What is modern marriage for?

Why, divorce, of course:

The singular reason I wish I were actually married to my SO is so I could divorce his fucking ass.

Many would no doubt argue that this woman is an exception, and/or that no fault divorce isn’t about punishing men.  However, punishing men who make their wives unhappy is exactly what no fault divorce is designed to do, and everyone from academics to religious leaders is outright delighted by this.

While most will deny seeing no fault divorce as a system to punish men, nearly everyone implicitly acknowledges that no fault divorce is designed to punish men.  The ubiquitous retort to complaints about the unfairness of the divorce process for men is:

Prove that the men who lost their children, homes, and assets didn’t deserve to be punished.

It is worth noting that while no fault divorce is undeniably designed to be used to punish men, it is not designed to determine if the man in question is in fact guilty of anything.  This is the false veneer of fairness, because every man gets treated the same, guilty or not.  Of course in theory women could find themselves being the ones punished, but only in the very rare cases where a woman has taken on the traditional male role of primary breadwinner.  Given women’s strong preference for marrying men who out earn them, very few women are at risk of being mistaken for the man by the man-punishing machinery of no fault divorce and the family courts.

See Also:  

About these ads
This entry was posted in Denial, Divorce, Threatpoint. Bookmark the permalink.

682 Responses to What is modern marriage for?

  1. Pingback: What is modern marriage for? | Manosphere.com

  2. donalgraeme says:

    Since divorce is mostly about wealth distribution from men to women these days, it stands to reason that modern marriage is all about the distribution of wealth from men to women, principally from men who can’t keep women happy to the women the men couldn’t keep happy.

  3. okrahead says:

    When I was going through the divorce process (a lengthy and miserable experience) my then wife brought two og her friends along with her to a meeting we were having with our church elders. One of the friends actually defended my wife pursuing a frivorce by stating that she needed to use the court system to “punish” me. What I was to be punished for was never made quite clear, but apparently I was not able to make her feel that I loved her as Christ loves the church or some such nonsense.

  4. Remo says:

    It is also a make work project for tens of thousands (possibly 100’s of thousands) of bureaucratic employees, government functionaries, social workers, judges, courts, police, etc. It is also a dandy way to fill the prisons with non-violent technically educated males for slave labor. And like every government program it is entrenched to the point that it will not go away until the central government does i.e. collapse/revolution.

  5. Silly Christians, marriage is about two people who love eachother at the moment sometimes having/not having sex. It’s not like love and sex is about the moment of marriage and the fulfilling of a promise with the same intensity and steadfastness that Christ gave to the church. Also, you better legalize same sex marriage as it’s also about love and sex in the moment and therefore it’s marriage.

    I think perhaps the greatest gift here is that of the inversion of the order of marriage as the moral place of love and sex to love being the moral place for sex and marriage. It’s what brought my seminary friends over the wall into modern Babylon to survey the wreckage. We just wrapped up a service project today doing structural improvements for a sister church in a bad part of town. The one seminarian found a job once more. most of my denomination’s priests hold outside jobs to insulate them from the need to rely on the tickling of congregational ears for survival. It’s a beautiful thing, and we’re building a nation from the wreckage. Cities are ripe for the taking. Live the gospel. Have strong families. Stick together. Start conversations.

  6. okrahead says:

    By the way, as for that punishment? A few minutes ago I tucked my son to bed in the family home I still own, which I refinanced in part with the money I got when she had to give me half her retirement account, and yesterday I cashed the child support check I received from the state that they garnished from her paycheck. Never accept punishment from a woman, always fight back. Not all of us will win, but when even a sizable minority of men black knight it all the way and win it will be a complete game changer.

  7. b g says:

    Sad this, can’t believe the destruction that the last half century have wreaked. Bummer.

  8. okrahead says:

    b g,
    Don’t be said, be angry… with righteous anger, not wrath. Angry, if nothing else, at the needless suffering untold millions of children in this culture are subjected to as a result of the corrupt “family” court system. Let righteous anger grow, focus it, and FIGHT BACK, but not with carnal weapons of violence. Be “wise as serpents” yet “harmless as doves”.

  9. Dalrock says:

    @Okrahead

    A few minutes ago I tucked my son to bed in the family home I still own, which I refinanced in part with the money I got when she had to give me half her retirement account, and yesterday I cashed the child support check I received from the state that they garnished from her paycheck. Never accept punishment from a woman, always fight back. Not all of us will win, but when even a sizable minority of men black knight it all the way and win it will be a complete game changer.

    It is true, sometimes the system misses the mark and chews up a woman instead of a man. But this is very rare, and doesn’t change what it is designed to do. Your suggestion that other men with far more typical outcomes were too dumb or cowardly to fight back is incredibly arrogant. This combination of denial and arrogance is precisely why we have our current system.

  10. Ras Al Ghul says:

    Marriage is dead. The sooner Marriage 2.0 is destroyed the better. Trying to salvage it, try to restore some semblance of marriage 1.0 is a mistake. If you are in favor of marriage, the horror show zombie that it has become must be put down utterly.

    Anger is a virtue, Okrahead, the more men that realize that the better. Women and society vilify anger and try to make men feel guilty about feeling it because anger is male power and they are afraid of it.

    A society cannot withstand angry men.

  11. Ras Al Ghul says:

    Dalrock,

    I knew a guy that spent $100,000 fighting for his kid and lost at every turn and after several years gave up. The mother was a train wreck too.

  12. Minesweeper says:

    @Okrahead – I think your particular circumstances (if I remember correctly) of a careerist wife who you supported through education, her out earning you, you looking after the kid almost exclusively before she pulled the pin.

    They would class that a cascade failure in the divorce industry. But well done, I guess you are part of the lucky 1%.

  13. JDG says:

    Another one right on target Dalrock.

    What is modern marriage for?

    To destroy the biblical based family.

    To transfer wealth from men to women.

    To transfer power from men to the government.

    That’s what modern marriage is for.

  14. Snowy says:

    They’re a lovely, pleasant bunch of girls over there at scarymommy…not!

  15. Frugal Nerd says:

    As a Christian I am passionately disgusted with the American dating scene. I’m one of the guys who wasn’t given the time of day in high school, college, or my 20s. I have never even gotten past the first date as far as interacting with possibly interested women in person. I am very frustrated by seeing my future options as very likely not including the Biblical marriage in which I was raised to participate.

    I wasn’t introduced into the Manosphere until I left the US to live and work in the Middle East where my options for marriage are very limited due to the majority of women where I live being Muslim or prostitutes. I don’t even want to raise a family in the Middle East anyways (the culture is not very family friendly for Christians). Now that I am on the outside looking in I am really questioning whether I even should consider getting married or not.

    The real dilemma is I don’t really want to get into using women just for sex but want to be able to get sexual gratification by having sex with a woman on a regular basis. I have a strong sex drive.

    Thank you Dalrock for this blog as I have even started sending links to some of your articles to my parents (who are still married after almost 40 years) to try to explain my frustration at why an introverted “nice guy” beta provider like me can have so much trouble getting a good woman.

    I keep being told marriage will happen when the right woman comes around. At this rate I will be a 90 year old codger before the right woman just magically comes around when it is too late to enjoy everything that the truly Biblical marriage has to offer (minus the frivorce).

    If I ever start actively searching again it will probably be for a foreign bride even though they come with their own set of problems (read up on IMBRA – that’s a real gem of Feminazi legislation).

    P.S. My Dad just told me of a 30 year old woman back in the US that is available. My first thought was “There is no way in hell I am going to get involved with a woman when her biological clock is a time bomb waiting to go off.” I didn’t have the heart to say the thought out loud while on the phone with my Dad.

  16. bluedog says:

    @Dalrock re: August 9, 2014 at 10:39 pm,
    I didn’t read where okrahead said other men were “dumb and cowardly”. I read only that he was relating his experience, – positive and encouraging – , and he was generalizing it. You are correct that the generalization doesn’t hold up. I am among those who had to learn that myself through the experience, but on basic textual merits, I don’t think that rose to arrogance. Premature generalization maybe, which is error, but not arrogance.

  17. MarcusD says:

    marriage and dating (If he keeps acting like this, time to look into a divorce., time to either split and get an annulment if he will not focus on his marriage, Please see yourself for the valuable child of God you are and leave him)

    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=901966

    Husband wants to put teen on birth control.

    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=901996

  18. Curia Regis says:

    And like all feminist doctrines this one is backfired too, witness the abundance of books on “where have all the good men gone?”. Only fools marry nowadays, or the ignorant.

  19. desiderian says:

    The engine is men who didn’t get the woman they felt they deserved when they were young.

  20. ballista74 says:

    Both traditional marriage and modern marriage are the literal framework of feminism. But the model is more evident in modern feminism as the State has stepped in to replace both God and the husband in Biblical marriage.

    A Proper Framework For Marriage

    The place of God in marriage is replaced with the State. The place of authority that the husband holds is replaced with the State, so in effect the State becomes the head of the wife and the husband is turfed off to third-wheel status only useful for a sperm donation and his working ability. Marriage becomes unimportant, so daughters can go off and chase after The Feminist Merit Badge and be on the Slut Carousel with impunity, yet the sons get chided for not manning-up and marrying the sluts. The State institutes divorce for any and every reason so she can throw her husband aside when she gets bored with him and receive fabulous cash and prizes as a result.

  21. ballista74 says:

    Or more simply put, marriage is a construct designed to control and subjugate men in order to extract the resources under his control for the benefit of the woman and the State.

  22. Mark says:

    @Dalrock

    Great post!

    “What is modern marriage for”….you ask?…..Well,that is a great question! That can have many responses. To educated guys like you,myself and the majority of posters here….I would say it is about “income redistribution… from the man to the woman”……just my opinion.It sure as hell isn’t about love,honour and devotion!

    @Okrahead

    “”the family home I still own, which I refinanced in part with the money I got when she had to give me half her retirement account, and yesterday I cashed the child support check I received from the state that they garnished from her paycheck. “”

    Your comment has brought tears to my eyes! You are a STAR! May you be a model and icon for every divorced man in your position!……….***Bows in your presence***

    Question:Your ex-wife.She is working…GOOD!….what else is she doing?….I assume that she is “shacked up” with a b/f?……just curious.

  23. ballista74 says:

    Hattip: da GBFM lzozlzozllzozlozozl

  24. Splashman says:

    @Okrahead:

    A few minutes ago I tucked my son to bed in the family home I still own, which I refinanced in part with the money I got when she had to give me half her retirement account, and yesterday I cashed the child support check I received from the state that they garnished from her paycheck.

    You must be so proud.

  25. Pingback: What is modern marriage for? | Truth and contra...

  26. This is no such thing as marriage, period. End of discussion. I don’t know why everyone thinks we have marriage. What we have now is simply a “stamp of approval” from the government.

    There is no marriage. I wish people would get that.

  27. Opus says:

    I am not so sure. If a man abandons his wife (and children) he is seen, as he always was seen, as a bastard no matter how justified he might be. If a woman abandons her husband (though not her children) she is seen, as she always was, a victim (at the least if it is her first marriage). Faulted Divorce did not prevent people from living together if they wished to do so. It is modern life which has enabled young women (for it is largely they who instigate divorce) to indulge in remarriage or as one should say re-choice after a further spin on the carousel.

    Most of the time most men are married and few marry more than thrice; there is therefore a practical limit to female re-marriage.

  28. Johnycomelately says:

    I’ve often wondered what marriage 3.0 will look like.

  29. JKL says:

    Well without reading the article, which I will do in a moment, i would have to go with No Fault Extortion (NFE).

  30. earl says:

    “In 1969, Governor Ronald Reagan of California made what he later admitted was one of the biggest mistakes of his political life. Seeking to eliminate the strife and deception often associated with the legal regime of fault-based divorce, Reagan signed the nation’s first no-fault divorce bill. The new law eliminated the need for couples to fabricate spousal wrongdoing in pursuit of a divorce; indeed, one likely reason for Reagan’s decision to sign the bill was that his first wife, Jane Wyman, had unfairly accused him of “mental cruelty” to obtain a divorce in 1948. But no-fault divorce also gutted marriage of its legal power to bind husband and wife, allowing one spouse to dissolve a marriage for any reason — or for no reason at all.”

    http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-evolution-of-divorce

  31. earl says:

    And I got to say because of no fault….Matthew 19:10 makes a lot of sense now.

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19%3A7-10&version=NASB

  32. jf12 says:

    JDG @11:45 pm
    +1

  33. jf12 says:

    The devil’s 2-step method for damnation:
    1) Erect a sham version of a truth and deceive a few people into following this supposed “alternative”.
    2) Elevate the sham version to the status of the ONLY version, and insist everyone bow down to this idol.

  34. Spike says:

    Went to a 30-year High School Reunion recently. I met the woman who I was madly in love with at the time.
    I noticed she was still calling herself by her maiden name and I enquired why.
    Spike: “I notice you’re still Delores Smith*. What happened to you”?
    Delores: “What do you mean, what happened”?
    Spike: “Did you ever marry? I’d have thought you certainly would have”.
    Delores: “I was married for eleven years. Then I got bored with him, so I divorced his arse”.
    Spike: (After estimation, regard and respect for said Delores went into immediate freefall):
    “I didn’t recall any of my marriage vows including “entertain” along with ‘honour’ and ‘cherish.'”

    Needless to say, the conversation dried up pretty quickly after that.

    *not her real name.

  35. earl says:

    “Then I got bored with him, so I divorced his arse.”

    They marry thrills.

  36. Johnycomelately says:

    I have a sneaking suspicion ‘sexual consent forms’ will be used as a Trojan horse to establish fiduciary responsibility from males, a quasi temporary Trust. Basically payments for being a boyfriend, marriage 3.0.

    I wonder how long it will take for the churches to bless sexual consent forms.

  37. Have I mentioned lately how I’ve been thanking God that I’m pretty much asexual?

  38. JDG says:

    The place of God in marriage is replaced with the State. The place of authority that the husband holds is replaced with the State, so in effect the State becomes the head of the wife

    This!

  39. JDG says:

    Both traditional marriage and modern marriage are the literal framework of feminism.

    But I must disagree with the above as written. Traditional marriage was distorted to accommodate feminism.

  40. JDG says:

    Or more simply put, marriage is a construct designed to control and subjugate men in order to extract the resources under his control for the benefit of the woman and the State.

    Marriage is a type of Christ and His church, and was designed by God to be used within a certain framework. We are not using it as God intended. Why are secular governments (who do NOT recognize that God exists in a marriage contract) regulating marriage in the first place?

    The difference between modern and traditional marriage is the man gets nothing in return for his hard work. Taxes under any system of government will extract resources from men. In this regard, only the designated uses for those taxes has changed. However with the states involvement in marriage, men are subjugated by the state. the state is using marriage, women, and children to do this.

    This was not always the case. Patriarchy has thus far proven to be the best way to utilize the strengths and weaknesses of men AND women. Marriage in a biblical patriarchal framework has worked for thousands of years, and with little or no involvement of the state.

  41. earl says:

    “Why are secular governments (who do NOT recognize that God exists in a marriage contract) regulating marriage in the first place?”

    Because men thought it was a good idea to move away from God. Someone had to fill the vacuum…and it is the state.

  42. okrahead says:

    Dalrock,
    I have never suggested other men were or are dumb or cowardly, and I am well aware my outcome is the exception rather than the rule. Too many of the comments I see, however, embrace nihilism… Either give up entirely or “enjoy the decline.” I do not believe it is arrogant to advocate instead for righteous anger and to fight back as hard as possible in every single instance. I realize that the odds are stacked heavily against men in the culture, the courts, the law and worst of all often in the church. That is why the exhortation to fight is so important, and the realization that even temporal victories are sometimes possible offers hope. Once again, I see no arrogance in encouraging other men to fight, and letting them know that victory is sometimes possible, any more than I thought you were being arrogant towards other men when you mentioned that you and your wife are still mistaken for newlyweds.

  43. theasdgamer says:

    I wonder how long until church elders say that divorce is justified if a man keeps a spread sheet.

  44. James K says:

    Marriage is a contract between a woman and the state, concerning the man as the presumed property of the state. Marriage to a man is not unlike a grant of mineral rights on a piece of land. Sometimes the best way to extract value from such a contract is to terminate it.

    250 years ago, a wife was a husband’s chattel. By treating the man as property, the state makes a husband his wife’s chattel. This is yet another way that the roles of conventional marriage have been inverted.

    Among the many ruses that the law employs to hide this arrangement is persecution not of men, but of the higher earner in a marriage.

    @Okrahead, if your wife was the higher earner then you were in a fortunate position in divorce proceedings.

  45. okrahead says:

    Regretting that I ever brought it up, but here we are…. Okay, D, you sai I’m arrogant… I will genuinely go back and do self-examination for the sin of pride. In the meantime, perhaps you could suggest what the (many) men who find themselves with a faithless wife who is determined to divorce and young children at home should do. Athol’s map? Some other form of game? We all know the problem, I am saying that if you cannot escape going to divorce court, then go all-out black knight. If you have a better suggestion I look forward to hearing it.

  46. Ann K says:

    Okra head, thank you for sharing your story. I laughed out loud at Dalrock’s presumption of arrogance. You are an inspiration!

  47. feeriker says:

    I wonder how long it will take for the churches to bless sexual consent forms.

    Since they would be government-issued forms, the answer is “immediately.” In fact, I predict the preaching of whole sermons dedicated to expounding upon how not only are they scripturally sound, but how it is every believer’s duty to joyfully complete one (or more, if Caesar demands it).

    Romans 13 and all that, don’tcha know?

  48. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dalrock
    While most will deny seeing no fault divorce as a system to punish men, nearly everyone implicitly acknowledges that no fault divorce is designed to punish men.

    It is one of many things that we are not supposed to notice, at least in public. Rather like the Victorian era women who found the word “leg” too vulgar, preferring “limb” and who would then proceed to wrap cloth around the legs…er…limbs of pianos, lest some excitable young person “notice” such a thing.

    It is ironic that the boomers, who championed free speech and “let it all hang out” have constructed a social system in which many quite obvious things simply must not be noticed.

  49. feeriker says:

    Why are secular governments (who do NOT recognize that God exists in a marriage contract) regulating marriage in the first place?

    The more important question is, why are “churches” (ALL of them, at least in Norte Amerika) not only recognizing and blessing these Godless unions, but demanding that their members obtain the State’s (i.e., the alernate/”real” god’s) permission slip before they will put the God of Abraham’s “seal of approval” on a union?

    Don’t tell me, don’t tell me … Romans 13, right?

  50. gunner451 says:

    D,
    Will have to side with okrahead in that I see no evidence of arrogance in what he wrote but rather was an attempt to provide hope where there is very little hope for most men. It would be interesting to see a survey of men that did see the firvorce coming and structured their lives to take advantage of the court system (like reducing salary below the wifes, becoming the primary caretaker, etc.) granted even with that the system is stacked against you as a man but it certainly will minimize the cash and prizes that a woman can extract from you.

  51. Dalrock says:

    @okrahead

    Regretting that I ever brought it up, but here we are…. Okay, D, you sai I’m arrogant… I will genuinely go back and do self-examination for the sin of pride. In the meantime, perhaps you could suggest what the (many) men who find themselves with a faithless wife who is determined to divorce and young children at home should do. Athol’s map? Some other form of game? We all know the problem, I am saying that if you cannot escape going to divorce court, then go all-out black knight. If you have a better suggestion I look forward to hearing it.

    I don’t have any easy answers, and if you have specific advice it is always welcome. As you may recall, I acknowledged on a recent thread that you had picked up on risks that I wasn’t in tune to, for example. In this case however the focus of the entire post is on how the system is designed to punish men. The comment of yours I quoted and replied to reset the frame to “All men have to do is fight and they will get their kids”. This simply isn’t true, although it is a favorite argument for apologists of the current system (an argument I’ve directly addressed here).

  52. okrahead says:

    I am well aware that the system is designed to punish men, I am likewise well aware that the majority of men will lose custody no matter what under the current, corrupt system. Once again, however, these are more reasons to fight with righteous anger, and to exhort other men to do likewise. The feminists who designed the system did indeed intend to punish men… But if and when we turn their own system against them a lot of women will start having second thoughts.

  53. Panzer101 says:

    My wife filed a protection order against me and called the cops to report my violating it by asking her to talk things out. I have four counts of violating the protection order pending and could still go to jail. I am paying a large percentage of my paycheck for child support to her. I got to see my kids a few weeks ago for the first time in six months. Everything that I lived and worked for my entire life, to raise a family and be a good father, has been swept away. I have tried “fighting” this corrupt institution of family court and it has gotten me nothing so far. In all likelihood my wife will maintain full custody of the children and suck me dry of money while I struggle to survive on my own and get to see my kids once every other weekend. It has been months since this whole nightmare began but I still struggle with accepting it all. I struggle mightily with depression and only choose to press on because I know my kids would want me around, but the way I’m going to be “around” is totally insufficient. I’m nothing but a paycheck and an occasional playmate to them now, rather than the male role model God intended for me to be. I have no options. Whine about my lot, wait around for it to get better, embrace the suck? I was far from a perfect husband but the vindictiveness with which my wife has acted continues to surprise me. And I still can’t believe our laws have been making this acceptable for so long and society has yet to completely explode.

  54. ballista74 says:

    JDG writes:

    Traditional marriage was distorted to accommodate feminism.

    The whole blog post as linked is a discussion on this point, so I won’t quote it again. But ask yourself this: How were the current state of affairs (e.g. modern marriage) so readily accepted? Why wasn’t “men on strike” in the 1960’s? The only logical response you can take from it is that the current state of affairs have existed before no-fault divorce, and even before the Church rendered marriage over to Caesar. So-called traditional marriage (or chivalric marriage) is what we have today, as modern marriage only effected the minor change of replacing Christ in the traditional model with the State.

    The difference between modern and traditional marriage is the man gets nothing in return for his hard work.

    Disagree – this is true in both versions. You really have to go back 150 years before you encounter a version of marriage that begins to agree with anything God has set out, and about 400 years before you find a version of marriage that fully agrees with what God has set out.

    James K writes:

    Marriage is a contract between a woman and the state, concerning the man as the presumed property of the state.

    Even better way to put it, though you could consider the man the woman’s property as well.

    feeriker writes:

    Since they would be government-issued forms, the answer is “immediately.” In fact, I predict the preaching of whole sermons dedicated to expounding upon how not only are they scripturally sound, but how it is every believer’s duty to joyfully complete one (or more, if Caesar demands it).

    Because the Church itself has been rendered over to the State (at least in the US)…501c3 and all that, don’tcha know? The answer to all government initiatives is “immediately” because of this – all the churches will soon fold faster than Superman on laundry day when it comes to performing and accepting gay marriages as “pleasing to God” for this very reason.

  55. MarcusD says:

    @Johnycomelately

    I’ve often wondered what marriage 3.0 will look like.

    Probably like this:

    One law student has a radical proposal for fixing marriage: Cut it off after four years

    http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/08/08/one-law-student-has-a-radical-proposal-for-fixing-marriage-cut-it-off-after-four-years/

  56. MarcusD says:

    @James K
    250 years ago, a wife was a husband’s chattel. By treating the man as property, the state makes a husband his wife’s chattel.

    No, the wife was the husband’s charge.

  57. BradA says:

    Okrahead, the problem I see is that you present your situation as great even though it still socks greatly for your son. That is not u our fault, but your post did indicate a “just fight” idea that is unlikely to work for most, including children.

    How are you really any different than a woman with a truly bad husband that talks about her success getting away and making him pay? Your attitude will also come out to your child. Their mother may be scum, bu tty she is their mother. I see a lot more mines around than you seem to see.

    Highlighting a snowflake situation as ideal or even generally achievable is naive and a bit presumptuous. Most men will not be Mr. Mom either, nor should they be.

  58. feeriker says:

    You really have to go back 150 years before you encounter a version of marriage that begins to agree with anything God has set out, and about 400 years before you find a version of marriage that fully agrees with what God has set out.

    And the fact that no one either recognized or fought against this slow perversion of biblical marriage serves as a testament to:

    1. Ignorance of the Scriptures on the part of the masses, and

    2. The corruption and co-opting of the clergy by secular political influences.

    Conditions on the ground have changed in that 1) there is no longer any excuse for biblical illiteracy in the modern western world, any more than there is any excuse for functional illiteracy, and 2) clergy are no longer in a position to poison the minds and souls of church(ian) congregants by having some form of temporal force to back up their position and office. Theoretically, this means that there is no practical obstacle to a return to biblical marriage. Realistically, it won’t happen because the majority won’t have it. Pretending to adhere to the scriptural precepts is easier, less painful, and demands less sacrifice than actually DOING it.

  59. galloper6 says:

    Marriage 3.0 may be polygamy enforced by personal violence. ie Most young women become defacto property of gangsters.

  60. Panzer, my prayers are with you. It sounds like another case of a good man who’s life was upended when the woman’s mask fell off and revealed the true nature underneath. Concerning the last sentence of your post – that’s just around the corner. I hope the pre-Tribulation Rapture theory is the correct one.

  61. MarcusD says:

    “If women lowered their expectations to match men’s lower economic prospects, perhaps marriage would be more common in low-income communities. But it would most likely be even less stable, and certainly less fair.”

    http://difficultrun.nathanielgivens.com/2014/08/06/family-instability-wages/

    Egalitarianism* leads to greater income disparity amongst classes.

    *Of course, we all know it’s more of a pseudo-egalitarianism.

  62. Finn McCool says:

    Off-topic: I’m a 36 year old man (never married, years between first dates) My mother wanted to be a traditional stay-at-home mother rather than develop a career, so all she has now is a small Social Security check. My parents divorced and my father quickly remarried.

    My own finances aren’t great, so after pushing her away for over 10 years, we are now sharing a 2 bedroom apartment.

    I found Dalrock’s point that when a man exercises headship over his wife it makes his mother a better mother-in-law.

    Beyond that, any suggestions on how to relate to my mother? She accuses me of being “disrespectful” and is often hurt and angry. I think I should be kind to her, but that her days of having authority over me are over.

    A specific example is that I, therefore “we”, may soon move for a job. I said that it would be OK for Mom to help look for a new apartment (she likes having something helpful to do), but that she couldn’t just dictate the decision like she would when I was a child. I told her my thoughts on what locations would be good in relationship to my new office. I noticed today that she was doing a lot of research and hand-writing results in her personal notebook. So I set up a simple spreadsheet (which is how I organized my apartment searches in the past) so that she can communicate the information in a legible, organized manner, which resulted in an angry outburst. “I’ve picked apartments and bought and sold houses without having to fill out a form.” I realize she hates computers, but I will resent paying rent on an apartment that was chosen largely without my input, and disorganized handwritten notes supplemented with disorganized “discussions” of her preferred choices are not sufficient.

    I would really prefer to just be able to get my own apartment. But I didn’t choose my family, and this is the reality of my life.

  63. Bucho says:

    “P.S. My Dad just told me of a 30 year old woman back in the US that is available. My first thought was “There is no way in hell I am going to get involved with a woman when her biological clock is a time bomb waiting to go off.” I didn’t have the heart to say the thought out loud while on the phone with my Dad.” – Frugal Nerd

    Oh the good intention our folks have! Recently, a friend of my mother’s was telling her how her grand daughter, who is 28, lives in the same city I did and was having such a difficult time finding good men to date. Skeptical, but intrigued, I got her contact info. Her well-intentioned grandmother was detailed with the contact info and I got last-name and address.

    So a quick Facebook search shows that she was recently in an LTR with a man of a different race. Then there were some posts she made on her page that threw up some more red flags. Also, the county makes it easy to look up someone’s property info. A quick search showed that this supposed ex was still on the property deed.

    I shook my head and walked away from my computer. Whatever other drama was in store, I didn’t need. Either there were some things grandma didn’t know of someone had cards they weren’t showing.

  64. Minesweeper says:

    @Okrahead “I am saying that if you cannot escape going to divorce court, then go all-out black knight”

    The problem is we can’t.

    When faced with an highly unstable hysterical ex with small child with the full backing of the church\state\police\’all your friends’ behind her. Going full commando on her ass will leave you in an even worse position. I’ve seen what happens when men engage like this in full divorce combat mode, the females will tend to take it out on the children.

    And I did well out of my divorce (in comparison to others), kept all the financial assets and still regularly see my child.

    It’s the Lords job to revenge, as he often tells us. Let’s leave this one to him.

  65. galloper6 says:

    Yep Bucko. Grand ma never knows. She will always see grand daughert as a little angel no matter what. Grand ma want some “good Man” to solve problems and rescue princess.

  66. JDG says:

    Because men thought it was a good idea to move away from God. Someone had to fill the vacuum…and it is the state.

    Nailed it. thank you Earl.

  67. JDG says:

    250 years ago, a wife was a husband’s chattel.

    Not true, at least not in North America or Great Britain. Men had authority over the families as they well should. Women were protected 250 years ago. If a man abused his wife he was likely to be whipped publicly or beaten by other men in the area.

  68. desiderian says:

    feeriker,

    “And the fact that no one either recognized or fought against this slow perversion of biblical marriage”

    Not true. Millions have fought and many still do. The virus of Modernism caused the best men to misperceive those brave defenders as outmoded (false, the principles they defend are timeless) and likewise to erroneously imagine that this was grounds to dismiss them and their arguments (the core fallacy of Modernism – see Lewis on “reasoning by the clock”).

    The women unsurprisingly followed the best men and raised their sons to do likewise.

    The best men are now post-Modern, so the disease has passed the head, but it continues to spread throughout the body.

    “2. The corruption and co-opting of the clergy by secular political influences.”

    The influence originally ran the other direction. The original sin was on the part of mainline clergy and rabbinical leadership. They have paid for that sin with profound loss of influence to the point where this seems preposterous. It is not.

    “Realistically, it won’t happen because the majority won’t have it.”

    It already is happening. It’s the reason young women insist on dominant men and so ruthlessly abuse submissive ones.

  69. theasdgamer says:

    Because men thought it was a good idea to move away from God. Someone had to fill the vacuum…and it is the state.

    Nailed it. thank you Earl.

    Sorry, I don’t think so. The statists attacked belief in God and were fairly successful because women had gained control of the churches. In church, appeals to emotion far exceeded appeals to reason long, long ago, because women favor appeals to emotion. This occurred back in the 19th century with the rise of the Sunday School movement. The Sunday School movement increased the influence of women in the church, as churches needed women to teach children. More women, more appeal to emotion, failure to answer atheists’ reasoned attacks on religion, men lose respect for the church.

  70. Minesweeper says:

    @Panzer101 – You have my full sympathies and prayers, your situation is now like an army has invaded your land, and you are subject to their powers and control, as Jesus said if they ask for your cloak give them your shirt as well, its the only way to prevent even greater abuse of you.

    Cleave to the Lord and do what he tells you, you can get through this.

    And as for those who say Rm:13, well the greek is not so clear cut as “submit to all your governments laws”, it talks about submitting to “superior” powers, does that apply if the laws are clearly inferior?

  71. Tilikum says:

    Dalrock and others….

    You CAN win (as I have) in the family court grinder as a man but it takes intense discipline.

    As my docs are public and it outlines “how to” perfectly, you think that it would be valuable to share?

  72. okrahead says:

    Minesweeper,
    I do not advocate revenge/vengeance. That does indeed belong to God. I advocate proactive self-defense, and more especially, defense of your children. Black Knighting in this context consists of finding ways to use the legal establishment and its frameworks in your favor and your children’s favor should you have to deal with an unstable wife seeking divorce. It’s “black knighting” because, in some (admittedly limited) instances it is possible to turn the system around if you pay close attention to how it works.

  73. MarcusD says:

    If a man abused his wife he was likely to be whipped publicly or beaten by other men in the area.

    And if his wife beat him, he was beaten publicly (by others), as well.

    Cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skimmington

  74. ballista74 says:

    Because men thought it was a good idea to move away from God. Someone had to fill the vacuum…and it is the state.

    Nailed it. thank you Earl.

    No, Earl chucked an airball on this one. The total degeneration of marriage began (like I said) about 150 years ago. The first sentence is correct, but in a different way. Men didn’t protest when the dynamics of marriage were changed so that the man stays away from the house working while the woman stays at home and does no work. This is the essence of what people think of as the traditional model.

    The acceptance of this role of chattel pack mule, coupled with the void of headship in the home and in the church due to his absence is what constitutes men’s “move away from God”. The State did not fill this void…the feminist church did. This absence of men not directing things before God caused the women to be in control with the limp-wristed men as pastors in their thrall, and all the time in the world to rabble rouse with the men being none the wiser. Add the political power and influence the pastors had in the US in that time, and you had a movement parallel to what we witness today secularly. Witness of the power of the feminist church can be seen in all the vice laws (prostitution, age of consent laws, alcohol prohibitions, gambling prohibitions, pornography restrictions, movie, tv and comic book ratings and the like). All done to protect the “virtue of our men” and to keep the pack mule in service (can’t have the work horse unfit for being drunk).

    The proper answer to this is that the feminist church filled that vacuum. Then in the 1920’s-1960’s with the rise of socialism in the US is when the feminist church gave way to the feminist State.

  75. ballista74 says:

    And not to mention, women’s suffrage came out of this feminist church movement.

  76. theasdgamer says:

    Ballista nailed it.

  77. David J. says:

    Panzer101: I’m grieved to hear about your situation. There are elements of my story that are parallel to yours — the out-of-proportion vindictiveness, the willingness to use the kids as weapons and leverage, the unjust tilt of the system, the expense, the depression and frustration. But, thank God, no protective order, no real prospect of jail (albeit a long-standing motion for contempt re disputed child support payments), and something approaching joint custody. As a good friend reminded me this week, “It sucks to be the only adult in the room.” But I still have to continue being the adult. I hope you can hang in there and that, down the road, the kids will see the truth about who actually loved them and who merely professed to.

  78. okrahead says:

    Dalrock,
    The barb in my post which you described as arrogant was not aimed at other men; it does indeed exist but it was aimed at my ex and her cohort. I will re-iterate, I have NEVER accused the other men in the ‘sphere of cowardice or laziness or any such other nonsense, I have a very close, front-line acquaintance with what they are going through. What I wrote earlier was an exhortation to fight, every single time.
    Now I know that the odds are worse than grim… According to Popps over at Redonkulas in divorce cases where men go all out for custody they win approximately 6% of the time; I would add that my educated guess is that most of that 6% involves cases where the ex-wife/mother has already had a few run-ins with local law enforcement prior to the divorce. So yes, the odds are horrible. So what do we do?
    Give up, give in, and hope that the court and the ex-wife will have a little mercy?
    Or fight?
    William Price/Welmer, founder of The Spearhead, decided to take the deal his ex-wife offered him rather than face court proceedings, due to exhaustion of finances and spirit. The result? Prison. (See Hawaiian Libertarian 12/30/13 for the full rundown of what happened).
    Okay, so if you don’t fight back you can lose all access to your children, be completely impoverished and thrown into prison anyway.
    I say fight. I encourage other men to fight. Every man I’ve seen who went along with his soon to be ex-wife’s demands to try and make things better regretted doing so afterwards, to a man. Yes, most of us will probably lose, at least in the immediate outcome, but that is the hand we’ve been dealt. So our next question is, how can we best play that hand to try and win? If you think this makes me arrogant so be it; but kindly refrain from accusing me of calling other men in the ‘sphere coward or any such foolishness. I have never said any such thing and that skirts right up to slander.

  79. ballista74 says:

    To add to what I wrote, most of the feminist writers of today will recognize what I described as “first-wave feminism”, which should further legitimize that feminism is a creature that does NOT have to exist with Marxism.

  80. Minesweeper says:

    @okrahead Absolutely agree with you, if that’s what Black Knighting is I’m all for it. That’s what I did.

    I was blessed in that I had 2 extremely intelligent sh*t hot high end female lawyers who knew every trick in the book that my lying ex pulled and how to counteract it (they were also very pro male and were baffled as to how this situation has ended up quite this badly – I’ve heard Judges say the same), I would always recommend female lawyers over a male, the instinctive desire of a male to protect a female will always rear its head esp when they are screaming their heads off about how badly they have been treated.

    You don’t need to worry about this with a female lawyer I can tell you. In fact I had to restrain them several times :) It takes a female to deal with one.

    I mean look at what Panzer101 is going through, a few weeks ago he was a regular joe, now he is practically on parole, one slight move in the wrong direction and he will be facing a 8 by 6 in his future. What would you suggest he does ?

  81. BrainyOne says:

    While the OP is correct that no-fault divorce is designed to punish men, that doesn’t mean men need to just sit back and take it. I disagree 100% with those posters who maintain “turning the other cheek” to be the proper attitude. Fighting against injustice is a good thing, and, may I add, a properly (at least typically) masculine thing.

  82. JDG says:

    The more important question is, why are “churches” (ALL of them, at least in Norte Amerika) not only recognizing and blessing these Godless unions, but demanding that their members obtain the State’s (i.e., the alernate/”real” god’s) permission slip before they will put the God of Abraham’s “seal of approval” on a union?

    This is a great question and one I can only partially attempt to answer. I think many genuine followers of Christ consider these unions legitimate because the couple swore an oath to God, and that oath is binding. There are of course many others who are not following Christ (in and out of churches) that will continue to go with the flow where ever the flow may lead.

    My pastor and I are having an on going discussion about this very subject. Over the course of the last few months we have exchanged ideas about marriage and I have made the same points to him that I have here on a few different threads.

    He still believes that we need the government to license people because he doesn’t see any other way to tell if people are really married. He also maintains that the government is so tied up in everything like SS and insurance, that you have to have a license to obtain benefits from or for your spouse. I think him and Brad are probably in the same place on this issue.

    My point is that the state:

    – does not recognize God in the marriage contract
    – has used the marriage license as a legal means to establish dominion over all children in the US
    – is using marriage to destroy biblical based marriage
    – is using marriage to power grab and subjugate men
    – is becoming even more hostile to everything Christian
    – is attempting to re-define and pervert the meaning of marriage in the minds of the populace
    – was not even involved in marriage prior to 1854

    and because of these things, I don’t think the state should be involved with marriage at all. Thus my pastor and I disagree on this issue, but his disagreement isn’t due to popular opinion. Nether is he one to give women a pass. You should have heard the message on mothers day. He really lowered the boom quoting stats from the CDC regarding divorce and the damage single mothers are doing to families. And his messages are in agreement with scripture, even the unpopular passages.

    Yes 1st Peter and Romans 13 does instruct us to obey the governing authorities, and yes, the government is so tied up into everything it may be impossible to untangle it. Still, we also must consider Acts 4: 19-20:

    But Peter and John answered them, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge, for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard.”

    and Acts 5:29: But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men.”

    I also under stand that the Apostles were being told to stop sharing the Gospel, which directly opposed God’s command to go forth and make disciples of all nations. But I also realize that the government has taken away man’s God given autonomy and authority in the home. The state has made it illegal for a man to keep his household in order according to God’s word.

    This is the conundrum as I see it.

    Maybe someone with more wisdom and insight can further explain or even correct if needed.

  83. okrahead says:

    In is own words, this is what happened to William Price/Welmer…
    “As is often the case, separation and divorce were a shock to me. I saw it coming out of the corner of my eye, and was resigned to it in a way, but like the typical man I was in deep denial and avoidance. When my ex finally ran off to begin her affair with the then-married man she now lives with in British Columbia together with my children, I was pretty much left prostrate. It turns out the event had been planned, and her mother was involved.”
    And:
    “She would later tell my own mother that she felt justified in this tactic, because “it was war.” ”
    This is why I noted, as in your thread on Prov Erbs, that men should approach this as a self-defense situation. Denial and avoidance are lethal when you have been targeted by a predator. His former wife’s own words indicate that she was acting as a resource predator, and that this was an assault, not a fight. She worked to isolate and then destroy him as quickly and ruthlessly as possible, and this is typical behavior of women leaving their husbands.
    My advice? Never deny what your gut is telling you. Beyond that if your wife has ever, even once, mentioned divorce or leaving prepare for it up front.
    If you are in a self-defense situation do not get caught behind the OODA loop. Do not freeze. This is what we have to learn, and telling this to other men is not arrogant, it’s a call to arms.
    What can you do?
    1) If your wife has ever given you reason to believe that she is considering a divorce or having an affair, then DISCREETLY find out who the best divorce lawyer in your area you can afford is, consult with him, and pay him a retainer. If you have the resources do this with more than one.
    2) Hire a professional investigator to determine if your wife is having an affair, and any other dirt that is out there. Women are surprisingly cavalier as to what they post on social networks, a great deal of it can make wonderful grist for the mill in court.
    3) If your wife is engaged in any illegal activity document it, give it to your attorney and get his advice, and if she moves for divorce file charges with appropriate law enforcement. This one can be tricky, that’s why you need to get legal advice, but if she’s in jail you have a leg up in court.
    4) Ask for help. Friends, family, whomever…. this is the time to call in anyone and everyone who can and will help in any way, including financially. Do not be too proud to accept the help of families and friends if you need it now; needing it later will be far worse.
    5) Prepare for the worst and pray for the best. Work as if victory hinges entirely on your efforts; pray as if it depends entirely on God.
    6) Find out what the laws and courts are like in your jurisdiction. If they are bad and you are able to move yourself and your children to a better jurisdiction, then DO SO NOW.
    7) Realize that you have been “othered” by your soon-to-be ex-wife. She has reduced your humanity in her own mind and heart to the point that she is able to use administrative violence to destroy you to obtain the resources she wants. She is at war; if you respond as a pacifist you will be destroyed.
    8) Do NOT allow her to goad you into violence or threats violence, or any other such illegal activity. I have discovered that some divorce lawyers will actually coach female clients in ways to try to get their husbands to hit them or threaten them. Never take that bait.

  84. Minesweeper says:

    @O “According to Popps over at Redonkulas in divorce cases where men go all out for custody they win approximately 6% of the time; I would add that my educated guess is that most of that 6% involves cases where the ex-wife/mother has already had a few run-ins with local law enforcement prior to the divorce. So yes, the odds are horrible. So what do we do?”

    I do not personally know of 1 father who has sole custody, the only instance I know whereby dad managed through the courts to obtain 50% joint custody of several children was due to the mother being sectioned for quite a while in a mental hospital. That’s normally what it takes ! Of course if the shoe was on the other foot, if he had spent time bouncing of padded walls, he would be lucky to seeing his kids once every 6 months at a “visitation center” under the watchful eyes of a social worker/armed guards.

    The system is not slightly biased, it’s wildly biased so far in the wrong direction it’s staggering.

    I realised early on, pick 1 or 2 things you really want to keep, let the rest go. If you fight for everything you will lose all.

  85. okrahead says:

    #3 was above, by the way, was from a relative of mine who gained full custody of his child in a VERY pro-feminist court.

  86. JDG says:

    Disagree – this is true in both versions. You really have to go back 150 years before you encounter a version of marriage that begins to agree with anything God has set out, and about 400 years before you find a version of marriage that fully agrees with what God has set out.

    I’m not sure if we disagree or not. I think marriage in the 1960s was closer to biblical marriage than what we have now, but marriage in 1850 was even closer. In 1960 and 1850 a man reaped much more of the fruits of his labor than he does now.

    If I’m still off tract, please explain.

  87. JDG says:

    And the fact that no one either recognized or fought against this slow perversion of biblical marriage serves as a testament to:

    People did fight back, but they were too few and not prominent enough (or not for very long) if they did. People lost their jobs and their reputations, but they did try. It’s not that there wasn’t a fight. There was. It’s just that almost no one even remembers. But I do.

  88. JDG says:

    Earl:
    Because men thought it was a good idea to move away from God. Someone had to fill the vacuum…and it is the state.

    theasdgamer:
    The statists attacked belief in God and were fairly successful because women had gained control of the churches.

    How is this not two sides of the same coin? The churches that had conformed to female leadership moved away from God. When the state reared it’s ugly head, the main line churches did not stand when they should have (largely due to female influence). I see no disagreement here.

  89. JDG says:

    And if his wife beat him, he was beaten publicly (by others), as well.

    Cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skimmington

    Yep, backwards on a donkey.

  90. Delores: “I was married for eleven years. Then I got bored with him, so I divorced his arse”.

    Had she been drinking? Most women are careful to use euphemisms like, “We grew apart,” instead of admitting it came down to their boredom. Points for honesty, I guess.

  91. bluedog says:

    re: @Minesweeper, August 10, 2014 at 2:40 pm, who quotes:

    “’According to Popps over at Redonkulas in divorce cases where men go all out for custody they win approximately 6% of the time; I would add that my educated guess is that most of that 6% involves cases where the ex-wife/mother has already had a few run-ins with local law enforcement prior to the divorce. So yes, the odds are horrible. So what do we do’?”

    …then writes:

    “I do not personally know of 1 father who has sole custody, the only instance I know whereby dad managed through the courts to obtain 50% joint custody of several children was due to the mother being sectioned for quite a while in a mental hospital.”

    Exact titles of legal framework vary by state but on a conceptual basis it usually works out like this:

    A) Sole legal custody, Sole physical custody
    B) Sole legal custody with visitation by the parenting “partner”
    C) Joint legal custody, Primary physical custody
    D) Joint legal custody, Equally shared physical custody

    So – with that as breakdown – here’s how it plays out:

    A) Almost never occurs in contested cases – we are talking here cases where baby-momma doesn’t even want to disclose who baby-daddy is – baby-daddy may not even know he’s a baby daddy – otherwise in any kind of contest this is usually granted in cases where one parent is a genuine threat to her or his children – and in those cases – I don’t think parties commenting on Dalrock are going to have much issue with the jurisprudence

    B) Used to be the rule – doesn’t happen as often any more – though as far as I know there are states where this remains a common default ruling … such states should understand themselves as backwards and almost hopelessly archaic … for that to still be on the books is a black mark on the reputation of any state

    C) This is basically the Holy Grail … for purposes of just knowing what we are talking about … this is really what is being contested, when anything is being contested.

    As a parent and divorce, two things: (1) my ex-wife did EVERYTHING … everything we talk about here. She lied to the court to try to make the court think I’d left the marital residence. The court discovered this was a lie and did not sanction her. She lied to the authorities and falsely accused me of heinous crimes. This evoked the full force of law – the police, child protective services, you name it …. all of it … she was found to not only be lying, but likely covering something up.

    As bad as that is:

    Even if I could, I would still not take LEGAL custody from her. I would still share legal custody with her.
    All I want is: shared legal custody, and primary physical custody.

    Why wouldn’t I take that from her?

    For the same reasons Dalrock argues all over this site that the entire divorce system is so broken.

    To take legal custody from her – is to take her children away. That is the most horrid, awful sanction imaginable. And I think it is criminal that we do this to men all the time, and we have convinced ourselves that it is moral and decent to do so.

    It is immoral, and indecent. People make mistakes. Men make mistakes. My ex, made mistakes. I still am not going to take her children away.

    But … for the love of all things holy … a remotely just family court system should be able to look at a case like mine or other fathers in similar straights, and see that we clearly should be granted primary physical custody of our children.

    The fact that that …is even controversial, that a powerful constituency exists resisting us on this very, very basic, simple, ethical premise … that is what tells you that something is woefully wrong.

  92. lozozlo says:

    @ballista74

    Great posts sir – there are only a few of us who see these truths (i.e. tradconism and what nearly everyone calls ‘traditional values’ or ‘the good ol’ 1950s’ is nothing more than just first-wave feminism).

  93. lozozlo says:

    The difference between a tradfem and a radfem is just a single letter – the tradfem puts a ‘t’ which *looks like* a cross in front of his name whereas the radfem has simply done away with the religious trappings, but is at the core more or less the same.

  94. Grand ma never knows.

    Or, Grandma knows very well what a mess Granddaughter is, and that’s why she’s trying to find a good man to straighten her out — preferably one from out of town who won’t hear about her through local connections. And in Grandma’s time, when a man could take a firm hand with a wild girl, that might even have worked.

  95. JDG says:

    Men didn’t protest when the dynamics of marriage were changed so that the man stays away from the house working while the woman stays at home and does no work. This is the essence of what people think of as the traditional model.

    Yes I think I understand the disconnect here. I think of traditional marriage as any marriage where the husband is the authority in the home and the wife’s primary function is to help her husband and take care of his children. This almost always revolves around the home, the shop, the farm or what have you. His role is patriarchal father and provider, her role is domestic centered helpmate.

    The acceptance of this role of chattel pack mule, coupled with the void of headship in the home and in the church due to his absence is what constitutes men’s “move away from God”. The State did not fill this void…the feminist church did.

    I’ll agree this accounts for some of it, but not all. The chattel pack mule role was probably out of necessity to feed their families. The men still had legal authority in the home at that time did they not? As I understand it, when our gyno-centered state began passing laws in the 70s through the 90s men began to lose their autonomy and authority. How is that not the state filling the void?

    Witness of the power of the feminist church can be seen in all the vice laws (prostitution, age of consent laws, alcohol prohibitions, gambling prohibitions, pornography restrictions, movie, tv and comic book ratings and the like)

    Some of these laws would be common sense in a righteous society. Others not so much. I’m not so sure some of these these were merely feminine endeavors. Why would a bible believing populace want unrestricted pornography or prostitution? And if they were no longer Bible believing, then did they not move away from God?

    I do agree that, alcohol, gambling, and age of consent restrictions were beyond the scope, and I believe prohibition in the 1930s was female driven. I don’t see where the Bible claims that alcohol and gambling are wicked. It’s the abuse of these things that are wicked. Also, age of consent is just another foot of the state in the door of your household.

  96. JDG says:

    The proper answer to this is that the feminist church filled that vacuum. Then in the 1920’s-1960’s with the rise of socialism in the US is when the feminist church gave way to the feminist State.

    I must be blind, because I don’t see how we disagree on this.

  97. Mark says:

    @Earl

    “”Because men thought it was a good idea to move away from God. Someone had to fill the vacuum…and it is the state.””

    You are correct.Removing the Ten Commandments & Bible Reading from schools has been the biggest downfall(I believe) for the USA.Statistics in every area of education prove this.Remember this c***?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madalyn_Murray_O%27Hair

  98. JDG says:

    what nearly everyone calls ‘traditional values’ or ‘the good ol’ 1950s’ is nothing more than just first-wave feminism).

    Actually first wave feminism started prior to 1878, but men still had authority and some autonomy in the home until after the middle of the 20th century.

    I posted this (and more) recently on another blog, but it may fit well here as well.

    Feminism was built on lies from it’s inception. From suffrage to VAWA the very purpose of feminism has been to give special privileges to women by discriminating against men.

    Women as a group never had it worse than men as a group anywhere or anytime. Yet this deceptive ideology has been used to retell history from a fictional vantage point where men (as a group) oppressed women (as a group) when in fact the truth is that women (even women slaves) have always been a protected class.

    Feminists are parasites because feminism is a parasitical ideology that survives by implementing the following:

    a) perpetuating for as long as possible the false narratives it has produced,
    b) continuing to produce more false narratives,
    c) indoctrinating clueless cohorts through academia and mainstream media,
    d) silencing opposition through shaming tactics and intimidation,
    d) influencing government policy to pass laws that effectively retain and add female privilege in society while reducing female responsibilities to that society,
    and
    e) acquiring undeserved revenue from tax payers through government intervention.

    Feminism has made possible abortion on demand (the murder of babies in their mother’s womb), 50% divorce rates, and 40% out of wedlock birth rates. Feminism has influenced law makers to pass laws that destroy families, turn marriage into a sham, and remove fathers from their homes. Children that grow up without fathers are more likely to go to prison, use drugs, sell their bodies for money, and commit suicide.

    Standards are lowered and quotas are met to accommodate the whims of women, and instead of submitting to a loving husband, women submit to someone else at the office, hospital, or where ever.

    What feminists often refer to refer as “a system of slavery and oppression” was a lynch pin for a once strong and stable society. That strength and stability is gone now, and all that remains is a feeble semblance of our former selves.

  99. greyghost says:

    For those in the divorce throws a link on an idea

    http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2014/04/24/how-to-win-at-divorce/

    okrahead
    Don’t sweat it too much man you just lucked out. A guy I worked with had his wife take off and leave him with the kids(3) . Youngest 3 or 4 I’m jealous of hell of that guy. Knowing what I know now I wouldn’t even think of marrying. I would be checking out surrogates and a whole different way of living in general.
    I had a very interesting conversation with a man at work about his son working in the oil industry. It is common knowledge even outside of the manosphere that a pregnancy is the end of a mans life. Especially in the oil business do to the highly paid non professional niche income. It is a young mans game with a guy at 24 to 26 maybe earning 120k plus. CS will be set on that income base and that industry cannot maintain that income level for 20 plus years. In fact they deliberately don’t hire men with girl friends or kids. He spoke of a guy that is in the 30k month income CS racket. He is finished the lawyers and the x won’t let it end. (gandarusa would sell big in those circles)

  100. greyghost says:

    Feminism is the results of men trying to please women plain and simple the same sin over and over again. (I was bored so I divorced his ass) nice guys finish last and nice civilizations die slow death. Good thing I’m a gun owner.

  101. JDG says:

    And not to mention, women’s suffrage came out of this feminist church movement.

    I missed this earlier. This may very well be the case. Many church going women were proponents of suffrage and many church going women were opponents of suffrage. The fact is that most people in the US went to church back then. The original founders of suffrage were well to do married women with lots of spare time.

    Still I am ashamed to say that the men should have squashed this thing from the beginning and they didn’t. In fact, if it wasn’t for support from men in well to do positions, I think that suffrage may not have gotten off of the ground.

    Some one on another blog told me that if we were to somehow take away women’s voting privileges, men would give it right back to them. Was he wrong?

  102. greyghost says:

    Even today the guy that pleases pussy makes the payment on the guy that tingles and fucks the pussy.

  103. JDG says:

    greyghost says:
    August 10, 2014 at 4:16 pm

    I didn’t see you post until just now. I agree, men gave women everything they have.

    Men want to please women. Yet women will claim that the ‘fought’ for it. Nope. Men gave it to them.

    Who are the bigger fools, the women that want destructive policies, or the men that give these women what they want?

  104. Pro-Truth says:

    “Feminism was built on lies from it’s inception. From suffrage to VAWA the very purpose of feminism has been to give special privileges to women by discriminating against men.”

    This is exactly why I despise “egalitarians”, (The agnostics of the gender debate.) they usually agree that current feminazism is completely ridiculous, but then say crap like how the original ideals of feminism had it right and that gender roles are social constructs. It’s like they can’t accept the fact that men and women are fundamentally different, in a way that the one completes the other.

    11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

    12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

    The whole concept of striving for “equality” is bunk, since none of us are equal. Not to mention that equality is a mathematical term.

  105. MarcusD says:

  106. Douglas7 says:

    Another issue is how mothers will poison their children against the father. I fought in court for eight years to get visitation rights to see my daughter. Altogether, thirteen judges heard the case. All the judges ruled in my favor; several were scathing in their comments about the obvious wasting of the court’s time (by the mother). Yet in the end it was all for little, because my daughter was so poisoned against me that she does not even want to see me.

    The worst part is not that I do not get to see my daughter, nor that my daughter does not get to see me; rather, the worst part is that my daughter is being raised by someone who has so little caring. I had not imagined that the mother of my daughter would be like that.

  107. feeriker says:

    Had she been drinking? Most women are careful to use euphemisms like, “We grew apart,” instead of admitting it came down to their boredom. Points for honesty, I guess.

    Either way, the man she frivorced is lucky to be rid of her. Blessings come in many forms, some not at all obvious.

  108. JDG says:

    Feminism, as practiced and preached, is the greatest representative of a Puritan mindset in the 21st cntry. No modern Christian comes close.

    Yikes!

    Current state of Swedish politics (election soon): “Our party is more feminist then yours!”. So… everything is as you would expect.

    At least they’re honest about it. Here we don’t even acknowledge that both major and most minor parties are feminist.

  109. feeriker says:

    Some one on another blog told me that if we were to somehow take away women’s voting privileges, men would give it right back to them. Was he wrong?

    Alas, probably not. Voting, one of the most toxic practices ever thought up by human “civilization” is something of an opiate in the minds of the people, of all classes, even more so than the religion Marx accused. Given the stranglehold the myth of its power has on people, there is no question that massive numbers of men would white knight to ensure that women retain this “hard-fought” “right.”

  110. desiderian says:

    “Feminism, as practiced and preached, is the greatest representative of a Puritan mindset in the 21st cntry. No modern Christian comes close.”

    The sexual assault (sic) hysteria on college campuses is very similar to the Salem witch trials.

  111. desiderian says:

    “Or, Grandma knows very well what a mess Granddaughter is, and that’s why she’s trying to find a good man to straighten her out — preferably one from out of town who won’t hear about her through local connections. And in Grandma’s time, when a man could take a firm hand with a wild girl, that might even have worked.”

    As usual, Cail has it nailed.

    It’ll still work if he actually does have a firm hand and/or she’s hit the wall.

  112. Robert What? says:

    As a married guy in his late 50s, I can tell you exactly what modern American marriage is for: to be a “battery” (in the Matrix sense) to a woman and the government for the rest of his life.

  113. Anonymous says:

    Somewhat off-topic, but…

    Evolution of conservative (K-strategy) and liberal (r-strategy) worldviews in politics: http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/2081273

    Bill Whittle explains in video commenting on book described in article:

  114. Bucho says:

    “And in Grandma’s time, when a man could take a firm hand with a wild girl, that might even have worked.” – Cail Corishev

    That’s true. Although, I think during Grandma’s time there were far less women living the wayward life than there are now.

    And we all know what the “not being able to find good men” really means….

  115. A simple and powerful declarative post.

    Scroll down from the linked comment and find this:

    If my husband spanked me and pulled my hair during sex I’d probably orgasm faster and more than once.

  116. theasdgamer says:

    @ empathologism

    I’ve heard that pulling hair and biting the back of neck works for some during foreplay. A woman might have a bias against spanking and it might not work during foreplay. Maybe spanking after entry? Timing might be important.

    You might try grabbing the shoulders from behind, too. Maybe in spoon?

  117. Pingback: Worth it? | Empathologism

  118. JDG says:

    And in Grandma’s time, when a man could take a firm hand with a wild girl, that might even have worked.

    Some grandmas don’t even remember the wisdom of of yesteryear.

    http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/03/11/are-women-done-with-men-after-age-55/#comment-131046

    Some grandmas probably never learned it to begin with.

    http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/03/11/are-women-done-with-men-after-age-55/#comment-118274

    http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/03/11/are-women-done-with-men-after-age-55/#comment-121217

    I am using the term grandma in very liberal manner.

  119. Snowy says:

    Pro-Truth: http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/08/09/what-is-modern-marriage-for/#comment-135748

    “The whole concept of striving for “equality” is bunk, since none of us are equal. Not to mention that equality is a mathematical term.”

    Actually, we are all equal in being image-bearers of God; that is the one and only true equality among all God-created human beings, mathematically or otherwise. The equality/egalitarianism espoused by feminists and their ilk is a twisted distortion of our true equality. We are equal in the image of God, yet different/unique; just as the members of the Holy Trinity are equal yet different/unique. Can you wrap your mind around that?

  120. elovesc34 says:

    I agree with Dick the butcher, “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.”

  121. Boxer says:

    I think this article cuts right to the truth of the historical imperative of the last forty years. Marriage is no longer seen as an institution of its own, but as a part of a new institutional process, which includes divorce and forcible collection of money from the victim.

    Unfortunately, the only way to make sure you win at this game is to refuse to play. They can still hit you for child support, of course, but I’ve never seen the sort of absolute devastation that my divorced bros commonly enjoy: living with relatives at 45 years old, while killing themselves to pay the bills on a large house that the ex wife invites her new sex partners over to, while not working.

  122. greyghost says:

    Well Dalrock you have finally done it. You have come to the finale article and have now gone from Christian married man to married Christian MGTOW. I will say in all sincerity that you are a man of strong faith. You are a family man speaking the truth and the truth says MGTOW to every man that uses pure common sense and logic.
    I wonder what feminist women that read this blog think of these conversations. They must be celebrating the stories of the new commenters on their divorces.

  123. I also wanted to add that I clicked on the ‘religious leaders’ link that Dal posted in the OP, and I found myself groaning at the quotes from Al Mohler. The SBC struck me as a “men’s men” denomination. What the hell has his wife done to him?

  124. jf12 says:

    @empath, here’s one that’s agreed with by 5486% more women:

    http://www.scarymommy.com/confessions/33123/

    “I’d rather have a back rub than sex”

  125. bluedog says:

    I’ve quoted it before but seems like it is appropos again, writing about Eric Voegelin in the American Conservative, Gene Callahan recalled this:

    “While it is true that Voegelin resisted being assigned to any ideological pigeonhole, there are important aspects of his thought that are conservative in nature. He rejected the notion, sometimes present in romantic conservatism, that the solution to our present troubles can lie in the recreation of some past state of affairs: he was too keenly aware that history moves ever onward, and the past is irretrievably behind us, to fall prey to what we might call ‘nostalgic utopianism.’ Nevertheless, he held that our traditions must be studied closely and adequately understood because, while it is nonsensical to try to duplicate the past, still it is only by understanding the insights achieved by our forebears that we can move forward with any hope of a happy outcome.”

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/know-your-gnostics/

  126. JDG says:

    I found myself groaning at the quotes from Al Mohler. The SBC struck me as a “men’s men” denomination.

    I thought the same thing. They destroyed the feminism take over in the seminaries and even in the denomination as a whole, yet when it comes to male female relationships they can’t see the facts staring them right in the face. I don’t get it either.

  127. theasdgamer says:

    @ empathy

    I also wonder why the women thought that way? Empirical observation?

  128. Buck says:

    This truly depresses me, because I respect the institution of marriage, but alas I must admit, I NEVER encourage shack up or marriage with any of my single guy friends.
    I’m married over 20 years and Mrs Buck is not a bad deal, all things considered, but I fully understand that it could explode tomorrow and I have absolutely no control over this!
    I’ve read the guys who talk about “married game” and “dread” et al, but the facts on the ground are you, as a guy, have NO control over her fickle emotions or decisions.
    I pray for continued success in my marriage, I hope for the best, things seem to being going ok, but I have no real assurance of a lasting “deal” with her; are HOPE and Prayer really a foundation?
    I crossed the Rubicon, I took the big leap and for me it has been ok…bully for me…for now.
    But in retrospect, I have to look in the mirror and admit to the facts; I am a prisoner of my choice, I live with the constant threat of bankruptcy and prison on the whim of a genetically unstable being…woman…and I did this to myself.
    That said I must be a responsible mentor to the guys following in my wake…DO NOT MARRY!!!!
    Young men, PLEASE, learn from me, do not emulate me!
    Keep your freedom!

  129. tz2026 says:

    “However, punishing men who make their wives unhappy is exactly what no fault divorce is designed to do, ”

    A subtle but serious error. A closer rendering is punish husbands who fail to make their wives exstatic – happy in living out a pre-1960 fairytale movie even when they live in a castle and he does everything she wants but it still isn’t enough.

    Female virtues are Maleficient vices.

  130. greyghost says:

    Buck you get it. I have participated with this blog from the beginning and slowly but surely all men need to understand what you have spoke and speak out loud with words and action the truth . It is by law with nothing a man can do about it. It is all a lie. Dalrock will never come out and say so but he will never lie and as men are immersed in the truth of reality they realize that there is no marriage .

  131. Johnycomelately says:

    What will marriage 3.0 look like? Seems like it’s already down the pipeline, temporary marriages.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/29/us-mexico-marriage-idUSTRE78S6TX20110929

  132. JDG says:

    Buck I have seen God work miracles where none were expected, and people not delivered when I’d hoped He would. Through it all, the folks who really trusted him got through it and were better for it. Some people suffer immensely, yet God comforts them and works wonders in their lives, shaping and molding them through it all.

    Like you, I pray often for my families safety and protection in this perverted, disgusting, and ungodly culture we have found ourselves in. I know it’s not a guarantee that things will go as I want them to, but I also know that God will sustain me through what ever I must endure. That’s where hope and prayer come in to play, and the foundation is Jesus.

  133. embracing reality says:

    For a woman honorable marriage genuinely exists as long as;

    (a) A wife ignores her base impulses of selfishness, hypergamy, lusts and instead chooses, for whatever reasons, to honor her vows.

    For a man honorable marriage genuinely exists as long as;

    b) (see (a)

    Buck says;
    “But in retrospect, I have to look in the mirror and admit to the facts; I am a prisoner of my choice, I live with the constant threat of bankruptcy and prison on the whim of a genetically unstable being…woman…and I did this to myself.
    That said I must be a responsible mentor to the guys following in my wake…DO NOT MARRY!!!!
    Young men, PLEASE, learn from me, do not emulate me!
    Keep your freedom!”

    Buck, THANK YOU!

    And thanks to all the men like you who have warned single men like me for decades. It’s sincerely appreciated.

    For those who choose to trust and marry a woman armed only with your best ‘game’ and your best evaluation of her potential future behavior in spite of the odds and the grotesque imbalance of legal power in her favor, I truly hope you win. You gamblers have nerves of steel.

  134. Pro-Truth says:

    Snowy: http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/08/09/what-is-modern-marriage-for/#comment-135771

    “Actually, we are all equal in being image-bearers of God; that is the one and only true equality among all God-created human beings, mathematically or otherwise. The equality/egalitarianism espoused by feminists and their ilk is a twisted distortion of our true equality. We are equal in the image of God, yet different/unique; just as the members of the Holy Trinity are equal yet different/unique. Can you wrap your mind around that?”

    Ooooh, I like the Trinity example. Diffrent/unique, but very much equal.

    I neglected to mention this part, in which I completely agree. The lie of feminist/egalitarian “equality” is two-fold. First, that equality must be accomplished by eradicating any differences, and the second, implicit lie that we aren’t already equal.

    Notice this version of “equality” is surprisingly absent when talking about things like race. If you try and apply this logic to race, it is racially insensitive, if not outright racist.


  135. Pro-Truth says:

    Hm, it embeds with both. Now I know.

  136. Mark says:

    @Embracing Reality

    “”And thanks to all the men like you who have warned single men like me for decades. It’s sincerely appreciated.””

    Ditto for me! Older men that I knew when I was around 18 to 23 confided to me the realities of getting married.I am so glad that I listened to them.15 years ago when people would ask my father “why aren’t your 2 sons married?”…his reply would be..”I don’t know what the hell is wrong with them”….Today when he is asked the same question.His reply is …”because they are damn smart!!!”

    On another note.For all my poster friends here.From the best info that I can get.The stock markets are going to be crashing once again in 30 to 90 days.The global economy is hanging by a thread.This time it will be 3 times worse than 2008/09.No big deal.As long as you cover your assets.This is the time to make MONEY! Precious metals will spike again.Gold will easily go over $3500 an once….may to $5000. A few other goodies for you guys..Green and Hill Industries’ (GHIL)….the “Coca-Cola” of Pot Stocks! I am expecting a 3000% return on my investment. Medbox, Inc. (MDBX) I bought at $2.50 Aug. 3, 2012. It is now over $21 That’s a 768% rise in less than 24 months. GW Pharmaceuticals plc (GWPH). I bought at $8.98 on May 1, 2013,it is now $106 as of August 4, 2014. That’s a 1080% surge! I am assembling an equity fund of fellow “Raiders” as I post.Will keep you all posted.I just want to see you guys protect yourselves….and prosper!…….Shalom!

    Sorry for the “off topic” subject Dalrock!

  137. Tam the Bam says:

    “For all my poster friends here.From the best info that I can get.The stock markets are going to be crashing once again in 30 to 90 days.The global economy is hanging by a thread.This time it will be 3 times worse than 2008/09.”
    Aha! Busted. You are Marc Faber and I claim my £5-00. :¬¦p

  138. Isa says:

    @Panzer101
    From the experience of my husband, you have to let them go. I know that sounds horrible and unChristian (which it of course is), but there is nothing you can do. My husband also had his ex get a restraining order, call the police multiple times reporting non-existent abuse, report harassment when appearing at predesignated pickup spots etc. He was even charged with a DUI without evidence, which the court conveniently “lost all records to” (the police officer was her lover during their marriage) but then found once he was to start a new job so they could jail him over “missing his court date.” All this was while she was extorting thousands of extra dollars each time he did see the children which she was using to finance vacations for her and her new boyfriend (such a sexy man in uniform too!). While her children were wearing clothes and shoes 2 sizes too small.

    At the end of the day, she disappeared so deeply even our private detective cannot trace her, and he hasn’t seen his children in 5 years or spoken to them in 2. The only bright spot is that he no longer has to pay child support and is instead saving the money to be used for job training, weddings, etc. once they are of age rather than wasted on her lifestyle.

    As he says, he can do nothing. If they decide to contact him once they are older and out of their mother’s house, they can. He can also try to find them then as well, but until then… he has to consider them lost. Unless he wants to be locked up and unable to provide anything for them ever.

    This is, of course, a pessimistic worst case scenario, but as it can happen, best to inure yourself to the possibility that it can happen. I truly pray that you don’t also suffer as he has suffered.

  139. Isa says:

    @Bluedog
    What policy initiatives would be useful in balancing the books? I know the Belgians have legislation presuming shared physical and legal custody as does Sweden. Perhaps simply saying that only those who file for cause can get primary physical custody while in discretionary cases it goes to the party who didn’t file? So alcoholic Tim gets option B but too nice guy Tim gets option C? Sweden also only has alimony in extreme cases (I would say permanent disability such as MS) or for the length of career retraining (that could be limited to 4 years). This arrangement *may* be palatable to some western governments as it seems feminist enough to me to pass scrutiny, but I’m not sure…

  140. Snowy says:

    Re: Buck, JDG, and greyghost above:

    Matthew 10:26 KJV
    [26] Fear them not therefore: for there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known.

    Matthew 11:25 KJV
    [25] At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.

    Yes, many thanks, Dalrock.

  141. greyghost says:

    Remo has it right on this one. Notice how the muslims get to play their own game in western countries. they are allowed sharia courts and the like. In Scandinavia the crime and rape stats are high as report often from Sweden and it is taboo to even report on it. Just has the Hispanic immigrant stuff goes unreported in the US among other things. Muslims kick ass period. They murder and destroy. They are also willing to live with western luxury.
    There are two paths for Christian men to talk. Make do with what the system has and play house. And that involves pretty much what is discussed here. Or full on churchian supplication, prettey much the system and society we have now with the manginas, white knights and ignorance of the blue pill.
    The other path is actively doing what it takes to destroy the system. Even if it just means not paying into it. MGTOW,PUA, and actively punishing women by encouraging feminism. I have met some young women and don’t like them For them I follow the churchian’s lead and fully encourage feminism empowerment of waiting to get married, taking out loans to pay for college, riding the cock carousel ( sold as getting experience and masked with the don’t do anything that doesn’t feel right, let romance and love be your guide) I have even advised one female that if she felt the need to physically hit her boyfriend to go ahead he won’t do anything.
    My advice to every young man is do not marry and do not let any female come up pregnant or your life is over. Never ever let a woman hit you and not have her be physically and emotionally traumatized for trying that. Nothing you do for a woman means a damn thing so don’t. She can’t and won’t and doesn’t have to respect it. Commitment of any kind is a deed that will not go unpunished never ever forget that. The young men already know or have a feeling most of the time. My daughters are in big trouble if they follow the feminine imperative the young men today may not play.

  142. earl says:

    Grandma always knows…if she frequently talks to her children about their children grandma mostly knows about the ins and outs of them. Grandma is well intentioned in trying to straighten out their life…but she can’t cover up their own sins and failings.

    I know this from my experience. Plus my own mother finds out the dirty laundry about my cousins from my grandmother.

  143. earl says:

    I could see it as two sides of the same coin.

    Men move away from God in the churches…females take over.

    State starts to grow in power because men became weaker by removing God. Females run to the stronger power.

    Hate to say it but when men grow weaker…women will attack like that. Both genders are at fault for not doing their job. Men can’t be lazy and content or else women will usurp authority.

  144. HawkandRock says:

    @Okrahead
    “…in some (admittedly limited) instances it is possible to turn the system around if you pay close attention to how it works.”

    Implicit in this rather solipsistic statement is the idea that those guys who were destroyed by divorce (like me, e.g.) are to blame because they didn’t pay close attention to how the system works. This is simply not true.

    You are an exception to the general rule because you were the primary care giver to a young child and made significantly less than your wife. Indeed, your example is such a comparatively inconsequential exception, that it is a genuine disservice to describe it here as some kind of actual possibility for men in general (if they only “pay close attention).

    I’m happy for your particular circumstance — i.e., that you didn’t lose 80% of everything you spent a life working towards. Just be thankful for it and stop acting like you accomplished something through skill and fortitude that was really just lucky circumstances.

  145. HawkandRock says:

    @Remo,

    “What’s the answer, the REAL answer for those of us who don’t happen to win the powerball mega millions as you have done? Leave the country (my choice and you lose everything but aren’t a slave at least) or start killing until you yourself are dead and hope tens of thousands join you after your fine example. Those are the options for the regular masses.”

    Leaving the country is a legitimate option. However, they’re (the state) are the one’s who suck. Why should I have to leave?

    Your second option is neither morally legitimate nor at all likely to be successful. You cannot hope to defeat Caesar using the means of Caesar (i.e., violence).

    There is no question that this current system does not deserve to survive (and indeed, it cannot and will not). There is no question that self-defense and defense of our families justifies making making war on this system but it must be a war of ideas.

    “You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
    To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”
    ― R. Buckminster Fuller

    This is what must be done with respect to family law. I have been thinking seriously about it from this perspective for awhile but I have no solutions worth sharing at this time.

  146. JDG says:

    This is what must be done with respect to family law. I have been thinking seriously about it from this perspective for awhile but I have no solutions worth sharing at this time.

    Sometimes a work around is necessary until a solution can be applied.

    1) Vet very carefully and prayerfully.

    2) Expat to a saner country.

    3) MGTOW

  147. hurting says:

    Panzer101 says:
    August 10, 2014 at 11:14 am

    Hang in there, bro’. Haven’t read all of the comments, yet, so I don’t know where you are in the process, but know that others are sympathetic to your cause. Do not give up faith as your children need you.

    Know that the system to which you are being subjected is devoid of any semblance of fairness or due process as a reasonable and rational person would understand it. Try not to waste your energy on the patent injustice (at least for now). Get the best outcome you can for you and yours, cognizant of the fact that whatever that may be it will not be ‘good’ in any objective sense, just less worse than others.

  148. hurting says:

    Minesweeper says:
    August 10, 2014 at 1:13 pm

    I seriously question the ‘black knight’ strategy as a tool for divorce on a number of practical grounds, most notably that a divorce petitioner will typically seek to estop the other party from effectuating that strategy via a series of fairly standard restraining orders that will prevent access to or disposition of the assets necessary to pull it off.

    A lot of big talkers here and on other manosphere sites proclaim, often from ignorance, how they would burn up the assets in the divorce to spite the woman. The problem is, the judge is not going to let you do that.

    Good for okrahead, but his situation is truly an outlier. The real question is whether it is admirable to pursue a high risk strategy (black knight) in service to societal goals? Most men faced with the perversion of justice that is domestic relations law will seel out the best outcome for their children – even if so doing perpuates the overall injustice. Yes, a few more thoroughly impoverished and perhaps imprisoned fathers would MAYBE better illustrate the problems to the public, but what of their children?

  149. “It is worth noting that while no fault divorce is undeniably designed to be used to punish men, it is not designed to determine if the man in question is in fact guilty . . . Of course in theory women could find themselves being the ones punished, but only in the very rare cases where a woman has taken on the traditional male role of primary breadwinner.”

    I dunno what forces drove the creation of no-fault divorce; haven’t researched it. It makes sense that 2nd wave feminists pushed it, but even so it is not just the primary breadwinner that gets punished.

    The traditional housewife may have been no-fault’s original victim. If the husband has a desirable career/status and access to younger women, it can be too much of a temptation. Maybe that was part of the point–punishing women who would otherwise remain on the “plantation” of the patriarchy.

    After a few decades, our culture fully absorbed the following lesson: as a woman, if you devote your life to domesticity, you risk losing your best years and your job skills/market value, and then get dumped just when the gray hairs start appearing.

    I don’t doubt that men are the primary victims of no-fault divorce today. The pendulum has swung. There are still throwbacks around, though–traditional women who devote themselves for a decade or more, only to be ditched.

    Either way–the man or the woman being punished–is only part of the equation. No-fault divorce was designed to destroy the whole family.

    Cheers,
    Lin

  150. hurting says:

    greyghost says:
    August 11, 2014 at 10:06 am

    My point is that you may very well likely not be able to ‘burn up the assets’. Some of them are going to be non-liquid and/or protected from misfeasance (e.g., retirement accounts would likely require her signature on liquidation), and the judge is always going to have the power to undo your attempts, even if initially successful.

    And who suffers from the strategy? Your children.

  151. HawkandRock says:

    @ hurting,

    “Yes, a few more thoroughly impoverished and perhaps imprisoned fathers would MAYBE better illustrate the problems to the public, but what of their children?”

    The system is brilliant at using your sense of responsibility and what you love against you in order to control you, and that is precisely how we can know that this system is evil.
    Rather than relying on your assent to moral judgment about right and wrong, the state threatens to harm or take away what you love to secure compliance with its illegitimate laws.

    Does a system use your best instincts and what you love — what is best in you — to extort from you or to enslave you? Then it is an evil system.

  152. hurting says:

    HawkandRock says:
    August 11, 2014 at 8:06 am

    The only hope is to get the Church (of all stripes and denominations) to start marrying people outside of the entanglements of the civil sanctioning process. There is no hope, EVER, of getting the state to support the notions of sacramental marriage. Except in states that still recognize common law marriages, a good many of the dangers of civil marriage can be avoided by remaining legally unmarried. Of course, the care of custody of children will always be an issue, hence confiscatory child support will always be at issue.

  153. hurting says:

    nooneofanyimport says:
    August 11, 2014 at 10:07 am

    No fault divorce emanated from a shift in the zeitgeist that held that people with troubled marriages (troubled defined very broadly) whould not be forced to lie in the beds they made. The purveyors, I suppose, really believed in the idea of the ‘good divorce’, even where children are concerned, and were troubled by the perjury people were committing to get fault-based divorces and the costs to society of same. I suspect that there were some true believers really hell-bent on destroying the fundamental building block of western civilization, but it was the useful idiot crowd who really propelled it.

    The fundamental problem with no-fault divorce is the residue of compensatory damages, the most notable being alimony, in circumstances where no breach of contract has occurred, or has even been alleged. Most people who haven’t been through the wringer know that, essentially anyone who does not want to be married, will be able to obtain a divorce. What they do not know (or do not find objectionable if they know), is that generally speaking and ceteris parabus, the defendant of a divorce will realize the same consequences (e.g., custody, distribution of assets and debts, alimony) regardless of his/her ‘guilt’ in causing the demise of the marriage. It is ‘big pockets’ jusriprudence writ local.

  154. TFH says:

    HawkandRock,

    The system is brilliant at using your sense of responsibility and what you love against you in order to control you, and that is precisely how we can know that this system is evil.

    It also exposes the myth that mothers care about children as much as fathers do.

    It also exposes that paternal grandmothers, who themselves are losing access to their own grandchildren (her son’s kids) to the daughter-in-law, don’t care enough about it to oppose ‘default daughter-in-law custody’.

    Many things about women are exposed by this tyrannical regime of laws, none of them good.

  155. greyghost says:

    And who suffers from the strategy? Your children

    Abortion is legal and seads of destruction were sown before most of us were born yet we are task with accepting this for our own children or standing up to it

    Your children

    (aka hostages and meal tickets and my favorite a womans right to chose unviable tissue mass.

    I’ll just make another one

  156. JDG says:

    The traditional housewife may have been no-fault’s original victim.

    Naw, for those that were hard core ideologues, house wives were the icing on the cake.

  157. tickletik says:

    This is all very sad and terrible. I wonder if there are any new never-married single men here, what do you think of all this?

  158. BuenaVista says:

    It’s also a myth that a man is insured against financial strip mining if the ex-wife earns more money. *Any* aspect of a jurisdiction’s divorce statutes can be set aside by a judge ‘in the best interests of the child.”

    In my case I made a comfortable income as a tech CEO. My ex- made more money, though, as she was an investment banker. (Three times mine, actually.) Two things occurred during the litigation that might raise one’s eyebrows:

    a. I was awarded full custody at one point when the ex- illegally moved out of state with our son, during court proceedings. In what I assume was the judge’s puerile, Solomonic effort to split the baby, she still awarded child support from me, to her. Correct: I was told to pay child support to someone who was flirting with felony parental kidnapping, and who had lost physical custody.

    b. I lost custody at the second appeal, in the second state. However, the state’s divorce statutes contain a table determining child support that the larger earner pays the lower, or non-earner. (Again, her W-2 was 3x mine.) I again was ordered to pay her child support; she again was assigned zero support to me. I was also required to have a second home within 50 miles of her new residence, if I wished to see my son every other weekend for 40 hours, obviously a non-insignificant additional expense.

  159. HawkandRock says:

    @BuenaVista

    The really sad thing is that I believe every word of what you have written. The abuses of this system are consistently outrageous, certainly frequently unconstitutional, and frankly, quite often criminal.

    These abuses would call for immediate and RADICAL reform if discovered in any other area of the law. What essentially insulates these family court despots from this (and even from any successful appeal for that matter) is “THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD” standard. It is, of course, meaningless which means the judge can make it mean virtually anything he/she wants it to mean and it is essentially unchallengeable. It swallows up all other tenets of the law including reasonableness and fairness.

    They say some surgeons develop God complexes. Behold family court judges and stand in awe!

  160. HawkandRock says:

    I highly recommend viewing this if only for the presentation of the Scandinavian system compared to the American system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZTOT6DKfZ8

  161. jf12 says:

    Dirty deeds ain’t necessarily dirt cheap …

  162. Dalrock says:

    @nooneofanyimport

    The traditional housewife may have been no-fault’s original victim. If the husband has a desirable career/status and access to younger women, it can be too much of a temptation. Maybe that was part of the point–punishing women who would otherwise remain on the “plantation” of the patriarchy.

    After a few decades, our culture fully absorbed the following lesson: as a woman, if you devote your life to domesticity, you risk losing your best years and your job skills/market value, and then get dumped just when the gray hairs start appearing.

    I don’t doubt that men are the primary victims of no-fault divorce today. The pendulum has swung. There are still throwbacks around, though–traditional women who devote themselves for a decade or more, only to be ditched.

    Either way–the man or the woman being punished–is only part of the equation. No-fault divorce was designed to destroy the whole family.

    Cheers,
    Lin

    The theory isn’t bad, and I would have been inclined to give it creedence were we embarking on a change to no fault divorce. What you describe is men’s form of divorce theft, using a woman’s youth and then trading her in on a younger model. This is the male counterpart to what we see women doing today, which is marrying, having children in wedlock, and then kicking the father out but retaining the marital home, etc and forcing the father to finance her lifestyle.

    However, the two strategies come at different periods, so we can test to see which is a driving force. Men’s divorce theft will be greatest as the wife ages. Women’s divorce theft will tend to be optimal after a few years (time to have and wean the children) and decline as she gets older (the opportunity for women to remarry gets much worse as they age). The data is solid on this, and while there are no doubt isolated cases of husbands dumping older wives for a younger model, divorce rates tend to spike around 5-7 years after marriage and then decline continuously as the wife ages. Moreover, this isn’t a new pattern. We can see in the UK’s data going back to the 1950s. I don’t have data going back farther than 1990 for the US, but there is no indication that there was such a shift.

    I say this knowing that this kind of assumption is all but impervious to actual data. Everyone knows that women are or were recently being traded in for younger wives in droves, so no amount of data will prove otherwise. Meanwhile those offering this theory are happy to complain about the data others offer but never offer any data to support their own case.

  163. Dalrock says:

    Correction. The pattern of divorce tapering off dramatically with time (time being correlated to age) is the same in the US going back at least until 1960, well before no fault divorce. Here is a chart I put together using US Census data, and here is a chart I put together using ONS data for the UK.

  164. I mostly attend Churches now to rub it into the faces of the clergy that there is no such thing as marriage. Shout it from the rooftops, get in their faces. It’s the most satisfying purpose I’ve had in ages!

  165. deti says:

    Okra, Dalrock:

    I haven’t been through all the comments. I didn’t see Okra’s description of his situation and the results of his divorce as arrogant; but rather a reflection of his personal circumstance. Most men aren’t going to get that result.

    Okra’s result as I recall happened because his wife either was the sole breadwinner or outearned Okra by quite a bit. They divorced because Okra discovered her infidelity. In their divorce, the usual sex roles were inverted. Okra’s X was the breadwinner and must pay Okra maintenance. Okra got primary residential custody of their kid, so X wife pays child support. Okra got to keep the house. Okra is also basically a stay at home Dad for the time being and/or working part time because he is primarily involved in child care.

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but as I remember, this is the reason why Okra’s situation turned out as it did.

  166. Well yes, the answer to stopping those few men who trade their wives in for younger models is to utterly destroy marriage and the family. Pure brilliance!

  167. greyghost says:

    another thing about the trading younger bullshit the feminist and manginas come up with is that divorce was fault. No fault was for her and justified for the slut that married the alpha. Alimony was from that era. What makes alimony criminal now is women work and have affirmative action to work and earn their own. And the guys that are getting frivorced today (boring loyal beta chumps that “love” there wife and live as Christian family men) are not the guys that trade younger in fact those guys today don’t marry and fuck your daughter until she gets old to him and move on to the next empowered slut. Women that treat their beta husbands right have men that will love them as they age it is what real men do. Alpha males of the apex fallacy fame go where the young pussy is. That is why the sluts settle when the alphas step 28 to 38 years old.

  168. Anonymous age 72 says:

    @Minesweeper
    When I was with an FRA group, we had meetings where every man present was the result of assuming he could get a better deal with a woman lawyer. Bad advice.

    @everyone
    The obvious solution is DON’T GET MARRIED!!!!!!!! At least not in any nation which hates men.

    JDG says:
    August 10, 2014 at 2:37 pm

    >>He still believes that we need the government to license people because he doesn’t see any other way to tell if people are really married.

    So, men and women don’t lie about being married? One of the weakest arguments in support of government control of marriage I have seen to date.

    @Madalyn Murry O’Hair
    If you look at her death, karma is a real bitch, no?

    JDG says:
    August 10, 2014 at 4:11 pm
    >>Women as a group never had it worse than men as a group anywhere or anytime.

    Amen, that is the truth.

    Chris Dagostino says:
    August 10, 2014 at 9:44 pm
    >>The SBC struck me as a “men’s men” denomination.

    No, no, a thousand times, no. My wife used to go to a church pastored by a current very high ranking official of SBC. His church was a dearie church. That is almost all leadership roles were filled with dearies. The only men who regularly attended were more of the type I describe as looking like they are wearing Victoria’s Secret under their trousers. Note this was 25 or more years ago. He wrote recently on his blog that he no longer cussed men out on Father’s Day.

    Johnycomelately says:
    August 10, 2014 at 11:30 pm

    Mexico City law only applies to Mexico City. PRD, the political party named, is made of sick ***kers, I share a house when I am there with founding members of that party who have mostly left politics. Women who want abortions must go to Mexico City, within three months, no slack allowed, and visit a government hospital. It is not spreading and is not likely to spread, due to lack of government welfare for rebellious women.

    greyghost says:
    August 11, 2014 at 10:06 am

    >>Make the solution to give her everything in lue of making post divorce payments.

    Bullshit! I actually gave counseling services to men in divorce for ten years. You can give her millions, if you have it. But, that very specifically does not preclude future payments, such as child support. Men have made that exact offer, give her all the property up front in LIEU of child support, and later after burning up all the money applied for child support and got it. Nothing precludes child support payments, not even giving it to her up front. She can get it again, even if she still has the money you gave her. Please, gentlemen, do not write about things you know nothing about.

    TFH says:
    August 11, 2014 at 11:07 am

    Actually, a big part of the success of no-fault destroying men is that most people including most men assume that all men deserve it, or they would not be getting divorced. I had arrogant men call me for help, and I would tell them they needed to cooperate with other men to stand up for men’s rights. They would tell me, “I am not going to do that. All other men who get divorced deserve it. I do not, and I am not going to help them. Everyone should be helping me.” Yes, Virginia, men really are that stupid.

  169. feeriker says:

    The only hope is to get the Church (of all stripes and denominations) to start marrying people outside of the entanglements of the civil sanctioning process.

    And I will dare say that there is no hope, EVER, of any established/incorporated “churches” doing this. The sanction and power of the State is their bread and butter, as well as their real/de facto god. They’re not about to turn on their benefactors.

  170. greyghost says:

    Okra just lucked out and he did most likely fight for his kid. But he is just as stuck in this world as all others. He just doesn’t understand how lucky he is. the broken clock was right when he looked up and the mother most likely didn’t want the kid. (most likely) because it would have interfered with her life. The CS was the daycare and inconvenience cost anyway. She drives the BMW and he drives the used minivan. Besides that it is the way she had it any way. It was her choice and Dalrock did not want there to be any doubt. His point was not to attack you but to make sure there is no chance of winning it is her decision to make. The state would rather the children suffered and died than displease the pussy do not doubt that.

  171. greyghost says:

    Anon 72
    Not every one is stupid, nobody gets out of CS. To assume I would think otherwise is insulting

  172. Dalrock says:

    @Deti

    I haven’t been through all the comments. I didn’t see Okra’s description of his situation and the results of his divorce as arrogant; but rather a reflection of his personal circumstance. Most men aren’t going to get that result.

    I’m quite a bit behind in catching up with comments as well. As I mentioned above, Okra’s comment changed the frame to the frame of the defenders of the current system. Men just need to fight and they will get their kids. Don’t let a woman punish you with the system, etc. He does say that not all men will win, but he claims that if enough men were willing to fight in family court it would be a “complete game changer”. Here again is the comment I replied to:

    By the way, as for that punishment? A few minutes ago I tucked my son to bed in the family home I still own, which I refinanced in part with the money I got when she had to give me half her retirement account, and yesterday I cashed the child support check I received from the state that they garnished from her paycheck. Never accept punishment from a woman, always fight back. Not all of us will win, but when even a sizable minority of men black knight it all the way and win it will be a complete game changer.

    I don’t think he and I are actually very far apart, but if I had left his comment above unrebutted it would have been accepting a radical re-frame without challenge. I’m more inclined to leave these things alone after a good number of comments, but his radical reframe came as comment number 5. Okra’s clarifying comments bear out that he and I are actually on the same page, but this is in my view proof that the challenge was merited; what he wrote needed to be challenged, and challenged vigorously. Either way, I do believe that this very common tendency of men to downplay the problem/bias and claim others need to just fight is exactly why we have the system we currently have. If it worked out fine for one man, why bother with the 90% who get crushed?

  173. Opus says:

    Had it been my court and on the basis of what Okra wrote I would have awarded him custody. Had the sexes been reversed (Okra being the female) I would not.

    Fighting for pyrrhic causes only annoys the Judge and runs up unnecessary cost.

  174. Opus says:

    I did not put that very well: I meant that if Okra worked and his ex-wife did not then I would not have granted him custody.

  175. ballista74 says:

    The only hope is to get the Church (of all stripes and denominations) to start marrying people outside of the entanglements of the civil sanctioning process.

    This will never happen. The sanction and power of the State is the bread and butter of these organizations. Not to mention, they will never give up the copious favors the State gives these Churches and pastors in return for bending knee to the Baal of the State and abandoning the will of God.

  176. hurting says:

    feeriker says:
    August 11, 2014 at 12:52 pm

    I concur to a point, but I think the problem may be even more deep-seated than just a crass kowtowing to secular authority to keep the peace. Church leadership actually sees the current arrangement as right and just a priori in that it reign men in.

  177. Minesweeper says:

    @hurting says
    August 11, 2014 at 9:53 am

    “Most men faced with the perversion of justice that is domestic relations law will seek out the best outcome for their children – even if so doing perpetuates the overall injustice. ”

    Yep – this is our Achilles heal, and don’t they know it. We are fighting an enemy that dosn’t seem to care about destroying its own children while in the process of obtaining even greater punishment for their fathers.

    I literally feel sick when I think about whats happening.

    Poor okrahead, I don’t think he has come across they way he intended at all. Unfortunately he is an statistical outlier here – I doubt his monthly check is 1% of what the rest of us have paid out maybe 0.1%.

    The amazing thing about Dalrock (and this shows as well his heart motive) is that he hasn’t gone through a ruinating divorce, been estranged from his kids, taken to the cleaners, yet he is pursuing this on those who have. Most of us only get into this after reality has hit us squarely in the forehead.

    D – I tip my hat to you sir.

    No doubt at some stage the game will be up, already my son has said he would be scared to get married (as am I – to be remarried) and I would be scared for him to be married, with many of his friends in the same boat (with divorced dads) he won’t be the only one. Whether this reaches a critical mass to avoid\delay the 1st wave of divorces from his generation remains to be seen.

  178. Dalrock says:

    @Ballista74

    The only hope is to get the Church (of all stripes and denominations) to start marrying people outside of the entanglements of the civil sanctioning process.

    This will never happen. The sanction and power of the State is the bread and butter of these organizations. Not to mention, they will never give up the copious favors the State gives these Churches and pastors in return for bending knee to the Baal of the State and abandoning the will of God.

    There are two other problems which are more fundamental in my view:
    1) Child support is what has replaced marriage as our fundamental family structure. No fault divorce is just an optional part of this new machinery. Not marrying avoids divorce, but not child support. Very few people can see this, for reasons I don’t understand.
    2) The churches like divorce. They like it a great deal. Moving divorce from a process managed by the state (which likes divorce) to the churches (which also like divorce) wouldn’t help. This is true for both Prot and RCC. Conversely, if the churches were to decide they didn’t like divorce anymore, they could put a great deal of moral pressure on their own congregations as well as the culture at large to greatly curtail divorce. This doesn’t require the churches to take over marriage licenses, just tossing out the Book of Oprah and return to the Bible.

  179. hurting says:

    Dalrock says:
    August 11, 2014 at 1:06 pm

    There is a great deal of danger in the admonishment to ‘just fight’ or ‘fight harder’. There is no ‘winning through fighting’ for men in the process unless they are in exceptional circumstances to begin with (e.g., non-traditional role in the household, documented dangerous behavior on the part of the woman). Absent these factors, men will get the custody arrangement to which their wives will acquiesce.

    You’ve done a great job documenting with statistics teh nature of the beast. If there were a reliable strategy for men to get custody, it would evidence itself in the numbers. But there isn’t so it doesn’t.

  180. Gunner Q says:

    Frugal Nerd, welcome. I’ve had the same dating experiences as you. Celibacy isn’t optimal but, these days, it’s definitely the prudent default choice. It gets easier with age.

    tickletik @11:27 am:
    “This is all very sad and terrible. I wonder if there are any new never-married single men here, what do you think of all this?”

    I think I dodged a bullet. Mostly I spend my days in peace and quiet, training and waiting for the circumstances in which I can make a difference. Following Communist Russia as a guide, Marriage 2.0 isn’t intended to be forever. The Communists there imposed no-fault divorce to dismantle society and then revoked it for the Marxist rebuild, coming off as “heroes” for saving marriage in the process.

    Many Christians I’ve met think the current Church is comparable to the Laodicean church of Revelation, being so lukewarm that God can’t stand us. My opinion is that Thyatira is a better example. Jezebel is a good representative of our elites, teaching idolatry and sexual immorality. I’ve taken God’s advice to Thyatira to heart: hold on to what we have.

  181. hurting says:

    Dalrock says:
    August 11, 2014 at 1:27 pm

    The time is well past that the Church can simply admonish its members for better behavior. It owes a debt to its children to take concrete steps to prevent subjecting them to the machinations of the state as much as possible. That means conducting marriages outside the reach of the state.

  182. hurting says:

    Minesweeper says:
    August 11, 2014 at 1:22 pm

    Our sons will have no shortage of challenges to face.

  183. deti says:

    Dalrock, 1:06 pm

    Yes, I can see that you and Okra are pretty close and on the same page. I am too.

    I don’t think it’s “men just need to fight and they will get their kids”. It’s not just “men just need to fight and they can turn this whole thing around”. So I don’t believe it’s a “game changer” in that a typical man can beat the system and escape draconian results every time. I do, however, believe that a man’s telling a woman “divorce me and it will be all out war and we will fight over everything and I will never agree to just give you everything just so this can be over with” can be a powerful deterrent. At the very least he might be able to reduce the amount of money and property he’ll lose.

    He might be able to force a sale of the house instead of having to continue paying the mortgage while she shacks up with F*ckbuddy Rockbanddrummer there. He might be able to liquidate the house. He might be able to force her to buy him out of the house. He might be able to get more shared residential custody and minimize his child support that way. He might be able to avoid maintenance. If he adopts a scorched earth policy he might promise to drag this out for years and deplete the marital assets with attorney fees. He might be able to deter bad behavior through scorched earth techniques, through refusing to give in on his kids, etc.

  184. Ollie says:

    Hey, what’s your opinion on the recent and ongoing Mark Driscoll controversy? I find it hilarious that the mainstream outlets are describing him as some sort of hyper-masculine chauvinist throwback, when the reality (as you have illustrated in previous posts) is that he is primarily just regurgitating the dominant feminist narrative in gruff-sounding terms. Has it really gotten to the point where the definition of “misogyny” has become essentially anything that isn’t abject fealty to the feminine imperative? Seeing the mainstream outlets hit out at a tool like Driscoll makes me think they are getting worried at the prospect of real opposition (manosphere-style) starting to gain traction in the hearts and minds of men in the flock.

  185. deti says:

    I have no idea where this notion of “give her property upfront to minimize child support” comes from. It’s unsound legal advice if it’s coming from lawyers. It’s not policy based at all, either.

    Child support is a legal obligation that exists independently of parental agreements or prenups. You cannot contract away your child support obligation. You cannot minimize it through a property transfer during a marriage or as part of a divorce proceeding. It’s a straight percentage amount of either gross or net income, taken off the top and withheld like federal or state income tax or FICA. It’s based on a formula including number of kids to be supported and who has primary residential custody.

  186. bicklerain says:

    “As my docs are public and it outlines ‘how to’ perfectly, you think that it would be valuable to share?”

    That would be interesting.

  187. He might be able to deter bad behavior through scorched earth techniques,

    Nope. Most women will not grasp what it even means, because it is a theory to them. Its a date in the future when money may run out because of actions taken today. They simply do not get that. Ive shared before how my attorney (back when i was in a divorce process) took a call while I was with him (he was also a member of same church as me so we were together more then as client/lawyer) and walked away to speak.

    He returned and without identifying the caller, told me it (the call) was right on schedule. It was a woman client whose divorce was to be final in mere days. She was in panic. What can they file? What can they do? Presently she could yank the chain and hubby’s head would snap back. Soon, she would have the settlement that had been signed off on and that’s that. He said he tries to tell all female clients they will see something at the end of the process that may make them think the whole thing was a mistake. He said many make attempts to reconcile at that point after ooo’s of $ have been burned. But they cannot process that as a future eventuality.

    Not that it didn’t or couldn’t work for you deti….but as general advice I always disagree with it based on that attorney and his 30 years of family law experience seeing women unable to grasp future consequences. Or, so addicted to the feelings the present actions give her they don’t care.

  188. Lion says:

    Buck said, “That said I must be a responsible mentor to the guys following in my wake…DO NOT MARRY!!!! Young men, PLEASE, learn from me, do not emulate me! Keep your freedom!”

    And, as a fellow married man, I agree with Buck 100%.

  189. hurting says:

    deti says:
    August 11, 2014 at 1:36 pm

    I am not arguing that there is no benefit protecting your interests, but there is one presumed motivator in your last post that is simply not at play in many situations: a desire to resolve the divorce quickly. The period between filing and final decree is the best set of circumstances in which a woman will find herself, and there are powerful economic incentives working against quick resolution not to mention the ‘you go girrrl’ chorus is loudest and sweetest at this time. She’ll still be on his health insurance and getting temporary support, among other things. He’ll probably be required to keep up the insurance on the cars even though he’s not driving at least one of them. It only gets worse after the decree is issued.

  190. ballista74 says:

    @Dalrock The things you describe aren’t fundamental issues, but consequences of what has been done surrounding marriage because of State control and the like. Those issues aside, all of it stems from the State-sanctioned perversion of marriage.

    2. Churches like divorce because it’s State policy. As I mentioned, since these churches are in the thrall of the State and the State is supporting all these policies (no-fault, the family court system) you won’t get any of these churches preaching against it openly. (I wasn’t referring to marriage licenses, but 501c3) You may get the rare instance like what happened to Jenny Erickson, but it was shocking for a reason, as you should know from your divorce challenge post. Given the time we have, these things have been ensconced into tradition, so you have people that literally know no better supporting these things. There is no tossing out the Book of Oprah and going back to the Bible until the State gets tossed out of the business of the Church.

    For instance, as I documented on my own blog, much of what is being pushed now is patently verboten when put against Scripture. In other words, divorce should be a sheer impossibility when remarriage (e.g. man up and marry those heroic single mothers) is an impossibility. There is no “exception clause” in that case.

    Granted, when you get the State out of the Church, you will have the problem of the people left behind who see nothing wrong with divorce. This will take people standing up and speaking out – and there will be a number of pastors who will do that as they’ve realized the deal with the devil they have entered into and wept before the people in sackcloth and ashes. They will separate themselves if a policy of Biblical marriage is forcefully preached and followed, but we will know for sure where the real Church lies.

    1. Child support is an extension of this policy. When you get free divorce and remarriage, the consequences have to be dealt with and accepted. They can not stand against this any more than they can stand against no-fault for the reasons outlined above.

  191. hurting says:

    To clarify my last post, it only gets worse for her after the decree is issued.

  192. ballista74 says:

    (adding to #1) Just to note, open fornication is a State policy as well, as evidenced by the sex education programs in the schools, giving out condoms, birth control (Sandra Fluke anyone), and the like.

  193. TFH says:

    Dalrock,

    2) The churches like divorce. They like it a great deal.

    To move from simply deluding themselves into thinking ‘the man must be bad’ as a reason for divorce, to actually *liking* divorce, is amazing.

    Can no churches see how far they have deviated from the bible? Does no one who attends the churches even read the bible, and have the courage to bring up key passages?

  194. deti says:

    I think saying churches like divorce is a bit strong. It’s more in line with the practice to say that churches tolerate divorce and will help a woman get a divorce, if that’s what she wants. The attitude I’ve seen is that divorce is an escape hatch, a release valve, an emergency parachute rip cord.

    “We don’t like divorce. It’s bad. But it’s there if you need it. We need to have divorce in case there’s a problem for the wife. “

  195. Minesweeper says:

    @BuenaVista says:
    August 11, 2014 at 11:47 am

    “I was told to pay child support to someone who was flirting with felony parental kidnapping, and who had lost physical custody.

    However, the state’s divorce statutes contain a table determining child support that the larger earner pays the lower, or non-earner. (Again, her W-2 was 3x mine.) I again was ordered to pay her child support”

    Unf**ing belivable. I really don’t understand how at every turn the Judges can just overrule all statutes in favour of the mother. I guess the lie wouldn’t fly if they actually put down in law what occurs in practise.

  196. David J. says:

    @TFH: “Can no churches see how far they have deviated from the bible? Does no one who attends the churches even read the bible, and have the courage to bring up key passages?”

    The answer isn’t an absolute no, but it’s amazingly bad. My most extreme example: I challenged the pastor of the local hyper-fundamentalist (King James Version Only) Baptist church who had accepted my ex-wife into membership so that she could use the church’s facilities for her remarriage (to a twice-divorced man), after which she would be moving 400 miles away to his home, taking my special needs daughter with her. In a logical world, a church that gets hung up on Bible versions, music, pants for women, long hair for men, etc. should (you would think) also be pretty conscientious about divorce and remarriage. Nope. The pastor, never having met me or talked with me before, had already accepted my wife’s contention that divorcing me was biblically justified because I had been “unfaithful’ via pornography. He was uninterested in the justifications (or lack thereof) for the previous divorces of her prospective husband. He is prominently on my “I told you so” list for when the remarriage also goes awry, with whatever consequences for my daughter, and I will also be very interested to see how God deals with him at the judgment.

    On a more positive note, I have seen at least two PCA churches actually do what they should be doing when their members entertain the prospect of divorce — intervening via church discipline to determine whether the divorce is biblical and, if not, imposing consequences on the initiator in an effort to prevent the divorce.

  197. Dalrock says:

    @Deti

    I think saying churches like divorce is a bit strong. It’s more in line with the practice to say that churches tolerate divorce and will help a woman get a divorce, if that’s what she wants. The attitude I’ve seen is that divorce is an escape hatch, a release valve, an emergency parachute rip cord.

    “We don’t like divorce. It’s bad. But it’s there if you need it. We need to have divorce in case there’s a problem for the wife. “

    They don’t just like it as an escape hatch, they like it as a threatpoint. They absolutely adore it as a threat to nullify headship. They most like the way it transforms marriage from a model of Biblical headship to the new cross dressing theology. From that point of view, the few eggs that have to be broken to make an omelet are unfortunate but necessary. So they would prefer to keep the total number of divorces as low as possible, but they are solidly wedded to the idea of divorce.

  198. Anonymous Reader says:

    GreyGhost

    The best way to fight is to prisoner dilemma burn the assets in court. Make the solution to give her everything in lue of making post divorce payments.

    That may work for some, not for others. As a Samson-in-the-temple option, a credible threat to dissipate as much money as posssible in fighting divorce may work, or may fail horribly, depending on the woman and who is whispering in her ear. Each man has to know the ground he is fighting on, and know himself, and know his enemy – yes, when it gets to this stage, his “wife” has made herself his enemy, and he must know this in his heart.

    Or murder suicide works. or better yet kill the judge and go to jail they all lose.

    NO, THIS IS TOTALLY WRONG. It is indefensible. I understand that some men “go there” in their own thoughts, particularly when very angry, but it does no good to anyone to even idly muse on such in public. One of the problems feminists now, finally, have is the exposure of exactly what radical feminists such as Mary Daly have been saying for years – that gendercide of men would benefit the world. Don’t hand feminists and manboobies free ammo like this.

    Family law, marriage , in general has a goal insuring the man is not happy. It is not about equality or fairness it is to insure the woman is happy and the man is not. Bottom line.

    Yes, we all agree on that. Don’t fall into the trap of thinking that two or more wrongs make a “right”.

  199. jf12 says:

    @bicklerain re: “That would be interesting.”

    And directly useful to at least one commenter. Will okrahead explain some more details, especially procedures?

  200. Dalrock says:

    @Anon Reader

    NO, THIS IS TOTALLY WRONG. It is indefensible. I understand that some men “go there” in their own thoughts, particularly when very angry, but it does no good to anyone to even idly muse on such in public. One of the problems feminists now, finally, have is the exposure of exactly what radical feminists such as Mary Daly have been saying for years – that gendercide of men would benefit the world. Don’t hand feminists and manboobies free ammo like this.

    Thanks for calling this out. Calls to suicide or violence/murder are out of bounds and I’ll delete the comments when I see this. If this becomes a pattern I’ll ban the commenter. Since you already responded I’ll leave the quote in your reply but will delete the original comment.

  201. Minesweeper says:

    @Anonymous age 72 says:
    August 11, 2014 at 12:51 pm
    ‘@Minesweeper – When I was with an FRA group, we had meetings where every man present was the result of assuming he could get a better deal with a woman lawyer. Bad advice.’

    I can believe that, the other caveat is that they have to be pro-male and sh*t hot at fighting your interests.

    No doubt if you got a feminist or incompetent one on your side you are screwed.

    Or maybe I was just very lucky.

  202. Anonymous Reader says:

    Ollie
    Has it really gotten to the point where the definition of “misogyny” has become essentially anything that isn’t abject fealty to the feminine imperative?

    Yes.

  203. Dalrock explained why churches like divorce threat, if not the actual fact of a high divorce rate. But they also “like” a certain amount of divorce. You can prove it by asking church-goers to imagine a world with zero divorce and then ask them what it looked like. Most would imagine not a happy world of contented spouses, but a dystopian, Handmaid’s Tale sort of world where many women are stuck in unhappy or abusive marriages, forced to bear dozens of children against their will with men who beat them and cheat on them openly, where children are tormented by constant screaming fights between their parents, and so on. Their default assumption is that some marriages will fail, and to make those women stay in those marriages would be a much greater evil than divorce.

    So while they might prefer that there be less divorce in general, they consider it a positive good for those women. That’s why when they talk about ways to reduce divorce, all they can think of is how the husband can make the wife happier. If she’s unhappy, and the husband can’t fix that, then divorce is right in their minds. If God hates it, well, He can take it out on the husband.

    Also, they like divorce because it gives them a chance to minister to divorced people.

  204. TFH says:

    Dalrock,

    They absolutely adore it as a threat to nullify headship. They most like the way it transforms marriage from a model of Biblical headship to the new cross dressing theology.

    That means that a lot of social conservatives who consider themselves solid Christians, are instead :

    1) Economic leftists : They like state-backed redistribution as long as it is from man to woman.
    2) ‘Gender is a social construct’ leftists : They think headship can be swapped very easily. How is that different from the lefty feminists who say gender is a social construct?

    They are identical to leftists in both their love of redistribution and their blank-slatism on gender.

  205. Minesweeper says:

    @Dalrock says:
    August 11, 2014 at 1:27 pm
    There are two other problems which are more fundamental in my view:
    1) Child support is what has replaced marriage as our fundamental family structure. No fault divorce is just an optional part of this new machinery. Not marrying avoids divorce, but not child support. Very few people can see this, for reasons I don’t understand.

    Very good point, no-one sees it because everyone is looking at the ‘feckless’ father as being the problem, a diversionary tactic which has been brilliantly played.

    We have truly devolved into the feminist ideal, kids if desired with out man/marriage and to have him\state pay for them.

    Welcome to the matriarchal society.

  206. Opus says:

    Off Topic

    I was really quite shocked. I was talking to a mother today about her sixteen year old daughter’s prospects in the O’ Level examinations to which her daughter is awaiting the results – and she attends a school affiliated to a certain religion. One of her subjects is Religious Knowledge. One might have expected in a country which is a Christian Theocracy that a sound grounding in some version of the Christian Faith is what would secure a pass. That is not however the case: the candidate is supposed to have an equal grounding in other ‘world religions’. In addition the candidate should be able to discuss the merits and demerits of concepts such as the time to be Baptised. A knowledge of (say) the contents of The Sermon on the Mount (how many now think Jesus really did say ‘Blessed are the Cheese-makers’) is not required or I suppose (some if not all of) The Ten Commandments neither.

    Imagine some other subject say History where (at that ordinary level) one was entitled to choose between the standard version of the Holocaust and the Revisionist version thereof or in Physics between Newtonian Physics and the Flat Earth alternative or in Biology between Darwinian evolution theory and Lamarckian evolution theory.

    This is not about knowledge but about scepticism and clearly is a thinly veiled take-over of Religious education by Humanists and other non-believers for the purpose of attacking Christians.

    I was equally shocked by what the girl had to do for her Music exam but that won’t concern Dalrockians.

    Or am I just decades out of touch?

  207. ballista74 says:

    @DavidJ, TFH Great illustrations, especially David J’s hyperfundamentalist church. If they can be hung up on all those things, why go against what is plainly written in Scripture on marriage? I’m sure several of them “get it”, the issue is that their heads are in a noose to the point that they literally can not show that they “get it”. Where State policy is not an issue, they can follow any doctrine they want.

    But when it comes to State policy, they better tow the line. This explains the schizophrenic view points that TFH brings to light. The State is predominantly leftist and feminist, so on the point of marriage, churches will be predominantly leftist and feminist. It’s not so much that they like this, it’s that they need to be enthusiastic garbage men over the State’s policy.

    Where 501c3 exists, the church serves the State and ceases serving God.

  208. Opus says:

    I should add that when I was school boy (not that I ever sat the exam in question) we tried in vain and under the most plausible basis of reason to get our teacher to teach us Islam, Hindi and the like. We explained that of course the religion of our teacher was not in question and thus a full explanation of these other religions would surely reaffirm us in our Christian Faith, but we were being deceitful for we wanted the teacher to become entangled in inconsistencies and to be unable to demonstrate the superiority of The Christian Faith thus giving us the excuse to exit. He saw through our pretence and would not play along with us. Now however the State are playing our game for us – hence perhaps my surprise.

  209. Bhruic says:

    tickletik,

    This is all very sad and terrible. I wonder if there are any new never-married single men here, what do you think of all this?

    That the advice Juvenal gave almost 2000 years ago, suggesting suicide or homosexuality as superior alternatives to marriage, is even more right today than the day it was written. And that I am a fool for wanting to get married and start a family regardless. Currently leaning towards Vietnam and China as places to search for a wife in order to reduce risk. If I nonetheless do get betrayed by some Queen of the Harpies through divorce, paternity fraud, or some such, I hope I will have the mental fortitude to completely disappear and pursue another direction in life I’ve considered (one which is completely incompatible with having a family). That might sound juvenile and maybe there’s no way I could ever abandon any future children, but that’s my current perspective.

  210. ballista74 says:

    On @Dalrock’s point #1, as I think about it a little more: What he describes is literal socialist/communist policy, which is consistent with the government. They, even in the 1920’s, identify the family unit as an impediment to the establishment of socialism. When you have a child out of wedlock, it literally cuts the family out of consideration for that child – they are ready for the State to step in as the father with support and the like.

    But the State can’t come directly and take the child as a ward (though legally they have already claimed the child via the licensure issue). So they point at that man who caused the child and point to him as a “deadbeat” – consistent with things historically. This is why people can not see this as a problem. The historical answer was to provide the child a family that is its right. The socialist answer is “child support”, miming what the State wishes to do when the wrappers are taken off and the Socialist system is revealed in it’s full glory.

    As I’ve pointed out many times, the main problem with people that causes all of this is that they don’t think about anything they do or anything that is before them. Or they’d see these things for what they are.

  211. TFH says:

    Very good point, no-one sees it because everyone is looking at the ‘feckless’ father as being the problem, a diversionary tactic which has been brilliantly played.

    The assumption about how the absence of the father can only be the man’s fault, is very deep. Even if out-of-wedlock births have risen from 7% to 41% in 50 years, there is no questioning about why this suddenly changed.

    I recently saw an argument on Fox News where both the Democrat and Republican were arguing about which party was tougher on ‘deadbeat dads’. No questioning of the assumption of whether that was really the reason for broken homes – they were just competing on who was ‘tougher’ on them.

  212. JDG says:

    though legally they have already claimed the child via the licensure issue

    Yes! ballista74 was it you who 1st pointed that out to me, or is this more commonly known than I thought?

  213. blurkel says:

    Modern marriage is a game women play on men for their own personal gain. It’s a game men can’t win. So one has to ask why men would continue to play such a game which only allows them to lose. Do they not care enough about their own person and their security to act on their own behalf and walk away from such a traditional travesty?

  214. TFH says:

    For anyone who thinks they can get out of ‘child support’, they are wrong.

    It cannot be regulated by pre-nup (and thus is an ideal way around prenups).
    Failure to pay (even if unemployed) can lead to a man being jailed.
    If not jailed, they might take your drivers license and passport (ironically making it harder for the man to work).
    Inability to pay also becomes a felony (which also makes it harder to work).

    Of every law in America, this is the most unjust. It is not just a national shame, it truly is the asbestos fiber that had once entered America’s lung, and began the multi-decade process of killing this robust and prosperous civilization. Like an asbestos fiber, the process is gradual and very hard to notice.

  215. Talos402000 says:

    I disagree with several people here. Men are indeed waking up and walking away from the travesty of modern marriage. Have any of you besides dalrock checked the marriage and birthrates lately? Declining every year aren’t they? And as for you Christians, you’ll never accomplish anything. Your far too busy forming a circular firing squad and attacking other Christians. You Christians couldn’t unite even if the Muslims swore to kill or convert every last one of you (oh wait a second, they have). Far too busy claiming your way is the only true way to God and being Holier-Than-Thou.

  216. feeriker says:

    Can no churches see how far they have deviated from the bible? Does no one who attends the churches even read the bible, and have the courage to bring up key passages?

    No, no, and no to your questions.

    The answers to the second and third questions, I am convinced, are demonstrated by the fact that since most pastors are ignorant of the Bible’s message and meaning, they discourage their flocks from studying it in depth (hence the fact that the typical “Bible study”, especially in Protestant churches, is a group reading of a churchian Book-of-the-Month Club bestseller about some obscure aspect of the Bible rather than the Bible itself). Were REAL Bible study a widespread practice, not only would divorce (and most other things benefitting the FI) be condemned, but the body would fight tooth and nail any attempt by the State to interfere in matters spiritual. Yet this would not serve the interests of either the FI, whose practitioners are the organizational and financial lifeblood of churchian franchises everywhere, but also of the “leadership” of such bodies. For this reason the status quo won’t change short of complete institutional implosion.

  217. Minesweeper says:

    @MarcusD says:
    August 11, 2014 at 1:46 am

    http://pjmedia.com/drhelen/2014/08/07/how-does-institutional-bias-affect-men

    Very interesting, joins the dots with the surveys showing female teachers down mark boys and up mark girls. At least its occurring at every level now.

    You know, for the 1st time, I’ve gotten the feeling that what the feminists\liberlists are so desperate to create is something akin to the machine in forbidden planet, I kinda feel they are going to get the same result.

    Although, apart from men\children\gov debt getting screwed over, I can see no negative repercussions of feminist progress for females at the current time. Even the recent crop of female frivorcees seem to have no problem getting hitched again (although to males far down the pecking scale to what they were used too) but still, are men this blind and stupid ?

    Do we\they really know absolutely nothing to what is going on ? Or is it just the boiling frog?

    Maybe it takes 2 revelations to come to grips with this:1. its happening,2. men let it happen

  218. Minesweeper says:

    @TFH says:
    August 11, 2014 at 4:12 pm
    Very good point, no-one sees it because everyone is looking at the ‘feckless’ father as being the problem, a diversionary tactic which has been brilliantly played.

    The assumption about how the absence of the father can only be the man’s fault, is very deep

    Well this is borne from the root assumption that only men cause problems, it’s not much of a jump is it. All they have to do is point the finger. Our previous conditioning affirms it.

  219. feeriker says:

    Where 501c3 exists, the church serves the State and ceases serving God.

    Even churchian franchises that are not 501c3 non-profits are slaves to the State. There are a few reasons for this. They include:

    – Depending on where they are located, large numbers of their customers work directly or indirectly for some form of government. This means that the franchise cannot afford to bite the hand that feeds it by preaching the Scriptural teachings of the church’s relationship to Caesar.

    – Ignorance of the Scriptures includes the usual distortion/misinterpretation of Romans 13 (i.e., all temporal government is ordained by God and must be obeyed, even if its behavior is clearly and regularly ungodly [by this "logic," the governments of Stalin, Hitler, Mao Tse-Tong, and Pol Pot were ordained by God and should have obeyed without question]).

    – Most of the customer base doesn’t really believe in, or have any real interest in believing or living by, what the Bible actually says (and this includes the CEO and the rest of the “leadership”). Walking the talk and walk is hard, dangerous, thankless (in fleshly terms), without immediate gratification of the flesh, and can lead to really bad things luke ostracism, persecution, and even death. These just don’t go well with a comfy middle-class lifestyle. So if the Bible has to be paid mere lip service or ignored in order to keep the good times rolling and stay out of Caesar’s gunsights, then so be it. (Those First Century Christians who died for their faith? Well, they lived in a whole other era, so they don’t matter.)

    (That third item is usually at the root of things.)

  220. Ra's al Ghul says:

    blurkel says:

    August 11, 2014 at 5:14 pm

    “Modern marriage is a game women play on men for their own personal gain. It’s a game men can’t win. So one has to ask why men would continue to play such a game which only allows them to lose. Do they not care enough about their own person and their security to act on their own behalf and walk away from such a traditional travesty?”

    They love her more than life itself and think they’re “not like other men” they’re better so they will escape unscathed. Why they think that way is the big question, it’s the complimentary male form of women’s “I’m a special snowflake . . . because”

    The sin of pride and pride goeth before a fall.

    Also just as five minutes of alpha is worth more than a life time of beta for a woman, five minutes of sex is worth a life time of child support for a beta.

  221. Minesweeper says:

    @MarcusD says:
    August 11, 2014 at 3:42 pm
    ‘Did you read/hear about this? http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/08/11/robyn-urback-protesters-fail-to-shut-down-mens-issues-lecture-celebrate-anyway/
    The RSM come across as self-parodying.’

    Interesting, I’ve seen a couple of these things written by female journalists like this online recently. Almost unthinkable a few years ago – when any mens rights talks was regarded as both offensive, ridiculous and the need for all involved to be arrested and deported to ‘conditioning’ camps.

  222. Re: Dalrock says: August 11, 2014 at 12:22 pm

    Thanks for your response!

    “Men’s divorce theft will be greatest as the wife ages. Women’s divorce theft will tend to be optimal after a few years and decline as she gets older . . . . The data is solid on this, and while there are no doubt isolated cases of husbands dumping older wives for a younger model, divorce rates tend to spike around 5-7 years after marriage and then decline continuously as the wife ages. Moreover, this isn’t a new pattern. We can see in the UK’s data going back to the 1950s.”

    This is interesting. The theory about traditional housewives being the 1st victims of no-fault divorce isn’t mine, but one of the main points in Domestic Tranquility, written by Carolyn Graglia in 1998. I highly recommend this book btw, even if her research about marriage doesn’t, well, marry up with your own. I wonder if it is possible that the spike in divorce rates 5-7 years after marriage isn’t merely correlated to woman frivorce v. men frivorce, but also correlated to the fact that younger couples are less likely to be encumbered by children, and either way more likely to feel the need to “punch out” before they get too old.

    Statistics tell us only so much. When we compare divorce rates in the 60’s and 70’s to the divorce rates in the 90’s and 2000’s, we are comparing apples to oranges. It’s not statistics that need analyzing; it’s culture. How many marriages aren’t even happening today, because of the cultural pressure on women to wait, and have their fun and their careers? How many marriages aren’t happening today because of legal pressure on men to avoid the commitment?

    One thing I’d like you fellows to understand: feminists aren’t just the enemy of men. They are the enemy of the traditional woman. The cultural damage feminists have done cannot be quantified with statistics. We will never know how many potentially good wives and mothers got lured off the “patriarchy plantation.”

    I said before that the goal of no-fault divorce is the destruction of the whole family. I should have said, the goal is to destroy the very meaning of the word family. They would rather such a thing not exist.

    Cheers,
    Lin

  223. Anonymous Reader says:

    Cail Corishev on modern churches:
    Also, they like divorce because it gives them a chance to minister to divorced people.

    I was thinking about this while driving. It reminds me of Munchausen syndrome, or more accurately:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchausen_syndrome_by_proxy

    Inducing illness in order to be a “hero” in search of a cure for it. Is that not a fitting analogy?

  224. Ra's al Ghul says:

    “He said many make attempts to reconcile at that point after ooo’s of $ have been burned. But they cannot process that as a future eventuality.

    Women unable to grasp future consequences. Or, so addicted to the feelings the present actions give her they don’t care.”

    It is both. They are addicted to the feelings, especially the sadistic ones they get out of hurting someone that loved them and they are unable to see that at some point the other spouse is gone.

    Reminds me of Pink’s “Please don’t leave me”

  225. Anonymous Reader says:

    TFH

    2) ‘Gender is a social construct’ leftists : They think headship can be swapped very easily. How is that different from the lefty feminists who say gender is a social construct?

    This should be obvious. Condider: any church that tolerates women preachers is operating from the premise that men and women are interchangeable, that they do not have unique physical and mental qualities, i.e. that women and men are exactly alike except women have babies and that just happens to be a fundamental premise of feminism – not just the 2nd and 3rd stage, but also the Elizabeth Cady Stanton 1st stage. I have no idea what percentage of denominations, including nondenominational churches, tolerate women as preachers but it seems to be a majority now.

  226. Anonymous Reader says:

    Opus
    A knowledge of (say) the contents of The Sermon on the Mount (how many now think Jesus really did say ‘Blessed are the Cheese-makers’)

    Hey, it was obviously “Blessed are the Greeks”, Big Nose….

  227. Ra's al Ghul says:

    Dalrock:

    “1) Child support is what has replaced marriage as our fundamental family structure. No fault divorce is just an optional part of this new machinery. Not marrying avoids divorce, but not child support. Very few people can see this, for reasons I don’t understand.”

    I think, Dalrock, most are locking at a fundamentally evil situation and tried to find the best possible solution to it. If they want children, there is no way to avoid the risk of child support. It just is, its structural, it can’t be avoided.

    What can be protected so far by not being married are: retirement accounts, real estate, including your home, personal property avoiding spousal maintenance and alimony. (unless you are in California then you’re boned)

  228. Exfernal says:

    @Minesweeper:

    Another possible angle: perhaps it’s having TWO lawyers, instead of one, that was the cause of their diligence. One-upmanship, or, in this case, one-upwomanship.

  229. Anonymous Reader says:

    ballista74
    Where 501c3 exists, the church serves the State and ceases serving God.

    It is possible that in 5 to 10 years any church that won’t perform homogamous weddings will be threatened with loss of 501c3 status. If that happens, many bets are off the table.

  230. Anonymous Reader says:

    It is both. They are addicted to the feelings, especially the sadistic ones they get out of hurting someone that loved them and they are unable to see that at some point the other spouse is gone.

    Agree. Have seen this in the lives of friends [1] and family as well as co workers. I find myself wondering if the short-term dopamine rush that some women apparently get as they cause emotional and/or physical harm to someone who can’t get away from them isn’t addictive, possibly physically so.

    [1] In January I noted a friend of mine showed up with the greeting “Hi, I’m divorced” as his wife had blown up a 10+ year marriage in late 2013. Update: since then he’s told me how incredibly peaceful his life has become, how he no longer dreads his own front door at the end of a day of work, and how quietly pleasant it is to no longer walk in that door on eggshells lest the screeching begin too quickly. She was withholding sex for quite some time prior to the frivorce, so he can’t say that he misses that, either. Finally, at the end of the converstation, he asked the rhetorical question: “Once the kid is out of the house, who’s she gonna yell at? The cat?”. I don’t think she’ll try to reconcile, but if she does, I think he’s totally done with her.

  231. JDG says:

    feminists aren’t just the enemy of men. They are the enemy of the traditional woman.

    Lin could you give an example of what you mean by traditional woman?

  232. Anonymous Reader says:

    nooneofanyimport
    This is interesting. The theory about traditional housewives being the 1st victims of no-fault divorce isn’t mine, but one of the main points in Domestic Tranquility, written by Carolyn Graglia in 1998. I highly recommend this book btw, even if her research about marriage doesn’t, well, marry up with your own.

    I will be blunt because I need to move on from this break. Two points:

    One: It is quite common for women to play the “discarded wife” card in any discussion of divorce because until quite recently no one called their bluff. I’ll look for the book in question, but frankly I suspect that the authoress doesn’t ever substantiate that claim with facts, because as Dalrock has shown those facts are not in evidence. The days of unsubstantiated “Men Do That Too” or “Men Did It First” claims in lieu of facts are done, and handwaving of the “Oh, no, bad things happened 40 years ago” just won’t cut the mustard anymore.

    Two: Even if the claim were true, it is irrelevent to the reality that all men in the US (and the Anglosphere) live in, which is men’s-fault frivorce. Therefore it is a red herring dragged across the landscape in order to change the topic away from the bad behavior by women, and somehow make the problem All Men’s Fault. We in the androsphere have seen that tired game enough that the herring stinks and we don’t stand for it.

    Marriage 2.0, frivorce for cash and prizes, men forced to raise children they did not father, horribly high suicide rates among men being ground up by the divorce machine – these are facts, and all your “Men DId It Too” reframing does not change those facts.

  233. Minesweeper says:

    @Exfernal says:
    August 11, 2014 at 7:08 pm
    ‘@Minesweeper: Another possible angle: perhaps it’s having TWO lawyers, instead of one, that was the cause of their diligence. One-upmanship, or, in this case, one-upwomanship.’

    That and the happy determination that they wanted to rip their quarry to shreds for her outrageous behaviour :), luckily for me they were on my side.

  234. Gunner Q says:

    Ra’s al Ghul @ 7:07 pm:
    “(unless you are in California then you’re boned)”

    Or any place with Obamacare, really. History will remember it as the point when Marriage 2.0 stopped being voluntary.

  235. Bluedog says:

    @Isa re: August 11, 2014 at 5:36 am

    You asked, “What policy initiatives would be useful in balancing the books?”

    I assume you are referring to my categorization of the ways custody is divided. My intent with the post was just to get us “on the facts” so that we are talking about the right thing. Loose analogy might be a variety of non-experts on fire-fighting talking about supplying the fire department (totally plausible scenario, i.e.: the city procurement office must supply the department) … and starting off well enough on concept, they get down the road to details and just get confused, for example about under which conditions (and how often they occur) the department is fighting electrical versus non-electrical fires.

    If someone doesn’t come in and set them straight – they may perfectly solve the wrong problem.

    As to my opinion – I find the deeper in – the less I know. I came out of my divorce feeling like I knew a lot. I felt like I knew we had to get rid of no-fault, we had to abolish child support, and that the system was hopelessly biased against fathers and all fathers – like me – wanted their kids with them as much as possible.

    I have since learned: I am not sure abolishing no fault is the answer – maybe it is – I’m just saying that the data isn’t as compelling as my own personal anecdote might have been. As to child support … my original position takes this modification: (1) we should look, push, scream and hollar loud for following the Swedish model.

    That’s good politics for you guys here. Show up American liberals when they are being bad liberals. I love this one – when I argue with my liberal friends / colleagues – to point out that the Swedish model – almost doctrinally “more liberal” than the US – is more fair to both parents – then wait for how long the liberal takes to realize how much rhetorical capital he/she has spent arguing against the more liberal position. I say this as a liberal. Clinton was so effective because he hit the GOP from the right. You don’t have to like Clinton – you should learn from his tactical example though.

    (2) failing going over to the Swedish model – I would like to see reform where courts simply order a split of costs to both parents, and then only resort to child support as a last resort if either parent is failing to come through on his/her obligations – so in this case it would be nearly impossible to get a child support ruling on the first time in court.

    I’m using too much copy so I’ll close in the rest … basically Isa I don’t think I’ve answered your question – the best I can do is come at it sideways. Here:
    1) First we need to understand that “sole” custody is probably just not what we are almost ever talking about when we talk about “who wins custody” in divorce cases – nearly all cases where “sole” is rendered are due to causes that are not political in nature … the political issue is “who get’s primary physical custody?”
    2) One thing that would probably make (1) better – maybe nearly make it “go away” – is if we took child support out of the equation – such as by using a suggestion like I just wrote. If neither party stands to gain child support awards … I think better than 1/2 of cases go away. In the cases where it needs to happen – mom will look at it, say “dad, you are more stable, … the state guarantees my legal custody rights whoever they live with … how about they live with you more often?”

    Kind of invisible hand solving itself. I do plan to write about this on my own blog in more detail on “child support payment day” … should be coming out on Aug 16 or 17.

  236. Minesweeper says:

    @Anonymous Reader says:
    August 11, 2014 at 7:32 pm
    “One: It is quite common for women to play the “discarded wife” card in any discussion of divorce because until quite recently no one called their bluff. ”

    Its the same fallacy I heard 30 years ago “men just want to keep women pregnant, barefoot and tied to the kitchen sink”.

    Now is there anyone alive apart from the 1 in 100 million psychopath who has ever seen anything like this ?

    Yet back then it would seem this would be the base of all arguments going forward for all males barring psychopath’s who generally lived by their own rules.

    The discarded wife scenario must be such a low percentage if at least low single digits maybe even among the .% ?. I know of 1 female who this has happened too and no males who have done this, as compared to many dozens of men who have been either frivorced, cheated on or both.

    They gain the upper hand in using the exception to establish the rule.

  237. JDG says:

    August 11, 2014 at 7:30 pm “feminists aren’t just the enemy of men. They are the enemy of the traditional woman.”

    “Lin could you give an example of what you mean by traditional woman?”

    Hello JDG. The traditional woman by my definition follows her husband and puts his career above her own. She is happy to leave work. I am an example of the traditional woman, but also many of my peers in the military community fit the bill. Also, my peers in the homeschool community. Some of my neighbors I suspect would be more traditional were it not for the cultural norms of today. Does that help?

    Cheers,
    Lin

  238. Minesweeper, yep. The last time that myth came up I mentioned that I don’t know a single man or woman who was involved in a “dump her for a younger replacement” divorce. Several other people spoke up to say the same thing, or that they knew of one or two. I do know a couple guys whose wives divorced them against their will, and then they discovered to their surprise that their SMV wasn’t bad at all, maybe even better, and they got a younger wife. And of course there were some women who divorced their husbands for cause due to adultery. But the meme of the woman working to put her husband through medical school, only to have him dump her on the streets and marry his hot young nurse as soon as he’s making good money? Vanishingly rare, even in patriarchal times, as far as I can tell; and yet the fear of that scenario happening to some woman somewhere requires an entire system of punitive damages against virtually any man who winds up in divorce court.

  239. TFH says:

    Vanishingly rare, even in patriarchal times, as far as I can tell; and yet the fear of that scenario happening to some woman somewhere requires an entire system of punitive damages against virtually any man who winds up in divorce court.

    Another reason why democracy has a life-cycle, after which is is invariably followed by a ‘feminist’ police state + goddess cult. There is no other possible outcome of democracy given enough time.

  240. http://greatbooksformen.wordpress.com/2014/08/12/when-dalrock-friends-get-done-patting-themselves-on-the-back-for-their-gamey-game-churchian-gamey-game-skillz-perhaps-dalrock-can-draw-attention-to-men-who-serve/

    when dalrock & friends get done patting themselves on the back for their gamey gamez churchian gamey gamez skillz, perhaps dalrock can draw attention to men who serve:

    men who serve entities greater than themselves.

    all too often at dalrock’s blog, christianity and brotherhood extend no further than one’s own private cockakskzlzlzozlzlzozzlzo. the comments section are always filled with, “if only you had game gamez gamezzz like mez which i gotz from da song of soslomonz zlzoz, your chidlrenedz wouldnt get taken form youz znynhy nyzhzh nyzhzhzh yzhz nzyhzhzhzzzzh cockasz!!!! lzlzozozoz.”

  241. Actor and comedian Robin Williams has committed suicide.

    “Divorce is expensive. I used to joke they were going to call it ‘all the money’, but they changed it to ‘alimony’. It’s ripping your heart out through your wallet,” Williams said.

  242. jf12 says:

    Modern marriage is for the final solution of the canonization of women’s feewings. All of Western society for the past half-century has been dedicated to the proposition that a woman’s fickle feewings define what is good, what is right, what is true for *everyone*.

    A man is doing it right, if a woman likes what he is doing. Otherwise, he’s doing it wrong, even if he’s still doing what she usually likes.

    It used to be said that history was written by the victors. Nowadays history is written by whims of the fashion police.

  243. TFH says:

    All of Western society for the past half-century has been dedicated to the proposition that a woman’s fickle feewings define what is good, what is right, what is true for *everyone*.

    Again, this only happens due to democracy, since politicians have to get votes, and women’s votes can be bought with very well-established, simple tactics that never cease to be effective.

    Democracy does good things in the early stages, but it has a life-cycle. The nature of the female mind simply makes democracy unviable after 3-4 generations.

  244. JDG says:

    Its the same fallacy I heard 30 years ago “men just want to keep women pregnant, barefoot and tied to the kitchen sink”.

    If only we had.

  245. JDG says:

    Pleased to meet you Lin.

    Lin does a traditional woman (in you view) submit to and obey her husband? How does she feel about default paternal custody, no alimony for wives who divorce their husbands, and repealing the 19th amendment?

    Does she find the idea of making a man a sammich demeaning?

  246. MarcusD says:

    @Dalrock

    Have you seen this book?

    Why have sexual and family norms of American society changed so dramatically in the last few decades? Lionel Tiger presents a unique perspective, offering arresting evidence that the real issue is reproduction, a biological process. He argues that the spread of effective contraception, controlled by women, gives them the sole power to decide to, or not to, bear children. Removed from the process of reproduction, men have begun to feel obsolete, resulting in their unprecedented withdrawal from family systems.

  247. MarcusD says:

    @Minesweeper

    Very interesting, joins the dots with the surveys showing female teachers down mark boys and up mark girls. At least its occurring at every level now.

    What’s also quite interesting is that the bias towards girls serves to undermine in some ways, such as in STEM enrollment.

    Cf.
    Mechtenberg, Lydia. “Cheap talk in the classroom: How biased grading at school explains gender differences in achievements, career choices and wages.” The Review of Economic Studies 76.4 (2009): 1431-1459.

    And related:

    Falch, Torberg, and Linn Renée Naper. “Educational evaluation schemes and gender gaps in student achievement.” Economics of Education Review 36 (2013): 12-25.

    Angelo, Catarina S. “Is There a Bias Towards Girls in Non Anonymous Evaluation?.” (2014). (Here: http://2014.economicsofeducation.com/user/pdfsesiones/166.pdf)

    Matějů, Petr, and Michael L. Smith. “Are boys that bad? Gender gaps in measured skills, grades and aspirations in Czech elementary schools.” British Journal of Sociology of Education ahead-of-print (2014): 1-25.

  248. MarcusD says:

    @Cail

    But the meme of the woman working to put her husband through medical school, only to have him dump her on the streets and marry his hot young nurse as soon as he’s making good money? Vanishingly rare, even in patriarchal times, as far as I can tell; and yet the fear of that scenario happening to some woman somewhere requires an entire system of punitive damages against virtually any man who winds up in divorce court.

    I was reminded of this:

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/01/22/Wendy-Davis-Gave-Up-Custody-of-Youngest-Daughter-in-2005-Divorce

  249. Splashman says:

    Lin, you claim to know a lot of traditional women, as you define it, but most folks that hang out at Dalrock’s insist that such women simply doesn’t exist in this era of “Marriage 2.0″. And to prove it, they cite all the other pillars of society that hang out at Dalrock’s.

    Faced with rock-solid evidence like that, I’m sure you’ll understand why your claim will be derided as either a utopian delusion or a false-flag operation.

  250. BradA says:

    Way back, but I am not likely to catch up any time soon.

    @theadsgamer,

    > This occurred back in the 19th century with the rise of the Sunday School movement.

    Do you have any support for this? Does anyone else?

    How were children truly taught the Word prior to that point? Was it just sitting through sermons and such? That doesn’t seem very effective, but then neither does a lot of the entertainment that passes for children and youth ministry today either.

    (Honest question, I am not trying to argue on this.)

    Ballista, you noted that women staying home 150 years ago was the problem. Was the domestic workload really that low then? Didn’t much of the modern “free time” happen after that point? Were women not “keepers at home” prior to that? Everyone did not work on a farm, even in times before then.

  251. BradA says:

    Splashman,

    They may exist, but I think many of those who think they are traditional women are far more colored than they realize.

    We are all products of the age we live in and many things have been woven into the fabric far more than most of us realize.

    I am sure some will claim to see it all, but I will stand by my claim that even those still have been shaped by the environment they lived in.

  252. Minesweeper says:

    @MarcusD says:
    August 12, 2014 at 1:19 am

    What’s also quite interesting is that the bias towards girls serves to undermine in some ways, such as in STEM enrollment.

    How so ?

    @JDG says:
    August 12, 2014 at 12:52 am
    “Its the same fallacy I heard 30 years ago “men just want to keep women pregnant, barefoot and tied to the kitchen sink”.

    If only we had.”

    At least you could never say it was something men made up, if we had it would have included at least a regularly occuring sex act and stern instruction to maintain a decent body mass index while cultivating a pleasant personality.

  253. solitude says:

    The newest christian answer to feminism? restating man up and marry those sluts? giant big ad campaign? Hard to tell from the trailer.

  254. Minesweeper says:

    @MarcusD says:
    August 12, 2014 at 1:19 am

    “Cf.
    Mechtenberg, Lydia. “Cheap talk in the classroom: How biased grading at school explains gender differences in achievements, career choices and wages.” The Review of Economic Studies 76.4 (2009): 1431-1459.”

    How sad. It really hit me that if women support each other and stick together at every level (bumping up girls scores etc), then males will truly have nothing. Cause we don’t stick together at all.

    I’ve heard it said males connect to society(or humanity) via females. And I can believe it too.

    If RobinWilliams (RIP) can’t make it through the day, what hope is there for the rest of us.

  255. Bee says:

    @Frugal Nerd,

    ” I have a strong sex drive.”

    If this is the case, as a Christian man, then you should get married.

    “I keep being told marriage will happen when the right woman comes around.”

    That attitude is way too passive. Finding a good wife is like panning for gold, or panning for a ruby. Use your vacations to hunt for a good wife. Network, be on the hunt.

    Foreign or USA; the top 3 qualities she needs to have are:
    1. Believes she should be submissive to her husband
    2. Willing to be your helpmeet.
    3. Wants to have children and be actively involved in raising them.

  256. Don Quixote says:

    David J. says:

    My most extreme example: I challenged the pastor of the local hyper-fundamentalist (King James Version Only) Baptist church who had accepted my ex-wife into membership so that she could use the church’s facilities for her remarriage (to a twice-divorced man), after which she would be moving 400 miles away to his home, taking my special needs daughter with her. In a logical world, a church that gets hung up on Bible versions, music, pants for women, long hair for men, etc. should (you would think) also be pretty conscientious about divorce and remarriage. Nope. The pastor, never having met me or talked with me before, had already accepted my wife’s contention that divorcing me was biblically justified because I had been “unfaithful’ via pornography.

    @ David J
    This lie persists because the churches hold to it like a drowning man clutching at a straw. There is no place in the Bible for a woman to divorce her husband under any circumstances. The ‘exception-clause’ referred to above is for men only, never for women. Sadly the churches have misappropriated it for political purposes. Before you do the ‘I told you so’ thing with him please have a read of Once Married Always Married, and rebuke his hypocritical ass.

    http://oncemarried.net

  257. tacomaster2 says:

    Dalrock, here’s an article I found that attempts to figure out this exact thing. Maybe someone should reach out to her?

    http://www.bpnews.net/43127/millennial-marriage-rates-declining

  258. Snowy says:

    @ballista74

    I think Dalrock is saying that not only is Marriage 2.0 totally worthless, but the even bigger kicker is Child Support, because it impacts even the man who doesn’t indulge in Marriage 2.0, but has kids. And I guess even the Married 2.0 man who doesn’t have kids with his wife will be reticent to have kids if he’s Red Pill aware of the CS aspects; promoting childless men. No wonder all this surrogacy with sperm donor stuff is really taking off.

  259. greyghost says:

    No wonder all this surrogacy with sperm donor stuff is really taking off.,/blockquote>
    That is how it’s done Snowy

  260. theasdgamer says:

    @ BradA

    > This occurred back in the 19th century with the rise of the Sunday School movement.

    Do you have any support for this? Does anyone else?

    Check out a book by Dr. Leon Podles, The Church Impotent: the Feminization of Christianity

    http://www.churchformen.com/men-and-church/why-do-men-hate-going-to-church

    Also a book by David Murrow: Why men hate going to church

    From: http://www.cbn.com/spirituallife/churchandministry/menhatingchurch.aspx

    In the 1800s, Charles Spurgeon said, “There has got abroad a notion, somehow, that if you become a Christian you must sink your manliness and turn milksop.” Cliff sees Christianity as incongruous with his manhood. It’s a women’s thing.

    There are whole boatloads of men who don’t go to church because it feels so feminized.

  261. JDG says:
    August 12, 2014 at 1:03 am
    “Pleased to meet you Lin.

    Lin does a traditional woman (in you view) submit to and obey her husband? How does she feel about default paternal custody, no alimony for wives who divorce their husbands, and repealing the 19th amendment?”

    Likewise, JDG. As a Christian I should follow the whole Bible, not just pick and choose the
    parts I like. The whole submit/obey thing is definitely in there. So yes, I should. The truth is, I was just as uncomfortable w/the idea as most when I was first married. Military experience brought the wisdom of the arrangement to me. Commands aren’t led by co-commanders. You have a CO, and an XO, and only one of them has final word. Otherwise, disagreement between the two would cripple the mission.

    I don’t have a problem w the idea of no alimony when the wife does the divorcing, outside of cheating or serious physical abuse. Default paternal custody sounds like it has just as much potential for injustice as default materal custody has, so I’m not so sure about that. The whole “kid splitting” issue is so impossible, how about we make divorce illegal until the kids are 18? Except for cheating or serious physical abuse cases, either side.

    I am also on record as a supporter of 19th Amendment repeal:

    http://nooneofanyimport.wordpress.com/2011/06/28/cherry-on-top-award/

    I’m pragmatic. I wish women as a group could vote responsibly, but history shows that’s not the case.

    “Does she find the idea of making a man a sammich demeaning?” LOL

    My best words on this are in an old post: http://nooneofanyimport.wordpress.com/2011/05/07/time-to-offend-a-feminist/

    Lin

  262. BradA says:
    August 12, 2014 at 2:11 am
    “Splashman,

    They [traditional women] may exist, but I think many of those who think they are traditional women are far more colored than they realize.

    We are all products of the age we live in and many things have been woven into the fabric far more than most of us realize.

    I am sure some will claim to see it all, but I will stand by my claim that even those still have been shaped by the environment they lived in.”

    This nails it exactly. We exist, but we are still products of our current culture. That’s why most of us are so miserable. My experience has been, that the more I learn to reject what the current culture tells me, the better I feel. But I am by no means a finished product.

    My best,
    Lin

  263. Opus says:

    Still Off Topic

    A further part of my conversation yesterday (as to religious matters):

    The Mother suggested that I attend a certain church as they had a proper choir (though the organ is out of action). She said that her younger daughter sung in the choir. One needs boys voices, I said, to sing church music. That is sexist, she said. Not at all, I replied, you are a musician and surely appreciate HIP (Historically Informed Performance Practice) and for Anglican Church Music one needs boys voices – you would hardly expect Saxophones in a Beethoven Symphony on the grounds that the quartet of female saxophonists needed something to play. That stopped her.

    (and as to non-religious matters)

    I also had to point out that I was not her friend but a friend of her husband. She was hurt. I commented further that if I were her friend I was a friend without benefits which would make me a beta orbiter which assuredly I was not nor had any wish to be. She had asked me out (the first time she had gone out since her husband had disappeared on a three week cat-minding holiday abroad) and was put out that I allowed her to pay for the drinks. I said I would pay for the second round but as she asked me out she must expect to pay and besides she has a large salary. She said I never ask people out and so I always get to be paid for. I am popular, I explained.

    She suggested I join a dating agency [doubtless to gauge my interest in her] as there were lots of older women looking for men and said that she would not want to be without a man. I said that if I wanted a woman I could approach one in the street and had had some success as a P.U.A. Yes she said, like your friend who invited me back to his apartment when you introduced us. Did you go, I asked. She said not. I told her that eating fresh wasp would be preferable to dating a menopausal fifty year old. Hurt by this also, as she was, I explained that a woman would have to bring something to the table (youth, beauty, slimness, a sandwich the movies) to attract a man. She said that older women have baggage. That is their problem, I explained. What do men have to bring she asked?

  264. Dalrock, after a night’s sleep I realize that I was the one comparing apples to oranges. 2nd wave feminists hopped on board the no-fault divorce train, not because they wanted to punish traditional housewives w/divorce, but because they wanted to eliminate the traditional housewife. Stripping that role of some legal protections bolstered their argument that only suckers stay home.

    My best,
    Lin

  265. earl says:

    “Modern marriage is a game women play on men for their own personal gain. It’s a game men can’t win. So one has to ask why men would continue to play such a game which only allows them to lose. Do they not care enough about their own person and their security to act on their own behalf and walk away from such a traditional travesty?”

    Have you seen the latest marriage rate…it keeps going down. I think men have got the idea of what modern marriage is about.

  266. jf12 says:

    re: staying together for the kids.

    While it seems like a Solomonic solution to permit divorce only after the kids are grown, that is almost the worst solution possible if the goal would be to encourage (re-)marriage.
    1) The older woman loses the benefit of her husband’s wife goggles (“wife of your youth”).
    2) The older man’s selection of available women is mostly limited to women who ceased finding sex worth staying married for …

  267. “Marriage is important to society for avoiding poverty, rearing children who are more likely to get an education and advancing in a career,” Lenow said. “Particularly for men, marriage typically brings what has been called the ‘marriage premium’ where married men with identical experience and education make more money than their single counterparts.”

    Says all about their mindset over marriage and why they will never correct the decline. It’s not a “marriage premium” for the man but one for society. The man does not benefit, he simply has to work more to support his family compared to the non-stressful life of his same educated bachelor neighbour..

    They should start with speaking the truth to men rather than continue with an easily disprovable lie.

  268. theasdgamer says:

    Even More Off Topic but Maybe Interesting

    @ Opus

    She said I never ask people out and so I always get to be paid for. I am popular, I explained.

    Relating to your experience: I’m not popular enough (or perhaps too married) to be asked out, but when I go out, women offer to let me sample their drinks. I never return the favor, lol, as I’m a cheapskate and drink beer when they are drinking cocktails. They also get to share the expense of any food they eat.

    What do men have to bring she asked?

    A fit body. “Interesting” (cough-sexual-cough) conversation. A pleasant demeanor. Kino. Maybe dancing. Maybe tats and a motorcycle. Maybe MMA prowess. A c0ck. All things that women like.

    Women, of course, need to bring things that make the transaction equitable. SMV matters. Older women need to add value in non-SMV ways and minimize the impact of baggage. Booze, food, vids, vacations, etc.

  269. “Particularly for men, marriage typically brings what has been called the ‘marriage premium’ where married men with identical experience and education make more money than their single counterparts.”

    Yes, all this proves is that most men, left to their own devices, wouldn’t choose to work long hours to make as much money as possible; any more than most women, left to their own devices, would choose to have sex every day. Both are sacrifices they make for the sake of the marriage, but now only one is expected (and enforced if necessary) while the other is not.

  270. Tam the Bam says:

    Taco, (in the link to the BP) I see she’s swallowed this old classic. Hook, line & sinker.
    “Lenow said. “Particularly for men, marriage typically brings what has been called the ‘marriage premium’ where married men with identical experience and education make more money than their single counterparts.””

    Yeh well they’d better make more money than I suppose, college students, divorcees, or those nogoodnik MGTOWs who mystifyingly refuse to write blank checks for any random old bird that crosses their line of sight.
    Or it’s out on yer ear, matey!

    So if you want to stay married, chaps, grind yourself into an early grave and sack away Her cash for Her, “making more money than your single counterpart”, because if you don’t …
    … why,you’ll magically become “single” again, and coincidentally not have a pot to piss in, till you croak more than likely.
    Ain’t figures wonderful? “Marriage premium”? Aye that’ll be shining bright. It’s the excess on that policy I reject.

  271. Tam the Bam says:

    Tut tut. Ninja’d by Cail.
    [memo to self: think more, talk less]

  272. Opus says:

    @The asdgamer

    Women always have a higher SMV. This is a woman who boasts that she has never been so much as one day without a boyfriend since she was fifteen – she always set the next one up before disposing of the current lover. As they age their SMV declines (as perhaps does male interest in females generally) but it must be hard to realise that even though (as you can see) she is attempting to entice me, her V has little power now. Fundamentalist Christian too.

  273. theasdgamer says:

    @ Opus

    it must be hard to realise that even though (as you can see) she is attempting to entice me, her V has little power now

    Fresh tarts smell sweetest.

  274. theasdgamer says:

    @ Opus

    Regarding a woman bringing more–a woman whom I know added the prospect of free booze to entice me to accept her as my canoeing partner on a float trip. I’m an experienced canoeist. I accepted.

    Regarding SMV: Women over 50 have minimal reproductive value. Men over 50 might still have a lot.

  275. Anonymous Reader says:

    Minesweeper
    It really hit me that if women support each other and stick together at every level (bumping up girls scores etc), then males will truly have nothing. Cause we don’t stick together at all.

    The more formal name for that is “in-group preference”. That is, given a choice between a member of the group, and not a member of the group, an individual will prefer a member of the group. There has been a little research that shows women have an in-group preference of 4 to 1. So, for example, if a woman in charge of Human Resources is hiring a new clerk, she’s more likely to hire another woman than a man (4 times more likely). This at least in part explains why any area of endeavor that allows women to become even a substantial plurality within it will become female-dominated in a fairly short time. Women’s “herd” tendency is clearly related to in-group preference, as well.

    Men don’t work the same as women. That is because we are different from them.

    One can speculate, in evolutionary biology terms, why women have this in-group preference. But the effects of it are plain to see, it is one of those things that once you understand it, you see it all around. I’ll note that this in-group preference / herding can be useful, if it is used properly.

  276. jf12 says:

    Cail is thah winnah!

    http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/08/09/what-is-modern-marriage-for/#comment-136013

    I’m only adding the following observation: married women have better maintained cars than their single counterparts. Draw erroneous conclusions at your own risk.

  277. jf12 says:

    @tasdg re: fresh tarts.

    OT, just reminiscing. My first wife’s mother made awesome fried pies. I was 140 lbs when I married her daughter, so she considered it her duty to fatten me up, unsuccessfully, although when with them I often ate more than any three others put together. Her fruit pies were excellent, but her chocolate pies were to die for, and were better the next day.

    My second wife’s father did manage to fatten me up a little. He’s the one who showed me how to do ribs right. One time after a little fishing expedition together he said “You clean ‘em, I’ll cook ‘em.” to which I replied “Then I’ll eat ‘em.” And I did. All of ‘em, because he wasn’t feeling well. Crawfish, carp backstrap, and gator tail, cleaned and boiled together with corn and potatoes and his secret seasonings (crab boil, among other things). I ate literally all day long, eating the “soup” with just a fork and slurping it out of the bowl, in the neighborhood of twenty thousand calories. He was weepy at finding a comrade who enjoyed his cooking.

  278. Opus says:

    Still off topic

    I would like to add and I do not think I have ever seen this phenomenon referred to in the Man-o-sphere – so this is new – that in addition to the Christian Mother I above referred to I have another friend whose wife was always throwing herself at me. That was until I so insulted her that she refused to speak to me for months on end.

    It seems to me that if a single man has a friend who is married then the married man’s wife will think that the single guy must be pretty amazing otherwise her husband would not be best-friends with him and thus the woman is herself interested (a form of pre-selection). In support of this idea and referring back to my friend who has gone cat-minding abroad, a young woman used to come up to us when we were sitting together drinking in the pub and say to him (after having insulted me – although there were mutual insults – being on the receiving ends of put-downs was not something she was familiar with) ‘what do you see in that guy?’. I take that to be a strange form of acknowledgement of interest under the plausible deniability of an insult.

    Have other single guys her had the same experience? Have married men seen this behaviour in their wives? I’d like to know.

  279. Ann K says:

    Late to the party, but I think it’s worth adding what Father Stephen Freeman posted recently in his “Glory To God For All Things:
    “I have noted previously that modern relationships are largely conceived in terms of “contract.” They are based on mutual agreement with shared expectations and assumptions. We also seem to feel that all contracts are negotiable and that no contract is forever. Contracts are essentially psychological – they are maintained so long as we “like” them and are abandoned when that ceases to be the case.

    Older societies tended to create bonds of blood and geography. Kinship brings a certain natural bond, and if reinforced by culture, can be extremely strong. Geography has something of the same character, with ethnic (near-blood) and cultural ties reinforcing the bond.

    The modern world has worked hard to overcome these bonds of nature. Multiculturalism is a synonym for the absence of kinship and geography. The makers of public opinion have worked hard to turn this feature of modernity into a virtue. Blood and ethnic bonds are sometimes labeled as racist or nationalist.

    Christianity is perhaps the first voice to have spoken about the transcendence of blood and ethnicity (even gender).

    http://glory2godforallthings.com/2014/08/09/the-bonds-of-humanity/

  280. jf12 says:

    @Opus re: married men with amazing single friends.

    Are married men allowed to have (same age) single guy friends, somewhere, somewhen? If so, they tend to be the guys who need married friends to help them to be set up with single gals, i.e. not so amazing. But this is older generational stuff.

    I do tend to hang around *many* more young singles, men and women, than young marrieds. But I’m not entirely sure if that is mostly due to so many being single, or the young marrieds being so insular. As a young married in the 1970s essentially all of our friends, friend-friends, actually getting togather and doing stuff together, were young marrieds.

  281. ballista74 says:

    @BradA

    The Sunday School movement has nothing to do with what you see today. Before the public school system took hold, a lot of the churches took up regular education of kids who couldn’t afford any of the other options in existence. When the public school system took hold, many of these churches still had the facilities tied up, so they transitioned it onto their own congregations.

    As for your other point, about 150 years ago the changes of the Industrial Revolution became common place. Before that, women had to work as much as the men to keep the families going. Pickles, jams, preserves, food preparation (not like it is today!), clothing, candles, all of that was on the woman to get done. As part of the Industrial Revolution, all of that got moved into the plants, where guess what? The men were doing it. So the man in the family began doing ALL of the work. Sure there were a few chores left (cooking, cleaning), but the woman was literally left with next to nothing to do. As Douglas Wilson is quoted:

    But with the rise of industrialized wealth, the role of women shifted from producing to consuming. The women were, in effect, disestablished—and became decorative. Middle class women became a new leisure class, with money to spend, and time to fill.

    This, coupled with the man being absent, kicked off all the problems we see today with feminism.

    @Minesweeper

    It really hit me that if women support each other and stick together at every level (bumping up girls scores etc), then males will truly have nothing. Cause we don’t stick together at all.

    Feminism would end in 5 seconds if every man stood against it, and literally controlled women in the way that they should. Unfortunately, you got the vast majority of men repeating the sin of Adam, and in truth women control men. Even now, the majority is still Blue-Pill white knights and manginae.

    @Opus Never.

    “I have noted previously that modern relationships are largely conceived in terms of “contract.” They are based on mutual agreement with shared expectations and assumptions. We also seem to feel that all contracts are negotiable and that no contract is forever. Contracts are essentially psychological – they are maintained so long as we “like” them and are abandoned when that ceases to be the case.

    Typical fallaciousness. All marriage has always been based on “contract” or “covenant”. The problem the feminist priest fails to see is that when you give one party of the contract a universal right to modify or refuse to follow it, and then reward them for it, the contract becomes pretty useless.

  282. Opus says:

    @Ballista74

    Not me. You are referring to Ann K who is herself quoting.

  283. ballista74 says:

    @Opus Yes, I forgot to note that.

  284. Exfernal says:

    “..the contract becomes pretty useless.”

    In other words, it becomes an illusory promise. “Marriage does not exist” says
    Stephen Baskerville (my hat tip to GBFM).

  285. JDG says:

    Lin good to know. Like Brad has alluded to, many “traditional” women are keeping destructive traditions. They are (sometimes unknowingly) feminists of the politically ‘right’ variety. Still, paternal custody is a significant part of a biblical patriarchy, and I think society refusing to acknowledge divorce (with possibly a few exceptions) is a good idea too. At this point though, I would like to see the state OUT of marriage altogether.

  286. JDG says:

    Feminism would end in 5 seconds if every man stood against it, and literally controlled women in the way that they should.

    It hurts, but it’s the truth. It wouldn’t even need to be every single man, just the majority of men.

  287. earl says:

    “Feminism would end in 5 seconds if every man stood against it, and literally controlled women in the way that they should.”

    Here’s what would end feminism and it would have to be instituted by men.

    1) Remove hormonal birth control and abortion.
    2) Remove no-fault divorce.
    3) Remove the 19th amendment.

    There’s probably more to that list.

    It would be a tough and long battle. That’s what happens when you give women power…they aren’t going to relinquish it easily.

  288. “or better yet kill the judge and go to jail they all lose”

    No, not really, because this gives them a reason to keep treating men like animals that need to be reined in.

  289. JDG says:

    It would be a tough and long battle. That’s what happens when you give women power…they aren’t going to relinquish it easily.

    If the majority of men got on board, it wouldn’t be a battle at all. Men gave women all those things, and men could easily take them back if they were so inclined.

  290. earl says:

    “If the majority of men got on board, it wouldn’t be a battle at all. Men gave women all those things, and men could easily take them back if they were so inclined.”

    Do the majority of men have cojones?

  291. joshtheaspie says:

    @Pro-Truth
    The whole concept of striving for “equality” is bunk, since none of us are equal. Not to mention that equality is a mathematical term.

    Yes, it is. And mathematics has within it the concept that equality is a part of a system of comparison, and is based on a metric within that system of comparison.

    What most people think of as equality is often an imperfect understanding of universal equivalence equality. In other words, if not all properties of a thing are exactly the same, the two things are not equal. This is a very useful metric of equality, but not the only one, and if taken to it’s extremely pure definition, can sometimes be ludicrous in real world uses.

    I have moved through space on a hurtling rock, around a ball of gas hurtling even faster around the center of the galaxy. I’ve also aged, and filled up on some delicious soup while writing it. I also have advanced in time, and in age. Several of my specific values and states have changed. As a result, by strict universal equivalence style equality, I am not equal to the me that started writing this post.

    So obviously, for practical use, we need other metrics of comparison. For example, if I’m going to be grain feeding some cattle, and I buy 50 bags of feed corn all at once from the same company, it doesn’t really matter which bag of feed corn I’m going to feed my cows. Despite each having a different number of grains, each of which is slightly different from all the others, for all practical discussion, the bags are equal.

    If I’ve got got workers producing hand made chocolates, and two workers produce, on average, the same number of the same kind of chocolates, reliably show up to work, etc. Then as workers for me, they are equal.

    Consider 1 Corinthians 12. I’ll quote 4-12, but the entire chapter is quite relevant here.

    http://www.biblestudytools.com/asv/1-corinthians/12.html

    4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5 And there are diversities of ministrations, and the same Lord. 6 And there are diversities of workings, but the same God, who worketh all things in all. 7 But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit to profit withal. 8 For to one is given through the Spirit the word of wisdom; and to another the word of knowledge, according to the same Spirit: 9 to another faith, in the same Spirit; and to another gifts of healings, in the one Spirit; 10 and to another workings of miracles; and to another prophecy; and to another discernings of spirits; to another [divers] kinds of tongues; and to another the interpretation of tongues: 11 but all these worketh the one and the same Spirit, dividing to each one severally even as he will. 12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of the body, being many, are one body; so also is Christ.

    We are all one in Christ. We are equally saved by his grace. All who are saved are loved by him, and members in the brotherhood of Christ.

    Similarly, James 2:1-4

    http://biblehub.com/niv/james/2.htm

    1My brothers and sisters, believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ must not show favoritism. 2Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in filthy old clothes also comes in. 3If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, “Here’s a good seat for you,” but say to the poor man, “You stand there” or “Sit on the floor by my feet,” 4have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?

    The kind of equality our founders were talking about was that we are all equally human, and thus equal in the dignity and rights inherent in being human. They said that we were equal in that way even if we have different qualities. Certain groups were respected as having more reliable agency and logic and thus more of the duality of power and responsibility (men). Others were afforded more legal privileges and protections because it is judged they needed it, and their safety was judged more important to the propagation of civilization (women).

    The founders did say we were different, but they still said that in our differences, we were still equal in some very important ways, and on the whole.

  292. “At this point though, I would like to see the state OUT of marriage altogether.”

    Me too, JDG.

  293. JDG says:

    Do the majority of men have cojones?

    If they do they are hiding it well. Maybe the women they submit to have them. You think those women would give them back?

    So how do you get men, if their cojones are now in possession of women, get up the nerve to take back their cojones when these men no longer have cojones?

  294. happyhen11 says:

    Ann K… thank you for quoting Father Freeman’s work. I keep up with his writings and try to keep up with his blog, though he is a prolific writer. His writings on the Modern Project and it’s incompatibility with Classical Christianity and even normal human civilization have been particularly interesting. It is hard to find a single article he writes that doesn’t challenge me as a child of the Western Enlightenment in uncomfortable but very necessary ways. That anyone could call him a feminist proves only that they have no knowledge of his work.

  295. jf12 says:

    re: illusory promise.

    The last time I went to my previous hair cutter person, the last thing I said to her was “Welp, I guess I’ll see you next time!” Was that some implicit contract based upon prior performance, or was that an illusory promise, or merely mouth noises signifying nothing?

  296. Random Angeleno says:

    Robin Williams was another victim of the divorce mill:

    Though Williams had one of Hollywood’s most enduring careers, divorce — from first wife Valerie Velardi in 1988, and from second wife, Marsha Garces in 2008 — had gutted his bank account.

    “Divorce is expensive,” he recently said. “I used to joke they were going to call it ‘all the money’, but they changed it to ‘alimony’. It’s ripping your heart out through your wallet.”

    With financial pressures weighing, the insider said that the cancellation of The Crazy Ones in May sent him spiraling.

    “Robin slipped into a deep depression,” the source said. “He felt embarrassed and humiliated that the show had been a failure. It was very hard for Robin to accept. Here he was in his sixties, and forced to take a role on television for the money. It’s just not where he thought he would be at this point in his life.”

    From http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2014/08/robin-williams-had-serious-money-troubles-in-months-before-his-death-claims-friend-was-the-pressure-too-much/

  297. mikediver5 says:

    There has been much discussion on how to save marriage; the focus being how to ameliorate the effects of divorce. Get rid of no-fault divorce; which is just going back to perjury in divorce court so women can get the divorce they want when they want it. As far as I have seen, having to lie has never stopped a woman from doing anything. Give the father default custody. Get the state out of the marriage at the start. None of these will work. I have seen marriage work in one place, the Philippines. When my Filipino wife and I were last visiting the Philippines we were in a large modern mall. It had different store names, but in all physical aspects it was just like the malls here in the US. I asked my wife what was different. She couldn’t see any difference. Then I pointed out that in the US you mostly see women with other women. Where the women had their families with them the husband was walking two or three paces behind, carrying the packages, with a beat down expression staring at the ground. All the women had a scowl and were yelling at their husbands and the kids, and the kids were running wild. In the Philippines mall the majority were family units. The wife was holding her husband’s arm, brushing his neck and looking and speaking to him. The husband was in charge of the children, and they were well behaved. Everyone, men, women and children, seemed much happier. Once I pointed it out she was amazed that she hadn’t seen it. The difference is no divorce. If you have divorce you can’t have marriage.

    To save a few people from the few miserable marriages, we have thrown out marriage for everyone else. By the way, not having divorce as an option does not mean forcing women to put up with physical assault; separation is still allowed. In really bad marriages the people separate and live lives apart. However, there is no divorce, and no remarriage. It is like the Bible envisions marriage. This also stops the bulk of the frivolous marriages. My first wife was a total feminist bitch. She married me (as I found out in the course of our divorce) because she didn’t want to move back into her traditional controlling parents’ house and didn’t have another means of supporting herself. She freely admitted that when marrying me she walked down the aisle thinking that if it didn’t work out she would just divorce me; no harm done (to her). This is the mindset of the modern marriage; women are not risking anything and are not really committing to anything. There is no other mindset that allowing divorce will ever produce. I could have gotten that marriage annulled on that basis alone, but refused to lower myself to please the church. My parents would never accept my divorce/annulment anyway, very old church.

    A theme often discussed here is the fathers of daughters pushing them to get a degree and be able to support themselves. This is because the possibility of divorce means all women have to have a plan B. Plan B preparation has pushed plan A preparation completely out of consideration. Women are prepared for work rather than marriage because divorce is possible. By the time Plan B is safely in place the possibility of early marriage and about 90% of the primary fertility window is gone. The woman then gets married to a man she is not attracted to in the last gasp of her babies rabies drive to have a child. Then she divorces him because she didn’t want him in the first place. He was never more than a disposable means to an end. One thing I have noted in the Filipino community in the US (mostly white men with Filipina wives) is that the Filipinas are having their 2 to 3 children in their early twenties, not their mid-thirties. They do adapt the small family size part of the American culture, but have children at an appropriate age.

    Shared custody is never an issue if there is no divorce. A woman can’t take away your children if she can’t divorce you. Child support and alimony becomes non-issues if there is no divorce. A necessary component of this societal structure seems to be the absence of forcing unmarried men to pay CS. If a man does not “man up” with the woman he got pregnant she is out of luck. This seems to make most women unwilling to give up the goods unless they are pretty sure of the guy. They don’t build experience with dozens of guys while deciding. They have skin in the game. On the other side of the coin, if a guy knocks up his girlfriend the village bands together and puts tremendous pressure on the guy to do the right thing. And in the social setting he gets some benefit, and some respect, from all for living up to his responsibilities. BTW I have seen very few women in the Philippines use hormonal birth control. My wife never has and we married when she was 25. Of course being a virgin, and fully intending to be a virgin on her wedding night, pretty much eliminated the need for any birth control.
    I have seen a lot of couples in the Philippines that have put off (legal) marriage until they were sure. This usually means they marry about the time their oldest child starts high school. By then they know it will work. The mindset there is that when you are with someone you pretty much are going to stay with that person for the rest of your life barring truly catastrophic outcomes. The wedding is just the icing on the cake of a long term relationship. While they wait to be sure, the difference between their shacking up and being married is minimal. They present as a married couple; it is just that the government is not involved. The government of the Philippines is involved in only one way with marriage; they keep a national register of marriages. Once you are on this register you are married forever, or death. My marriage is registered in the Philippines. To get married both parties have to provide a certificate of no marriage (called a CENOMAR) based on the government register. The government does not give divorces. If you want an annulment you have to go to the church, and it is rarely given, and only after many years and lots of expense.

    I have come to that conclusion based on a long life’s experience that there is no other way. If you have divorce you can’t have marriage.

  298. DeNihilist says:

    Robin is not the best candidate for whining about women driven divorce. From Wiki –

    “On June 4, 1978, Robin Williams married his first wife, Valerie Velardi. Their son Zachary Pym “Zak” Williams was born on April 11, 1983. During Williams’s first marriage, he was involved in an extramarital relationship with Michelle Tish Carter, a cocktail waitress whom he met in 1984. She sued him in 1986, claiming that he did not tell her he was infected with the herpes simplex virus before he embarked on a sexual relationship with her in the mid-1980s, during which, she said, he transmitted the virus to her. The case was settled out of court. Williams and Velardi divorced in 1988.[57][58]

    On April 30, 1989, he married Marsha Garces, a Filipino American and Zachary’s nanny, who was several months pregnant with his child. They had two children, Zelda Rae Williams (born July 31, 1989) and Cody Alan Williams (born November 25, 1991). In March 2008, Garces filed for divorce from Williams, citing irreconcilable differences.[58][59]

    Williams married his third wife, graphic designer Susan Schneider, on October 23, 2011, in St. Helena, California.[60] Their residence was Williams’s house in Sea Cliff, a neighborhood in San Francisco, California.[58][61][62]

    Of what gives him a sense of wonder, Williams stated, “My children give me a great sense of wonder. Just to see them develop into these extraordinary human beings”

  299. Random Angeleno says:

    I have been to the Philippines too, and while I found the malls in as you say, what you refused to see and hence won’t mention is that there is a huge problem in the middle and under classes with cads impregnating daughters and then leaving them to fend for themselves. Why don’t they stick around, you ask … well that same lack of divorce coupled with the lack of jobs coupled with the culture that tolerates laziness among the men gives rise to a toxic stew in which young women are left vulnerable to cads who are incentivized to split the scene in lieu of accepting responsibility, often with the help of his family. In some circles, yes low N is still truly valued, those are the Filipinas to marry. In other circles, it’s given lip service at best.

    Mind you, I didn’t say bring divorce to the Philippines … rather, just like here, the incentives for men to marry and support families need a considerable adjustment, especially in the middle and lower classes. Over there, they already have no divorce, but that is not enough by itself. Hence, you should see that if divorce is at least made very hard to get here, while that will be a big help, it won’t resolve the issues by itself.

    I know I’m not the first one with this sentiment, I’m just repeating it: shame needs to be brought back into our social discourse …

  300. mustardnine says:

    Random Angeleno says:
    August 12, 2014 at 2:14 pm
    Robin Williams was another victim of the divorce mill

    Yep. And even funny guys, and even rich guys, can only take so much. They, too, have hearts and souls. Poor guy.

    Men, take notice.

  301. jf12 says:

    mikediver5 re: “To save a few people from the few miserable marriages, we have thrown out marriage for everyone else.”

    A nanny state does such things reflexively. What makes it so much worse is when the nanny state has to pretend that everyone needs exactly equal treatment, so that the specially protected miserable ones won’t feel like a specially protected class.

    You know how babies love to luxuriate on soft surfaces and love to sleep comfortably on their stomachs? In many parts of the United States you will be arrested if you do not forcibly stretch your baby onto its back, crying on a hard uncomfortable surface, because a few mothers were neglectful but the state did not want to find the mothers neglectful.

  302. Novaseeker says:

    Yep. And even funny guys, and even rich guys, can only take so much. They, too, have hearts and souls. Poor guy.

    Men, take notice.

    True, and, not to take pot shots at the recently deceased, he did choose to marry three times — not once, not twice, but three times.

  303. Minesweeper says:

    @mikediver5 says:
    August 12, 2014 at 2:31 pm

    “As far as I have seen, having to lie has never stopped a woman from doing anything.”
    “If you have divorce you can’t have marriage.” – you mean easy divorce or any ?
    “To save a few people from the few miserable marriages, we have thrown out marriage for everyone else. ”
    “My first wife was a total feminist bitch. She married me (as I found out in the course of our divorce) because she didn’t want to move back into her traditional controlling parents’ house and didn’t have another means of supporting herself. She freely admitted that when marrying me she walked down the aisle thinking that if it didn’t work out she would just divorce me; no harm done (to her). This is the mindset of the modern marriage; women are not risking anything and are not really committing to anything.”

    Yep, similar story here although I don’t think my ex could actually think that far ahead.

    Wonder if it will be released just how much the divorce cost Robin his mental (and physical) health also. Like many other tens of millions of men.

    http://www.tmz.com/2014/08/12/robin-williams-trust-kids-children-money-will/#ixzz3ADISzTOc

    As for how much Robin was worth … there were estimates approaching $130 million in 2012. But in 2013 Robin did an interview saying he was on the verge of bankruptcy because of his 2 costly divorces.

    Robin said at the time he was selling his $35 million estate to become solvent again.

    Which speaks to me that he was up to his eyes in debt after protecting money for his kids in a trust from his predetary divorces.

    Its a terrible thing for your life’s work to be carted off into the sunset by some cackling witch.

  304. deti says:

    So it comes out, finally: Comedic genius Robin Williams was in his 60s, working hard, taking roles he thought beneath him. All this not because he wanted to work, but because he needed the money to pay his ex wives and meet his alimony obligations.

    I don’t know how true this is, but the same’s been said of Billy Joel. I remember seeing somewhere him telling interviewers that he went through a really bad divorce from his first wife just as his career was taking off. He was so prolific in his post-“Glass Houses” career because he had to be – he needed money and so he kept writing, recording, and touring constantly.

  305. TFH says:

    About Robin Williams, perhaps the misandry of divorce courts is part of it.

    But his net worth was still apparently over $30M :

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/101914280

  306. Minesweeper says:

    @TFH
    This dosn’t make sense, unless he had humongous obligations to ex’s or something. Maybe he lost $10M’s+ in the 2008 divorce and crash ? And it was too much to handle.

    I know a few millionaires (not me unfortunately), one thing I know is that these guys DO NOT have to take up jobs for money like Robin was doing with TV series,TV adverts and crappy movies. If they work at all its because they enjoy it but they don’t need to. Also none of them is divorced all still married. Wonder if that says something.

    RW dosn’t seem to me to be a man who was financially secure, even with a $30M estate he is trying to sell, he could have a $35M morgage on it. Wonder if a financial journalist will delve into this and find out what went on.

    Of course he will have life insurance so everyone else will be covered happily financially at least.

    Maybe its a bit like Michael Jackson, broke until he died. Its a terrible indictment on humanity it really is.

  307. jf12 says:

    @Minesweeper, re: “RW dosn’t seem to me to be a man who was financially secure, even with a $30M estate he is trying to sell, he could have a $35M morgage on it.”

    Those are the correct numbers; he was willing to take a $5M hit to get rid of it, and it still hasn’t sold. He was scheduled to finish six more feature-length movies, two hosting venues, and various tv and other appearances this year because he needed the money. The series that was cancelled in May prompted a binge that saw him involuntarily committed.

  308. Novaseeker says:

    He had issues, unfortunately. It’s also well known that he struggled with alcohol and substance abuse on and off his whole life (which I would venture a guess impacted his relationship woes). It would be very unsurprising if he had issues managing money properly as a result of that.

  309. Minesweeper says:

    “Robin said at the time he was selling his $35 million estate to become solvent again.”

    It really begs the question, how can you own a $35M estate and not be solvent. It must be that he didn’t own it, and the morgage\interest payments had him under the cosh, maybe at $30M what he was selling it for now it was underwater.

    I reckon he was in serious financial trouble, the divorces has literally cleaned him out completely, to extract himself from obligations due to future earnings on projects that were completed during the marriage as are common in the film industry. Check out Michael Douglas’s ex trying to push for Wall Street 2 money – in court – 10 years after their divorce. With the cancellation of his last TV series, even his other income from movies wasn’t enough to dig himself out of the hole he had found himself in. Maybe he also couldn’t face telling his current wife its all gone to sh*t.

    Bonkers, greedy and terribly terribly sad.

    Who would have thought it, RW possibly as the poster child for the ruinous effects of the divorce industry on men. Although I’m sure any impact from this will be swept under the carpet. You see it when other celebs commit suicide just as she wanted a divorce, its all swept under the carpet to protect those living from any repercussions. Except for the next man to be entered into the grinder, everything is in place for him.

    And I’m sure none of those involved with this will feel the slightest remorse.

  310. Anti-feminists don’t need to be the majority, we just need to outnumbed the feminists.

    Why in the heck were Robin Williams’s wives entitled to so much of his money? It’s not like they helped.him become a talented actor.

  311. Minesweeper says:

    @jf12 says:
    August 12, 2014 at 5:46 pm
    @Minesweeper, re: “RW dosn’t seem to me to be a man who was financially secure, even with a $30M estate he is trying to sell, he could have a $35M morgage on it.”

    Those are the correct numbers; he was willing to take a $5M hit to get rid of it, and it still hasn’t sold. He was scheduled to finish six more feature-length movies , two hosting venues, and various tv and other appearances this year because he needed the money. The series that was cancelled in May prompted a binge that saw him involuntarily committed.

    So that was the final straw then. Without the TV show even with his other commitments somehow he saw that he couldn’t go on. Or …..

  312. Minesweeper says:

    @DeNihilist says:
    August 12, 2014 at 2:34 pm
    Robin is not the best candidate for whining about women driven divorce

    How can you think this ? Do you think a very talented individual deserves financial ruination from those who have contributed nothing to his wealth ?

  313. BradA says:

    Ballista,

    I would not want to go back to having to can my own food, but it does have merit that the simplification on a wife’s load could be pretty significant with just that shift alone. I have always tended to think more about the more recent shifts, though perhaps that had a more significant impact.

    ASD,

    I have already read the Why Men Don’t Like Church book. It has some good points and I have given a copy to 2 different pastors. I am trying to get the second one to read the posts here. (I told him to not comment until he had read for a while, even if he wanted to do so.

    I will try to add the others to my list to look into.

  314. Gunner Q says:

    Opus @ 10:16 am:
    “It seems to me that if a single man has a friend who is married then the married man’s wife will think that the single guy must be pretty amazing otherwise her husband would not be best-friends with him and thus the woman is herself interested (a form of pre-selection)….

    Have other single guys here had the same experience? Have married men seen this behaviour in their wives? I’d like to know.”

    My experience is that friends vanish when they get married. Either he’s enjoying his new wife that much or the new wife sees me as competing for hubby’s time & investment and keeps him away from me. But then the babies come, etc. and we stop having common ground anyway. I can’t hang out with married friends when having fun requires two weeks’ notice and a babysitter.

    Ann K @ 10:25 am:
    “I have noted previously that modern relationships are largely conceived in terms of “contract.”

    Older societies tended to create bonds of blood and geography.”

    Older societies were too illiterate to have a contract mentality and had such small, static populations that formalities could often be ignored. The solution to Marriage 2.0 is not such tribalism. It’s forcing our government leaders, somehow, to perform the duties our government was created to do in the first place… and exploiting workarounds like Game and MGTOW in the meantime.

    Marriage 2.0 exists because our government wants it to exist, that’s the cold truth. It turns men into slaves of the divorce courts, women into toys for the powerful and children into orphans for easy State indoctrination. Nobody wins in Marriage 2.0 except totalitarian elites.

  315. Minesweeper says:

    @Opus @ 10:16 am:
    “It seems to me that if a single man has a friend who is married then the married man’s wife will think that the single guy must be pretty amazing otherwise her husband would not be best-friends with him and thus the woman is herself interested (a form of pre-selection)”

    No she is interested because he is more alpha and independent than the slub she now has tied up in the basement of her underwear drawer.
    He is cleverer than the one she got as he is able to avoid the marriage traps.

    I’ve seen this with me. Its like the single guy looks at his married friend and thinks you poor chump, she does too. Its the dichotomy of females, they are desperate to tie it down then despise it when they do. They must just always be kept on edge to maximise their input into the relationship and their enjoyment of it, abit like an employee who thinks he will be fired, he is motivated and gets more satisfaction out of it.

  316. TFH says:

    Minesweeper,

    Its the dichotomy of females, they are desperate to tie it down then despise it when they do. They must just always be kept on edge to maximise their input into the relationship and their enjoyment of it, abit like an employee who thinks he will be fired, he is motivated and gets more satisfaction out of it.

    Thus, women having a threatpoint is a bad thing for the woman’s happiness too.

    Note that societies where men hold at least some of the power in matters of divorce are societies with low divorce rates, and where 90%+ of all children grow up living with both biological parents.

  317. MarcusD says:

    Check out Michael Douglas’s ex trying to push for Wall Street 2 money – in court – 10 years after their divorce.

    Which is interesting, given a certain film he starred in:

  318. Minesweeper says:

    @TFH Thus, women having a threatpoint is a bad thing for the woman’s happiness too.

    How so ? Are you saying that they are happiest in a relationship where they have no options at all? Or because they hold all the cards the guy can’t exercise his threatpoint so they never feel stimulated ?

    I always thought it was a bit like when your at work, something serious goes wrong, the drama\drive \discovery and excitement to fix it is a joy and we live for those moments. Women don’t get that type of thing in work just relationships.

    cue drama.

    something either has to be wrong or to be perceived to be broken, for the female mindset to kick into excitement as to how to fix their relationship or the on the edge of your seat as to what will happen.

  319. Minesweeper says:

    @MarcusD says:
    August 12, 2014 at 7:50 pm
    Which is interesting, given a certain film he starred in.

    Why ? Its not like she is in any danger of that happening to her, although she probably did benefit from it :D

    she will take it to court just for the hell of it really, drama+victimisation+chance to stick it to the ex and new wifey, outside possibility of a windfall for zero effort on her part, whats not to like ?

  320. DeNihilist says:

    Minsweeper, did you read the wiki?

    And all this surmising that his suicide was because of his divorces? Laughable! He was a manic depressive. I’ve known a couple, just like RW. Really high highs. really low lows. Both killed themselves! It is a mental condition, not a societal condition, and for guys here to use this death to push their anti divorce agenda is just fucking sickening.Maybe when you get to clean your friends brains off the wall, you will have an iota of understanding how very dark the lives of these people are!

    GFY!!!

  321. embracing reality says:

    Regarding the Christian Mingle movie trailer posted by solitude (great user name btw). I used that site for sometime among others and can confirm from field experience that all Christian dating sites, just like churches, are awash with high mileage sluts looking to pick up a ‘good guy’ before they hit the wall. There are proclaimed virgins on them as well, just like some clovers have four leaves. I usually get around to the subject, as subtly as possible, in the early emails and 9 out of 10 times was disappointed but not surprised to learn of their experience which they nearly always claim not to regret. Many of them are not sincere Christians at all. One red haired blue eyed tall drink of water I met on CM told me “I believe in that Jesus guy” like she was talking about santa clause. Meeting a Christian single woman in her 30’s who is a decent candidate for biblical marriage can’t be impossible but having tried extensively its so frustrating as to be hardly worth the torment the search becomes.

  322. Minesweeper says:

    @DeNihilist says:
    August 12, 2014 at 9:21 pm
    Minesweeper, did you read the wiki? -Yup

    And all this surmising that his suicide was because of his divorces? Laughable! He was a manic depressive. I’ve known a couple, just like RW. Really high highs. really low lows. Both killed themselves! It is a mental condition, not a societal condition, and for guys here to use this death to push their anti divorce agenda is just fucking sickening.

    Robin Williams had ‘serious money troubles’ after $30million divorce bills and was ‘depressed’ his TV show had been axed

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2722891/Robin-Williams-wrestled-demons-killing-himself.html

    You must be absolutely blind not to think that his divorces which moved this man into almost a state of bankruptcy and FORCED him to take crappy jobs in his 60’s instead of being happily retired and living on his previous OWN EARNED wealth.

    The fact that his ex’s are both sitting pretty with a share of $30M between them while he HAS to work, and as you stated IF he has bipolar disorder its even worse then, that the divorce system has forced a mentally ill man who was close to suicide to hand over his entire fortune to healthy females who of course wouldn’t work if their life depended on it.

    Its disgusting on every level.

    GFY ?? what are you 10 ? personal attacks I don’t think are welcome here.

    You may find what your looking for on Jezebel, whereby they will probably be talking about how cheated his ex’s must feel and how it impacts their lives and just how wronged they are and how they can’t now sue him for Mrs Doubtfire v2 and how he has deprived them of their retirement income…and ….and ….

  323. Minesweeper says:


    @embracing reality says:
    August 12, 2014 at 9:52 pm

    Regarding the Christian Mingle movie trailer posted by solitude.

    Thats a very very strange concept, although I think its a story that comer around every so often, the only good men left are …

    Obviously a feel good chick flick with a script you could probably struggle to fill a napkin with.

    It is strange to see a Christian dating website as a movie trailer. Obviously aimed straight at the fireproof crowd.

  324. Pingback: A Woman’s Ultimate Purpose | The Reinvention of Man

  325. Boxer says:

    None of my biz, but “Christian Mingle: The Movie” looks particularly laughable. A good lookin’, stable guy with earning potential, like the main character, would never have to settle for a carousel rider who is two years away from maximum wall, like the co-star. It’s pure fantasy, not unlike “Pretty Woman” (whore marries multimillionaire) or “Snow White and the Seven Dwarves”.

  326. MarcusD says:

    Please help…My wife had an affair and is unhappy with our marriage (“[...] what is it that is making her unhappy? She needs to get to the root of why she is unhappy”)

    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=902523

    Appropriate attire at mass for women

    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=902486

    Being friends with an ex… (“He’s always going to be a part of my life one way or another since we have a child together”)

    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=902545

  327. Theo Ross says:

    As I always say marrying a bitch is digging your own ditch.

  328. Don Quixote says:

    embracing reality says:
    August 12, 2014 at 9:52 pm


    “Meeting a Christian single woman in her 30’s who is a decent candidate for biblical marriage can’t be impossible but having tried extensively its so frustrating as to be hardly worth the torment the search becomes.”

    I wouldn’t ever bother with a ‘western’ girl. Make enquires at your church to find a mission in a country that interests you, south east Asia, or some such place. Go there are give yourself to the work for an extended period of time, and get to know the local cleric. Tell him you want to marry a local girl with your criteria, he should be able to help you find what you are looking for.

  329. Obviously modern marriage is for the prossies. Christian Mingle speaks to this…

    http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21611074-how-new-technology-shaking-up-oldest-business-more-bang-your-buck

    The most striking trend our analysis reveals is a drop in the average hourly rate of a prostitute in recent years (see chart 1). One reason is surely the downturn that followed the 2007-08 financial crisis. Even prostitutes working in places that escaped the worst effects have been hit. Vanessa, a part-time escort in southern England, finds that weeks can go by without her phone ringing. Men see buying sex as a luxury, she says, and with the price of necessities rising it is one they are cutting back on. Even when she offers discounts to whip up interest, clients are scarcer than they were. In places where the job market slumped, the effect is more marked (whether prostitution is legal may affect prices, too, but the wide variation between American cities shows that this is not the only factor). The cost of an hour with an escort in Cleveland, Ohio, where unemployment peaked at 12.5% in 2010, has tumbled.

    Will someone please think of the prossies!!?

  330. ballista74 says:

    If I gather the plot of the movie correctly from the trailer, this movie “Christian Mingle” seems to be a literal lifting of the current narrative that the Churchian women seem to want to dream about. Woman hits dating wall in finding her “perfect man”, decides to try out the “Christian Mingle” dating site (the whole thing is a pure advertisement anyway), decides to “convert” to being a Christian (quotes deliberate), and then ends up with her perfect Prince Charming. (*)

    If that’s indeed the plot, I’ll definitely have to file it away as a good post opportunity when I find out for sure.

    (*) – what I describe above seems to be the literal station of most of the women I notice on there when I go trolling to see what’s on there.

  331. Minesweeper says:


    @feministhater says:
    August 13, 2014 at 5:52 am
    discounts to whip up interest,

    sniggers….good word play on the subject, along with the title bang-your-buck

    Even with the downturn have you seen what the avg price is per hour ? a skilled tradesman is cheaper ! in fact almost anything is.

    And if you were into that sort of thing, when compared to marriage and cost per lay, it would probably work out far cheaper, esp when you throw the lawyers fee’s and divorce costs into the mix. I worked out my figure … oh dear.

    If only Robin Williams had resorted to these instead of marriage, he would probably be alive today.

    @ballista74 – the only thing missing is that, she cons him into believing she is a Christian,they marry, then she tells him, he isn’t happy, she files for divorce claiming emotional and religious abuse, takes his 401K and paid in full townhouse as part of the settlement, plus discovers she’s pregnant before the movie ends, he takes the child as his own and he is such a good man he doesn’t even consider to take a paternity test, has to foot the bill for the child for the next 25 years who she will let him see infrequently, of course its secretly her old high school crush who was just passing through when they were on a ‘break’ but he wouldn’t have been a good father.

    Have I missed anything – oh yeah, he has to go to jail a few times as his income was downsized and the judge imputed a higher amount that his monthly incomings.

    There, now it’s – Perfect.

  332. solitude says:

    @embracing reality
    I have also heard from various sources that christian mingle has many people on it that are not adherent Christians. Many seem to fit “the sometimes feeling spiritual and want to find a nice person despite being a little mentally unstable” stereotype. A more realistic scenario (and one less common in film) is where the male lead in the movie is an emotional and desperate beta and they are both on the site to try to not date anymore people who are just like them. Of course then you’d get another 500 days of summer.

  333. mikediver5 says:

    To those that couldn’t wrap their heads around my assertion; for marriage to work there must be no divorce. Let me say that again, married once, and for life, no divorce under any circumstances. Read your Bible and you will see the same thing printed in the scripture. God knows human nature and built the marriage structure to take it into account. The purpose of marriage was to support lifetime happiness, not short term tingles, and maximize the investment in children.

    My wife is from an upper middle class Filipino family. Her big adjustment to the US was that she had to live without servants. This came as a shock to her. You may be right that there are openings in this social structure for cads to take advantage in the lower and middle classes. I believe that the cads have a much harder time. These young girls all know that screwing a cad, and probably getting pregnant, will not get them a lifetime of support and will drastically lower their marriage prospects. They will be on the messy end of the stick for life. So they have incentive not to listen to the cad. I believe, and I could be wrong, that the vast majority of men in this societal structure do not take advantage. Most men do not want to be cads, and actually love and sacrifice for their children. Given absolute freedom to be sluts, which is the condition in the west, most women have become sluts. I don’t know what else you could call women that have double digit notch counts before they are out of their teens.

  334. mikediver5 says:

    What I really hate about my late in life enlightenment concerning marriage and divorce is that I now have to admit that my parents were right and that I deserved all the grief they gave me about divorce. They are gone now so they can’t even have the satisfaction of a good “I told you so.” Sometimes you really have to step outside your culture, and see how others do things, to realize the error of your ways.

  335. jf12 says:

    @mikediver5, riffing on your points.

    Modern marriage is for the purpose of demonstrating that if divorce is easy then marriage does not exist.

  336. feeriker says:

    …decides to “convert” to being a Christian (quotes deliberate)…

    You forgot the quotes around “Christian.” Those are important too in this context.

  337. DeNihilist says:

    And again sweeper, if you have not had personal experience with manic depressives, then you do not understand that they can be thrown into depression from the slightest thing.

    Retired? Laughable! He was not driven to perform solely to pay “his man hating x’s”. RW, as most MD’s, could rarely turn it off. On movie sets he would drive the crews crazy with laughter during their breaks. He needed to constantly release.

    But keep on using this guy’s mental illness to bang your personal drum, cuz isn’t that wuts done nowadays (speaking of jezzabell)?

    As I said before, until you have had to actually clean up the room that one of your best friend suicided in, and though you were there for him always, there was nothing you could do to change his actions, you will never understand how fucking dark these peoples lives are.

    Show a bit of respect for RW and others in his boat and quit using his death for your meme please!

  338. mikediver5 says:

    jf12,

    It goes further than that. if divorce is possible then marriage does not exist. Getting your heart ripped out, and watching your children suffer, is never easy and is an inescapable part of divorce.

  339. feeriker says:

    Sometimes you really have to step outside your culture, and see how others do things, to realize the error of your ways.

    Yes. Tragically, expression of such a truism is blasphemy to the ears of the Master Race (i.e., Amerikans), the word “introspection,” if not incomprehensible, also having the effect that holy water has on the body of one possessed by a demon.

  340. mikediver5 says:

    Let’s get off the MD band wagon. I can speak with the authority of experience. My second wife as diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder (Manic/Depressive has gone out of style.) Once she was properly treated she had few symptoms. She never was a drug addict, nor did she ever have a drinking problem. In the end she died fairly young of something totally unrelated to Bipolar Disorder. RW had lots of issues; Bipolar was probably low down on the list of things he couldn’t overcome.

  341. Minesweeper says:

    @DeNihilist says:
    August 13, 2014 at 9:12 am
    And again sweeper, if you have not had personal experience with manic depressives, then you do not understand that they can be thrown into depression from the slightest thing.
    – I have unfortunately.

    Have you had the personal experience of having everything you worked for removed from you via divorces, children as well?

    You obviously are too close to this after losing your friend to see what we are talking about.

    @mikediver5 ; It goes further than that. if divorce is possible then marriage does not exist. Getting your heart ripped out, and watching your children suffer, is never easy and is an inescapable part of divorce.

    Absolutely, I know you are set on the fact that scripture denies divorce, but it does seem to mention it, whats your take on that ? Have our translations got the wrong end of the stick, or is it just the original plan is now corrupted or … ?

    I look forward to your answer, as I think your experience is correct but I can’t gel that yet with scripture.

  342. hurting says:

    What the RW divorce story appears to illustrate quite clearly is that the alimony / child support racket is clearly state sanctioned gold-digging.

    Alimony (and child support with its implicit alimony) is typically awarded without regard to the actual contribution of the receiver to the payor’s earnings (real or potential). Consider the example of two SAHM’s married to earners who spend approximately equal amounts of time engaged in paid employment and whose careers were established prior to marriage with the only difference being the earnings rate of both. Both SAHMs fulfill the same role and contribute the same economic value to the household, but in the case of the divorce, the one married to the higher earner will get more ongoing financial support than the one married to the lower earner. The putative reason is to allow her to maintain her standard of living, but the real question is why should she be entitled to more than her economic contribution and/or perhaps an adjustment for foregone earnings based on her worth in the market?

    RW is a bad poster child for divorce rape because of his apparently caddish behavior (if his wiki entry is to be believed) in marriage, and because he allowed himself to be ensnared more than once. There are probably many celebrities more unjustly treated by the domestic relations law machine than RW to say nothing of the millions of little people it grinds up and spits out.

  343. mikediver5 says:

    I can’t quote chapter and verse, but I think Jesus was asked about divorce once and said (I am paraphrasing), God gave you marriage and Moses gave you divorce because of the hardness of your hearts. The other references are from various books of the New Testament that basically say that divorce, except for fornication, is not allowed. I was meeting those biblical standards with the divorce of my first wife. The thing to note is that the divorce was of the husband divorcing his wife for fornication. And whoever then has sexual relations with that divorced woman is committing adultery. So, from all this, the husband, but never the wife, can divorce the wife for screwing around. But the divorced wife is still married in that she is not free to remarry and having sex with her is adultery on her part and the part of the guy with whom she is having sex.

    I know there are people that comment on these boards that are better at quoting scripture than am I. Let those people refute or confirm my response above with proper attribution.

  344. Minesweeper says:


    hurting says:
    August 13, 2014 at 9:39 am
    What the RW divorce story appears to illustrate quite clearly is that the alimony / child support racket is clearly state sanctioned gold-digging.

    its worse than that, as the OP states, its designed to punish the man even if he has committed no crime. Under what sort of other conditions would a wealthy man have all his wealth removed and be forced to pay $100K’s per month essentially in penatlies to others ?

    What other crime would cost you $30M and oweing $1M per year in fines ? Massive fraud or serious physical damage to many ?

    Getting drunk or having an affair or even being a bad husband shouldn’t come with that level of punishment, and that is what it is. And its applied across the board.

    Divorce = severe punishment for men at the moment. An equitable and fair separation isn’t even considered. Horrifyingly this is by design.

  345. mikediver5 says:

    The purpose of feminism is and always has been to push three objectives:

    1) Transfer resources from men to women,
    2) Punish men, and
    3) Increase the scope and intensity of 1) and 2) above without any end.

  346. Minesweeper says:


    mikediver5 says:
    August 13, 2014 at 9:54 am
    So, from all this, the husband, but never the wife, can divorce the wife for screwing around. But the divorced wife is still married in that she is not free to remarry

    Matthew 5:32,Matthew 19:9 – state that without her commuting fornication (adultery,incest,idolatry,prostitution) then all parties involved commit adultery in a divorce even if they remarry. Only in Matthew is the caveat mentioned I think.

    I can’t see the circumstance by if she is divorced after she has screwed around, then she is still married if he has divorced her.

  347. Boxer says:

    So, from all this, the husband, but never the wife, can divorce the wife for screwing around. But the divorced wife is still married in that she is not free to remarry and having sex with her is adultery on her part and the part of the guy with whom she is having sex.

    That, of course, is your own spin on the text, and not what the text says.

    http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Bible-Verses-About-Divorce/

    I would point out that the text condemns either party if he or she starts banging other people. Furthermore, nowhere in the text does it command a woman to keep banging a philanderer, possibly risking HIV, HPV, HSV, drug-resistant gonnorrhea, etc.

    I know it will boggle your mind to hear this, but sometimes dudes are tempted too, and sometimes chicks are relatively blameless in such monkeyshines. Our current social climate skews the behavioral bell curve to such an extent that I understand the power of the lenses you’re looking through, but reality differs markedly from your perceptions. Brother Boxer has a few men in his own extended family who have fucked around on their wives, and have busted up the family unit due to their own chuckleheaded buffoonery, so he has seen it all up close and personal.

    If you’re going to get married, brothers, be in it for the long haul. If you can’t do that (as I admittedly can’t) then just forego the institution altogether. Refusing to do anything in a half-assed way will save you a lot of regrets down the road.

    Regards, Boxer

  348. TFH says:

    Minesweeper,

    Divorce = severe punishment for men at the moment. An equitable and fair separation isn’t even considered. Horrifyingly this is by design.

    Again, this is why democracy, over time, always gets supplanted with a ‘feminist’ police state + goddess cult.

    If you locked a bunch of women in a room, and tasked them with drafting up a constitution for a new country, you would be horrified with what they produce.

  349. Anonymous age 72 says:

    http://www.fredoneverything.net/MexIQ3.shtml

    My Mexico is the same as Fred’s. Those of you who think the illegals coming across the border represent what life is like in Mexico, well, Fred’s article tells you some of what I see as well.

  350. hurting says:

    Minesweeper says:
    August 13, 2014 at 10:04 am

    As I’ve stated before the biggest problem with no-fault divorce is the residual application of fault-based concepts like alimony (which should really be applied as a form of compensatory damages to the non-breachering party). I’ve never been offered a sensible explanation as to why it persists.

    I’d concur that RW’s sins against his marriage may not be commensurate with the punishment.

  351. mikediver5 says:

    To Boxer and others;

    I prefaced my earlier explanation of my understanding of scripture on marriage and divorce with a warning that I was not a good source. The church and I had an unpleasant parting many years ago. Although I have read the Bible cover to cover on several occasions, I am rusty. I appreciate being refuted in detail where I am wrong as much as being supported with facts when I am right. I have a t-shirt that says, “I am right 97% of the time, and who cares about the other 4%”.

  352. mikediver5 says:

    hurting,

    The root of your confusion is that you are taking the name a iff it were standard English. Let me translate it from newspeak to English for you.

    No-fault divorce = His-fault divorce.

    That should clear up any confusion over the reason why alimony is still in force.

  353. Boxer says:

    Hey MikeDiver5:

    The church and I had an unpleasant parting many years ago.

    I gave up on my own religion before I was old enough to vote, so I understand.

    In my opinion, religions are often idiotic and evil (e.g. “churchianity”), but religion is not. This is what reactionary atheists tend to overlook. The texts that underly religion are often discarded by people, for being saturated with stone age mythology and unfalsifiable fairy tales. In reality, the Bible (Qur’an, Book of Mormon, etc. etc.) is just as full of good advice, which will help us live more pleasant lives, if we can take the major points seriously.

    I also sorta chafe at the tendency (understandable, mind you) of men who have been screwed over to turn to a sort of inverted feminism, which portrays men as helpless, whiny victims, and women as utterly evil exploiters. Not only is this a false state of consciousness, but it doesn’t really do us any good to adopt it. I like many women in the real world, they’re not my enemies simply for lack of a penis.

    Men are built to use their brains and brawn to overcome diversity, not sit around whining like the National Organization for Women. This is why I like Jack Donovan’s work so well. He seems to advocate a return to primal masculinity, which is not only about strength, but fairness and clear-thinking.

    Anyway, good talking to you.

    Boxer

  354. Kevin says:

    The discussion may have moved on but I think there are still fairly traditional women around. My wife was a carosol rider (never admitted to it until recently) from a fairly traditional culture and once we got married we have had a fairly traditional marriage. Both too old for anything silly at this point but she has been a great wife and she has a sister that is pretty similar (except for riding the carosol). So those women are out there, but there is always risk. If my wife had been honest we would not have gotten married but since she was not and we did we have been lucky to have things pretty good.

    I don’t have any guide for finding such women. My sisters also fit this description so there is hope. But even with such women the whole system remains a risk. I have been so happy I want to encourage my sons to get married but I am also scared of the risk for them. The cards are stacked so much against them and their chances of marrying a non slut wife are pretty slim.

  355. Anonymous age 72 says:

    greyghost says:
    August 11, 2014 at 1:00 pm

    Anon 72
    >>Not every one is stupid, nobody gets out of CS. To assume I would think otherwise is insulting

    If you say so, but here is what you said:

    >>greyghost says:
    August 11, 2014 at 10:06 am

    >>Make the solution to give her everything in lue of making post divorce payments.

    Thus, I did not assume anything, but responded to your words as quoted here.

    I knew men who gave up everything of value, and it was a lot, with an agreement signed that would preclude CS. Later, of course, the judge ordered CS, and he got none of the voluntarily offered assets back. If you are insulted by my responding to your words, then I guess be insulted. You said what you said.

    You younger guys are coming in at the end of 30 or 40 years of misandrist law-making and court rulings, and men not being politically active, but simply engaging in pissing contests. Pretty much like now.

    In case anyone does not know, at one time in our history before the White Knights gave the keys to the Empire to the man-haters, a man could give significant assets up front in LIEU of child support payments. That was when child support was child support, not large scale financial transfers from men to women with the pretense that it is for the darling kiddies.

  356. Anonymous age 72 says:

    hurting says:
    August 13, 2014 at 12:55 pm

    >>I’ve never been offered a sensible explanation as to why it persists. [alimony]

    Easy. The dearies who have had the keys to the Empire given to them by the White Knights wish to transfer all male earnings to dearies. Alimony is something they can push through, with few fuzzy math calculations and a few hoaxes, since other men assume it is deserved, as opposed to a 100% income tax on all men. So, they do it. Child support above actual need was the first measure taken. Alas, child support requires children to be children, unless a man is out of work, in which case it can be extracted when the kids are in their 50’s.

  357. Anonymous age 72 says:

    Alimony is also proof of the inferiority and fragility of women. Even with affirmative action giving the make-work, do-nothing jobs making well into 6 digits, the poor, fragile, helpless, inferior, dearies cannot make it on their own.

  358. Anonymous age 72 says:

    And, they know it.

  359. Crank says:

    @Kevin
    “I don’t have any guide for finding such women.”

    No offense, but nobody wants a guide to finding a former/reformed carousel rider. If you have a guide on how not to be duped like you were, that would be more useful.

  360. Anonymous age 72 says:

    Kevin says:
    August 13, 2014 at 2:31 pm

    >>I don’t have any guide for finding such women. My sisters also fit this description so there is hope. But even with such women the whole system remains a risk. I have been so happy I want to encourage my sons to get married but I am also scared of the risk for them. The cards are stacked so much against them and their chances of marrying a non slut wife are pretty slim.

    There is no guide. Many men tell how they did it, or better said, how they think they did it. In most cases, they merely proved the failure rate for first marriages is not 100% and some folks simply don’t get destroyed. But, they will prattle on at great length telling their wonderful maneuvers which got them a stable marriage.

    Their master plan had nothing to do with it. Their wives simply did not pull the trigger, for reasons of their own, period.

    The problem with saying there are such women is that THERE IS NO WAY TO TELL IN AN INDIVIDUAL CASE IF A WOMEN WILL PULL OR NOT.

    All you can do is try to look at the odds. Women close to their fathers; lower divorce rates. Foreign wives brought to the US, lower divorce rates. Women who have ever done anything for anyone else, lower divorce rates. Women who drive safely and within the law (a more important parameter than most men seem to know) a much lower divorce rate. But, never zero.

  361. greyghost says:

    The post divorce payments are the she gets a portion of military retirement, or pensions when you retire. Women will come back 20 years after a divorce and get it. I was told that while in the Marine Corps. Another thing is she gets this and that. If you are making payments on anything and the debt is in your name even if it is in the divorce that she make the payments she is not going to pay and no judge will throw away is rep for being fair by enforcing an order on a woman. It is best to have your wife put that stuff in her name under the guise of building up her credit. the home is best in your name she will get half sure (at least) but if it is in her name good chance you will not get anything at all. (that is a toss up) don’t fight over furniture of appliances. I remember sleeping on the floor in a different room of my first apartment because the Texas fire ants were in the other one and could not afford to buy bug spray and gas for the car to get to work. within a year I had so much shit it was hard to keep clean.
    Anon 72 I hope that explains where I was and am coming from. we’re on the same page
    PS Violence is not the answer! wink wink

  362. mikediver5 says:

    CS is a hoax. I have a brother in law who is having his social security garnished by the CS Nazis. He is over 65, but has been 100% disabled, and in a nursing home, for about the past 15 years. He has had MS for almost 20 years. Right now he is unable to walk, talk, or feed himself. He can communicate by writing, but his fine motor skills are to the point it is only one word on a page at a time. His “children” are in their 40s. CS has nothing to do with supporting children. It is 100% at transfer of funds to the woman. It is extortion from the kidnappers of your children enforced by the government you pay for with your taxes.

  363. TFH says:

    Anon72,

    Alimony is also proof of the inferiority and fragility of women. Even with affirmative action giving the make-work, do-nothing jobs making well into 6 digits, the poor, fragile, helpless, inferior, dearies cannot make it on their own.

    That is why the second category, called ‘child support’ was created. And it is the more brutal of the two, with more dollars transferred.

  364. deti says:

    mikediver:

    if your BIL is still paying CS it is probably because he was in arrears and needed to get it paid up.

    That said, I agree CS is onerous and draconian, bsed on fixed percentages of income without regard to need. For example in my state a man paying CS on one child pays 25% of his net income. I have two kids and I am still married to their mother. I do not spend 25% of my income on BOTH of those kids to support them, much less one. And in my family, I know where every dollar comes from and where every dollar is allocated. CS is a fraud, plain and simple.

  365. Anonymous age 72 says:

    Crank says:
    August 13, 2014 at 3:48 pm

    >>@Kevin
    >>“I don’t have any guide for finding such women.”

    >>>No offense, but nobody wants a guide to finding a former/reformed carousel rider. If you have a guide on how not to be duped like you were, that would be more useful.

    Good point.

    I have sometimes created a furor with a totally different viewpoint based on years of working with men in every imaginable marriage/divorce disaster.

    With the average first time bride having had 11 lovers, the moral issues are obsolete as long as we have a feminist empire. Actually, if someone could teach us how to find former/reformed carousel riders who would with 100%, heck, even 95%, certainty make good wives; good mothers; and not divorce us, I’d say go for it.

    That is not even possible. It can’t be done. In most cases, the past predicts the future.

    In my neighborhood are two wives, who were allegedly taken from cat houses. One was probably a cat, ahem, the other was most definitely an exotic dancer.

    The former cat actually seems to be a good wife, as far as we can tell. She works at night, making a large number of Jello cups, and leaves the house mid-morning, on foot, to carry that heavy load to the downtown to sell for a very small quantity of money. Six days a week. She is rather heavy now.

    The other one, the former dancer, is a different game altogether. Early in their marriage, someone saw her throwing rocks at him, chasing him down the street. And, she is not a small woman. He actually probably deserved it, she caught him banging another woman.

    Later, she beat the crap out of her 4 year old girl (not sure about age), a sweet kid. Her husband was going to call the cops and have her jailed. She took the girl and ran off, not coming back until all the bruises were healed. I knew from general experience that she explained that battered child wherever she went by blaming the father.

    Then, later, she took all the kids and ran off for a few weeks.

    She is still hot, even with three kids.

    The past predicted the future with 50% reliability. That is why we don’t marry former/reformed carousel riders.

  366. hurting says:

    mikediver5 says:
    August 13, 2014 at 1:44 pm

    Sadly, I am painfully aware and unconfused about the realities of modern marriage and divorce. Now, anyway.

  367. TFH says:

    deti,

    CS is a fraud, plain and simple.

    It is actually an iron-fisted form of socialist redistribution.

    It is packaged in such a way that criticism of it can be shouted down, and such that people who *think* they are strongly against Communism will actually support it (Christian Conservatives, who love socialism as long as it is a distinct transfer from men to women).

    But even the USSR did not impute income. American CS does, making it the closest thing to real slavery that has existing in the last 140 years in America.

  368. Anonymous age 72 says:

    deti says:
    August 13, 2014 at 4:14 pm

    mikediver:

    >>if your BIL is still paying CS it is probably because he was in arrears and needed to get it paid up.

    Thus proving Deti does not know much about CS laws and their enforcement. For nearly 30 years, CS has come directly out of the man’s pay check before he sees it.

    So for him to be so far behind that he is over 65 and not paid up shows HE HAD NO INCOME.

    Perhaps you can tell us how a man with no income can pay anything?

    A couple years ago on DGM-2 we had a man from Texas in the same age category. He is stuck paying 8% interest on the amount they could not get from his check because he didn’t have one for years. No one gets 8% interest, but that is what they are taking from him. The day that poor devil will never escape. And, the day he cannot force himself out of bed to go to work, he will go to jail.

  369. Anonymous age 72 says:

    Even the most illiterate and uneducated African plantation slave understood if he could get to Canada, he should go. So, why don’t more AM GTHO? Though the law wasn’t fully enforced, at least the law stated slave owners were required to feed and provide housing for their slaves. Under our laws, men who lose their jobs can go sleep under a bridge until the cops find him to put him in jail.

  370. Elspeth says:

    I know someone who because of bureaucratic mistakes, corruption, incompetence and all other manner of foolishness was wrangling with child support until his child was 21 even though he had documented proof that he was not in arrears and had satisfied every penny and then some. They should have been sending him a refund. But they didn’t.

    This in a state where CS is supposed to end promptly at age 18.

  371. TFH says:

    I think The Spearhead had an article that described how Obamacare was extending the age of dependency up to 26, and this would creep into other areas of the law and would ensure that CS could be due until the child is 26 (vs. 21 at present).

    26!!

  372. Elspeth says:

    It’s still 18 here or until the child graduates high school.

  373. Ra's al Ghul says:

    Kevin:

    “If my wife had been honest we would not have gotten married but since she was not and we did we have been lucky to have things pretty good. ”

    “If my wife had been honest we would not have gotten married but since she was not and we did I have been lucky to have things pretty good.”

    Fixed part of it. I am of the personal opinion that anything that is based on a lie is fundamentally flawed. You may be the exception to the rule.

    Crank:

    “If you have a guide on how not to be duped like you were, that would be more useful.”

    Simple:

    1) Is she from the U.S.?

    If yes, then getting married you’re a dupe

    If no, then getting married you’re a dupe.

    I think anyone in the manosphere knows the red flags, the major ones. Most men ignore them and then regret it and these days most women have at least one red flag

  374. mikediver5 says:

    Yes my brother in law was in arrears due to being unemployed for a few years. Then he was unable to work because of his MS. CS does not care. The man can die and sell off his body parts in his will to give the bitch her money. He will die before this debt is repaid.

    There was a man in my reserve unit who got taken in by a CS whore. He was her third husband and the father of her third child. As soon as the child was born she divorced him. Now she is getting CS from three men where the court considers them each as only children for CS purposes. This maximizes her income. He lost his job and got another at much reduced pay. When he went back to court the judge would not reduce CS but told him to get a second job. Then he lost that job and was flat broke. He went before the same judge and told him that he had no job and no money to pay. He was living in his car. The judge told him to sell his car and pay his ex. The guy refused. The judge told him he would have him thrown in jail on contempt. The guy took his tooth brush out of his pocket and said; go ahead it will mean a roof over my head and three meals a day. The judge threw him out of the courtroom. Later this guy told me that at one point he actually had her in the sights of his deer rifle on her front porch and was taking up the slack on the trigger when he decided she wasn’t worth it. Women are skating closer to the edge than they think.

  375. Minesweeper says:


    TFH says:
    August 13, 2014 at 11:10 am
    If you locked a bunch of women in a room, and tasked them with drafting up a constitution for a new country, you would be horrified with what they produce.

    Its is a horrifying prospect.


    Anonymous age 72 says:
    August 13, 2014 at 3:52 pm

    There is no guide. Many men tell how they did it, or better said, how they think they did it. In most cases, they merely proved the failure rate for first marriages is not 100% and some folks simply don’t get destroyed. But, they will prattle on at great length telling their wonderful maneuvers which got them a stable marriage.

    Their master plan had nothing to do with it. Their wives simply did not pull the trigger, for reasons of their own, period.

    The problem with saying there are such women is that THERE IS NO WAY TO TELL IN AN INDIVIDUAL CASE IF A WOMEN WILL PULL OR NOT.

    All you can do is try to look at the odds. Women close to their fathers; lower divorce rates. Foreign wives brought to the US, lower divorce rates. Women who have ever done anything for anyone else, lower divorce rates. Women who drive safely and within the law (a more important parameter than most men seem to know) a much lower divorce rate. But, never zero.

    Wise words indeed. Esp the last paragraph.

  376. Minesweeper says:

    TFH says:
    August 13, 2014 at 4:37 pm
    I think The Spearhead had an article that described how Obamacare was extending the age of dependency up to 26, and this would creep into other areas of the law and would ensure that CS could be due until the child is 26 (vs. 21 at present).

    26!!

    That’s what I’m on as long as the child remains in full time education, whatever that will qualify as in the future. 26!

    That’s the case in the UK anyway at the moment.

  377. Minesweeper says:

    @Crank says:
    August 13, 2014 at 3:48 pm
    No offense, but nobody wants a guide to finding a former/reformed carousel rider. If you have a guide on how not to be duped like you were, that would be more useful.

    With the amount of lying that women feel comfortable with only her agreeing to a lie detector while she is on a truth serum could give some sort of guarantee.

    Either that or bring back some form of fault into divorce if you discover she is lying /snorts.

    I keep feeling that this is moving or has moved into forbidden planet territory. They have constructed a fantastic and wonderful machine deep in society to fulfil their wildest dreams using mere thought on their part without understanding that it will eventually destroy everything they hold dear.

    Forbidden planet feminism.

    Yep TFH you are right, its just a matter of time. One thing is for sure they won’t give up an inch until the beast is completely dead. In our lifetime or not who knows. Although as we have seen from history, when the revolution comes it can happen very quickly.

  378. Casey says:

    There is no crystal ball that will help men navigate these waters.

    In a game where the rules are so cruelly unjust, and the consequences of failure are so dire…….the only sane option is to NOT play the game. The game in this case is co-habitation, marriage, & children.

    In a game of Russian Roulette, an individual player of that insane game has a 1 in 6 chance of losing everything.

    Now, add 2 more bullets into the cylinder to the original 1. You now have the rough odds of succeeding at marriage & children.

    1/6 is better odds than 3/6 when it comes to losing everything. At least in Russian Roulette the odds are better, and the consequences of failure are over quickly.

  379. mustardnine says:

    MarcusD
    August 13, 2014 at 5:14 pm
    links to Paul Elam’s comments about Robin Williams in his comment.

    I found Paul Elam’s words to be thoughtful and significant. I would just add this:

    Robin Williams’ exes, and their lawyers, and their enabling judges, won’t bat an eye, won’t lose a minute’s sleep over this. Unless they think he still owes them more money. If they do think that, they’ll go after his remaining estate with perfectly righteous, entitled consciences.

  380. Kevin says:

    My point was not to offer a guide – I don’t disagree with what anyone has said. I count myself very lucky that my wife’s upbringing kicked in after we were married. However up thread people had commented on finding traditional women and in my social circle alone I know 4-5. They are out there. Are they worth the risk? No idea. I might risk it for fatherhood. Can you avoid getting duped – nope. But if you play the odds you can have better chances of winning even though it is random. The world has lots of good women who stay in their marriages. Still risky, but with the right qualities far less than 50%.

  381. SC says:

    Marriage is very important, even in this day. I know this because my parents are still married to each other; and I estimate that 75%-85% of people in my community are on the same life trajectory.

    Marriage is important because it consolidates wealth. It is easier to build wealth when you have a $100K income used to support one household than if you have two $50K incomes used to support two separate households.

    Marriage is important because it is prestigious. In an age where divorce and illegitimacy is all too common, my parents have given me a higher perch on the social ladder than most daughters/sons can have simply because I come from a nuclear family.

    Marriage is important because it teaches the kids the right values. I know that marriage is in most peoples long term best interests, even if it is not in their short term best interests. My parents marriage teaches me that it is better to think about long term stuff than short term stuff, and that sexual restraint is better than promiscuity.

  382. jf12 says:

    @SC, ain’t there some disconnect you can see between “I estimate that 75%-85% of people in my community are on the same life trajectory.” and “In an age where divorce and illegitimacy is all too common, my parents have given me a higher perch on the social ladder than most daughters/sons can have”?

  383. SC says:

    @jf12

    There is no disconnect. If we judged every community on its residents’ IQs, incomes, educations, social class, race, etc, mine would rank in the top 1%. My perch on the social ladder in my town is about average. However, if you compare me to the rest of the United States, my parents have helped me get to a higher station in life than the vast majority of people.

  384. jf12 says:

    re: Modern marriage is for the 1%-ers.

    And hence why we say modern marriage is dumb.

  385. ballista74 says:

    @Anonymous Reader

    It is possible that in 5 to 10 years any church that won’t perform homogamous weddings will be threatened with loss of 501c3 status. If that happens, many bets are off the table.

    They’ll be threatened to be sure, but 501c3 won’t enter into the minds of any of these people. Anything to keep the Empire going. Like I keep saying, they’ll fold faster than Superman on laundry day when it comes to that issue. In fact, the majority of the churchgoers of most churches poll in favor of homogamy. If someone resists in 5 to 10 years, the answer will be to kick them out – then the next one will comply.

    @Minesweeper

    Somehow, I don’t think these chick flick makers are going to inject the sheer truth into these things.

    @feeriker

    You forgot the quotes around “Christian.” Those are important too in this context.

    I thought “convert” covered it well enough…basically playing the game but not being genuine.

    If you’re going to get married, brothers, be in it for the long haul.

    Great advice. The likelihood of it happening is slim and none, and slim is walking out the door, but I’ve always viewed marriage as something for the lifetime haul.

    @Boxer

    In my opinion, religions are often idiotic and evil (e.g. “churchianity”), but religion is not. This is what reactionary atheists tend to overlook.

    People tend to look at what is being done and accept them for what they are. They judge one way or the other and go on. The problem with that is that what’s being done is very far from what was intended. For Christianity, reading the Scriptures reveals a whole lot of the garbage if your mind is really free to see those things. I know that frustrates and angers me immensely that people are being driven off from the truth of Christianity by these things, but my hope is that people will look to Jesus rather than look to the Churchians.

    @Casey

    There is no crystal ball that will help men navigate these waters.

    Exactly. There’s no way to tell. It’s just blind dumb luck.

  386. Cane Caldo says:

    @ballista

    For Christianity, reading the Scriptures reveals a whole lot of the garbage if your mind is really free to see those things.

    &

    Exactly. There’s no way to tell. It’s just blind dumb luck.

    There’s some fatalism garbage in your second quote.

  387. BradA says:

    > democracy, over time, always gets supplanted with

    I have seen this claim before and I question how many democracies we have seen go this route before. The current ones are going bad together, more or less, so while it may be clear the direction we are headed now, I am not sure it holds for older Democracies.

    It may be true, but that is not a good argument to make if we don’t have lots of past democracies to reference.

  388. Don Quixote says:

    @ mikediver5

    Regarding the scriptures concerning divorce and remarriage.
    In both the Old and New Testaments the provisions for divorce are only given to the husband, _never_ to the wife.
    There is always some dispute as to the grounds given in the Bible, but is is abundantly clear that whatever the reasons for divorce it is only for the husband. If your interested please have a look at Once Married Always Married.

    http://oncemarried.net

  389. feeriker says:

    In both the Old and New Testaments the provisions for divorce are only given to the husband, _never_ to the wife.There is always some dispute as to the grounds given in the Bible, but is is abundantly clear that whatever the reasons for divorce it is only for the husband. 

    This of course explains in full why churchians ignore the Scriptures on this subject.

  390. Boxer says:

    In both the Old and New Testaments the provisions for divorce are only given to the husband, _never_ to the wife.There is always some dispute as to the grounds given in the Bible, but is is abundantly clear that whatever the reasons for divorce it is only for the husband.

    The text makes it pretty clear that divorce is ideally for nobody. Talmud talks about G-d’s sadness and anger whenever a divorce happens (allusions are made at one point in the text to people in the time of Noah — indicating that divorce is a matter of the magnitude of destroying the world and everyone in it). Divorce can only be granted by a rabbinical court with the consent of all parties (the couple and in some readings their parents and children also).

    More generally: I’m disturbed by the men on this forum who want to establish a “threatpoint” to manipulate their wives. This sort of nonsense is criticized on this blog when women build it, and apparently our solution is to invert feminism and build a male threatpoint. I don’t really fancy joining the Christian Male Feminism Club, and I’m sure I’m not the only one.

    Most importantly, a male threatpoint would simply not work. Such a fantasy would only lead to our present troubles, since women tend to be much better manipulators of public opinion than men, and would quickly reverse the structural process (as they have done, historically, many times).

    In a healthier society, there wouldn’t be any divorce, for anyone, outside of the most dysfunctional fuckups who would ideally be prohibited from marriage in the beginning anyway. If you don’t like who you’re married to, then you suffer through it, or maybe society would throw the discontented couple in jail for a while, until they grew up and started behaving with a bit of self-respect. (Extreme, perhaps, but this is the sort of social pressure some people need).

    Boxer

  391. jf12 says:

    @Boxer re: “a male threatpoint would simply not work.”

    Except you’ve noted before that it works very well for unmarried men.

  392. theasdgamer says:

    @ Boxer

    More generally: I’m disturbed by the men on this forum who want to establish a “threatpoint” to manipulate their wives. This sort of nonsense is criticized on this blog when women build it, and apparently our solution is to invert feminism and build a male threatpoint. I don’t really fancy joining the Christian Male Feminism Club, and I’m sure I’m not the only one.

    Oh, I just posted about “Negging in the Song of Solomon”. I’ll do “Dread in the Song of Solomon” next.

  393. Elspeth says:

    Boxer @ 8:56 AM:

    You sound more Christian on the subject of marriage in this comment than the professed believers.

    I also appreciated your comments here, as I can testify the same:

    [Elspeth] has [quite] a few men in her own extended family who have fucked around on their wives, and have busted up the family unit due to their own chuckleheaded buffoonery, so [she] has seen it all up close and personal.

    I’ve seen a lot of women suck it up and stay for the sake of their families as well. Of course, the purpose of these discussions is to enlighten men to the realities of female nature. To expect qualifiers and balance is not only ridiculous but disrespectful to the men here who are hurting.

    But I still appreciated your comment nonetheless.

  394. Boxer says:

    Except you’ve noted before that it works very well for unmarried men.

    Quote, please.

  395. deti says:

    @ Boxer:

    “More generally: I’m disturbed by the men on this forum who want to establish a “threatpoint” to manipulate their wives. This sort of nonsense is criticized on this blog when women build it, and apparently our solution is to invert feminism and build a male threatpoint. ***
    “Most importantly, a male threatpoint would simply not work. Such a fantasy would only lead to our present troubles, since women tend to be much better manipulators of public opinion than men, and would quickly reverse the structural process (as they have done, historically, many times).”

    Interesting to see your opposition to a male threatpoint. I’m pretty sure you yourself have been able to use threatpoints and manipulative tactics, both subtle and not so subtle, in your extramarital dealings with women, and by your accounts they seem to work pretty well.

    It’s funny to see opposition on this board to men developing threatpoints used for the specific purpose of PREVENTING divorce, rather than fomenting it.

  396. greyghost says:

    You don’t need a male threat point as TFH and others have noted fathers custody of children born to him under wedlock solves all. he doesn’t need child support welfare food stamps and will receive none and she will never pay it. She will just be responsible to take care of herself be it pleasing her husband or good old fashion get a job and pay the bills. 99% plus of women will read this comment and say it is hateful of women but in such a world divorce is very low and women are happier

  397. Boxer says:

    Interesting to see your opposition to a male threatpoint. I’m pretty sure you yourself have been able to use threatpoints and manipulative tactics, both subtle and not so subtle, in your extramarital dealings with women, and by your accounts they seem to work pretty well.

    The threatpoints and manipulative tactics I used did work in the short term, as when I was a fan of them, I was living the lifestyle of (in the words of Jack Donovan) a hedonist. If your response to current trends is that married men should start living the lifestyle of flaming homosexuals, and take up the mindset of “doing it for the numbers”, then I really don’t know who is more anti-marriage — you guys or the feminists.

    http://www.jack-donovan.com/axis/2012/07/everyone-a-harlot/

    In any event, these fantastic religious edicts (men can “take a second wife” and/or “divorce at will” etc.) are largely unsupported by my reading of the text. Do any of you religious Protestants, Catholics or Jews want to school this uneducated huckster in biblical sources for such liberties? I just don’t see them when I read your books.

    It’s funny to see opposition on this board to men developing threatpoints used for the specific purpose of PREVENTING divorce, rather than fomenting it.

    You must have a pretty dim view of marriage, if this is your solution to divorce. I get why you guys are adopting some playa tactics, in some limited cases, but it should be seen for what it is: a sign of desperation in a hopelessly decaying culture, not as some sort of biblical ideal that is practiced in heaven and handed down by god.

    The old blogger Solomon described the sorts of things you guys promote as drinking urine to survive, while we are all stuck down the feminist well. The point is to dream of something better, not something worse.

    Regards, Boxer

  398. jf12 says:

    @Boxer re: Quote.

    “The threatpoints and manipulative tactics I used did work in the short term”

  399. jf12 says:

    Modern marriage is for demonstrating that taking Dread away from men makes for sham marriages.

  400. Boxer says:

    jf12:

    So, your solution to divorce is for every married man to adopt the lifestyle of a playa? I don’t think that’d provide us with a viable society, frankly; but, thanks for your best attempt anyway.

  401. When a person commits adultery on their spouse, the marriage is over, it is kaput. It is at this time that the injured spouse can choose to leave the marriage through divorce or not. If adultery did not destroy marriage, and both spouses stayed married no matter what, then there is simply no reason not to commit adultery.

    You would basically hand over power to the cheating spouse.

  402. mikediver5 says:

    Boxer,

    My position was not to create a threat point for married men. My clear statement was that divorce needed to be eliminated entirely. However, if the threat point were in the hands of the men instead of the women what do you think would be the outcome? I posit that for many years prior to about mid-20th century in the US, men did have the upper hand, and divorce was rare. When women lost big time in divorce marriages lasted and men did not abuse their position of power. Once women had the upper hand the divorce rate exploded. I will add that the exceptional woman still divorced under those pre feminist laws. My mother’s mother was a tough, hard bitten, independent business woman. Her friends all called her Jack. My grandfather was a sweetheart. When my grandmother died my mother went through her papers. This was how we learned that she had divorced her first husband in 1912 and left behind a daughter. No one had ever known (except maybe grandpa) about this prior life. Women were not locked into marital slavery, they just walked away without the bulk of the resources and, most importantly, without the children.

    Let me extend your proposition about jailing couples that have totally screwed up their marriages. In my no divorce regime those couples would have their children taken away from them both as they have proven to be unfit parents. Both parties would have their ability to reproduce permanently removed. Married couples then could separate, but never remarry. They might even be barred from any form of cohabitation. The ultimate penalty might be to be barred from all sexual relations. BTW this applies to couples that have children out of wedlock. They have provided prima fascia evidence of being unfit parents. Single moms should not get praise, and should not be allowed custody. If the couple cannot commit for the sake of their child then they should not ever be allowed to have children. Voluntary single parenthood is child abuse.

    A friend’s Filipina wife was confiding in my wife and I that she was contemplating divorce. The husband had been unfaithful, and very stupid about it, so she had it rubbed in her face. We were the shoulder to cry on. We did not offer any comment, but let her run on. She eventually got to the point where she said, “but if we divorce then I could never have sex again.” This should be the mind set for marriage. They are still together and seem to have put this behind them. The marriage was and is damaged, but still alive.

  403. mikediver5 says:

    feministhater,

    If you don’t think there are consequences short of divorce in a marriage then you have not been married or you have been married with a particularly blessed union.

  404. Boxer says:

    When a person commits adultery on their spouse, the marriage is over, it is kaput. It is at this time that the injured spouse can choose to leave the marriage through divorce or not. If adultery did not destroy marriage, and both spouses stayed married no matter what, then there is simply no reason not to commit adultery. You would basically hand over power to the cheating spouse.

    Divorce wasn’t always easy to get. Read some newspapers or novels that are a mere 100 years old, to get the idea. Back then, almost no one could get a divorce, and even if you managed one, you were viewed as an unstable dope for the rest of your life afterwards.

    The feminists would support your implication that in these old days, people committed adultery all the time. Feminism is an outgrowth of commodity capitalism, and they can’t help but see everything in terms of some goony transaction, power relation, or some other commodified nonsense.

    My reading of 19th century North American history suggests that adultery was almost unheard of, outside the decadent bourgeoisie, whose money shielded them from the consequences of this sort of buffoonery. Regular people went to work every day, and came home to their spouses, and didn’t bang strangers in the bathroom of the nightclub. Social shaming and networking provided all the “dread” necessary to keep people focused on the important things in life, and there was no Ashley Madison to log into whenever your wife/husband pissed you off.

    Boxer

  405. mikediver5 says:

    feministhater,

    I would also add that marriage is for the children not the spouses. If their relationship is damaged by their own stupidity they should still have their primary focus on the welfare of their children.

  406. mike, right now there is absolutely no consequences for a wife who cheats on her husband. She can do it multiple times, he could walk in on them and she could continue to fuck right there, shove it in his face time and time again; and there is nothing he can do about it. Divorce for adultery is allowed because the marriage is over. It’s a fatal stab wound to the heart. It is allowed because the spouse who cheats has already had their heart hardened towards their partner.

    Mutually Assured Destruction is the only way to contain a rebellious wife in these times. Once she pushes the button, either by cheating or frivorcing, there is nothing left in life but to leave her with nothing.

    It’s just another reason why men should not get married, women have left you with little other options.

  407. Boxer says:

    Dear Deti:

    Thanks for the great response, please see inside…

    However, if the threat point were in the hands of the men instead of the women what do you think would be the outcome?

    The answer to that is pretty simple. Women would start lobbying to “rectify the injustices in the current system”. Within a few years, you’d be stuck back in our current situation. (Ping TFH, to remind us of the life cycle of democracy, etc.)

    I posit that for many years prior to about mid-20th century in the US, men did have the upper hand, and divorce was rare.

    In my reading of North American history, prior to the middle of the 19th century (tender years doctrine) men actually didn’t have the upper hand. Men and women were effectively equalized, and divorce was sufficiently ruinous to both parties to be viewed as an absolute last resort. Divorce was rare because society valued families, and society’s institutional power was directed toward keeping families intact.

    The story about your grandmother, while personal and touching, is anomalous in my experience. In the USA/Canada, one was required to prove misconduct on the part of the other party to achieve a divorce. Your anecdote about her divorce being a secret all through her life is in line with the social aspect. Divorced people were (as they should be now) viewed with suspicion, to the extent that they are motivated to disappear and start over in some other town. I assume your grandmother was blameless (or as blameless as possible) in her divorce, but the pressure clearly remained to keep her part in it quiet.

    The Filipino model is interesting. I think the North American take on it would be the addition of a social system which effectively ostracized a cheating spouse. The woman’s husband would face the loss of loans, a demotion at work, and all manner of whispers about him after misbehaving. In a healthy society, this would be a fairly powerful deterrent in its own measure.

    Best, Boxer

    P.S.:I’ll ask again (not from Deti, but from those who promote it) for some scriptural support for the astounding “divorce at will” and “taking mistresses/second wives” theories, that are bandied about here as supposedly in line with Christian/Jewish theology. You guys who promote these ideas should really pony up some references to support them.

  408. Boxer says:

    Sorry, Mikediver5 not Deti. My apologies.

  409. No talk of “divorce at will” but for adultery.

    And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except [it be] for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

    And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

    When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give [it] in her hand, and send her out of his house.

    Read the whole of Matthew Chapter 9..

  410. deti says:

    “If your response to current trends is that married men should start living the lifestyle of flaming homosexuals, and take up the mindset of “doing it for the numbers”, then I really don’t know who is more anti-marriage — you guys or the feminists. “

    Who are you, and what have you done with the reasonable, sensible Boxer?
    It’s not like you to engage in false dichotomy fallacies. No one is saying married men should pursue the playa lifestyle.

    “You must have a pretty dim view of marriage, if this is your solution to divorce. I get why you guys are adopting some playa tactics, in some limited cases, but it should be seen for what it is: a sign of desperation in a hopelessly decaying culture,”

    I do have a dim view of marriage as practiced in this culture and as foisted upon me by this culture. And adopting male threatpoints is clearly reactionary. It is an attempt to salvage what can be salvaged, if it can be salvaged, and to make the best of it in what is increasingly marked by despair, for the sake of children. I don’t recommend marriage in this culture – at least not legal marriage. Most men are not masculine enough to provide what most women want; and most women are unfit for it anyway.

  411. Boxer says:

    Dear feministhater:

    I like Leviticus chapter 20, myself. “If you fuck a married chick, your ass will get killed quick” (verse 10, Boxer’s new inspired translation).

  412. Boxer says:

    Who are you, and what have you done with the reasonable, sensible Boxer?
    It’s not like you to engage in false dichotomy fallacies. No one is saying married men should pursue the playa lifestyle.

    The frame of reference produced by the playa lifestyle is all about dread, one upping whoever you’re with at the moment, and goony power games. Yes, these things work, and women like them. I will openly sympathize with the married bros, who are so desperate to keep their marriages intact, that they feel forced use these artifacts of the bonobo masturbation society in the service of that.

    All that aside, I lived this life for a while, and I didn’t find it conducive to long term happiness or personal growth. One begins to automatically see other men as competitors, and women as potential plates to spin. In terms of the bible, it would probably be seen as a sin. In Marxist terms, its a state of false consciousness, which is self-perpetuating and serves to limit a man’s potential. There’s a fancy word (reification) for replacing authentic human relationships with commodified artificial ones, which is worth mentioning, but which I won’t belabor.

    https://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/hcc05.htm

    I realize women instinctively like the idea of conquering a playa, and that preselection works. I don’t think we’d pander to women’s baser instincts in a more healthy society, though. I also think that these tactics do a disservice to all the women who successfully harness their lusts and manage to live a civilized life (of which there are some, believe it or not).

    I do have a dim view of marriage as practiced in this culture and as foisted upon me by this culture. And adopting male threatpoints is clearly reactionary. It is an attempt to salvage what can be salvaged, if it can be salvaged, and to make the best of it in what is increasingly marked by despair, for the sake of children. I don’t recommend marriage in this culture – at least not legal marriage. Most men are not masculine enough to provide what most women want; and most women are unfit for it anyway.

    We don’t really disagree here. Bear in mind that most of the present hedonism is due to a weird canalization of masculinity in service of capital. Men are allowed to pride themselves in “notch counts” and running hoes at the club, because 1. these things do not threaten the status quo, 2. these activities make a lot of money for the people in charge of this society, and 3. these activities serve to siphon off discontent and aggression at the real injustices happening all around us. All other masculine outlets (working hard, raising a family, becoming proficient at writing/math/etc.) are portrayed as nerdy/ridiculous/extreme by the current culture. Even married bros want to ape the playa these days, because that’s really the only way men are allowed to feel manly. I get it. I just don’t think it’s either healthy or in line with the religious ideal.

    Best, Boxer

  413. JDG says:

    Boxer’s assessment of the past concurs with what I have observed in my own readings. Divorce was forbidden, as were many practices that are prevalent today. People did not commit adultery all the time, and men did not beat their wives all the time. We have been lied to about the past, and our own perceptions have been warped by constant exposure to false narratives.

    When I was young, people had different attitudes toward sexual misconduct than they do today. Even admitted homosexuals new it was wrong to act on their impulses. People had different attitudes towards a great many behaviors and subjects. There was an understanding of right and wrong that is almost non-existent today, even by many real Christians. Elders were revered, and family men were well respected. If a man didn’t keep his word he felt humiliation and self-disappointment, even if it wasn’t his fault. There was an understanding of ‘doing the right thing’ (even at great personal cost) that has been replaced with ‘doing the right thing for me’. Self-sacrifice is almost extinct now in Western society.

    I’m not even sure what inverted feminism would look like or if it would be possible, but since feminism itself is a perverted inversion of a saner society maybe it wouldn’t be all that bad if we just un-inverted feminism. I will say that the “Tender years Doctrine” was a big mistake, as was suffrage and every other step away from biblical patriarchy. But I will also say that being able to divorce your first wife at will is not biblical, and taking a second wife is not the ideal model for a Christian family. In fact, unless I am misunderstanding the epistle written to Titus, men with two wives were not considered eligible for leadership in the church.

    Again, I believe that a return to biblical patriarchy would go a long way towards fixing what is broken in marriage and society, but I don’t see how that can happen with a people who are so far removed from biblical principles.

  414. John Galt says:

    “It is one of many things that we are not supposed to notice, at least in public. Rather like the Victorian era women who found the word “leg” too vulgar, preferring “limb” and who would then proceed to wrap cloth around the legs…er…limbs of pianos, lest some excitable young person “notice” such a thing.”

    I had to laugh at this. When my father was growing up in the American South in the 1940s-1950s, the euphemisms for fried chicken were “White Meat” and “Second Joint” because it was considered vulgar to say “Breast” and “Thigh”.

  415. Newdist says:

    anon72 wrote: “With the average first time bride having had 11 lovers,”

    Could I please have a source for this?

    I believe it, I just want the source for future use.

  416. jf12 says:

    @Boxer, I think there are other ways of inducing Dread in a woman besides being a playa. For example, she could be summarily executed for adultery. She could be totally ostracized, reduced to begging for stale bread in dirty rags, for getting divorced. Vee haff vays.

  417. bluedog says:

    Boxer, re: August 14, 2014 at 11:31 am,
    Nice. Very nice.
    Reminds me of June Cleaver on Airplane speaking “Jive”.

    Someone needs to do thath paraphrase of the whole good book if it hasn’t already been done.

  418. jf12 says:

    Anyone ever notice that Beaver Cleaver could be a triple entendre?

  419. feeriker says:

    I also think that these tactics do a disservice to all the women who successfully harness their lusts and manage to live a civilized life (of which there are some, believe it or not).

    All 1,000 of them (give or take a couple of dozen).

    Give them a hug, a pat on the back, and a white rose for me, will ya?

  420. feeriker says:

    There was an understanding of ‘doing the right thing’ (even at great personal cost) that has been replaced with ‘doing the right thing for me’. Self-sacrifice is almost extinct now in Western society.

    I know this is superfluous for most of the regulars here, but I’m gonna say it anyway for the benefit of newbs/D.O.Ds:

    Men “did the right thing, “at great cost,” and “often with extreme self-sacrifice” in bygone, stone-age times, usually without any complaint or regret, because they were rewarded for doing so with acknowledgement, respect, love, deference to their [unquestionably recognized] authority, and an abiding appreciation for their abilities as innovators, potectors, and providers – things that have gone the way of the dodo bird, green stamps, and five-cent hamburgers.

    Given this disgusting and decrepit state of affairs, it is thus scarcely surprising that, far from viewing their sacrifices as both essential and noble in support of those who honor, love, and respect them in return, increasing numbers of men are saying, justifiably and understandably, “fuck you! Why should I? You’ve already made it clear you don’t want or need me, so put your own asses where your mouths are and solve your own problems. I’m outta here!”

    In short, restore men to the status they enjoyed in the barbaric (per the feministas) old days, and maybe all the bennies in the form of altruistic self-sacrifices society accrued from disposable men will start making a comeback. Otherwise, “society” needs to STFU, lay down in the hard bed it made for itself, and live with consequences of the choices it made for itself.

    (If I was Captain Capitalism I’d at this point say “stay frosty, guys, and enjoy the decline.” But I’m not, so I won’t.)

  421. jf12 says:

    It’s amazing how poorly Dread game works on men

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/2014/08/02/driscollpnapology/

    compared to how well it (would) work on women.

  422. Boxer says:

    Freeriker:

    All 1,000 of them (give or take a couple of dozen).

    I’m impressed by your skill at writing dimwitted snark. I guess that’s what passes for intelligence among the IQ 95 feminist crowd. You could switch the sexes and you get your dream job at Gawker, writing about how “all men are rapists” and such. Say hello to Lindy West for me.

    Regards, Boxer

  423. Boxer says:

    JF12:

    I think there are other ways of inducing Dread in a woman besides being a playa. For example, she could be summarily executed for adultery. She could be totally ostracized, reduced to begging for stale bread in dirty rags, for getting divorced. Vee haff vays.

    Seems brutal to denizens of the decadent west today, but a hundred years ago society employed institutional pressure against people who broke up their family and made their kids bastards. It wasn’t ordinary for anyone to be killed in our society. Being reduced to beggary was not far away, though. Divorced people (and MGTOW single people, too) were shut out of all but the most menial professions. Why would you trust someone to keep your books or clean your house, when his/her own wife/husband couldn’t trust him, after all?

    Big libraries still have old microfiche or digital copies of newspapers. Read the want ads, even as late as the late 1960s. Decent employment would often be labeled “MARRIED MEN ONLY”.

    Best, Boxer

  424. Boxer says:

    Freeriker:

    Men “did the right thing, “at great cost,” and “often with extreme self-sacrifice” in bygone, stone-age times, usually without any complaint or regret, because they were rewarded for doing so…

    Most of the men who were faithful to their wives, in those bygone days, were not rewarded with anything. Most of them died too soon in logging and mining and fishing accidents, and the best of them barely made ends meet. They got no respect from anyone.

    In short, restore men to the status they enjoyed in the barbaric (per the feministas) old days, and maybe all the bennies in the form of altruistic self-sacrifices society accrued from disposable men will start making a comeback.

    You’re still stuck in the capitalist “give me this and I’ll give you that” mindset. You’re talking about trading resources for sex, which is exactly the way feminists (like yourself, frankly) always describe human relationships, as though they were some sort of commodified transaction. It’s a sick and distorted way to view yourself and your relationship to the world. No worries, though. I’m here to help.

    Human beings evolved (or were created by god) to pair bond. This allowed us to raise our kids, who, compared to most other species, are born totally helpless. If you look at the typical single mom (not the celebrity variety, but one of the vast majority of them) she’s stressed out, strung out, and always on the verge of tears. The natural thing is to have her husband about helping, but then she listened to how she “don’t need a man” and “you go girl” and even with police and social workers and food stamps and section 8, she’s barely hanging on. She bucked evolution, or god, or both. Any way you cut it, she made a huge mistake.

    Men aren’t supposed to be running hoes every night. It doesn’t make us happy. This sounds like a man up speech, which is why I hate the man up speeches so much. They’re so close to the truth, but then they always switch things up at the end. Masculine men are happier when they have people to work for. The people who are worthy to work for are loyal wives, with low or zero notch count, and kids who he knows are biologically his. Guys who buy the “man up and marry that slut” speech are usually soon unhappy, because they bucked evolution too.

    You can look at marriage as a commodity exchange if you want, but if you do that, you miss the fact that love is a truth procedure, and two people who work together have something interesting that is more than just the sum of its parts. Another Marxist philosopher explains it better than I can.

    Regards, Boxer

  425. feeriker says:

    I’m impressed by your skill at writing dimwitted snark. I guess that’s what passes for intelligence among the IQ 95 feminist crowd. You could switch the sexes and you get your dream job at Gawker, writing about how “all men are rapists” and such. Say hello to Lindy West for me.

    Regards, Boxer

    This from a guy who admits to being essentially a nihilist playah himself when it comes to intersexual relations. I’m sure you’re just brimming with examples of the abundant virtue on offer from all the women within your orbit that, for some bizarre reason known only to you, you’ve neglected to share with the rest of us for all these many moons. I’m dying to here you cite some representative examples and extend them to the wider real world the rest of us live in.

    I’ll wait.

  426. Tam the Bam says:

    “Say hello to Lindy West for me.”
    O hay 8oxer, that reminds me.
    I snagged a hardcover of Hobbes’ Leviathan in the Oxfam shop, for a quid.
    I already got Melville.

    Don’t got the Marc Auge (sp?) book you recommended yet, on account of how I obtained, near-miraculously, a hardcover of Andrew Fletcher’s arguments for a like price. Not long to go now, a month and 3 days. (Aye, he “of Saltoun”; before his family had it, my mother’s lot were in it, after they flitted from Oxton where they had several oxgangs and so on on account of “half a knight’s service”, which all sounds a bit Monty Python-Holy Grail-Black Knight, but there you go).

    But I’ll get around to it. I’ll need something to take my mind off the seasickness/driving on the wrong side of the road next week, since I’m not allowed a drop to drink on account of les flics being utter barstewards.

  427. JDG says:

    Freeriker:

    All 1,000 of them (give or take a couple of dozen).

    … You could switch the sexes and you get your dream job at Gawker, writing about how “all men are rapists” and such.

    I don’t know Boxer, I’m no feminist but I’m not sure if Feeriker is that far off the mark, if not in numbers then perhaps in concept. It is literally taboo for most kids these days to be virgins. And I think any ‘non-virgin female/population’ ratio exaggeration is going to be much closer to reality than any ‘men who rape/population’ ratio exaggeration is. In short, I too think that there are a lot of sluts (and cads) in western society.

    “While only 4 percent of U.S. adults are virgins, the rest have engaged in some kind of sex, including oral and anal sex. And by the time they reach age 21, fully 85 percent have had sex.”

    “Among blacks, 28 percent report having first sex before the age of 15, compared with 14 percent of whites.
    15 percent of all adults abstained from sex until they were 21.
    17 percent of men and 10 percent of women said they had two or more sexual partners in the past year.
    46 percent of black men said they have had 15 or more sexual partners in their lifetime.
    For all men, the median number of sexual partners is 6.8.
    For all women, the median number of sexual partners is 3.7.
    The younger a person is, the more likely he or she is to have had multiple partners.
    Overall, only 11 percent of unmarried adults are virgins.”

    Excerts from here:

    http://webcenters.netscape.compuserve.com/love/package.jsp?name=fte/cdcstudy/cdcstudy

    I don’t know how accurate these numbers are, but if they are close to reality then given what we know about marriage/divorce and out of wedlock birth numbers, I don’t see a whole lot of virtuous women out there. We already know men aren’t exactly angels, but we get to hear about that everywhere else.

  428. Tam the Bam says:

    What I mean is, I’m going over and over Fletcher and the rest of it like a maniac, trying to pick contrarian holes in the old horsethief and murderer’s ideas, and along with everybody talking to each other ten to the dozen about it, it’s taking up all my time.
    (Ha, a mere five weeks to decide your nation’s destiny? No pressure pal, no pressure).

  429. Boxer says:

    Dear Freeriker:

    This from a guy who admits to being essentially a nihilist playah himself when it comes to intersexual relations. I’m sure you’re just brimming with examples of the abundant virtue on offer from all the women within your orbit…

    Personal attacks, eh. I’m shocked! Shocked, I tell you!

    Again, say hello to Lindy West. My attempt at conversation with her went along similar lines.

    Regards, Boxer

  430. Boxer says:

    Dear JDG:

    I don’t know Boxer, I’m no feminist but I’m not sure if Feeriker is that far off the mark, if not in numbers then perhaps in concept. It is literally taboo for most kids these days to be virgins. And I think any ‘non-virgin female/population’ ratio exaggeration is going to be much closer to reality than any ‘men who rape/population’ ratio exaggeration is. In short, I too think that there are a lot of sluts (and cads) in western society.

    Are you saying that every woman, or nearly every woman, divorces her husband? If so, I can point you to some stats, right here on this blog, that will disabuse you of that notion. The divorce rate is depressingly pronounced, but it’s not even 60 percent, and has never been.

    Despite the fact that this (collapsing) society affords women every opportunity to fuck their husbands over, cheat on their husbands, divorce their husbands and steal all his stuff, there are millions of American women who are not skanks, not in divorce court, and not on Ashley Madison. Rather than sweeping these civilized women under the rug, so that we can all whine about the ones that are assholes, I think those who choose to live up to their commitments ought to be studied and encouraged.

    Boxer

  431. JDG says:

    Are you saying that every woman, or nearly every woman, divorces her husband?

    No, I’m saying that there aren’t many women who are virtuous. Most girls have sex before they are legally adults. This means they had sex before they were married. Wasn’t that what Feeriker was alluding to or did I misunderstand?

  432. Boxer says:

    Dear Tam The Bam:

    I snagged a hardcover of Hobbes’ Leviathan in the Oxfam shop, for a quid.
    I already got Melville.

    Yeah, if you want dread game, Hobbes is your wingman. None of this milquetoast roissy stuff, but some serious dread in there. Leviathan never forgets…

    Never read Fletcher, but google suggests he’d be a good fit for me. Thanks!

    Boxer

  433. Boxer says:

    No, I’m saying that there aren’t many women who are virtuous. Most girls have sex before they are legally adults. This means they had sex before they were married. Wasn’t that what Feeriker was alluding to or did I misunderstand?

    Is it your opinion then, that women who weren’t virgins at marriage, but who have successfully behaved themselves and made good wives of themselves “don’t count” somehow? I’m not trying to be contentious, mind you. I’m honestly curious as to your underlying reasoning.

    Lots of women aren’t virgins when they’re married. Lots of men aren’t employed when they’re married either. Neither of these are any excuse, in my book, for whoring around and/or refusing to work, after they get married.

    Ideals are nice, of course, but they don’t count for much in the day-to-day. People who have functional lives get credit from me.

    Best, Boxer

  434. Splashman says:

    @Mike, I appreciate your comments on the subject of a no-divorce society. If only . . .

    I hadn’t put 2 and 2 together in thinking about the fact that for the thousands of years that the dreaded patriarchy was still in full force, divorce was exceedingly rare. All it took to make divorce common and de-stigmatized was to allow women into positions of authority over men.

  435. theasdgamer says:

    @ 8oxer

    So, your solution to divorce is for every married man to adopt the lifestyle of a playa

    Nah, Dread works without that. You only need to make sure the wife knows that you have options. It may require staying out a weekend and maintaining radio silence.

    Women are aggressive any more. A man doesn’t even have to try. He can be behaving very ‘g-rated’ and women will still hit on him. All that is required is that he be located in the clubs. Some women will hit on a man even without alcoholic inducement in other social venues, like a dance studio.

  436. theasdgamer says:

    @ 8oxer

    Is it your opinion then, that women who weren’t virgins at marriage, but who have successfully behaved themselves and made good wives of themselves

    Sputter, sputter, sputter, cough cough…whaaaaat?

    [Furiously rewrites.]

    Is it your opinion then, that entitled princesses who weren’t virgins at marriage, but who have successfully tormented their husbands, denying sex and being bitchy….

    99.9%, probably; notice that I’m not counting those who cuckolded post-vows; do we count second marriage wives who performed better than during their first marriage?

    Is it your opinion then, that women who weren’t virgins at marriage, but who have successfully behaved themselves and made good wives of themselves

    All 1000 of them.

    Respect at feeriker

  437. JDG says:

    Is it your opinion then, that women who weren’t virgins at marriage, but who have successfully behaved themselves and made good wives of themselves “don’t count” somehow? I’m not trying to be contentious, mind you. I’m honestly curious as to your underlying reasoning.

    In all honesty you do sound like you are trying to be contentious. Nevertheless, I ask, don’t count for what? If you are claiming that 50% of women didn’t frivorce their husbands and are therefore virtuous, then my reply is, no they don’t count because the one (not frivorcing) is not a guarantee of the other (being virtuous).

    We don’t know if they behaved themselves or not. We don’t know if they are ‘good wives’ or not. We only know that they aren’t divorced. Frankly, of the married women I know, not many are ‘good wives’ at all in my estimation. They don’t even know what being a ‘good wife’ should look like.

  438. jf12 says:

    @Boxer re: “The people who are worthy to work for are loyal wives, with low or zero notch count, and kids who he knows are biologically his.”

    True, but incomplete. I will happily labor in service to any grateful wretch who knows he is a wretch and I knows he is grateful. And I will be red in tooth and claw in defense of any child in my charge, blood relative or not.

  439. JDG says:

    theasdgamer says:
    August 14, 2014 at 5:27 pm

    I didn’t see this until after I posted.

  440. Boxer says:

    Dear Fellas:

    I’m going to answer both of you here. Please see below.

    asdgamer:

    Nah, Dread works without that. You only need to make sure the wife knows that you have options. It may require staying out a weekend and maintaining radio silence.

    That’s strictly a short-term tactic and not a viable strategy for a marriage. Furthermore, if it has reached that point in the marriage, I’d argue that both parties probably have much more serious problems than anything “dread game” can fix.

    99.9%, probably; notice that I’m not counting those who cuckolded post-vows; do we count second marriage wives who performed better than during their first marriage?

    Probably doesn’t count. Post the statistics and/or peer-reviewed journal article, or join your kooky beep-boop friend over at Jezebel.

    JDG:

    In all honesty you do sound like you are trying to be contentious. Nevertheless, I ask, don’t count for what? If you are claiming that 50% of women didn’t frivorce their husbands and are therefore virtuous, then my reply is, no they don’t count because the one (not frivorcing) is not a guarantee of the other (being virtuous).

    Well, virtue is an ideal we should strive for. I don’t think the virtuous society we should aspire to includes things like female-fault divorce, or the ability to take a mistress (or “second wife” as the neo-Christian theologians have termed it) in order to punish your wife for offending you. I don’t think it would encourage men to adopt the mindset of cads and playas in order to “keep” their wives. I’ve made that point sufficiently, so I won’t continue to belabor it.

    We don’t know if they behaved themselves or not. We don’t know if they are ‘good wives’ or not. We only know that they aren’t divorced. Frankly, of the married women I know, not many are ‘good wives’ at all in my estimation. They don’t even know what being a ‘good wife’ should look like.

    You must run in a very dark crowd. Marriage is difficult and many people screw it up, but I know just as many people who seem happy and functional. I wouldn’t try it myself, mind you (the risks are just too high) but I admire the men who do. Many of them read this forum, and they (and their wives) have my support.

    Regards, Boxer

  441. feeriker says:

    Most of the men who were faithful to their wives, in those bygone days, were not rewarded with anything. Most of them died too soon in logging and mining and fishing accidents, and the best of them barely made ends meet. They got no respect from anyone.

    Wrong. They were “rewarded,” with exceptions too few in frequency in number to matter, with fidelity from their wives and recognition from same of their status as head of their households. Also the same, plus love, from their children and extended families, as well as from much of their immediate communities. Why? Because the society in which they lived at the time, a society that, for all its many faults, was based on spiritual and religious tenets that have fallen decidedly out of fashion, demanded such. THAT is what was and STILL IS important – and what is completely lacking today in most men’s lives. Your Marxist theory of labor slant here does not, unfortunately for you, play as prominent and relevant a role in the family of yore as you’d like it to.

    You’re still stuck in the capitalist “give me this and I’ll give you that” mindset. You’re talking about trading resources for sex, which is exactly the way feminists (like yourself, frankly) always describe human relationships, as though they were some sort of commodified transaction. It’s a sick and distorted way to view yourself and your relationship to the world. No worries, though. I’m here to help.

    “Capitalism” has aught whatsoever to do with this (which also tells me that you, like most today, either have no understanding of the word’s real meaning, or you can’t let go of the fact that your utopian heaven on earth died an ugly over death 20 years ago, but that’s neither here nor there). YOU seem to be stuck in a mindset which asserts that mindless altruism is the default, NATURAL human condition for men, that we are not only hardwired, by endowed by the Creator (whom you’ve already made clear you don’t believe in) to expect NO recognition, reward, or even basic human respect WHATSOEVER, at even the most visceral level, when providing for others who are ostensibly flesh and blood and/or committed to us. In other words, your socialist colors shine through brightly here (“from each to according to his ability, to each according to his needs”). Or maybe you’re of another species of humanoid (Vulcan, perhaps?) from a distant galaxy that is wired differently from the rest of us mere homo sapiens. Either way, I know of NO other human male who willingly and blindly commits to striving for the welfare and betterment of others without expecting, at a minimum, a modicum of simple human decency, respect, recognition, support, and YES, if he’s married, SEXUAL CONGRESS from the woman he has committed to as a wife, in return for provisioning and protection. If your idea of “help” is to wash the last vestiges of self-respect out of men, then no thanks. Pass. They’re having that done to them already by society at large without your added “help.” I’m sure most others will pass on your offer too.

    Human beings evolved (or were created by god) to pair bond. This allowed us to raise our kids, who, compared to most other species, are born totally helpless. If you look at the typical single mom (not the celebrity variety, but one of the vast majority of them) she’s stressed out, strung out, and always on the verge of tears. The natural thing is to have her husband about helping, but then she listened to how she “don’t need a man” and “you go girl” and even with police and social workers and food stamps and section 8, she’s barely hanging on. She bucked evolution, or god, or both. Any way you cut it, she made a huge mistake.

    Her problem and hers alone (that whole “moral agency” thing, dontcha know?), and germane to a discussion of “masculine man’s” self-respect and expectations of such from others how? Please explain this little side stroll down a rabbit hole.

    Men aren’t supposed to be running hoes every night. It doesn’t make us happy.

    Where does “running hoes” enter into this, and under what drug-induced, most heavily distorted reading of what I posted about did you glean I was advocating such, even obliquely? Let me repeat deti’s question: who are you, and what did you do with the REAL Boxer? Maybe somebody (PlainJain?) has hacked Boxer’s WordPress account.

    This sounds like a man up speech, which is why I hate the man up speeches so much. They’re so close to the truth, but then they always switch things up at the end. Masculine men are happier when they have people to work for. The people who are worthy to work for are loyal wives, with low or zero notch count, and kids who he knows are biologically his. Guys who buy the “man up and marry that slut” speech are usually soon unhappy, because they bucked evolution too.

    Again, what does any of what you’re ranting about here have to do with anything I posted? I specifically said that when “masculine men” are married to women to whom they are committed and who are committed and faithful to them in return (read that bold part VERY CAREFULLY, several times if you need to, to understand what I’m obviously focused on), they have no problem, qualm, issue, or gripe with doing what they do best, even under the most unimaginable of conditions, for the people they are meant to do it for. It is when they are taken for granted as mules with wallets, AND NOTHING MORE, ESPECIALLY BY THOSE TO WHOM THEY HAVE MADE THE MOST INTIMATE OF PERSONAL COMMITMENTS, that they balk at investing any time, effort, and emotional/spiritual capital (that nasty word again). If what you are saying here is that “masculine men” are routinely willing to allow themselves to be ground up by the machine as a supplication at the altar of poon without the poon goddess conferring blessings upon him in return for his sacrifice, then you have inexplicably confused “alpha” and “beta/gamma/delta.” Again, who the hell are you, and what did you do with Boxer (who never in a millions years, even if he were a coma, would make that kind of error)?

    You are also essentially saying that men whose wives are unfaithful, nagging, conniving, parasitic, violent harridans are duty-bound (by whom? under exactly what moral authority?) to “man up, take it, and do what you’re supposed to do, and how dare you expect to be treated with even minimal human respect” because … well, just because Boxer (or his hero Marxist theorists) said so, for reasons he can’t even seem to articulate in a convincing manner than anyone can make sense of (unless, again, they subscribe to long-discredited Marxist egalitarian philosophy). I think “no sale” is about the most polite and consistent response you can expect to get for such an assertion from any quarter I’m familiar with.

    You can look at marriage as a commodity exchange if you want, but if you do that, you miss the fact that love is a truth procedure, and two people who work together have something interesting that is more than just the sum of its parts. Another Marxist philosopher explains it better than I can.

    Quoting a Marxist philosopher ain’t gonna help your case here at all. In addition to your misguided attempt to ascribe class motives to every human action, you missed something very important – no, ESSENTIAL — in your little philosophical excursion here: it takes two to tango. This is NOT “commoditizing” marriage. Marriage, a UNION OF TWO PEOPLE, EACH WITH COMPLEMENTARY RESPONSIBILITIES TO ONE ANOTHER, is NOT a unilateral transfer of benefits from one party to another (to each, from each, and all that BS). It never was intended to be such, by God or man, and cannot function as such without loss or destruction to one half of the relationship. Your “altruistic” (read Marxist) Weltanschauung, however, insists that it is. Again, all but two of the world’s nations and its academic institutions said “no sale” to that over 20 years ago.

    In closing, it occurs to me to ask myself why I’m bothering to argue this topic with someone who, by his own candid admission, not only never has been married and never intends to (for which no one here will fault him), but who believes in NONE of the spiritual forces upon which the foundation of REAL marriage is built (and indeed, seems to adhere to the philosophies of those that would have seen them destroyed), and yet would presume to moralistically lecture others here on exactly those aspects of it. Prevailing custom would call such antics amusing (at best) or galling (at worst). I’m leaning toward the latter.

    It’s no longer amusing and is in fact getting quite tedious. You really should give it a rest.

    Respectfully (if a bit tartly),

    feeriker

  442. theasdgamer says:

    I took Mrs. Gamer dancing. I danced many dances with her, including three in a row. She wanted to dance a fourth and I declined, promising her a dance later which I delivered.

    She was unhaaaaappy that I refused her a dance and danced it with someone else instead (an unattractive whale of a girl, but she knew how to dance). Mrs. Gamer misbehaved and I took her home, then went out dancing again. She then ignored me and disrespected me for several days.

    Topic change: Mrs. Gamer and I followed the standard sexual strategies for men and women while dancing: dance hypergamy–by Mrs. Gamer–and unselective dancing with as many different partners as possible–by your scribe. It’s interesting that Mrs. Gamer considered nobody in the dance venue worthy of her flirtations, by her own admission (your humble scribe excepted). Hypergamy on her part (wanting to lock me down for dancing), although she did dance with a couple of other men, and unselective dancing on my part. I danced with about five other women.

  443. Splashman says:

    To @feministhater and others who believe there is a circumstance in which God approves of divorce:

    The Bible is a collection of descriptive (here is something that happened) and prescriptive (here’s what God wants you to do) passages. If one is willing to take a verse out of context, one can use the Bible to prove black is white. And many people do.

    Those who use Matthew 19:9 (or other similar passages) to justify divorcing an adulterous spouse, conveniently skip over the preceding 5 verses:

    3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? 4 And he [Jesus] answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. 7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? 8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

    In verses 3-8, Jesus explains that man and woman were designed to be together, and that while God allowed divorce for a time (i.e., would not condemn a man to hell if he divorced), just as he allowed polygamy for a time, that time had now passed (“let no man put asunder”). Verse 9, which many people claim is God’s sanction for divorce in the case of adultery, is clearly not, especially considering the verses which precede it. In verse 9, Jesus is simply pointing out while divorce due to fornication (adultery) may be legal, it tends to lead to more adultery. In context, he’s warning that divorce is no solution to a marriage in which adultery has taken place, because divorce actually leads to more adultery.

    Bottom line: God designed marriage as a scale model of a person’s relationship with God (person=wife, God=husband). Wife is told to obey husband, just as I am to obey God. Husband is told to love wife sacrificially, just as God loves me sacrificially (i.e., Jesus). Whoever says there is a circumstance in which God sanctions divorce, is also saying, “I think God should unilaterally divorce me (cut me off from eternal life with him) if I do something he doesn’t like.”

    Go ahead and say that if you like. I won’t.

  444. Boxer says:

    Dear JF12:

    True, but incomplete. I will happily labor in service to any grateful wretch who knows he is a wretch and I knows he is grateful. And I will be red in tooth and claw in defense of any child in my charge, blood relative or not.

    All of which is to your credit, and (in my own humble estimation) puts you way ahead of most men in an ethical sense. I’ve known people to make a go of adoption and it seemed to work out OK. Those men aren’t the norm, though. I know I’d want my kid to be mine.

    Best, Boxer

  445. Boxer says:

    Splashman:

    Thanks for that perfect exegesis. That’s exactly what I got out of the text.

    Best, Boxer

  446. jf12 says:

    @feeriker re: long comment at 5:53

    I had the sniffles here, like Boxer, like a month ago maybe, but I was more explicitly whining about a man’s goodness being just a ticket to his being miserable in this life (only, we hope).

  447. theasdgamer says:

    @ 8oxer

    Regarding Dread:

    That’s strictly a short-term tactic and not a viable strategy for a marriage.

    I think that many Red Pill religious types think that soft Dread is required anymore as a standard protocol. Your opinion is controversial.

    Probably doesn’t count. Post the statistics and/or peer-reviewed journal article

    Help wanted: Does anybody have a link to the historical study of sexual frequency in marriage?

    Sorry, I don’t think that psychologists have studied wives’ bitchiness over time yet, so we’ll have to rely on anecdotal evidence. Of course, if you know of such a study, please post it.

    Is there a man here who has been married at least ten years who can say that his wife has never denied him sex and has never been so bitchy that he retreated to his lair or left the house? Please speak up if you have married such a golden unicorn!

  448. Splashman says:

    Boxer, anyone who supports his position with Marxist philosophy is disqualifying himself from rational conversation. Good post, feeriker.

  449. Boxer says:

    Splashman:

    Boxer, anyone who supports his position with Marxist philosophy is disqualifying himself from rational conversation. Good post, feeriker.

    That’s interesting, given that the Marxist philosopher in question heavily quotes St. Paul and the New Testament in his discourse on love. Is that “heresy” in your book, too? Quoting the bible, as you did?

    Regards, Boxer

  450. Gaza says:

    @Deti
    “Most men are not masculine enough to provide what most women want; and most women are unfit for it anyway.”

    As usual, you aptly square it up. Though to be fair “masculinity” is slippery silly putty in the hands of women. Once men handed over the transition of boys into men, Masculinity was lost. They (the F.I./fem-culture) define (and continually re-define) the form and men are subsequently expected to find the function. The two are obviously at odds; the shifting ideals of fem-defined masculinity are merely one more extension of the multitude of opportunistic schematics to channel and control male utility. Thus the “enough” part of masculinity is not only perpetually out of reach due to the inherent incongruence of form and function but is also often in direct opposition of what women respond to at that critical hindbrain/visceral level from which attraction sprouts and all else follows.

    The men who are “their own man”, naturally masculine alpha/sigma or other self-taught red-pill varietals who embody the masculinity that flips her switch not only must unwind the fem-programming (swallow the pill and keep it down) but also have the fortitude and discipline to demonstrate their masculinity in ways that are often affronts to the FI, the narrative, the PC thought police, etc.

    The schematics of control and redistribution of male energy cannot be underestimated. Men who succeed at circumventing are entirely under their own power; a rarity in general. Men who are physically gifted get a “pass” so to say, for their affronts because: attraction; those who are not will likely never be “enough” of masculinity – or anything else, to suit the majority of women. Unfit women +1.

    All that said. So now what? Marriage 2.0 is a bust. Hedonism is a bust. MGTOW is “irrelevance embodied” as Vox might say. So a man picks up a sword in a battle he did not start to risk his life for a society that celebrates his disposal in what in all likelihood is a futile effort to serve his faith and family and thus preserve his culture, but also must endeavor to never lose himself in servitude to a potential (or current) wife, or to a false cause or deity or to his own self-indulgence. All while the “culture” continues to demonize his kind, reward those who do chose such causes or indulgences, and ask of him to find satisfaction via increasing his investments in exchange for diminishing returns.

    Never complain. Fine. I’m down with that. But my personal crossroads appears to be in such stark contrast. Pursue a cause requiring deep faith, risk, and sacrifice, with no expectations of reciprocation, or “enjoy the decline”. IOW, I can no longer tell if my male honor is my own or is being hijacked, if my faith is a guiding light or blinders to senseless sacrifice, if my duty to myself is hedonism or fitness for the fight… You know, the usual stuff.

  451. theasdgamer says:

    Splashman needs to work on his Bible literacy. Up until verse 8, the authority was Moses, who allowed divorce for any reason. Jesus instituted a change of authority beginning with verse 9. That would have shocked the Pharisees, since Jesus was claiming higher authority than Moses. Shocked, shocked, I say?

    Jesus allowed divorce only in the case of sexual immorality, if you read the section accurately.

  452. jf12 says:

    @Boxer, I’ve never adopted in large part because of the wife, ah she kinda funny, you know. But I’ve been Papa Duck to lots of little ducklings through the years.

    We wuz doing an interactive lesson in individual classrooms during evening Vacation Bible School last month, and the lights went out, all over the neighborhood. My kids, proprietively, and I had a good time sitting in the dark (just the Exit signs were lit) telling stories and singing songs. They went “Aw!” when the lights came back on about fifteen minutes later, because it was getting about time to leave.

  453. Boxer says:

    Never complain. Fine. I’m down with that. But my personal crossroads appears to be in such stark contrast. Pursue a cause requiring deep faith, risk, and sacrifice, with no expectations of reciprocation, or “enjoy the decline”.

    This dilemma does not exist, outside of internet theorizing. There are tons of options for men today which weren’t available previously. Men have the ability to make meaning in adverse circumstances, and it’s your duty to make your life a work of art.

    Boxer

  454. Splashman says:

    @theadsgamer, just curious: You believe Moses’ law was not received from God nor published under God’s authority?

  455. Splashman says:

    Boxer, as I noted in my longer comment, anyone (including Marx) can use scripture out of context to support their position.

    If I was doing so, point out where I did. If not, you’re just making noise in defense of an indefensible position.

  456. Boxer says:

    Boxer, as I noted in my longer comment, anyone (including Marx) can use scripture out of context to support their position. If I was doing so, point out where I did. If not, you’re just making noise in defense of an indefensible position.

    In other words, you have never heard of the philosopher in question, and can’t point out any real criticism in his thought (nor in my reference). You’re just here to amuse people with personal attacks.

    I don’t really like to distract this particular forum with such nonsense, though I’ll admit that I find you (and freeriker’s CAPS LADEN kooky tantrum) sorta humorous. Feel free to keep it going, and know that I’m laughing at you, on my end, even if (for practical reasons) I don’t encourage you overtly.

    Regards, Boxer

  457. theasdgamer says:

    @ Splashman just curious: You believe Jesus did not come from God and what He said didn’t have God’s authority?

  458. theasdgamer says:

    @ 8oxer

    Feel free to keep it going, and know that I’m laughing at you, on my end

    And anyone should care that you’re laughing at someone because…? Kind of passive-aggressive, don’t you think?

  459. feeriker says:

    (and freeriker’s CAPS LADEN kooky tantrum)

    Hamsterlation: Damn, my rational rebuttal bag is empty! Guess I gotta go diving in the rhetorical dumpster again.

  460. theasdgamer says:

    @ deti

    “Most men are not masculine enough to provide what most women want; and most women are unfit for it anyway.”

    This is inaccurate. The accurate way to say it is: “Most women do not perceive most men as being masculine enough…” Because it’s not 1950 anymore and the status of men generally has plunged. It’s not necessarily because of a lack of masculinity.

  461. theasdgamer says:

    @ 8oxer

    Thanks for that perfect exegesis. That’s exactly what I got out of the text.

    Ah well, continuing my campaign against Bible illiteracy one head-thump at a time.

  462. Splashman says:

    @theasdgamer, I’m not trolling, so get real.

    You claimed a change of authority in verse 9, from Moses to Jesus. Jesus is under God’s authority. So your comment implies that Moses’ law was not published under God’s authority.

    I’m trying to figure out your reasoning, so help me out here.

  463. Boxer says:

    I’ve never adopted in large part because of the wife, ah she kinda funny, you know. But I’ve been Papa Duck to lots of little ducklings through the years.

    I have a cousin who lives nearby. She’s a typical skank-ho single mom. I think the oldest of her two boys dimly remembers his father, but I never bring it up. We throw the football a fair bit, and I’ve taken them to the gym. Those two are related, though. I’m probably too selfish to do something like that for non-kin.

    The chronic dysfunction of the matriarchy starts this way, I believe. Men taking care of their female relatives’ kids, never knowing their own…

    Boxer

  464. blurkel says:

    “Marriage is dead. The sooner Marriage 2.0 is destroyed the better. Trying to salvage it, try to restore some semblance of marriage 1.0 is a mistake. If you are in favor of marriage, the horror show zombie that it has become must be put down utterly.”

    Ras Al Ghul hits the nail on the head. Men who are aware need to educate their friends who are not, and this travesty of social interaction will end when enough men refuse to play.

  465. JDG says:

    Boxer:

    Well, virtue is an ideal we should strive for.

    Absolutely virtue is what we strive for, and I think it is more than just an idea. Sadly I don’t see many western minded women striving for it.

    I don’t think the virtuous society we should aspire to includes things like female-fault divorce, or the ability to take a mistress (or “second wife” as the neo-Christian theologians have termed it) in order to punish your wife for offending you.

    I agree with what you wrote here 100%. I also agree with much of what you wrote about society in the past and your take on how Christians should behave (it seems odd to me that you are not a Christian). I don’t agree with how you relate capitalism to feminism – but I’m no expert in economic or social trends. I guess I just don’t have your optimism in regards to the attitudes of Western women.

    You must run in a very dark crowd.

    No, just average I should think. I will say that most of the women that I know who ARE good wives either attend very conservative churches or are from abroad, but they number but a fraction of the average ‘princess’ that I have encountered and interacted with through out the years.

    Marriage is difficult and many people screw it up, but I know just as many people who seem happy and functional.

    But we weren’t discussing happiness and functionality, at least I wasn’t. And I doubt if most western women could remain happy for more than a credit card maxed minute even when they get what they want. Usually what they want IS what makes them miserable.

  466. JDG says:

    They were “rewarded,” with exceptions too few in frequency in number to matter, with fidelity from their wives and recognition from same of their status as head of their households. Also the same, plus love, from their children and extended families, as well as from much of their immediate communities.

    Yes, this is my take on the era as well. A man was looked up to, especially a family man. This also helped women to be more ‘happy’ with her situation (which seems so often tied to the status of her husband).

  467. JDG says:

    feeriker says:
    August 14, 2014 at 5:53 pm

    I should have read all of this before I commented above. Wow.

    Well said.

  468. Splashman says:

    @JDG, re: status, yup, that’s why women used to refer to themselves as “Mrs. Frank Johnson”, or whatever. They were showing off not only their married state in general (“Mrs.”), but their status as being the partner of that particular man.

  469. feeriker says:

    that’s why women used to refer to themselves as “Mrs. Frank Johnson”, or whatever. They were showing off not only their married state in general (“Mrs.”), but their status as being the partner of that particular man.

    Tragically, an almost extinct practice. My mother, even three years after my dad’s death just short of 53 years of marriage, STILL refers to herself in correspondence as “Mrs. [Feeriker's Father].” It WILL BE an extinct practice once she and the remaining few of her generation (the “Silent Generation)” and what few “GreatestGen” women left are gone. For the most part, you only hear it used today in old movies.

  470. Boxer says:

    Dear JDG:

    But we weren’t discussing happiness and functionality, at least I wasn’t. And I doubt if most western women could remain happy for more than a credit card maxed minute even when they get what they want. Usually what they want IS what makes them miserable.

    Well, happiness is a loaded word. Freud reminds us that it is “no social virtue”. I meant it in terms of simple pleasures, rather than carnal pursuits.

    There are married men in this corner of the internet who occasionally post about how they achieved a functional marriage. Some of them might be lying, but I don’t think all of them are.

    I should have read all of this before I commented above. Wow. Well said.

    What part of freeriker’s looney tirade was pertinent to the topic at hand? As near as I can tell, it was pure ressentiment — all about how he didn’t like me because (I’m not a Christian, I’m not getting married, etc.). Again, a lot of the rebuttals I’m getting here would be typical of Jezebel — all personalized, sexualized, etc. It’s unusual for Dalrock, in my experience, though I find it amusing.

    If I missed something relevant (always possible) in that word salad, feel free to point it out.

    Regards, Boxer

  471. JDG says:

    Boxer:

    I can see why you had trouble seeing the accuracy of Feeriker’s post as much of it was levied in an unfriendly tone towards you and your views on Capitalism/Marxism. I was referring to especially this:

    They were “rewarded,” with exceptions too few in frequency in number to matter, with fidelity from their wives and recognition from same of their status as head of their households. Also the same, plus love, from their children and extended families, as well as from much of their immediate communities. Why? Because the society in which they lived at the time, a society that, for all its many faults, was based on spiritual and religious tenets that have fallen decidedly out of fashion, demanded such. THAT is what was and STILL IS important – and what is completely lacking today in most men’s lives.

    but also this:

    “Capitalism” has aught whatsoever to do with this

    and this:

    I know of NO other human male who willingly and blindly commits to striving for the welfare and betterment of others without expecting, at a minimum, a modicum of simple human decency, respect, recognition, support, and YES, if he’s married, SEXUAL CONGRESS from the woman he has committed to as a wife, in return for provisioning and protection.

    and this:

    I specifically said that when “masculine men” are married to women to whom they are committed and who are committed and faithful to them in return … they have no problem, qualm, issue, or gripe with doing what they do best, even under the most unimaginable of conditions, for the people they are meant to do it for. It is when they are taken for granted as mules with wallets, AND NOTHING MORE, ESPECIALLY BY THOSE TO WHOM THEY HAVE MADE THE MOST INTIMATE OF PERSONAL COMMITMENTS, that they balk at investing any time, effort, and emotional/spiritual capital…

  472. Boxer says:

    Dear JDG:

    Please see below…

    They were “rewarded,” with exceptions too few in frequency in number to matter, with fidelity from their wives and recognition from same of their status as head of their households. Also the same, plus love, from their children and extended families, as well as from much of their immediate communities. Why? Because the society in which they lived at the time, a society that, for all its many faults, was based on spiritual and religious tenets that have fallen decidedly out of fashion, demanded such. THAT is what was and STILL IS important – and what is completely lacking today in most men’s lives.

    This is, whether you want to believe it or not, a fable. Men take care of their wives because we’re wired to take care of them. It makes us happy (in the sense of simple pleasures, rather than carnal excesses). To imply that men in the past got some sort of incredible reward is to ignore all sorts of historical sources. We evolved to pair up, bond for life, and spend our times building for the future.

    http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v7/n10/full/nn1327.html

    “Capitalism” has aught whatsoever to do with this

    Strictly speaking, it’s not “capitalism” but “capital” which drives the false consciousness of feminism. Feminists (including the male ones, like freeriker) can’t see relationships without some sort of goony exchange. To consider this is to watch it immediately collapse, provided you have the smallest modicum of critical thinking.

    Almost no one, man or woman, gets more than he puts in, materially speaking, to a marriage. Men get a few years of good sex while the wife is still hot. Women get some insurance against starvation. I would argue that neither party would find this to be advantageous, considering the other options they have over the course of a lifetime. The real reason people marry is because we’re biologically wired (or created by god) to marry. Men find meaning in taking care of a wife. Women find meaning in bearing a man’s children. Together they make meaning uniquely, as a couple.

    Marriage is inherently subversive, in the eyes of capital, which is why it tries so vehemently to dismantle it. The marriage bond is the potential creation of the ideal society in miniature, which always illuminates the flaws in the greater structure of the society we are forced to live in.

    The playa lifestyle, and the tactics that come along with it, are an outgrowth of capital. The whole point is to “maximize one’s return” in this phony “exchange” that feminists reduce sex and marriage to, with utmost dishonesty. Men get regular sex with women, and can discard them as soon as they get tired of them. Women get dick and attention. For married men to adopt the tactics of the playa is to sully the marriage. More importantly, I don’t think it would work. A playa who uses “dread” can keep a ho interested for a bit longer. A married man who uses “dread” will be suggesting to his wife that he is promiscuous and/or untrustworthy. It might be a good short-term idea in a very few cases, but I think it has the potential to be quite damaging.

    The ideal society is one in which we don’t look at each other as objects, or as means to an end. I think Jesus in the text is on my side in that, too.

    Best, Boxer

  473. jf12 says:

    Boxer’s got a giirrllfriend!

  474. Cane Caldo says:

    @Boxer

    I could quibble with a few of your reasonings, but that would only spoil the pleasure I’ve taken from your comments. Well done!

  475. theasdgamer says:

    @ Splashman

    You claimed a change of authority in verse 9, from Moses to Jesus. Jesus is under God’s authority.

    But Moses is less than Jesus. Jesus is very God of very God. Moses was a servant. Did you read the actual words from the text? “Moses gave you divorce…but I say….” Jesus proceeds to amend Moses’ terms for divorce. Jesus is claiming greater authority than Moses. “I say” implies Jesus’ personal, divine authority. The scribes referenced rabbinic authorities but Jesus asserted his own authority. “…for He was teaching them as one having authority, and not as their scribes.” (Mt. 7:29) This is not a strange or novel concept. I don’t know why you have a problem with it.

    So your comment implies that Moses’ law was not published under God’s authority.

    I think that you read something into my comment.

  476. Bluedog says:

    @Boxer, re: “Marriage is inherently subversive, in the eyes of capital, which is why it tries so vehemently to dismantle it.”

    Ahhhhhh, I’m really not so sure.

    I mean – this has been a superb performance that I’ve been watching and enjoying all afternoon, but I’m not sure that one can slide by.

    A primitive by modern standards, but wildly advanced by both ancient and medieval standards, form of capitalism existed in Roman times – lots of descriptors we can give but just a few: an oligarchy, factories, minting and coinage and carbon emissions that dropped in the fifth century and didn’t rise to the same state again until 1300-1500.

    Out of Rome we get Pater Familias. Now – look closely and there is something wildly and totally not in the least bit surprising on a whole series of levels: traditional Catholicism, that is: Roman Catholicism, is all about Pater Familias.

    Arguably Pater Familias was a key K-strategy that was challenged throughout the middle ages, and proved – long run – superior – and was aided along all the way by the church.

    Merchantilism gave way to a more modern capitalism – and you could make an argument, but I think it would be weak – that industrial capitalism was “weakening” the family unit from 1700-1920, but (1) I don’t think you are likely to come up with a very persuasive argument and (2) even if you did, you would still have to agree that it is very recent times that the traditional family has come unwound.

    That is a long time, and a lot of capitalism – and far from being set against each other, the traditional family and capitalism could as easily – I would say more easily – be seen as enjoying a virtuous cycle – nurturing one another.

    The latter-day weakening of the family – to the degree that is driven by capital – I would argue here you got your vectors wrong – it isn’t the “capital”, it’s the “capitalism”.

    Capitalism incentivizes people to find inefficiencies in the system and to innovate in ways that fill in those inefficiencies.

    You have done a good job describing how pair-bonding is arguably inefficient – and yet (unsurprisingly – because it gets genes passed on) we are evolved to do it.

    In that respect – pair bonding is inefficient in the short run – but qualitatively worthwhile in the long run.

    That statement breaks the capitalism algorithm: “inefficient in the short run – but qualitatively worthwhile in the long run”.

    Capitalism just sees “inefficient”, then chews it up, and spits it up.

    That’s … exactly … what’s happening.

    Oh – and whoever said some dumb sweeping statement about quoting Marx up there yonder, ponder this one:

    “Capital is money, capital is commodities. By virtue of it being value, it has acquired the occult ability to add value to itself. It brings forth living offspring, or, at the least, lays golden eggs.”
    Karl Marx

  477. jf12 says:

    Modern marriage: not working. Because
    Modern roles: not working.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/randi-gunther/marriage-advice_b_5666990.html

    It started big time in the sexual revolution.

  478. In verses 3-8, Jesus explains that man and woman were designed to be together, and that while God allowed divorce for a time (i.e., would not condemn a man to hell if he divorced), just as he allowed polygamy for a time, that time had now passed (“let no man put asunder”). Verse 9, which many people claim is God’s sanction for divorce in the case of adultery, is clearly not, especially considering the verses which precede it. In verse 9, Jesus is simply pointing out while divorce due to fornication (adultery) may be legal, it tends to lead to more adultery. In context, he’s warning that divorce is no solution to a marriage in which adultery has taken place, because divorce actually leads to more adultery.

    This is the biggest case of bullcrap yet. When a spouse commits adultery, their heart is already hardened, hence why it is the one reason allowed for divorce. As for divorcing leading to more adultery.. lol, that’s funny.. If there are no consequences for adultery, i.e. stoning, or at least divorce with no assets from the union, then more adultery will be committed.

    My take on Matthew 9 has always been that marriage is sacred, not meant to be destroyed on a whim but only on the utter disregard by one spouse of the other by use of adultery. That adultery is so destructive as to destroy what is God ordained.

    Now, God can restore a marriage that has suffered adultery, but that does not mean all and it cannot be expected of all. There is no time limit for divorce, it is not granted once second and then not again, that’s silly. The reason remains the same ever since sin entered the human spirit.

  479. Bluedog says:

    “Modern marriage: not working.” … “It started big time in the sexual revolution.”

    Yup. The sexual revolution. Primary driver: birth control.

    There are … soooooooooooooo many, very conservative ideas, and very conservative ways of looking at things, that have this or that to say about men and women, sex and reproduction, mating and marriage, and basically: they break down on BC.

    BC was like “genie out of bottle.” It’s hard to put genie’s back in bottles – and dangerous. People get hurt.

    Before BC – you could be conservative about traditional marriage and not be fascist – because nature did the fascism for you – it was nature denying autonomy, not conservatives.

    Today – really if you do the work to peal that philosophical onion apart – you really read up on the opposition and understand what they are really saying and not the obnoxious or weak straw mans you impute on them – and conservatism doesn’t look so good when it tries to stand in the way of the autonomy that is behind the door BC opened.

    The best bet for conservatives – I think – this is my opinion – is libertarian: carve out a space where people can choose traditional marriage, and protect that space, and seek allies, who may not share the space – the communities – but who will protect it with you.

    Apart from that, my opinion – down all other roads: there is no hope for the traditional way.

  480. Pingback: How To Destroy Marriage | The Society of Phineas

  481. Boxer says:

    Dear Blue Dog:

    Interesting points. Please see below…

    Ahhhhhh, I’m really not so sure. I mean – this has been a superb performance that I’ve been watching and enjoying all afternoon, but I’m not sure that one can slide by. A primitive by modern standards, but wildly advanced by both ancient and medieval standards, form of capitalism existed in Roman times

    Reification started becoming an issue during the industrial revolution. I never studied Classical history extensively, but wouldn’t be surprised if certain facets of it may have started coming to the fore in the decadent decline of Rome. If they had, they would have disappeared with its collapse. It’s basically a function of having your needs met, without having to work.

    When people start making ends meet by buying or selling, or by working on an impersonal assembly line (what Marx called alienated labor), they start seeing their fellow human beings as objects of use. People, through a reified lens, are no longer individuals, with dignity, but are just the means to make money, walking sex organs to use, suckers to sell things to, etc.

    Reification has both subjective and objective facets. This is the same process that explains people naming their new Mercedes E class and kissing it good night, or spending their time at dinner with friends typing on their iphone. People who are stuck in this false state of consciousness don’t have authentic relationships with other people any longer. They have relationships with the commodities they consume (cars and gadgets). The people they should be relating to are treated like objects at the same time.

    This lunacy, which is so prevalent in our society as to be almost invisible, is what underpins feminist theory. It’s heresy to suggest that men and women might actually want to hang out, even if they aren’t exploiting each other for resources. In fact, men and women do want to hang out, pair up, and have families. Kooky feminists run in circles to explain this away with all sorts of farfetched theories (rape culture, coded misogyny, blah blah). They also work very hard to try to spread their delusions around to others (O honey he is using you!)

    In reality it’s perfectly natural for people to form families, and no weirdo economic theories about exploitation are necessary to explain it. Healthy societies wouldn’t pathologize normal human behaviour this way. They’d let people marry and provided they behaved themselves, they’d leave them alone.

    Best, Boxer

  482. Boxer says:

    That statement breaks the capitalism algorithm: “inefficient in the short run – but qualitatively worthwhile in the long run”. Capitalism just sees “inefficient”, then chews it up, and spits it up.

    I really think it goes deeper (Marcuse and Althusser and Badiou convinced me of that). We can agree to disagree, I suppose, but I’m suspicious (as those three are) as to how vehemently society has tried to dismantle marriage. I don’t think it’s just about money.

    Authentic love between two people creates a new way of seeing the world, which can’t be had by an individual. Society finds this threatening, as it is used to feeding us all our ideas, and this represents a rupture.

    Marriage/pairbonding also creates an unauthorized institution which has the potential to supercede the state. (I mean the state in Marxist terms: which includes social institutions, not just political ones). The state doesn’t like anyone infringing on its monopoly. It likes to keep people safely stuck on the hamster wheel, wasting their lives in “safe” (for it) pursuits.

    Best, Boxer

  483. Balrung says:

    Hi Dalrock. Love the blog. Read this. There’s a lot that deserved comment, thought maybe it could be material for one of your posts. http://www.thomasumstattd.com/2014/08/courtship-fundamentally-flawed/

  484. JDG says:

    Boxer:

    Men take care of their wives because we’re wired to take care of them.

    Yes, we are hard wired this way, but that doesn’t change the fact that there once was an expectation from our wives and from society that provided a satisfaction in, and a motive for, pushing on when things were tough. The “why” we take care of our wives, I believe, is due in part to the above mentioned motivation and satisfaction (rewards if you will), in part due to the training received as children, and in part due to the hard wiring you speak of (although I have no reason to believe evolution had anything to do with it).

    If it is purely the hard wiring as you seem to be implying, then why are men going MGTOW? Why are some men gay? There seems to be more to it than just the hard wiring.

    To imply that men in the past got some sort of incredible reward is to ignore all sorts of historical sources.

    I don’t believe men needed an incredible reward to find motivation. The respect and dignity obtained from being a father and husband was enough. Compared to today it may seem incredible, but it was not always like it is now.

    Could you point me to some historical sources that demonstrate how men were derided on a large scale by society and their spouses, yet they continued to provide for and protect one or both (wives and/or society) without external coercion?

    Almost no one, man or woman, gets more than he puts in, materially speaking, to a marriage. Men get a few years of good sex while the wife is still hot. Women get some insurance against starvation. I would argue that neither party would find this to be advantageous, considering the other options they have over the course of a lifetime.

    I would argue that both found this advantageous throughout most of history. A man’s progeny means a lot in saner cultures, as does provision for women. The problem we have, I think, is that in this culture we tend to view things through the colored lenses of modernity which is stinking of self-indulgence.

    The real reason people marry is because we’re biologically wired (or created by god) to marry. Men find meaning in taking care of a wife. Women find meaning in bearing a man’s children.

    God created Adam and no suitable helper was found for him, so God created Eve to be his helpmate. The woman was made for the man. God told them to be fruitful and multiply. Yet a couple/few thousand years later Paul the apostle tells us that it is better for a Christian man not to marry if he can control his sexual passion.

    And here’s the rub. Women are no longer finding meaning in bearing a man’s children. Women used to not only find meaning in this, but value as well. In modernity, women want to be like men and have little respect for men. As a result, many men in western societies are finding out that women and society place little value on their contributions, and so they are adjusting.

    I can remember from my own childhood the respect that men used to get, and I see it today in my wife’s native country. In my country, being a husband and father no longer has any status in the female mind, yet in her country being a husband and father, or even male, carries value. We have forgotten that here.

    The playa lifestyle, and the tactics that come along with it, are an outgrowth of capital. The whole point is to “maximize one’s return” in this phony “exchange” that feminists reduce sex and marriage to, with utmost dishonesty.

    Are there really any Christian men here who are knowingly recommending fornication? As far as i am concerned, PUAs ARE feminists.

    For married men to adopt the tactics of the playa is to sully the marriage. More importantly, I don’t think it would work. A playa who uses “dread” can keep a ho interested for a bit longer.

    I wouldn’t know much about “playa” tactics or “game”, but I think that if someone needs to use a tool to fix something, then they should use it so long as they are not sinning by using it.

    A married man who uses “dread” will be suggesting to his wife that he is promiscuous and/or untrustworthy.

    No argument here. We (Christians) are to avoid from even the appearance of evil (1Thes 5:22).

    The ideal society is one in which we don’t look at each other as objects, or as means to an end. I think Jesus in the text is on my side in that, too.

    Sadly we don’t live in an ideal society, so men aren’t going to behave like they should. I just don’t see how hard wired protective instincts are going to overcome the desire to self-preserve or the desire to sin without training and motivation.

    The ideal society, in my view, is one that loves God and loves their neighbors as themselves. This would include what you suggest and, I believe, much more. It would include respect for husbands and elders, and honor for wives as the weaker vessel among many other things. I’m convinced that the best society we can hope for in this world (before our Lord returns) is a biblical patriarchy. But I won’t get my hopes up for that to happen any time soon.

  485. JDG says:

    typo above should read:

    No argument here. We (Christians) are to avoid even the appearance of evil (1Thes 5:22).

  486. JDG says:

    I would like to add that I have seen suggestions that some have referred to as dread that I would not consider sin or even an appearance of evil. For example if a husband simply tells the truth about how he will react to frivorce, that he will quit his job, sell or give away all assets, and go underground or to jail rather than finance his wife’s rebellion, he is not sinning or exhibiting an appearance of evil.

    He is instead warning her that he will not finance her treacherous alignment with a corrupt state and the iniquitous injustice being imposed upon him and his children (if any). I’m not sure if this would help with an American woman or not, but it would be dread and it would not be sinning IMO.

  487. JDG says:

    One other note, we Christian men need to remember that the prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much (James 5:16).

  488. JDG says:

    When people start making ends meet by buying or selling, or by working on an impersonal assembly line (what Marx called alienated labor), they start seeing their fellow human beings as objects of use.

    I would argue that when people become irreligious and immoral they begin to not value righteousness. These people then cease to teach their children to value righteousness or their fellow man. Their children then grow up without self-discipline or a moral standard with which to rise above their natural, inborn, fallen state, and therefore, in their self-centered view, see their fellow humans as objects.

  489. Don Quixote says:

    Hi guys, I would like to put this into the discussion because it seems that the ‘exception clause’ [Matt. 19:9] is still interpreted as adultery. I don’t believe that is correct. Please consider:
    And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for the loss of her virginity, and shall marry another, committeth adultery… Re: Duet. 22:13-21

  490. Opus says:

    Marx (who is buried in Highgate Cemetery) is the opium of the thinking classes. The same may be said of two other Austrian Jews, Freud and Schoenberg (though I believe Arnold is buried in Hollywood). Dear Lord, the nonsense they came up with and the trouble they have caused with it. As they say of the Germans, (Austrians being honourary Krauts) they dig deeper but come up a lot dirtier.

    If you need to read it in translation (other than Latin and Greek) then it is probably not worth reading. I thus designate the previous sentence a Badiou truth event – after which things will never be quite the same again.

  491. Dave says:

    So, what are men doing about all these?
    That the family court is unconstitutional, evil, biased, unjust and stacked up against men, and that women are taking advantage of this situation with impunity, is not in doubt. We all know that.
    A more relevant question is, what are men doing, or are going to do, about it? Will they simply moan, groan, and meet up in cyberspace to exchange their horror stories and prolonged pity parties, or, as men, they are going to do something about it?
    That men allowed the situation to reach this horrific level is, honestly speaking, an indictment against Western men as a whole, for these laws were never written by women, but by fellow men. But, what is done is done. We are here now. As men, we are being treated as second class citizens in our own lands. Our women and daughters are being taken from us by an ungodly ideology. Yet, all we do is complain, whine, and do little else.

    Why don’t we change the law?
    I know, that sounds like an uphill battle. But in reality, it is relatively easy. Virtually every interest group has changed the law for their purposes—gays, blacks, Hispanics, the NRA, evangelical Christians, and of course, feminists. Even individuals have unilaterally changed or are changing the law, as exemplified by the Koch’s brothers. Only the men have been reluctant to take the bull by the horn and permanently put a stop to the madness of the family court and of the feminists.

    How Do We Change The Law?
    Well, elections are held periodically in America, and those are the best avenues to change these insane laws. Let us, state by state, extract a commitment from each election candidate to reform or abolish the Family Court. Let us come up with specific requests. Let us make our support of their candidacy dependent on their commitment to address our issues. We don’t have to start with all our grievances. We can start with two or three incontrovertible areas of reform we want changed. Let us take up ads against candidates that won’t fight to keep the fathers with their kids. Against candidates that will encourage the breakup of American families. We can enlist the big money bags. We know who they are; they will gladly bankroll these ideas.
    Sure, it sounds simple, but that is precisely how American laws have been changed over and over again. We are men. We can do it. Let us turn our angers into action. Enough of this feminine approach to a masculine problem.

  492. Thinkn'Man says:

    “How Do We Change The Law?
    Well, elections are held periodically in America”

    Tell me some more jokes.

  493. theasdgamer says:

    “How Do We Change the Law?”

    Hypothetically, change the govt. Elections are rigged through immigration, women, the young, minorities. Need a different method of changing the govt. Maybe start a movement and march as soon as you have 5 million men. End of hypothetical fantasizing.

  494. At this point, changing the American government is akin to changing the American woman. Ain’t gonna happen.

    Thanks to years of depression, misinterpretations of Scripture and attending schools where the young females were, quite frankly, assholes, I’m close to being asexual. That affords a clear-headedness that only a handful of lucky gentlemen like St. Paul and myself will know. Until more of us stop being slaves to our glands, there won’t be much of a change.

  495. Bluedog says:

    @Opus re: August 15, 2014 at 4:17 am, “Marx (who is buried in Highgate Cemetery) is the opium of the thinking classes…”

    Suffice to say that I disagree. I think the much bigger problem is people who attribute to themselves self knowledge of Marx (and the other two blokes) who in fact have no such meaningful deposit.

    But without going deeply there – I would say the much, much more important point for this crowd would be as John Stuart Mill said, “He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. Unless he knows the difficulties which his truth has to encounter and conquer, he knows little of the force of his truth. Not only are the grounds of an opinion unformed or forgotten in the absence of discussion, but too often the very meaning of the opinion.”

    This is put into relief here with Boxer. Boxer – who clearly is fluent with Marx – is running circles around you, men. It’s not that he’s Marxist – it’s that he actually knows what he’s talking about. The difference is important.

    @Boxer, re: August 15, 2014 at 12:07 am and August 14, 2014 at 11:53 pm,

    In my opinion, Rome did not fall until Mehmed II overtook Constantinople in 1451 AD – and it is also proper to think of Rome as having been reconstituted in 1776. We are Roman. The empire collapsed in the west – though the western provinces were recaptured in just one generation by Justinian and largely remained in Byzantine Roman rule until the 10th century. Things get complicated after that – but while the collapse of the west was brutal and harsh and world-changing – I think the significance of “cultural decline” to western collapse is greatly overstated.

    To the rest of what you are saying at least in your response to me:

    1) I am doubtful that I will agree that so much can be attributed to intent – asking why people are destroying the family is, in my opinion, an intellectual dead end

    2) I do think the more likely thing is – in our case – we are experiencing a manner of cultural unwinding, though I’m reluctant to call it a decline. In the Roman case – I suspect to the extent the west declined – it was driven from without, not from within. From within – it can be argued the west was culturally advancing, but it couldn’t advance fast enough to overcome outside forces.

    In our case – it may be said that traditional systems are not able to advance fast enough to keep up with the forces of change – in this case the most important change being those OPENED by birth control.

    But to really address what you are saying – I almost need to just change the frame. Marriage works when people know how to love each other. The ability to love is both: (a) taught and (b) cultivated.

    We are failing to teach people to love and to cultivate the ability – in sufficient number – which is why when I come here to comment – my larger message for this crowd is that it has only one hope: retrench.

    But teaching love is a – kind of a big concept – I tackled it in a piece I wrote called “Stardusk exnihilates a chimera” … but it is such a change in direction it’s just hard to address through the Marxist critique we’re working our way through now. Suffice to say – the commodification caused by capitalism, … the “ism” … is what Marx would have perceived as the tectonic force ripping apart the cultural fonts and bonds that, in the past, would have done the work of teaching and cultivating love.

  496. Opus says:

    I see Boxer has a groupie.

  497. theasdgamer says:

    Boxer: A married man who uses “dread” will be suggesting to his wife that he is promiscuous and/or untrustworthy.

    Does this even merit a reply? Apparently so, since JDG is taken in by it.

    JDG: No argument here. We (Christians) are to avoid from even the appearance of evil (1Thes 5:22).

    A married man who uses Dread need say absolutely NOTHING to his wife. He is using her Hamster to do the work. There is no “appearance of evil.”

    Avoiding the appearance of evil does not require always staying home. Going out alone does not necessarily create any appearance of evil. It only creates uncertainty. Possibility of evil =/= appearance of evil.

    Too much churchian thinking.

  498. theasdgamer says:

    @ Bluedog

    John Stuart Mill said, “He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. Unless he knows the difficulties which his truth has to encounter and conquer, he knows little of the force of his truth. Not only are the grounds of an opinion unformed or forgotten in the absence of discussion, but too often the very meaning of the opinion.”

    Wordy bloke. Proverbs is elegant, “As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.”

  499. Dalrock says:

    @Dave

    That men allowed the situation to reach this horrific level is, honestly speaking, an indictment against Western men as a whole, for these laws were never written by women, but by fellow men. But, what is done is done. We are here now. As men, we are being treated as second class citizens in our own lands. Our women and daughters are being taken from us by an ungodly ideology. Yet, all we do is complain, whine, and do little else.

    The first thing we need to do is break through the denial. Our churches have adopted a cross dressing theology, and virtually no one noticed. Likewise with denial about the nature of the family courts. Note that it only took 5 comments to this post before someone reframed the issue to one of men simply not fighting hard enough in family court. The denial is pervasive, and it is reflexive (even in the manosphere). I agree that the complaining doesn’t help, and there is a great deal of complaining in the comboxes, but not all of the discussion here is complaining.

    Eventually I have no question that we will move past the denial stage, because denying reality is expensive. Eventually it gets too expensive to continue. But how long that will take is the real question. Will we start to see a crumbling of the denial in our churches over the next 5 to 10 years? Or will it take 20-30 for this to start? Lacking even a noteworthy minority of Christians who want to fix marriage, it will be nearly impossible to fix it. Marriage is meaningless if it doesn’t involve sexual morality. Ironically if modern Christians continue to remain in denial there is a mechanism here which could force them out of it. If marriage rates continue to fall via the mechanism we are already seeing (delayed marriage reducing the signal to men to be providers, and women who wait too long can’t find a provider to marry), the drop in marriage rates will at some point alarm Christians. It will also alarm our elites, as the economic costs of removing the incentive to produce in great excess becomes more and more obvious.

    At any rate, in the meantime there is no political will to change the system, because the overwhelming majority of people like the system. They flat out adore it. Denying that people like the system and pushing for a coalition to change it won’t bear any fruit, as it is simply more denial in action.

  500. theasdgamer says:

    @ Dalrock

    Denying that people like the system and pushing for a coalition to change it won’t bear any fruit, as it is simply more denial in action.

    Finishing your thought, the obvious strategy is to persuade people that the current system needs to be changed/reinvented, which requires showing its problems. This may seem like mere bellyaching, but it’s not.

  501. Bluedog says:

    @theasdgamer, re: August 15, 2014 at 9:14 am,

    Ahy, that

  502. ballista74 says:

    @Snowy (August 12, 2014 at 6:27 am)
    I don’t think there’s a point of disagreement between me and Dalrock for any of those things you’ve written. The point of disagreement is on the issue of denial – in that there’s no issue of denial going on. You have the great masses who just accept what is before them without question, not thinking about anything. They are literally not denying anything.

    Then you have the rest that are aware of what’s going on in church leadership. The problem there is that they’re being benefited to drive these kinds of changes into their churches. They are not denying anything either, in the point that they can read Scripture for themselves at some point and see that they are teaching things that are not of God. But then again, they bended knee to the State and gave their fealty over to it instead of God. These people involved in evangelizing these changes are the ones that like the current system, in that it meets a certain end that they desire or benefits them monetarily.

    Dalrock’s second paragraph above (August 15, 2014 at 9:18 am) is the crux of the disagreement. There’s no “denying reality” when you’re blind to it. And there’s especially no denying reality when you are looking to change the social order to your preferred reality. In other words, the desire is for these things to happen.

    Meanwhile, there is no political will to change things within the churches or the government because the majority of people are simply blind, deaf, and dumb to these things even happening. And when they are aware of these things, they are unaware of the causes behind these things, or dismiss them as “out of hand” or ridiculous. What you are working against is that the vast legions of people refuse to recognize that there is a problem, and are incapable of correctly diagnosing the problem and seeing it for what it is (Dave as an example of legions).

  503. KMan says:

    I’ve seen this article doing the rounds:

    http://www.thomasumstattd.com/2014/08/courtship-fundamentally-flawed/

    Some good points there, especially on “Christian courtship” but also some fairly major errors. He seems to think that the “Greatest Generation” had good marriages because they were allowed to “date” (multiple people at once). I think this falls into the trap of thinking that after meeting lots of people you will eventually find YOUR ONE TRUE LOVE, which of course is idiotic and unbiblical. No, my grandparents had pretty crap marriages (complete with the odd affair and separation), but they didn’t get divorced because that simply was not socially acceptable (and encouraged like it is now). Despite everything that happened, they still loved each other and were there for each other in the end, because divorce was simply not an option in the difficult times. If that generation relived their marriages now, I believe they would get divorced at just the same rate. Thomas Umstattd romanticises dating only for its efficiency to find the an inverted foundation for marriage – “romantic love”.

    Meeting people of the opposite sex one-on-one without the expectation of pseudo-engagement? Good idea (whether you call it “dating” or something else). Not so you can find your ONE TRUE LOVE, but so you can a) learn the pitfalls of relationships, b) consider whether you even want to get married (Thomas Umstattd just seems to assume everyone should get married), c) possibly meet someone (not THE one) who shares your faith and has similar attitudes to marriage.

  504. KMan says:

    Forgot to add: I would be interested in your thoughts on this article, Dalrock.

  505. mikediver5 says:

    We live in a totally gynocentric society. No matter whether this is as it always was, or when it changed; it is how it is now. The only way to correct the problems in marriage is to make women feel the pain. Women, as a whole are very happy with marriage as it is today. They want to keep it just as it is. Women control both political parties. That is, both political parties are 100% courting the fairly monolithic women’s vote. No political change can be accomplished until women want a change.

    So what are men to do? I know Dalrock and many others here think this is nihilism or passivity, but the only effective tactic men have so far attempted has been to deny women marriage. So far, remarriage rates have dropped to the point where frivorcees are starting to feel the pain. The steady long term decline in the first marriage rate, accelerating in the younger generations (millennial), is starting to have an impact. In the next 20 to 40 years I see the never married rate going way up. MGTOW in larger and larger numbers is the only thing I see that will make any dent in women’s satisfaction with the status quo. The question is how much lower do marriage rates have to go before female society recognizes the change? Right now most women in their early twenties see no rush to marriage; they like the carousel just fine. They “know” they have all the time in the world and that when they want to marry, sometime in their thirties, there will be prince charming or at least Mr. Right-Enough, waiting to wife them up, no matter what they have done in the meantime. They also have the delusion that having children in their late thirties or even in their forties is no problem at all. After all, reproducing on their schedule is their absolute right.

  506. jf12 says:

    @KMan, thanks for the article link. Obviously courtship would not be fundamentally flawed in the proper society, but obviously this society ain’t it. One way to circumvent the problem of society is to be much more insular, like he mentions the homeschool community was trying to do, but failed to do. The young women grew up protected at home, then suddenly went out in the world working, and expected Prince Charming to arrive. The young men see all these women, unattainable for them, not needing them.

  507. ballista74 says:

    @Kman thanks for the article link.

  508. Boxer says:

    Dear JDG:
    Please see inside text…

    If it is purely the hard wiring as you seem to be implying, then why are men going MGTOW? Why are some men gay? There seems to be more to it than just the hard wiring.

    Of course we can channel our desires for family, and make meaning in some other way. Christian monks went out into the desert, a thousand years ago, and ran schools. Freud called this sublimation. Most of the great developments in history were built by men who channeled their libido (feelings of love) into making stuff. It’s why many of the great inventors and thinkers were bachelors…

    Even so, I would argue that we are wired (by evolution and/or god) to pair up with someone of the opposite sex, for life, and start a family. This is the normal process, the default setting, and it takes a great deal of conditioning to get people to divert themselves away from it.

    Could you point me to some historical sources that demonstrate how men were derided on a large scale by society and their spouses, yet they continued to provide for and protect one or both (wives and/or society) without external coercion?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coeur_d'Alene,_Idaho_labor_strike_of_1892

    The men who worked these mines were rounded up by the army after a strike. Union soldiers then abused and assaulted their wives and daughters (including sexually), while the men were held in a makeshift concentration camp nearby. This is the “respect” a family man got, and it is typical of the era.

    The idea that society ever afforded a husband or father some sort of portfolio of benefits is not in keeping with any reading of North American history. A man’s wife and children were actually seen as hostages. It has always been a difficult thing to pair up with someone, yet people did it anyway, at great cost to themselves.

    And here’s the rub. Women are no longer finding meaning in bearing a man’s children. Women used to not only find meaning in this, but value as well. In modernity, women want to be like men and have little respect for men. As a result, many men in western societies are finding out that women and society place little value on their contributions, and so they are adjusting.

    Maybe you could define “modernity” for me? I know what the word means, but I don’t understand the way you’re using it.

    In any event, that’s not really my experience. All the women I have ever met have wanted a monogamous relationship, and nearly all of them have wanted kids. Most of the women in North America were just stuck in the delusion of seeing a man as a tool or an object of use, rather than a human being, and this got in the way of their attempts to pair bond.

    Men do it too, incidentally. I see the identical fallacy working its way through the comment section here. For example, this comment, which was posted on July 22, 2014 at 2:20 pm

    Christianity may not allow you to cheat on your wife, but it does allow you to take a second wife. I have learned that there are plenty of attractive young ladies in Asia and Africa that are willing to become a second wife to a good provider. Kenya just formally legalized polygamy.

    You guys can have group sex or polyamory if you want (my people did the whole polygamy thing for a while) and I won’t judge, but I’d still like a citation for it’s use out of the religious texts, given that people are claiming it’s coherent there. I will continue to think it’s unhealthy, and potentially disastrous to your marriages, but in the end, if you guys want to ruin your marriages, it’s no skin off my ass. I’m just the critical theorist in the corner.

    I wouldn’t know much about “playa” tactics or “game”, but I think that if someone needs to use a tool to fix something, then they should use it so long as they are not sinning by using it.

    I appreciate you clarifying and you’re right. There’s nothing wrong with leaving a contentious situation and being alone for a while. The sort of “dread” I see promoted here (see asdgamer’s comment about dancing with other chicks in front of his wife) is sorta trashy and unbecoming a man of quality. I also doubt its effectiveness.

    Even so, I sympathize with that too. I am glad I’m not married, in that the contemporary interpretation seems to force these sorts of tactics.

    Sadly we don’t live in an ideal society, so men aren’t going to behave like they should. I just don’t see how hard wired protective instincts are going to overcome the desire to self-preserve or the desire to sin without training and motivation.

    You claim to believe in god. If that’s true, then you should have some faith in his ability to wire up your skullstuffing in ways that will be beneficial. And of course, we all need to socialize. The same instinct that leads a man to pair up with a woman will occasionally misfire, directing him to get with her best friend’s sister. God (or evolution) also gave us some critical reasoning skills, and some wisdom of the ancients, written down, to help us weigh such lofty decisions.

    Best, Boxer

  509. TFH says:

    Dalrock,

    At any rate, in the meantime there is no political will to change the system, because the overwhelming majority of people like the system.

    This is why I have set a deadline of 12/31/2015 after which sympathy for men who still get caught up in the system drops.

    By the end of 2015, there will be enough cumulative red-pill content out there, that if a man still signs up for this type of deal, and gets screwed later, the majority of the blame goes to him.

    This was not true before, as it was hard to find this out. But after 2015, there is no way a man has not had many chances to find the androsphere, or Dr. Helen’s books, or the many other clues out there. He has consciously chosen not to go down this route.

    If one leaves the front door open with a neon arrow pointing to it, and goes on vacation, the burglar is not entirely at fault.

  510. JDG says:

    A married man who uses Dread need say absolutely NOTHING to his wife. He is using her Hamster to do the work. There is no “appearance of evil.”

    I had read on an earlier thread (or perhaps it was earlier on this thread) where some were suggesting deliberate deception to make one self more attractive to the wife. The idea was to make her think you were having an affair. To me this is kind of like making her think you are a bank robbing thug to make her more attractive to you. It’s an appearance of evil and deliberate deception.

    But, I also think the motive of the heart counts, so I see the conundrum as having to decide which motive takes precedent. Which motive is more important, to preserve your marriage and therefore “allow” your wife to think you are unrighteous when in fact you are not, or to give no place to evil, not even it’s appearance, in your life.

    It’s unfortunate that woman are so attracted to evil in men.

    Avoiding the appearance of evil does not require always staying home. Going out alone does not necessarily create any appearance of evil. It only creates uncertainty. Possibility of evil =/= appearance of evil.

    I don’t know: “He might be cheating on me.” vs “He is cheating on me.”

    I don’t see either statement doing a lot of good for a man’s ability to witness for Christ or for the Kingdom of God after she shares it with her “posse”. However, saving your marriage is something that should be vigorously attempted. What a conundrum.

    I think I would look for another means to save the marriage, one that didn’t involve deliberate deception. If I found something that worked, like going out and not telling her where I was, I would use it. But it would not be part of a plan to make her think that I was cheating. I probably sound like I’m talking out of both sides of my mouth at this point, but my point is that our intentions do matter. God knows our thoughts and our motives.

    2 Timothy 2:15 ESV:
    Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

  511. theasdgamer says:

    @ Boxer

    The sort of “dread” I see promoted here (see asdgamer’s comment about dancing with other chicks in front of his wife) is sorta trashy and unbecoming a man of quality.

    First, there is a looooong history of married people dancing socially and touching (gasp!) nonspousal people of the opposite sex! Princes, dukes, earls, counts, wealthy merchants and similar rubbish. Furthermore, people have abandoned wearing only-gray for colors (gasp!). Where is the Lord Protector when you need him?

    We need more men of quality to man up and marry these sluts and get frivorced because, well, you know, children or some such thing. Maybe cats, I dunno. If more married men practiced Dread, that might bollox the Frivorce Industry.

    So, anyway, I heartily salute your valiant effort to defend the institution of marriage sans-Dread and your wisdom in refraining from becoming a participant in said institution.

  512. Gaza says:

    Mikediver5
    “Right now most women in their early twenties see no rush to marriage; they like the carousel just fine. They “know” they have all the time in the world and that when they want to marry, sometime in their thirties, there will be prince charming or at least Mr. Right-Enough, waiting to wife them up, no matter what they have done in the meantime.”

    Long story. Hang in there. Last night I was at a function sponsored by one of the local universities. I attended as a guest (I’m not an alumni) of my current sex partner. Joined by two other women I know through her. All in their late 30’s. All unmarried. Two never; one recently divorced. All have low-paying makework gov’t/subsidized jobs, five-figure student loans, live check-to-check, and hold master’s degrees from the Uni. in soft social “studies”. All are extremely proud of their credentials and jobs. Chip, see shoulder.

    All spent their 20’s in travel, living abroad, in non-career-track jobs (so they could travel abroad and live in the “diversity” and nightlife and culture of cool cities like chicago, NY, SF), and in/out of the full spectrum of “relationships” from F*ck buddies to LTR cohabitation. All want to be married yesterday, all want kids, today. Two are flat-out physically homely, my sex partner is attractive but would not garner the extended gaze of most men. She’s 39.

    The bitterness of not having the ring-house-kids hangs in the air. What doesn’t hang anywhere are any connections or even just parallels to those desired outcomes and their choices leading up to now; those are in some other dimension of time and space. With my sex partner, the potential to demonstrate some realization or accountability via encounters with the 20’something version of herself has come up twice in the past week; both times she voiced enthusiastic support for dream chasing, indulgence of personal “experience” and “fulfillment”, and career building over any sort of development of femininity, attractiveness (according to men), and lifestyle choices conducive to fostering a relationship and eventual marriage. And she must know full well that her similar choices yielded her zero relationship equity and chewed through her peak physical years (and fertility).

    Case #1. Also joining our table last night, three women (seeing a trend here in the M.A. mill?) who graduated in May from similar programs, still looking for jobs. Mid 20’s. Loans, poor, etc. Attractive enough, even “cute” to an old dog like me, to have many male suiters. One has a BF. She brought up a potential job out of the country. All the older women cheered her on: “you must go!”.

    When she mentioned her BF is a homebody (enter tacit shaming language of how he is not as worldly, or adventurous as her) and is not so enthralled with foreign lands, ALL three women didn’t miss a beat: “No! don’t take him with you!”; “You’ve got to move on without him”; “You don’t want to be tied down.” Net/Net: disposable male/relationship, commitment conditional to her desires/dreams, priority is NOT marriage, but rather “experience”, the sex will be available, as will the husband – when she is “ready” “some day”; there is plenty of time indeed. My takeaway, as usual, sex with hot men is the prize, marriage is the consolation when the next life change(s) cannot be achieved on her own.

    Case#2. Birthday party. Couple in their late 50’s talking with my partner and I. Their daughter is pursuing a PhD. Both parents were over-the-top proud. Fine, but they were also cheerleading the fact that she doesn’t know a thing about domestics: “can’t boil water”. Which led to, doesn’t have time to “date” but that is ok because: PhD means she “doesn’t need a man”. “She can hire someone to cook and clean.” Even better, “He can do it!”. They were absolutely of the mindset of “insert man [here] when ready”. My partner seemed to be in full agreement. Net/net: credentials are attractive, independence is paramount, relationships are a hinderance until your personal quest is complete, family structures can be acquired and outsourced, etc.

    And while my partner no longer attempts to shame my lack of marital interest (my “fear of commitment”) and admits that the institution is stacked against men, she still expects me to trump all of that because: love. Because now she is “ready”; now I’m mr. right even though I am nothing like the men she pursued in her youth.

    I filled my 20’s and 30’s with 60-80 hour work weeks. I know exactly how/why I am where I am in life, how/why I have what I have (or don’t). I’ve always thought being a husband was the “right” thing to do. But alas, women all around me continue to serve-up examples of the opportunistic, self-indulgent, and manipulative manner in which the modern women desires to enter marriage. It is just too hard to ignore. And love cannot blind me enough to the lopsided affair of becoming the beta-bux, just-in-time husband. The marriage music has stopped and while those women scramble for the chairs, I’m more inclined to head for the door than to “win” at that game.

  513. theasdgamer says:

    @ JDG

    It’s unfortunate that woman are so attracted to evil in men.

    I don’t think that it’s the evil so much as the strangeness–the Unknown Mystery.

    I probably sound like I’m talking out of both sides of my mouth at this point, but my point is that our intentions do matter. God knows our thoughts and our motives.

    Oh, and if we’re honest, our motives are NEVER pure.

    Gonna try to get my post about Dread in the Song of Solomon out soon.

  514. JDG says:

    Oh, and if we’re honest, our motives are NEVER pure.

    Probably not, but maybe for one in a 1000.

  515. Bluedog says:

    @ JDG, re: “It’s unfortunate that woman are so attracted to evil in men.”

    Where it comes to – let’s call it “animal” sexual attraction – women, and men – are attracted to those things in the other, that best proved themselves over the course of eons – not millenia – eons – to result in the perpetuation of their offspring.

    Framing it in moral terms is a dead end. Let’s be reductive. What is “feminine”? It is that which is sexually attractive to heterosexual men. What is “masculine”? It is that which is sexually attractive to heterosexual women.

    In neither case is it “evil”.
    In both cases it is amoral – neither moral or immoral – just amoral.
    And in both cases it is possible for a moral man, or moral woman, to make choices that lead to an embodiment of masculinity or femininity.

    Now … if we add character formation this – the formation of good character, to a willingness to also cultivate masculine and feminine virtues because – say – we elect that heterosexuality and heterosexual relationships are something we wish to perpetuate – then a well formed character, male or female, will also value and find attractive many virtues that are worthwhile and fall outside the strict limited sense of what is attractive, heterosexually.

    The reason I make that point is to expose the opportunity cost of not engaging in the character formation. If we fail the character formation, and all we have is the animal sexual attraction – then we’ve kind of hit bottom.

    Attributing to the character of some ethereal “women”, all of what it means when we are, culturally, hitting bottom, isn’t a discovery about the “nature” of women. It’s just going down a dead end. You’ll never get anywhere with it, other than pounding sand.

  516. Gaza says:

    Oh, and my other point. Women like things just the way they are. Even if 38 y/o hamsters are stroking out trying to rationalize why the men aren’t showing up at the alter; it apparently is all still worth it. There is zero reflection, connection, and action with regard to the obviously poor outcomes WRT relationships/marriage/families that the indulgent years yield. The herd cheers it on; the lemmings just keep running toward the same cliff.

  517. Boxer says:

    Dear asdgamer:

    This is the only response you’re going to get today. I expect you to run with it. I also hope other married men read it.

    First, there is a looooong history of married people dancing socially and touching (gasp!) nonspousal people of the opposite sex! Princes, dukes, earls, counts, wealthy merchants and similar rubbish. Furthermore, people have abandoned wearing only-gray for colors (gasp!). Where is the Lord Protector when you need him?

    There’s a long history of all sorts of people dancing and touching each other. Playas and hoes down at the nightclub, S&M themed leatherboys down at the gay bar, etc. This is all fine, but why would a respectable family man behave this way?

    Bear in mind, I don’t believe your story. (Props for your ability to spin a yarn, all the same).

    If you actually did use these tactics on your wife, for any length of time, then you should expect that she’s fucked other men, not just once, but many times. Eventually, she would have left the sleazy, desperate man she found herself married to, and would have taken your money with her, to spend on one of the dudes who got her number, while her husband was out on the dance floor with some fattie, desperately trying the “dread” game.

    Women get their revenge for these little humiliations, and I have friends who prey upon these exact scenarios. (Guys just like me, just a bit more loose with who they’ll hook up with). The man who makes his wife jealous creates an opening for a playa. That’s all.

    I hope none of the other married bros would be foolish enough to take you seriously. Men aren’t as good as women at manipulation, communication and deception. It’s not sexism, just the way we’re wired. You married bros need to go all Sun Tzu, if you’re fighting with your wife, and not start anything you’re likely to lose.

    Regards, Boxer

  518. jf12 says:

    @JDG re: “It’s unfortunate that woman are so attracted to evil in men.”

    Yes. Evil “works” on women much much much more effectively than good.

  519. hurting says:

    theasdgamer says:
    August 15, 2014 at 9:34 am

    Concurring about the importance of information (especially in response in disinformation) in changing hearts and minds. A very large segment of the American public is simply ignorant of the realities of domestic relations law in the country. As you accurately point out, laying bare these iniquities often comes off as whining, but is indeed not, especially if it is accompanied by realistic solutions, however difficult they may be to implement.

    I’d probably stop short of Dalrock’s characterization that a great many people adorce the current set-up. There is indeed a very small, but influential cohort who indeed adore it (courts personnel, lawyers and other apparatchiks deriving a direct benefit) ably conspiring with a second tier group of beneficiaries (divorcing women) who realize almost as direct a benefit. While there are subsequent rings of less direct beneficiaries, I’d probably characterize them as between the indifference point and ‘full thrall’ mode.

    All it takes, however, for injustice like this to persist is a small but deeply vested minority for whom the benefits are concentrated.

  520. Bluedog says:

    @Boxer, you wrote, “There’s a long history of all sorts of people dancing and touching each other … This is all fine, but why would a respectable family man behave this way?”

    So I understand you won’t be around today – I have a day job and two kids to attend to myself so am often guilty of dropping conversations – but must say: I disagree with you on this point.

    And note: I am picking the exceptional ones I disagree with. You are on a roll otherwise.

    But – Google “Roman bikini girls”. Rome endured 1909 years. That’s a good stretch. I think there was much dancing, much touching.

    Culturally – this is literally a way to fight back. Start teaching your kids to dance! Social dance. Partner dance. Look into Irish line dancing. Salsa. Teach your kids salsa. Sponsor them dancing.

    Create subcultures where two things are created, existing in tension – dancing – is encouraged and taught – alongside chastity.

    My prediction: magic. That and magnetism.

    The opposite genders – will be attracted, powerfully so.

    It’s been a long tradition that Mormons had – to teach their kids to dance – and that you see in European cultures from Argentina all the way to Poland.

  521. theasdgamer says:

    @ Boxer

    This is the only response you’re going to get today.

    And here I went and popped all this popcorn.

    I expect you to run with it.

    Check. Track shoes on.

    Bear in mind, I don’t believe your story.

    Believe my story or not, machts nichts to me. Props on your ability to reframe with a passive-aggressive Neg. heh Anyway, to the point. When I was dancing out with Mrs. Gamer, the object wasn’t Dread, actually. You probably cross-read, or cross-indexed, or cross-somethinged. You’re English, if I don’t misremember. Cross-dressed? Anyway, Dread is for when I go out dancing without the missus. I used to be a PUA some 40-odd years ago, so I know how to act around the ladies. Repeating myself, believe my story or not, machts nichts to me. Truth is stranger than fiction.

    Jealousy is a problem with women only if a man is actually cheating. If she merely suspects it, she will fear rather than become jealous. I’m not worried about playas. Mrs. Gamer gets hit on regularly and we laugh about it. She self-mateguards in part because she knows that I will Next her if she cheats. Her ma and pa never divorced either and were boringly faithful, so she has that going for her.

    This is all fine, but why would a respectable family man behave this way?

    Why should you assume that I’m respectable or that I care what other people think about me? For social dancing, check out the Sound of Music and Pride and Prejudice. Social dancing was used to facilitate mating under controlled auspices. It was practiced by the LC as much as the UC. Bawdier, of course.

    I hope none of the other married bros would be foolish enough to take you seriously.

    I’ll turn serious for a moment. Your warning is well-taken. Most men likely lack my degree of self-control. Autism, partly. (WARNING: This stunt was done by a professional under controlled conditions. Don’t try this at home.)

    Men aren’t as good as women at manipulation, communication and deception.

    I rate highly in the Dark Triad traits. Did I mention that I was a PUA? I’ve since been reading about Game a lot and my natural talent has benefited from deliberate application of Game principles.

    Enjoy your evening.

    Cheers.

  522. JDG says:

    Where it comes to – let’s call it “animal” sexual attraction – women, and men – are attracted to those things in the other,

    Call it what you will, I can agree to this ‘animal attraction’ is inherent in all (or at least most) humans.

    that best proved themselves over the course of eons – not millenia – eons – to result in the perpetuation of their offspring.

    You have your faith, and I have mine. I trust in the living God and His written word. I don’t trust a bunch of PC scientists fighting over grant money.

    Framing it in moral terms is a dead end. Let’s be reductive. What is “feminine”? It is that which is sexually attractive to heterosexual men. What is “masculine”? It is that which is sexually attractive to heterosexual women.

    In neither case is it “evil”.
    In both cases it is amoral – neither moral or immoral – just amoral.
    And in both cases it is possible for a moral man, or moral woman, to make choices that lead to an embodiment of masculinity or femininity.

    Perhaps I was inaccurate in writing that women are attracted to evil. Perhaps it is the ‘mysterious’ as was mentioned above, and it is ‘animal magnetism’ as you allude.

    It does seem to make more sense when I consider that letting ‘animal attraction’ run wild is not only destructive, it has been declared sin by God, who made all things and therefore knows who these things should be utilized.

    But I don’t agree that it is a dead end to frame anything in moral terms, not when there exists an all powerful God who frames the whole universe in His moral terms by His very existence. It’s just that the context must be correct when the framing is done, and as you pointed out, my context was a bit off.

  523. JDG says:

    typo should read:

    Call it what you will, I can agree that this ‘animal attraction’ is inherent in all (or at least most) humans.

  524. JDG says:

    I also should point out that I think this ‘animal attraction’ is a distortion of a genuine attraction that came about after the fall.

  525. JDG says:

    another typo above at 1:41 pm 2nd paragraph from the bottom should be:

    It does seem to make more sense when I consider that letting ‘animal attraction’ run wild is not only destructive, it has been declared sin by God, who made all things and therefore knows HOW these things should be utilized.

  526. deti says:

    Gaza::

    Good story. One that should probably be filed under TFH’s oft repeated assertion of women being unable to associate cause and effect. I noted your women friends understand where they are; but haven’t the slightest idea WHY they are where they are.

  527. deti says:

    And the reason your women friends don’t understand why they are where they are is because they, and everyone around them, says there’s no problem whatsoever with casual sex and delaying marriage. Everyone around them, from their parents to pastors to teachers to coworkers to friends, not only accepts this as fact; they LOVE the current state of affairs.

  528. JDG says:

    Women get their revenge for these little humiliations, and I have friends who prey upon these exact scenarios. (Guys just like me, just a bit more loose with who they’ll hook up with). The man who makes his wife jealous creates an opening for a playa. That’s all.

    Not if she were a virtuous woman. This type of married woman is part of the “doesn’t count” group I mentioned above.

  529. JDG says:

    Men aren’t as good as women at manipulation, communication and deception.

    Ain’t that the truth.

  530. Bluedog says:

    @JDG, re: August 15, 2014 at 1:41 pm,

    1st point – I typically agree that arguing about origins is fruitless.

    Also, re: “But I don’t agree that it is a dead end to frame anything in moral terms” ,

    As a rule, I agree – I am almost always willing to unpack the moral context. But I took it there because I think the mechanistics were/are important to the moral context here – something of what I think Rollo Tomassi does. It’s not that he is amoral, per se, but that’s not his topic – his topic is to remove morality, remove spiritual considerations, and look at the naked mechanistics. I think that’s a useful exercise because we can find our way down dead ends when we come unhinged from the temporal, pastoral nature of what’s going on.

    re: “I also should point out that I think this ‘animal attraction’ is a distortion of a genuine attraction that came about after the fall.”

    As you said – you have your beliefs, I have mine. I’m not sure it changes the outcome here by much.

  531. JDG says:

    I think that’s a useful exercise because we can find our way down dead ends when we come unhinged from the temporal, pastoral nature of what’s going on.

    Yes I think I see what you mean. I think I can agree when we are talking about the ‘how it works’. It’s the ‘why it works this way’ part of the conversation that I may have to part company with this approach.

    re: “I also should point out that I think this ‘animal attraction’ is a distortion of a genuine attraction that came about after the fall.”

    As you said – you have your beliefs, I have mine. I’m not sure it changes the outcome here by much.

    Agreed!

  532. Douglas7 says:

    Dalrock said (at 9:18 am) “the overwhelming majority of people like the system”.

    I think that is inaccurate. Rather, the overwhelming majority of people believe that they like the system; I think that they are mistaken in their belief.

    The current system emasculates men: the state-sanctioned threat is that strong. Women, however, do not want emasculated men. Changing the system to remove much of the threat would make women happier—as well as most men (those who do not want to be dominated by a woman).

  533. Novaseeker says:

    I also should point out that I think this ‘animal attraction’ is a distortion of a genuine attraction that came about after the fall.

    I agree with this. The problem is that we are fallen. Ideally, we can all overcome that, in Christ. The problem is that … most don’t.

    There is nothing wrong with attraction to the genuine/unfallen masculine/feminine, of course. Adam and Eve were such. But the problem arises when that gets corrupted, and men are attracted to hookers and porn girls, and women are attracted to bad boy thug manwhores. Natural, yes. Fallen as well. Natural = fallen, in many cases, morally.

  534. anonymous_ng says:

    SouthPark to the rescue

  535. JDG says:

    The current system emasculates men: the state-sanctioned threat is that strong. Women, however, do not want emasculated men.

    But don’t they? They don’t want to be married to them, but maybe they want them around for money, perks, and herd status. They get the ‘best’ of both worlds this way.

  536. MarcusD says:

    Can Feminists Do Anything On Their Own?

    http://thefederalist.com/2014/08/15/can-feminists-do-anything-on-their-own/

    Ha ha! (I know, it’s actually not funny, at least not intentionally. I’m sorry.) But really, feminists: Can’t you do anything for yourselves? First you claim birth control will be banned because the government won’t force certain people to pay for certain kinds of birth control. Then you’re insisting that the government subsidize your abortions. This week, you’re even demanding that other people pay for your tampons. “We don’t want to kill or banish you, guys,” Zimmerman writes to the men in her audience. “After all, we need your help.” In other words, feminists—that fevered group that used to celebrate self-sufficiency and now seemingly hankers for some strange hybrid of a welfare and police state—can’t even manage to hate “masculinity” on their own.

  537. JDG says:

    Can Feminists Do Anything On Their Own?

    The answer is NO!

    They can’t even feed their cats on their own.

    So what does that tells us about feminism?

  538. Boxer says:

    Dear Blue Dog:

    It’s been a long tradition that Mormons had – to teach their kids to dance – and that you see in European cultures from Argentina all the way to Poland.

    I’ve been to countless dances in the cultural hall, since the age of 12, and I have never seen anyone putting on the “dread” theatrics, by copping dances with fatties in front of the wife. We don’t do that shit — not in Cardston, Calgary, or Salt Lake City. It’s funny just to think about it.

    In fact, I’m almost tempted to crash the next local stake dance and start asking other men’s wives to go swing around the dance floor. I’ll put on my best Asperger’s act, and maybe I’ll just be thrown out sans the expected asskicking behind the chapel.

    After a Mormon man does his missionary service and gets married, he dances with his wife. End of story. There are occasional “father daughter” type dances, but that’s the only exception I’ve ever heard of.

    Regards, Boxer

  539. JDG says:

    You gotta love these ‘right wing’ feminists trying not to ‘be that feminist’.

    I quote: “But, then again, I’m not a modern feminist. We should all be stronger than that.”

    But woman, you are still a feminist. You and all like you are contributing to the problem and the demise of your own people.

  540. JDG says:

    Speaking of dances, back in the mid 1990s I used to help a DJ out with his sound equipment. One of the gigs was for a high school dance. I hadn’t been to a high school dance since the 70s before that. I probably don’t have to tell you what I saw the kids doing in 1996 at the local high school dance. This was a small town and adults were watching and doing NOTHING about it.

    Talk about an eye opener. I declined all high school dance events after that one. I don’t know what shocked me more at the time, what those kids were calling ‘dancing’ or the fact that the adults had nothing to say about the matter. In the 70s they would have either expelled the participants from the dance or shut the dance down. I can’t even imaging what must be happening now.

  541. Bluedog says:

    Boxer, re:
    “I’ve been to countless dances in the cultural hall, since the age of 12, and I have never seen anyone putting on the ‘dread’ theatrics, by copping dances with fatties in front of the wife. We don’t do that shit — not in Cardston, Calgary, or Salt Lake City. It’s funny just to think about it.”

    Ok … but the whole thing about “dread” theatrics and such was part of your discussion with asd and company, it’s not what I was saying in my post.

    Actually – what I was saying in my post kind is suggests the opposite of that – that we use dance as a channel – to channel the energy that comes bottled in it, but towards a more wholesome objective.

    And … I think the Mormon tradition here, and what you are saying about that, underlines the point I was making, which was why I noted it. My guess is that few readers/commenters here are familiar with the “countless dances” going on in cultural halls and the effective use they are being put to.

    Worth sharing “best practices”, no?

  542. Boxer says:

    And … I think the Mormon tradition here, and what you are saying about that, underlines the point I was making, which was why I noted it. My guess is that few readers/commenters here are familiar with the “countless dances” going on in cultural halls and the effective use they are being put to.

    Mormons have an interesting theology, including the fact that god has access to a physical body. Regular Christians have something similar in Jesus (Mormons do not hold that Jesus was god, he was just a prophet and a good guy — god is someone different) but other than that it is not the same. For Christians, Jesus fell down to sinful earth and took the sinful body as a sacrifice. For Mormons, god is a guy who created our bodies as he (ostensibly) created his own.

    In any event, dancing is an outgrowth of the distinctly anti-Christian ideal of the body being something holy, rather than inherently sinful. It’s why we don’t smoke or drink alcohol or coffee (though if you watch a secular type Mormon, like me, he’ll go to Starbucks five times a day just to make up for lost time in his youth). Dancing is a rejection of the idea that the material is inherently carnal. Christians consider the body a prison. We consider ours a holy place.

    The flip side of this is a stifling sort of socialization. Mormons get guilted about a lot of stuff that Protestants and Catholics don’t. Masturbation, overeating, tattoos, piercings, premarital sex, etc. We don’t have the luxury of whining about how the flesh is weak and we’re fallen, and all that. When we do something physical, we tend to own it. You’re supposed to keep your body clean and perfect, and if you don’t, well that’s just terrible.

    So, your insight was rather astute. Dancing for Mormon kids is not just a sublimated sexuality, it’s a reminder than you can get right up next to a girl and go home chaste later on. It’s very much a religious ritual.

    Best, Boxer

  543. jf12 says:

    Human females aka womenz tend to experience the pair bonding phenomenon for a few years max aka the honeymoon period. Human males aka menz tend therefore to be highly disappointed in the womenz. It is a lot more important to the womenz that the menz are ball-and-chained by pair bonding than that the womenz are.

    http://stevemoxon.co.uk/pair-bonding-.php

    Hence, it follows that 99% of literature extolling the virtues of one’s long-term partner is written by menz.

  544. Boxer says:

    Dear jf12:

    Human females aka womenz tend to experience the pair bonding phenomenon for a few years max aka the honeymoon period.

    The author derives an unsupported conclusion from the data. It’s true that the initial “lust” fades out after a few years. It’s not true that we’re biologically relegated to serial monogamy.

    There’s a lot of data, right here on dalrock, suggesting that people who break their pair bond and seek another are less happy, less successful, and have poorer lives than those who stick with it. That is not a coincidence. People who divorce the people they bond with are fighting their own biological destiny. They can often pair bond again, but it is much more difficult and costly than they imagine, and they usually don’t come out better off.

    I posted this earlier. It’s dry, but worth a read if you are interested…

    http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v7/n10/full/nn1327.html

    Best, Boxer

  545. jf12 says:

    @Boxer, luckily the monogamy drugs are upon us, Lybrido etc.

  546. Boxer says:

    jf12:

    No kidding. I have never heard of this. Interesting article at NYT about it, too.

    For her part, Linneah didn’t see herself as doing anything revolutionary. This was about her marriage. She said that if this drug didn’t work, she would sign up for the next experimental medication that came along. She seemed untroubled by the fact that we live in an age when it’s possible to take a pill for nearly everything, or by the paradox that one of the problems this medication might be addressing is the desire-killing side effect of yet another type of psychotropic chemical, the S.S.R.I.’s. For her, the existence of the antidepressants that so many others take was proof that her problem would be solved.

    “They’ve got all these meds for all these other psychiatric issues,” she said, before driving away with her new batch of pills. “Something’s got to pop up that can help with this. Right? Right?”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/26/magazine/unexcited-there-may-be-a-pill-for-that.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

  547. Gin martini says:

    Courtship *causes* promiscuity, don’tcha know: http://www.thomasumstattd.com/2014/08/courtship-fundamentally-flawed/

  548. Robin Munn says:

    @Boxer –

    In any event, dancing is an outgrowth of the distinctly anti-Christian ideal of the body being something holy, rather than inherently sinful.

    While there are certainly plenty of Christians who think of the body as being inherently sinful, their theology is confused. It would take several hours to go into all the details and would be fairly off-topic for this discussion, so I’ll just summarize: in the early church, there was a lot of influence from Gnosticism, which held the “body bad, spirit good” idea. And Paul and the other apostles spent quite a lot of ink warning against Gnosticism’s various ideas, including that one. The Gnostics thought that because the body was bad, the promised resurrection would be as “pure” disembodied spirits. But in 1 Corinthians 15 and 2 Corinthians 5, Paul spends quite a lot of time emphasizing that in the resurrection, we will have bodies — perfect bodies that are finally free from disease, suffering, and death, as opposed to the imperfect, perishable bodies we have now.

    There’s plenty more (I could spend hours talking about the parts of the Bible that encourage sex within marriage, for example), but I don’t want to turn this into a huge side issue. I just wanted to mention that you are both correct and incorrect in your view that Christian theology sees the body as sinful. Correct insofar as many Christians do (mistakenly) hold that view, but incorrect in thinking that that’s what Christian theology truly teaches.

  549. bluedog says:

    Boxer says:



    Dear jf12:

    ‘Human females aka womenz tend to experience the pair bonding phenomenon for a few years max aka the honeymoon period.’

    “The author derives an unsupported conclusion from the data. It’s true that the initial “lust” fades out after a few years. It’s not true that we’re biologically relegated to serial monogamy.

    “There’s a lot of data, right here on dalrock, suggesting…”

    So – gentlemen – earlier in order to make a point I took the conversation aside from morality to take a look, in a form anyway, at “the data”.

    The “data” is important, because a bloke making a decision or trying to think with any consequence about something important, should know what he’s talking about.

    But there comes a point too where you have to go somewhere with your data.

    So: here’s what I mean…

    The “data” shows that if 100 people run as far as they can, 96 of them have quit running or collapse trying.

    The “data” shows that when people diet, they lose weight, but within 4 years something like 80/more percent have gained back 80/more percent of what they lost.

    The “data” shows that most people live for this or that amount of time, and then – like a whole 100% of people, die.

    The data shows patterns. The patterns reflect aggregates of human decisions. The aggregates are products of multiples of factors, much traceable to chemical cycle such as pre-human simian weening time (i.e.: 3-4 years), much traceable to cultural factors.

    I took a course on Judaism once where a number of different rabbis were invited to speak on topics. I recall on such rabbi who related that of course, in Judaism, it is understood that there are commandments that are given that could be argued are not natural, i.e.: it is not natural to stay faithful to one person who you have commit to. But, he said – in Judaism – that is the point – the whole point of the fact that it’s a commandment – is that it is a commandment – because you are being told to use your mind, to make a decision – to go against what you might naturally do, and keeping the commandment – doing what is not natural – is Judaism.

    And – I could be off here – but I kind of think that’s the Christian point of it too. It’s not like Christianity is offering a product in the window: “you get to do, EXACTLY what you want to do!”

    Christianity is – I think – saying: be a part of this thing – and CHOOSE to do something, different – different from what your temptations say to do, from what your impulses say to do, even from what the culture says to do. And – real kicker: you kind of have to do it on faith.

    So to the data … it’s important to know what it says, but the point is: we believe, … if you choose to, you can run routinely, until its a habit, and then soon enough if you want to, you can run a marathon. You can lose weight, if you want to, and there are POWERFUL forces working against you, but however powerful those forces are, push-come-shove, day-come-night:

    …the decisive difference between whether you keep the weight off or gain it back will, always, come back to one thing:

    The choices you make.

    And – everyone will die. Question is – how do you want to live?

    Does Christianity have something to offer – about how we may wish to live – that we can look at the forces of genetics and biology and culture that we can say:

    This is going to be like committing to run 7 miles a day, 5 days a week, the rest of your life, and that sucks … true … but it will be worth it.

    This is going to be like always choosing to each healthy and reasonable portions, 3-6 times a day – for the rest of your life, no exceptions, ever … and when you look in the mirror – it will be worth it.

    ?

  550. JDG says:

    Robin Munn says:
    August 15, 2014 at 8:21 pm

    Well said Robin.

  551. MarcusD says:

    Viagra pill for women: ‘Impressive’ trials mean that it could go on sale in three years

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2331391/Lybrido-Viagra-pill-women-Impressive-trials-mean-sale-years.html

    But some doctors have warned the pills may be a little too much in demand.

    Not exactly a monogamy drug, but close. There are drugs in development that exactly fit the term “monogamy drug” – one is apparently a nasal spray.

  552. JDG says:

    1Cor 6:18 Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body. 19 Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.

  553. JDG says:

    1 Thes 4:3 It is God’s will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; 4 that each of you should learn to control your own body in a way that is holy and honorable, 5 not in passionate lust like the pagans, who do not know God;

  554. Anonymous age 72 says:

    On the request for a link to the 11 lovers for new brides, I don’t keep a file for such things. I first read that statistic around 1985, but I thought it was only the subscribers to a certain woman’s magazine. In the last year or two, the same exact number was reported several places.

    The problem with such numbers is women way under-report their trysts. They imagine oral doesn’t count, etc. This would explain the obvious phony figures of 4 lifetime lovers for women and 9 for men.

    Others have arrived at similar numbers, 11, by observation. How long do LTR’s last for young, pre-marriage women, and how young are they when they start. And, at what age they actually marry.

    I do have a problem with certain government reports which show like 4 for women, and like 9 for men. Think about the math involved, and those numbers fail on their own merit. Since we are talking averages, it would mean a few women were banging a high number of men, but averages would somehow mask that fact. Hee, hee.

    If you don’t understand what I mean, make up a model where men have an average 9 lovers each, and women only 4.

    Imagine with me that you have a simple population of 100 men and 100 women. Ten of those women bang all 100 men, the other 90 remain virgin.

    Those ten women have a total of 1000 unique bangs. The other 90 have a total of 0 bangs. 1000 / 100 = 10 average for the women. And, for the men.

    Next, assume 20 women each bang half of the men. 50 X 20 = 1000 total bangs. 80 X 0 = 0. 1000 bangs / 100 women still = 10 bangs average. Ditto for the men.

    So, make up a model which produces different results, if you can.

    Any time someone claims a different number for men and women, by definition someone is lying.

  555. JDG says:

    2 Tim 2:21 Therefore, if anyone cleanses himself from what is dishonorable, he will be a vessel for honorable use, set apart as holy, useful to the master of the house, ready for every good work.

  556. greyghost says:

    MarcusD
    Instead of knocking her out. They will give the lady a slut drug. just what we need 40’s and 50’s women on libido drugs.

  557. bluedog says:

    Oh yeah and Boxer about,

    “So, your insight was rather astute. Dancing for Mormon kids is not just a sublimated sexuality, it’s a reminder than you can get right up next to a girl and go home chaste later on. It’s very much a religious ritual.”

    heh. The multi-dimensional significance of the term “sublimated” probably flies over the heads of many. But they will no doubt be back with hubris, certainty and condemnation for certain parties and, eh, sects.

    But lots packed in that statement. You’ve got people in the manosphere hankering for some kind of rebellion, or for the “fall”, or just hangin’ out for the “decline”.

    How about this? Teach your kids to be the best dancers – so that all the other kids admire your kids and want to be like your kids and able to dance with your kids … but lay down the ground rule and keep it simple: chastity.

    That, friends – that will scramble the matrix algorithm. Attractive kids, well raised, strong in character, the best dancers. Chaste.

    Alrighty – on that – it’s getting late, Friday night, kids went to their mom’s for the weekend, Bluedog’s going out to dance. Caio folks.

  558. JDG says:

    The ‘dancing’ I was referring to earlier was basically teenagers grinding their crotches together amidst an assortment of other imitations of assorted sexual acts. I’m sure it was good, clean, wholesome fun by today’s standards, but somehow I doubt that those kids were chaste.

  559. @bluedog @JDG

    Well said.

    For literally thousands of years, the position of Christians has been that marriage is a permanent relationship between a man and a woman, and that a woman cannot be remarried. See, for example, Joseph Webb’s “Divorce and Remarriage: The Trojan Horse Within The Church”.

    And there are still plenty of believers who believe in this. Outside the west, this is commonplace thinking. Within the west, this was common until the 1950s. But even to this day, there are people who believe in the permanence of marriage.

    For you men who are divorced – take heart – and weep for the souls of your wives. “Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge.”

    If you fornicate, repent. Beg God for grace and forgiveness. Allow Christ to deliver you from this grievous sin.

    And if your wife has given herself over to sexual immorality or adultery, beg of Christ that he reconcile her to him. Many doctrines in Scripture and practices in Christianity are unclear, but two things stand out to me: there will be no adulterers or adulteresses in the kingdom of God, and Jesus spoke only of woe to those who caused a child who believed in him to stumble. I have seen my share of wrecked families, and I can only hope and pray for unwarranted grace and mercy to be shown to the people responsible for wrecking families and children in this way.

    Find men who believe likewise and fellowship with them.

  560. JDG says:

    The multi-dimensional significance of the term “sublimated” probably flies over the heads of many.

    Kind of like “holiness” flies over the heads of many. That is another term that often brings scorn and derision from those who don’t understand it. There’s several of those now that I think about it, righteousness, consecrated, and obedience to name a a few.

  561. happyhen11 says:

    “So, it seems she regretted not riding the carosello::”

    No.. not even close to what she is saying. Read the article. I could have written some of these lines myself.
    ***
    “Sex hurt. I knew it would. Everyone told me it would be uncomfortable the first time. What they didn’t tell me is that I would be back in the bathroom afterward, crying quietly for reasons I didn’t yet comprehend. They didn’t tell me that I’d be on my honeymoon, crying again, because sex felt dirty and wrong and sinful even though I was married and it was supposed to be okay now.

    When we got home, I couldn’t look anyone in the eye. Everyone knew my virginity was gone. My parents, my church, my friends, my co-workers. They all knew I was soiled and tarnished. I wasn’t special anymore. My virginity had become such an essential part of my personality that I didn’t know who I was without it.
    ****
    I too grew up in a church like hers and thankfully left and found a new church home with my then fiance, now husband of 15 years. I don’t understand the author’s choices after the fact, she has gone full fledged feminist wacko but I totally get what she is saying about her religious upbringing. That kind of programming is a nightmare but was pretty standard fare in my childhood fundamentalist world. It is pretty hard to make the life long commandment of “sex = sin, damnation, Hell, dirty, spoiled, ruined” turn into “sex = happy, joyful, loving, Christian, moral, good” in a matter of moments just because a man puts a ring on your finger and the lights go out in the honeymoon suite. Our brains don’t work that way. The jump is too far to make that fast. Sounds like she got a double or triple dose of what I got. No wonder she is so screwed up.

  562. MarcusD says:

    No.. not even close to what she is saying. Read the article.

    Yes, I did.

    The fact that you write: “I could have written some of these lines myself,” leads me to believe that you’re projecting onto the author. (The author, too, engages in a ridiculous amount of projection.*) It’s quite clear, by a well-established pattern, that the author did indeed wish to have more extensive sexual experience prior to marriage.


    *It’s perfectly obvious, according to research over the last ten years, that the sexual double standard exists primarily at the insistence of feminists (e.g. as a long-dead, propped-up bogeyman).

  563. MarcusD says:

    Practically speaking, don’t we need to “test drive the car before we buy it?”

    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=903089

    How to tell a Catholic girl that you love her?

    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=903215

    Husband doesn’t bathe–PLEASE help!

    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=903098

  564. Robin Munn says:

    It is pretty hard to make the life long commandment of “sex = sin, damnation, Hell, dirty, spoiled, ruined” turn into “sex = happy, joyful, loving, Christian, moral, good” in a matter of moments just because a man puts a ring on your finger and the lights go out in the honeymoon suite. Our brains don’t work that way. The jump is too far to make that fast.

    Which is why what the church should be teaching is, “Sex is incredibly pleasurable and fun, and God designed it to bond people together on all sorts of levels: physically, emotionally, even spiritually. Which is why He told us to save it for after we’ve made a permanent, public commitment to each other — for marriage. Anything less is settling for second-best, like stuffing yourself so full of junk food that you don’t have any room left for the feast later on. Sure, the junk food tastes good temporarily — that’s why it’s tempting. But it’ll leave you with long-term consequences like getting fat, and it’ll spoil your appetite for the delicious, nutritious food that you were supposed to enjoy.”

    That the church isn’t teaching sex this way is a major failing on our part, and one I hope to do some small part in remedying someday.

  565. MarcusD says:

    Which is why what the church should be teaching is, “Sex is incredibly pleasurable and fun, and God designed it to bond people together on all sorts of levels: physically, emotionally, even spiritually. Which is why He told us to save it for after we’ve made a permanent, public commitment to each other — for marriage. Anything less is settling for second-best, like stuffing yourself so full of junk food that you don’t have any room left for the feast later on. Sure, the junk food tastes good temporarily — that’s why it’s tempting. But it’ll leave you with long-term consequences like getting fat, and it’ll spoil your appetite for the delicious, nutritious food that you were supposed to enjoy.”

    That the church isn’t teaching sex this way is a major failing on our part, and one I hope to do some small part in remedying someday.

    I’ve actually never witnessed the “sex = sin, damnation, Hell, dirty, spoiled, ruined” method being used, only the “sex = happy, joyful, loving, Christian, moral, good” method.

    In my experience (and reading), the outcomes are largely the same between the two methods, except that recipients of the latter have nothing to blame (though they manage to do so anyway). This is partly the reason I don’t buy the explanations of the article I linked.

  566. Robin Munn says:

    I haven’t seen that “sex = sin, damnation, Hell, dirty, spoiled, ruined” message being explicitly communicated either, but I have seen too many people accidentally communicate it, if only through being uncomfortable with the subject and giving the impression that it shouldn’t be talked about in polite company. Which isn’t a 100% false impression either — there’s a time and a place for such conversations, and it’s not in the living room during Christmas break with the extended family gathered together. (Not making this one up: I was there, though not the one bringing up the subject.) But simply by being too uncomfortable discussing sex, we can give young people the impression that it’s something hush-hush, secretive, and dirty. That, I’ve seen far too often.

  567. MarcusD says:

    I haven’t seen that “sex = sin, damnation, Hell, dirty, spoiled, ruined” message being explicitly communicated either, but I have seen too many people accidentally communicate it, if only through being uncomfortable with the subject and giving the impression that it shouldn’t be talked about in polite company. Which isn’t a 100% false impression either — there’s a time and a place for such conversations, and it’s not in the living room during Christmas break with the extended family gathered together. (Not making this one up: I was there, though not the one bringing up the subject.) But simply by being too uncomfortable discussing sex, we can give young people the impression that it’s something hush-hush, secretive, and dirty. That, I’ve seen far too often.

    I think that would be a cultural thing.

    Extending that thought, I think people think the Church says that “sex = sin, damnation, Hell, dirty, spoiled, ruined,” because they’ve been told by other people (e.g. media, anti-Christian/Catholics, etc) that it teaches that. In fact, I always find the source of such incorrectness to be quite distant from the Church. I can think of a few reasons as to why that’d be the case (e.g. people justifying their own disobedience of Church teaching by misrepresenting it to others).

    By the way, wtm.org has a noticeable atheist contingent.

  568. JDG says:

    I’ve actually never witnessed the “sex = sin, damnation, Hell, dirty, spoiled, ruined” method being used, only the “sex = happy, joyful, loving, Christian, moral, good” method.

    Same here Marcus. I keep hearing about these ‘fundy’ churches that preach fire and brimstone and teach sex is evil, who beat people over the heads with the Bible while telling them they are going to hell.

    Where are these churches. In all my life I have never found a church like that. What I usually do encounter are churches that won’t confront it’s parishioners for sinful behavior. I find churches every where that are trying to be just like the world, and that most attending know little about what is written in the Bible.

    What I’ve also found is that the people who are complaining about ‘fundy’ churches are people in the ‘I can live my best life now’ and ‘you can’t judge me’ camps. They are almost always people who don’t want to change their life styles and so they object to any accountability for the sin they practice.

    These folks are often the ones who change churches into Sunday morning social clubs while accusing Christians, who are actually trying to live holy lives, of being fundamentalists.

  569. jf12 says:

    @MarcusD re: “I’ve actually never witnessed the “sex = sin, damnation, Hell, dirty, spoiled, ruined” method being used, only the “sex = happy, joyful, loving, Christian, moral, good” method.”

    Amen. I mean me too. And I know for a fact that everyone who claims otherwise (actual witness) is lying, for boring reasons.

  570. happyhen11 says:

    “The fact that you write: “I could have written some of these lines myself,” leads me to believe that you’re projecting onto the author. (The author, too, engages in a ridiculous amount of projection.*) It’s quite clear, by a well-established pattern, that the author did indeed wish to have more extensive sexual experience prior to marriage.”

    **
    She writes: “I’m now thoroughly convinced that the entire concept of virginity is used to control female sexuality. If I could go back, I would not wait. I would have sex with my then-boyfriend-now-husband and I wouldn’t go to hell for it. We would have gotten married at a more appropriate age and I would have kept my sexuality to myself.”

    Working past the feminist nonsense the line ” I would have sex with my then-boyfriend-now-husband and I wouldn’t go to hell for it. ” This doesn’t queue carousel music for me. It isn’t Christian teaching but it isn’t one man after another. And it is sad.

    As I stated, she is messed up and sadly also teaching girls to go screw up their lives. For that she should be chastised and sanctioned. But I can relate to some of what she was taught and the feeling she felt about sex in marriage because it was something I had to struggle to overcome for many years. That is not projection, merely reading comprehension and basic human understanding.

    We are not all whores. Some of us waited. Some of us do indeed love our husbands more than life. Some of us married young and poor, had babies, and have done all those feminine and wonderful things extolled here and would do it all again in a heartbeat. And even for us there are/were hang-ups and bad thinking and confusion. This world makes it very hard to find God’s truth. It is good to learn and grow. It is good to see the world through the eyes of others, in this blog’s case hurting men with a story that needs telling. I have learned a great deal here over the years.

    ***

    “That the church isn’t teaching sex this way is a major failing on our part, and one I hope to do some small part in remedying someday.”

    Robin. This is true. It has taken years of reading and prayer and quite simply being loved by a wonderful husband to help me. That programming went far deeper than I ever imagined. And pair it with the horrible modern teaching that women are somehow more “holy” or “spiritual” than men and that is like adding gasoline to fire. It is very dangerous and I do everything I can now to teach young women that sex in marriage is a beautiful loving bonding experience and that the husband is the man sent from God to help them with their salvation and to lead their family. Wish someone, anyone had bothered to tell me these things.

  571. happyhen11 says:

    JDG,

    Well, it was a Southern Baptist Church in Nashville Tennessee in the 80’s and 90’s. It was rocked by a sex scandal with the minister and a female congregant that tore the church apart. The aftermath was bad.

    Maybe I and this woman in the article are indeed the only women to ever be taught anything negative about sex in church. I really don’t know but I do know what I experienced. Maybe we are the only ones who took all that virginity promise stuff and internalized it to the point that it warped even what sex inside marriage was supposed to be. It is not so much preached directly from the pulpit but indirectly as every example of sexual behavior spoken of is negative, dirty, bad, sinful. Babies and not falling into sin are the only reason I remember being given for sex. Proper sex in marriage was never even spoken of in my church or home for that matter. Virginity was spoken about, lauded, praised. But good healthy sex in marriage.. if folks had not been having babies there would have been no proof anyone in the congregation had healthy sexual relations. But again, I left there when I was a young adult in main part because my fiance saw that it wasn’t a good church and I trusted him. We set out to find a church we could be married in and raise a family in and finally came to the Orthodox Church. What a change and a relief. And it is a church that values and really loves men (as a mother of a son, I as so happy for this), lifts them up as leaders and teachers. It value marriage and speaks openly about the a healthy love of a man and woman. So, thankfully we found a good home.

  572. jf12 says:

    re: “indirectly”

    I.e. “not actually”

  573. Boxer says:

    Dear Marcus:

    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=903089

    Practically speaking, don’t we need to “test drive the car before we buy it?”

    So practically speaking, despite what the Bible says, don’t people need to “test drive the car before they buy it,” in other words, have sex before marriage to test each other’s sexual compatibility? Isn’t it a foolish risk to not “test drive a car before buying it?” Wouldn’t it be a possible setup for failure to not have sex before marriage?

    He’s a man, she’s a woman, and they’re both at the age of maximum hormones. As long as one or both aren’t homos, and there isn’t some freakish genital deformity, then it’s a non issue.

    After much TL;DR by Xanthippe and the other usual Catholic radfems, Mark In Oregon chimes in with this manginaesque rebuttal:

    My goal as a husband is my wifes happiness, trying to make sure that her needs are met, that I fulfill my duty as a husband and a father–it’s not about getting my needs met by her. I am supposed to sacrifice my life for hers as Christ sacrificed himself for me. Disaster is averted when the spouses know what love is and love their spouse–it is not averted by starting the marriage on the same page sexually (whatever you mean by that) and expecting it to stay that way forever. True happiness is found in doing what we are supposed to do and not worrying about what others do for us. It is in giving not receiving. Your OP implies that unless your sexual needs are fully met your marriage will be a disaster–that will only be the case if you make it so.

    Sometimes I wonder whether the last generation of Catholic babies aren’t being born, right now.

    Boxer

  574. happyhen11 says:

    “re: “indirectly”

    I.e. “not actually””

    Maybe it was never their intention. I don’t assume they were evil. Maybe they just didn’t know that that was the message being delivered by them only ever referencing sex in terms of social ills, loose morals, pornography, unwed mothers, abortion, etc and then with the other hand extolling the virtues of virginity without the caveat that virginity ends and you aren’t bad if you enjoy your husband’s bed. And I am sure it was a cultural thing as well as has been mentioned. I grew up in the sheltered South, very strict church, small Christian school, very few friends. Goodness knows the only time I heard sex mentioned as a young lady in our home was when my older married sisters complained about their husband’s wanting it too often in quiet when they didn’t know I could hear them. Boy, that was a glowing endorsement! My parents never ever talked about sex, ever. But the sin of omission can be just as hurtful in the end.

  575. Robin Munn says:

    @jf12 –

    I believe you’re right that those who claim that they’ve heard “sex is evil” teaching directly from the church are most likely lying. (Barring some cultish congregation somewhere, of course — I’m sure there’s one or two.) But that doesn’t mean the church is doing a good job of teaching the truth either, as happyhen’s story illustrates. That church never mentioned sex except for warning people against sexual immorality. Which does need to be warned against, but by never mentioning sex except in that context, the wrong implications do sink in to teenagers’ minds.

    Some churches, maybe many churches (I don’t have ANY numbers on this) are doing a good job of teaching the good along with warning against the bad. But I’m sure happyhen’s former church isn’t alone in forgetting to teach the good. That’s what I was getting at with my 2:31 AM comment: that the church needs to make sure to teach the good, so that teens won’t believe the falsehood that Christianity believes sex is evil — because this world, and the prince of this world, is/are CERTAINLY trying to feed that lie to them. The best defense against a lie is to be inoculated by knowing the truth beforehand, because then you don’t believe the lie for one second. I had good teaching about sex from my parents, and from several of the Christian books on the subject that I read, so I never bought the “sex is evil” lie. But I don’t remember hearing a single sermon about it from the pulpit, and I think a sermon like that would have stuck in my memory. (Though I’ll admit that my memory is far from perfect, so that doesn’t prove anything.) Wait, scratch that — the singles’ group I attended five years ago did do a video series on sex. Much blue-pill stuff in it, but an overall “sex within marriage is good and we want to encourage you in it” attitude.

    So that’s one church I can count in the “doing a decent job” column, and several churches I can count in the “not mentioning it enough in a positive context” column. (Probably: as I said, my memory is far from perfect.) Don’t know that that proves anything one way or another, except to illustrate that the point you’re making (“churches don’t teach that sex is bad”) and the point I’m making (“many churches don’t do enough to teach that sex is good”) don’t contradict each other at all.

  576. Robin Munn says:

    P.S. I wrote that before I’d seen happyhen’s 10:22 comment. But that comment also illustrates what I’m talking about, especially the “my older married sisters complained about their husband’s wanting it too often” part.

  577. theasdgamer says:

    Elspeth wrote, passive-aggressively, with snark and malice:

    Boxer @ 8:56 AM:

    You sound more Christian on the subject of marriage in this comment than the professed believers.

    Let’s rewrite this to make it resemble, oh, I dunno…reality?

    Boxer @ 8:56 AM:

    You sound more churchian on the subject of marriage in this comment than the believers.

    Good job, there, woman, elevating yourself as Judge over men. Prideful, much?

  578. happyhen11 says:

    “The best defense against a lie is to be inoculated by knowing the truth beforehand, because then you don’t believe the lie for one second. I had good teaching about sex from my parents, and from several of the Christian books on the subject that I read, so I never bought the “sex is evil” lie. ”

    You were very blessed. My mom’s best effort was her asking me “Do you have any questions?” ON the night before my wedding. I just blushed and said “nope.” /sigh Husband and I determined that sex would not be a taboo topic in our home but I have to admit it takes me way out of my comfort zone to answer honest age appropriate (almost teenage son) questions without blushing :p But I do because it matters.

  579. theasdgamer says:

    @ happyhen

    It is pretty hard to make the life long commandment of “sex = sin, damnation, Hell, dirty, spoiled, ruined” turn into “sex = happy, joyful, loving, Christian, moral, good” in a matter of moments just because a man puts a ring on your finger and the lights go out in the honeymoon suite. Our brains don’t work that way. The jump is too far to make that fast.

    The husband probably lacked Game; he didn’t deactivate the ASD, which virgins almost always have. (I know, you probably don’t get it, but it’s true nevertheless. Mrs. Gamer was just like that bride and she had no problems on the wedding night.) The bride probably also wasn’t prepared through chats with her mother like used to happen. Mrs. Gamer didn’t have those chats either, but we managed just fine. She was uncirculated when we married. I was a retired pickup artist and knew how to manage her ASD.

    Mothers, make sure your sons know Game–especially if they are going to marry a virgin. Mothers of daughters should also be concerned that their prospective sons-in-law know Game.

  580. JDG says:

    Boxer says:
    August 15, 2014 at 11:09 am

    I don’t know how I did it, but I missed this post before and just now ran into it. Thank you for the link, but it does not indicate any loss of status for the man in his home or even in society at large.

    The men who worked these mines were rounded up by the army after a strike. Union soldiers then abused and assaulted their wives and daughters (including sexually), while the men were held in a makeshift concentration camp nearby. This is the “respect” a family man got, and it is typical of the era.

    No, the respect he got was from his wife and his peers (who were probably rounded up with him or hiding out some where). Yes these guys were screwed over by their employers, unions and the government, but they kept their dignity as men, still had authority over their families, and could raise their children as they saw fit.

    The idea that society ever afforded a husband or father some sort of portfolio of benefits is not in keeping with any reading of North American history. A man’s wife and children were actually seen as hostages. It has always been a difficult thing to pair up with someone, yet people did it anyway, at great cost to themselves.

    And yet through all these hard ships the men still were valued for being men, and looked up to by other men, women, and children for being husbands and fathers. Even in prison a man was afforded dignity for being a husband or father. The ‘rewards’ were there amidst the oppression (as they often are). I think you are mixing apples with oranges.

    Today men are no longer respected for being men. It would be better to suffer the abuse of times past and retain the respect that men used to get, then to lose all respect, even from your their wives and children, like we see happening to men today.

    Maybe you could define “modernity” for me? I know what the word means, but I don’t understand the way you’re using it.

    mo•der•ni•ty (mɒˈdɜr nɪ ti, moʊ-)

    n., pl. -ties.
    1. the quality of being modern.
    2. something modern.

    All the women I have ever met have wanted a monogamous relationship, and nearly all of them have wanted kids.

    Interesting that reproduction rates among modern women in western nations are below population replacement levels.

    You claim to believe in god. If that’s true, then you should have some faith in his ability to wire up your skullstuffing in ways that will be beneficial.

    Now that just wasn’t very nice at all. Do I really strike you as someone that doesn’t believe in God?

  581. jf12 says:

    re: “my older married sisters complained about their husband’s wanting it too often”

    = zero to do with church, = everything to do with women’s actual desires

  582. JDG says:

    JDG says:
    August 16, 2014 at 10:41 am

    sheesh, more typos, but the ideas are there.

  583. theasdgamer says:

    @ JDG

    The ‘dancing’ I was referring to earlier was basically teenagers grinding their crotches together amidst an assortment of other imitations of assorted sexual acts.

    That sexual grinding to music in no way resembles ballroom or country dancing. Ballroom and country dancing involve leading and following, not mere contact, and the physical contact is chaste–hand-to-hand and hand-to-back or hand-to-arm.

  584. happyhen11 says:

    “The husband probably lacked Game”

    Oh we were kids when we met, high school sweethearts. I have no idea. My husband is confident and outspoken. Very smart and clever, witty. Handsome. A natural leader and teacher. The best man I know. My daddy is the second best.

  585. JDG says:

    theasdgamer says:
    August 16, 2014 at 10:48 am

    Do you mean like this?

    Way cool!

  586. Boxer says:

    Dear JDG:

    No, the respect he got was from his wife and his peers (who were probably rounded up with him or hiding out some where). Yes these guys were screwed over by their employers, unions and the government, but they kept their dignity as men, still had authority over their families, and could raise their children as they saw fit.

    I don’t think you even read the link, or pondered what happened.

    In any event, the opposite is true. The family men in question were put into a concentration camp by their peers, and their wives and children were abused in front of them. They had no authority whatever over their families, and had no opportunity to “raise their children as they saw fit”. They were at gunpoint, behind barbed wire, in an open air pen.

    Perhaps you could post some evidence for the portfolio of benefits that married men were, until recently, entitled to. I posted some historical sources for my position yesterday, so that’s only fair.

    mo•der•ni•ty (mɒˈdɜr nɪ ti, moʊ-)

    n., pl. -ties.
    1. the quality of being modern.
    2. something modern.

    That doesn’t make sense in the context of your previous use of the word. It’s also a fairly meaningless definition.

    For future reference, “modernity” (in the way you may have been trying to use it) means something specific. It denoted the metaphysical era, beginning around the time Montaigne published Essais and Descartes published Meditations, and ending around the 19th century (some people take it all the way up to Heidegger’s Being and Time). Modernity is over, in other words. It was a historo-philosophical era.

    We’re now into post-metaphysical stuff (some call it “contemporary” and there are subdivisions like “post-modern” and “super-modernity”). Much of the content of this blog is post-metaphysical (constructing critical theories of social trends, wondering about the redefinition of institutions like church and marriage, witnessing late-stage capitalism and “the end of history” etc.)

    Best, Boxer

  587. JDG says:

    happyhen11 says:
    August 16, 2014 at 9:51 am
    JDG,

    Well, it was a Southern Baptist Church in Nashville Tennessee in the 80’s and 90’s. It was rocked by a sex scandal with the minister and a female congregant that tore the church apart. The aftermath was bad.

    Now that I have seen before, and its most unfortunate. I’ve even seen a congregation split over a disagreement on the duties of the music leader. Still the closest thing to a real live ‘fundy’ I’ve ever met was amongst a particular denomination that believes that you have to be a part of their denomination to be saved, that and this Quaker I met on a bus once. And none of them lived up to the fundamentalist reputation I keep hearing about.

  588. JDG says:

    Boxer I read the link and pondered it, I just don’t agree with your assessment. I don’t see how anyone could. How old are you? Even in my lifetime I remember the respect that men used to get and the dignity they used to have. It’s gone now. I don’t think you ever experienced it or witnessed it.

    The way I used the term “modernity” made perfect sense in my statement. You are mixing up ideas. You think that because men are mistreated in regards to money and politics that they have no respect among their peers or at home with the family. The reality is that men throughout history have been mistreated by other men, yet still maintained dignity and respect (rewards) in their own homes and among their own group. This was the case until the onslaught of modernity.

    You and I most likely will not agree on this.