they have it at the hands of men. The church and trad con types will still be telling the old man up stories with the manginas and white knights making liars out of them as they get ate by the beast up marrying sluts. Too bad the real suffering for feminism is going to be for the five to six year old females we have today.

  186. One thought on video game “addiction,” especially as it relates to Dalrock’s original post:

    The wife isn’t really complaining about a literal pathological addiction (of course). She’s simply saying that her husband’s hobby isn’t what she wants him to do, and she can’t force him up front to do her favorite things.

    She wants some attention. The end.

    She just needs to be clever, to be honest. Here’s a tactic if she wants gamer husband’s attention late at night: “Honey, do you think these new thongs I bought are small enough that we could still have sex while I wear them? I think they are super cute!”

    Game saved, quit to desktop.

    It’s harder for women to do red-pill initiation. I don’t blame her for being who she is. Most women don’t seem to have the emotional stamina or awareness to do this. I suspect it feels profoundly unnatural to them somehow.

    Let’s take a look at the inverse situation. Suppose the wife enjoys a Harry Potter marathon to unwind after a rough week. Blue pill husband complains of Harry Potter addiction, lack of sex, he’s so exhausted, is this marriage over, etc. He would quite properly be laughed out of the forum. I’m laughing now just typing this.

    Here’s a tactic for a husband to garner her attention: “Honey, when you’re ready for a break, I want to try this massage oil on you—bet it would be great if we took the time to really rub it into your feet. Oh, looks like it’s also safe to use as lube, too.”

    Outcome independent, keep frame, blah blah blah. Can you guess what the worst thing to do is in the above situation?

  187. Opus says:

    I really don’t know anything about this: sexbots and virtual sex, I mean. I have no idea what it is all about. What I do know is that it is women who like vibrators which is rather sad; I turned one on once; it just buzzed. What was that about? As for Sexbots, would they be like blow-up dolls? Some of those Japanese ones look realistic – and all solid 9s, but it is just a lot of room temperature polystyrene. Maybe in virtual reality it will be so different, but then would it not be like a strong drug driving you forward. Maybe one day they will make movies in 3D – now how realistic will that be.

  188. Even if the woman had been 100% accurate in her depiction of her husband and herself in the first place (I am not granting that at all, by the way), she married him knowing of his video game habits. In that case, we could chalk it up to another case of “poor mate selection.”

  189. Professor Hale says:

    @ Leoncaruthers and Ted Cunterblast

    I am sure the way YOU are doing it is just veneration and not worship. I don’t have a problem with that. I am talking about worship. I used that word intentionally. And yes, worshiping dead people, ancestors, saints, or other misc spirits is a heresy in all of Christianity. But it is still quite acceptable in many Eastern cultures.

  190. Luke says:

    Anyone who says that no way will sexbots be practical this century needs to consider two advances: one is how incredibly realistic the dolls are at the high end (like $10-20K; look up “Realdolls” for an example of this). The other are the powered onanistic aids you can get in the $400 range. They go way beyond the notorious “fleshlights”. (No, I don’t, and have never, owned or used any of these.) Once some engineer puts “B” inside “A”, and after viewing some above-average porn for a little while, you would just about have an alternative to more than a few women on “oh, ALL RIGHT” night, right now.

  191. Farm Boy says:

    His mom has only recently begun biblical submission and he loves it. He often tells her how happy he is to see her obeying and not making me miserable. The tension is basically zero with a sweet mom making sammiches around the house

    Scott,
    I haven’t been to your website, but probably I should.

    I grew up in an environment with a sweet mom making sammiches. When I married, I got constant bickering, jibes, etc. Totally unexpected from my point of view at the time. I treated her well, I made lots of money, I got fabulously with my stepson. It made no sense to me, her constant troublemaking. It made her own son very unhappy. It is odd that women will work to destroy what they profess that they want.

  192. A Visitor says:

    I understand that Catholics do not rely solely on the Bible, but also on RCC teaching.

    We certainly do! I’m unaware of anything that overturns 1 Peter 3 although apologetics is not my strong suit. I’ve read The Rational Male and lurk here, at Alpha Game, and The Rational male.

    If I get married, I’m making damned sure three things happen (at the wedding Mass and before I propose): 1) She will be a traditional wife and take care of the kids 2) 1 Peter 3 will (in part, especially verse 1) be the reading and 3) I’ll use game to make her submit.

    Thanks for the post Dalrock, much appreciated.

    Those fools advocating a separation, besides not having the full context, I feel may be putting the wife in a state of temptation for adultery. That’s my two cents at least.

    Whether that is actually taught or not, usually not, is a whole other story i was never taught about it and went to a Catholic grade school and high school.

    1. Wife is unhaaaaappy

    2. Wife talks amongst her family/friends/parents/parishioners/other sympathetic people. Of course, only her complaints and not her faults are discussed

    I’ve seen this firsthand. Someone I know gloated that she made her fiancé sell his sports car (though she “made him come to that conclusion on his own”; they were cohabitating before marriage) and they have a new house as she was bored where they lived (this was also before they got married). He still gets to drive over an hour to work every day. He tried to get a transfer closer to where they now live but couldn’t get one. At least she’s haaaapy.

    But you still see heresies like Mary worship and worship of the dead.

    Wrong and wrong. We venerate Mary and the saints as examples of how to live as Catholics. We worship God alone. As one priest said during his homily (I love this) something to the effect of the saints exist to show that it is indeed possible to make it to Heaven.

    Are there any vestiges of clerical and community disapproval left? I haven’t heard anything first hand but judging from the Internet there certainly is in writings of the clergy.

    I’m pretty sure that a woman I know is advising her daughter to be loose sexually to justify her own shortcomings as a teenager. I’d second that!

    I see divorced wives in what the RCC considers adulterous relationships participating in parish business. IMO the Church needs to start public (or private) excommunications again starting with the VP and Pelosi. Put anyone on notice that if they divorce (doesn’t matter if it was the husband or wife) and remarry, they’ll be excommunicated publicly. I think the effects may start to swing the pendulum back in our favor.

    the Obama-ites with their pro-abortion stickers in the parking lot… I’ve seen that at my parish, makes me sick.

    They’re vaguely embarrassed (as were the Vatican II modernizers) by anything that’s too overtly traditionally Catholic It always gets me each passing year the more I learn about the Church pre-Vatican II and what I’ve missed out. I’m not saying that Vatican II is evil or anything of the sort. It’s just so many of us (I was born in the ’80s and that’s all I’m giving out personal info wise) were poorly catechized in grade school and high school. I’m supremely jealous of some of the things that fell out of favor after Vatican II. I’ll never forget the first time I went to a Tridentine Mass. It was so beautiful that I ended up attending for Mass in that form for probably a year straight.

    Even if everything that you said is true, I’m concerned at your lack of concern for her feelings. That was from the CAF thread. FEELINGS!!!!!!!! Typical, wishy-washy emotional crap. I’m not talking about being heartless but seriously. I can’t tell anymore how many times I’ve heard women (second hand from men’s stories) say they’re unhappy and divorce.

    I read the cached thread in its entirety. A few things stick out: 1) The husband was a convert to Catholic (this isn’t a shot at our Protestant brothers. My view is that if someone converts from a denomination of Protestantism to Catholicism, it may not always work out.) 2) The wife admits she comes from a dysfunctional family with some sexual and emotional abuse in that family history (I don’t know if it happened to her personally but, nonetheless, that’ll add doubt and fear on top of normal hamster spinning. I know that first hand unfortunately through women I’ve dated) and 3) A Warning (in the second to last posting) deliberately suggests mortal sin by having the husband (who is Catholic) attend Mass only one Sunday a month and the children miss Mass two Sundays a month. When your children are baptized (I say this as a godfather) you promise to raise them in the Catholic faith. This includes taking them to Mass.

    Finally, A Warning claims that red pill is a cult and Xantippe (in the last posting of the thread) talks about how great Girls’ Night Out is.

    Christians are saved through faith in Christ and good works.

    The main “real world” sanction I’ve seen (other than failed actual attempts to remarry in the Church without an annulment) is when divorced or invalidly “married” Catholics attempt to act as witness to a Catholic wedding, confirmation sponsor, or the like.

    I was asked by a long time buddy of mine who was raised Catholic to be the legal witness in his marriage outside of the Church. I didn’t want to alienate him, as It is my duty to try to bring him back to the faith (I have my shortcomings too for anyone wondering), so I settled on being a groomsman.

    Church tribunals hand out marriage anullments like candy to the point most people think of them as “Catholic divorces.” This is so sad and true. The U.S. is the leader in annulments. Hmmm….I wonder why. Could it be no fault divorce helping in that respect in addition to the female imperative?

    Thus, catholics do not believe in divorce: once marriage, always married until death do us part. We certainly don’t believe in divorce. An annulment means that sacramental Marriage never actually happened.

    hen things are tough do people (in this case Roman Catholics) – and frequently as a form of shaming – suggest that to improve matters that what one needs is counselling and therapy As a Catholic, I think (since we’re running with that right now) the reason counseling and therapy are suggested for marriage as a solution to tough situations (shaming aside) is because people are wimps and lazy in this day and age. They’d rather someone direct them what to do rather than seriously try to work on it on their own.

    It also means that it may be that we teach young men NOT to spread themselves so thin that they don’t have energy to use Game once married. Since having taken the red pill and read one book on it (Rollo’s), if I marry, I’m gonna be sure not to spread myself too thin.

    For women, the incessant posturing, seeking validation, etc. is not just a time waster, but harmful to their psyche. Imagine going through your whole life like it was high school all of the time. I got off Facebook several times in undergrad and permanently left it in grad school. If people want to get ahold of me, they can call, text, e-mail or see me in person. I’ve never been happier either.

  193. Farm Boy says:

    Once some engineer puts “B” inside “A”, and after viewing some above-average porn for a little while

    A better approach may to integrate a minimal physical system as described above with an Oculus Rift

  194. Dalrock says:

    @Luke

    Anyone who says that no way will sexbots be practical this century needs to consider two advances…

    I don’t think anyone is challenging the potential of the technology. The issue isn’t with the tech, but with what men want, and will continue to want. Having an incredibly effective masterbation device isn’t something to build your life around, unlike having a family.

    But as I’ve been saying, this doesn’t mean that we won’t see this becoming another very powerful temptation for young men during the decade or more they wait for their future wife to tire of her merit badge career and penis sampling. There will be a very powerful difference (overall) between a generation of men who spent their formative years preparing to provide for and lead a family, and one which spent their formative years with VR enhanced masturbation. Again, this is actually much worse for feminists, because no amount of feminine wiles can undo the damage which is already done. There will be (and the data highly suggests already is) a shortage of men with husband potential for those women looking to hop from the carousel to marriage, and the limited number of men in their own cohort also have the option of marrying a woman who is younger.

  195. From my experience once the feminists get their “hooks” into a forum it’s a short distance from the Bible (or Church doctrine) to full on Tumblresque nonsense. Social media is rife with this and the hyena’s just sniffing out the weak.

    I was meditating on Dalrock’s prior post also this week. I don’t think it’s our concept of marriage that is flawed. I think it is the Christian concept of charity, of love that is flawed. I think that there is plenty of evidence in this Catholic Forum thread. Where is the love? Where is the self-sacrifice? Without that NO marriage, friendship, fellowship, or community will succeed. Like the children in the wilderness we’re going to get flesh (sin nature) until we choke on it.

    I know I’ve had enough.

  196. Farm Boy says:

    Even if the woman had been 100% accurate in her depiction of her husband and herself in the first place (I am not granting that at all, by the way), she married him knowing of his video game habits.

    Yes, but once they are married, she has him by the balls legally, and can easily pressure him to do what she wants. This works especially well if he has a high income/assets.

  197. TFH says:

    Dalrock,

    There will be a very powerful difference (overall) between a generation of men who spent their formative years preparing to provide for and lead a family, and one which spent their formative years with VR enhanced masturbation.

    Yes. That is all there is to it.

    If there is an approximately ~30% reduction in courtship spent/search costs (mostly by men going out less often, and finding fewer women attractive enough) by that generation of men, it will bite the FI very hard. Also, the losses will not be evenly distributed, but will be fully borne by women in the 5-7 range of looks, who are currently at an inflated value. Also, the gap between women in their 20s vs. the 35+ crowd will widen..

    Again, this is actually much worse for feminists,

    Yep.

  198. greyghost says:

    Again, this is actually much worse for feminists, because no amount of feminine wiles can undo the damage which is already done. There will be (and the data highly suggests already is) a shortage of men with husband potential for those women looking to hop from the carousel to marriage, and the limited number of men in their own cohort also have the option of marrying a woman who is younger.

    This is where the fun is Also where the next tax base is. MGTOW living fun lives off 12.50 to 16 bucks an hour with side income and college women living stressed lives at 18 to 30 bucks an hour. childless

  199. As far as the sexbots? Just what I need, artificial flesh…..

  200. gdgm+ says:

    Sidebar re: TFH saying at June 11, 2014 at 5:27 pm (sorry I missed this earlier):

    I continue to see that W. Bradford Wilcox is not much different than Glenn Stanton or any other blue-pill SoCon…

    Why is W. Bradford Wilcox considered to be different?

    Two quick things:
    1. He’s been raised by a single mother himself (as noted in some of his _National Review_ posts). As compared to Stanton’s *praise* of single mothers, Wilcox’s view appears (in my opinion, at least) to reflect more of his personal experience and at least ambivalence.
    2. More recently than Stanton, even Wilcox in possible “blue-pill SoCon” mode gets feminists like Amanda Marcotte furious! (H/T Janet Bloomfield blog, a/k/a “Judgybitch”, since I’m not a reader of the _Slate_ website)
    Shaming single women: Brad Wilcox offers marriage as prevention for violence against women.

  201. Dalrock says:

    Another difference between Stanton and Willcox is that the former claims to represent Christian family values, while the latter does not. It is the difference between a car going 55 in the slow lane, and one doing 25 in the fast lane with his blinker on, a spoiler, and flames painted all over his car (Stanton).

  202. Luke says:

    God is Laughing says:
    June 12, 2014 at 1:16 pm

    “I was meditating on Dalrock’s prior post also this week. I don’t think it’s our concept of marriage that is flawed. I think it is the Christian concept of charity, of love that is flawed. I think that there is plenty of evidence in this Catholic Forum thread. Where is the love? Where is the self-sacrifice”

    Women’s love is now largely for themselves. Not one in 30 will “sacrifice” anything related to her autonomy while pre-Wall, least of all her options to ride the carousel for 15+ years.

  203. Novaseeker says:

    The U.S. is the leader in annulments. Hmmm….I wonder why. Could it be no fault divorce helping in that respect in addition to the female imperative?

    What some fairly smart Catholics say is that the reason is that very few Catholics who marry have the proper intention at the time they were married (including the idea that marriage is for life, with no “outs”). If they had that imperfect intention, that impairs consent (didn’t freely consent to marriage for life with all that this implies), which means that the sacrament was invalid ab initio. Hence a decree of annulment.

  204. R7 Rocket says:

    But Rush reported the truth: 80% of American nuns are members of LCWR.

    Looks like those nuns prefer to obey The Cathedral instead of the Vatican’s cathedral…

  205. Professor Hale says:

    @ A Visitor,
    Wrong and wrong. We venerate Mary and the saints …

    I am sure you are doing it right. It’s just all those other Catholics who don’t understand. I’m not talking about veneration. If I were, I would have used that word.

  206. Luke says:

    for 15+ years.

    Novaseeker says:
    June 12, 2014 at 1:32 pm
    “The U.S. is the leader in annulments. Hmmm….I wonder why. Could it be no fault divorce helping in that respect in addition to the female imperative?

    What some fairly smart Catholics say is that the reason is that very few Catholics who marry have the proper intention at the time they were married (including the idea that marriage is for life, with no “outs”).”

    So, it sounds as if the Catholic denomination in the U.S. is seriously incompetent at sniffing out premaritally that most of their worshippers are utterly insincere about marriage. Why is that the case? I know the Catholics have mandatory premarital counseling; even the United Methodists have that.

  207. A Visitor says:

    @Novaseeker

    That is, in my opinion, one of the MAIN reasons that annulments are decreed so much in the States. If I get married, I know it’ll be for life without any outs. I just wish that there were more of a return towards marriage as a sacrament for life.

  208. Novaseeker says:

    So, it sounds as if the Catholic denomination in the U.S. is seriously incompetent at sniffing out premaritally that most of their worshippers are utterly insincere about marriage. Why is that the case? I know the Catholics have mandatory premarital counseling; even the United Methodists have that.

    I think the idea is that, yes, people will say anything when they want to get married, regardless of what they think. When I was Catholic my marriage preparation asked these kinds of questions, but I’m not aware of any case where a priest refused to marry someone who said the wrong things. They probably counseled them a bit more and hoped for the best. I do know that the priest who married me did stop by unexpectedly one evening — I think he was trying to suss out whether we were living together (which we were not), but I’m not sure what the consequence would have been if we were.

    I just wish that there were more of a return towards marriage as a sacrament for life.

    Yes – a separate issue.

  209. Luke,

    “Women’s love is now largely for themselves. Not one in 30 will “sacrifice” anything related to her autonomy while pre-Wall, least of all her options to ride the carousel for 15+ years.”

    That leads me to the conclusion that this is the real problem. The rest is window dressing. We have been saddled by the culture in this losing defense of marriage (as a cultural institution) when in fact it’s the entirety of the Gospel message that has been utterly bled from the teaching of the Church. Without taking up our crosses daily and making that daily self-sacrifice we are not practicing disciples of Christ. Anyone who refuses their cross is an enemy of THE CROSS.

  210. Funny analogy Dalrock, I can see a cloud of blue smoke behind Stanton’s tricked out Pinto.

  211. Farm Boy says:

    Women’s love is now largely for themselves.

    Many do not even love their children. That is truly pathetic for a mother.

  212. Farm Boy says:

    Stanton’s tricked out Pinto.

    A Pinto doing 25 in the fast lane with a smoke screen is a disaster waiting to happen. Which is what Stanton is.

  213. Luke says:

    Novaseeker says:
    June 12, 2014 at 1:45 pm

    “I think the idea is that, yes, people will say anything when they want to get married, regardless of what they think. When I was Catholic my marriage preparation asked these kinds of questions, but I’m not aware of any case where a priest refused to marry someone who said the wrong things. They probably counseled them a bit more and hoped for the best. I do know that the priest who married me did stop by unexpectedly one evening — I think he was trying to suss out whether we were living together (which we were not), but I’m not sure what the consequence would have been if we were.”

    1) That priest would have had a better chance of sniffing out cohabitation (or at least fornication) had he come by around 0500, especially Saturday or Sunday.

    2) So, what is the solution, then? Sodium pentothal injections before counseling sessions? Polygraphs? Interrogation during premarital counseling by a cop accustomed to getting confessions from perps? Excommunication for anyone divorcing who cannot PROVE it’s not a frivorce (with the offender automatically excommed)? I could see, if the Catholic church ever got serious about fixing this, petitioning Congress for a law to be passed that if someone gets married in a Catholic church, the gov’t would enforce seriously bad “fault” divorce proceedings against one or both exes, depending, and no matter if they converted to something else post-wedding.

  214. Craig says:

    Mgtow…. I have boycotted marriage and children.,, still have a gf but won’t ever get married or have kids or mix finances or live in a common law state.

  215. Novaseeker says:

    2) So, what is the solution, then? Sodium pentothal injections before counseling sessions? Polygraphs? Interrogation during premarital counseling by a cop accustomed to getting confessions from perps? Excommunication for anyone divorcing who cannot PROVE it’s not a frivorce (with the offender automatically excommed)? I could see, if the Catholic church ever got serious about fixing this, petitioning Congress for a law to be passed that if someone gets married in a Catholic church, the gov’t would enforce seriously bad “fault” divorce proceedings against one or both exes, depending, and no matter if they converted to something else post-wedding.

    I think the only solution is better catechesis, but the problem is lying on both ends. People can lie on the front end and say that they understand what they are consenting to, and then later, in the annulment process, fess up to it being a lie and get annulled so that they can remarry. Or they can be sincere at the time, and then lie during the annulment process to suggest that they didn’t have the proper intention at the time, and get an annulment anyway. Given the ambient culture, it’s not that hard to allege and prove that you didn’t have the proper intention so as to freely consent.

    There isn’t a great fix, because of the nature of how the sacrament works in Catholicism (ministered by the parties to each other, so a defect in consent invalidates the sacrament itself – i.e., it never happened because it couldn’t be ministered by someone without the proper consent). We don’t have quite the same issue in the Orthodox Church because in Orthodoxy the priest is the minister of the sacrament, so the question of the consent of the parties isn’t relevant to whether the sacrament itself is valid. I’m not saying that we don’t have our own issues with divorce and remarriage (we do), but they are different because of the different sacramental theology involved.

    Most protestants don’t view marriage as a sacrament (I think … only the lord’s supper and baptism?). Perhaps some high church Protestants view marriage as a sacrament – not sure what the impact of their sacramental theology is on how dissolutions and remarriages are handled.

  216. Luke says:

    Farm Boy says:
    June 12, 2014 at 1:52 pm
    Women’s love is now largely for themselves.

    “Many do not even love their children. That is truly pathetic for a mother.”

    Absolutely true. This latter is borne out not just by the abortion numbers, but by what happens when someone shows a woman in the middle of frivorcing the statistics on what this will likely do to their children (minimum of lowering them 0.5-1.0 social classes FOR LIFE). It almost never, ever has any effect upon their decision to evict the children’s father from their home, and typically 80-100% from their lives.

  217. Farm Boy says:

    There will be (and the data highly suggests already is) a shortage of men with husband potential for those women looking to hop from the carousel to marriage

    And how will the MSM explain the shortage of high quality men?

  218. TFH says:

    Craig,

    Mgtow…. I have boycotted marriage and children.,, still have a gf but won’t ever get married or have kids or mix finances or live in a common law state.

    Very good.

    Make sure you enlighten guys 10-15 years younger about the benefits of your decision, and how the courts work.

  219. TFH says:

    Farm Boy,

    A better approach may to integrate a minimal physical system as described above with an Oculus Rift

    The Oculus Rift always seems about 2 years away. The delays have been endless, despite the deep Facebook pockets they now have.

    At the same time, almost anyone who has tested it has been blown away. It has exceeded the loftiest expectations, apparently…..

  220. Luke says:

    Farm Boy says:
    June 12, 2014 at 2:12 pm
    “There will be (and the data highly suggests already is) a shortage of men with husband potential for those women looking to hop from the carousel to marriage

    And how will the MSM explain the shortage of high quality men?”

    I can all but guarantee that most of these won’t be mentioned AT ALL, let alone in any depth:

    1) the ramapant obesity among U.S. women;
    2) the near-universal carousel riding among U.S. women, and how it makes most female participants near-certain frivorcers;
    3) the prison-rape level of bias against men in divorce courts;
    4) women intentionally putting off marriage for careerism til the Wall looms (where at least half their looks and 80% of their fertility are irretrieveably GONE before they even meet their husbands-to-be);
    5) affirmative action pushing men out of jobs so women can get them (and their hypergamy preventing them from taking even the first look at most men);
    6) the commonality of divorced/never-married women with other men’s kids, and how utterly unappealing the bulk of men find them as potential wives.

    Maybe the divorce court issue could be gingerly, briefly brought up (and it’d be whitewashed), but that would be it.

  221. Farm Boy says:

    almost anyone who has tested it has been blown away.

    That would be me. And when the up the resolution, it will be awesome. When they get there…

  222. TFH says:

    Farm Boy,

    OK, if it exceeded your expectations by a lot, then it might be safe to call it ‘revolutionary’…

  223. Scythian Sword says:

    Well I for one agree that her husband needs a guys night out with his buddies. Why not?

  224. Pingback: The grind is important, and not only with one’s coffee. | Dark Brightness

  225. Dalrock says:

    @Farm Boy

    And how will the MSM explain the shortage of high quality men?

    Weak men screwing feminism up.

  226. Dalrock says:

    @GIL

    Funny analogy Dalrock, I can see a cloud of blue smoke behind Stanton’s tricked out Pinto.

    With his windows down and his system up…

  227. hurting says:

    Novaseeker says:
    June 12, 2014 at 2:04 pm

    There isn’t a fix per se to the epidemic of faulty consent anullments in the USA except to have the tribunals apply the same standards they used to wherein young teenagers were assumed to have the mental wherewithal to understand the requirements of marriage. They will, of course, not do this as annulments are seen as pastoral tools to bring people back to communion with the church. The devastation that such a practice wreaks on the faithful in the form of broken families is ignored. More Catholics divorce in this country than would otherwise because they know they can get an annulment. JPII and BXVI chastised the US tribunals several times on this front albeit to no discernible effect.

    BTW, I think that someone who falsely agrees to marriage but secretly holds out the option of divorce later (presumably with remarriage to another possible) is guilty of simulation, a different kind of defect than is typically held forth in US annulments.

  228. MarcusD says:

    @Farm Boy

    And how will the MSM explain the shortage of high quality men?

    They won’t: http://washingtonexaminer.com/women-are-having-fewer-kids-and-demographers-dont-know-why/article/2549445

  229. MarcusD says:

    @Luke

    For example, porn keeps more than a few men (otherwise good, but weak enough under certain extreme conditions) with children who are wrongly deprived of sex with their wives from infidelity or divorcing their wives (arguably justified, but still bad for the children), or going postal.

    Which is why feminists say things like this: “I would not hesitate to walk out of my marriage if my husband started watching porn anymore than I would hesitate to walk out if he started soliciting prostitutes.” (http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/06/11/a-husbands-plea-to-catholic-answers-forum-stop-sowing-discord-in-my-house/#comment-126751)

  230. Luke says:

    Marcus, I figure any wife who hasn’t had sex with her husband once in the past 16 hours (and 3x in the past 4 days) is in NO position to criticize him looking at legal porn. Likewise, any woman who isn’t married is NOT taking care of a husband’s needs while in the role of a wife, so p*ss on her having a right to opine on the subject as well.

    ====================================================================
    Semi-off-topic: Judgyb*tch artfully tears careerist women a new one:

    http://judgybitch.com/2013/02/07/babies-we-dont-need-no-stinking-babies-the-genius-of-amanda-marcotte-again/

  231. Luke says:

    Great quote from a post at the above thread on JB’s site:

    “For the sane ones out there, men want a woman who is madly sexy, passionately loving, and a great supporter of him and their family. And, if she’s substantially younger, he is far less likely to wander, most especially if she’s a virgin. The hymen is there because it has a purpose. Call it a respect-O-meter that has two readings: infinite and zero.”

  232. Bluepillprofessor says:

    Catholic forums was one of my first stops after I discovered the Red Pill and read MMSL. I think it set my improvement back about 80% for the 2 nights I spent reading that Jezebel level heresy. What an absolutely awful, evil web site. Some of the commenters are the people the Lord was talking about when he said there will be those who cry “Lord I cast out demons in your name and I will say away from me evil doers. I never knew you.”

  233. The One says:

    Late to the party, but want to point out Michael Vorris ran a website which had the name catholic in it and the name was pulled at the request of the church. Since this so called catholic answers site isn’t run by the clergy, I can see the same happening here if we make enough noise.

  234. deti says:

    “Farm Boy: “And how will the MSM explain the shortage of high quality men?”
    Dalrock: “Weak men screwing feminism up.”

    Pretty much. Farm Boy, what Dal is referring to here is a general sense and meme in the MSM that men need to get with it, fall in line, and get with the times. Men are just going to have to:

    1. Accept life as househusbands and kitchen bitches (despite the fact that women aren’t attracted to these men long term and the marriages don’t tend to work out).

    2. Marry women who outearn them (same problem as #1).

    3. Marry ex carouselers with double digit Ns.

    4. Marry physically unattractive, obese women.

    5. Accommodate women’s careers and motherhood aspirations as more important than being wives of husbands.

    6. Offer themselves up as whatever a woman wants at whatever time: A boyfriend, a date, a coworker, a friend, an emotional tampon, muscle to move heavy items or reach highly placed items, etc.

  235. Michael Vorris ran a website which had the name catholic in it and the name was pulled at the request of the church

    Ah, but Voris is very orthodox and was taking shots at Notre Dame (his alma mater) and modernists in the Church. He’s been a thorn in the side of the CAF types who run most dioceses, so that’s why they went after him.

  236. Gunner Q says:

    I think the real appeal of sexbots is that it looks like an easy fix to the problem of unmarriageable women. It might work as far as it goes but, until the underlying currents of Godlessness are confronted, things will only continue to worsen. Hmm, this might be a way to black-knight Churchians towards the Biblical frame of marriage as a symbol of Christ & Church. “What’s wrong with marrying my Suzuki Femdroid? I’m willing to give myself up for it (show five-digit receipt). That’s what you said was important in marriage, right? Or is love supposed to be a two-way street? Femdroid understands I have needs, why don’t you? I know I’m a weak man who isn’t good enough for your Princess, that’s why I got Femdroid in the first place.”

    “I just wish that there were more of a return towards marriage as a sacrament for life.”

    This is what we all want, a society in which marriage is a stable institution that cannot be disrupted for trivial issues. How can we achieve that, however, when all the earthly powers that be want the opposite?

    Dalrock found a short-term answer in highlighting abuse in the original post and a long-term answer in his blog. Sounds like this Michael Vorris found a way, too. Wish I could think of something useful to do, too, but as a middle-aged incel I’m just the odd guy in church who neither married nor quit attending.

  237. Scott says:

    Slightly off topic, but here is my attempt to engage CAF.
    I am “SerbCath” on there.

    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=888938

    Picking a fight a little, I know. But for a cause.

  238. @ Dalrock. Squinting and complaining about “road hogs” (“bad” men) like Mr. Magoo.

  239. TFH says:

    GunnerQ,

    This is what we all want, a society in which marriage is a stable institution that cannot be disrupted for trivial issues. How can we achieve that, however, when all the earthly powers that be want the opposite?

    Democracy cannot coexist with marriage for too long. By the time women are in the 3rd/4th generation of voting rights, there is too much profit it bribing them with laws that destroy marriage in order to buy their votes.

    Since most people only notice things over a 40-year horizon, they cannot see that democracy has a cumulative effect on destroying the institution of marriage.

  240. Scott says:

    TFH– I don’t always agree with everything you write but I am afraid you are on to something there.

    It’s why I support democratic “forms” of government that are basically representative of a small, elite sample of the population. (Like we used to have in this country).

    That way, an oligarchy of sorts is actually pulling the levers and keeping everyone more or less free to go to the mall or do whatever it is they do.

  241. MarcusD says:

    @The One

    Voris was attacked for being too Catholic. He wasn’t holding back on it. It’s a lot like Notre Dame having the “Catholic” title – it most certainly isn’t Catholic. Voris, on the other hand, was very much so a Catholic, unflinchingly, and he had to surrender the Catholic title of his organization.

    Worth noting is that he has decided to remain unmarried.

  242. hurting says:

    Scott says:
    June 12, 2014 at 5:50 pm

    Gird your loins:).

  243. TFH says:

    Scott,

    <a href="http://umslopogaas.wordpress.com/2013/08/06/why-womens-suffrage-destroys-democracy-investigating-tfhs-claim/"Read this about Democracy and feminism.

    Now, Russia and China are not democracies, and have many negatives. But one thing they do do is vocally stamp out most feminist memes from their countries, because the negative productivity of ‘feminism’ outweighs any political profit (since there are no elections).

    In America, just about every major election from now on will be dominated by ‘women’s issues’, crowding out almost every other topic. 70-80% of all govt. spending is a transfer from men to women in some form or the other.

    Men’s votes similarly cannot be bought via ‘men’s issues’. Among other proof of this :
    1) Prostitution is illegal in America
    2) America’s immigration policy is not woman-favoring. One would think domestic men would demand at least this, but it was never even remotely discussed. After the Cold War ended, America could easily have said : “Unlimited immigration of all women under 35 from former Iron Curtain countries”. But men don’t vote for such things the way women vote for the equivalent.

  244. Scott says:

    Hurting– It’s already started. And my wife got into the action too! (Prov31HelpMeet)

    Grab some popcorn.

  245. MarcusD says:

    @Scott

    BlueEyedLady is going to go nuts. Mostly emotional responses (e.g. ad hominem), light on facts, and few (if any) sources. She’s the liberal, gynocentric, Jezebel feminist of CAF.

    I mean, we’re talking serial cohabitation, multiple sexual partners, dysfunctional family, paternal disengagement, liberal education, drug use, and so on.

    Anyhow, be prepared for her to dismiss your arguments, sources, and so forth, out of hand.

  246. Scott says:

    Yes, she already did all of those. She even tried to tell me that her husband, a brilliant CPA cooking for her tonight is like some guy names Gordon Ramsay. I had to look it up, since I don’t watch TV.

    Apparently, “civil marriage is working for me, therefore my situation presents itself as a universal truth about how the world works” qualifies as an argument on CAF.

  247. TFH says:

    Scott,

    Broken link above fixed here :

    Female suffrage destroys democracy.

  248. BradA says:

    > “3) Sexual perversion is doing the Lord’s work”

    I am not sure anyone really said this in this thread, but I have seen the idea put forth many times.

    [Rom 6:1 KJV] 1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?

    The idea is that we should never do evil to get good out of it. God will use many things, but woe to the man who is a part of the evil. Look up the fate of the Assyrians and Babylon as an example. They did the Lord’s work, but they were judge harshly because they did it sinfully.

  249. Boxer says:

    Dear Scott:

    Good show, my brother. I suppose we can start the magic countdown until you’re suddenly banned for being not sufficiently feminist for the Catholics’ liking.

    Until then, I’m having a grand old time watching the fights in the arena, as you poke the wild beasties with a sharp stick!

    Regards, Boxer

  250. BradA says:

    Scott,

    > “They just disagree with their entire approach to things like authority, risk, aggression, committment, self-disclosure, and a whole host of other things.”

    Exactly. I certainly don’t understand all of my wife, but I think I have a fair grasp on how she thinks and what she is likely to do, which can be quite annoying at times and can even feed despair as the likely outcome if often not good.

    I think men are potentially easier to understand, but that many (most?) women do not want to really bother.

    I find that my wife also feels that I am not listening to her if I am not agreeing with her. That is why much of the “make your wife happy” preaching is so horrendous. You can only make her happy (in that way) by doing exactly what she wants, even if she is wrong.

    On a related note: I was listening to FotF a couple of nights ago (my wife turned it on when she got home) and Tony Evans was on. His preaching is not perfect, but he at least sometimes holds women accountable in my experience. Though on this show all three males on the show (2 hosts and guest) were telling how men had to do this, that and the other to make their wife want to do well. Quite sad really, even from someone who had been a bit higher in my esteem.

  251. Scott says:

    Yes, thank you. Thank you very much. The older I get, the more belligerent, I guess.

    I’ll pick it back up tomorrow if I feel like it.

  252. BradA says:

    Sexbots will never fully replace women because they are mechanical devices. We complain about mechanical sex from a wife, that is all you would get from a sex bot. The ladies (I don’t remember the movie so it may have just been 1) were played by real women and thus were more appealing. That will not be true in real life no matter how much they try to mimic real life.

    They will just be another factor providing a different outlet for release for some men. That doesn’t bode well for women, but men are not going to ever completely abandon women, just enough to make things a real mess for all of us. I expect to live that long and I don’t look forward to it.

  253. MarcusD says:

    I’ll add commentary and sources here; feel free to use them in your CAF debates.

  254. BradA says:

    Scott, it sounds like you need to remove the game system. I would have done that the instant I learned he unplugged the timer to circumvent the rules. I am a hardcore game player, but I would not tolerate that.

    I would also push him out once he is an adult or out of high school if you have him in the government schools. Let him waste his life on his own dollar or that of others.

    I play far too many games and can play far more than your 2 hour limit, but I have learned some balance.

    I also did not drink (I do very rarely now), smoke (thank God I didn’t pick that one up from my mother) or do other “bad” things, so even some extreme game playing is hardly bad by comparison. I am not into sports or TV much either.

    I sometimes push the line, but I also know when I need to work and when I can play. You are right that some haven’t learned that and your son seems like one of them. I am sure you are trying, but watch that you do not enable that in the slightest.

  255. [Sexbots] will just be another factor providing a different outlet for release for some men.

    Right. Men aren’t going to start choosing sexbots over wives, at least not unless the AI and realism make them indistinguishable from real women, like the humanoid Cylons on BSG. Then it could happen, but that won’t be any time soon, if ever. But for now, they would just be a more pleasurable masturbation method. But we’re already seeing, with higher video quality porn and webcams, that an increasing number of men will settle for that, so there’s no reason they wouldn’t “upgrade” to sexbots.

    It’s not that a man offered a choice between a wife and a sexbot will take the sexbot. It’s more like a man who hasn’t had a good wife prospect in years will think to himself: “Should I go out this Friday night? Well, last week I spent $50 on drinks to meet a bunch of self-absorbed, 40-year-old cougars stuffed into outfits that last looked good on them 15 years ago, and got rejected because I don’t have an expensive enough car. Maybe I’ll just get Plastic Patty out of the closet instead.” It’ll be the men on the margins, who could get married but only by settling for an overweight, unpleasant woman with serious baggage, who will seek their release elsewhere.

  256. kip says:

    LOL also from CAF

    “My mother often reminded me during my first year of marriage that if you placed a grain of rice in a dish for every time you had sex in the first year, you would be unable to empty it during the rest of your married life. The same thing held for fights. ”

    “the novelty will wear off. I heard it said once that you should put a penny into a jar every time you have sex for the first year of your marriage. Then after the first year, take a penny out of the jar every time you have sex. You’ll never take the last penny out of the jar.”

  257. BradA says:

    Cane,

    > “no real distinction between sexbots and VR sex”

    That is not true at all, at least not if the VR is fully immersive, which we aren’t quite up to yet. VR sex would encompass the entire senses and make you feel like you were there. A sexbot would just be a mechanical body. The real world would remain far too much.

    Huge difference for most, even if a few wouldn’t care.

    Look into some of the immersive worlds for a better idea what VR activities could become. Those will become addictive in other ways to if they can get more direct inputs to the brain. Even just completely covering the sight and sound input will be significant.

  258. BradA says:

    > “there’s no reason they wouldn’t “upgrade” to sexbots.”

    I am not sure the cost will be affordable enough to be worth it for most though Cail. Some may, but I would still put my money on other things being worth their money with porn being sufficient for some time to come.

  259. BradA says:

    TFH,

    I doubt most men would vote for prostitution. It has its own series of huge risks and I would never trust the government to make it safe when they damage everything else they touch. I am no longer as rabid about keeping it illegal, but I do not think it is good for a society. Though we certainly practice a form of it freely today. You can have all the prostitution you want, as long as you wrap it in something else. “Honest officer, she was just a ONS….”

  260. BradA says:

    Scott,

    Gordon Ramsey would not seem to be an example of a mild man. He was quite foul mouthed the few times I have seen him on TV. I was not impressed, but perhaps she likes that. Other chefs would give a better meal I would think.

    I pray your son develops some drive for himself. He definitely needs that to succeed. Maybe he can look into information security. It can seem like a game at times!

  261. jf12 says:

    @Cail re: “the men on the margins”

    What percentage are we talking about? 30% of men? 50% of men?

    The (slight) majority of women’s sex toys are purchased by men, for women.

  262. Cane Caldo says:

    @Brad

    That is not true at all, at least not if the VR is fully immersive, which we aren’t quite up to yet. VR sex would encompass the entire senses and make you feel like you were there. A sexbot would just be a mechanical body. The real world would remain far too much.

    You’re missing the much larger point that simulation (sexbot) is simulation (VR), but simulation is not reality.

    To argue that VR is fundamentally and really different from vibrators, sexbots, porn, whatever form of mechanical masturbation (“That is not true at all”) because the experience is feels so different–is deeply existentialist. It’s a denial of reality in favor of experiences. That’s modernism.

  263. Anonymous age 72 says:

    Opus says:
    June 12, 2014 at 8:57 am
    >>Without wishing to offend Anon72, I would say that Therapy and Counselling are 20th century mumbo-jumbo

    What on earth are you talking about? Because I supplied counseling for ten years to divorced men? What on earth do you think men counseling men is like? Like feminist counseling? “How did you feel when you placed the shotgun against your sleeping husband’s back and pulled?”

    My counseling included how to prepare their divorce cases; and things like how to find a competent attorney. (Take a lantern and search with no success the entire night, just like in UK, heh, heh.) What to expect in court, and what the judges were looking for as far as custody. Explaining the child support laws. When to dump a stupid attorney and get another one. (Most of the time.) Things to avoid during visitation. How to access school records or medical records, when dummies told you Mommy owns them. Things like that.

    Things to do and not to do, such as don’t go to bars and get in fights during and after divorce. Get rid of Playboy and Hustler if you have them.

    A lot of it was probably things the nonexistent competent attorneys should have been telling them, but never did.

    I was drafted into our local group when two men out of 35 whacked themselves in one summer. So, I did suicide counseling on all men who called me, after I learned that most divorced men at least contemplate suicide.

    First, you let them know all divorced men feel pretty much the same; their feelings are not unique. And, we let them vent a bit.

    Then, you get them laughing. Then, you teach them how to get a good night’s sleep. (Few whack themselves when they had a good night’s sleep.)

    Then you help them get a plan for the future.

    Over the ten years, we had no men we knew who whacked themselves.

    Things like that, Opus. No mumbo jumbo at all. That does men no favors. Only dearies can benefit from mumbo jumbo.

    So, exactly what did you do for your male clients? Just asking, Opus.

  264. infowarrior1 says:

    @BradA
    “Look into some of the immersive worlds for a better idea what VR activities could become. Those will become addictive in other ways to if they can get more direct inputs to the brain. Even just completely covering the sight and sound input will be significant.”

    VR is the ultimate escapism with the potential for creating an illusionary paradise. A kind of entertainment prison for some. Considering that there are incidences of men dying from over-gaming who knows what novel situations will arise?

    @Gunner Q
    “I think the real appeal of sexbots is that it looks like an easy fix to the problem of unmarriageable women. It might work as far as it goes but, until the underlying currents of Godlessness are confronted, things will only continue to worsen. Hmm, this might be a way to black-knight Churchians towards the Biblical frame of marriage as a symbol of Christ & Church. “What’s wrong with marrying my Suzuki Femdroid? I’m willing to give myself up for it (show five-digit receipt). That’s what you said was important in marriage, right? Or is love supposed to be a two-way street? Femdroid understands I have needs, why don’t you? I know I’m a weak man who isn’t good enough for your Princess, that’s why I got Femdroid in the first place.””

    Already happening:

  265. JF12, I’d guess much lower percentages, but the Japanese might already be proving me wrong. Thing is, it all depends on how much women keep delaying marriage and letting their hypergamy run free, which depends a lot on the economy’s ability to keep them in make-work jobs and designer shoes. Since I expect the economy to tank worse over the next several years, I also expect a shift in women back to a better balance between alpha-chasing and provider-seeking.

    But if young women start seeking provision via marriage again, right at a time when many young men aren’t preparing for marriage because it hasn’t been on the table, those young women will set their sights a few years older than normal. That’s going to leave the generation of 30- and 40-something women who are currently delaying marriage out in the cold. I don’t see much of a solution to that; it’s just something that will take a generation or two to level out.

  266. kip says:

    “I doubt most men would vote for prostitution. It has its own series of huge risks ”

    Legalizing prostitution means culturally mainstreaming it. That means your daughters will grow up viewing it as just another career option. This is why most Americans oppose the idea.

  267. embracing reality says:

    Prostitution is already a largely legal practice in the US. “Back Page.com” among others is awash with young, reasonably attractive sluts advertising their companionship as escorts. Around the world’ with a 20 something escort is available for about $150 in most major cities. Regulars negotiate better prices. This level of prostitution and likewise the kind offered up in strip clubs is mostly ignored by law enforcement (except for their participating in both). Lets be honest, dating the modern young woman takes just a few dates and maybe even just one before the prize is beheld. Three dinner dates and movies is about $150 and about 9 hours of time. Isn’t dating the modern slut just a waste of time at about the same costs as an escort? The bible calls it harlotry either way. Face it, they can negotiate the price all they like, Amerika is a nation of whores and whore mongers.

  268. jack says:

    Dear Catholic women who are reading this:

    Thank you for providing the evidence I needed to convince other men not to marry your lying, cheating, unholy selves.
    Thank you for proving that you cannot see a man’s side EVER, and that it is “sisterhood until the end”.
    I actively work to convince men not to marry, and especially not to marry church girls, who are often the worst of all.
    Thanks for proving that you are all less than worthless as marriage material.

    The best part is that men will not end up married to you when you are old and fat. That is a slow agonizing end to a man’s spirit.

    And the Lord will judge you someday for your lies and stubbornness. It will be fun watching you have to recant all your lies before God accepts you. Hehe. Losers.

  269. srsly says:

    I’ve noticed a bit of a trend in some of the things you’re talking about here. Anything a man does, that a woman doesn’t do, and which she doesn’t understand, he’s an addict.

  270. Ceer says:

    Where was this wife when the husband was becoming addicted to video games? She mentioned him playing a game for 15 years of his life, which is quite a long time. Most games with that much replayability are Massively Multiplayer Online games or strategy games. Both are good for the individual, in different ways. MMO’s offer a social outlet that allows people to interact with one another in a safe environment. Strategy games are more like puzzles, encouraging out of the box thinking. The wife doesn’t seem like she understands.

    The fact of the matter is that this culture basically encourages men to play computer/video games by having women ignore them sexually. Dalrock’s idea of weakened signal is evident here. She paints him as cold, remote, and disinterested…exactly what she wanted earlier on. Now that her preferences have changed, she wants him to change to suit her. Sorry, he did that once…not going to do it again.

  271. Ceer says:

    @Dalrock

    As a catholic, I can confirm to you that the church teaches women should be submissive to their husbands. This is official church doctrine which is in line with the scripture. Keep in mind that in this country, the Catholic church (just like protestant denominations) have cultural feminists that will decide to ignore certain teachings they don’t like. We have a term for them: Cafeteria Catholics. It is supposedly church policy for the priest to do counseling for four months before a couple tie the knot. Like all counseling, its results can be hit or miss and depend largely on the participants.

  272. Boxer says:

    Dear srsly:

    I’ve noticed a bit of a trend in some of the things you’re talking about here. Anything a man does, that a woman doesn’t do, and which she doesn’t understand, he’s an addict.

    That’s correct. Women are conditioned in our society to see men as inferior beings, whose only purpose in life is to serve women, to fight on their behalf, to pay all their bills and give them spending money besides, and to see that everything is nicely prepared for whatever they want to do.

    When a contemporary feminist woman runs across a man who is not interested in being her servant, alarm bells go off in her dim little peanut brain, and all the phony mental architecture that she picked up in wimminz studies classes collapses. Since men are obviously created to be the slaves of wimminz, and since this man isn’t snapping to when that wimminz passes by, nose in air, this man must be defective. It’s the obvious, logical conclusion. He’s addicted, or a loser, or has something wrong with him.

    Boxer

  273. MarcusD says:

    “My favorite in this genre was a study a couple of years ago that concerned men and women looking at erotic images. Physiological measures of arousal showed men were only aroused by images consistent with their sexual orientation whereas women were aroused by everything…BUT many of the women who showed physiological signs of arousal were unaware of that.

    The spin: Easy to guess — that women’s sexuality was complex and subtle.

    But what if the results were reversed so that men were aroused by everything but sometimes didn’t realize it?

    That’s easy, too — the spin would have been that men are undiscriminating boors, aroused by anything and everything, BUT they’re so out of touch with their own bodies and feelings they often don’t realize it.”

    http://althouse.blogspot.ca/2005/11/scientists-remember-to-portray.html

  274. MarcusD says:

    Another clue that feminism is gynocentric:

    “6. When I act like a child, think of me like a child”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/melanie-curtin/10-easy-ways-to-deal-with-me-when-im-being-a-bitch_b_3676315.html

    Genderflip the author, and everyone would lose their minds…

  275. srsly says:

    I think this goes even further, Boxer. I don’t know if you’ve been told, but not all women are like that. There are even rumors of feminists who aren’t like that. I think all women may actually be like this, though, at least all women who haven’t gone through recovery for addiction. Moreover, I think this may be related to a few other concepts, which are breaking down discussion of these and related issues throughout our culture.

    In the fireman movie D is always talking about, I understand the man is shown viewing pornography once, and later is shown looking at a computer and saying something to the effect that he is giving up a porn addiction. I think a charitable male viewer (or a female one who understands what addiction really is) assumes that there is off-screen harm to his ability to function in day to day life, and that the one instance the viewer is shown is the tip of a very large iceberg.

    However, I think most female viewers (especially sheltered, churchgoing women who have never viewed porn, and don’t have many close friendships with males) don’t need to make this assumption to reconcile these things. He looked at porn, at least once, and he already had a wife. He’s a porn addict.

    On the surface, this would seem a small issue, even if it constituted an absolute wedge, with all men and all women talking past each other. At worst, a woman might think a man needed a twelve step program when he really needs his wife to sometimes let him fuck her when she isn’t in the mood. Except that this, and other things like it, are ubiquitous throughout our language, and social policy and law is determined by language.

    Historically, society criminally punishes someone when he commits an act which he ought not have any right to do AND either he does so with a malicious intent or someone is harmed by it. Harm as an element of crimes is really only a logical extension of intent, since it can usually be reasonably inferred that one intends the natural and logical consequences of one’s actions. What we see in feminist jurisprudence (as well as their political arguments once they’re boiled down to essentials) usually amounts to substituting victims’ subjective feelings for defendants’ intent.

    If masturbation equals adultery, then a woman need only withhold sex and wait till she has fault grounds for divorce even in the few states that still require it. If her right to privacy is violated whenever she feels uncomfortable about someone looking at her, then every sighted man might be a peeping tom. If her consent was lacking because she felt violated, her willful participation notwithstanding, then the most respectful and decent man might rape her the first time she mounts him and humps to her heart’s content. If any playing of video games constitutes an addiction, then almost no man under thirty cares about his family at all.

    Of course, only radical feminists would want such extreme measures to be legally enforced in such marginal cases. They aren’t all like that, don’t you know. Most feminists, and indeed, nearly all women, only want the rules to be generally understood from these self-appointed-victim viewpoints. Surely they recognize there are good men who look at women, or play video games, or hunt, or fish, or gamble, or drink beer, or tell dead baby jokes who don’t deserve to be punished for it.

    Only radical feminists want to kill all men. The rest of womankind just wants to gouge our eyeballs out and chop off our dicks.

  276. Opus says:

    @Anon72

    I knew you would explain what counselling actually involves – so now I know and am much enlightened. I particularly liked the part about finding a competent attorney who knew what he was doing and would fight for his client rather than throw up his hands in despair at the prospect of successfully representing a man against the forces of Misandry. I say, ‘man’, because in my experience a female attorney representing a man is temperamentally incapable of doing anything other than rooting for the wife. An acquaintance of mine told me (with a straight face) that he had a wonderful female attorney and she had advised him not to fight but to transfer the house to the wife (even though he had found her in bad with another man – but it is always the husband’s fault in the first place, is it not, otherwise she would not have committed adultery). I am more than happy to concede that I am the world’s worst attorney but am confident that even so I never advised my male client to donate the entire house to the cuckolding wife.

    The counselling you provided sounds to me largely indistinguishable from good legal advice, so I hope you were well paid – in thanks if not in $$$$$$$$$$.

  277. kip says:

    I think the men who will use sexbots in place of real live human women in the future are the same ones who use porn in place of women today so I don’t see how that’s going to be any kind of game changer.

  278. Opus says:

    I own a stereoscopic thing from the time of the 1st World War. There are photographs in black and white – two seemingly identical photographs side by side, which you place in the thing and then you put your eyes close to the thing and low and behold it’s in stereo – at least it is supposed to be, but it is bit bent and I am not sure it really works as well now as when my Great Aunt (a sometime photographic Artist and not a bad draftswoman and painter) brought it back from the Middle East at the end of WW1 – where she had gone as a nurse to care for the troops – and I am sure it was hers as the pictures I have are all scenes of Egypt and Palestine.

    I can here it now: ‘this new-fangled stereoscopic thing; why don’t we call it an Oculus Rift for it will surely change sex for men throughout the 1920s and beyond’. Hmmm.

  279. Exfernal says:

    *Snort* Because black&white photography is the same as interactive video with directional sound, isn’t it? A combination of cheap red&green foil “glasses” and some YouTube videos that have the option of appropriate stereo effect provides very imperfect imitation, so feel free to check.

  280. Exfernal says:

    Here is an example video. Keywords for future reference: “stereoscopic red green”.

  281. Exfernal says:

    Shutter type glasses are more expensive, require a compatible monitor and 3D-capable software.

  282. Thinkn'Man says:

    Sexbots replace real women?
    Not likely… that is, until sexbots can whine, kvetch and nag. Then when it comes time to “fulfill wifely duties”, non-verbally letting hubby know “get this over with, you pervert.”
    I dunno, seems like a pretty tall order for an AI/VR programmer to fill. (Insert Jenny Erikson eye-roll here)

  283. Rookie Writer says:

    What happen in the Catholic forum is the reason why I stopped going to online forums. Unless you’re literally going to batter, beat down or belittle the husband from the complaining wife, you’re not a good fit. If you ask questions just about every woman on the forum is going to accuse you or the husband. So this behavior isn’t new to me. And you’ll be banned quickly for stirring up trouble since you anger the women. It’s mind bogging.

  284. greyghost says:

    The best concept I have seen for VR sex is the concept used in this outer limits. It is typical Hollywood FI geek boy story line http://www.veoh.com/watch/v6476438zddMcgDg
    me personally I wouldn’t make a virtual world centered around women like that idiot.

  285. Michael Neal says:

    Helps with your attraction, fitness, and makes bearing that cross a bit easier every day :)

    http://startingstrength.com/

  286. jf12 says:

    @Thinkn’Man re: nagbot. It’s been done. A long time sf reader, I recall several such stories in which men in the future requested upgrades to their sexbots so that the men had to exert themselves to try to please them.

  287. Michael Neal says:

    @Lonely Catholic,

    Adultery is grounds for divorce despite what the CC says, pornea is defined as sexual immorality and would include adultery and many other types of sexual perversions. Pornea does not mean “illicit:” or “invalid”

    http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/kjv/porneia.html

  288. “It is supposedly church policy for the priest to do counseling for four months before a couple tie the knot. Like all counseling, its results can be hit or miss and depend largely on the participants.”

    I never understood how a man who’s been forced into celibacy could give marital advice.

    I can personally attest to what Boxer mentioned in his most recent post. Modern-day women who’ve been groomed by our Feminized culture cannot stand to be ignored. And many of them won’t tolerate it. I used to work for Netflix, and there was a young woman there who had made several compliments on my physique, and believing that the workplace isn’t an appropriate place for relationships–not to mention that I didn’t find her nearly as attractive as she herself thought she was–I shrugged it off. During a lunch break, I logged onto my account on the company computer and added some movies to my list. When I logged back on again the next day, I found a movie from the gay/lesbian genre in my list. After asking around, some of my other co-workers told me what I already knew, but being someone who tended to hold grudges, I decided to just let it go rather than make a scene. Some time later, I walked out to my car after my shift and found a page from a gay men’s magazine stuck to my window. The parking lot had no security cameras, so there were no witnesses this time. 

  289. Anonymous age 72 says:

    @Opus

    Thanks. As I said, I started counseling because of two men of 35 members who killed themselves in one summer. One man burned himself, ala Thomas Ball, and I am sure no one is surprised that the local newspaper did not cover it. Someone wrote an op-ed taking them to task for refusal to cover it. Their excuse was, well, it was a personal matter. We all well knew if a woman burned herself for unpaid child support, it would be on the front page of every newspaper in the nation for at least six months.

    I was working in a factory. And, it made me tense to think of counseling people. I knew I had to get smart, FAST!

    The first thing I did was subscribe to the West Pub court reporter advance sheets for my region of the nation. West Pub put out copies of all precedential rulings, that is, rulings of appellate courts which were authorized to cite in a case. And, I read, well, everything. I had previously taken Criminal Justice Law courses, and my Business Law teacher made us write briefs, very unusual for accounting degrees in the US. And, I read very fast.

    I understood men need hard and harsh truths, not as you say Mumbo Jumbo. When a man was screwing up, I hit him hard, because the judge was going to do so. I also understood that extremism, such as the feminists display, the belief that my sex can do no wrong, was not a viable approach. Men had to hear the hard and harsh truth to even survive.

    The problem was much the same as on this blog. People who don’t really know much, but believe they do, and thus are pretty much incapable of learning anything from old hands. I would tell men what they needed to have ready for their attorney, and they’d say, “Nope, not important. I’ll just talk to the judge.” With total ignorance of the judicial canons (note to those who don’t know about them, canons are a vain attempt of the judiciary to pretend to have ethics) which prohibit contact with one of the two parties to a court case, alone. (Except dearies in short skirts who want their husband tossed out of the house, of course.)

    We found most attorneys only knew how to file papers, and assumed that Mommy got custody, and Daddy got to pay child support, and maybe or maybe not get “reasonable visitation”. Which is what most of the nitwits wrote in their court petition, though the appellate courts had long ago ruled that “reasonable visitation” was meaningless and essentially meant no enforceable visitation at all. Yep, that’s how badly most attorneys represented men.

    Men would call up, and I’d tell them things to do, and things not to do. Some weeks would pass, and they’d call back, all upset. Turns out their buddies at the bar told them I didn’t know my head from my arse, so they did everything I told them not to do. And, got properly screwed. So, I’d try to help them work it out, and again they would listen to their drinking buddies, and screw it all up. So, when they called back, Jesus couldn’t have brought their court case back from death. Then, they would tell everyone, “That guy wasn’t any help to me.”

    We did from time to time encounter a smart young man who took my help and used it to get custody. I get goose bumps thinking those few kids grew up with daddy instead of mommy, and are now well into their 30’s.

    I didn’t look at numbers. But, my Real Daughter did, when she was in college. I think one day it came over her, “My weird dad is doing something really unusual. I want to find out about it.” (In our house, ‘weird’ was a compliment.)

    So, she asked me a lot of questions, and from time to time asked me how many men I worked with that week. She then told me that I had contact with more men by far than any judge or lawyer or so-called counselor in our Judicial District. (This is the Real Daughter who actually submits to her husband, as I taught her, and they have not had one verbal quarrel in 17 years of marriage.)

    At first. I lacked confidence. Over the years, I realized I was actually good at it and needed to apologize to no one for my performance.

    Well paid, if only with thanks? Hee, hee. That is not how men work. I was under attack all the time, especially by the men I gave the most time and productive help to. I stopped counseling after ten years of ingratitude and abuse, when I realized I was tempted to volunteer to teach women how to rip their husband’s balls out by the roots.

    The feminists did not ‘mess’ with me. They also respect ‘strong men.’ They might hate them, but they still respect them. It was men, including divorced men I had helped, who gave me the most abuse.

    Men would walk all the way across our very large factory, just to tell me what a pathetic cretin woman hating scum bucket I was. And, everyone, 100%, of those losers eventually got their papers, and instantly called me for help. Hee, hee.

    There is a problem. When interacting with men, such as on this blog and others, who have not done their homework, actually have done no homework at all, but really, really, really want their uninformed opinion to be important, one lacks patience. I have a brother like that. If I studied on a complex issue for weeks, or even months, to be sure I had it right, he and most other men thought about it no more than maybe 15 seconds, (literally 15 seconds, not a joke at all) then started shouting, “You’re wrong! You’re wrong!” Which is why 45 years of MRM have accomplished nothing.

    I am glad I am old, and I am glad I live in Mexico. I have far more personal freedom than you men do, and only my strong moral discipline keeps me off the lovely 20-somethings who hit on me from time to time.

    ###
    I have used those stereoscopic picture devices, and properly adjusted, they do give a nice 3-D image.

  290. Opus says:

    @Anon 72

    Just so I can get a better handle on what you write – can you say in which State of your former country you were active? What I have come to understand by-the-by is that Divorce seems to be far worse on your side of the pond than on mine – at least it is somewhat different. The only really bad matrimonial lawyers I have come across – I don’t mean bad bad – are those who attempt to go all religious on the Magistracy – it won’t work, and their efforts will get short shrift – even if one admires the attempt to save the marriage or reintroduce the concept of fault or – as in one case – get the police interested in alleged Bigamy; we just regarded that as the actions of a busybody with too much time on his hands so as to interfere in things that were not of his concern.

  291. @JDG

    “Sorry, I don’t buy it. Where does it say one must identify as Catholic to follow Jesus?”

    “If he will not hear the Church, let him be to you as the heathen and publicans.” I’m an ex-Protestant. There is absolutely no historical doubt, for anyone who bothers to study, that the Catholic Church is the doctrinal and institutional continuation of the original and only Christian Church founded by Christ. So, hear it. Just as a wife is bound to yield to her husband’s authority even when he is being imperfect, the Christian owes much greater fealty to the authority of the Church… whose leaders, as men, may err, but whose official doctrine and spiritual power can never fail. Christ promised this, as well: “the gates of hell will not triumph against it.”

    @ Lyn87

    You as well should hear the Church. You should also learn some Greek and understand some basic facts about Scripture, if you are going to carry on as your own personal Pope in public. It is bad form to comment on matters, of which you know little or nothing. The New Testament says that believers are members of the “hierateuma” of believers. This word does mean “priesthood,” but in the Pagan and Jewish sense – a man set apart to God as sacred. The particularly Christian priesthood, however, is denoted by the Greek word “presbyteria,” from which the English word “priest” is derived (presbyteros-presbyterus-prester-preste-priest was its history from Greek to Latin to Old English to Middle English to Modern English). EVERY instance describing the “priesthood of believers” uses the hieros-based word, and EVERY instance referring to a Christian priest uses the presbyter-based word, or the term “episkopos,” from which the English word “bishop” is derived (literally: “supervisor”). “Presbyteros” literally means senior, which is the exact Latin translation of the term. It indicates an office of seniority within the universal hierateuma. From the earliest periods, the Christians understood this office to be one of governing, binding and loosing, teaching and celebrating Mass.

    Also, the Scriptures do not tell us that we should compare everything with Scripture. I imagine you mean the verse about the Jews of Berea. When somebody tells you that something is in the Bible (like, Jesus fulfilling an Old Testament prophecy), then it is praiseworthy to confirm that it is, in fact, in Scripture. But when something is not in Scripture, but is nevertheless a part of Christ’s teachings, it would be foolish to look for it in Scripture. It should be clear from Scripture itself, that the New Testament is an altogether different covenant from the Old, and that the New Covenant has a new model of doctrine and teaching that fulfills and transcends the Old. First, the Old Testament contains detailed descriptions of everything the Jews should do; the New Testament contains a bit of history, and a random collection of surviving epistles of Apostolic origin. It has no systematic or complete instructions, and thus we should not irrationally and obtusely hope to find guidance – or, at least, not complete and exact guidance – on everything. Second, the fact that St. Paul often commanded Christians to observe both oral and written teachings and even traditions, indicates that “Bible only” was hardly the modus operandi of the first Christians. Third, the Old Testament itself makes it clear that the New Covenant will be written on the heart, not in books; the establishment of the Church and the entrustment of the keys and the Saviour’s teachings and authority to the Apostles (the meaning of the word “entellomai,” which Our Lord did to the Apostles just before His Ascension), along with the clear doctrine that the *Church* is the pillar and bulwark of Truth (rather than the “Bible,” or, more accurately, your personal interpretation of the Bible apart from the right doctrine of the Pillar and Bulwark of the Truth), indicates that this New Covenant is indeed a covenant of God indwelling man and glorifying man with a share in His own life and grace, rather than one of mere laws in a book (which were “a pedagogue unto Christ,” whereas the Church *is* Christ). At the Council of Acts, the Apostles didn’t look for Bible verses about something; rather, as those given authority from God on high, and participating in His life as members of His Body – something altogether different from the Old Covenant, as I’m saying – they were capable of authoritatively declaring the truth under guidance of the Holy Spirit. “It seems good to the Holy Spirit, and to us…” The first Christians definitively believed that their bishops had succeeded to the Apostles in this authority. Finally, and most obviously, the “Bible” in your hands didn’t exist until four centuries into the Christian era. So, obviously the Christians didn’t embrace a “Bible only” or “compare everything to Scripture” mentality. Protestantism is clearly a new religion, and one that could not even make sense, until the invention of the printing press and widespread, modern literacy. Protestantism and Liberalism are the exact same force and ideology, and anybody who studies the history and deeds of the early Reformers, will see that they were the topless Femen protesters of their day: irrational, hysterical, vandals, thieving, manipualative, etc. They were reacting against real problems and corruption in the Church, but the “cure” was worse than the disease. They had even less right to rebel against the Church than a wife has to rebel against her husband, since the Church, though her members may individually err, cannot err in any of the doctrines she defines: the doctrines do not stand or fall on the authority of Scripture, but on the authority of Christ, whose bride, voice and body is the Catholic Church.

    This is not the 17th century. Protestantism made sense when you were a liberal zealot desperately trying to justify your destruction of the monarchy or your penchant for usury. It also made sense when you were an illiterate inhabitant of the Ozarks who had never heard of logic or history. There’s just no excuse for being Protestant in the information age.

  292. Edwin says:

    Has it occured to no one that it was a false/fake pair of posts? It seems a little too easy

    Of course, even assuming that it was, it proved its point very successfully. After getting a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT story from the husband, the other posters stuck to their anti-husband guns

  293. Edwin says:

    anonymous age 72,

    You live in Mexico now, but all that legal counseling you did, did you do it in America?

    Do you still do it the counseling? I am NOT married, and NOT getting divorced – I’m a hopeful husband and father who knows enough to know how crappy our marital legal system is and knows he’ll need a pre-nup before he gets married.

    Got any contact info?

  294. MarcusD says:

    After getting a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT story from the husband, the other posters stuck to their anti-husband guns

    I suppose first impressions are lasting impressions.

  295. Thinkn'Man says:

    @Marcus
    “After getting a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT story from the husband, the other posters stuck to their anti-husband guns”

    This is why I have come to suspect that women just do not understand the concept of objective truth.

  296. craig says:

    MarcusD says: “I suppose first impressions are lasting impressions.”

    Nothing to do with first impressions — if the man had posted first, the thread would have focused on all the things he didn’t do to ‘cherish’ her (read: submit to her wishes), and then when the woman later posted, he would have been doubly condemned as an abuser. The script is woman good, man bad. No deviations allowed.

  297. kip says:

    “Adultery is grounds for divorce despite what the CC says, pornea is defined as sexual immorality and would include adultery and many other types of sexual perversions.”

    Does that include pornography?

  298. Tam the Bam says:

    “Has it occurred to no one that it was a false/fake pair of posts?”

    Lavazza 1891, a couple of days ago.

    Proper wind-up, all the same. Job’s a good’un.

  299. mojohn says:

    @ Thinkn’Man at 7:22 am wrote: “Sexbots replace real women? Not likely… that is, until sexbots can whine, kvetch and nag. Then when it comes time to “fulfill wifely duties”, non-verbally letting hubby know “get this over with, you pervert.””

    For some reason, this reminded me of an episode from Classic Trek called “I, Mudd.” Harry Mudd was the ruler of a world populated entirely by androids – all but one of which was a beautiful, scantiliy dressed woman. In an alcove, Harry had installed an android re-creation of his wife. Periodically, the wife-android (WA) would activate and begin berating him. Harry might take it for a few beats, then he’d tell her to “SHUT UP!!!” WA would then shut up and go back to “sleep.” It was hilarious!!

  300. alamodicus says:

    Wow…so many great pieces of information in this thread that I don’t even know when to begin. I feel like Oprah at the local Golden Corral…

    Weak faith formation via PSR classes in local parishes seems to be the biggest culprit, in my opinion. The year in Faith that just ended recently was a big step to help remedy the problem, but it will take some time before this effort can work itself through for the next generation coming up. Making sure parishioners not only understand what Catholics believe but WHY we believe is key.

    What saddens me most is clergy who don’t have the intestinal fortitude to stand up for what’s right. I remember asking my former parish priest (the spitting image of Barney Fife, only with a John Waters mustache) about intervening when my former putative spouse filed for frivorce to find her soul mate. He simply shrugged and said “sorry, I’ll keep you in my prayers”. The funny part is that she was working part-time for him in the parish office. I expected static and kickback from the supermoms of the parish, but not from the priest.

    In listening to the stories from my parents (both Eastern European immigrants with hardcore pre-VII upbringing) things like this used to be dealt with a little more forcefully.

    As ever, Dalrock, your site rocks immensely.

  301. BrainyOne says:

    Why be surprised at the reactions of posters when the RCC clearly teaches, at the highest level, the moral superiority of women.

    http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040731_collaboration_en.html

    Among the fundamental values linked to women’s actual lives is what has been called a “capacity for the other”. Although a certain type of feminist rhetoric makes demands “for ourselves”, women preserve the deep intuition of the goodness in their lives of those actions which elicit life, and contribute to the growth and protection of the other.

    This intuition is linked to women’s physical capacity to give life. Whether lived out or remaining potential, this capacity is a reality that structures the female personality in a profound way. It allows her to acquire maturity very quickly, and gives a sense of the seriousness of life and of its responsibilities. A sense and a respect for what is concrete develop in her, opposed to abstractions which are so often fatal for the existence of individuals and society. It is women, in the end, who even in very desperate situations, as attested by history past and present, possess a singular capacity to persevere in adversity, to keep life going even in extreme situations, to hold tenaciously to the future, and finally to remember with tears the value of every human life…

    It is appropriate however to recall that the feminine values mentioned here are above all human values: the human condition of man and woman created in the image of God is one and indivisible. It is only because women are more immediately attuned to these values that they are the reminder and the privileged sign of such values….

    The witness of women’s lives must be received with respect and appreciation, as revealing those values without which humanity would be closed in self-sufficiency, dreams of power and the drama of violence. Women too, for their part, need to follow the path of conversion and recognize the unique values and great capacity for loving others which their femininity bears.

  302. Thinkn'Man says:

    @Brainy:
    “Among the fundamental values linked to women’s actual lives is what has been called a “capacity for the other”. Although a certain type of feminist rhetoric makes demands “for ourselves”, women preserve the deep intuition of the goodness in their lives of those actions which elicit life, and contribute to the growth and protection of the other…”

    Good grief. Is it any wonder that the Catholic church (despite their furious protestations to the contrary) worships “Holy Mary, Mother of God?”

    I guess all the pornography, prostitution, abortion, child abuse etc etc, is evidence of the “elevated” nature of the selfless woman. Yeah, gotta be a man’s fault somewhere, eh?

  303. jf12 says:

    @Thinkn’Man re: “the selfless woman”

    Keep in mind that women are better than men because Mary is better than … hee hee!

    A lot of , and by that I mean all of, JPII’s peculiar focus on and elevation of women’s concerns is due to the fact that as a young good looking priest he was constantly mobbed by young women wanting to discuss their sexual concerns with him, and especially complaining about their husbands and boyfriends wanting sex all the time.

  304. Velvet says:

    I never understood how a man who’s been forced into celibacy could give marital advice

    Religious are not forced into anything. Their vocation requires celibacy, but it a choice made freely. They are married to the Church, for the most simple explanation – they are singularly (npi) qualified to dispense advice and offer insight on sacrifice, commitment, subjugation of self, submission, etc. Those are marriage.

  305. Thinkn'Man says:

    @Velvet:

    For those in authority in the church… The Bible explicitly states that they be married men.

  306. Luke says:

    kip says:
    June 13, 2014 at 1:18 pm
    “Adultery is grounds for divorce despite what the CC says, pornea is defined as sexual immorality and would include adultery and many other types of sexual perversions.”

    Does that include pornography?

    So much for Harlequins, Oprah, the Lifetime channels, Bridezilla shows, Lifestyles of the Rich & Famous, Vogue and Cosmopolitan magazines, etc., to say nothing of 50 Shades of B. & D., Eat Pray GetAHunkySingleMillionaireToTreatA45YOChickLikeShesStill20 or the articles on PlentyofFish/Match.com/OKCupid-types sites that advocate divorce/uberhypergamy.
    (Rich Zubaty in his book “What Men Know That Women Don’t” takes the position that pornography is whatever excites unnatural desires. That could be taken as meaning women’s porn near universally qualifies, while, much of men’s actually does not.)
    Wouldn’t be that hard to tell if a wife is violating the Bible’s apparent commandments against them.

    Prediction: Not one married man in 10 habitually using visually explicit (men’s) porn is getting so much as 2/3 the sex he needs from his wife.

  307. BrainyOne says:

    @Thinkn’Man:

    Yeah, gotta be a man’s fault somewhere, eh?

    Yes, that’s exactly what you will think if you’ve taken the blue pill of female moral superiority.

    For instance, regarding abortion, John Paul II writes (Crossing the Threshold of Hope p. 206-207):

    http://afterabortion.org/1999/papal-message-for-those-who-have-had-an-abortion/

    Often the woman is the victim of male selfishness, in the sense that the man, who has contributed to the conception of the new life, does not want to be burdened with it and leaves the responsibility to the woman, as if it were “her fault” alone. So, precisely when the woman most needs the man’s support, he proves to be a cynical egotist, capable of exploiting her affection or weakness, yet stubbornly resistant to any sense of responsibility for his own action . . . …[In] firmly rejecting “pro-choice” it is necessary to become courageously “pro-woman,” promoting a choice that is truly in favor of women. It is precisely the woman, in fact, who pays the highest price, not only for her motherhood, but even more for its destruction, for the suppression of the life of the child who has been conceived. The only honest stance, in these cases, is that of radical solidarity with the woman. It is not right to leave her alone. The experiences of many counseling centers show that the woman does not want to suppress the life of the child she carries within her. If she is supported in this attitude, and if at the same time she is freed from the intimidation of those around her, then she is even capable of heroism. As I have said, numerous counseling centers are witness to this . . .

  308. BrainyOne says:

    Or this kind of thinking:

    http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/abortion-enslaves-women-in-order-to-free-men-from-responsibility

    I know not all women who go into abortion clinics are there because a man is pressuring them. Many of them are there because a man did not step up in any way. Many of them are there because men and society have told women that having a baby outside of wedlock will hold them back in life. Many are there because our churches have failed to provide a safe, loving environment for women who are pregnant and need help and support.

    Whatever the reason is, the fact remains that abortion is an unnatural response to one of nature’s most precious gifts to women. Abortion is does not affirm women, it reduces their pregnancy to a disease that needs a cure. Abortion does not free women; it holds them in bondage to a society that teaches women that killing their child is a form of love and mercy.

    The true freedom of a woman is the freedom to be a mother without shame, without scrutiny and without men pressuring them to “fix it” or “get it taken care of.” The beauty of motherhood and childbirth should be celebrated and looked at as one of the greatest achievements of womanhood. The last time I checked, there is not a man on earth who can even come close to this achievement.

    Again, this sounds like complete nonsense unless you’ve taken the blue pill.

  309. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    @BrainyOne – The white knighters/pedestalizes in the pro-life side are quite frustrating and sound practically alien. Like an alien out of a horror movie. On the other hand, the pro-lifers who stick to theology, history and science tend to be more lucid and less of a white knight because they truly care about the unborn and not just getting validation from women.

  310. Candide III says:

    @Marcus: actually most of those huffpost “10 easy ways” are quite good and redpill-certified. I think Roissy would approve everything except #2 (ask her how to support her — at least as likely to backfire as not, it is beta and she probably doesn’t know anyway) and #1 (not really advice, depends on how does all the drama measure against the woman’s positive qualities).

  311. The white knighters/pedestalizes in the pro-life side are quite frustrating

    No doubt many of them are pedestalizers, but I suspect that a lot of their women-are-wonderful patter is an attempt to sweet-talk women out of having abortions. There’s no tough love these days; everyone figures if you don’t want someone to do something, the last thing you do is point out that it’s a sin and will damn her to hell. No, you butter her up and try to appeal to her “superior feminine instincts.” Pretty much par for the course.

  312. Random Angeleno says:

    For all that talk about women seeking abortions because “no man would support them”, whatever happened to that St Joseph’s Aspirin clutched tightly between the knees?

    For those who don’t get the reference, it’s an old Catholic birth control joke.

  313. BrainyOne says:

    @alcestiseshtemoa:

    On the other hand, the pro-lifers who stick to theology, history and science…

    What pro-life organization does? They’ve all swallowed the blue pill. They would all be aghast at the suggestion that the mother keeping the baby is sometimes (or even often) not a live option and the best situation then is either adoption or giving custody to the father (gasp!). Instead, they blame “society” (read, men) for not making the mother keeping the baby a live option. They would all be aghast – despite their insistence that abortion is murder and should be illegal – at the suggestion that, if abortion really is murder, that the women should therefore be prosecuted as murderers. Oh no, they’re not really perpetrators – they’re really “victims”, you see.

    Another example: this time by a pro-life organization that actually claims to be putting men in the picture:

    http://www.priestsforlife.org/columns/abortionformen.htm

    The fact that men do not get pregnant does not stop them from choosing abortion. Indeed, anyone who has worked directly to stop abortions has seen many instances in which the “choice” in question was being made by the man, not by the woman. In the thousands of case testimonies I have in my office, time after time I read these or similar words: “My boyfriend wanted me to have the abortion; I was unsure,” or “The baby s father said that unless I aborted the child, he would leave.”

    Of course. Abortion is not about women s rights. It is often about men wanting the right to be able to continue to have sexual relations without the “intrusive burden” of the child that can come about.

    Riiiiight. Now, let’s see how this far this goes in the other direction: “My girlfriend told me that unless I beat Mr. XYZ to a bloody pulp, she would leave”. I plead not guilty, Your Honor! And of course it’s never about women wanting to continue to have sexual relations without the “intrusive burden”, now is it?

  314. They would all be aghast at the suggestion that the mother keeping the baby is sometimes (or even often) not a live option and the best situation then is either adoption or giving custody to the father (gasp!).

    No, you’re absolutely wrong. I know people who work in crisis pregnancy (Birthright) and recommend and arrange adoptions frequently. As for recommending custody by the father: usually when a girl comes in who’s considering abortion, she doesn’t know who the father is or won’t say for one reason or another. There’s usually just not a father in the picture who knows about the baby and wants it, but the people I know would certainly recommend that option if it came up.

    I’m not arguing that most of them don’t bend over backwards to try to make the girl feel blameless, which can extend into blaming the man and men in general. That’s way too common, but there’s a reason for it. When a pregnant girl comes looking for help, the thing she’s most afraid of is that someone will “judge” her. She’s convinced (probably by school and media) that as soon as she tells someone — especially a Christian — about it, they’re going to condemn her and tell her what a sinful whore she is. She’s just waiting for that excuse to run off and get the abortion, saying, “See, I knew they didn’t really care about me or believe all that stuff about God and forgiveness. I’m sure not doing what they want.”

    So they stay well away from anything that might look like judgment, and do anything they can to make her feel like she can trust them. Their first goal is to save the life of her baby, not to get her to confess her sins. They usually only get one chance, and she’s ready to bolt at any second, so they keep the kid gloves on.

  315. Velvet says:

    Thinkn’Man says:
    June 13, 2014 at 3:36 pm

    @Velvet:

    For those in authority in the church… The Bible explicitly states that they be married men.

    Yes, many Protestant versions interpret it so. Being Catholic I don’t observe that schismatic convenience. It makes perfect sense that the trials of the Church and its congregants would ultimately demand a particular and undivided devotion (though we have married leaders, by way of the converted/Ordinariate, and Deacons, all of whom may be licitly married.).

    It’s strange that no one ever seems to remember WHY the Church became divided as they thump their Bible 2.0 – mostly abject heresy, assorted forms of fornication, and the acceptance of divorce, because “un-haaaaaapppy”, when we recall the major players – and all sorts of bees in the trees contemporary Personal Jesus nonsense which has NO support in the original language(s). Its easy to justify our positions when we rewrite the texts to support them.

  316. Ray Manta says:

    greyghost wrote:
    The best concept I have seen for VR sex is the concept used in this outer limits. It is typical Hollywood FI geek boy story line http://www.veoh.com/watch/v6476438zddMcgDg
    me personally I wouldn’t make a virtual world centered around women like that idiot.

    I watched it and it’s got the Hollywood stench of a morality tale. The way the story ends, his sin is that he wasn’t centered around women enough. He decided to ignore the feminine imperative (whatever a woman wants, goes) and got his inevitable comeuppance.

  317. Ray Manta says:

    Dalrock wrote:
    The problem VR Sex poses (in my opinion) for feminists isn’t that it will become an accepted replacement for a wife or LTR, but that feminists are implicitly counting on men being ready for marriage once the women tire of the carousel and are ready to be “drafted” (with much contrived and loud complaining) from the career track to the wife/mother track.

    I expect it will severely undermine (maybe destroy) their ability to use sex as a honey trap or a bargaining chip to transfer resources. The nightclubbing scene, the diamond industry, and the divorce industry are all likely to take big hits.

  318. Cane Caldo says:

    @Velvet

    Yes, many Protestant versions interpret it so. Being Catholic I don’t observe that schismatic convenience. It makes perfect sense that the trials of the Church and its congregants would ultimately demand a particular and undivided devotion (though we have married leaders, by way of the converted/Ordinariate, and Deacons, all of whom may be licitly married.).

    The text says “He should be the husband of one wife”. The text also says that single men can be priests/pastors. This is unavoidable since Timothy was a priest, and he received his own epistles. There were many married priests for centuries.

    If I understand correctly: What is currently practiced by the RCC is a discipline; not a matter of doctrine. It’s not maintained that there should never be married priests (just as you allude); only that it seems wise to the bishops to have it so for right now…although “right now” has been going on for quite a long time.

    What baffles me is that the ultra-verbatim interpreters of that passage are often the same to say that a pastor should not make his living by his flock; should not be paid by the congregation. Few men can raise a family while working two full-time jobs for their whole lives. That leaves us with only the independently rich men, or single men, being the pastors. (Not to mention that Paul cusses out one of his missions for not providing for their leadership.)

  319. Roland says:

    @Anon72

    “I am glad I am old, and I am glad I live in Mexico. I have far more personal freedom than you men do, and only my strong moral discipline keeps me off the lovely 20-somethings who hit on me from time to time.”

    And your strong moral “superiority” too to all men. No one likes being old, and you only think you are fooling others and lying to yourself if you say so. If I become as old, cranky and arrogant as you do, I’d rather die young.

    (TIP: And just because a 20 year old says “hello SIR” to an old man, doesn’t mean she’s hitting on you)

  320. Velvet says:

    He should be the husband of one wife

    Pick a lane. I’m not being snarky, that’s how it was explained to me, by a priest. You can have one, successfully. Even playuhs gotta main girl, and she only tolerates so much.

    There were many married priests for centuries.
    What is currently practiced by the RCC is a discipline; not a matter of doctrine.

    Yes.

    What baffles me is that the ultra-verbatim interpreters of that passage are often the same to say that a pastor should not make his living by his flock;

    You and me both. There are politics there I don’t understand, and seem in opposition to the teachings of solidarity and subsidiarity.

    Priests (like many unmarried men) have become the homeless person everyone says they’ll put up in their garage if they ever get that apartment finished, in the meantime, he’s got the shelter (because he’s running it and no one notices when he falls asleep on the bench out back). Priests in mansions make the News Of The Absurd, but mostly they live in the little spot behind the sanctuary, by the dumpster.

    Don’t get me started – or more started. Anyway, marrieds are only supposed to get stickers, not paychecks – “I delivered the homily today!” should do it.

  321. feeriker says:

    Prediction: Not one married man in 10,000habitually using visually explicit (men’s) porn is getting so much as 1/100th of the sex he needs from his wife.

    FIFY.

  322. JDG says:

    For those in authority in the church… The Bible explicitly states that they be married men.

    Yes, many Protestant versions interpret it so. Being Catholic I don’t observe that schismatic convenience.

    I’ve yet to discover a Bible translation that states a man must be married to be an Elder, and the Catholic Bible seems to translate the Titus passage about Elder qualifications similarly to several Protestant versions.

    Titus Chp. 1 vs 6:

    In Koine Greek:
    εἴ τίς ἐστιν ἀνέγκλητος, μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἀνήρ, τέκνα ἔχων πιστά, μὴ ἐν κατηγορίᾳ ἀσωτίας ἢ ἀνυπότακτα

    From the Vulgate in Latin:
    si quis sine crimine est unius uxoris vir filios habens fideles non in accusatione luxuriae aut non subditos

    The Latin translated to English:
    If any be without crime, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly

    The Online Catholic bible (www.catholic.org/bible):
    that is, each of them must be a man of irreproachable character, husband of one wife, and his children must be believers and not liable to be charged with disorderly conduct or insubordination.

    The Greek translated to English in Protestant Bibles:
    ESV – if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination

    ASV – if any man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having children that believe, who are not accused of riot or unruly

    NIV – An elder must be blameless, faithful to his wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient.

    The only other version besides the NIV I found with “faithful to his wife” was the New Living Translation, but I would not be surprised if there are others. Besides the NIV and the NLT all the others that I checked pretty much translate this passage close to the way the Catholic Bible, the Vulgate, the ESV, or the ASV does. And those are all fairly close to each other.

    Of course one should probably keep in mind that the NIV is one of the most popular translations in the US, or at least it was before they went totally off the rails with sex and gender modifications.

    It’s strange that no one ever seems to remember WHY the Church became divided as they thump their Bible 2.0

    If anyone wants a reminder, they can look here:

    http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/history/95theses.htm

    Regarding marriage among Christians, I have read where Christians are warned that in later times some will teach false hoods concerning marriage and food:

    1 Timothy 4:1
    The ESV – Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, 2 through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, 3 who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.

    1 Timothy 4:1
    The Catholic Bible – 1 The Spirit has explicitly said that during the last times some will desert the faith and pay attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines that come from devils, 2 seduced by the hypocrisy of liars whose consciences are branded as though with a red-hot iron: 3 they forbid marriage and prohibit foods which God created to be accepted with thanksgiving by all who believe and who know the truth.

  323. kip says:

    “Adultery is grounds for divorce despite what the CC says, pornea is defined as sexual immorality and would include adultery and many other types of sexual perversions.”

    What types of sexual perversions?

  324. Exfernal says:

    As a general rule, high quality 3D images on a HDTV screen come with a cost: active shutter type halve the effective refresh rate (possible flicker and “ghosting” which could cause headaches), polarized glass type halve the effective resolution (similar to the now obsolete method of video compression resulting in blurry, interlaced videos).

    My apologies for derailing the discussion.

  325. Ray Manta says:

    Michael Neal wrote:
    Adultery is grounds for divorce despite what the CC says, pornea is defined as sexual immorality and would include adultery and many other types of sexual perversions.

    Under that definition, “porneia” could mean almost anything, including looking at online porn. Which means it can easily be twisted into a lame justification for divorce. The blog owner has devoted quite a bit of effort to shooting down excuses for frivolous divorce.

    Exfernal wrote:
    As a general rule, high quality 3D images on a HDTV screen come with a cost

    http://mobile.extremetech.com/latest/221403-oculus-rift-three-kinects-effectively-bring-an-entire-human-body-into-a-virtual-world (hat tip to Pro-Male Antifeminist Tech) has a video of a VR set up using an oculus rift and three kinects. The resulting environment is blurry, but the very low level of latency allows it to cross the threshold of realism. That result shouldn’t be that surprising; nobody crosses into the uncanny valley because they go underwater in a swimming pool either. Or get up out of bed without their contacts on.

  326. kip says:

    “The blog owner has devoted quite a bit of effort to shooting down excuses for frivolous divorce.”

    Would divorcing because one fell out of love, is bored with ones spouse, doesn’t like his or her friends or hobbies constitute frivolous divorce while divorcing because of abuse, alcoholism, drug addiction and adultery constitute solid reasons for divorce?

  327. Not one married man in 10,000habitually using visually explicit (men’s) porn is getting so much as 1/100th of the sex he needs from his wife.

    ,
    Regardless the numbers, many men will seek alternate sexual release. Add to the other pile of anvils on the mans back, this one. I read an article today, and may post about it, which spoke of marriages being “good enough” It was a sort of both spouse version of the man living in quiet desperation, but sucking it up and soldiering on. I want to contest the article’s balance because I think that describes the majority of marriages, but the man is enduring burden after burden, has little to no sex, and sees zero recourse available, so he lives quietly desperate. The woman, however, lives angry, unhappy, and unsatisfied because while she heaps disjointed emotional randomness on her man daily, one day up, one day down, never know if happy, sad, whatever, and because she has no ability to be aware of, let alone control her emotions which are like an animals instincts, and naturally holds her husband responsible. He is bearing too much. She feels he is not bearing anything.

    That same article celebrated the availability and lack of stigma for counseling now. Imagine the guy goes and unloads, he never has sex, she comes home from work and does all the housework, they eat out nightly, he stays up with the baby and his wife is miserable all the time. Think that’ll get addressed?

    hence, quiet desperation, and perhaps porn use.

    But we CANNOT mention cause and effect. She is a victim of his porn use and to say she wont have sex is blaming the victim.

  328. kip says:

    I’m not a porn aficionado myself, like strip clubs I think it just sets consumers up for sexual frustration, depression, loneliness and self loathing, but I’ve read a lot of articles about its negative effects and how it rewires the brain, and not for good.

  329. Farm Boy says:

    A lot of , and by that I mean all of, JPII’s peculiar focus on and elevation of women’s concerns is due to the fact that as a young good looking priest he was constantly mobbed by young women wanting to discuss their sexual concerns with him, and especially complaining about their husbands and boyfriends wanting sex all the time.

    Do you have a reference for that?

  330. feeriker says:

    But we CANNOT mention cause and effect.

    Because women cannot grasp the concept, and since counseling is all about the wife and her wants (as well as the fact that the counselor is overwhelmingly likely to be a woman), cause and effect cannot be allowed to play any role in the process whatsoever.

  331. Don Quixote says:

    kip says:
    June 14, 2014 at 11:24 am

    “Would divorcing because one fell out of love, is bored with ones spouse, doesn’t like his or her friends or hobbies constitute frivolous divorce while divorcing because of abuse, alcoholism, drug addiction and adultery constitute solid reasons for divorce?”

    I realise your question was not directed to me but I would like to offer and alternative view on grounds for divorce. Almost all Protestant churches allow divorce and remarriage for illicit sexual relations but I have a different view. If you are interested please have a look at Once Married Always Married:

    http://oncemarried.net

  332. Scott says:

    Here’s todays. (You can reliably count on about one a day)

    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=889958

  333. MarcusD says:

    A perceptive blog post: http://zippycatholic.wordpress.com/2014/06/14/marriage-risk

    @Scott – how’s the other CAF thread going? Have you been branded as a member of a “cult,” like JDG?

  334. Farm Boy says:

    The woman, however, lives angry, unhappy, and unsatisfied because while she heaps disjointed emotional randomness on her man daily, one day up, one day down, never know if happy, sad, whatever, and because she has no ability to be aware of, let alone control her emotions which are like an animals instincts, and naturally holds her husband responsible

    It wasn’t always this way. In the patriarchy days, guys probably had little tolerance for it. Perhaps being told to straighten up was a cure.

  335. Scott says:

    MarcusD-
    After BEL accused me setting up my account just to bring traffic to my site, there was about 3 more comments and then it just ended. No traffic in a few days.

  336. Ray Manta says:

    Kip wrote:
    Would divorcing because one fell out of love, is bored with ones spouse, doesn’t like his or her friends or hobbies constitute frivolous divorce

    Yes. Those are absurd reasons for divorce.

    while divorcing because of abuse, alcoholism, drug addiction and adultery constitute solid reasons for divorce?

    Those constitute much more valid reasons for divorce. Please note that most or all of the activities of the second list are a potential danger to the community while the first list isn’t. In the days of old, people divorced when there were very good reasons to. Now, not so much.

    I’m not a porn aficionado myself, like strip clubs I think it just sets consumers up for sexual frustration, depression, loneliness and self loathing, but I’ve read a lot of articles about its negative effects and how it rewires the brain, and not for good.

    There’s an article on gawker.com about a scientist who tried to find a control group of men who had never used porn, and couldn’t find even one. Until they can do that, I have to dismiss the allegations of its negative effects as unproven. It fits in too conveniently with the politically correct ethos of restricting male sexuality as much as possible while giving women free reign.

  337. kip says:

    Don Quixote, took a brief sweep of your site, will read it later when I have more time, thanks. But I do think if a couple is willing to forgive and work through it, they can even stay together successfully after a single case of adultery (but probably not serial infidelity).

    The most common reasons I hear for divorce today is “we grew apart” and “conflicting values” or even “opposing worldviews”.

    Ray, I’m sure there are some very old men who have not used porn. But in any case the results are already in on the groups that they have studied. It rewires the brain. More extreme visuals are required to produce the same level of arousal and excitement that one experienced the first time with porn (like drug addiction). That is why porn has become so bizarre and violent and why young men are increasingly having to rely on Viagra to get erections under normal sexual circumstances. Online porn not only rewires individual brains, it seems to have rewired the collective sexuality of our culture. Anal sex was not mainstream amongst heterosexuals even two decades ago. And I know oral sex was not mainstream in my grandparents’ generation, probably not even my parents’.

  338. Luke says:

    Ray Manta says:
    June 14, 2014 at 9:30 pm

    “There’s an article on gawker.com about a scientist who tried to find a control group of men who had never used porn, and couldn’t find even one.”

    That reminds me of an old Arlo & Janis comic strip where some woman is gushing to Janis about how her fiance has told her that he hasn’t looked at another woman since they met, that that’s the kind of man every woman wants to meet. Arlo thinks to himself, “A liar”.

    If a person has breasts or is likely at first glance to have breasts, any nonblind heterosexual male past the age of 10 or so is going to look at her.

  339. kip says:

    About porn I just saw this comment posted above “What *will* happen is that VR Sex (which is entirely different from sexbots) will change the marketplace substantially, as it will :

    a) Reduce the search costs that men bear, as more of them will decide not to leave home as often, etc. This may not even be a conscious choice, but rather just a default into the path of least resistance.
    b) Move the attraction curve upward. 8s in the real worl will be seen as 5s, and 7s and below will be seen as unbangable. We already see this happening to men via Internet porn, so VR sex would warp the male brain further. ”

    Warp the male brain further.

    I’ll only add that porn isn’t just warping (rewiring) the male brain, it is doing so to the female brain as well. And I wouldn’t be surprised if sex toys and vibrators are too. In fact, if used in conjunction with porn I’m sure they are. If women are using sex toys then I’d expect them to be the first in line for sexbots and VR.

    What a future! In less than 200 years the entire human race could be nonexistent. Maybe that’s a good thing.

  340. Ray Manta says:

    Kip wrote:
    Ray, I’m sure there are some very old men who have not used porn.

    For the purposes of this discussion, they’re irrelevant.

    But in any case the results are already in on the groups that they have studied. It rewires the brain.

    So does acquiring a foreign language and learning how to navigate the streets of London in a taxi. That’s how the human brain handles new stimuli. So what?

    More extreme visuals are required to produce the same level of arousal and excitement that one experienced the first time with porn (like drug addiction).

    Where’s your evidence that porn usage normally leads to something like drug addiction?

    That is why porn has become so bizarre and violent

    Most porn I’ve seen is just of people having sex. I can’t get through a 30 minute clip myself; it’s just too boring. I suspect it’s going to be the same way with VR porn; men for the most part will come home to their porn consoles, get sexual gratification, and then go about their business.
    They can only physically do it so many times in one day before they run out of juice.

    requoting TFH:
    We already see this happening to men via Internet porn, so VR sex would warp the male brain further.

    IOW, a virtual woman who’s a 10 will be more attractive than an ordinary female (5-7 in range). I see it as a necessary corrective in the sexual marketplace. Once the average cost of a sexual experience goes below a happy meal, it will become virtually impossible to abuse sex as a means of resource transfer. Good.

    If women are using sex toys then I’d expect them to be the first in line for sexbots and VR.

    Probably not. Women already have their sexual substitutes (vibrators, romance novels, social media, etc) and have had them for many years. The primarily visual nature of male sexuality will make VR porn a game changer for men, not women.

    What a future! In less than 200 years the entire human race could be nonexistent.

    The human race has faced existential threats before. I think we’re going to come out on top of this one too.

  341. TFH says:

    kip,

    If women are using sex toys then I’d expect them to be the first in line for sexbots and VR.

    This sentence reveals an utter and complete lack of understanding of the differences between male and female attraction triggers.

    I have neither the time nor inclination to education from square one, but here is a clue : how many women can earn money from their looks (as models, strippers, etc.), vs. how many men? That tells you which gender can see their power driven down by VR substitutes.

  342. TFH says:

    *I have neither the time nor inclination to educate you from square one..

  343. kip says:

    “More extreme visuals are required to produce the same level of arousal and excitement that one experienced the first time with porn (like drug addiction).”

    “Where’s your evidence that porn usage normally leads to something like drug addiction?”

    Drug addiction was given as an example of how addiction works. As in drug addiction, the porn addict seeks to replicate the first high/excitement felt the first time he used porn. But because that no longer produces the same intensity of dopamine rush, he has to up the ante in terms of visual stimuli in order to get the same rush. That’s why the common trajectory is from the type of porn you’ve seen “just of people having sex” to anal sex, and then beyond into BDSM, , rape porn torture porn, and more and more extreme visuals.

    http://yourbrainonporn.com/

    “Probably not. Women already have their sexual substitutes (vibrators, romance novels, social media, etc) and have had them for many years.”

    Well you’ve answered it right there. Vibrators. Women have had their fingers for millions of years and that hasn’t stopped the sex toy industry from exploding. VR will be the next level of female masturbatory experience.

    “The primarily visual nature of male sexuality will make VR porn a game changer for men, not women. ”

    But high tech VR will be able to provide much more than just a visual experience. It will provide a full range of sensory experience and that full sensory experience will be what appeals to women. Their primary sex toy right now is a “vibrator” after all.

    I’m already rethinking my first comment about all this. I had original wrote that I don’t think VR and sex bots will be a “game changer” because they won’t be able replace real life human interaction. But now I think perhaps that in itself will be a big seller. It does seem that the internet has changed us. I do see an increase in introversion and lack of social skills in the population. There seems to be a preference for staying in and engaging online. People seem to prefer to live alone, to be alone. Maybe the game is already changing.

  344. greyghost says:

    TFH
    It takes years to fully clear a mans mind of the lie. The “game charger is not one individual thing but the overall knowledge that men have a place to go rather than follow the feminine and now state imperative that doesn’t involved taking up arms against the state. VR sex, porn , sex bots, PUA, MGTOW, grass eaters, surrogacy, expat, what ever it takes to survive the beast and create female dread and panic with the current behavior associated with the feminine imperative. Doing the lords work (bring consequences) for the church is too chicken shit to even say that behavior is bad much less fuck that bitch’s ass until her fertility is gone.
    I have a comment you might find interesting at the spearhead

  345. kip says:

    “fuck that bitch’s ass”

    I already scrapped my first comment that it wouldn’t be a game changer. Internet porn has already changed the game considerably. Fucking that bitch’s ass is mainstream and completely normal in our culture now when just a few decades ago anal sex was relegated to the homosexual margins and unthinkable for most heterosexuals. Sexbots and VR porn will change the game even further, for sure.

  346. Ray Manta says:

    Kip wrote:
    Drug addiction was given as an example of how addiction works.

    Which should tip you off right away that the comparison to ‘porn addiction’ is utter BS. There’s no limit to the amount of heroin or cocaine that a human being can put into his body, short of poisoning himself. There are very clear physical limits to how many times he can fap off per day.

    But because that no longer produces the same intensity of dopamine rush, he has to up the ante in terms of visual stimuli in order to get the same rush.

    There’s no real data on how common this runaway process is, or even if it exists at all. If ‘porn addiction’ were 1/100 the problem it was made out to be, the Western civilization would likely come to a grinding halt. Last time I checked the trains and planes were still running on time, the supermarkets were full of food, and there was running hot water.

    http://yourbrainonporn.com/

    http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-02-porn-addiction.html/ gives an overview as to why yourbrainonporn is junk science promoted by someone with an axe to grind. We’re likely to see more axe-grinders coming out of the woodwork as the march of technology makes male sexuality less and less of an exploitable resource.

    Well you’ve answered it right there. Vibrators.

    Leaves them high and dry and unsatisfied. Female hypergamy and the social nature of female sexuality work against them being gratified on a deep level by those sex substitutes. If you think the 50-year-old spinster is as satisfied by her box of dildos and pride of cats as a high school queen bee with young men panting after her, you are very naive.

    For the most part, female sex substitutes have changed little in the past 40 years or so (social media is an exception that proves the rule). Women are still reading the same types of romance novels, watching the same types of soaps and telenovelas, and using the same types of vibrators as they have been for many years. It hasn’t reduced the demand for men.

    But high tech VR will be able to provide much more than just a visual experience.

    The marriage of 3D porn to a haptic interface will be a killer app, for men. For women, it won’t make much, if any difference. VR porn cannot give a woman a provider or protector. It cannot give her something to show off to her girlfriends, and cannot give her a bridezilla wedding.

    I’d guess that eventually women would try to get into the act with teledildonics technology (offering a “real” personality as a selling point) and or simply beautifying themselves with cosmetic
    surgery and biologic treatments. This will only serve to expand the supply of sex for men. Like it or not, we’re soon going to be transitioning from an era where female sexuality is a scarce, inelastic resource to one where it’s dirt cheap and in almost infinite supply.

  347. kip says:

    Ray, you are not seeing the forest for the trees. Try to get the bigger picture. Internet porn has already changed the game of our collective sexual culture. In your own words you wrote, “Most porn I’ve seen is just of people having sex. I can’t get through a 30 minute clip myself; it’s just too boring. ” With all due respect this reveals that you are an older guy exposed to old school, old people porn. That is not the kind of porn Generation Z is growing up with from the tender age of 8 onwards today. Indeed its precisely because that type of porn is so “boring” that extreme hardcore porn comprised of anal sex, bukkake (you can google that), BDSM and all manner of extremities are increasingly sought out by regular porn consumers today. And make no mistake, these extreme visuals have certainly been a “game changer”.

    Why is anal sex so common amongst heterosexuals under 40 in our culture?

  348. Guest says:

    jf12 says:
    June 13, 2014 at 3:01 pm

    “A lot of , and by that I mean all of, JPII’s peculiar focus on and elevation of women’s concerns is due to the fact that as a young good looking priest he was constantly mobbed by young women wanting to discuss their sexual concerns with him, and especially complaining about their husbands and boyfriends wanting sex all the time.”

    Source?

    The Catholic culture of Poland pre- and post-WWII did not encourage “boyfriends wanting sex all the time,” nor women wanting to discuss sexual concerns with their priests or anyone else.

  349. Ray Manta says:

    Kip wrote:
    With all due respect this reveals that you are an older guy exposed to old school, old people porn.

    Or maybe it just reveals that there’s a saturation point of consumption.If I had to guess, it’s probably closely tied to physical limits in the ability to have sex.

    Indeed its precisely because that type of porn is so “boring” that extreme hardcore porn comprised of anal sex, bukkake (you can google that), BDSM and all manner of extremities are increasingly sought out by regular porn consumers today.

    Believe me, I’ve seen all of the above, and then some. I can last through a 5 minute clip or so, then want to do something else. My guess is that’s true of most men, including the young. They do the online equivalent of channel surfing and then go on to do something else when they’ve had their fill.

    Why is anal sex so common amongst heterosexuals under 40 in our culture?

    Who cares? Anal sex porn videos were widely available 30 years ago. It can hardly be considered the latest sexual frontier.

  350. kip says:

    Scott linked to a post on Catholic Answers.

    “I logged on in despair, searching through my old thread for advice. It surprised me to see it has only been a year.

    I feel like the biggest fool.

    What next? I don’t know. He makes empty promises and seems to react to everything in a panic to make us “happy” again. I have finally grown tired of the cycle.

    This time, he is blaming stress. He also blames lack of sex. Since he isn’t ready for another baby, we are TTA. We’ve gotten pregnant with Creighton before, so he doesn’t trust natural methods. He insists on condoms and the priest told me to bear it for the sake of our marriage. I have, and see where it has gotten me? Four months later, I find out that porn is a regular thing for him again.

    Twice this week, since i found out, I have committed sin by doing “unnatural” acts so he isn’t tempted. I am humiliated and angry that I tried to give him “what he wants” against my conscience. He is Catholic too but lies to himself by saying whatever happens between married people is ok. I don’t believe that but I tried to. Now I have cut myself off from the Eucharist as a result. I just hate this.

    I have been going to Mass by myself with the kids for months. He said he is struggling with faith over the issue that sex must always be open to life and not using a barrier or any other “unnatural” finish.

    I am so upset and angry. I have tried everything to help him, and he always says exactly what I want to hear (he may even be sincere) but never follows through. This has been our cycle for so long I have lost faith that it will get better.

    The only reason I don’t want a temporary (or maybe longer) separation is for the kids.

    Help me… I am so lost! Please pray for us. ”

    These silly micro-managed rules around sex ruin families.

    “I have committed sin by doing “unnatural” acts so he isn’t tempted. Now I have cut myself off from the Eucharist as a result. I just hate this.
    He said he is struggling with faith over the issue that sex must always be open to life and not using a barrier or any other “unnatural” finish.”

    The only thing “unnatural” about what they are doing is feeling guilt over marital sex and the very normal desire to not have a child result from every single incident of intercourse. Sheesh. How people live like this is beyond me.

  351. Luke says:

    Agreed, kip. You’d think his wife would be relieved that her husband is going to her to get his fellatio needs met. When she went along with him swearing to lay off ever having sex with any woman but her, she concomitantly agreed by implication to take care of his sexual needs if at all possible. Fitting in a few minutes in her schedule every so often for what he needs from her, when he spends scores of hours every week hard at work at a paying job that keeps her clothed, fed, and housed isn’t asking for anything unreasonable or disproportionate.

  352. BradA says:

    Cane,

    > “You’re missing the much larger point that simulation (sexbot) is simulation (VR), but simulation is not reality.”

    No, I am arguing that VR can be much more realistic, at least in its ultimate impact, than anything that is pretending to be a flesh and blood woman could be. You can control virtually ALL the inputs in VR. You can only control the robot with a sexbot. You still have everything else, including things that would be quite subtle in the real world, around you.

    Perhaps I am wrong and we will make a robot woman just like in the rerelease of Battlestar Galactica, but I doubt that will be any time soon. Anything short of that will be well short of what VR could accomplish well before that point.

  353. @kip

    That’s why the common trajectory is from the type of porn you’ve seen “just of people having sex” to anal sex, and then beyond into BDSM, , rape porn torture porn, and more and more extreme visuals.

    You’re right about porn in general, but your conflation of BDSM with bizarre sexual practices like anal sex reveals you know more about BDSM porn than you do about BDSM in real life.

    BDSM is actually a significant key to women’s sexuality that – apparently – Christian men still haven’t figured out.

    What’s the ultimate in Sexist Misogynist Oppression of Women, according to feminists and the like? Spanking your wife, punishing your wife, setting rules for your wife, dominating your wife, and her submitting to you.

    You know, the stuff your wife fantasizes about and why she reads bodice rippers (aka “rapey fantasies”) and 50 Shades of Grey.

    The typical man will plug “BDSM” into an internet search and see pictures and videos of weird crap that barely seems sexual. While your wife, of course, reads the narratives, the stories, and isn’t so focused on the visuals.

    In fact, BDSM “outside of the bedroom” is just a feminist replacement for regular old fashioned Christian marriage. If Christian men were smarter – and they aren’t – they would get this.

    The biggest “gamer” “PUA” blogger went by the name “Roissy” – a character in the classic BDSM novel Story of O.

    Another term for BDSM is “power exchange.” That’s the feminist spin on it, because if a woman really has power over a man, 95% of them will never get “tingles” for that man. So, in order to just get off, she has to “exchange” some of that power (in the bedroom only, never “outside the bedroom”) so she can, well, get off.

    Dalrock would likely never admit it, but his latest article about Christians already having a beautiful thing – wives submitting to their husbands – illustrates the point better than I can.

    But if you associate spanking your wife with anal sex, well, you really don’t understand power, women’s sexuality, and how they fit together. What do you think a “divorce point threat” is? It’s a woman having power to make the man submit. Why are all the manosphere guys complaining about the modern state of marriage? Because actually getting married means the woman has the power over you, not you having the power over her. While it’s true that slutty women will have trouble pair-bonding, that’s dwarfed by how virgins and sluts both will lose any “tingle” they may have ever had if she actually has power over her husband that he then submits to.

    Maybe that is why you’re all bitching about women only “tingling” for the 20% of men and why she stops having sex with you if you ever managed to get a woman at all. Churchians don’t teach men to lead their wives, they teach men that their wives are the spiritual leaders and that husbands should submit to their wives.

    The non-churchian men, Christian or non, moral or jerks, are that 20% that you call “studs” because we actually had the balls to spank the ladies when they were so clearly asking for it.

    I’d like to see one of these churchians show me anywhere in the Bible where BDSM and wifely submission is somehow a sin, or bad. (Hint, you can’t, I know this because I already read the Bible.)

  354. MarcusD says:

    @Candide III

    @Marcus: actually most of those huffpost “10 easy ways” are quite good and redpill-certified. I think Roissy would approve everything except #2 (ask her how to support her — at least as likely to backfire as not, it is beta and she probably doesn’t know anyway) and #1 (not really advice, depends on how does all the drama measure against the woman’s positive qualities).

    It’s not necessarily the advice, but more the fact that if a man said it, the world would pretty much come to an end (at least for/according to feminists).

  355. kip says:

    “Agreed, kip. You’d think his wife would be relieved that her husband is going to her to get his fellatio needs met. ”

    Is that what she means when she says “unnatural”? I thought she meant using condoms or pulling out.

    “Since he isn’t ready for another baby, we are TTA. We’ve gotten pregnant with Creighton before, so he doesn’t trust natural methods. He insists on condoms . He said he is struggling with faith over the issue that sex must always be open to life and not using a barrier or any other “unnatural” finish.”

    What is TTA?

  356. kip says:

    “I’d like to see one of these churchians show me anywhere in the Bible where BDSM and wifely submission is somehow a sin, or bad. (Hint, you can’t, I know this because I already read the Bible.)”

    Back in Biblical times people weren’t tying each other up and issuing safe words during sex so that’s why there is no verse in the Bible calling it a “sin”. It simply didn’t exist.

    Though the Catholic Church says using condoms and pulling out is a sin, even “unnatural”. Read the lady from Catholic Answers comment I posted above. She and her spouse are experiencing all sorts of feelings of guilt, doubt, confusion and frustration. Luke suggests in his comment that even oral sex might be considered “unnatural” and thus a sin in the Catholic Church. A Catholic friend of mine even told me that touching one’s own body is considered “sinful” and “unnatural” in the Catholic Church. It all sounds very Victorian to me. Which I suppose could be a case for BDSM because didn’t the Victorians invent it, despite their prudishness in other areas?

    When sexuality is repressed that’s usually what happens. A full swing to the other end of the spectrum.

  357. BradA says:

    kip,

    My RCC days are long behind me, but it does seem like this man doesn’t see children as a “blessing from the Lord” but rather as a burden. I think he is quite a bit off, even if his wife is off as well.

    Too many in modern society see children as a curse rather than a blessing and try to avoid them as much as possible. I would have agreed more with him when I was first married, but I rapidly changed my view, though I never had the “too many children problem” since we never got to give birth to any. (And the ones we adopted all rejected us when they became adults, returning instead to a dysfunctional birth family.)

    Kind of ironic that some of us would do almost anything to have children and those who supposedly believe in avoiding birth control are paranoid of them.

  358. Eastward Bound says:

    Brad, I’m sorry to hear that your adult children rejected you. I have an adopted cousin who’s birth mother petitioned the court to find him and a government counselor phoned him one day asking if him wanted contact with her birth mother and he said no. I’m curious as to why your adult children opted to return to their dysfunctional birth families and in doing so why they also rejected you.

    Just because the lady’s husband doesn’t want more children (they already have kids) doesn’t mean he doesn’t see children as a blessing. It could be that he’s the only breadwinner in the family and he works very hard to maintain the family at the size it is now. I really don’t understand this concept of having has many kids as one physically can because “children are a blessing”. How are they a blessing if you can’t even feed and clothe them properly? And I might add, what kind of blessing are parents who irresponsibly bring children into the world that they cannot properly provide for?

    This man is 100% correct for using condoms or pulling out if he does not want more children at this point in his life.

  359. Opus says:

    Who is in favour of sexual immorality?: apparently both Augustine and Aquinas. They reason that if you do away with harlots the world will be filled with lust; they think it wise to tolerate certain evils in case certain goods be lost or certain evils by incurred. This sort of thinking is hardly going to please either a Puritan or Feminist, yet who can doubt its wisdom. Raising the bar too high (as say with Prohibition) may create worse problems. The State would do better in the main to allow people to pursue their own lives as best they can because people may screw up but will not do so to quite the same extent as the State (or established Church) if it takes a heavy handed approach.

    BDSM does not attract me at all but whatever interest it had to Victorians (Brad A means the English) I think he will be able to trace the interest back somewhat further – certainly to Alphonse, Le Marquis de Sade – that fifty days of Sodom is just unreadable – in the Ancien Regime and at a time when Benjamin Franklin was enjoying himself with les damoiselles de Versailles at your forefathers expense and in the same country.

  360. Tam the Bam says:

    “Why is anal sex so common amongst heterosexuals under 40 in our culture?”
    Hey up? Hundred, hundred-fifty years ago it was ever-so-discreetly encouraged by upper-clarss lady eugenicists, Malthusians and other lowlifes as a preferred option. Gave the unspeakable lower orders and their uncontrollable filthy animal lusts a vent that didn’t involve procreation, see? Let the Useless Eaters roger away to their beastly hearts’ content, as long as they don’t frighten the horses. And enabled posh women, married or unmarried, to “entertain” gentlemen callers while Papa was away with the Regiment or whatever, as they had been accustomed to do since time out of mind.

    Nowadays, it’s I guess (you’d have to pay me cash money to do more than that) got more to do with the endless game of liars’ poker that the carousel, pickup and automatic child support aka universal man-tax has generated. That and the endlessly bountiful and forgiving Welfare State, for the lucky recipients of the up-the-duff prize at least.

    When I were a lad … (cue slow brass band music) getting pregnant was very much the girl’s problem, or rather her parents’ (=father’s, back then). No free house, no abortions short of a hot bath, gin and even the old witch with a coathanger. Keep it, or hand it over to the nuns or the welfare officers if you wanted to pretend nothing had happened and wanted eventually to marry (like 95% of women then). Blood tests for paternity were rudimentary at best, and tended not to work well in an excessively homogenous (as in, ‘paddle faster, I can hear banjos’) population.

    Now it’s strictly a guy’s problem. All men, even virgins, are responsible for all spare babies, whoever they belong to, or else.
    Women … not so much, if at all.
    But make no mistake. Unlike Somalia or somewhere where each extra mouth is a catastrophe, in our societies a child is the Golden Ticket for a woman, the key to a life of indolence and prosperity (relative to what they could generally achieve for themselves, of course). Hence the constant game of contraceptive double-bluff. Butthex is a crude way of circumventing it, so if a girl wants to get with an attractive alpha, that’s the price, or he’ll jog on to one that will.
    Of course most young men are hardly even getting thexed-up, never mind the full smorgasbord, same as it ever was. So kip, you’ll have to step out of the apex fallacy to argue this one properly.

    tldr; I heard little Lily Allen, who appears young to me at least, retailing advice while she was panelmongering on “Never Mind The Buzzcocks” and they were making polite inquiries as to the state of her pregnancy, remarkable it hadn’t occurred earlier since she had previously stated her aversion to contraception in any form (probably wisely). “Oowww!”, she caws, “Carn’t get preggers up the bum-bum, eh?”.
    The show was very popular with our pop-kids, being aimed at teens and old punks/hippies, obviously.

  361. Dalrock says:

    @Scott

    Right on cue, here is todays dose.

    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=890116

    Ha! The very first response suggests… (wait for it)… a wakeup call:

    Does he realize a separation is a possibility in your mind, that his acts equate adultery for you? That knowledge may be the wakeup call he needs.

    Chapter and verse from the Book of Oprah.

  362. Michael Neal says:

    would porneia include pornography? I don’t know for sure, it doesn’t appear so. The definition seems to mention activities based on intercourse.

    http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/kjv/porneia.html

  363. Scott says:

    Dalrock-

    I’m telling you–every day a new one.

    Someone should keep a tracker.

  364. jf12 says:

    The first use of porneia as such in the LXX is Genesis 38:24 concerning Tamar playing the harlot.

  365. Pingback: Bad Catholic Advice | Cail Corishev

  366. Cane Caldo says:

    @Scott

    Right on cue, here is todays dose.

    Today’s dose of what? I understand and agree with Dalrock’s disdain for the commenter’s suggestion for a wake-up call (I’m against dread game of either sex’s persuasion), but is it that to which you are referring?

    Just to be clear on what the post is describing: The poster ElleDub is being seriously wronged even though she submits to whatever her husband asks. She admits that she is angry and upset, yet does not withhold from her husband; nor will she separate from him even though that is what she feels like doing, and despite the fact that nearly everyone would approve of it. She’s still going to mass even though she is abstaining from the Eucharist for her husband’s sake (an RC believes they risk Hell doing this.) which means everyone in their church knows there is something going on. She’s been to her priest, and has done what he says; which was to submit to her husband even if he is going against RCC teaching. (Hooray for the priest!) Finally, she admits that she is lost, and needs prayer. In other words: She will accept responsibility for her part in how she and her husband got to where they are, and is willing to be corrected so that her husband might be cleansed.

  367. Scott says:

    Dose of advice she will get. That’s the point of this OP.

  368. BradA says:

    Eastward Bound,

    We adopted our children (sibling group of 4) from the system and they clearly never accepted us as their parents. They were probably told they were going to be reunified until just before they came with us as well, something we were told the opposite of. I can see lots of signs in retrospect, but I didn’t have the perspective to understand it all at the time.

    It was a VERY dysfunctional family and yet all 4 returned to it, possibly because they were kept together. They all have decided the birth family gets precedence because they donated genetic material. Our years of hell raising them are irrelevant and we ended up being hated foster parents.

    The one we had a relationship with (kind of) wants me to follow him, which is not going to happen as I will not walk on eggshells to maybe get a few droppings.

    A bit harder to fight the issues, but Father’s Day is thankfully past.

    Yeah, this is an incredibly tough spot for us and I am definitely not completely over all of it.

  369. Cane Caldo says:

    @Scott

    Dose of advice she will get. That’s the point of this OP.

    Cool. Are you going to jump in there and encourage her to persevere?

  370. Scott says:

    I thought about it, but it seems like a lost cause. You could make a full time job out of it, because there is literally one a day. Plus, as others have pointed out–its always just the one side of the story.

  371. Scott says:

    By the time the thread is 6-7 pages of replies, the overwhelming consensus will be “you should leave him/threaten to leave him/threaten to divorce him to make him stop.”

  372. Dalrock says:

    @Cane

    I understand and agree with Dalrock’s disdain for the commenter’s suggestion for a wake-up call (I’m against dread game of either sex’s persuasion), but is it that to which you are referring?

    This is a troubling characterization of the issue. The fundamental problem with the wakeup call narrative is twofold:

    1) The wife is usurping headship.
    2) While #1 is inherently sinful for wives, the method of doing so is often sinful as well (threatening unbiblical divorce, carrying on with other men, etc).

    You are overlooking #1 and rolling it all into #2, in a way which could be construed as “See look how even handed with the sexes I am”. The problem with dread game isn’t that the husband is causing the wife to fear consequences of her rebellion; he isn’t usurping headship. This isn’t a problem with #1 above. The problem with dread game is problem #2; it almost always (and very likely always) involves the husband either sinning or threatening to sin. The dread isn’t the problem, it is a question of if instilling dread is sinful for reasons 1 or 2 above. The example I’ve used in the past is Mentu’s mother telling her daughters something to the effect of “Take care of that man or some other woman will”. This is loving on the part of the mother, and not a usurpation of headship.

  373. She’s been to her priest, and has done what he says; which was to submit to her husband even if he is going against RCC teaching. (Hooray for the priest!)

    Eh, I don’t read the priest’s advice that positively, but I covered that on my blog. But for the rest, yes: she’s trying to do the right thing according to her faith — the faith in which she and her husband took their vows — and doesn’t seem to be making excuses. She’s trying to do the right thing, but just doesn’t know what that is. If she’s ever heard of wifely submission, it was almost certainly watered down or contradicted as we often discuss, so she doesn’t have the comfort of knowing how 1 Peter 3 could convert him.

    Too bad she ended up at CAF, where she’ll be encouraged to fix her husband’s wagon by threatening divorce. I guess the good news is she doesn’t read there regularly.

  374. jf12 says:

    “Take care of that man or else he might be driven to sin” IS the essence of Dread.

  375. Dalrock says:

    @Cail Corishev

    Eh, I don’t read the priest’s advice that positively, but I covered that on my blog. But for the rest, yes: she’s trying to do the right thing according to her faith — the faith in which she and her husband took their vows — and doesn’t seem to be making excuses. She’s trying to do the right thing, but just doesn’t know what that is.

    I’m not sure I would go even that far. As I read her post she and her husband are both going against the Apostle Paul’s instruction in 1 Cor 7. By doing so as Paul explains they are creating temptation for the very sin she is complaining about. I had to look up “TTA”, and assuming she isn’t talking about lossless audio codecs, she is talking about denying sex to avoid pregnancy. With a bit of Googling I quickly found myself back at CAF, where evidently TTA is seen as perfectly acceptable.

    Note: I try to stay out of the disagreement between Catholics and Protestants about birth control, and focus on the areas where we are in fundamental agreement. Very often this is in my opinion used as a sort of stink bomb to clear the room and remind everyone of where we disagree. What I would say here is that as I understand it they are going against the spirit of RCC teaching on NFP, and I would say not even claiming to practice such based on the way she frames it. As I read her post I believe they are avoiding sex in violation of 1 Cor 7, full stop.

  376. Elspeth says:

    “Take care of that man or some other woman will”.

    Didn’t this use to be common sense?

    I totally get that it essentially puts the burden for a husband’s potential sin on the wife, and that’s why women get so bent about it. It’s the reverse side of the “husband is responsible for his wife’s sins” coin.” But I always thought it made sense think it through more than that. To 1) obey God , which essentially covers all of it and 2) not leave your husband with the thought that there’s someone else out there who is willing give him something that you won’t.

    I didn’t read Cane’s comment as a commentary on dread game, but a question to Scott about why this woman’s plea was somehow wrong, when she seemed to be a faithful wife willing to do whatever it took for the sake of her marriage.

    But Scott was referring (I think) to the advice that is sure to come from these “devout” Catholic women if one just keeps reading.

  377. Cane Caldo says:

    @Dalrock

    The example I’ve used in the past is Mentu’s mother telling her daughters something to the effect of “Take care of that man or some other woman will”. This is loving on the part of the mother, and not a usurpation of headship.

    Yeah, and I agree with that.

    As you point out: There is no way a wife can tell a husband that some other man will take care of her is submissive. Likewise, there is no way that a husband who tells his wife that another woman will take care of him is loving.

    The problem with the wake-up call as you have discussed it (and which I agree with) is that it is a threat. The MIL in that story is not threatening her DIL because she is not in a position to threaten. She’s giving the DIL a legitimate wake-up call for her benefit, and without any threat of harm from her.

    There is no admonition against encouraging our superiors to be holy, nor do we have to ignore their sin. That is not usurpation. Usurpation comes with the threatpoint. It does not come with encouragement from below.

  378. Dalrock says:

    Thanks Cane for clarifying. I’m not surprised that we are in agreement here.

    With one exception:

    There is no admonition against encouraging our superiors to be holy, nor do we have to ignore their sin. That is not usurpation. Usurpation comes with the threatpoint. It does not come with encouragement from below.

    In the case of a wife and her husband there actually is:

    Wives, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands, that even if some do not obey the word, they, without a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives

    We could discuss the extent of this instruction and possible exceptions, but to say that there is no admonition to wives not to take it upon themselves to instruct their husbands is at the very least misleading.

  379. Scott says:

    “But Scott was referring (I think) to the advice that is sure to come from these “devout” Catholic women if one just keeps reading.”

    Yep, you got it exactly right–I take the position that the story is only told from one perspective and people always paint themselves out to be the hero in a story like this. And secondly, the advice will be horrible.

  380. Cane Caldo says:

    @Dalrock

    We could discuss the extent of this instruction and possible exceptions, but to say that there is no admonition to wives not to take it upon themselves to instruct their husbands is at the very least misleading.

    Then it is a good thing I said “encourage”, and not “instruct”.

  381. Dalrock says:

    @Cane

    Then it is a good thing I said “encourage”, and not “instruct”.

    Hair splitting. The instruction is “without a word”. As you used the word encourage, there was no qualification of silent encouragement.

  382. Dalrock, right. Catholics are allowed to abstain from sex to avoid procreation in cases of grave need. Nothing in her letter indicates anything close to that; “not ready for another baby” doesn’t even come close. We’re talking situations where the doctor says, “If your wife gets pregnant again too soon, she could die.” People who live comfortably and don’t have threatening medical issues of that sort, who use NFP to limit themselves to a socially acceptable number of children, are violating not just the spirit of the law but the letter of it too. There’s a good reason people call it “Catholic contraception”: many use it that way.

    As I read it, she was going along with TTA because her husband insisted, and now he’s insisting on other methods, and she’s reluctantly going along with those too. She might not have realized TTA was wrong, but she knows this is. What bothers me is that she’s not being encouraged to do this in submission to her husband out of obedience to God, as far as I can tell, even though that would be scriptural and could give her comfort. She’s being told to go along with it for now to avoid rocking the boat and hope things get better.

  383. Cane Caldo says:

    @Dalrock

    Hair splitting. The instruction is “without a word”.

    It will look like hair-splitting if you make a monolith of “without a word” I think perhaps there is a more fundamental misunderstanding between us.

    “Have a good day at work!” is an encouragement. “Don’t screw up at work.” is not an encouragement, but a rebuke. “Come to bed with me, big boy!” is an encouragement. “When we have sex, don’t try any funny business.” is a rebuke. It is the rebuke that Peter speaks against when he says husbands may be “won without a word”. To take this passage completely literally has a few problems:

    1) Elsewhere we are all instructed to encourage one another, and yes that includes verbal encouragement.
    2) Husbands want to be verbally encouraged and praised, and there is nothing wrong with that desire.
    3) It frustrates a wife from one of the major human ways of letting her husband know she respects him. Are you seriously putting forward that a wife should never say to her husband,”I so much respect what you do for us.”? And not merely human, but divine. Words are uniquely divine things; available only to souls.

    The way I understand you interpreting this passage reminds me of those who say that because Paul instructs husbands to love their wives, and wives to respect their husbands, that wives are incapable of loving their husbands.

  384. Cane Caldo says:

    @Cail

    What bothers me is that she’s not being encouraged to do this in submission to her husband out of obedience to God, as far as I can tell, even though that would be scriptural and could give her comfort. She’s being told to go along with it for now to avoid rocking the boat and hope things get better.

    That is the most uncharitable way to read her story; even if it is only her side of it. The bottom line to me is that (from what has been said) she is being submissive unto the point of doing what she believe to be wrong because

    1) she wants to be pleasing to him
    2)she wants her husband to stop going elsewhere for sexual release and sin
    3) because she has been wisely instructed to do so.

  385. TFH says:

    Cane Caldo,

    You still have to provide a link where I said what you have claimed I said :

    2) The problem with birth control is that it is taken by women instead of men

    Or retract it, which is an acceptable way out. That would be the way to undo your sin.

    Birth control is not even a subject I discuss…

  386. BradA says:

    Eastward Bound,

    I should add that I think those who do so much to avoid pregnancy definitely don’t see children as a blessing. Would they do the same to avoid a $1 million dollar prize? Doubtful.

    Cane,

    I would agree that I want the attitude of praise, but I can personally do without a lot of the words. The underlying attitude is far more important than being told I am appreciated. Just a fact point to note. Some of us really don’t want lots of words, even though we definitely want the respectful attitude. I would bet the words are much easier to my wife than the attitude, though I doubt the words without the attitude would truly fit under what you are noting.

  387. Dalrock says:

    @Cane

    “Have a good day at work!” is an encouragement. “Don’t screw up at work.” is not an encouragement, but a rebuke.

    Fair enough.

  388. jf12 says:

    I cannot believe that Paul intended “without a word” to be read as “without bad words, but please use as many good words as you deem necessary”.

  389. Cane Caldo says:

    @TFH

    You still have to provide a link where I said what you have claimed I said

    That’s a specious demand. Let’s do it this way:

    Is it true that you, TFH, have never said, nor implied, nor believed, that a male contraceptive would have, or eventually would have (with or without an initial negative fallout), a net “benefit” upon the aggregate sexual, marital, and reproductive choices of those within Western Civilization in a manner in which female contraception alone has not “benefited” those choices?

  390. Scott says:

    Dalrock-

    I have received an infraction warning from CAF for “pushing an agenda”

    This was apparently the offending coment:

    “Ahh yes, the house husband.

    http://courtshippledge.com/2013/10/does-doing-laundry-get-married-men-more-sex/

    Bummer

  391. TFH says:

    Cane Caldo,

    That’s a specious demand. Let’s do it this way:

    No. You made the false accusation. It is your job to provide proof, or to retract it.

    Don’t bait and switch like a woman.
    ___________________________________________

    And no, I don’t think I have ever spoken about a male contraceptive. I believe greyghost talks about that. But I never have.

  392. jf12 says:

    Re: uncharitable. Against an elder receive not an accusation etc. You “charitably” took this woman hook line and sinker, willingly unsuspending belief that her own priest counseled her to do things which made her ineligible to receive Communion.

  393. I take the story as it’s being presented because we have no other choice. We discuss it as-is, or we don’t. Since there are situations like this — I’ve seen similar ones — I think it’s useful to talk about it as if it’s true. If she’s lying, that’s her problem, but it doesn’t change the story for our purposes.

    Cane, I agree with you that she’s doing the right thing (again, as we’re hearing it), to the extent that she understands it. I’m not criticizing her; I’m saying that the priest would actually help her much more if he went with the strict interpretation of 1 Peter 3 instead of softening it. I’ll expound on that further on my own blog.

  394. TFH says:

    I notice that Cane Caldo used the word ‘specious’. More projection.

    It is HE who made specious claims about what my positions are, and cannot provide proof that I ever said such a thing (on top of me saying that those are not my positions).

    Cane Caldo is a juggernaut of projection. Also, when cornered, he vanishes (but accumulates sins, and thus is quite unholy by now).

    Either provide proof I said that you claim I said, or retract it. That is what a man does.

  395. Cane Caldo says:

    @TFH

    No. You made the false accusation. It is your job to provide proof, or to retract it.

    It is possible I made a false accusation. That’s what I’m investigating. However, you’ve misunderstood the nature of our discourse. I’m not trying you, or attempting to levy judgment upon you. Therefore I don’t have to prove anything. I’m not asking for clarification out of onus, but charity.

    Don’t bait and switch like a woman.

    Seeking clarification to reach an understanding is not a bait and switch. Nor am I challenged by your comparison of me to a woman in this instance.

    And no, I don’t think I have ever spoken about a male contraceptive. I believe greyghost talks about that. But I never have.

    And neither do you believe it to be the case that a male contraceptive would have, or eventually would have (with or without an initial negative fallout), a net “benefit” upon the aggregate sexual, marital, and reproductive choices of those within Western Civilization in a manner in which female contraception alone has not “benefited” those choices?

  396. Cane Caldo says:

    @jf12

    Against an elder receive not an accusation etc. You “charitably” took this woman hook line and sinker, willingly unsuspending belief that her own priest counseled her to do things which made her ineligible to receive Communion.

    No, it didn’t make her ineligible, and according to her story her priest counseled her no such thing. I’m not sure why she’s refusing Communion except out of false guilt. That’s not a good reason. Communion is for repentant sinners.

  397. TFH says:

    Cane Caldo,

    I have no opinion on the male contraceptive either way, as it is not a subject I have given much thought to, nor have I commented about it.

    You seem desperate to pin some opinion onto me.

  398. Cane Caldo says:

    @TFH

    I have no opinion on the male contraceptive either way

    Then I retract my statement that you believe the problem with birth control is that it is in the hands of women rather than men. I apologize.

  399. TFH says:

    Then I retract my statement that you believe the problem with birth control is that it is in the hands of women rather than men. I apologize.

    OK, no worries.

  400. jf12 says:

    @Cane Caldo, re: “her priest counseled her no such thing”. You cannot say that correctly, apparently. All we know from her is “the priest told me to bear it for the sake of our marriage” and “Now I have cut myself off from the Eucharist as a result.” If you *actually* believe what she’s saying, that she’s sobbingly trying oh-so-hard to obey everyone, then she believes that the priest counseled her to have “committed sin by doing “unnatural” acts.” You’ve already as much as said you believed that.

  401. greyghost says:

    I have an opinion and it should be male based (on birth control of course)

  402. Cane Caldo says:

    @jf12

    If you *actually* believe what she’s saying, that she’s sobbingly trying oh-so-hard to obey everyone, then she believes that the priest counseled her to have “committed sin by doing “unnatural” acts.” You’ve already as much as said you believed that.

    No, she clearly implies the priest counseled her in regards to what if her husband frustrates the marital act with condoms, pulling out, etc. That counsel was that it is her husband’s sin, but not hers.

    I can only guess as what she is referring to by “unnatural acts”, but you’re conflating two different things. I suspect that you’re conflation is the result of imposing what you think the priest should have said according to what you think the RCC teaches.

    Regardless, the RCC way is that she always has the option to go to confession, receive absolution, and then receive communion. Even if she believes she has sinned, the RCC does not impose on her to remain in a sinful state. Again, according to how I understand the teaching. It seems to be you’re trying impugn her for attempting to be both a faithful wife and a faithful Roman Catholic, and that you think the two are incompatible.

  403. It’s unlikely that the priest would have counseled her to skip Communion indefinitely. A traditional priest would have told her to go to Confession first; a modernist would have said not to worry about it. Like Cane said, she’s probably doing it out of misplaced guilt — maybe doesn’t know any better. It could also be a bit of a poke at her husband: “Look, you’re forcing me to miss the Sacrament.”

    That’s why I hate this advice. He doesn’t tell her to obey her husband in all things, so she can do so with a clear conscience. But neither does he tell her she’s right to refuse this sinful order, so she can do that with a clear conscience. By trying to give moderate advice, he leaves her feeling like she has to choose to participate in sin. That sucks.

  404. TFH says:

    greyghost,

    I saw the democracy video you posted on The Spearhead. It was pretty good..

    Too bad the obvious problem is irreversible, at this point..

  405. innocentbystanderboston@yahoo.com says:

    GunnerQ,

    I think the real appeal of sexbots is that it looks like an easy fix to the problem of unmarriageable women. It might work as far as it goes but, until the underlying currents of Godlessness are confronted, things will only continue to worsen. Hmm, this might be a way to black-knight Churchians towards the Biblical frame of marriage as a symbol of Christ & Church. “What’s wrong with marrying my Suzuki Femdroid? I’m willing to give myself up for it (show five-digit receipt). That’s what you said was important in marriage, right? Or is love supposed to be a two-way street? Femdroid understands I have needs, why don’t you? I know I’m a weak man who isn’t good enough for your Princess, that’s why I got Femdroid in the first place.”

    They can’t say what is wrong with it. To sincerely say what is wrong with you marrying a Sexbot, is that by you doing that there is one more woman in the world who will never be able to extract financial resources from you for her support (and the support of her bastard children.) You have (by your choice) hoarded all your financial resources for yourself (and yourself alone) since the Sexbot will never need anything from you from the moment you buy her other than plugging her into the AC outlet at night. She will submissively sit there (waiting for your return from work) to submit to any of your sexual desires and return to her post, never to frivorce you, never to be awarded with any cash or prizes at your expense.

    They can’t say that. But that is what is wrong with it. How can they extract resources from you (by way of law) if you refuse to play their game? You upset the feminist imperative.

  406. MarcusD says:

    @Scott

    You’re in good company. Another person was banned for a similar reason (and quite frank, too):

    http://simulacral-legendarium.blogspot.ca/2014/02/caf-confirms-what-many-already-knew.html

    They argued exquisitely – sources, solid logic, polite and patient – and they were still axed by mods.

  407. jf12 says:

    @Cane Caldo, diagnosing at a distance. I’m reasonably certain that you’re correct as to what the priest actually counseled, but I’m also reasonably certain she decided the priest was wrong, i.e. that she would be sinning by following what the priest advised. So in *rebellion* she decided to sin by obeying in order to show her husband, the priest, and God what big meanies they all are.

    And by the way, no, she knows this part of the Catholic teaching: she can’t keep doing every week what she thinks is sin and then skip lalala into the confessional before Mass and make everything hunky dory. An essential component of Penance is Sincerity, elevated with capital letters.

  408. Bee says:

    @BradA,

    “We adopted our children (sibling group of 4) from the system and they clearly never accepted us as their parents.”

    Your situation is the fourth occurrence I have come across where adoptive parents were put through years of torture by the kids they lovingly adopted. In two of those situations the adopted kid tried to burn down the adopting parents house. It appears that the rebellious spirit of the kid’s parents and grandparents carried on into the adopted family’s home.

    What insight can you offer to us to detect/determine if children would be a good fit for adoption?

    How old were the children when the first started to live with you and your wife? Did you foster them first and then adopt?

    Sorry to hear about what you have been through.

  409. Cane Caldo says:

    @jf12

    So in *rebellion* she decided to sin by obeying in order to show her husband, the priest, and God what big meanies they all are.

    Good enough for me. I dare every wife to show her contempt for her husband by bending over for him whenever he says. That’ll teach him!

  410. A good Confession requires that you sincerely wish not to commit the sin again. She can do that, because she doesn’t know when she confesses whether it will be the last time her husband will insist on it. Perhaps this will be the time that her husband has a change of heart. If you go into the confessional and confess a sin you confessed last week, it doesn’t mean your last confession was no good. As long as you had the right intention at the time, you’re fine.

  411. jf12 says:

    @Cane Caldo re: “Good enough for me.”

    Me too! I too would welcome “pretend” but effective submission. “I made the sandwiches like you said, hubby dear, even though I think ham is sinful.” I think my reading of the situation is the correct one.

    Maybe a little more interesting, now that we’re almost explicitly in agreement with my being correct, is when (not if) she no longer feels it is so sinful and maybe looks forward to it. Would she lose anything, e.g. her sobbing sacrificiously, by enjoying doing what she’s told?

  412. greyghost says:

    Good behavior is good behavior. Just because she is behaving well out of wicked selfishness doesn’t mean it is not good behavior. Men that are romantics about this biblical submission on the principles of or some virtue of the pussy are stupid. You can tell women god said this and that all you want. It just has to fit in with her needs. At this point in time I’ll take good behavior due to dread. At least the woman knows the truth and is acting accordingly. Damn sure are not changing her nature as a female human. That was the foolishness that has got us here.

  413. Cane Caldo says:

    @jf12

    Whoops. Looks like I lost you. To retrace my steps: I gave a sarcastic reply meant to show the silliness of your conception of rebellion.

    It’s not rebellion, and she’s not showing contempt, but faith in the order; if not the players. A natural lawyer might call it “imperfect submission”, but that is different than rebellion. There are far too many instances of outright rebellion among women in the church who do only what they think is right for me to spend time cussing this woman’s submission; imperfect or not.

    The road you’re on looks rosy and full of all kinds of ooey-gooey feelings, but it’s the one that goes through “It is betrayal of myself to do what I do not want to do”, and ends up at “This was just a formality. The marriage was over a long time ago.”

  414. Cane Caldo says:

    @greyghost

    Good behavior is good behavior. Just because she is behaving well out of wicked selfishness doesn’t mean it is not good behavior. Men that are romantics about this biblical submission on the principles of or some virtue of the pussy are stupid.

    Word.

  415. Scott says:

    Hopefully not derailing the conversation too much, but I have been thinking about this for a couple of days.

    I wanted to nit-pick a little, so I will preface this comment with the following disclaimer:

    This is supposed to be a little funny/little serious so I hope it gets a laugh.

    If I were a garden variety, run-of-the-mill mainstream conservative blue-piller and I stumbled across this corner of the internet I would be thinking “my God! I can’t believe I found this. Men talking like men and not apologizing. People discussion obvious truths and not being afraid. The is awesome. I’m not crazy!” (I know this, because it happened to me a couple of years ago).

    But then..

    As soon as I came across the word “sexbot” I would click right back over to Townhall or NRO or whatever and never come back.

  416. feeriker says:

    Scott said But then..

    As soon as I came across the word “sexbot” I would click right back over to Townhall or NRO or whatever and never come back.

    Well, yes, of course you would, were you a “garden variety, run-of-the-mill mainstream conservative blue-piller” (i.e., what I would call a “churchian castrato”). Such creatures are as terrified of all topics sexual as cats are of bath water.

  417. feeriker

    Surely you didn’t miss the point by that much.

    I agree with Scott. Even setting aside the moral objection, reading yet more (and I have not scrolled up and read it because its a repeat, I’m sure) I cannot help but wonder about those who get so exercised about the topics of VR sex, artificial orifices (is that orifi?), male BC pills, etc. It is an enthusiastic topic for some. That I don’t get it doesnt mean its not compelling. But I dont get it.

    I could imagine, during college, maybe while sitting up all night solving global problems , things like that coming up. I cannot imagine it here.

  418. Scott says:

    Unfortunately my post was a little less funny though, because my computer has a very strange idea of what I mean when it corrects me.

    People discussion? The is awesome?

    Jeez.

  419. TFH says:

    empath said,

    I could imagine, during college, maybe while sitting up all night solving global problems , things like that coming up. I cannot imagine it here.

    Dalrock explained it best above.

    It would shift the power balance between men and women, and the way they interact with each other, mainly by moderating the flow of courtship dollars/search costs/male preparation for marriage into something less lop-sided than it is today, which is a major theme on this blog. This will happen both to people who approve of the technologies, and those who don’t.

    Oh, and blue-pill SoCons will surely talk about it a lot, when they seek to align with ‘feminists’ to ban these technologies…

  420. TFH says:

    From Instapundit :

    Only 30% of couples in happy marriages.

    Feminism probably reduced that number from the 50-60% that it was a half-century ago (and still may be outside the West).

    And for the minority in happy marriages today, don’t assume you have not incurred a silent cost. A happy marriage that might be a 7 on a 1-10 scale, would have been a 9 without all the media/TV/film barrage telling the woman to see her husband as a loser. Even women who *think* they can tune this out, are still likely to be affected by it on some level.

    So even the happy marriage saw 2 points knocked off, on average. In another era, the happy couple could have been the ecstatic couple.

  421. greyghost says:

    It is an enthusiastic topic for some. That I don’t get it doesnt mean its not compelling. But I dont get it.

    Not everybody understands and that is ok. Some women understand and that is the point

  422. feeriker says:

    From Instapundit :

    Only 30% of couples in happy marriages.

    Methinks that figure is grotesquely over-optimistic.

  423. feeriker says:

    feeriker

    Surely you didn’t miss the point by that much.

    Oh no, I absolutely got the point. I’m just not one to pass up an opportunity to take a swipe at the caricature of a “mainstream conservative.”

  424. kip says:

    “Eh, I don’t read the priest’s advice that positively, but I covered that on my blog. But for the rest, yes: she’s trying to do the right thing according to her faith — the faith in which she and her husband took their vows — and doesn’t seem to be making excuses. She’s trying to do the right thing, but just doesn’t know what that is.”

    I agree with this. The poor woman is confused, the poor husband is confused and sexually frustrated, and the priest is confused handing out advice based on what he learned to regurgitate despite knowing in his heart and definitely in his rational mind that it is ridiculous and very damaging to the couple.

    Married couples being forced by doctrine to have unprotected sex even when they do not want to have more children is, in my opinion, abuse. Calling safe, protected sex between married couples “unnatural” or “sinful” is not only wrong but supremely damaging as it creates unnecessary tension, worry and frustration in the marriage.

    Campaigning for couples to have as many kids as they physically can, “just because”, is also wrong and abusive.

    Who is supposed to pay for all these kids? Who can afford to have 8, 10, 12, or 14 kids?

    Who came up with all these “rules” in the first place? What’s the history behind it?

  425. kip says:

    “Eh, I don’t read the priest’s advice that positively, but I covered that on my blog. But for the rest, yes: she’s trying to do the right thing according to her faith — the faith in which she and her husband took their vows — and doesn’t seem to be making excuses. She’s trying to do the right thing, but just doesn’t know what that is.”

    I agree with this. The poor woman is confused, the poor husband is confused and sexually frustrated, and the priest is confused handing out advice based on what he learned to regurgitate despite knowing in his heart and definitely in his rational mind that it is ridiculous and very damaging to the couple.

    Married couples being forced by doctrine to have unprotected sex even when they do not want to have more children is, in my opinion, abuse. Calling safe, protected sex between married couples “unnatural” or “sinful” is not only wrong but supremely damaging as it creates unnecessary tension, worry and frustration in the marriage.

    Campaigning for couples to have as many kids as they physically can, “just because”, is also wrong and abusive.

    Who is supposed to pay for all these kids? Who can afford to have 8, 10, 12, or 14 kids?

    Who came up with all these rules in the first place? What’s the history behind it?

  426. Boxer says:

    Who is supposed to pay for all these kids? Who can afford to have 8, 10, 12, or 14 kids?

    Smart folks need to start mimicking the trashy elements. I’m sure the brainy ones can figure out how to shift the costs of a large family onto the state. It’s only a misplaced sense of pride that keeps these people from exploiting the system.

    I would much rather help fund a nice family with my taxes, than the sorts of thankless layabouts that currently get the lion’s share of freebies.

    Boxer

  427. kip says:

    “Smart folks need to start mimicking the trashy elements.”

    Impossible. They are smart for a reason.

    ” I’m sure the brainy ones can figure out how to shift the costs of a large family onto the state”

    It will drastically lower the quality of life for their children. They will be forced to live in compromising neighborhoods and will be made grandparents before they age of 36.

    About BDSM, didn’t mean to rain on anyone’s parade. Whatever legal activity two consenting adults what to do in the privacy of their own homes is fine with me. I was talking about internet BDSM porn exposure and the effects of such on the developing brain and body of a child.

  428. Boxer says:

    It will drastically lower the quality of life for their children. They will be forced to live in compromising neighborhoods and will be made grandparents before they age of 36.

    Today’s word is: gentrification

  429. Luke says:

    kip says:
    June 16, 2014 at 8:48 pm

    “Campaigning for couples to have as many kids as they physically can, “just because”, is also wrong and abusive.

    Who is supposed to pay for all these kids? Who can afford to have 8, 10, 12, or 14 kids?”

    The parents, or more specifically, the father with custody if unmarried/married couples otherwise. If we could keep all our income (no more income/sales/property taxes), no more inflation or bankster theft (gold standard), no wage collapse (evict all post-1965 illegals & their descendants + women mostly being mothers again so out of the job market), reverse deindustrialization (import tariffs + reverse >90% of gov’t regulatory costs), it’d be fairly doable. The middle class could have 4 kids or so, the UMC 6+, the upper class up to 8 NP. With all the illegals and their descendants gone, along with a likely post-welfare dieoff of multigenerational leeches, there’d be room enough in the workplace for more native-born kids. (End affirmative action/bogus majors, and watch the colleges make more room for STEM majors, too.)

    How do I know this? BECAUSE WE DID IT BEFORE.

  430. Anonymous age 72 says:

    This deal of how to feed those kids. Is anyone here old enough to remember the TV show, FATHER KNOWS BEST. It was a very popular TV show wnen father’s weren’t portrayed as evil, vicious monsters. The father was shown as a caring, loving wise man.

    They were decidedly middle class. Yet, in one show, when the mother wanted new curtains in the house, she had to temporarily take on part time work to get the money. They had to live so frugally to live middle class that she just didn’t have the money without that extra work. Today, it would simply go on the credit card.

    Note this was pointed out in a newsletter when the manosphere was mostly run by mail. A long time ago.

  431. BradA says:

    Bee,

    > What insight can you offer to us to detect/determine if children would be a good fit for adoption?

    I have no idea. I lean against sibling adoption now because of this, but I have read enough stories of single child adoption to know that can go horridly bad as well.

    While part of me would do it again, I doubt I ever would as the pain is far too great now.

    > How old were the children when the first started to live with you and your wife?

    2.75, 4, 5 and 7.

    We did straight adoption because we didn’t think we could live with the “risk” in a foster to adopt situation. We had no idea we would end up being little more than foster parents at the end.

    And seeing each child ruin their life isn’t good. The one who did the best is quite bitter (we are told at least). One who we had hoped missed a lot is not hooked up to a birth cousin. Two of them kept my last name (the boys) at least for a while (we are not sure about one of them any more as we have lost contact). I have no idea why though since they didn’t bother taking anything else of our character or such.

    We are not perfect, but we avoid a lot of the idiocy of the birth family, yet that is where they have hooked, including the idiotic behavior that got them taken in the first place. The birthfather denies any responsibility for what happens (blaming everyone else), yet he is the one that gets the most loyalty. It really irks me, but nothing I can do about it.

    It is extermely hard to live like you have no children, but that is what I must do. I am not sure how I will make it the next few decades, but I have no other choice. I am firmly convinced God is good, though I can’t explain why He didn’t guide us away from this more.

    I would NOT recommend any but the most stouthearted touch adoption. It is not a good thing in the modern system. I have even been charged by my own teen children with abuse, something that didn’t hold up, but that caused us a lot of grief and hassle over the years. The system is as biased in favor of unruly children as it is of unruly wives.

    The danger of adopting these children is that they come very damaged and the system will almost turn against you at some point. It sucks to be them, but nothing much can be done for most until the system changes.

  432. BradA says:

    Kip,

    Most are nowhere near even 4 children. Though anyone who claims a believe in God and does not believe He will provide a way to take care of a blessing from Him doesn’t have much faith in Him.

    When too many children becomes a major problem you might have a point. Few get beyond 1 or 2 these days. 3 is an outright splurge. Something is wrong here.

    The “smart ones” are getting outbred by the dumb ones, to use the example here.

  433. kip says:

    For those that want to adopt, adopt them when they are infants and make sure its a “closed adoption”.

    All these ifs, ifs, ifs, if we could go back to the past then we could afford to have a gazillion kids just like great-grandpa did. THOSE DAYS ARE OVER.

    Its ridiculous and irresponsible to have children one cannot afford to maintain properly and it is equally ridiculous for married people to put their marriages at risk by following the celibacy rules of monks and priests (no masturbation, no condoms, no pulling out, no this, no that).

  434. kip says:

    “It will drastically lower the quality of life for their children. They will be forced to live in compromising neighborhoods and will be made grandparents before they age of 36.”

    “Today’s word is: gentrification”

    The parents gentrify. Their kids ghettofy.

  435. electricangel says:

    I did not see this issue addressed anywhere. This is a wife in rebellion, but there is good reason for it. from the husband’s original wording: My place is to provide.

    ARGGH! If that’s what you think your place is, then you will NEVER have a happy marriage. He is following the script of man/husband as mule, to be directed by economics or wife. Frankly, this one misconception of husbands has been the greatest source of mischief in our world. If a man’s role is only to provide, then it is ok to replace a man with a government check. We know what a disaster this mentality is.

    Until we fix this attitude about the husband, there is no hope.

  436. craig says:

    kip says: “Who came up with all these rules in the first place? What’s the history behind it?”

    Well, there is that whole ‘be fruitful and multiply’ thing.

    If you argue that it’s ‘abuse’ for married couples to be required to have sex unprotected, then you are declaring God an abuser from prehistory all the way up to 1960 or so. You’re intrinsically saying that God means to send us frustration and misery, and it’s only modern man’s cleverness that has managed to stave off God’s burdensome intent — we have ‘corrected’ God’s original design.

    People used to raise ten kids on far less real, inflation-adjusted income than what people claim to be unable to raise two kids on now. It can be done, albeit without 3000-square-foot houses, granite countertops, premium cable, or vacations in Cancun.

  437. BradA says:

    He basically is Craig. God was wrong, per the most recent post. We live in a new time. See the post on modernity where this idea fits well.

    Kip said,

    > “Its ridiculous and irresponsible to have children one cannot afford to maintain properly ”

    Most would have to temper their own consumerism a bit, but could handle far more children than they think. How is this “we want to wait until we can afford it” any different than the woman who puts off marriage to get her feminist merit badge and/or see the world, etc.? Both involve putting other things first.

    Go ahead and do that, but we are starting to see that such an attitude is not healthy for the longevity of a society. If only the poor (in attitude) breed, then the world will soon be full of the poor.

  438. kip says:

    Craig, I don’t think God cares whether married couples have protected sex or not. “Be fruitful and multiply” was at a time when the earth hardly contained any people at all, what so speak of “God’s people” so of course the numbers had to be increased.

    Just because we believe in God doesn’t mean we have to cast all logic and reason to the wind.

  439. feeriker says:

    If a man’s role is only to provide, then it is ok to replace a man with a government check. We know what a disaster this mentality is.

    Disaster for whom? Certainly not the women on the receiving end of the gravt train, or for the Power Elites for whom these women have been Lenin’s “useful idiots” in marginalizing men/husbands/fathers who represent a threat to said Elite’s unchecked power aspirations.

    Disaster for children? Sure, but children are just a means to an end, so who cares?

    Disaster for men? Of course, but since men are disposable, that’s irrelevant.

  440. BradA says:

    Kip, are you saying that men get to decide when God’s Word applies and when it is no longer appropriate? Doesn’t that have the huge risk of leading to a “living constitution” that ends up meaning absolutely nothing stable?

    And exactly where are these large family dangers today that you are so strongly against? Why the strong anger?

  441. TFH says:

    I disagree that a large number of kids is not affordable today. 60 years ago, many families had 6-12 children, and they managed, even though economic prosperity was much lower then than it is today.

    Rather, people *think* it is expensive because it eats into the woman’s shopping budget, and also because public schools are no longer good (also due to ‘feminism’).

    But if a family had 10 children today, they would still have an easier time of feeding and clothing them, vs. 60 years ago.

    The Duggar family and Bates family each have 19 children. They were not rich; rather, they were smart about managing the logistics and budget.

  442. Even before reliable artificial birth control, the US never got up to 4 children per woman. The idea that eschewing birth control would mean dozens of babies for everyone is a myth. The Meaning of Life is a funny movie, but not a documentary.

    But anyway, we weren’t talking about dirt poor people with a dozen babies in a desert somewhere; we were talking about middle-class people saying they aren’t “ready” for a second kid for unspecified reasons, and thinking that using NFP for that is just fine for Catholics because it’s not ABC. They’re wrong.

  443. TFH says:

    Brad A,

    Most would have to temper their own consumerism a bit, but could handle far more children than they think.

    Precisely. For the middle-class, two-parent families in rural/small-town America who even today have 6+ children (there are not many of them, but they do exist), it is all about smart budgeting, and delegation of tasks.

    And these are all-American families too. They are not Mexicans or Muslims, who also have a lot of children in the US (Roosh is one of at least 4 siblings, the youngest of whom is only 18 or so, or 16 years younger than Roosh)…

  444. craig says:

    Kip, your answer amounts to “Hath God said…?”

    My earlier point was not that “be fruitful and multiply” is by itself a sufficient answer. I hold to Scripture and Tradition, both of which are authoritative. My point was that there are inevitable logical implications to the claim that God specifically blesses the sexual act between husband and wife, and condemns the same act when done by any other person(s). All of them lead back to procreation. Fidelity, bonding, relief from frustration — these matter in marriage because children have an intrinsic right to a family with both mother and father, and these hold the family together so that can occur.

    Take the procreative aspect away from sex, and you eliminate, one by one, all the logical reasons why God would demand fidelity within marriage and continence outside of it. In the end you must either condemn God for sentencing man to misery and frustration, or else dare to presume that God is unconcerned with fidelity and continence altogether so long as children do not result. The same ‘logic and reason’ that gets you to OK protected sex because we no longer have to populate the earth forces you to also OK sodomy, masturbation, fornication, etc.

    You’re left articulating a moral principle with nothing solid to hold onto: “whatever legal activity two consenting adults what to do in the privacy of their own homes is fine with me”. Why only two? Why does it matter if it’s legal? Why does consent or privacy matter, for that sake? If it’s sterile, then sexual activity is just friction. You’re not arguing from principle here.

  445. TFH says:

    BradA,

    That is a terrible story! That you sacrificed so much, and yet got so little gratitude. The youngest two would barely have any recollection of their biological family, yet are loyal to them.

    Were the children white or black?

    How old are they now?

  446. hoellenhund2 says:

    Throughout human history, children, on average, became an economic asset at the age of 9 or 10. They were your only potential source of care and provision in your old age. Now they don’t become an economic asset until their mid-20s, on average.

    This alone explains much of the demographic implosion we see in the developed world.

  447. hoellenhund2 says:

    This comment was posted on Jezebel, but it’s surprisingly accurate:

    “Hundreds of years ago, people didn’t live long. Kids grew up fast. As soon as they could help, they did. Either on the farm or in the home or in the kingdom.

    Several generations back, there wasn’t reliable birth control, everyone got sick all the time and people had tons of kids, but many died (miscarriages, SIDS, illness, accidents, etc.) There was a far more pragmatic approach to family.

    Only recently did people start to treat children like special innocent beings, instead of small adults.

    Our grandparents and great-grandparents had no idea about the psychological damage they were inflicting on their kids, and they didn’t worry about nutrition, health, education, crime or what their neighbors thought to the degree we do today. Everyone assumed kids had to stay in line, they got punished or spanked, most went to church or temple and school was mandatory unless you had to help at home/on the farm, etc.

    NOW – we are only one or two generations away from the “gin and tonics or valiums for the moms gossiping on the verandah while the men drink beer, smoke cigars, tell off-color jokes and play poker and the kids run around freely in the neighborhood until dinner, and then go back out until sundown, causing ruckus, getting into trouble, and riding bikes on side streets without a care.”

    We don’t have community.

    Our families are smaller.

    Most everyone works.

    Almost no one lives near their family or within the community they grew up in.

    Grandparents work, live far away or are too sick/weak or broke to help.

    Single mothers struggle.

    Few resources exist.

    While we argue about the minimum wage being $15 – that’s nearly what most sitters and nannies charge now!

    Jobs offer minimal vacation, and hardly any paternity or paid maternity leave.

    Health insurance and medical costs are skyrocketing.

    Preschool/Daycare/Nurseries are very expensive, yet the employees are rarely high-quality, turn over quickly and are overworked.

    We have to worry about nutrition: GMOs/GE ingredients, pesticides, artificial colors/flavorings/preservatives, HFCS, gluten, peanuts, other allergens and chemicals.

    We have thousands of competing philosophies and approaches bombarding us and shifting perspective constantly.

    There is a huge mommy war going on (SAHM vs. working moms) and also young moms vs. old moms, hands-on organic moms vs. carefree TV sitter moms, anti-vaxxers/slow vaxxers vs. adament vaxxers, rich vs. broke moms, everything Pinterest moms vs. everything Walmart moms, vegan moms vs. paleo moms, etc.

    Men are somewhat helpful, and some stay at home (usually because they lost their jobs or their wives make more) yet still the bulk of the work is up to the mothers.

    We have to worry about autism, abductions, molestation, development issues, falling behind academically, body image issues, etc.

    Everyone seems to one-up each other in terms of holidays, events, clothes, homes, safety features, activities, etc.

    There is an entire industry surrounding kids that has ramped up marketing to a mind-boggling degree.

    We’ve got children’s festivals, concerts, bookstores, cafes, playzones, theaters, tons of playgrounds, indoor sportz, bouncy houses, etc.

    We are vilified for having kids at all, having them late in life, having them on our own, having them with same-sex partners, having them despite physical/emotional/financial issues. And we are vilified for not having kids, or not enjoying them as others think we ought to be.

    Facebook, Blogger, Instagram and Pinterest are among the social media outlets where most put their sanitized, branded best feet forward, leaving many to look on in envy or insecurity or competition.

    The sheer number of items “needed” or suggested is overwhelming, yet you MUST be aware of safety decrees, recalls, the law, the expectations of society.

    We are critcized for bringing up fragile and spoiled kids or neglected damaged kids.

    Instead of feeling like earth mamas, we feel like prisoners. Instead of feeling like families, we feel pressure. Instead of leaning on a village, we are expected to do nearly everything ourselves, and then when we vent or become emotional or break down, we are labeled bad mothers or weak people.

    If we think we have postpartum, we’re afraid to admit it, because it drives people away. And if we end up having issues due to having kids (financial/relatinoship/physical) we are supposed to suck it up, otherwise we are whining or we “brought it upon ourselves.”

    We worry about the future, about college, about health issues, about our longevity.

    Few women are honest about what pregnancy does, how it affects our sex life, our self-image, damages our organs, ages us, depletes us, drains us and exhausts us.

    Few are honest about how small children are exhausting, frustrating, irritating and even sometimes can drive us crazy. We joke about it, but it is fucking TRUE. And the more you feel like you are failing – which is most of the time – the worse you hate your role.

    You lose your identity as a woman, as a wife or partner, as an employee and as a social being.

    Women are usually the ones diapering, feeding (and so waiting to eat), cleaning up, picking up, purchasing, dressing/fitting, schlepping, coping with inlaws and family, managing holidays, events and birthdays, shopping, cooking, etc. So we become resentful.

    Then, if we turn to our coping mechanisms, we get into trouble. We talk/vent/gossip/bitch too much; we eat too much; we shop too much; we watch too much TV or go on the Internet too often; we drink too much, etc.

    Any human being who goes through having kids during a stressful time knows what I mean. If you have to work, have financial issues and discover your spouse or partner is more of an obstacle than a help with kids, or if your family or in-laws become toxic, it is just an uphill battle to nowhere.

    And if you don’t have much of a support network – which most don’t – then you are really screwed. Friends move away. They work. They have their own families and issues. Some are childless and don’t understand. Others have a different number of kids, or have boys when you have girls, they have money for housecleaners and vacations while you don’t, or vice versa. They parent differently, are part of a church or are judgmental suddenly.

    It’s a lonely, challenging role.

    And more than half of us get divorced.

    Yay.

    Happy Mother’s Day. “

  448. TFH says:

    My own anecdote on adoption :

    One of my mother’s sisters (my aunt) and her husband could not have children, after trying for 12 years. So they adopted a newborn from an orphanage in India.

    The kid looked like them, but was adopted, and he was told this at the appropriate age.

    There was some conflict (the usual ‘do your schoolwork!’ battles), but overall, he was moderately well adjusted. The conflict may not have been much less than within biological parent-children families.

    But they only adopted the one boy, so no siblings. He also doesn’t have a way of finding his birth parents (who are probably poor illiterates in India).

    Today, he is 22 and graduating from college. He is not brilliant, but he is ok, and will be a productive adult. That he was pulled from a poor orphanage in India, to live in the US and go to college, is probably something he is grateful for on some level.

  449. MarcusD says:

    @hoellenhund2

    Sounds like confirmation bias on the commenter’s part (re: June 17, 2014 at 1:15 pm).

    As it turns out, men actually work more than women (when paid work, housework, childcare, etc combined).

  450. James K says:

    Note the reply by “FrenzyJen” to the husband’s comment which describes, in red ink, the “Characteristics of Abusive Men”, concluding “I’m worried for OP’s safety. His post reeks of ‘That type of guy'”.

    Just look at those characteristics: “Superiority”, “Externalization of Responsibility”, “Denial, Minimization, & Victim Blaming”, “Entitlement”, “Selfishness & Self-centredness”, and “Superiority” (again). The same qualities clearly apply to the original post made by the wife. In neither case are they signs of an abusive person: they indicate pain and poor communication.

    This is not (mostly) about submission. It is about a failure to communicate, and the disgusting and unhelpful tendency of third parties to accept uncritically the viewpoint of the hard-pressed mother, and then stir some further poison into the mix.

    Child-rearing is tough. It is the hardest thing that most of us will ever do. If you are unhappy with your spouse, don’t ask random online commenters for “help”. If you are Catholic, your priest should be the first port of call.

  451. greyghost says:

    Child rearing is not that tough especially if you are married.

  452. kip says:

    “Kip, are you saying that men get to decide when God’s Word applies and when it is no longer appropriate?”

    Yes. In the couple’s example above, their priest is deciding that. I say the couple themselves should decide. They are the ones married to each other. Not the priest.

    “And exactly where are these large family dangers today that you are so strongly against? Why the strong anger?”

    No anger. I’m just questioning the logic and purpose behind all these rules in the CC: no condoms or other forms of contraception, no masturbation, no pulling out, and if I read correctly no oral sex even.

    I’m not against large families providing the children can be properly taken care of and live healthy, safe lives, high quality lives. That takes money. And it takes more than money. It takes parental attention, affection, care and love. Can two parents give sufficient attention to each of their children if there are 10 of them? Will not the older kids be expected to forego a complete childhood experience in order to grow up fast and take on a proxy parental role for their younger siblings or be made into full time maids? This is what I heard from some adults now who grew up in large families. Some of them are pissed about it. Not all, but a significant number.

    Quality is to be considered right alongside quantity.

  453. Pingback: Lightning Round – 2014/06/18 | Free Northerner

  454. BradA says:

    I raised 4 children and you can give plenty of attention to children even with a bunch. A big part of our modern society is that children get too much attention and end up thinking the world revolves around them. I would bet that is a large part of the “modern princess” problem that is frequently noted here.

    What is wrong with older siblings helping to care for younger ones? Should everyone be free to be irresponsible until they are “adults” and possibly even longer in today’s society? It looks like we are erring far more that way than your “too many children” fear.

    Note that less than 3 children per family is below the replacement level and those families that have children have to make up for those who cannot, such as my wife and I. That means our well off society will fade into oblivion at some point in favor of those who do have children.

    You still did not address exactly where this terror of too many children is though. Finding a few pissed adults is nothing special. We have them all over the place now since we live in a society than encourages everyone to be mad about something. Our own children would gripe about all the things the missed growing up, though we kept them from at least having children themselves until they were adults, unlike their birth family’s practice. (We didn’t watch much traditional TV, but plenty of non network programming.

    Modern culture spoils children far too much.

    ====

    A strong case can be made against masturbation as well since it seems inseparable from fantasizing and doing so about some other women would fall under Jesus command against doing just that. Fantasizing about your wife that way would not be wrong in the same way, but would seem to be taking her that way as well.

    I can see no prohibition against a wife doing that as part of sex with her husband though and I was not aware that was against the RCC rules. Perhaps someone can clarify that.

    I have heard protestants make a strong case against oral sex as well. They may not be right, but it is hardly a RCC-only thing if so.

  455. I can see no prohibition against a wife [masturbating] as part of sex with her husband though and I was not aware that was against the RCC rules.

    It’s not, nor is oral sex. The idea that Catholics have some long, complicated list of Sex Rules is a myth. It’s true that you can find individual theologians who will argue that you shouldn’t do this or that, just as opinions on these things differ among Protestants, but those opinions vary and are not doctrine. Actual Church doctrine on the matter is really very simple: the man can only ejaculate inside his wife’s vagina. That’s it. What they do to enjoy the act up to that point is pretty wide open.

    Since we now know that A) a woman is more likely to conceive if she has an orgasm (the muscular contractions help draw the sperm to where it needs to go), and B) many women can’t orgasm very easily from plain vaginal sex without some extra stimulation, there’s a pretty obvious argument that a woman helping herself along during sex is not only allowed, but a positive thing, since it encourages procreation.

  456. kip says:

    “I raised 4 children and you can give plenty of attention to children even with a bunch.”

    Four is a reasonable, easy to manage number (provided one is at least in the strong middle of the middle class range).. 8, 10, 12, 14 is not.

  457. Velvet says:

    Actual Church doctrine on the matter is really very simple: the man can only ejaculate inside his wife’s vagina. That’s it. What they do to enjoy the act up to that point is pretty wide open.

    This. Even many fundie prot types understand that the point is to stick the landing. The gymnastics prior are mostly a matter of preference.

    Four is a reasonable, easy to manage number (provided one is at least in the strong middle of the middle class range).. 8, 10, 12, 14 is not.

    That’s a sort of sad commentary on how our culture informs our fertility and standards of living. If a family is open to life, and God grants them one child, that is a reasonable number. If He grants them 14, equally reasonable. I confess (though I once adhered to it) that I don’t understand the “cut off” mentality. It represents a lack of creativity, pun intended. Kids (assuming average health and intelligence) aren’t all that expensive unless the parents train them to be, and can themselves be quite productive from an early age. That’s a reality Christian parents are reluctant to face. A determined number of children only becomes unreasonable when compared to material and extra curricular priorities, doesn’t it?

  458. BradA says:

    > 8, 10, 12, 14 is not

    And how many have this bugaboo you warn against? I know more exist, but I have not met any in person that I recall. You sound like someone warning about the idiot man who abandons his family, justifying all the stupidity we have in laws favoring the woman doing that now. We don’t have a plague of too many children. We do have a plague of too few children.

  459. Lyn87 says:

    Well… I’m back for a day and decided to see where things went while I was incommunicado before I go back out tomorrow. I see Cane doubled-down on his “gay” projection, and some newbie who calls himself Cui Pertinebit wrote me a wall of text. I decided to stop reading at, “It is bad form to comment on matters, of which you know little or nothing,” though, since I have little inclination to wade through the ravings of someone who demonstrates in the first paragraph that he hasn’t the barest understanding of my theological position or background.

  460. Scott says:

    Another man about to be ejected from his home and doesn’t even know it.

    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=891089

    Then next person who tells me my reports of this being a fairly common occurrence is just an “outlier” I am going to go bonkers. I will be last to turn off the lights in the asylum.

    http://courtshippledge.com/2014/05/the-story-of-jim/

  461. MarcusD says:

    @Scott

    Yeah, that won’t end well. It’s only a matter of time before the skjaldmaers start up on the cries for a sacrifice of a husband. I’m sure the lovely females of CAF will be with him every step of the way, ensuring that he realizes that it’s his fault, for everything, no matter what his wife did.

    If I were a lawyer, I’d be donating money to Catholic Answers.

  462. Pingback: “It just didn’t happen” | Atavisionary

  463. Charlotte says:

    Too long of a story to type here, but Catholic Answers Forum nearly destroyed my marriage as well. It took about 4 years to recover from the destruction and there may always be some lingering scars.

    CAF is a den of snakes that drives so many people away from the faith. I really wish they would shut the whole thing down.

  464. Pingback: Is God telling her to divorce? | Dalrock

  465. Pingback: Christians Excitement over Trivialities | The Reinvention of Man

  466. GoldRush Apple says:

    @ Charlotte: CAF is horrid, for the most part, when it comes to relationship advice. It’s one step above Yahoo! Answers. It’s for other things – like learning about the faith, but relationship advice … Dear Lord.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s