Countercultural, natural, and beautiful.

Mychael at Courtship Pledge describes a powerful lesson for her and her husband Scott’s daughter:

Last night, I decided to put on one of Scott’s favorite skirts and a nice sweater while I cooked and served dinner.

Just as I was about to serve the food, our daughter noticed and asked,

“Mommy, why are you wearing that skirt?”

I replied “because daddy likes it.”

Her face turned a little red, and I could see Scott was very satisfied with the response as well.

This simple act is profoundly countercultural, because feminism teaches women that wanting to please their husbands is beneath them.  Yet, as Mychael explains, it felt natural.  Her example is the opposite of the ugly feminist.

As I’ve shared before my own wife and daughter on occasion will put on a bit of a fashion show as my wife models new clothes that she bought (to see which ones I like the best so she can return the rest).  It is truly joyful, and our daughter delights in it as much as my wife does.

Feminism has robbed modern women of much of the joy of life, but this is a fragile victory since there is always the risk that a new generation of women will catch a glimpse of the beauty, love, and joy that they are missing.

This entry was posted in Beautiful truth, courtshippledge.com, Marriage, Motherhood. Bookmark the permalink.

152 Responses to Countercultural, natural, and beautiful.

  1. Pingback: Countercultural, natural, and beautiful. | Manosphere.com

  2. My wife goes and gets French nails (both mani-and-pedi) not because she likes them, but because I like them. I think the long nails annoy her, they are an inconvenience.. She just does it for me. And daughter notices this.

  3. Yes!

    It is interesting to note that Homer’s Iliad begins with a beauty contest.

    Christianity came along and stated “Thy beauty shall be for your husband.” Such a system could not be monetized, so today women are taught, “Thy beauty shall be for instagram, match.com, snatch.com, eharmony.cm, facebook, your bosses at all your jobs, and the lssatscckaksksksa carousel.”

    Not so long ago a man would tell his wife and daughter, “You will not be posting pictures of yourself in that skirt for others to see.”

    Today that is considered “abuse” as every girl aspires towards this:
    http://instagram.com/mileycyrus

  4. Pingback: Countercultural, natural, and beautiful. | Neoreactive

  5. Elspeth says:

    Mychael’s posts always encourage me and I enjoyed this one as well.

    It seems that I am not alone in having my husband view and veto of thumbs up any clothing I might happen to buy. It is more than an act of respect, but it lets your husband know that you dress for his eyes first and foremost.

    This is important in a culture where women are so often taught to dress to compete with other women or for the attention of men they are not married to. It’s in fact oppressive to forgo wearing something or to wear something for one’s husband. How sad is that?

    Good post.

  6. Elspeth,

    It’s in fact oppressive to forgo wearing something or to wear something for one’s husband. How sad is that?

    Its very sad but not all that unsurprising. It is culturally acceptable for women to “throw out” clothes that their husbands would wear/used-ro-wear as they don’t like them anymore (for whatever reason) but Hell hath no fury greater than a woman scorned by her husband telling her what SHE can wear.

  7. Mychael says:

    Thank you for the link back, sir. By the way my hair has almost returned to it’s pre-disaster cut length.🙂

  8. Casey says:

    @ Mychael

    I am very pleased to hear your story. I am certain your daughter will benefit from your good example.

    The world could benefit greatly from a rekindled passion for femininity and pleasantness.

  9. JDG says:

    Not so long ago a man would tell his wife and daughter, “You will not be posting pictures of yourself in that skirt for others to see.”

    Today that is considered “abuse” as every girl aspires towards this:

    I’ve accepted that I am an abusive monster a long time ago, and my wife loves me all the more for it.

    Scott your wife sounds like a wise and prudent woman. What a blessing.

  10. Anonymous Reader says:

    It is exactly counter-cultural. The culture teaches that any time a woman does anything for her husband it is oppression, and that men must, must, must always do more for their wives – that’s the basis of all the choreplay advice floating around the world.

    It is counter cultural because the culture teaches that men and women are the same except women have babies, therefore male attractors and female attractors are supposed to be the same. A man is supposed to dress for his wive’s approval, a woman is supposed to spend gym time in order to be a strong ‘n independent Laura Croft clone.

    The best part about this posting is how furious it surely makes many feminists, because teh patriarchy! and so forth. If nothing else, being counter cultural is worth doing to enrage the busybody SJW’s.

  11. Dave says:

    Feminism has robbed modern women of much of the joy of life….
    This makes me really sad, almost as if I am just realizing the truth of the statement. Is it any wonder that many women are on antidepressants?

  12. Dalrock says:

    @MarcusD

    Runner-up snatches crown off winner at Miss Amazonas pageant: ‘I really did what my heart told me to’

    She was being true to herself, the highest virtue.

  13. Josh says:

    Feminism confuses me. They teach women to “empower” themselves. Yet when a woman dresses up provocatively and gets cat-called. The feminists blame men for being “pigs”. Can someone explain this to me?

    I know this has nothing to do with the topic at hand. But the feminist Kendrick brothers are coming out with a new movie called ” War Room”. I have not seen a trailer for this movie yet. But they do have a video about the movie. It seems to me like a rehashed fireproof. They are now going to use prayer instead of the love dare. The woman is the one “fighting” to save her marriage.

    From what I gathered from the video. She is putting everything before her husband. So he naturally withdraws and becomes a success at work. After reading dalrock’s comment on fireproof. I watched the movie again and he was right. I never saw it before and have stopped watching “christian” movies and stopped listening to feminist ccm music.

    I would love to hear dalrock’s comments on other “christian” movies. But I don’t want to torture him. Lol

  14. Feminism confuses me. They teach women to “empower” themselves. Yet when a woman dresses up provocatively and getsncat-called. The feminists blame men for being “pigs”. Can someone explain this to me?

    This is easy to explain. It is all about her comfort. That is the feminism.

    A woman can dress anyway she wants. She can wear man’s clothes, a full business suit and look like a man. And man can say nothing. She can get breast implants or not, whatever makes her feel comfortable and man can say nothing (and you can’t even look at her.) She can dress like a whore and parade around and a man can say nothing. She can walk down the street naked and a man can say nothing. Basically the way to explain this is…. keep your mouth shut. And if you look at her you might make her feel uncomfortable which means she might say you are looking at her kinda rapey. So keep your mouth shut and your eyes turned downward. Because your words and youur eyes can cause her to feel “uncomfortable.”

  15. Mychael says:

    The funny thing is, the more do stuff like this, the more natural it becomes. It’s like flirting with my own husband. What could be more fun?

  16. pancakeloach says:

    It seems that I am not alone in having my husband view and veto of thumbs up any clothing I might happen to buy.

    Yes, I do this as well. But unfortunately my reason is not so virtuous: my fashion sense is truly abysmal and I really cannot be trusted to dress myself.😦

    And besides showing respect towards my husband, choosing to dress to his tastes means that he thinks I am more attractive now than when he married me *coughmumblemumble* years ago right out of college. Which compliment is far more satisfying than hearing some insincere “you look beautiful in whatever you’re wearing, dear” sort of phrase.

  17. Elspeth says:

    Yes, I do this as well. But unfortunately my reason is not so virtuous: my fashion sense is truly abysmal and I really cannot be trusted to dress myself.

    LOL. My husband has something of an artist’s eye so I trust his taste more than my own when I’m picking out clothes. The things he’s bought for me are the things I like the most, whereas the things I buy for myself are usually hit or miss and more likely to be purged.

    But even if that wasn’t a factor, there is something imminently reverent about taking the stand that says, “I’m going to wear what you like and if you don’t like it, then I won’t wear it. Period.”

    It honestly took me a while to get to this point but once I did, it was easier. The longer we’re married, the easier it gets and the less I care about whether female family or friends (most of whom are unmarried or unhappily married) can understand or *get it*. After all, “you go girrrrl” is the major thing keeping women who want to be more submissive from being so. At least that’s what I have surmised from my conversations with women.

  18. Gunner Q says:

    Josh @ 3:00 pm:
    “Feminism confuses me. They teach women to “empower” themselves. Yet when a woman dresses up provocatively and getsncat-called. The feminists blame men for being “pigs”. Can someone explain this to me?”

    Feminism is all about women having power with no consequences, or better yet, sticking men with the consequences. A woman dresses any way she wants (power) and punishes any man who responds to her visual provocation (more power).

    I suspect there’s a deeper level, too. Women tend to be motivated by fear and men tend to be motivated by risk. Freedom to a man means the opportunity to try hard and succeed at what interests him. Freedom to a woman means doing what she wants without being afraid of the consequences, like provocative dress… and being able to punish the men with visible reactions instead of running for safety.

    Hence the last twenty years’ hype over “freedom” being wonderful. Men and women hear the word differently. The irony then is that the most “free” thing a woman can do is accept a man’s control; if she doesn’t have to make the decisions then she doesn’t have to fear the possible consequences.

  19. Boxer says:

    Dear Josh:

    Feminism confuses me.

    Feminism doesn’t have a coherent theoretical structure. This is why you get so many definitions of what feminism is. This explains its success. It’s hard to argue with something that is so utterly fluid.

    The best definition I can come up with is that feminism is a conspiracy against all people, and all nations, in service to capital. With this in mind, it follows that it seeks to atomize individuals, tear all natural, communal bonds asunder (family, clubs, churches, political parties, etc.) and otherwise render the individual easily conquered by whoever is in power.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  20. Anyone tackle the “Like a Girl” Superbowl advert yet?

  21. Boxer says:

    Anyone tackle the “Like a Girl” Superbowl advert yet?

    Nobody in the entire manosphere has done that. Nor have they done the “sorry it’s a boy” ad.

    You should dissect it, empath.

    Boxer

  22. 1

    And besides showing respect towards my husband, choosing to dress to his tastes means that he thinks I am more attractive now than when he married me *coughmumblemumble* years ago right out of college. Which compliment is far more satisfying than hearing some insincere “you look beautiful in whatever you’re wearing, dear” sort of phrase.

    That explains quite a bit.

  23. Feminism doesn’t have a coherent theoretical structure. This is why you get so many definitions of what feminism is. This explains its success. It’s hard to argue with something that is so utterly fluid.

    Of course feminism doesn’t have a coherent structure. It is whatever it needs to be at a given moment in order for the woman defending it to be able to work around any diminished opinion of it, any unequivocal facts that illustrate harm from it, or for an ironic example, any claims that it is incoherent.

  24. Casey says:

    @ MarcusD & Dalrock

    Excellent clip of Miss Amazonas tiara grabbing runner up.
    Encapsulates nicely the attitude of modern women far and wide.

    Let’s all do as we FEEL, and we’ll see how long it takes for the world to blow itself up.

  25. Casey says:

    @ Empathologism @ 4:05 pm
    *Clap Clap Clap*
    Excellent synopsis of the fungible meaning of feminism.

  26. Anonymous Reader says:

    Runner-up snatches crown off winner at Miss Amazonas pageant: ‘I really did what my heart told me to’

    Pretty much what ever Disney movie made in the last N years teaches, where N > 15 but I don’t know how much greater.

    Example:
    I’m told that Frozen explicitily urges little girls to be as destructive as they want, provided they are “following their heart”, but don’t know and don’t want to view it to find out.

  27. Feminism is rebellion. it seeks to usurp direct power from men and to then laud it over them. Not much different than Traditionalism, which is simply the indirect version, sort of like Driscoll’s: ‘you can lead the woman, as long as you lead, correctly, where she wants to go. And eat when you’re told, fight when you’re told and die when you’re told’. In the end, a man is but a vessel of service. For the women and the state.

    Even having a wife parading around is meant to be of service to her, it’s her getting her emotions and affirmation up. The husband is just the tool by which she does it. If it didn’t make her happy, it would stop and there wouldn’t be much Scotty could do about it.

  28. Anonymous Reader says:

    The funny thing is, the more do stuff like this, the more natural it becomes. It’s like flirting with my own husband. What could be more fun?

    It’s not “like” flirting with your own husband, it is flirting with your own husband, and given that he’s the one man you are definitely supposed to flirt with, a very good idea.
    Both women and men would be happier if more women did this.

    Pretty much an impossibility under either the egalitarian or the pedestalizing model of marriage, though.

  29. Mychael says:

    Good point! I didn’t mean to imply I flirt with anyone else🙂

  30. Pretty much an impossibility under either the egalitarian or the pedestalizing model of marriage, though.

    Those are the only two on the shelves. Take it or leave it.

  31. Anonymous Reader says:

    8oxer
    The best definition I can come up with is that feminism is a conspiracy against all people, and all nations, in service to capital.

    Repeating this foolishness doesn’t make it any less false, as both Marx and Lenin are still dead. Women tend to be collectivists by nature, not Kapitalists.

    One summary of feminism: “From each according to his abilities, to each according to her needs”.

    Kapitalism? Or Socialism? You make the call.

    With regard to feminism, Rollo’s all over it: it is the current manifestation of what he calls the Feminine Imperative.

  32. Elspeth says:

    @ Empath

    Great minds and all that:
    https://lovingintheruins.wordpress.com/2015/02/02/good-women-still-need-men/

    @ Feminist hater:

    Even having a wife parading around is meant to be of service to her, it’s her getting her emotions and affirmation up. The husband is just the tool by which she does it.

    Yeah, there is some affirmation in it. You assume that 1) that there is something wrong with that and 2) this doesn’t make the husband happy as well. And perhaps it doesn’t. However, in my experience speaking with women, men who don’t care what their wives wear simply do not participate in that kind of thing. So I think it’s a good play to take Dalrock’s and Scott’s word for it that it is a joyful thing. My husband seems to enjoy it as well.

    There’s nothing inherently wrong with a husband making his wife happy. What’s wrong is her insistence on perpetual “emotional fulfillment”, whatever that means exactly. And her holding the marriage hostage to such a specious ransom.

  33. Well, Boxer has a point. Most of the winnings of feminism have been the transference of wealth from men to women. Who then spend it.

  34. Scott says:

    Elspeth/feminist hater–

    As dalrock often points out, romantic love is best pursued within the context of marriage. While there is clearly a submission piece to this story, the romantic pursuing is a blast. She said this in the presence of my daughter and both sons while we all sat at the table. She knew exactly what she was doing, and it was perfect.

    The kids love it too.

  35. Feminism has robbed modern women of much of the joy of life, but this is a fragile victory since there is always the risk that a new generation of women will catch a glimpse of the beauty, love, and joy that they are missing.

    Funny in a way, however, feminism isn’t standing in their way. Nothing is, they can have that sort of fun anytime they want. Feminism wouldn’t have been so successful if women didn’t want it to be.

  36. Dalrock says:

    @feministhater

    Even having a wife parading around is meant to be of service to her, it’s her getting her emotions and affirmation up. The husband is just the tool by which she does it. If it didn’t make her happy, it would stop and there wouldn’t be much Scotty could do about it.

    You have learned too much from your enemy. Why else would you feel the need to take what is beautiful and make it ugly?

  37. Boxer says:

    Dear Feminist Hater:

    Well, Boxer has a point. Most of the winnings of feminism have been the transference of wealth from men to women. Who then spend it.

    It’s not a transference of wealth from men to women. If it were, then with all the feminist laws on the books in the USA, the average American chick would be much wealthier than her male counterpart.

    It’s actually a transfer of wealth from workers and producers to those who buy and sell. The family unit is, by its nature, efficient. Feminism destroys families and makes everyone involved buy more consumer goods, rent separate houses, etc. Other avenues of wealth are also destroyed: Professional associations, unions, etc. The people who clean up are, inevitably, the people who are already at the top, swindling themselves to excess.

    Women are (generally speaking, of course) more apt to buy luxury goods at disastrous interest rates, to fail to invest, etc. These feminine weaknesses are encouraged by the manifestations of feminism, but it’s not women who benefit. Women are merely a conduit for the transfer, not its destination.

    Best,

    Boxer

  38. You have learned too much from your enemy. Why else would you feel the need to take what is beautiful and make it ugly?

    There are plenty of moments like this in life. Sure, they are beautiful. I don’t see it as counter cultural though. Most women don’t want to be the feminist on the street who men don’t like. They want the benefits of a man when it suits them and the benefits of feminism when it suits them. The point I make is that THEY get to choose but men don’t. Men get told, either by the state, the Church or their wife how their married life is going to be.

    Anyway, which enemy would that be?

  39. Dalrock says:

    Anyway, which enemy would that be?

    Feminists

  40. Women are merely a conduit for the transfer, not its destination.

    Hence the ‘And then spend it.’ part.

  41. Boxer says:

    Hence the ‘And then spend it.’ part.

    That’s how it is bro.

  42. Feminism wouldn’t have been so successful if women didn’t want it to be.

    Feminism played a trick on the majority of women by duping them into thinking that ALL women benefitted from it. In reality, feminism has only been “successful” for a certain percentage of women at the expense of the women who never needed it. Sadly, the percentage of women who “need” it, is increasing only because the market has adjusted (and not in the favor of women.)

    If you accept the premise that Rush Limbaugh posed, that feminism was created to give ugly women access to the mainstream of society (something that I doubt all of the manosphere will grant) then I would argue that the truly beautiful women lost ground to the ugly women as a result of feminism. They may not have known it at the time, but if the truly beautiful women ate enough red pills they would learn to be quite resentful and angry toward the feminist movement as it has succeeded (by the use of force from government) in extracting more and more resources/provisioning from the men in their lives who love and care for them as individuals. Every individual gain made by feminism costs their husbands (and in-turn, themselves) directly. Of course, if you never marry (and more and more women will never marry) then what difference does this make? Push for more and more feminism. The percentage of those women who “need” it is only increasing.

    For those truly ugly ducklings (they know who they are) in their minds feminism has been a blessing to them. They look at their lives and they realize that no matter what they do, they will always be disgusting to men and (were it not for the feminist imperative influencing government and the church) they would have no chance of keeping up with their more attractive sisters who are making financial/provisional gains from men who are willing to risk marriage 2.0. Feminism steps in to make women “whole” where the possibility of marriage never existed.

    On the other end, a significant minority of men are gaining more and more power as a result of feminism. Those who are wealthy, intelligent, tall, or just great looking confident guys, never had it so good. Seriously, if you are a good looking and bright single young man (say in just the upper 25% of looks and smarts) and you are not constrained by Christian rules and regulations regarding morality, feminism is great for you. You can juggle any number of casual relationship f-ck-buddies who (empowered by feminism) feel no shame in riding your c-ck. You needn’t let them know about each other, just don’t schedule any of your rendevouzes in conflict with one another. You don’t even have to buy them dinner in this feminist world as their ‘gina is tingling for you and you know it. And you’ll never have to marry any of them, just keep going at it until (if EVER) they grow tired of waiting for you to “man up” and marry them for your full provisioning.

    For the remaining (say) 75 to 80% of single males who MUST have intimate contact with women for their own sanity (particularly the Christian ones), feminism has been a complete death blow to them. They are in constant danger of criminal prosecution if they say the wrong thing to the wrong women, look at the wrong women for too long, or even “touch” the wrong woman in anyway. This world is a nightmare for them from which they will never wake until they are dead. Teaching them to be MGTOW is their only possible salvation, God’s ultimate saving grace for them. I don’t expect all the happily married men to understand this, but I can see the pain these men and in and I wish I could (in someway) help them. But I can’t. There is nothing I can do for them other than acknowledge that for them, life truly sucks.

  43. Feminists, yeah, they invade my nightmares too. Sorry Scott and Mychael. I shouldn’t have brought my negativity into your wonderful moment.

  44. TFH,

    Yes. Very true, and the very limited ability to connect cause and effect has destroyed millions of women (and men and children, but that aside….

    Thank you.

    What is striking is that for a woman today who is serious about marrying in the 21-25 age range, and staying committed to her husband, there has never been a better time for her to snag a man who historically would have been way out of her league. So many women are wasting their prime and racking up notch counts that rival their age, that there is very little competition for a woman who is serious about marrying in the prime age with a low notch count.

    Uummmm, I partially agree with this. Say 60% agreement. The other 40% acknowledges something that we all acknowledge….

    SMV != MMV

    A 23 year old Christian girl that hates feminism with a notch count of 0 and no student loan debt on her education (thank you dad and mom) may very well have a MMV of 11 (on a score of 1 to 10) but might still have an SMV of 0. I’ve seen it. She is not just ugly, she’s fugly. Heinous looking. And she could have a nice body but with the face/head of a man. Two of these women were in my Bible study (virgin almost to age 40 and NOT because they had to resist any offers.) I actually worked with a poor woman like this, great looking body on her with a digusting face. The face is so disgusting as to never in her life, even have one man pass her an attracted glance. That bad.

    I don’t think these women are all that common. To be that ugly for a woman is pretty uncommon, but they are out there and they know who they are.

    It has never been easier to have a wealthy husband, 3 kids, and white picket fence, and even a career, if a woman is willing to strike while her peers are slutting it up.

    Not with marriage 2.0, no. The brighter, wealthier single men, you think they want any piece of this marriage 2.0 crap? As you already know, we only have one single red pill man here on this forum who is willingly buying into marriage 2.0. I’d say he was an outlier.

    Bill Maher is a multi-millionaire, you think for one second he was ever going to partake in marriage 2.0 with anyone? Ever? I’m sure he had the chance, many times, (still does, his MMV is off the charts) but no… he is not going to do that. So I don’t think it is quite as easy as you make it out to be. Marriage has really been destroyed by this unilateral divorce laws, it truly has.

  45. Boxer says:

    Feminists, yeah, they invade my nightmares too.

    It’s easy to become cynical, huh?

    I think my greatest individual victory against feminism is my (so far) refusal to do become overly angry. I think that’s one of the main goals of the tendency — to make us all hate and mistrust each other. Refusing to do this is a miniscule finger in the face of feminists everywhere.

    Don’t get me wrong, I was angry for a while, but in the end, they’re not worth the extra effort. The best way I’ve found to fight feminism is to laugh in the faces of its devotees, and keep enjoying life in the interim.

    Cheers to Scott and Mychael from me too. The lives you two are cultivating were the norm for thousands of years. It’ll be the norm again.

    Boxer

  46. Jeremy says:

    Oh heaven forbid a woman take pleasure in pleasing her husband, what horrible plague are we attempting to unleash? I mean, men are certainly expected to please her in bed, in finances, in alpha behavior, in words, in deeds, in manual labor, in beta provisioning, etc..etc…, and on top of that, expected to enjoy serving his wife in these ways…

    But heaven forbid a woman lift a finger to put on clothing that might please the man she committed to… We can’t have that, we can’t have any servile labor going from wife to husband, otherwise it’s just patriarchal slavery! Now get to work, all you wage-slave-husbands, and enjoy yourselves in your toil!

  47. earl says:

    ‘Feminism has robbed modern women of much of the joy of life’

    Feminism has robbed everyone from many of the joys of life. I would say for all the things we say men deal with…women have it pretty bad too. Women just have been well deceived into thinking feminism does something positive for them.

  48. Tam the Bam says:

    “”I’m told that Frozen explicitily urges little girls to be as destructive as they want, provided they are “following their heart”,
    Yah OK. Then “sacrifice them to Odin” suddenly appears, (like a wild eewops) and none of yeez can gainsay it. Fair’s fair, right?
    Listening mainly to Bolthrower now. Even tho’ they are actually younger than my sons.

  49. Donald says:

    I’m a complete n00b to this blog, so I have a pressing question about the last post.

    Why should women NOT rebel or go out from the authority of a husband who is clearly calling them to sin?

    Why should a woman unquestioningly follow her husband if he (like Abraham) were leading her to do something unwise/evil?

    Couldn’t a parallel be drawn between the husband/wife relationship and the citizen/government one? We are called to obey the law of the land so long as it does not interfere with our faith (in which rebellion is virtuous). I don’t know any Christian who doubts this.

  50. Scott says:

    Donald–

    It’s also a low base rate phenomenon. There is no know epidemic of husbands ordering their wives to knock over liquor stores or murder their husbands bosses. Even in the old days.

    While there is actually a biblical argument to made for obedience even in the husbands folly or sin, it is the exception, not the rule.

    It also argues for a more rigorous screening of the man, his background, his morals, by the daughters family BEFORE the marriage. –cough, cough, courtship–

  51. Why should women NOT rebel or go out from the authority of a husband who is clearly calling them to sin?

    Should should resist authority expressly pressing into OBJECTIVE sin

    Why should a woman unquestioningly follow her husband if he (like Abraham) were leading her to do something unwise/evil?

    She should question him on things OBJECTIVELY evil

    Couldn’t a parallel be drawn between the husband/wife relationship and the citizen/government one? We are called to obey the law of the land so long as it does not interfere with our faith (in which rebellion is virtuous). I don’t know any Christian who doubts this.

    This belief is not being sold of purchased here.

    Any questions? Hope not because you are mightily deceived by some jezebel wormwood

  52. Cane Caldo says:

    @Donald

    Why should a woman unquestioningly follow her husband if he (like Abraham) were leading her to do something unwise/evil?

    I think this is an important question for us to answer because it is a stumbling block for so many people; especially since most of us did not (as Scott wisely suggests) properly vet our spouses. Nor is it only for women. I imagine almost all of us are under the authority of others.

    The answer is to bow down instead of bow-up; to humbly inform the authority of our higher and previous authorities, and humbly request how else we might be pleasing. That is all provided that (as Empathologism said) the thing demanded or requested is objectively evil.

    We are called to obey the law of the land so long as it does not interfere with our faith (in which rebellion is virtuous). I don’t know any Christian who doubts this.

    “interfere with our faith” is far too vague.

  53. donalgraeme says:

    The early Church did recognize that there were limits to obeying unlawful orders from otherwise lawful authority. This extends to state/subject, husband/wife and master/slave. An objectively evil order does not need to be obeyed because the person giving it does not possess the authority to give it. The important thing, though, is that it wasn’t/isn’t up to the person subjected to authority to decide what was/is objectively evil or not.

  54. earl says:

    ‘Why should women NOT rebel or go out from the authority of a husband who is clearly calling them to sin?’

    Given that said case is an actual sin…my feeling is when a husband calls his wife to sin he is in fact trying to instill a spirit of rebellion in her. Sin weakens a man and his foundation of authority starts to crumble with chaos not far behind.

    So I would agree she should have the man screened first (and vice versa) before getting married by her family and leave emotions to the side. Authority and submission are serious topics to get involved with in marriage.

  55. Why should women NOT rebel or go out from the authority of a husband who is clearly calling them to sin?

    It’s a pretty radical concept, so give yourself some time for it to soak in. We’ve kicked it around here before, though, and found that it’s not that simple.

    Most of us, on first looking at it, think of course a woman being subject to her husband doesn’t apply to sinful commands. Of course she has the right (or duty) to refuse if her husband commands her, as God commanded Abraham, to kill her son, for instance. That’s just common sense, right?

    But there’s a problem: that’s not what scripture says. Scripture makes no exceptions, and it would have been very easy for Peter or Paul to add, “unless he commands her to sin, of course.” In fact, Peter implies just the opposite when he says subjection is even required if the husband is a pagan, which means it’s quite likely (especially for a first-century convert) that not all his demands on his wife would fit her new Christian beliefs. So scripture is not going to give her a clear out here.

    Here’s the other problem: If a wife can decide whether her husband’s commands are sinful or not, then she’s the real head, not him. He’s just pretending to be the head, as long as she agrees with his commands, but as soon as she thinks one is sinful, he’s not, because she has the ultimate veto.

    Now, some will point to the example of a soldier who is expected to refuse an unlawful order from a superior. That exception doesn’t mean the superior has no authority over him. But in that case, you’re talking about specific laws about military conduct, which are written down and can be references. In the case of sin, it’s far more murky. What qualifies as “clearly sinful”? Should it be limited to the Ten Commandments? That sounds good, but what if he orders her to starve the kids for a day as a punishment for something? That’s not in the Big Ten, but she’s likely to find it sinful. What if they’re Catholic and he wants her to use birth control? So we have to cast the sin net wider. Soon, if she goes into the marriage expecting to have that anti-sin veto, and she’s a normal woman and her husband doesn’t nip every hint of rebellion in the bud, she’ll be saying that he’s sinning by letting the kids watch too much TV or something.

    If it’s up to him to decide what’s sinful, then she doesn’t have a veto. If it’s up to her, then he has no authority.

    I’m not personally convinced that God would want a woman to kill her own child, Abraham-style, out of obedience because her husband said so. But I do think wives should lean as hard in that direction of absolute obedience as they can possibly bring themselves to. If they did that, most would never be presented with such an absurdly extreme situation, or even a “clearly sinful” one. They’d also find that their husbands handle decisions just fine, and that most of the decisions their girlfriends think their husbands need “help” with aren’t that critical anyway.

    Right now, most wives lean all the way the other direction, approving or vetoing every decision their husbands make, which makes their husbands de facto subject to them.

  56. Boxer says:

    Dear Cail:

    This is the best explanation I’ve ever seen.

    Soon, if she goes into the marriage expecting to have that anti-sin veto, and she’s a normal woman and her husband doesn’t nip every hint of rebellion in the bud, she’ll be saying that he’s sinning by letting the kids watch too much TV or something. … If it’s up to him to decide what’s sinful, then she doesn’t have a veto. If it’s up to her, then he has no authority.

    I think that the emergence of intrusive institutions (law enforcement, child services, pastors like Mark Driscoll, etc.) have unnecessarily clouded the waters and have left women just as confused as men.

    Historically, one of the only authorities a wife could regularly count on was her own father and grandfather — men who knew her tricks and who were interested in giving sound counsel (no father wants his married daughter moving back in with him, unless it’s actually necessary). Social atomization and a welfare state have destroyed that natural order. Something to think about…

    Best,

    Boxer

  57. bear says:

    My own wonderful wife grew her hair long. Why? Because she knew I like it. Outside of a light trim once in awhile she keeps it that way. Damn it makes me feel good. No short haired harpy feminist in this household

  58. Mark Citadel says:

    Profound indeed and yet simple. Call it a small mercy.

    If a woman pleases her man she is ultimately rewarded in kind, for the man is the pole to which she clings and ultimately whom without she cannot achieve true womanhood. True womanhood is the dedication of oneself to another, to realize in oneself the dual forms of true virility as lover and mother. Neither of these are possible without the husband.

    Women of Tradition are truly precious creatures. Not like these banshees from hell that infest seemingly every coffee shop I enter, screaming at their husbands and treating their children like they belong to some stranger. Utterly appalling.

  59. Thanks, Boxer. I should say, I don’t particularly like making that argument. It’d be much nicer if there were some way to fudge it, some way to have husbands in charge and yet leave wives an exception just in case. That’s what I thought the first time I discussed the topic. But the more I thought about it and looked at it logically, the more I realized that’s not possible.

    For another analogy: most people know it’s a bad idea to have a 50-50 business partnership, because you can get deadlocked and get nothing done if there’s a serious disagreement between the partners. So if you and I were business partners, we might set it up with you as the 51% partner. That would mean you were in charge, because you’d be able to decide any disagreements in your favor.

    But what if I said, “Okay, I’ll give you 51%, but only with the understanding that my 49% can override your 51% on things that I really really care about.” In that case, I would be in charge, because I’d be able to decide any disagreements in my favor.

    There’s no way around that. Someone has to be ultimately in charge, and that person is the one with the final say about things. If it’s not him, it’s her. If she doesn’t abuse that power, and “lets” him make most of the decisions, she’s still the head.

  60. Exfernal says:

    Donal, assume for a moment that the story of Theban Legion is not a fiction. Would you call their mutiny against the orders of emperor Maximian justified?

    Another hypothetical and extreme case. Assume that the wife of Josef Fritzl knows about the imprisonment and rapes suffered by her daughter. Would she be obligated to keep silent about the deeds of her husband?

  61. MarcusD says:

    Sex between married couple a SIN?!
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=943855

    teen dealing with parents divorce
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=943941

    How much evidence do I need to confront regarding infidelity?
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=943906

  62. Dale says:

    @innocentbystanderboston

    >I can see the pain these men and in and I wish I could (in someway) help them. But I can’t. There is nothing I can do for them other than acknowledge that for them, life truly sucks.

    I have a suggestion. Tell them that not all countries are as infected by rot as this one is. Ukraine has an abundance of non-feminist-appearing women. And yes, appearances can be deceiving, but I’d rather start with a woman who is not openly in rebellion against the Biblical commands for women, than one from the “church” that already is.

    > As you already know, we only have one single red pill man here on this forum who is willingly buying into marriage 2.0. I’d say he was an outlier.

    Not true! I am willing to risk marriage in under our Satanic marriage laws (aka marriage 2.0), but I need to find a woman who is worthy. I am not junk! 🙂
    Or maybe you meant that the one man endorses / likes the 2.0 laws. In which case I am out. Men! Set up a family trust before you marry. Reduces exposure to 2.0 laws, and thus incentives for frivorce.

    @Cail

    Thanks for the thoughtful analysis of a woman’s veto.

    @bear

    >My own wonderful wife grew her hair long. Why? Because she knew I like it.

    1 Corinthians 11:14-16 says in part, “long hair is a woman’s glory”🙂
    I am glad your wife is willing to cultivate and show her glory to you.

  63. donalgraeme says:

    @ Exfernal

    Was that addressed to me or the guy with a d at the end of his name?

  64. Mark says:

    @IBB

    “”On the other end, a significant minority of men are gaining more and more power as a result of feminism. Those who are wealthy, intelligent, tall, or just great looking confident guys, never had it so good””

    Truer words have never been spoken! My friends and I embrace the feminazis.They are liberated women.Strong & independent.So that is what we give them.Of course,they are not bright enough to figure out that “Mark and his friends are just using us for sex”…..L*.They actually think that we want a “committed” relationship with them.The only commitment that we want is “sex on demand”…….and we get it! I don’t even buy the coffees or beers……I let them pay! You know that old saying..”why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free”?….also the cost of running a “one cow dairy” is not worth the time,money,aggravation or the legalities!

  65. Exfernal says:

    To you. I am curious a little about “limits to obeying unlawful orders from otherwise lawful authority” recognized by the early Church. Can I?

  66. donalgraeme says:

    Well, if my understanding of the legend is correct, the Theban Legion was decimated repeatedly (which theoretically shouldn’t kill everyone, of course) because its members wouldn’t sacrifice to the Emperor Maximilian. The Emperor was a lawful authority, which scripture basically sets out. However, the order to sacrifice to him was not proper/lawful (as only God is worthy of that). So it wasn’t really mutiny to disobey it, as he never had the authority to order it in the first place. This is not unique to the legion. Nearly all of the early Christian martyrs were killed because they were ordered to sacrifice to Caesar, and refused to do so. Despite recognizing the Emperor as a lawful authority, they still disobeyed the order to render unto Caesar what was God’s. The early Church did not see any hypocrisy here, they implicitly understood that authority had limits.

    I’m curious, what are you driving at?

  67. Exfernal says:

    Well, were they soldiers first (temporally), or Christians? As legionaries, weren’t they expected to venerate the Empire and its ruler? If they, after becoming Christians, would no longer be able to perform their duties fully, then should they stay in the capacity of a Roman soldier? I would think that resigning from their duty would save them the trouble they got themselves into…

  68. Spacetraveller says:

    I fell into this accidentally, even before we were married.
    On one of our early dates, my then boyfriend, now husband asked me to go swimming.
    Problem is, I can’t swim, but for some reason, I felt too ashamed to tell him this. And I was really keen to go on another date with him so telling him I culdn’t swim could have made him reconsider or cancel the date, I thought.
    I also neglected to tell him I didn’t have a swimsuit, lol.

    So not only did the poor guy have to take me shopping to get a swimsuit, but he also had to teach me to swim on the date (and I STILL almost drowned).
    (Six months before our wedding, he paid a client of his, an ex-Olympic swimmer, to teach me to swim (again), as there are five lakes in a ten-mile radius from where we live, and he was terrified I would drown in any one of them. Not a problem now, as all of them are currently frozen, lol).

    It was months later, that I figured out that the reason he asked me to go swimming, was to ‘check out my body’. I honestly did not figure this out – I thought he wanted to go swimming with me. So much for my intelligence.🙂

    I am a taller than average female (6 feet tall), with model-like features. I didn’t know it at the time, but when we went to buy my swimwear, I was basically on a ‘cat-walk’ show for him. He went on to buy many swimsuits for me – each time, going with me to the sports shop and having me try on as many swimwear as possible without pissing off the shopkeeper🙂.

    These days he effectively chooses all of my clothes. Clothes are very expensive here in Switzerland, so every now and again, we take a trip through the mountains to Northern Italy where clothes are cheaper. He picks things for me to try on, if he likes them, he buys them for me. And the shopkeepers are always kind, and give me a discount because I am ‘modelling’ their clothes for them.

    So everything I wear these days has been hand-picked by my husband, so I already know he likes them. Mychael is right – it is a truly pleasurable experience for a wife to know that what she wears pleases her husband! As I said above, this happened ‘accidentally’ for us at first, but it soon became our ‘pattern’, indeed our ‘tradition’ now.

    On a side note: I have always been ‘unusual’ in that I have never really liked clothes shopping by myself. Prior to marriage, it was my mother who bought all my clothes, because I couldn’t be bothered to do it myself.

    In this sense, it would appear I ‘married my mother’. Any other women here notice this strange occurrence in their lives? It amazes me that my husband is more like my mother than my father. I always expected to ‘marry my father’ but my husband is nothing like my father. What happened?
    LOL.

  69. infowarrior1 says:

    The war against nature continues. But ultimately they will lose, with many innocent people being the casualties.

  70. BradA says:

    I would think that resigning from their duty would save them the trouble they got themselves into…

    I don’t believe that was an option!

  71. donalgraeme says:

    I think BradA is correct. I don’t think Roman soldiers could simply resign if they wanted to. They probably enlisted for a set term of years. Of course, since its a legend, its moot. but if they could have resigned, then yes, they should have, knowing what would have been demanded of them.

  72. @Cane

    The answer is to bow down instead of bow-up; to humbly inform the authority of our higher and previous authorities, and humbly request how else we might be pleasing.

    I shoulda said that.

  73. I am a taller than average female (6 feet tall), with model-like features. I didn’t know it at the time, but when we went to buy my swimwear, I was basically on a ‘cat-walk’ show for him. He went on to buy many swimsuits for me – each time, going with me to the sports shop and having me try on as many swimwear as possible without pissing off the shopkeeper

    Ya, cuz like most woman who don’t know their attractiveness level are more than willing to give their dates peep shows.

    Was this stated to merely give you the warm fuzzies by 1) stating that you have model-like-features and thus a model in disguise, you just didn’t know it yet; and 2) trying to one up your other female brethren with your story about how great your life was?

    If your husband brought a swimsuit from the store I doubt any store manager would be upset with you trying out their goods, unless you barred them entry to the peep show of course.

  74. Scott says:

    Feminist hater is a tough audience.

    [D: Indeed.]

  75. Come on….tell me you didn’t have some related thoughts as you read her post. Perhaps they were gentler, but same vein.
    The ability to state things like “I look like a model but was unaware” to frame an instance so that the (artificial reality) instance can be exploited as something to buttress a point that offers the self-emotional-feedback a woman is after is something to behold.

    [For the confused, my artificial reality reference is not saying she is or is not overstating her looks. Ive no idea. Its saying that she is and was well aware of her looks, whatever they were/are]

  76. Dalrock says:

    @empathologism

    Come on….tell me you didn’t have some related thoughts as you read her post. Perhaps they were gentler, but same vein.

    I get what you are saying, and we are having an excellent conversation on the basic topic at Cane Caldo’s blog. But that doesn’t change the fact that Feministhater is in fact a tough audience.

  77. Scott says:

    empath–

    I’m tracking. But he reminds me of Hicks from Aliens–all negative, all the time. Just a little ribbing in a time of profound darkness in this world.

  78. Stryker says:

    @dale – I was being referenced in regards to the one redpiller who is willing to partake in marriage 2.0. I however despise marriage 2.0 and the laws that have created it. I have just found myself in the one in a million situation where I would consider it.

    I think there is a bit of a confirmation bias in the manosphere in regards to women. when i say that, don’t assume I believe in NAWALT. I believe in AWALT…I just believe that in some circumstances AWALT behavior can be minimized to the extent that marriage 2.0 can be worth it. Those circumstances are rare though.

    Are there things that scare me about my fiancé? Yes…I never realized how much women let emotions control their decision making. I never realized how much fear can drive their decision making. And I never realized how easily they can be deceived. The responsibility of being a husband is really a great one…one that scares me but I am willing to take on.

    Am I terrified of marriage? Yes and no. There have been things that occurred in my life in the past year that remove all doubt God brought my fiancé into my life for a reason. I have faith God will use our marriage for His good, no matter what happens. If you are curious as to my circumstances, I outlined it in a post in one of dalrocks recent entries on Driscoll.

  79. Spacetraveller,

    That is a nice story about you and your husband and how the two of you hooked up. I liked it. But if I may, let me offer a little bit of advice about this forum.

    There are some men here who could only dream about having a Christian woman of your quality give them even a passing glace just once in their life. Dream. I am being serious here. So when you offer comments about your model good looks, the bathing suits, and the peep show, please try to understand that might invoke some jealousy from some of Dalrock’s posters. They wanted to be the ones to take someone like you shopping and that will never happen for them. And in their envy, they post things. Those posts might come off a bit jaded and hurtful (towards you.) In reality, this has nothing really to do with you, it is more a reflection of the anger and s-xual frustration of the person who is getting snippy. Its on them, not you.

    I think you are an outstanding poster and you add tremendous value here. Please continue to post and please let these and any future hurtful remarks roll off your back like water on a duck. I can guess how difficult that might be as I have had to (in someways) endure it. But I get through it because I refuse to give anyone here any power to hurt my feelings.

  80. That is unequivocally true. He is a tough audience. Mine was not meant to refute that established fact.

  81. Spacetraveller says:

    IBB,

    Understood and thank you.

  82. Stryker says:

    IBB – did you just white knight? While I’m not for scaring of space traveller, (I enjoy having a fellow Swiss citizen around), what feministhater stated wasn’t altogether incorrect…

  83. Boxer says:

    What Spacetraveller is talking about is easy to verify. Women in the high 8-9 range often have a very modest self image, because men are afraid to approach them. That’s magnified for the leggy women who are 6 feet tall. They look around and see all the mediocre women and fatties getting attention, and it convinces them that they’re somehow flawed.

    Date one of these model-type women and see how they (and you) are treated when you go out in public. It’ll blow your mind.

  84. Boxer says:

    I’m tracking. But he reminds me of Hicks from Aliens–all negative, all the time. Just a little ribbing in a time of profound darkness in this world.

    A lot of men have been fucked over pretty hard by the institutions in power today. I don’t know feministhater’s story, but I’ve heard enough from others that I have an idea.

    I hope I’m never tested that way. I probably wouldn’t survive it.

  85. Stryker,

    IBB – did you just white knight?

    ummmmm, you know what… (shrugs shoulders)…. I don’t know. I don’t know what I just did.

  86. Stryker,

    While I’m not for scaring of space traveller, (I enjoy having a fellow Swiss citizen around), what feministhater stated wasn’t altogether incorrect…

    You know what? I’ve had a few minutes to think about it and it occurred to me that what I did was NOT white knighting and now I’m going to tell you why. I didn’t go after fh or empath or anyone for saying what they said to/about spacetraveller. I didn’t “defend her” so much as I wanted to explain to her (kindly) about why her comments, the way she phrased them, might be taken a certain way that she might find offensive or hurtful. I just wanted to post to her to tell her that it wasn’t personal and explain way. Call what I did a pre-emptive ending of what might have turned into a shitstorm.

    You are right, fh is not altogether incorrect. And I’m pretty sure that Spacetraveller might be willing to admit that after she gives it some thought.

  87. Random Angeleno says:

    I don’t always agree with IBB, but this one is spot on:

    There are some men here who could only dream about having a Christian woman of your quality give them even a passing glace just once in their life. Dream. I am being serious here. So when you offer comments about your model good looks, the bathing suits, and the peep show, please try to understand that might invoke some jealousy from some of Dalrock’s posters. They wanted to be the ones to take someone like you shopping and that will never happen for them. And in their envy, they post things. Those posts might come off a bit jaded and hurtful (towards you.) In reality, this has nothing really to do with you, it is more a reflection of the anger and s-xual frustration of the person who is getting snippy. Its on them, not you.

    Been there, been that cynical, bitter man. I’m not him anymore, even after a marriage that went bad, but I still remember what being that man was like. Having faith helps.

  88. Gunner Q says:

    donalgraeme @ 8:50 am:
    “I think BradA is correct. I don’t think Roman soldiers could simply resign if they wanted to.”

    No soldier in history ever could. It’s the nature of the machine.

    earl @ February 2, 2015 at 6:09 pm:
    “I would say for all the things we say men deal with…women have it pretty bad too. Women just have been well deceived into thinking feminism does something positive for them.”

    Feminism doesn’t put a gun to womens’ heads and force them to hate men. It only frees them to hate us. If patriarchy was fully reinstituted tomorrow, most women would still be unmarriageable because of their spiteful, feral attitudes.

    The only problem most women have with feminism is the fun doesn’t last forever. Don’t tell me women have it bad because they got everything they wanted and then decided they don’t want it but won’t give it up either.

  89. Bluepillprofessor says:

    I took my wife shopping for the first time just last week. She had a great time modelling the clothes for me in the store but next time I am taking her measurements and going alone. Screw Macy’s, hello Forever21 and Windsor.

    @Donald: “Why should women NOT rebel or go out from the authority of a husband who is clearly calling them to sin?”

    This is one of many reasons lots of us favor the Captain/First Officer model of marriage vs. Rollo’s all encompassing frame model. Sometimes the Captain is “Drunk” and sometimes he even needs to be relieved of duty and that falls on the First Officer. I believe that if anybody in authority over you is calling you to sin the clear Biblical instructions are to flee- you can’t continually be in rebellion to authority and be Christian so you need to remove yourself from that authority. However, for wives there is also Peter and Paul’s instructions to submit and win the unbelieving husband over with her submission.

  90. Eidolon says:

    “Don’t tell me women have it bad because they got everything they wanted and then decided they don’t want it but won’t give it up either.”

    Well, I think it’s reasonable to have a little sympathy for the average woman. How many of us would be good men if our fathers taught us not to be? Some, surely, but those who taught us wrong would share the blame for the ones who went where they were led.

    We have sympathy for men who were taught to be wimpy nice guys, and followed that instruction, and suffered the consequences. I also have sympathy for women who were taught feminism. Some of them relish it, of course, and love the power and indulge the hate. But others are like my wife was, wanting to do right but afraid because no one else was doing it and instead were telling her not to. It’s hard for them to go against the current, harder than for us. And it’s a very strong current.

  91. honordads says:

    How did she look in one of Scott’s skirts?

  92. honordads says:

    Such a neat point. Why is it we’re constantly admonished to “date our mate” but then when we do, folks look down on it?

  93. Scott says:

    How did she look in one of Scott’s skirts?

    Nobody rocks it quite like I do, but she looked pretty cute.

  94. Gunner Q says:

    Bluepillprofessor @ 12:02 pm:
    “Sometimes the Captain is “Drunk” and sometimes he even needs to be relieved of duty and that falls on the First Officer. I believe that if anybody in authority over you is calling you to sin the clear Biblical instructions are to flee- you can’t continually be in rebellion to authority and be Christian so you need to remove yourself from that authority.”

    You say this to women and they hear “free pass”. She only needs to submit until he does something wrong then SHE gets to be in charge. That’s why Mark Driscolls are so popular with women; they can rely on him to find something ‘wrong’ with hubby. “Even the pastor said he was leading me into sin!”

    The Christian marriage model is Captain and Galley Cook. Women Do. Not. Lead. Men. Ever. Not in Christianity. Women do not second-guess their husband’s decisions, ever. This is original sin we’re talking about.

  95. peep showzlzlzozlzozlzozoz

    good 2 see we’re back on track Christian brothers!🙂

  96. I can be anything I want on the internet, a Swiss model or a White Knight. Credibility mileage will vary. Actually, I was thinking about writing a post about why I was such a committed white knight myself and why swallowing the red pill was such a bitter experience.

  97. Spacetraveller,

    Understood and thank you.

    Welcome. By the by, if you are from Switzerland, you might find the following interesting….

    http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-02-03/switzerland-is-sending-the-franc-back-into-the-currency-wars-

  98. TheRhoubbhe says:

    @Eidolon

    We should have sympathy; especially women in denial like this author. In ten years she is going to be writing about her cats. Pure gold.

    http://nymag.com/thecut/2015/01/real-reason-women-freeze-their-eggs.html#oZjygB:n4y

  99. Spacetraveller says:

    I think a small clarification might be in order…

    I may come across as a bit of a ‘husband worshipper’. Guilty as charged. My husband really can do no wrong in my eyes. But it seems I am not the only one here, so…
    Mychael’s article resonates with me because she clearly likes/is proud of her role as her husband’s wife, which is how I feel. (And I have no reason to think this will change).
    There is precious little in the way of opportunities to express this ‘husband worship’ in real life, except in select few situations. This has been my experience as a (relatively) new wife. Refreshing to see other women relish this.

    It was not my intention to make anyone feel bad. If anything, I hope more women enjoy this aspect of marriage that is so easily done away with. In my case, it was purely accidental that I realised early on how my husband likes me to dress for him. So I continue this with pleasure.

    I never said I was a model. But it IS true that a few years ago, a ‘model scout’ tried to get me on her books whilst I was out and about in Bond Street, London. Ironically, she went on and on about how I would make a ‘swimsuit model’ just because I am very tall and slightly underweight (took after my late father). She specifically used the words ‘you have model features’.
    I of course never contacted her. Quite apart from the fact that I was a very shy woman (and of course a little ‘Catholic’ for general tastes) and did not even own a swimsuit at that time, I also usually wore unfashionable/baggy clothes and and was not at all interested in fashion. And I already had a busy job to worry about.

    So, how ironic (and indeed fitting) that my very first swimsuit that I wore, was in the company of the man I would later marry. And no, it was not a ‘peep show’. He was outside the changing cubicle whilst I changed into the various swimwear that I tried.

    Lest I scandalise any impressionable young woman here, when I say ‘early dating’, I mean that this was within the first three months of dating and I already knew I would marry this man if he asked me, he had already met my family, they liked him, he came to Mass with us, etc. and their only response to my going swimming with him was ‘but, erm, you can’t swim, you might drown!’. Which of course, I almost did.
    If he was leering at my body he didn’t make it too obvious so as to ‘creep me out’. Nothing inappropriate. But he made me understand that he liked to see me in nice clothes, which is something I had not really understood before, having been somewhat reclusive due to introversion/shyness/whatever it was that prevented me from being the more ‘social’ person I am now.

    In my trip down ‘memory lane’ to add to other women’s experiences with this type of ‘pleasing the husband’ experience, perhaps I shared too much detail, yes. On reflection, my attitude is one of superlative reverence for my husband and I truly rejoice that he was the first and only man to make me ditch the baggy clothes in favour of clothes that *he* likes, which *I* now like because *he* likes them on me (if you will forgive the circular thinking).

    It is not intended to make any other man here upset. If anything, I would hope for any single man here that he find someone who is willing to ‘flaunt it’ solely for him. Like Mychael, it is incredibly nice to actually have someone to feel this way about. And for the husbands, I can see that they enjoy this too.
    I don’t underestimate the enormity of this blessing, mind. I realise it is rare. But the more women try this (erm, with husband of course – or soon-to-be-husband), the more common this becomes, which means that more men would have this from their wives.

    And I conclude it will be a good thing – for the women of course, and the men too.
    This is why I think this post is a wonderful one, and a good example to both aspiring and ‘already’ wives.

  100. Mychael says:

    Spacetraveller-

    What I gather from your comment is you feel this and other forums may be a good place for other women to encourage each other. Upthread it was mentioned that empathy is appropriate for those who have grown up under feminisms warped realities. My husband talks about this often, and has tried to explore it on the courtship pledge as well as his companion site.

    I agree that I have no idea what I am doing. I grew up smack dab in the middle of the worst of this feminist mess. In my original post I say that dressing nicely for Scott, deferring to what he likes/doesnt like (he is very willing to tell me when I give the impression I actually care) felt natural, I meant “surprisingly” it felt natural. I had no idea the joy of dressing up for my own husband, until I started doing it.

    Truthfully, I resent the previous generation a little. They sold us something fake, not true. We (our generation) have to rebuild something from scratch–bumbling around in the dark with only charactures and punch lines to go on. Ozzie and Harriet and Father Knows Best are considered hilarious jokes now. Supposed examples of how stupid and backward our society was before the great liberation.

    I want to be the sweet, well dressed, happy to see my husband come home while going about the business of taking care of his house and things all day. Greeting him with a smile, a drink and kiss everyday. But I literally have never seen it. I have no idea how to do it. Luckily, my husband graciously accepts my efforts, and praises me for them every day.

  101. Mychael,

    Ozzie and Harriet and Father Knows Best are considered hilarious jokes now. Supposed examples of how stupid and backward our society was before the great liberation.

    I want to be the sweet, well dressed, happy to see my husband come home while going about the business of taking care of his house and things all day. Greeting him with a smile, a drink and kiss everyday. But I literally have never seen it.

    “The Middle” (starring Neil Flynn and Patricia Heaton) on Wednesday night, is as close as you are going to get (from television) that doesn’t glorify this feminist mess. The show is excellent, gret writing, very popular. Heaton went on the record to stipulate that if she was going to star in another sitcom, she wanted something a bit more patriarical, not at all the way “Everyone Loves Raymond” was. Ray Romano (being the highest paid actor in television) did a lot of lasting damage to the manosphere with his limp-wristed, feminized, beta-male-husband, role.

  102. Mychael says:

    Don’t get me started on Everybody Loves Raymond.

    The sitcom portrayal of men is actually how Scott found these sites. He simply typed into a search engine “why are men portrayed on television, movies and commercials as idiots or evil all the time.”

    That was the beginning of the “red pill” for him. He always sensed something was wrong, and boy did it hit him like a truck.

  103. The sitcom portrayal of men is actually how Scott found these sites. He simply typed into a search engine “why are men portrayed on television, movies and commercials as idiots or evil all the time.”

    Exactly. And that is exactly what “The Middle” is not. The kids really do respect their father.

  104. Mychael, I started my red-pill course when I searched “what is wrong with Fireproof?” and bumped into Dr. Empath over at Christian Forums.

  105. Dewave says:

    “Why should women NOT rebel or go out from the authority of a husband who is clearly calling them to sin?

    Why should a woman unquestioningly follow her husband if he (like Abraham) were leading her to do something unwise/evil?”

    If your husband is calling you to sin, divorce him.

    If there is a hidden caveat “unless he is sinning” behind the command to obey your husband, then there is also one for the command not to divorce your husband.

    This is the same principle a soldier has when given immoral orders. He can refuse to carry them out. He will be discharged from the army, probably arrested and courtmartialed, possibly shot. These are severe consequences, but aren’t you willing to suffer them in order to avoid sin? A disobedient soldier cannot expect to remain in the army, even if he was right to be disobediant. Nor would he wish to.

    If you aren’t willing to take the nuclear option and blow up the entire relationship over the issue, it clearly does not rise to the level of immorality or sin that would justify breaking the command to obey.

    If you set yourself up to exercise veto power on a case by case basis, YOU are claiming to be the deciding authority. A wife can no more choose to obey her husband ‘some of the time’ than a soldier could choose to obey ‘some of the time’

  106. Bluepillprofessor says:

    @gunner: ”
    Women do not second-guess their husband’s decisions, ever. This is original sin we’re talking about.”

    Priscilla, Acquilla, early female Deacons in the church, and the OT are full of examples of wives challenging their husbands. Esther, Sarah, etc.

    Perhaps your reading of the qualities of a virtuous woman in Proverbs 31 is different than mine? Does the virtuous woman have to check with her Husband every time a shipment comes in from overseas for her business? Or make sure he approves of the scarlet clothing she makes or purchases with her own money?

  107. Spacetraveller says:

    Mychael,

    Thank you. I really enjoyed reading your post at your blog, and it was indeed a good inspiration for Dalrock’s post here.
    Like you said at your blog, it is really not that hard to dress nice for one’s husband. Who else would one dress up nice for?
    Such a small gesture with such big rewards…

    Like you, I have had my problems with the ‘previous generation’ as I shared here recently.

    It’s ‘verboten’ to stay home to make sure there is a hot meal for when he gets home from work. (Why can’t he cook for himself?)
    It’s ‘backwards’ to dress nice for him (why can’t you dress for YOU?)
    It’s outrageous to want to serve him in any way (did we burn our bras for nothing?)

    So it is very nice to meet women like you who can show what I believe is the right way.
    I have no problem with women doing whatever they want when single. I did what I wanted because there was no restriction/obligations on me when I was unmarried.
    But I do think it is right to be a helpmeet when married, and all the trimmings/responsibilities that go with that. And trying to please the husband is very much a part of that, I think, so that is what I shall do. And sure, I am not perfect, but I try, as you do.
    And as you yourself noted, this is surprisingly…agréable.

    IBB,

    Thanks for the article! I must however confess that I know NOTHING about finance😦
    Hey, are you baiting me into more ‘husband worship’? It’s my husband who’s the banker/accountant…
    (I know that was not your intent – just teasing).🙂
    By the way, I am really British, but only Swiss by virtue of my marriage to a Swiss and my longterm residency in Switzerland.

  108. Spacetraveller,

    Thanks for the article! I must however confess that I know NOTHING about finance

    I think the article is just arbitrage (the buying and selling of money.)

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

    I find that stuff interesting from a European perspective with the Euro, the British Pound, and the Greek mess.

    Its kind of finance, but not really. When you think of finance, you think more about loaning money from A to B so B can go buy C and what interest rate must A pay to B. That type of thing.

  109. Elspeth says:

    I may come across as a bit of a ‘husband worshipper’. Guilty as charged. My husband really can do no wrong in my eyes. But it seems I am not the only one here

    No, you’re not alone. I have been so charged as ell, of husband worship, I mean. At which charge my husband would crack up. Not because I am disrespectful or disobedient or any of that, but because we’re real with each other. We’re like this about 3/4 of the time:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ravishly/the-virtues-of-a-lazy-marriage_b_6584110.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

    Because life is too short to be stressing, because intimacy is actually enjoyable not something to be doled out as a reward or withheld as punishment, because arguing is a total waste of time, and because openness is better than silent seething.

    The other 1/4 of the time? Well, no one’s perfect and we are fairly opposite personalities.

    It’s true that we can be whomever on the Internet but I believe Mychael and Spacetraveller because I want to believe that there are other wives out there who actually appreciate their men rather than simply tolerate them. And I mean appreciate the essence of who they are as human beings, not just their utility.

  110. Spacetraveller says:

    IBB,

    Well, I learned a new word today – ‘arbitrage’.
    I am ashamed to admit I had never heard this word before!
    Back to school for me🙂

  111. Dewave says:

    “Sometimes the Captain is “Drunk” and sometimes he even needs to be relieved of duty and that falls on the First Officer.”

    Can you find, anywhere in the entire annals of Royal Navy History, a single instance where the First Lieutenant unilaterally relieved the Captain of his command (against his will), and then things eventually went back to normal with said lieutenant serving amicably under said captain in previously established arrangement?

    Generally things did not go well for captains relieved of command (John Byng). If anything, they went rather more poorly for the crews deciding to disobey.

  112. Spacetraveller says:

    Elspeth,

    Thank you for your words of wisdom!
    Lazy marriage – lol – that sounds actually quite nice, from the way the author describes it, I have to say!
    Hm, I think you read me very well.
    I have become somewhat ‘militant’ of late, as I sense I am constantly battling against the tide.
    I take your point that I might wear myself out. I should just relax a bit.

    Fair point, I shall try that. Thanks. Much appreciated.

  113. Dewave says:

    “Priscilla, Acquilla, early female Deacons in the church, and the OT are full of examples of wives challenging their husbands. Esther, Sarah, etc.”

    The Bible is full of examples of sin, yes.

    Also,please cite the passage where approval is shown as Priscilla disobeys Acquila.

    Also also, challenging is clearly not the same thing as disobeying, but nice attempt to shift the goalposts.

    Are there any instances of a wife disobeying her husband in the Bible, and it is counted to her as righteousness and she remains in the marriage? The closest example I can think of is Abigail and Nabal, and God struck Nabal dead, and Abigail went on to become one of the many wives of King David.

  114. Elspeth says:

    I think about this alot Spacetraveller and I have been married 21 years and have had plenty of time to figure some stuff out. What I characterized as lazy is probably more accurately described as a habit, practicing a pleasing my husband has become second nature. Part of who I am, so the stress factor, the feeling that I have to “work at it” is virtually nonexistence.

    The Bible calls it being trained through the exercise of constant use. (Heb 5:14 for those interested). It’s a reference to spiritual things, but marriage is a spiritual thing and adherence to the Biblical commands to us as wives is certainly something we can get better at through habit.

    The fruit of the seed sown is so worth it. I wish women could see that. Such an enormous reward for something as simple as wearing a skirt your husband likes.

    Okay- off my soapbox. Be well Spacetraveller!

  115. RichardP says:

    @Spacetraveler: “But he made me understand that he liked to see me in nice clothes, which is something I had not really understood before …”

    Have you ever heard that, generally, men respond to what they see and women, generally, respond to what they hear?

  116. Gunner Q says:

    @BPP,

    Priscilla & Aquilla were evangelists, not leaders. There are no early female deacons–that’s a deliberate mistranslation of Paul’s letters that contradicts what Paul & Peter explicitly say a woman’s role is. Esther did not rule men and had to be pushed by Mordecai just to ask the king for help. Sarah’s leadership contribution was Ishmael. I see your list stopped short of naming Delilah and Jezebel, two women who definitely had authority over men.

    The Bible upholds male leadership of women from Original Sin in Eden to the Mosaic Law’s patriarchy to the all-male Levitical priesthood to every Judge of Israel to every King of Judah/Israel to Jesus to Jesus’ 12 disciples to Jesus’ 12 apostles to Paul’s proteges Timothy and Titus to Paul & Peter’s commands to the Church to the Whore of Revelation’s Babylon.

    God explicitly created woman to be the servant of man. The entire Bible is consistent with this. Do you claim He reinvented female nature post-Genesis?

    As for Proverbs 31, it has been so twisted that I recommend abandoning it. It is used to show a woman being a shipping magnate with her husband reduced to a cheerleader. That isn’t what the proverb is intended to encourage–a woman handling the small details so her husband’s life is pleasant and he’s motivated to brag about her.

    A wife of noble character is Mychael dressing to please her husband, not a pantsuited businesswoman being Strong&Independent.

  117. Donald says:

    Thank you all for your replies.

    @donal
    “The important thing, though, is that it wasn’t/isn’t up to the person subjected to authority to decide what was/is objectively evil or not.”

    It sounds like Luther would be considered wrong in that case for standing up to corrupt institutions in the Church. If an individual believer/woman is under a corrupt authority and is ordered to submit to that authority, the Nuremberg defense really doesn’t fly, just like it didn’t fly at Nuremberg. Most problems like this are best solved by proper vetting of spouses, but many folks sadly didn’t have that clarity of mind and find themselves in this situation.

    With regards to domestic violence, have I just been conditioned to find it utterly repulsive and worthy of a trip to the barbed wire hotel? Correct me if I’m wrong, but it would be sinful NOT to call the cops in that situation (direct, physical violence, not just yelling).

    Dalrock’s examples are of course well beyond the pale of anything that would be considered sinful, so female rebellion would be unquestionably wrong in those instances.

    I’m also under no delusions about the fact that some non-Christian men (@ Scott, you’re absolutely right, it is just a very small SOME.) will do things like order their wives to be prostitutes/drug dealers/criminals. If a woman converts, is she under this authority? I realize that I’m in murky waters, but I think that we can arrive at a satisfactory conclusion because the issue does come up, as vetting of spouses is not widely taught in modern Christian circles and so the question will always go in this direction.

  118. earl says:

    ‘Heaton went on the record to stipulate that if she was going to star in another sitcom, she wanted something a bit more patriarical, not at all the way “Everyone Loves Raymond” was. Ray Romano (being the highest paid actor in television) did a lot of lasting damage to the manosphere with his limp-wristed, feminized, beta-male-husband, role.’

    Which I’d point out while Ray Romano made men look bad…her character on that show also made women look bad.

  119. Spacetraveller says:

    Thanks Elspeth,

    I checked out Heb 5:14 and found it helpful. We Catholics are not really known for independent bible reading (I agree this is a drawback for us!) and I am no exception to this general rule, so thank you!
    Is this what it means?? (I am not entirely sure): You do something long enough, it becomes part of who you are, so form good habits, not bad ones.
    If so, very good advice. I take it.

    RichardP,

    “Have you ever heard that, generally, men respond to what they see and women, generally, respond to what they hear?”

    Oh yes, I know that NOW, but I definitely did not know this when I first met my husband. I only learned much of what I know now after interacting with him. I credit him with teaching me a lot (not verbally, I mean ‘by osmosis’).
    Might this explain why I am so enamoured of him?
    (Rhetorical question).

  120. I have no problem with women doing whatever they want when single. I did what I wanted because there was no restriction/obligations on me when I was unmarried.

    What you do before marriage has a direct effect on your marriage. Millions of women think exactly like you and do exactly what they want, when they want. No worries about the consequences until they need to get married of course and then they don’t want to be held to account over what they did when they had no restrictions on them. Unlike you though, they ain’t model material and thus can’t ‘one up’ each other so easily as to gain a mate by parading their behinds in swimwear.

    You should never have had the ability to do whatever you wanted when single but you can thank feminism for that.

  121. MarcusD says:

    @Dalrock

    She was being true to herself, the highest virtue.

    There’s definitely that, but there’s also the intrasexual competition aspect.

    Also: Feminists pretend to not participate in intrasexual competition (e.g. via a pageant), but are obviously lying by denying its purpose or attempting to stop pageants from happening. The runner-up is acting like a feminist in that way — happy to win the competition (subconsciously, at least), but will try to destroy it when they don’t.

  122. Anonymous Reader says:

    MarcusD I did not know that coyotes can be found in Scotland.

    I really like the page turning moment…just like real music!

  123. Donald

    With regards to domestic violence, have I just been conditioned to find it utterly repulsive and worthy of a trip to the barbed wire hotel? Correct me if I’m wrong, but it would be sinful NOT to call the cops in that situation (direct, physical violence, not just yelling).

    Are we talking men or women here? Because I’m all for throwing women domestic abusers into the slam (they are more likely to use a weapon and cause grave bodily injury).

  124. Anonymous Reader says:

    With regards to domestic violence, have I just been conditioned to find it utterly repulsive and worthy of a trip to the barbed wire hotel?

    That depends on how you define “domestic violence”. This is such a pleasant thread, I won’t articulate further.

  125. Boxer says:

    @Marcus:

    Fuck’n LOL!

    (Re: Feminist “Music”)

  126. Mustafa says:

    Let’s cut it with the “domestic violence” crap. If it doesn’t warrant a trip to the ER, then it sure as hell doesn’t warrant the intrusion of police/judges.

  127. JDG says:

    It sounds like Luther would be considered wrong in that case for standing up to corrupt institutions in the Church.

    Would you be so kind as to point out which of Luther’s objections were grounded in subjective biblical concepts rather than objective one’s?

  128. Spacetraveller says:

    (I know I shouldn’t reply, but I must defend my words lest someone else misinterprets what I was really saying. In this case, I have no choice but to feed the troll).🙂

    “What you do before marriage has a direct effect on your marriage.”

    Yes, I agree with you on this one.
    I shall ‘fess up to having been a little clumsy in my word formation. I grant you that.

    In the quote of mine you refer to, I was specifically talking about the role of a woman as ‘helpmeet’. When one is unmarried, one has no obligations (contractual, moral or spiritual) towards another. Specifically, no-one can/should force a woman to be ‘helpmeet’ to a man to whom she is not married/entered ino some kind of covenant with. ”Helpmeet’ is a specific role for a specific person (wife).
    (Of course, a woman may choose to be this type of devoted helper to someone for whatever reason, but I am talking in general terms).

    I was trying to say (and I clearly failed, as you – due to my clumsiness – missed the true meaning of my words) that a single woman does not have the obligations of a married woman. In other words a married woman has obligations to her husband that a single woman cannot possibly have – to anyone – yet.

    This does not of course stop a single woman from PREPARING for marriage – even in the absence of a possible husband. And this is where I agree with you 100% that what you do before marriage has a bearing on what you do after marriage. Singledom is a great time for preparing. I know I did to some extent – but for me, my learning curve only got exponential AFTER I met him. Others are well prepared even before they meet their future spouse, which is great.

    But it still remains true to say that no religion/culture confers ‘wife duty’ to a woman who is not yet married to a man. But many people start preparing way before their wedding in things that are ‘allowed’, which is honourable/good but not really ‘obligatory’ in the same way as it would be for a wife.
    For example, as I love to cook for anyone who looks remotely hungry, I was cooking for my husband well before we got engaged. But in my opinion, I didn’t HAVE to (I just enjoyed it, and in any case I was used to cooking for strangers all the time, eg. colleagues at work, so why not him, I figured).
    Now I HAVE to, in my opinion. It is a wifely duty.

    What I was NOT saying is that an unmarried woman has free rein to do absolutely ANYTHING she wants, including activities which are bad, immoral, uncouth, etc. which may harm her. Remember, I am all for ‘women have moral agency’.
    So although you are correct that feminism has facilitated this way of life, I certainly I don’t share this view.
    (I take it you mean ‘hooking up/partying/’anything goes’ kind of lifestyle).

    Not my scene. Not my wish for any woman. You must be confusing me with someone else.

    “You should never have had the ability to do whatever you wanted when single…”

    Single life is *exactly* the time when it WAS allowed for me to do whatever I wanted. It so happens that I used that time to do things that were constructive to eventual married life.
    ‘Doing whatever I want’ is no longer an option for me, as a married woman. That ended the minute I said ‘I do’.
    If you mean however that parental guidance is necessary in this time when a young woman is unmarried, then I agree. I was lucky to have that. I don’t advocate for a woman to be ‘left to her own devices’. Parental (especially paternal) guidance is crucial. Agreed.
    But remember, in the context of the comment of mine you are replying to, I was comparing single life to married life, so your argument is unnecessarily obtuse.

    “Unlike you though, they ain’t model material and thus can’t ‘one up’ each other so easily as to gain a mate by parading their behinds in swimwear.”

    I am sorry to hear this.

  129. Gunner Q says:

    Spacetraveller @ 4:48 pm:
    “Is this what [Heb. 5:14] means?? (I am not entirely sure): You do something long enough, it becomes part of who you are, so form good habits, not bad ones.”

    Yes. Humans are irrational. We do what we believe in but we also believe in whatever it is we do. This is why faith without works is dead, or better, why faith without works will eventually die.

    The takeaway for women here is that if you act to please your husband, even if you aren’t in the mood, then you’ll eventually enjoy pleasing your husband.

  130. ChildofRa says:

    Well what if some women just dont like skirts or dresses? I dont wear dresses or skirts unless the occasion calls for it other than that i dont wear them.

  131. Mychael says:

    Bless your heart, childofra.

    After reading all theses comments you missed the whole point. I wear things and do things my husband likes, because HE likes them.

  132. Robin Munn says:

    @ChildofRa –

    You may just be a drive-by commenter who isn’t looking for a serious answer (that happens quite a lot), but I’ll assume for the moment that you really do want an answer.

    Well, if you don’t have a husband who likes skirts or dresses, then there’s no problem: wear what you like. But if you do have a husband who would like to see you in a skirt or a dress, then you have two choices: 1) selfishly ignore his desires in favor of your own, or 2) selflessly put his desires above your mild dislike of skirts or dresses. I know your dislike of them is mild, because you’ve already told us you’ll wear them when “the occasion calls for it” — meaning when the social rules state that you should be in a skirt or dress for that particular kind of event. Surely making your husband happy counts even higher for you than social custom — so if you’re willing to set aside your distaste for skirts for the sake of social custom, surely you’re also willing to set aside your distaste for skirts for the sake of making your husband happy.

  133. Elspeth says:

    Well what if some women just dont like skirts or dresses? I dont wear dresses or skirts unless the occasion calls for it other than that i dont wear them.

    As it happens Child of Ra, my husband actually prefers me in jeans most of the time. He bought me a pair Saturday in honor of my running progress. But you know what? I prefer skirts. Hands down, and still I wear the jeans at least half the week. For him I wear the jeans and he actually likes the skirts too. Skirts he has a hand in picking and opining whether he likes me in that particular skirt or dress.

    The idea isn’t that a woman has to wear skirts and dresses, but that she wears the things that her husband likes to see her in. It speaks to the fact that you care what he thinks and want to please him not to mention it shows a fair degree of appreciation for the man who actually you know…buys the clothes.

  134. Isa says:

    @Spacetraveller
    The men here can be a bit difficult! The bible itself talks about how singleness can be used.
    1 Corinthians 7:32-35
    32 But I want you to be free from concern. One who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord; 33 but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, 34 and his interests are divided. And the woman who is unmarried, and the virgin, is concerned about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit; but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how she may please her husband.

    So frankly, determining what G-d wants for your life (vocation) can best be done… when single. Ditto education, career prep etc.

    I also think that as women who weren’t that sought after when we were younger, the power of dressing well, the female form, can be quite unknown. Especially if you were raised like me and my sisters with no emphasis whatsoever on physical beauty… That meant I was the one asking men the silly questions about how I could improve my body and dress more attractively. Because the limit of my knowledge was “I should lose some weight. I should get better clothes.” How to do that? Mysterious.

    I’ve now been the one to ask Mr. Isa what he likes best so I can please him. He can be remarkable difficult to pin down though… My general knowledge of his preference, very young looking, thin, pale colouring, small waist, longish hair. The spinner type if you would, and feminine dress verging a bit on juniors. Or sometimes plain tight, shiny, and slutty. I don’t trust him to do the shopping unless I wanted to look like this http://www.forever21.com/Product/Product.aspx?BR=f21&Category=dress_night-out&ProductID=2000099439&VariantID= Not a good look outside the bedroom🙂

  135. Mark says:

    @SpaceTraveller

    “”Well, I learned a new word today – ‘arbitrage’.
    I am ashamed to admit I had never heard this word before!
    Back to school for me””

    Too funny.That is my main enterprise.An arbitrageur.Better known as a “Corporate Raider”.But,in today’s financial world we are known as “activist investors”.

  136. Spacetraveller says:

    @ GunnerQ,

    “We do what we believe in but we also believe in whatever it is we do.”

    This is great, GunnerQ. Whilst the former is more commonly known, I think the latter is usually lost on people (including me).
    You have the mervellous habit of giving very astute advice that always seems tailor-made for me, I have to say. (and I am sure it has been said to you before): you will make an excellent father for daughters, especially. Yes, for boys too, I am sure, but I think your daughters in particular will be exceptionally lucky women.

    ChildofRa and Robin Munn,

    “Well, if you don’t have a husband who likes skirts or dresses, then there’s no problem: wear what you like.”

    This is the point I was trying to make when FH twisted my words to something different. ChildofRa, if she is a single woman has no real obligation to please anyone. It is however beneficial to dress well, modestly, etc.
    But once she is married, it is no longer a *choice*, it is more of an obligation (but given that people tend to marry those they love, or in the case of arranged marriages those they eventually come to love, it is less of an obligation, and more of a pleasure).

    ChildofRa, as many others have already said, it is about doing something you know your husband likes. He may like trousers, in which case problem solved. But if you like trousers and he likes dresses/skirts, in all honesty I think you should try as much as possible to indulge him most of the time. You might find that you actually like skirts/dresses afterall! Which would be a nice bonus.😉

    (One thing I despise about feminism is that everything is about the *choice* of the woman. This is surely incorrect, especially if the woman is married. Some things are obligations and should be done becuse it is the right thing to do, rather than because it is a *choice* of the woman. At least this is how I see things. But I find that there is a general reluctance to spell it out this way, like it is somehow unacceptable to make a woman see through her obligations. This is a pet peeve of mine because I think it diminishes womanhood to the rank of childhood).

    Isa,

    Yes, thank you. You make great points about single life. It is the one time you are at liberty to really concentrate on anything you wish to do. If you want to spend time at a nunnery, you can, if you are single.🙂
    In fact, I kid you not, one of my mother’s friends always said she wanted to be a nun. But she was married with kids. When her husband died, what’s the first thing she did? Check into the nearest convent to become a ‘lay nun’. And she seems to be still enjoying that many years down the line. She would never had done this while her husband was alive, of course. It would have been wrong.

    And yes, it is a time when you can be free of ‘selfish’ desires. It is for this very reason that the Catholic Church requires its priests to be celibate, sngle men. Married men are of course concerned about acquiring what they can for their families. Married women are similarly thinking about their own families, so are less likely to be altruistic to anyone else. This is natural, and expected.
    (I think there WAS a time in the history of the Catholic Church when priests were allowed to take wives and have children. It turned out to be disastrous for the Church).

    LOL about Forever 21! No, agreed, not my style, either!

    Mark,

    I had never even heard of your profession before, until IBB mentioned it! Shame on me, yes.
    Corporate raider, lol.
    Does this mean you are a business version of Lara Croft?😉

    Mychael,

    Ach, I just went through some previous posts to catch up. You are pregnant?!
    I missed that! Big congratulations to you and husband Scott!!!

  137. Mychael, I started my red-pill course when I searched “what is wrong with Fireproof?” and bumped into Dr. Empath over at Christian Forums.

    The rest of the story……our little group of nitpickers was summarily excommunicated from Christian Forums. That helped a lot, unplugging from that water-dripping-off-a-piece-of-bread-crust-in-an-attic’s-dark-corner.

  138. Stryker says:

    Just out of morbid curiousity I used to visit christian forums occasionally. I found “christian” in name only for the most part. The amount of bad unbiblical advice there was astounding to me. Makes me realize even more the need to be in the word constantly in order to not be deceived.

  139. Mark says:

    @SpaceTraveller

    “”I had never even heard of your profession before, until IBB mentioned it! Shame on me, yes.
    Corporate raider, lol.
    Does this mean you are a business version of Lara Croft?””

    Out of a 70 hour week I put 50 into the family enterprises.Investment companies,holdings companies,foundations and philanthropic trusts etc.The other 20 I devote to my own enterprises.Which are aligned with the family’s enterprises.Lara croft? Never heard of her.More in line with Michael Milken,Ivan Boesky or a Gordon Gekko.

  140. BradA says:

    Spacetraveller,

    Your future husband didn’t have to look inside the dressing room to get a peep show. Just because we see them all the time on the media doesn’t mean that a lot cannot be exposed with clothes still on. Looking at you in a swimsuit would reveal things that should likely remain hidden from the world.

    I am not saying you were wrong doing things, but that we often overlook how much is exposed even in clothes today.

  141. BradA says:

    Stryker,

    Knowing God brought you and your wife together doesn’t prevent some very bumpy times from happening. Marriage still involves two human beings.

    I don’t say that to scare you away, but to encourage you to keep the right focus. You wife will do stupid stuff, as you will. Focus on the long range and His ways and you will have the best chance of success. (Going on 27 year being married to the one God connected me with.)

  142. Novaseeker says:

    (I think there WAS a time in the history of the Catholic Church when priests were allowed to take wives and have children. It turned out to be disastrous for the Church).

    Hmmm.

    Of course, in the Eastern churches (even the Eastern Catholic Churches), it’s normal for married men to be ordained to the priesthood, and disaster has not ensued. I do think that thousands of years ago, there were abuses (inherited clerical offices and so on), but to be honest the practice of celibacy in the West hardly eliminated these kinds of issues (the Borgias come to mind, for example). In any case, in today’s context, the ordination of married men doesn’t seem to be leading to problems, in itself, in the Eastern Churches. The only issue is that it has to be coupled with a robust manasticism in order to provide a good pipeline for bishops.

  143. Stryker says:

    @BradA – thanks for the comment. I’m definitely not blinded as to what I am doing…but I don’t claim to have it figured out. Fortunately I’ve learned a lot from the Word, proverbs especially, observations from individuals in my life, and from the manosphere. There is no doubt it will be a leap of faith, and I know it will not be easy…

  144. BradA says:

    You will never figure it all out, contrary to what some here may imply. It will also likely always be a bumpy road (at times) because both of you will live in the world, even though you should strive to stay not of it.

    I pray you do well following His guidance!

  145. BradA says:

    Novaseeker,

    I do think that thousands of years ago, there were abuses (inherited clerical offices and so on), but to be honest the practice of celibacy in the West hardly eliminated these kinds of issues (the Borgias come to mind, for example).

    Very true. I recall that period having severe problems as well with the popes, anti-popes and such. Seems like the problem may have been at the top rather than just below.

    I can see why the change was made, but the context may explain it better than modern day reasoning that is outside the situation at the time.

  146. @Mychael (Everybody Loves Raymond) lol, I used to watch that show every night with my parents and younger brother!! We would laugh but we would also dissect the awfulness of it – why on earth was the mother-in-law like that, and the poor men being portrayed so horribly.
    It was like a teaching lesson on why it was wrong. It’s weird how things that are SO wrong end up being humorous at times to people who get it. Maybe my parents just had a weird sense of humor.

    Anyway, so sweet you and your husband have that kind of relationship, it’s so rare to see marriages like that!

    @ Feminist Hater – I understand where you’re coming from I think, and you are 100% right that feminism was successful because women wanted it to be. The women who back then (and most that hold true to the real values of feminism now) started feminism based it on purely selfish reasons – it was not about equality, but more about wanting control and being discontent with the gifts in their life. To look desirable to their husbands (whether its dressing up nice or wearing makeup or even wearing lingerie for him) is beneath them and “oppressive” because it takes a bit of focus off of pleasing themselves. They have to *consider* what HE likes and what pleases HIM, instead of focusing solely on the pleasure they get from such things. That’s why you have modern feminists (3rd wave?) that are “stripping on stage in the name of feminism – via Upworthy website, sent to me by a sadly, unmarried, very unhappy, feminist friend I have) where a women messes up her hair, takes off her makeup and changes into male clothing (strips off the nice dress worn above clothes), so that she doesn’t have to feel “oppressed” by these things because she wants to live life on her terms. She absolutely DOES NOT want to look pleasing to men (or anyone), it is the epitome of narcissistic selfishness. She expects you or anyone to accept her at work looking disheveled, unprofessional, and still wants to be treated the same as a well put together, professional-looking feminine woman would. It’s all about selfishness in my opinion. :/

  147. Spacetraveller says:

    Novaseeker and Brad A,

    Point taken about the Catholic Church and married versus celibate priests. I think the Eastern Church drew some lessons from the past of the Western (Roman) Church where married priests behaved as one would expect a married man to behave – i.e. putting his family first.
    It is admirable that the Eastern Church has found a way to get around this natural ‘conflict of interest’. I admire this.

    Brad A,

    I thought about what you said to me regarding the swimwear. What you say makes a lot of sense. I however need to explain something, to put this into context.
    I was incredibly prudish growing up. In fact, almost *too* much. It is for this reason that I did not even have a swimsuit or even consider learning to swim, or take up modelling when someone (the model scout) noticed through my baggy clothes that I had a good figure for modelling.
    This is one of the ‘problems’ for girls like me who are ultra-conservative.
    (I don’t think it was wrong for me to be this way, though. It was partly my upbringing, partly my nature).

    However, looking back, I do think that it was necessary for me (at some point) to ‘lighten up’ a little, and what a blessing for me that this point came when I met a man who was already making noises about marrying me…it wasn’t some random guy, it was the guy I was already close to marrying.

    I did not see myself as attractive until HE said so. (Your Mum saying you are pretty never has the same impact as your boyfriend with whom you are in love saying the same).🙂
    Even my height, which I appreciate now, was a ‘problem’ for me. I was sick of always being the tallest in the room. I had the classic ‘tall girl’ sydrome all my life, until I met the taller-than-me guy who loved that I was tall (his own mother was a tall woman too, even taller than his Dad).
    This is why in my case, I am especially prone to dress my body up for HIM as he likes. He is the first one even to make me see my own attractiveness, if you like.
    Make sense?

    Some (maybe very few?) ultra-conservative girls like I was, struggle to make that ‘jump’, for whatever reason, and I think it is a shame. Most, like me, turn out just fine in the end though. But it takes considerable time to ‘adjust the thinking’, lol.
    I know this very well, having experienced this myself.

    I think a swimsuit is fine now, but only if worn on a beach or at a swimming pool. So my future husband did not see any more of me than the general public at the swimming pool did.🙂

    I agree with you though that the media is indeed obsessed with gratuitous immodesty, yes. I have ‘lightened up’ considerably since the time I was unmarried, but I still think there is way too much immodesty around.

  148. Pingback: Rebuilding what is forgotten. | Dalrock

  149. Katya says:

    Any advice for a woman who entered into marriage really wanting to be submissive? I read Dr. Laura and submissive wife books before getting married. I was attracted to my husband and still am. I admire him and respect him. I wanted to have sex daily or even more often. I would have LOVED for him to buy me lingerie or take an interest in my clothes. Unfortunately his libido was lower than mine, he obviously enjoyed sex with me but not nearly as often as I’d hoped and the romance disappeared soon after we got married and I hardly ever got compliments or was on the receiving end of any flirting. My confidence got less and less and now I feel like my soul is dying and I feel so unattractive and lonely I don’t think I can ever be happy again. My husband is a good man but he either can’t or won’t put any effort into making me feel pretty or special. I don’t know how to be joyful about sex any more because my confidence is shattered. I would never divorce him but I’m so unhappy. I was average looking when we got married, not overweight and I put effort into my appearance, but I’ve let myself go physically because I feel like there’s no point trying anymore.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s