Our slow drift away from marriage.

Johnycomelately asks:

I’m just wondering what will happen when the clock chimes and men collectively realise the game has changed and that ‘marriage’ really is just a temporary enterprise.

Will that ever happen or will the fem collective continue to maintain the wool over the eyes of men?

What will marriage 3.0 look like?

I don’t think it will happen that way. What I think we will see, and what we can already see, is a slow drift of the culture away from marriage. All of these people I’m quoting, from FotF to the new age marriage counselor are very loudly explaining that marriage has no moral meaning. This isn’t a new message, although the volume and intensity does seem to have increased over the last few decades. This along with the corresponding message that married men and fathers are at best buffoons not to be respected, and at worst more despicable than murders and rapists is having a natural impact. Add to this an ever increasing age at which women start to marry. All of this together, the church, the law, the culture, etc are teaching young men that marriage and fatherhood is for fools and knaves, or at the very least irrelevant and not worth preparing for.

Over time this has and will continue to erode young men’s perceptions of marriage as well as their desire to signal provider status. We already see this in the surveys of Millennials where marriage is less important, as is having children. For Millennial women this change is happening due to feminist messages of empowerment, but for men it is happening for the reasons we are discussing. The part that should frighten policy makers is the very inertia that made it seem like we could gut marriage and still have it work is going to work against us on the other side. You won’t be negotiating with an individual man or even a band of men “on strike”, but with a culture. And even worse, by the time women want to marry at 30ish, a large portion of the men they are looking to as husbands and providers will have coasted for a decade or more. These “Peter Pan” men can’t go back and dedicate their teens and twenties to education and career advancement any more than their would be brides can go back and undo the ravages of time, their student loan/cc debt, and a decade and a half of slutting around before looking for a husband.

This entry was posted in Disrespecting Respectability, Patriarchal Dividend, Replacing Marriage, Weak men screwing feminism up. Bookmark the permalink.

269 Responses to Our slow drift away from marriage.

  1. Pingback: Our slow drift away from marriage. | Neoreactive

  2. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Yet the culture also offers an opposing message. Films, TV shows, books — even as they demonize men and glamorize divorce — they continue to glorify True Love, and Soul Mates, and Lifetime Commitment to One’s True Love.

    Women mass consume these romcom movies, romance novels, etc.

    Many movies, ironically, combine the message. They feature Smart, Strong, Independent Single Moms who meets a Great Single Guy — who loves the Single Mom and her child.

    In these movies, the Single Mom usually makes an offhand remark about her Ex-Husband who never visits the child, though the Single Mom would love for him to do so. It’s not like she’s keeping the child away. Instead, she supports herself and the child through her own smarts and hard work. She’s not asking for money. Just for her Deadbeat Dad ex-husband to be a dad.

    The Great Single Guy remarks on what a fool the Ex-Husband is for having left such a wonderful wife and child. In these movies, the Ex-Husband is always the instigator of the divorce.

    An example: Maid in Manhattan. Jennifer Lopez as the smart, strong Single Mom, who’s raising her son on a maid’s salary. Lopez only want her ex-husband to visit, but he’s never there. Too busy. Probably doesn’t even pay child support. But Lopez doesn’t complain. Instead, she meets a rich Senator who falls in love with her and her child.

    Women still eat up True Romance stories. Only now it’s often a Single Mom who finds true love after her divorce.

  3. nick012000 says:

    Or, alternately, the system will collapse in blood and fire, and only the strong will survive, and they’ll rebuild a new civilization free from the corruption of Leftism on the ashes.

    Or we’ll be conquered by Muslims, who will abduct and rape our women while declaring Sharia law on us.

  4. Damn Crackers says:

    There is a lot of talk in the Manosphere about Shaming as a tool. Since it worked for smoking, it should work for obesity, femininity, etc.

    Unfortunately, the idea masters will use the media to shame the opposite way. If you’re a male unmarried by 30, you will be considered more of a deviant than a child molester. Man-up and marry those old slags!!!

  5. Dalrock says:

    @Damn Crackers

    Unfortunately, the idea masters will use the media to shame the opposite way. If you’re a male unmarried by 30, you will be considered more of a deviant than a child molester. Man-up and marry those old slags!!!

    Of course. They are already working on this. The problem is not convincing these men to marry, but convincing the husband seeking 30 something women to marry a man with no better career than she has. As I wrote, he can no more go back in time and focus on career over porn and video games (etc) than she can go back and make herself a 20 year old virgin bride.

  6. Pingback: Our slow drift away from marriage. | Manosphere.com

  7. They can shame men as much as they like but the slow destruction of marriage has been baked into the cake for decades now. Maybe they will try a new feather campaign; instead of being a coward for not voluntarily going to die in some war, you will be handed a feather for not having a ring on your finger… something tells me most men will simply laugh. Boy have things changed!

  8. Whenever someone mentions marriage these days, I always state.. “Oh, isn’t that the institution that rips your balls off, turns you into a mule and then throws you to the wolves once your usefulness is called into question? Yes?! Oh… no thank you, I think I’ll pass.”

  9. Of course, the real solution for the elites when things get way too bad..

    Start a war and send countless single men to die on the battlefield. Worked in days past and I would bet they would do the same thing again today, no question. Has the benefit of both settling debts through blood, decreasing the disposable male population and placing the blame for the destruction and destitution on the war rather than the bad policies that led such a situation in the first place.

  10. Panzer101 says:

    I have to say, contrary to the usual downward spiral I see in everyday culture, one of the most popular Disney movies of recent times, Frozen, was certainly influenced by this male pushback against feminism and the stupidity of the romcom ideal in literature and film. And being a dad to four small children I’ve had the opportunity to review the movie far more than I would like.

    The entire notion of “true love” and waiting for your prince is openly mocked, and one of the film’s female leads ends up hooked up with a working class normal dude who is contrasted favorably with an elitist, conniving prick.

    I remember my shock when I first saw the film in the theater. “Is Disney actually blowing up the myth of the princess waiting for the prince to rescue her and mocking the essential Disney formula for the past century?”

    Anyway, some of you may find Frozen to be more bad news, but regardless of how you see it I think it represents a cultural shift in our society. Also, it was massively popular even for a Disney movie.

  11. ACThinker says:

    Wow so much of a small post, with so much to comment on.

    First, let us assume marriage as an institution is pretty much gone – but humans are social creatures. While it sounds extreme, it would be close to say a lack of fathers, particularly for teen boys will devastate them, and make it all but impossible to avoid implosion. Policy makers would be well to notice that without those men working for better lives for their families, the economy tanks, and those men decide what is the point of supporting the culture. Basically, let it burn.

    This supports or augments nick012000 @ 11:15 am saying a foreign culture takes over. I’m betting Islam over one of the others. Boy won’t the Feminists love that. [/sarc]

    Another option is a portion of those who value a traditional patriarchy will find some way of maintaining it, but this is a regard action, not an offensive one. No over all I thin knick012000 has it about right, marriage 3.0 will be a total give up by most men, and a breakdown of the existing culture. The ensuing Ennui will be so great that it will be ripe for a foreign culture to supplant it. Cause “you can’t be something with nothing”.

  12. Looking Glass says:

    @feministhater:

    The elites are that stupid, but that’s not the way it’ll play out. While we may talk about 4th Generation Warfare, the truth of the Nuclear Age is that it’s intra-state not inter-state. The warfare will happen within the major States. And it’ll not take on a Civil War aspect. Think more of campaigns of targeted assassination. (It’s actually surprisingly easy for “insiders” to cripple a country. There are relatively few people that actually run a country and making that job very dangerous tends to collapse things quickly. This is a point lost on exactly 0 intelligence services for the last 200+ years.)

  13. John says:

    “All of this together, the church, the law, the culture, etc are teaching young men that marriage and fatherhood is for fools and knaves, or at the very least irrelevant and not worth preparing for.”

    Curious, in what manner is the Church encouraging men to shun marriage and fatherhood? I ask in earnest. I’m in the process of becoming Catholic and didn’t realize that this was true.

  14. Damn Crackers says:

    @Dalrock @Panzer101 – The beta-marriage theme presented to older women reminds me of the sitcom “Cheers” finale. If anyone remembers, hypergamous Rebecca Howe ends up marrying and finding a way to love a plumber.

  15. JDG says:

    What I think we will see, and what we can already see, is a slow drift of the culture away from marriage.

    Which was what the feminazis and their sponsors wanted from the beginning of their charade.

  16. Looking Glass says:

    Another thing to keep in mind. The entire structure of Marriage 2.0 is actually very fragile. It’s taken them over 100 years to get it to the point it’s at, with every step having to go in exactly one direction or the whole thing will get blown up and the evil ones will lose ground.

    My “preferred” strategy would be legal. You simply need a bad enough case of a Woman getting “screwed” in a Divorce (where she is paying her ex-husband) to ram the entire Family Court system against the 13th & 14th Amendments. Let them choke to death on their supposed “equality”.

    With the structural analysis done on the US Marriage System, with respect to the enforced homosexual unions over the past decade, it functionally is not 50 systems. It’s whatever the most activist State does, which all other States will have to respond to.

    So what is really needed is a concerted attack on one plank (whatever it is) of the entire structure. That should cascade the rest of it into collapse.

  17. Dalrock says:

    @John

    Curious, in what manner is the Church encouraging men to shun marriage and fatherhood? I ask in earnest. I’m in the process of becoming Catholic and didn’t realize that this was true.

    I meant this larger than just the RCC, but the RCC is participating along with Protestants. The most obvious for the RCC is the reaction to rampant divorce by ramping up the annulment process. In the US the RCC is by standing ready to declare marriages null should the wife decide she not longer wishes to remain married. The RCC has ramped up the process in the US so much that 5% of the WW Catholic population accounts for 80% of WW RCC annulments. When challenged about the explosion in US annulments, the Archdioceses of Boston explained that the problem is the RCC in the rest of the world needs to crank up the annulment capacity like the US as an “investment in justice”. See also here.

    But this isn’t an RCC problem, it is a much larger one. Christian culture has bought into the idea that the headship of the Bible is backwards of how it should be. Threats of divorce are (among other sins) an effective tactic to enforce this new theological gender bending. We also see in Christian culture a widespread contempt for husbands and fathers, which is easiest to point to in the widely loved Kendrick brothers movies, as well as movies like Mom’s Night Out. Those movies are made by Protestants, but Catholics love them as well.

  18. Hank Flanders says:

    I really hate that marriage is just another step in our hook-up and serial monogamy culture. In this culture, everything’s cheap, nothing’s sacred, and commitments don’t last. People are lovers of themselves, as predicted in 2 Timothy 3:2. If I didn’t believe in Christ, and if I didn’t have hope that there are good women out there (because there are), I probably wouldn’t see any reason to get married, either. \

  19. John says:

    @Dalrock

    Thanks. I don’t have any expectations of ever meeting a Christian spouse, but it would be nice to think that the vows and sacraments of marriage are at least still being taken seriously by the Church. I guess that’s asking too much.

  20. jeff says:

    JDG,

    Until they found out that indeed they need men and now that they’re 30+ and mgtow, they are pissed and need us to man up.

    Dalrock,

    Of course. They are already working on this. The problem is not convincing these men to marry, but convincing the husband seeking 30 something women to marry a man with no better career than she has. As I wrote, he can no more go back in time and focus on career over porn and video games (etc) than she can go back and make herself a 20 year old virgin bride.

    Better explained!!!

  21. javaloco says:

    John, who’s becoming Catholic.

    Here’s a good start to answering your question. 5 part series.
    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/05/11/reframing-christian-marriage/

  22. PuffyJacket says:

    Johnnycomelately’s description is probably closer to the mark than you realize. The nature of social change in general is rarely linear “slow drift”. That certainly wasn’t the case with the Sexual Revolution in the 1960’s. What begins slowly reaches a critical mass or tipping point, at which point social change redlines and frequently catches most observers by surprise who previously weren’t paying attention until that point. This goes double in today’s environment, due to the rise of internet/social media and accelerating technological change in general. Perhaps a “pendulum” may be a more accurate way of describing the change, but that also implies social change follows a predictable pattern, which may not be true.

    My guess is you’ve formed your conclusion on prior year data on the marriage rate, never marrieds, etc. But remember that using backwards-looking data can present a massive blind spot here.

  23. jeff says:

    Panzer,

    You need to take a better look at Frozen…. those are the subtle messages that got us here that are part of the FI, not straight up feminism. It’s a war for children’s hearts and minds and spirits.

  24. Dalrock says:

    @John

    Thanks. I don’t have any expectations of ever meeting a Christian spouse, but it would be nice to think that the vows and sacraments of marriage are at least still being taken seriously by the Church. I guess that’s asking too much.

    I think other Catholics would be able to advise you to parishes which are much stronger on marriage. Either way, please don’t take this as discouragement from you joining the RCC. The rot we are talking about is everywhere, and there are Catholics who are quite strong on marriage.

  25. PuffyJacket says:

    What will marriage 3.0 look like?

    I don’t think the issue is what “marriage 3.0” will look like. I think the issue is what society will look like when enough men walk away from “marriage 2.0”, particularly if done in a very non-linear fashion (as described above). The social disruption could be truly massive.

  26. Dalrock says:

    @PuffyJacket

    Johnnycomelately’s description is probably closer to the mark than you realize. The nature of social change in general is rarely linear “slow drift”. That certainly wasn’t the case with the Sexual Revolution in the 1960’s. What begins slowly reaches a critical mass or tipping point, at which point social change redlines and frequently catches most observers by surprise who previously weren’t paying attention until that point.

    I think at some point we are going to reach a crisis point. As the saying goes, what can’t go on forever won’t. Trying to time that crisis point however I think would be very difficult, and in the meantime I expect we will experience a slow but likely accelerating drift. Either way, I don’t think the crisis point will be a generation of men who suddenly think “Hey, this is a sucker’s bet! I’m going on a marriage strike!”. This might be the narrative applied after the fact (just like whatever happens with the stock market at the end of each day we have a narrative applied), but what I see happening instead is what I have described. Over time the seemingly endless goodwill toward marriage will erode, and in parallel more and more men will be less motivated to organize their 20s around signaling provider status.

    When the crisis arrives, it will take two forms. One is economic/fiscal, since married men and men preparing for marriage are the ones driving the economy and footing the tax bill. As we see more and more men on the margins move from draft horse to passenger the math will become obvious at some point. Turning this around will be extremely difficult. The incentives in our new family system (the replacement for marriage, child support) have the same problem the Soviet model had. Trying to address the problem will mean acknowledging how evil the system is, which in the short run will only make things worse. You could easily create a strike by trying to appease a perceived strike.

    The other arm of the crisis will be ex carousel riders shrieking “where have all of the good men gone!” We already have seen this with the UMC media women freaking out (Marry Him, Kate Bolick, etc). What is interesting is the shrieking started when nearly all women were still marrying. Since then the data has finally started to back up their fears. It only took a tiny shift to set them into panic mode. As the reality sinks in it will be interesting to watch the real panic setting in.

  27. Dalrock says:

    I should add, on the economic/fiscal crisis the first reaction (as we already see) will be to lecture men on how marriage makes them wealthy. This won’t work because it has the causation backwards. Even if a young man with little earnings hears the message and wants to marry, he won’t find women looking to marry and magically transform him into a wealthy man. The same will be true for a 30 something man who hears the message and doesn’t already have promising earnings. What we want men to do is work hard so they can attract a wife, but the message will be to marry so you can attract wealth. It is nonsense, and more importantly nonsense which won’t affect the desired change in behavior.

  28. PuffyJacket says:

    @Dalrock

    What is interesting is the shrieking started when nearly all women were still marrying. Since then the data has finally started to back up their fears. It only took a tiny shift to set them into panic mode.

    This may be the closest thing we have to a “canary in the coal mine”, so to speak. If there is this much shrieking already, I can’t imagine the response once there is a real marriage “strike” or single men “shortage”.

  29. What I don’t understand is why the discussion of solutions is stifled. Yes, we have to deal with the hand we’ve been dealt, but there are always solutions. From what I can see, the only solution that’s allowed to be discussed here is MGTOW, which has serious problems vis-a-vis Romans 1:26-27. God’s very first command to mankind was “Be fruitful and multiply…” and that was to take place within the bounds of marriage. So why is it that on an ostensibly Christian blog that the only response to the ongoing defenestration of marriage that the only acceptable response that can be discussed is MGTOW?

    Yes, Dalrock, that’s for you. If Biblical solutions cannot be discussed, of what use is discussing the subject? I lay it squarely before you. You can delete this or you can answer. You’ve alluded in the past to “vigorous debate” but I notice that you confine debate to “acceptable” subjects only with respect to modern evangelical Christianity.

  30. Anon says:

    The part that should frighten policy makers is the very inertia that made it seem like we could gut marriage and still have it work is going to work against us on the other side.

    In a way, this is quite a delightful thing to ponder. The costs will cycle back to the perpetrators.

  31. Dalrock says:

    @Artisanal Toad

    Yes, Dalrock, that’s for you. If Biblical solutions cannot be discussed, of what use is discussing the subject? I lay it squarely before you. You can delete this or you can answer. You’ve alluded in the past to “vigorous debate” but I notice that you confine debate to “acceptable” subjects only with respect to modern evangelical Christianity.

    Your logic is even worse than your theology. You want men to convince their wives to submit to being spanked by their husbands so they won’t rebel against submission in general. No one wants to read your ideas on the topic on your blog, so you constantly want to change the topic on mine. I’ve been very patient with you, and you return my patience and kindness with disrespect.

  32. Dalrock says:

    @Anon

    In a way, this is quite a delightful thing to ponder. The costs will cycle back to the perpetrators.

    I understand the temptation, but the amount of human misery we are talking about is nothing to look forward to. Moreover, if the whole society is hurting you and I will feel at least some of the pain personally.

  33. Solomon says:

    @Artinisal toad:

    Paul wrote in 1 Cor 7:38 “He who marries the virgin does well, but he who marries her not does better”

    Here you see him saying that godly marriage is well, but MGTOW is even better.

    So both are good, don’t hate on the MGTOW, esp when marriage is such as it is right now

  34. Opus says:

    I see, elsewhere, some stats from the U.K. (formerly known as G.B.& N.I.) which are surely replicated State-side. Even allowing for our burgeoning Muslim and Third World arrivals, the difference as between women born in 1942 and those born in 1969 is this: Only in in ten 1942 women were childless compared to one in five from 1969; double the number of 1942 women had four or more children compared to those from 1969. Extinction beckons and quickly: if the reproduction rate slips from where it is at a little under two children down to a Chinese-like one, it will (I calculate) only take three generations for the English population to reduce from some Fifty Million to about Six. Nothing wrong with that as that would be about 1750 level – the place is horribly overcrowded – but then there is the Alien invasion. They believe in marriage and large families but will they adjust and adapt to our genocidal ways?

  35. Morgan says:

    I saw an article in Time about how growing group of baby boomers without sufficient retirement income is actually a woman’s issue, because the majority of those impoverished women are single or divorced women. Married women are taken care of by the husband, and widow’s are taken care of by the husband’s estate. Eventually all problems in society will be women’s issues, because they are the ones who are causing the problems in the first place. But instead of saying, hey women, you’ll be better off if you stand by your man, they complain that it’s just not fair, we need to solve their problems on the backs of the men they left.

    The problem men face is that marriage, which used to be a simple exchange of protection for reproduction is now reproduction as long as she allows it exchanged for protection for the rest of her life. 10 years is all she needs ( no reproduction even necessary ), and she gets access to your social security benefit (among other things) for the rest of her life. There are two ways to balance the justice; 1) Require women to remain married for life ( that ship sailed ) or 2) End lifetime protective commitments from the man. A woman only has access to a man’s paycheck while they’re married. Sounds simple doesn’t it? And there are a number of other consequences that fall into place. The financial incentive for divorce raping goes away ( no alimony ), but also for sperm jacking ( no marriage no CS ), custody blackmail ( required joint custody with no CS ), and asset thievery ( banks won’t write joint home loans to spouses that aren’t married for life ).

    It’s a simple change to convince society we’re not responsible for wives who leave their husbands. It’s her responsibility, just like she can take a less demanding job for less money if she wants. She can always remarry another rich mark, after all. But after divorce, she’s the states’ responsibility if she can’t take care of herself, not the ex-husand’s. We already have a social safety net for people who can’t hold a job or stay married, called welfare. The state doesn’t get to drop responsibility for her just because she managed to dupe a guy into marriage for a period of time.

    Ironically, I think the hardest bit for society to swallow will be required fatherhood joint custody. If a woman claims a man is the father, he gets required joint custody and she gets no child support. And all of a sudden, children aren’t weapons for women to extract resources from a man. They become beneficiaries of a father and mother. If one doesn’t want custody, let them arrange support payments after that. But don’t tell the father, we’re not going to let you have custody, but we are going to force you to pay support for the child you don’t get to see (because the mom doesn’t want you around ) to the mother who kicked you out. That should go for kids out of wedlock as well. She can’t keep his child a secret to ensure her sole custody, only to come after him later for child support.

  36. Dave says:

    Anyway, some of you may find Frozen to be more bad news, but regardless of how you see it I think it represents a cultural shift in our society. Also, it was massively popular even for a Disney movie.

    I never saw the movie, but learned that it promotes homosexuality? The theme song, “Let it go” is supposed to tell those opposing gays to “let it go”, and give up their opposition. Anyone care to comment?

  37. craigrmeyer says:

    I love you man!

  38. Darwinian Arminian says:

    @John

    ” Curious, in what manner is the church encouraging men to shun marriage and fatherhood? I ask in earnest. I’m in the process of becoming Catholic and didn’t realize this was true.”

    I’m a lifelong Protestant, so I can’t speak too much to Catholic demonstrations of this — I’ve seen instances of it, but not since I’m not a member there’s obviously a lot I’m just unaware of.

    Still, for my money the best example of this comes from my tribe — in a sermon given by the so-called “conservative” mega-church pastor Matt Chandler about a year ago:

    “. . . When women go to women’s retreats they get encouraged. ‘You guys are awesome. You can do it. All right!’ Men get blown up. You go to a man thing. You’re just going to hear how much you’ve failed and how bad you stink and why the whole world is broken because you’re so worthless. Yeah, that’s kind of how we do it, and it’s the right way to do it.”

    There you have it, men! There’s no grace for the likes of you in the church, and Pastor just told you so himself.

  39. American says:

    The post is right to the point Dalrock. And thank you for the follow up posts which add even more clarity though the risk is, of course, the more someone writes the greater risk some others will misunderstand and then misrepresent what is written. But not me. I get it. One of your most direct posts ever with content that all in Western Civilization needs to hear.

  40. The Other Jim says:

    CH had several posts about marriage being redefined again to include open marriage & cuckoldry thanks to the legalization of homosexual marriage. If one accepts that marriage 1.0 was the intersection of property, monogamy, and reproduction then marriage 3.0 will see the final, utter surgical removal of monogamy to the definition of marriage. The first phased of Marriage 2.0 destroyed the property rights of men via the incentivized theft of alimony, child support, and custody rights. The final phase of Marriage 2.0 destroyed the idea that reproduction was inextricably linked to marriage so homosexuals could get married and call that partnership “marriage”.

    It’s pretty clear that the Left wants Marriage 3.0 to be about destroying any expectation that one’s wife should be monogamous within marriage, that a man has any expectation that the children he raises will be actually be his, and that his money, property, and pension should not go to the philanderous woman and the children she’s created with some other men.

  41. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dalrock
    And even worse, by the time women want to marry at 30ish, a large portion of the men they are looking to as husbands and providers will have coasted for a decade or more.

    That, but also the men who have the resources to be providers willl have no interest in being husbands, but won’t mind having a soft harem. Tradcons and feminists, especially conservative feminists, routinely have the vapors over PUA’s, but the fact of the matter is that lifestyle is a reaction to the way women have been behaving for the last 20, 25 even 30 years.

    It’s not the old “don’t buy the cow when the milk is free”, it’s “Don’t buy a cow that likely will turn rabid and try to kill you, when you can get milk from the whole herd”.

    Once again I point out: 40% or more of the men under 30 come from a divorced family. They’ve seen Marriage 2.0 up close and personal. They have very personal reasons for being skittish about any committment to women, regardless of how their career / material life is going. In fact, the more successful a man is nowadays, the more reason he has to be skeptical of marriage.

    Hey, I’m not just reading that kind of skepticism from the basement dwelling, pimple-encrusted, can’t-get-a-woman total losers of the androsphere, either. I’m hearing it from 25 year old men who have started a business and are in the process of starting another on the side. “Married? Yeah, maybe sometime, not right now”, echoing the women in their cohort – both the carousel riders and the carousel watchers.

    The “where have all the good men gone?” fun has just begun. It will get louder and shriller, we can count on that.

  42. @Dalrock
    Your logic is even worse than your theology. You want men to convince their wives to submit to being spanked by their husbands so they won’t rebel against submission in general. No one wants to read your ideas on the topic on your blog, so you constantly want to change the topic on mine.

    Your definition of disrespect is suspect, at best. Please, I request any examples of something to the contrary. I’ve been posting on your blog since 2012, so given your blogmaster capabilities you should be able to come up with something if I’ve transgressed.

    You’re are refusing to deal with Rev. 3:19 and using that as a pretext to reject anything I say. I never said that. What I did say was what scripture says, and that’s clear. If you disagree, let’s hear your exegesis of Rev. 3:19 in light of 1st Peter 3:1 and Ephesians 5:22-24. Honestly, I’d like to see a serious debate on that. Let’s see the commenters weigh in.

    From what I can see, you refuse to open anything I say to “vigorous debate” on your blog because you don’t want to deal with the outcome. Believe it or not, I understand. You don’t want to offend women in your core demographic. To me, that paints you as a sell-out. I truly regret to have to say that because I have tremendous respect for what you’ve done in the past, but there comes a time in which one has to draw a line in the sand.

  43. PuffyJacket says:

    It’s pretty clear that the Left wants Marriage 3.0 to be about destroying any expectation that one’s wife should be monogamous within marriage, that a man has any expectation that the children he raises will be actually be his, and that his money, property, and pension should not go to the philanderous woman and the children she’s created with some other men.

    How is this any different from Marriage 2.0? And don’t forget that it’s the cuckservatives who zealously uphold the present system of Marriage 2.0 and child support.

  44. Anonymous Reader says:

    If one accepts that marriage 1.0 was the intersection of property, monogamy, and reproduction then marriage 3.0 will see the final, utter surgical removal of monogamy to the definition of marriage.

    Rollo has pointed out that we are now moving into the next phase of hypergamy, where it’s right out in the open. The Sheryl Sandberg mating strategy of “ride the carousel then let a Beta catch you as you jump off at 30”, i.e. AF-BB is becoming so normalized it’s passe’. The next phase, Rollo speculates, is open genetic hypergamy, where the Beta who is “lucky” enough to catch a carousel rider doesn’t even get to have children with her, but rather will be expected to raise her Alpha-spawned offspring. In essence, the Better Beta of the future will be pre-cuckolded.

    Marriage 3.0 thus is shaping up to be another tightening of the Female Imperative: women will expect not only to be empowered to ride the carousel until 30 or so, but also they’ll expect to be free to bear one or two children from their carousel ponies and then be accepted as a fam-lee by the thirsty Beta who’s great good luck it is to marry them. Not just serial polyandry but plural fatherings as well – only perceived Alphas need apply, of course. This won’t be the norm, of course, but by pushing it the boundaries on “normal” are once again moved pretty far, far enough to normalize the three women in Brazil who recently “married” each other.

    I don’t watch TV much. So I don’t know if there’s any sticoms / romcoms out there about such marriages, yet. But I fully expect there will be, as well as shows about 3-way marriages. Take “The Odd Couple” and include a reformed hooker with a child – “The Odd Trio”, must-see TV.

  45. jeff says:

    AR,

    Uhhhh, Friends, Seinfeld, Cheers, all the stupid doctor/er shows? Where have you been for 30 years?

  46. Dalrock says:

    @AT

    Your definition of disrespect is suspect, at best. Please, I request any examples of something to the contrary. I’ve been posting on your blog since 2012, so given your blogmaster capabilities you should be able to come up with something if I’ve transgressed.

    You disrespect me while denying doing so. Piss off man. You need me to provide you with a platform to have people read your writing, and insist on disrespecting me in the process. You beg my hospitality while insulting me as a host. This is gamma crap. You see yourself as some wronged “true leader” whom the big dogs won’t hold up for everyone to see.

  47. Siobhan says:

    So, I am a mother of a little girl. We are an upper middle class family in Silicon Valley; her dad works at a big tech company, I am an extremely grateful stay-at-home mom.

    What do I do to increase her chances of growing up to have a successful marriage? She comes to church every week and attends the children’s liturgy during Mass; next year she’ll be old enough for faith formation classes. She tells me that her biggest goal is to be a mother; her current plan is to get married at 20 and start a family. She’s very little and will rebel soon enough, but since we raise her with a genuine love of mom being home with the enormous gift of being allowed to raise children and keep the home, I sincerely hope that she will continue to follow that path.

    As a mother, while I weep for a society gone wrong, my heart is truly engaged when my child’s happiness and future is threatened.

    I guess all I have to say is, please don’t (with your wiser minds than mine) conclude that marriage is over. Because my lovely little girl dreams of being a wife and mother. Please, Lord, let it be so.

  48. Pingback: Our slow drift away from marriage. | Reaction Times

  49. Anonymous Reader says:

    Uhhhh, Friends, Seinfeld, Cheers, all the stupid doctor/er shows? Where have you been for 30 years?

    Ok, I confess that I’ve never been able to sit through more than a few minutes of Friends, but given the demographic that liked it, which so far as I could tell was a younger version of the Mad About You demo, it was similar to Cheers in that the romantic / sexual tension was always oriented to “one on one”. Will Sam and The Stick become an item, or will she be frustrated, etc.? Seinfeld characters were like a dysfunctional family, but even when Elaine and Jerry became a sexual pair briefly, it was a pair. She didn’t sleep with both Jerry and Cramer.

    No, what I’m expecting is something like Modern Family amped up. Not just the now-obligatory male homosexual ‘married” couple, but a lesbian trio, or a married, successful UMC lawyer who reluctantly accepts his wife’s college friend and her daughter when her marriage breaks up, and then the romantic / sexual tension has to do with whether the three of them will become a new style “family” or not. Later in the first season, poof the three of them truly are a “family” – and it works so well because the new “wife” can stay with their children while the senior “wife” works as senior administator of a charitable foundation. Quality child care and two incomes! The New American Dream! Season one ends with the junior “wife” announcing she’s pregnant…

    Something like that, in the next 5 years, that’s my guess. I would like to be wrong. Really.

  50. feeriker says:

    Or we’ll be conquered by Muslims, who will abduct and rape our women while declaring Sharia law on us.

    I’m trying hard to imagine any fundamentalist Muslim man desperate or demented enough to want to rape a typical American feminist ballbusting woman. I really think most of them have more self-respect than that. They’ll probably just put most of those women to the sword.

  51. Fred Flange and his decoder watch says:

    The discussion of “solutions” is not stifled, it’s pointless. This is a cultural drift, it happens like a lava flow happens, and we all know yelling at a lava flow will not get it to change direction, any more than tone policing or shaming or TV bloviation succeeds in doing so.

    What has broken is the notion of duty. The duty I assume to stand by and take care of my family, and they me. The cultural norm is there is no duty anymore, now it’s do whatcha like, eat pray love devour corndogs, etc. Women owe men nothing; okay then. When men finally catch on that they owe nothing back, the usual round of shaming (where have all the good men gone) breaks down. No man is a good man; they are fools or oppressors or foolish oppressors. So if men agree they are not within the class of “good men” then no harm no foul, right? It’s no longer Just Be Yourself, it’s Just Go Away.

    Ultimately the cultural shaming from SJW’s, advice columnists and Churchians assumes some kind of duty is owed, to somebody or something, that you are failing to fulfill. The question then is: duty owed to whom? for what?

    Not to society or its economy. It says: you are not entitled to a job, a career, a living wage, health care, senior care, roads, bridges, utilities, housing, schooling, anything. Rich folks are, but you aren’t. If you deserved those things, you’d be rich already, you’re not, so you don’t. If you marry, you are not entitled to sex, children, or access. Friends and communities are very fragile, they’re no more socially stable than you are, we are all Bowling Alone. So why follow the old script when you get nothing in return for being the Good Provider Citizen? When you can get by in your parents’ house, or eke out existence in a small apartment, work enough to get by, maybe put a little aside for emergencies, since no one else will help. Asking for help makes you a Taker, not a Maker.

    People will, as always, get jiggy and have at least some children. If couples stick together to raise them it will be on an ad hoc basis, like in Europe, subject to change as jobs move, family issues arise, educational needs develop. Only the upper middle class, who will be prosperous and educated enough, will be able to give marriages a go like before. It will be interesting to see if their divorce rates remain in the 40% range (as to society across the board) or are less because they are more open-eyed going in.

    That people are having less children is a function of increased education and wealth. The West won’t be overrun by sprogs from the southern climes or from the Mystic East; the phenomenon occurs there too, richer/educated people have less children, as in all cultures. Maybe the population shrinkage is like George Carlin’s joke: the Planet will be fine. It may get a fever, or a nuclear-induced cold, either way it can shake us off like a bad case of fleas.

    The real turning point is happening now, but not in the whining of older lonely divorced boomers mad at the fact they didn’t Die Before They Get Old. Instead, look at the current generation of high schoolers. They no longer date, in the sense of boys asking out girls. Approaching is too difficult, teens today are super-sensitive sprites, rejection is much more a soul killer to them than it ever was to a too-shy Beta boy in the 80s. So teens do everything as groups of friends. Even to dances and proms. Sure, coupling occurs, at the Alpha bad-boy levels you’d expect. But if recent surveys are a guide, virginity is far more prevalent than ever, activity is far less common. They’re too scared to try. (You know who still engages in old-fashioned one-on-one dating? Gay couples).

    Already on a growing number of college campuses, there are more women than men. The few and the proud – [not] – beta men who are there know they should not push too hard to meet girls. In their freshman relationship seminars they are told it’s not allowed, approach could be an assault. Because “unwanted contact” (i.e. a clumsy approach) can be grounds for expulsion for sexual assault on some campuses. So the obedient students just want to get their degrees without fuss and move on. They’re America’s grass-eaters. And women won’t date down blow their social/educational levels. You can’t make them. They just complain there aren’t enough men to their liking available. Not just here, of course. Ask the Japanese, or the urban Chinese.

    My Magic 8-Ball says this is where the crisis will really manifest. Solutions? Any ideas on how to make a lava flow go away?

  52. Dalrock says:

    @Siobhan

    As a mother, while I weep for a society gone wrong, my heart is truly engaged when my child’s happiness and future is threatened.

    I guess all I have to say is, please don’t (with your wiser minds than mine) conclude that marriage is over. Because my lovely little girl dreams of being a wife and mother. Please, Lord, let it be so.

    There will continue to be a tremendous amount of suffering, but individual families will still make it through. Part of the reality that we are seeing is that marriage isn’t something that is ours to destroy; God’s plan for marriage exists whether we are obedient or not. All we can do is teach our children well and pray diligently.

    Keep in mind that a young woman who understands the truth has an advantage when searching for a husband. She has the opportunity to seek out the best husband material while nearly all of her peers are otherwise occupied. In doing so she seeks while she is most attractive, and doesn’t wait to pick from a pool consisting of men other women already rejected (there will always be some good men, but waiting makes it harder). The women who do this don’t catch our attention because they tend to quietly find their husband and get on with life. Such a young woman also has the advantage of knowing how to be more attractive by eschewing feminist conventional wisdom. Simple things like cultivating a sweet, gentle spirit, dressing modestly, growing her hair, and being serious about the meaning of marriage vows will give her a significant advantage.

  53. oldfashionedfellow says:

    Does anyone here actually suppose that a majority of men will ever realize the root cause for what’s gone wrong, even as society collapses? Or will the flames just consume an ignorant majority? I’m very much betting on the later, which is why I find discussing the matter with most men a lose-lose proposition.

  54. Chad says:

    @ Panzer101

    I’ve never watched Frozen, but it’s not an uncommon theme for fictional women to marry below their status. If you wish to put it in the context of the female imperative; fictional women rarely engage in hypergamy.

    Two things are being sold simultaneously. One that a man through sheer goodness and resilience can land a commitment ready woman who is way out of his league (Beta approaches pay off). Two that women will ‘follow their heart’ even if it means marrying a lesser (Hypergamy doesn’t exist). Double points if it’s a huge screw you to her parents (though that part is believable).

    @ Dave

    It’s almost a trope to take any song and say it’s ACTUALLY in solidarity with whatever cause. ‘Let it go’ sounds like quite a stretch in that respect. I suspect empty political posturing or a witch hunt depending on context.

  55. Boxer says:

    No, what I’m expecting is something like Modern Family amped up. Not just the now-obligatory male homosexual ‘married” couple, but a lesbian trio, or a married, successful UMC lawyer who reluctantly accepts his wife’s college friend and her daughter when her marriage breaks up, and then the romantic / sexual tension has to do with whether the three of them will become a new style “family” or not. Later in the first season, poof the three of them truly are a “family” – and it works so well because the new “wife” can stay with their children while the senior “wife” works as senior administator of a charitable foundation. Quality child care and two incomes! The New American Dream! Season one ends with the junior “wife” announcing she’s pregnant…

    That sort of shit has actually been old hat for years. Big Love is a show based on such a “family”. There are several others, e.g.:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sister_Wives

    As one who knows these types of unions, it has been my long experience that the “reality” (lol) for the average “nontraditional” family is quite different from the sort of bullshit one sees on these ridiculous “reality t.v.” shows.

    What looks like a manly, masculine father, respected by all, leading his family through rocky experiences, having sex with several hot-ass wives, and generally living the dream, is not reflective of any of my relatives. Picture instead a tired-ass old Mormon, being nagged constantly by women who have no incentive to make themselves attractive, with the family barely scraping by on welfare, despite dad running to two different full time jobs, with unruly kids who play in the street in various states of undress, living in a commune full of dirty, unfinished shacks. That’s more like it. The reason these lifestyles will never take off (except perhaps among the truly wealthy) is due to the fact that they’re simply too stressful (in every way) for people to make a go of them.

    They also turn out dysfunctional and delinquent kids, mind you. Think about the averaged single-mom raised asshole down at the housing project, and that’s most of these kids in their teen years. A father who has 20-30 kids isn’t going to have much of an impact on any of them, so what you’ve got is a matriarchy, with all the violence, sadism and mental illness that usually entails.

    Let them start promoting it on television. It might be a good way to weed out the truly stupid and shortsighted in the population, based upon who adopts these ridiculous, uncivilized ways of living.

    Best,

    Boxer

  56. Vektor says:

    Marriage 3.0 will be a progressive, creeping common law marriage 2.0 that will be imposed on cohabitating couples. It will become more widespread and it will become easier and easier to establish in court.

    It’s a desperation move that will fail. Birth rates will continue to spiral downward. Governments will recognize the crisis, but will be willfully blind to the true causes (women and government). They will continue to lay the blame and responsibility for EVERYTHING at the feet of men and thus government will fail to fix anything. The system will collapse because it must collapse.

    What do you get when you take all influence by the state, courts, lawyers, police, etc. out of marriage 2.0? Marriage 1.0.

  57. oldfashionedfellow says:

    It’s not just that society won’t agree with our “solutions;” they positively don’t want to hear them….

    Watch Sen. Claire McCaskill take a strong, politically questionable stand against mansplaining.

    “It’s unusual to hear a politician ridicule about half her constituents on national television, but certain topics simply supersede politics. For Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), that issue is apparently mansplaining. Or maybe just men talking? As one of 20 women in the Senate, she wants more women to run for office, she said for Monday’s Late Show, “but equally important is encouraging more men to sometimes just shut the hell up.” She quickly clarified, sort of, telling the world’s men: “It’s not that women don’t value your thoughts, it’s just that we don’t value all of them.”

    What topics should men just shut up about? Don’t worry: McCaskill had a list. An incomplete catalog includes “what women do with their bodies,” “who the next James Bond should be,” Star Wars, selfies, pantsuits, millennials, “Star Wars again,” all art, carbs, and turkey brining. But she did throw in a little consolation prize for men: “If you can control yourselves and hold back from further expressing your opinions on any of these topics, we’ll let you keep weighing in on marijuana legalization — but that’s a huge, big ‘if.’

    http://theweek.com/speedreads/587933/watch-sen-claire-mccaskill-take-strong-politically-questionable-stand-against-mansplaining

  58. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    AR: what I’m expecting is something like Modern Family amped up. Not just the now-obligatory male homosexual ‘married” couple, but a lesbian trio, or a married, successful UMC lawyer who reluctantly accepts his wife’s college friend and her daughter when her marriage breaks up …

    The Left has a motto for this: Families come in all shapes, sizes, and colors.

    This a code for marriages that include gays, multiple partners, serial divorcees, out-of-wedlock births, single moms, and siblings with different fathers. And if you question the wisdom or desirability of such arrangements, that’s called Hate.

  59. benfromtexas says:

    Claire McCaskill is trash.

  60. benfromtexas says:

    Red Pill Latecomer, good way of wording that. Everything is “family” except for the norm that has existed for centuries. Disagree=hate!

  61. Fred Flange and his decoder watch says:

    When Sen. McCaskill goes looking for campaign contributions, I suspect silence from men might not be the response she wants.

  62. Gunner Q says:

    “What will marriage 3.0 look like?”

    Well, it was Christianity that elevated women to fully human status in the first place. Once Christianity is gone, I suppose they’ll be re-enslaved by all the fatherless children they spawned in defiance of God.

    The good woman will be protected by her sons.

    ”Curious, in what manner is the church encouraging men to shun marriage and fatherhood?”

    They constantly describe marriage as a hardship, constant hard work, a burden, something to be endured for the good of humanity, etc. Keeping male expectations low is the only way they can keep selling the shit sandwich. Or alternatively, they don’t want other men to end up with a battleaxe like they did.

    Both smart and stupid clergy are reluctant to sell modern marriage as something enjoyable for men.

    @Siobhan,

    Sounds like you’re doing fine so far. Dalrock is right that successful young women tend to move from Dad’s house to Husband’s house and never ping the radar. Marriage is like NASCAR, it’s the crashes that grip peoples’ attention.

    Along with Dalrock’s advice, the best thing you can do is model being a good wife. If she grows up watching how much you like and trust Daddy then she’ll want that for herself.

  63. The Total Redpill says:

    Don’t be silly. Policymakers absolutely do not fear this, anymore than they fear decreased voter participation or rising taxes. Having people not marry and have children is a goal they’ve been striving for, because it gives them a lovely excuse to bring in replacements from foreign — and all too often third-world — countries. Replacing the populations of Europe and the US is exactly why “they” have been demonizing marriage and childrearing so much, and I have absolutely no doubt that most of them are clapping their hands in glee.

  64. Robin Munn says:

    Dave,

    I never saw the movie [Frozen], but learned that it promotes homosexuality? The theme song, “Let it go” is supposed to tell those opposing gays to “let it go”, and give up their opposition. Anyone care to comment?

    This is not true. I’m sure some people have taken the song and used it as such, but the actual song (and movie) have nothing to do with homosexuality at all. The only way people can see homosexuality in Frozen is by twisting something good (the familial love of two sisters for each other) into something that it’s not, just as they do with (for example) David and Jonathan.

    I’ll explain the plot of Frozen a little bit, so you’ll see what I mean. Without going into too many details, the plot of Frozen revolves around two sisters, Elsa and Anna. Elsa has magic powers (control of snow and ice) that she’s afraid will make her hated and feared if people find out, so she keeps them secret and doesn’t ever use them in public. They tend to be harder to suppress when she gets emotional, though, and one day when Anna has done something stupid, Elsa bursts out in an angry outburst that includes some rather spectacular magic — in public, in front of hundreds of witnesses. She then runs off to build a kind of Fortress of Solitude out of ice, singing “Let it go”.

    Now, most people think the theme of the song is, “I tried to hide who I am, so nobody will see. But now they know, so there’s no point in hiding anymore. Let it go, just be who you are.” But if you look at the actual lyrics, they’re things like “Let it go, let it go / Can’t hold it back anymore / Let it go, let it go / Turn away and slam the door! I don’t care / What they’re going to say / Let the storm rage on, / The cold never bothered me anyway! […] It’s time to see what I can do / To test the limits and break through / No right, no wrong, no rules for me / I’m free! / Let it go, let it go / I am one with the wind and sky / Let it go, let it go / You’ll never see me cry!” This is reminiscent of Simon and Garfunkel’s “I am a rock / I am an island / And a rock feels no pain / And an island never cries.” The song is not intended to be a good example; it’s about shutting yourself off from human contact so you can be “free” by yourself.

    Anna isn’t willing to let her sister shut herself off from all human contact like that, though, and goes after her to persuade her that it’s okay, people won’t fear you, and so on. The rest of the movie follows the consequences of Anna’s love for her sister, as well as the consequences of her earlier stupid action.

    Now, plenty of people have said that that song is about “coming out of the closet” or whatever other liberal cause du jour. And while it could be so interpreted, it’s just as easy to apply it to “stop hiding your faith; stop being afraid, and stand up for the truth of the Bible.” When you start taking a song (or a Bible verse, or anything) out of context, it’s easy to make it mean whatever you want it to mean. But the actual lyrics to “Let It Go”, and the rest of the movie’s plot, make it plain that it’s about Elsa making a big mistake, and that it’s not something that should be imitated. A point that’s lost on most of the people I’ve seen gushing about the song. The seven-year-olds can be excused, but the adults should know better. (Unless they’re gushing about how well-written the song’s tune is. It’s incredibly catchy — it’s been running through my head the whole time I’ve been sitting here writing about it, and I only saw the movie once, more than a year ago! The people who wrote that song deserve the accolades they’ve been receiving for their good writing. It’s the gushing about the song’s positive message that is misguided.)

  65. “What will marriage 3.0 look like?”

    Overt goddess worship.

    Great is Artemis of the Ephesians! Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!

  66. The Question says:

    @Dalrock

    “The part that should frighten policy makers is the very inertia that made it seem like we could gut marriage and still have it work is going to work against us on the other side. You won’t be negotiating with an individual man or even a band of men “on strike”, but with a culture. And even worse, by the time women want to marry at 30ish, a large portion of the men they are looking to as husbands and providers will have coasted for a decade or more. These “Peter Pan” men can’t go back and dedicate their teens and twenties to education and career advancement any more than their would be brides can go back and undo the ravages of time, their student loan/cc debt, and a decade and a half of slutting around before looking for a husband.”

    I honestly wonder if the response to this at some point will be to portray good looking but poor men, “Peter Pans,” as though they are the equivalent of physically unattractive women in terms of their marriage market value. Society would gaslight these men to match up with less attractive women in their 30s who have good paying jobs, while the aging career women with their good looks still relatively intact can continue to pursue the financially well off betas. They might even try to get these men to play the role of Mr. Mom while the wife works. It won’t completely satisfy the Alpa F*&^#@ Beta Bucks strategy but policy makers will pitch it as a necessary solution to the problem, which of course is that these peter pan young men won’t “man up” and refused to take on their responsibilities of a provider as a beta-in-waiting always should. The least he can do, they’d argue, is take care of the kids and the home so his hardworking, responsible wife can continue to bring home the bacon he “won’t.” Yet, women would still retain the socially approved “right” to divorce their husband at any time for not financially providing for the family.

    If this happens, in my opinion, it would be the final step in completely reversing the roles of men and women in our society, the last gasps of breath before it all comes crumbling down.

    Another thought that came to mind reading this is the utter failure of the Church to acknowledge that while a poor but good looking man’s marriage market value to aging career gals finally seeking monogamy may be low, his sexual market value to twentysomething hotties only looking for casual sex is very high. As this becomes more and more obvious to even the most naive young men in the church, it will be extremely difficult to get them to agree to marriage, no matter how many “HOW DARE YOU!!!!!!!!!” sermons are hurled at them from the pulpit.

    I also want to say that one of the reasons I so thoroughly enjoy your blog Dalrock is because your writing is so relevant, and thus applicable, to my own life. I am in the “Millennial” age group and so I am personally witnessing and experiencing the effects of the social phenomenons you describe here.

  67. iamadamalan says:

    Marriage 3.0 is not one but three:

    1) single motherhood
    2) Islamic polygamy
    3) Morman marriage (mixed monagomay/polygamy trending towards the latter as federal influence wanes)

    But #1 is time limited. We are already at subreplacement rate and thats before the affects of the marriage strike kick in.

    Read Isaiah, it describes our culture. Romans 1 and our acceptance of gay marriage makes clear what God is finishing us off.

    Churchian support for #1 makes it clear they’re going down with the ship. The was baked in when they decided to bow the knee to feminism and government. If Christianity has any place on this continent 100 years hence, it won’t look anything like American Churchianity.

    What is a young Christian man to do? MGTOW is the only logical choice, yet that is cultural/religious suicide. But there is no other choice in the offing. Some say game, but its not a systemic solution and its as yet unclear it can overcome the 80% chance of divorce the typical women offers.

  68. Chad says:

    I would suspect Marriage 3.0 will go one of two ways; Either in reacting to the reality of marriage 2.0 without a move to correcting to 1.0, or by pandering to lawyers in the spirit of the legal panacea that is marriage 2.0.

    The collapse of Marriage 2.0 is unavoidable. At some point sufficient numbers of people will avoid the institution altogether.

    In the first scenario steps would need to be taken to take the risk out of sexual relations. This would mean the end of ‘cash and prizes’ divorce but, instead of returning to traditional marriage structures, sexual anarchy is the new norm. This is ‘Brave New World’ type structuring. Everyone has sex with everyone else, and society would be extremely intolerant of anyone who would sexually reject somebody. Since artificial wombs haven’t been invented yet, I imagine the government will simply pay some women to carry babies to term before dumping them in communal child raising centers.

    In the second scenario lawyers would continue to game the system to the point where most any relationship would entail legal obligations. The law would make men’s interactions with women incredibly risky while at the same time prohibiting men from avoiding said risk. Life would become a daily game of Russian Roulette for men; just waiting for the day a women could make a baseless accusation and take away his wealth and/or freedom.

    Or a guy could be mildly optimistic and hope that the system self-corrects to Marriage 1.0 and we can all look back in bewilderment that we all found ourselves in such strange times.

  69. Paul Timo says:

    @Siobhan,

    Teach her the value of faith and your own values regarding marriage and family.

    Teach her to look for men who:
    – share her faith and ideals on marriage and family,
    – enjoy intact families and large, supportive extended families,
    – belong to faith groups that share your values on marriage and family.

    This might sound like searching for unicorns but traditional Catholic sub-cultures do exist. They consist of people who actually believe what the church formally teaches and what the church formerly taught before the current cultural crash in US Catholicism.

  70. @Dalrock:
    You disrespect me while denying doing so. Piss off man. You need me to provide you with a platform to have people read your writing, and insist on disrespecting me in the process. You beg my hospitality while insulting me as a host. This is gamma crap. You see yourself as some wronged “true leader” whom the big dogs won’t hold up for everyone to see.

    You made the charge, back it up. *WHERE* have I disrespected you. *WHERE* have I insulted you as a host. *WHERE* have I transgressed your rules. Links or it didn’t happen. You claim: “You see yourself as some wronged “true leader” whom the big dogs won’t hold up for everyone to see” Anyone who knows me would laugh at that. No. I’d comment on the inherent projection in that, but the reality is it’s your hypocrisy that gets me. I’m honestly not seeking a platform here- the proof is I’d post under any pseudonym you chose for me but that would simply prove the point: you don’t want an honest and open discussion of anything and everything the Bible says.

    Dalrock, the problem is you apparently don’t want to have a Biblically centered discussion if it transgresses your self-imposed boundaries. Everything you said about me is a nice deflection, but the real question is what Scripture has to say. This isn’t me impinging on your hospitality, it’s you refusing to have an open debate on what Scripture actually says. Call it what you will, but you run a blog in which men whine about what’s happening to them but aren’t allowed to discuss solutions unless they comply with your limitations. You have done an incredible job of detailing the magnitude of the problems facing men, but men need to have a fair and open discussion of solutions. The last time you deleted one of my comments it focused solely on the use of marital contracts to avoid problems in marriage. It did not mention corporal punishment of wives in any way, but you deleted it.

    Based on that experience, I wrote this, in which I took many of your commenters to task:

    https://artisanaltoadshall.wordpress.com/2015/10/26/the-difference-between-the-hypocrisy-of-christian-men-and-women/

    Men are problem solvers. Men accomplish things, but that isn’t happening here. I could delete my blog now and it wouldn’t change anything. You have not allowed free discussion of what the bible says and that’s the bottom line. You have a lot of commenters that I have a lot of respect for and some of them are really sharp. If I presented a bogus argument they’d rip me to shreds. I’ll go head-to-head with anyone and take my lumps if I can’t support my arguments. Am I really *that good* that you can’t allow a discussion of my take on things?

    If so, I’m sadly impressed, but I also notice that you’ve focused on one rather insignificant portion of the arguments I’ve made in the past (corporal punishment of wives, supported by Rev. 3:19). I invited you to offer objections to what I’ve said in the past and even though you have all the records, you didn’t do so. We both know it’s your forte and any regular reader of this blog fully knows your ability to destroy the arguments of opponents with their own data. If I were half the embarrassment you imply I am, you’d have ample ability to throw something back at me. I have no desire to be your nemesis, but either the Bible is subject to discussion (all of it) or it isn’t. If it isn’t, why are you even here?

  71. rdchemist says:

    “What will marriage 3.0 look like? ”

    I already have an idea about what marriage 3.0 could look like and discuss it here.

    https://lovegoneglobal.wordpress.com/2015/06/28/its-time-for-marriage-v3-0-whos-with-me/

    It would require a collapse of marriage 2.0.

  72. JDG says:

    Watch Sen. Claire McCaskill take a strong, politically questionable stand against mansplaining. …

    … she said for Monday’s Late Show, “but equally important is encouraging more men to sometimes just shut the hell up.”

    Didn’t I tell ya’ll: DON’T LET’EM OUT OF THE KITCHEN?
    Didn’t I?

    She quickly clarified, sort of, telling the world’s men: “It’s not that women don’t value your thoughts, it’s just that we don’t value all of them.’

    More and More of the world’s men are beginning to NOT CARE what women value. Way to go girls. You’ve come a long way.

  73. Dash Riprock says:

    I am not so sure there will even be a marriage 3.0. Note this statistic. In 1960 the illegitimacy birth rate was 5%, in 2008 it was 52%. “Serial monogamy or becoming “monogamish” is all the rage amongst the “sex positive” crowd. Marriage, as a legal institution is a still a hindrance to these sorts of degenerate lifestyles. I really believe the next go round is not the establishment of Marriage 3.0 but the destruction of marriage itself with a view by this ilk of replacing it with “consensual” pairings being governed by time limited contracts. The are already talking that way if you do a bit of eavesdropping on them..

  74. Robert What? says:

    I think it is slowly dawning on policy makers that men without wives and families do not produce at the level needed to keep the whole scam going. One technique they tried was enslavement of men into the Child Support system. But what if men don’t have children to begin with? The other technique is encouraging massive immigration from the Third World. But it turns out that on balance, they are net consumers, not net producers. In addition, that only helps for low-skilled labor. It will be interesting to see how things unfold now that the consequences of their policies begin to dawn on them.

  75. Anonymous Reader says:

    It will be interesting to see how things unfold now that the consequences of their policies begin to dawn on them.

    You have a much higher opinion of the intelligence of “policy makers” than I do.

  76. Novaseeker says:

    I generally agree that we are going to see a slouch towards greater degeneracy for a while before critical mass comes along and then there is a huge shift to something else that we can’t really foresee now.

    During that slouch, however, I think heterosexual marriage is going to slowly become more gay, in that it will be less focused on monogamy, more focused on flexibility, and therefore (because of the way the heterosexual sex market works), more tolerant of open cuckolding. It won’t be “the norm”, but it will creep in from the edges and become more accepted and tolerated and be a part of the mix of what marriage means, which will further corrode the institution from the inside out.

  77. ace says:

    Opus says:
    November 10, 2015 at 2:18 pm
    “I see, elsewhere, some stats from the U.K. (formerly known as G.B.& N.I.) which are surely replicated State-side. Even allowing for our burgeoning Muslim and Third World arrivals,………………
    They believe in marriage and large families but will they adjust and adapt to our genocidal ways?”

    Marriage, divorce and reproductive rates show the same trend in muslim countries/and muslim communities outside the muslim world as the do here in the West. Not as horrible but also in steep decline.

  78. Cane Caldo says:

    @Dalrock

    I read Rev. 3:19 again. There’s nothing about corporal punishment of wives in there.

    @AT

    You’re being a dumbass. If you want to discuss something that is off-limits here: Do it on your blog. It’s not a problem that a blog author puts certain ideas off-limits from his comments. If you’re right the the scarcity of good ideas here should drive up the value of your great ideas there.

  79. @Cane

    You’re being a dumbass. If you want to discuss something that is off-limits here: Do it on your blog. It’s not a problem that a blog author puts certain ideas off-limits from his comments. If you’re right the the scarcity of good ideas here should drive up the value of your great ideas there.

    If Dalrock wants to make something off-limits, let him. I have not violated his policies. I have no problem at all with a blog author creating rules- your no women may post is on point here. I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with being deleted in areas in which I did not violate the rules of the blog. This goes a bit further because Dalrock accused me and I’d like to see him back up the accusations. Am I a whoremonger? What exactly is it that I did…?

    If you can explain this, go for it. I’d love to hear it.

  80. Jt2 says:

    Things will have to get a lot worse before we see any policy changes. Woman still feel they are not getting enough from their divorce raped ex’s.

    Also, most men are still blue pill and NAWALT, and CANNOT be convinced otherwise.

  81. feeriker says:

    It will be interesting to see how things unfold now that the consequences of their policies begin to dawn on them.

    You have a much higher opinion of the intelligence of “policy makers” than I do.

    Maintaining the current status quo is all about power. If that means complete socioeconomic collapse*, then so be it. We can expect the current “policy makers” to continue doubling down on ever more desperate measures for the foreseeable future.

    (*In fact, this provides the ideal pretext for them to seize even more power.)

  82. DEN1 says:

    The next move: a marriage license with an expiration/renew date.

  83. Tom C says:

    Marriage 3.0 will arrive when women gain full legal marital rights not only by getting a man to say “I do” but also by either:

    a) living with a man for a specified period of time, or
    b) having his child

    They won’t technically be considered married, but will receive all of the legal benefits and protections that a married woman does. Once enough states have normalized it, they could make it the law of the land and call it the Family Security Act or something.

    Regarding the Disney cartoon/film Frozen, there is a scene which some people believe promotes homosexuality but it is unclear that it really does. One of the minor male characters walks by a sauna and says “Hi, family” and in the sauna are a man and four children. The scene only lasts for a second or two. So maybe it supposed to represent a homosexual marriage but the message is that it is an incidental part of the character’s life: he just happens to be homosexual, no big deal. It could be interpreted differently however so it is not a clear and obvious endorsement of homosexual marriage. Or maybe it is intentionally vague to sort of test the waters of public opinion.

  84. greyghost says:

    MGTOW is the best option for a young man today. MGTOW is most effective when all delusions are lost. When I first started in the manosphere I truly believed that Christian women were the best bet for a wife. That delusion is now gone. I truly feel for Siobhan that commented above. She is doing her best with children in church but what the hell are they teaching the child, half of Dalrock’s material is coming from the church. I’m in the same boat with 2 daughters myself. And there is no where in society anywhere not even in my own household to show what a good wife and marriage is. That is the reason for MGTOW.
    MGTOW and the PUA are the way of successful men. And speaking of PUA they are not the “naturals” or classic cads that were always around to service the sluts. These are beta males that desired relationships with women. These are the guys that asked girls out and tried to be “good” men to them falsely thinking that would bring on a feeling of attraction from her. (At one time maybe it did ). Those delusions are long gone. So now what are basically good men have learned “game” which is a simulation of a cad to have a simulated relationship with todays women. PUA more than anybody else knows todays women all full of shit. The only consolation is they may gain enough to know women and some find one to marry. Even Bill Price married again.(though he was no PUA he was red pill I hope it goes well for him)
    I believe the key to turning this around is to make a “good” man sexy. Women are not changing they can’t. If enough men are MGTOW and enough real suicidal suffering comes about then the changes in law will accur.

  85. They Call Me Tom says:

    Random question… was the undermining of marriage a deliberate sort of eugenics plan B? Or is the eventual eugenic effect an unintended consequence of ‘modernism’?

  86. J1J2 says:

    My guess is that there is something of a floor to how bad things can get, since 1) most women want companionship and position in society (especially to compensate for the loss of status that comes with loss of looks), and 2) most men want sex without having to either jump through hoops every time or try to maintain a harem of women who always have one foot out the door as they realize what the deal is. On the other hand, maybe White America will go the way of Black America or Britain. There seem to be two major problems women are having these days: 1) trying to “play the sex card” to succeed in hypergamy, and 2) valuing pleasantry over accuracy in their “understanding” of men. Either one of those is enough to put a ceiling on how good things can get.

  87. Dragonfly says:

    @RobinMunn, did you feel for the man (the one Anna paired with) in that movie though? When we saw it when it first came out, I was disgusted at it’s display of him being weak, being unable to be the hero – he couldn’t do anything right, Anna had to save them (a woman had to save the man because she was the better one overall).

    And then that movie devoted an entire song about the man being just a “Fixer Upper,” – in a “not a great marriage partner, but you know… he’ll do” kind of awful way. Ugh, it was so hard to watch it was actually painful to see the emasculation happen over and over again as he was displayed as being the ever-present butt of their jokes, buffoon of a “man.” 😦 I was REALLY sorry we took our son to see it – I don’t want him getting the message that that is what a man looks like. Luckily he has an amazing father, but it’s still sad that children’s movies are sending out this message of men being weak, useless, laughable, and dumb – not even great husband material but something she’ll have to “fix up” a bit.

    It’s the opposite of what we’re teaching our son what it means to be a man.

  88. Dragonfly says:

    And some further thoughts… think of what Frozen is teaching young girls concerning men and marriage.

    It’s teaching these very young girls that the only marriageable men are stupid, klutzes, tripping over themselves and not able to do anything right – constantly needing a woman’s help – the opposite of a masculine hero. The message was there are no masculine princes or kings to be a masculine husband, the ones that look like that are cads and should be avoided (the handsome, smooth one only broke her heart). So they’ve stripped away ANY example for these young girls of what a good, masculine, capable man is. The message is actually “You don’t need a man, but if you want one, pick the stupid one that you can control. The handsome, smooth-talking one may be fun for awhile, but he’s not marriage material and will only break your heart. The buffoon is the safest bet.”

    Frozen tells them that not only should they pick a beta, weak, nice, tame man who isn’t dangerous or a hero of any kind, but they should pick someone they can never respect and will have a hard time submitting to (if they even believe in submission – it will be pretty hard for them to “submit’ to someone they feel is stupid) because they view him so poorly. They will expect their future husband to not be able to do anything right, and to constantly feel like they are the better, smarter, (or for Christians) the more spiritual one in the marriage.

    So that movie really was a disaster, but for me not so much in that popular song, but in the underlying message it sends about the sexes and the role reversal. The emasculation of men and boys in our society.

  89. Gaza says:

    I’m 42. Unmarried. I started working at 22, two weeks after I graduated college. I spent the next 15 years working 70+ hours a week, 50 weeks a year, primarily within different sectors of finance. Now I don’t mention this as a kind of ‘uphill both ways’, but merely to give context to my journey.

    It was a journey toward the beta-provider husband model that was the only model endorsed by family, church, community, etc. I was working for my future, hypothetical, family. And I was driven to make money, provide security and stability, and protect a lifestyle that would allow for a single income existence in a very expensive city.

    I barely “dated”. I was saving my money, paying off college loans, and had no time. Plus I was rather shy and “Game” was not yet a thing in my circle. 25 y/o corporate schleps are often quite invisible. In any case, I eventually met a woman. She was from a traditional, working class family as well, but as a woman at the forefront of the go-girl generation she held her individualism and career achievements a bit too close to the heart.

    Fast forward. At 32 (I was 34) the wall inspired her to jettison our engagement for a more successful version of me – an older alpha who would finance her next stage of professional development and personal exploration. Off they went.

    In the aftermath, I was laid off from work, had to liquidate mutual assets made in anticipation of the now defunct marital bliss, and sell a house at the bottom of the recession in ’09. Due to my age, income prospects, and upcoming marriage (merger), my risk profile was quite aggressive. So over the course of those few months, my net worth was cut in half. Much of the rest was tied up in illiquid, closed-end funds at the shop that no longer required my services.

    Now, some 6 years later. I have left finance for good. I rent a nice but modest duplex in a third-tier city. I spent most of my savings on relocating and a failed attempt at a new business. I am currently investing the rest of my time and money in a start-up with a few partners that is unlikely to ever become anything beyond supplemental income, but is a good use of my time for now. In order to keep the lights on, I do freelance consulting work in a small slice of esoteric space leftover from the old days, which is not terribly sustainable but nice to have while it lasts.

    I have no debt but make very little, thus I spend even less. My income is now 1/3 of what my annual personal income tax used to be. Producing surplus, taking risk, personal sacrifice, planning for the future, I know these well. They are no longer staples in my life but rather drift in and out borne from necessity and barely kept alive via old dying habits.

    But I no longer make choices based on some hypothetical family or get motivated by some sense of honor or duty. Those virtues have been hijacked. I no longer see myself as a provider of anything beyond the truth, common courtesy, and human decency.

    I make choices based on what I need to do to be self-sufficient and content – but not complacent. I have reinvigorated many hobbies and taken up new ones along the way. I would say I am MGTOW but I enjoy women (on my terms) and they seem to want to be in my life, so I allow it. That is, until the selljob starts.

    In those six years I have dated several women. Which is to say, women drift in and out of my life according to their schedule and my refusal to conform. They enter with entitlement and exit with their unmet expectations. They all want commitment. They all want marriage. They all want my babies. Their stories may vary a bit, but their themes are pretty much the same.

    I still hang onto a bit of the marriage ideal, which is why I date these women and not “hang out” with 25 y/o bartenders from the pub down the street. But over time what remains of my marriage ideal is burning off, in part due to the prospects, which offer me an increasingly lucid view of just how our culture has gutted marriage of any meaning and left a generation of women with nothing but relativism and the hollow pulp of consumerist slavery, but also due to my own atrophy of heart.

    The woman I have dated have all spent (or are spending) their 20’s finding themselves. Or whatever. They have dated “a lot of guys”. They are well traveled. Have taken nice vacations. Have lived in exciting cities. Most have lived with men. All have college degrees – or two, some loans but have learned to get by on their income and what men provide them, aka Strong Independent Women. They have smart phones that they love more than god and their lives are awesome on facebook. They have some semblance of a career or aborted career(s) but most want something else.

    Usually the something else does not reside in the specific but rather a kind of ennui that develops after a decade or two belly-up at the buffet table of life. To me the something else resembles barbs on a hook. As in, I become part of their potential solution, though they never say it in such a way.

    In the meantime, they cast their dreams into the universe, awaiting a sign, an intervention. They do yoga. The have life coaches. They are so inspired. The get tattoos. They drink too much. Take psychotropics like tic tacs. They are learning to “let go”.

    Their expectations of what they should have out of life are unhinged with the reality of their choices and their assessment of their options. They construct intricate, busy busy lives full of buffers of attention, distraction, validation, and self-absorption. They have pets. They offer their sex with abandon but their hearts are often cold and guarded. They don’t like taking risk. They talk of equality, but expect the preferential. Many are ‘coming to terms’ with a variety of things that rarely seems to alter their behavior, choices, or priorities.

    They feel the dissonance but it is not confronted, left to manifest in an vacillating schizo of demands, desperation, and delusion. The ones I choose to date are really beautiful women. I mean it. Not just a physical thing, but that they are lovely women. Most could have a lot to offer. They just don’t know how to develop their natural gifts and a mindset that is on par with what they are now asking of me. They haven’t done the work and seem inclined to resist it to the end.

    And when I ask them what marriage means to them, they stumble and fumble around the fact that they don’t know. They just want it. Some hit the M2.0 talking points but it just falls flat like they are reading from a buy/sell provision of a joint-venture agreement. Just like they can’t articulate what a man like me would desire in a wife, or what it means to be a wife and not just ‘married’.

    These women have been let down in a big way. The saddest part is that the reason I know this is because I too have been let down.

    One of the big differences between men and women I see is that men seem much more inclined to figure out how and why and to lean-in to (hey Sheryl!) truth, however painful, in order to adjust accordingly – or at least stop living the lies, slow the bleeding. Women just get more messages to double-down, to gaze harder and deeper upon the navel. And this is ultimately what will break the dam. Men becoming aware, women pursuing the insane.

    This is already a big part of what is behind the failed intersect of marriage “ready” women, and men who have either over-shot them in SMV and are swimming in options or who know the cost-benefit calcs by heart, and are opting out preemptively.

    This slow drift is entering the swift currents. I’ve seen it in my own life. The physical slide between a 35 y/o and a 40 y/o woman can be striking. Since male attraction is what it is, the shaming of “beauty is on the inside” is running threadbare, and marriage has lost its value beyond status and control for women and the State, there is a steep decline on the other side of that intersect – an intersect that is already teetering on ‘too late’.

    I’ve seen it now up close. I tried to run against my physical programming. It was bad for both of us. So I must back away from the table full of women over 35. Just one more man, a superficial, creepy man indulging his preference for youth and fertility. Its Oregon or bust. I’m prepared to go bust.

    Most of what I traded my youth, adventure, and freedom of my 20’s for has evaporated into the ether. So it goes. But while I can sympathize with single women my age on many levels, it has become more difficult to do much more than that.

    Women who have spent their salad years building very little to share now want to inject sex-intimacy-commitment-marriage with some kind of meaning that they neither understand nor can communicate to the few remaining men who even care to entertain the notion. And the entire culture still props up the AF/BB dynamic, the open hypergamy, and the hypoagency that helped put them in this situation. It becomes difficult to quell that bubbling desire to just see it all just crumble.

    My anecdote doesn’t even approach the social costs that are backing up behind this slow drift away from marriage. I basically don’t pay taxes anymore. I make no surplus. I consume very little. I have advanced degrees and real (though arguably valuable in any real sense, skills.) But if there is a subsidy available, I take it.

    I’m done supporting a culture that has pitted me as both the nobody and the necessity, the oppressor and the provider. The evil white male. So, I tell the particularly animated lefty spinsters that I’m not having kids to avoid propagating what is apparently the worst affliction in the world: a high IQ, Germanic protestant with big strong hands and an aptitude for creative labor. The reality of a one-way sailing trip in my sunset years is becoming an increasingly realistic prospect. Good thing I love to sail.

    I once read a joke about the future of corporations becoming nothing more than a man, a dog, and a computer. The computer runs the business, the man feeds the dog, and the dog guards the computer so the man won’t touch it. I feel like marriage is this corporation now. Man is expected to feed the beast that prevents him from taking his natural role in his creation – and not dare ever notice the absurdity of it all. Thanks Mr. D. I dig your work.

  90. feeriker says:

    So that movie really was a disaster, but for me not so much in that popular song, but in the underlying message it sends about the sexes and the role reversal. The emasculation of men and boys in our society.

    Please tell us that this didn’t surprise you. It is, after all, a Disney flick. That’s forewarning enough.

  91. @Dalrock: “theological gender bending. ”

    Prepare for rant….3….2….1:

    Not just theological! The long march through our social institutions, including religion has been very calculated and every bit as deliberate as the original Long March (look it up).

    They started by legitimizing and celebrating sodomy and then moving on to gay relationships and then marriage. At the same time they sanctioned no fault divorce, empowered women to kill their babies, and transferred all power to the women in marriage via the family courts (ignoring thousands of years of history and logic that male victims are MUCH less attractive). Now fresh from defeating men legally, socially, culturally, and (in most cases) on a very singular level (i.e. women in relationships in general are way, way ahead of men from where I sit) they are onto the next battle.

    The gender blending Caitlyn Jenner enablers all have the same aim and the same goal and they all operate off the same Satanic script written by Lenin. Yes, the Lenin of Marxism/Leninism about deconstructing the family was modified by the feminists (Marxists in panties) who managed to take it to the 9th level of Hell with all marital sex is “rape” and the gender blending “Active Consent” rules they are imposing on college campuses.

    Of course the same people encourage and applaud transgenders and demand an end to ‘transgenderphobia.’ Which means a man, XY chromosome exposed to T in Utero, who still has a penis and testicles should be allowed to dress in a woman’s room and expose “her” penis to them. By the way, putting “her” in quotes I offer a prime example of cis-hetronormative transgenderphobic behavior. Yes, you can get fired on college campii for being transgenderphobic. These people (with suicide rates 20 times higher than the rest of us) are NORMAL. They are GOOD and rightous.

    Of course the Transgenders Rights people have run up against the Women’s Rights people and we know how THAT is going to turn out. Them sissy boys will be lucky to get out of their with their little penises still attached.

  92. JDG says:

    Thank you Gaza. You have a gift.

  93. Pathfinderlight says:

    @ Artisinal Toad

    The post regarding the change in rules is here:
    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2015/10/25/new-comment-policy/

    Martial corporal punishment is explicitly against the rules unless otherwise stated by Dalrock in the specific thread. Whether or not it’s good policy to advocate it is beside the point. After coming to this issue late, my guess is you have had a post deleted in its entirety because of this rule. That happens. Bloggers will delete posts legitimately for a number of reasons.

    @ OP

    My opinion is that due to the large oceans on either side of us, collapse of the American way of life will happen after the rot has become much more advanced than it was in, say, Sparta or Rome. We have decades to go yet, but it will happen. Only partition of the white ruling class away from everyone else can save what’s left of American society.

    American culture is well on its way to breaking up into two different cultures. From a multi-generational perspective, the most important thing we have to do is make sure our part survives as intact as possible until the schism is complete.

  94. Dalrock, every single year, the United States hits a new “record low” for the percentage of married adults. Last year, we dipped below the 50% threshold for the first time.

    http://nypost.com/2014/09/09/single-adults-now-outnumber-married-adults/

    The trend has been going steadily downward since they have kept track of the marriage rate in 1976. Just think, in 1976, 62.6% of everyone 16 and older was married. Today, just 49.8%. That is a frighteningly low number. How can anyone be surprised that our prisons are full with convicts? Having b-stards is almost a sure fire recipe on how to create a future criminal.

    Marriage is increasingly going from an institution for all, to an elite club just for some. And I say this is all due to unilateral no-fault divorce laws.

  95. Dave says:

    Great is Artemis of the Ephesians! Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!

    You mean “Great is Madonna of the Americans! Great is Madonna of the Americans!”

  96. ray says:

    ‘Once enough states have normalized it, they could make it the law of the land and call it the Family Security Act or something.’

    That’s pretty good. You’ve got the knack! and D.C. PR awaits. I’d suggest ‘Family Security Provision’ tho bc that way you sell Family, Security, and being Provided for simultaneously to women I mean the Electorate. I mean Homeland. Well you know.

    Thanks again for helping.

  97. Dave says:

    @Robin Munn

    Thanks for that concise review of Frozen. It definitely helps to understand the plot of the movie.

  98. ray says:

    “Random question… was the undermining of marriage a deliberate sort of eugenics plan B? Or is the eventual eugenic effect an unintended consequence of ‘modernism’?”

    It’s part of a long-term strategy by outside agitators. Way outside. Their methods and natures are described in the Bible.

    Undermining marriage offers much immediate, mundane profiteering of course, as a bit of experience in any major-city Family Law Firm will attest. For starters.

    But the greater intent is separation of the male and female from under Godly marriage vows. Broken families make kids — especially boys — more open to physical and spiritual attacks, suggestions, interventions. The wolves get free field. The ejection of fatherhood removes the spiritual covering from both the woman and the children. Males generally are more difficult to manipulate.

    As this blog (and others) do a good job of explaining, there is a reward for betraying fatherhood and for ‘blowing up families’ at every level of authority, from the local pastor to the college administrator to the senators and presidents.

  99. embracingreality says:

    Gaza, enjoyed the bit. My favorite part was:

    “Women just get more messages to double-down, to gaze harder and deeper upon the navel. And this is ultimately what will break the dam. Men becoming aware, women pursuing the insane.”

    Sums it all up quite nicely.

  100. ray says:

    Happy sailing! That was a good read so don’t forget to write.

  101. ubs says:

    US society has a small but healthy traditional core. At a growth rate of 500% per generation, i.e. 10 children per female, this core can completely replace the degenerate majority in less than 3 generations.

  102. Moses says:

    Dalrock is right.

    We humans have an urge to label and categorize things, like “Marriage 3.0.” But the most likely reality is more incremental change that erodes marriage.

    The state will substitute more and more the providing that real fathers used to do. Paternity testing will be outlawed (at least legally inadmissible without permission of the mother, otherwise known as prohibited). More single mother pedestaling. Betas will be taxed more and more to provide for other men’s children. More and more “liberated” women on anti-depressants because they’re just not haaaapppy but they don’t know why.

    Really, this is just our move towards a feminized collective. The wheels were set in motion when women were granted suffrage.

    A few years ago I read “Brave New World.” We’re becoming more like that every year.

  103. scientivore says:

    @ Anonymous Reader: “Later in the first season, poof the three of them truly are a “family” – and it works so well because the new “wife” can stay with their children while the senior “wife” works as senior administator of a charitable foundation. Quality child care and two incomes! The New American Dream! Season one ends with the junior “wife” announcing she’s pregnant…”

    I see that your antennae are picking up the same cultural signals. I see a mutant version being sold as a win/win/win to lonely purple-pillers that they can marry the barren 40-something who waited too long but has a decent career, then find a third to make babies for them, and gain some immunity from family courts by separating the marriage from the baby momma.

    Of course that will only work until the SCOTUS mandates polygamy and common law marriage (to the states that don’t have the latter already), but the social engineers will have managed to kick the can down the road a few more years by luring some would-be MGTOW into satisfying the FI of not one but two women in the meantime…

    And it wouldn’t be a complete lie, since it would be a win/win/win for the social engineers (until it all unraveled anyway a scant few years later than otherwise).

  104. scientivore says:

    @ oldfashionedfellow: “Does anyone here actually suppose that a majority of men will ever realize the root cause for what’s gone wrong, even as society collapses? Or will the flames just consume an ignorant majority? I’m very much betting on the later, which is why I find discussing the matter with most men a lose-lose proposition.”

    I would bet on the former, because the complex web of many-to-many dialogue on the Internet enables IQ SD cascades, where ideas formulated at a high level of standard deviations above the mean can get iteratively simplified for broader audiences. Doesn’t necessarily mean that you can communicate it to Joe at the bar — but eventually someone can, and will.

  105. Robin Munn says:

    @Dragonfly –

    It’s been long enough since I watched it that I actually didn’t remember about that “fixer-upper” song, or how bumblingly Kristoff (the male hero) was portrayed. So I can’t swear to whether or not it bothered me at the time, but I’m pretty sure it did. (Though even if I had remembered it, my comment in reply to Dave was already long enough, so choosing NOT to double its length with a discussion of the male characters would probably have been the right thing to do. I’m glad you mentioned it, though.)

  106. none says:

    What begins slowly reaches a critical mass or tipping point, at which point social change redlines and frequently catches most observers by surprise who previously weren’t paying attention until that point.

    Ah, my favorite Green quote “…the way you fall asleep: slowly, and then all at once.” He was talking about falling in love, but social trends work that way too.

  107. none says:

    The next phase, Rollo speculates, is open genetic hypergamy, where the Beta who is “lucky” enough to catch a carousel rider doesn’t even get to have children with her, but rather will be expected to raise her Alpha-spawned offspring. In essence, the Better Beta of the future will be pre-cuckolded.

    But once it’s all out in the open, how many men will cooperate? Even sex-starved men aren’t stupid. The only reason the carousel riders of today can stick the landing is so many men don’t understand what’s happening.

  108. none says:

    Paternity testing will be outlawed (at least legally inadmissible without permission of the mother, otherwise known as prohibited).

    In my state (California), if a woman gets pregnant while you’re married to her, the child is legally yours. There’s no reason to prohibit DNA testing – the outcome doesn’t matter.

  109. MarcusD says:

    JDG: “Thank you Gaza. You have a gift.”

    Yes, an excellent post from Gaza.

    @Gaza

    Would you consider writing more? (e.g. a blog). In either case, you’ve written a post/essay that I think really encompasses a lot of the issues that North American society is facing – frankly, if someone were to write a book on MGTOW, I think they would be apt to include it. Perhaps that should be a project for the movement – write a book and distribute it (as an ebook, probably).

  110. MarcusD says:

    @DEN1

    The next move: a marriage license with an expiration/renew date.

    It’s already been proposed: http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/one-law-student-has-a-radical-proposal-for-fixing-marriage-cut-it-off-after-four-years

  111. LawDog says:

    I was struck reading Gaza’s comments, because they closely mirror my experience. I worked hard in my twenties, to, as Dalrock puts it, signal provider status, married, and eventually experienced frivorce. I’m in my late thirties now, opened my own business (rather than work for someone else) and basically make enough money to survive for myself. I occasionally date if women drift into my path, but make no efforts to find them, and I seriously doubt I will marry again.

    I live in the American south. I have been single again for just over four years, and in that time have met (not necessarily dated) hundreds of single women, perhaps thousands. I cannot recall meeting a single one I would have entertained marrying. I can’t recall one that made me stop and think, “She’d be a good mother.” It’s all as Gaza says, smart phones and careers down at the cube farm and mindless consumerism and reality TV shows and a serious inability to pair bond thanks to the carousel. I’m saddened by the way things are. A family is the greatest blessing a man can have, but in this environment, it is probably impossible to do.

    Dalrock, I really enjoy the site. Keep up the good work.

    [D: Thank you. Welcome.]

  112. Fiddlesticks says:

    re: “Peter Pan” – exactly right. If the recent findings about neuroplasticity declining around age 25 are true, then it is going to much harder for today’s men to turn over a new leaf. It’s so common to hear Baby Boomer college-sweetheart-marrying men saying of their wife, “she changed my life” “she helped me settle down.”

    Much easier to do for a 22-year-old man than a 30-year-old who is also more accustomed to keeping house on his own and has engaged in more domestic tasks than his father.

  113. ljess says:

    All this talk ab out how marriage is a failure because of the system destroying families and influencing women – The most serious issue is not truly discussed – Complete alienation from God! Make no mistake, God is not to be mocked and will not tolerate those with bad behavior. Women/governments/apostates(pastors who change the word of God to mollycuddle women) will not survive, Period. Counting on the love of God to cover your wicked ways will not fly. Say Goodbye to all the wicked and walk away as they will be among the dead. Women need to understand that feminism is a Satanic cult and men need to understand that women have agency – Looking at proverbs 31 you have a good wife managing a small business, has the respect of the community, a loving family, buys and sells land, will not harm her husband, is industrious. – women are capable of great things but they have to get out of the gutter. The love of the many has died off, we await the ending.

  114. ljess says:

    MarcusD says:
    November 11, 2015 at 4:36 am
    @DEN1

    The next move: a marriage license with an expiration/renew date.

    It’s already been proposed: http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/one-law-student-has-a-radical-proposal-for-fixing-marriage-cut-it-off-after-four-years

    I can not think of a more damaging view of marriage – God will not be pleased and the system will still ensure that men get screwed over – Children are going to be a nightmare.

  115. Casey says:

    @ Dalrock

    Those that believe this situation will right itself in our lifetimes, or the lifetimes of our children (no matter how young they may be) are fooling themselves. Marriage is in terminal decline, with no hope of returning to its once elevated, pivotal, and organizational role within society.

    Lawmakers, politicians, policy makers, feminists, police, etc. will keep pushing for more authority
    and rights for women while foisting accountability and responsibility onto men.

    Laws will continue to be written to undermine men who make the rational decision to avoid situations that cause them harm.

    Look at common-law status. Laws are currently being written to expect the same rights and responsibilities within common-law that a divorced spouse would get in marriage. IT IS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW!!!

    British Columbia has now adopted such legislation. If you live with someone for 24 months in a relationship……….you are married in the eyes of the B.C. courts. Alimony, property division, the whole 9 yards.

    B.C. is our California, so a bunch of liberal slackers.

    Other provinces will follow.
    Why? BECAUSE MEN ARE AVOIDING MARRIAGE!!!

    When men start to avoid common-law relationships, the rule book will be changed yet again to ensnare people who are merely dating and maintaining separate residences. There have been trial balloons floated on this already. Coined as “Living Together Apart”.

    Men will simply not be allowed to escape with their wallet intact. Lawyers need work, and so make work they shall.

    Could the outcome be any more clear? Marriage (meaningful marriage) is disappearing, and it will not return short of anything other than a societal collapse.

    The culture, as you pointed out, is the problem.

    The culture will not change without MASSIVE external influences. There simply are no such influences in the present construct.

  116. Easttexasfatboy says:

    Gaza has it right. Galt/MGTOW is the way to go. Keep a low profile, and quietly go on about your business. I’ve learned to live on much less. White men created almost all of what you see today.

    It’s a sad situation that isn’t going to get any better. Women are becoming more feral, and men are pulling away. I firmly believe that young men today will never marry. Too much risk, no upside.

    Civil war or insurrection looms. History shows what happens when a civilization collapses. True Christians know that God is not one to be mocked. The Four Horsemen are coming to visit. Think of the food distribution system in the USA. Very fragile. Starvation is a human norm. Abundant food is, in fact, a historical aberration.

    Those who love the Bible know that Bloodguilt must be paid. Infanticide will be repaid. So, we’re in the horrible position of essentially knowing what’s coming. Modern feminists are, in fact, the daughters of Eve. And they actually believe that they’ll coast on with no worries.

    I’ll close by saying this…..it’s truly amazing to see how fast this society is imploding. A careful study of the old Testament shows that God uses the nation’s to wreak vengeance upon the wicked.

  117. Casey says:

    @ Gaza

    Quite probable that your comment is the best one I have ever read on Dalrock’s blog.

    Please come back soon.

  118. thedeti says:

    When we do meta analysis we always have to remember the basics. Dalrock said waaay up there that there is “seemingly endless goodwill” toward marriage. I think a big part of this is because men and women still want marriage for pretty “traditional”, deeply ingrained reasons.

    Men want to get married so they can (1) have homes to call their own, with children for a legacy; and (2) for exclusive sexual access to one woman to take the effort out of getting sex and so that he’ll know the children he’s investing in are his.

    Women want to get married for (1) the status that comes from being married; the status that comes from having a man publicly declare she is so valuable he is willing to invest his time and money into her; and (2) provisioning, and the options it allows a woman.

    When you get all the way down to it, that’s why men and women are still marrying. Men, because they want sex and kids; women, because they want social standing and access to money. And marriage, when done right, benefits everyone involved, especially the kids. That’s why people are still doing it; why they still want it.

  119. feeriker says:

    @Gaza

    Echoing everyone elses’s kudos to you. WELL SAID, brother!

  120. Casey says:

    @ Morgan

    You’ve identified the way out of this mess…………it simply won’t happen.

  121. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Gaza: They feel the dissonance but it is not confronted,

    This is because women have a dread of being judged. Women sense something is broken about their lives, but refuse to confront the possibility of it being their fault.

    Women are awesome. Women are amazing. Women are one with the light. Women have the goddess within them and every woman a goddess. If something is wrong in a woman’s life, it’s because she has been betrayed, lied to, cheated. By the patriarchy, by the government, by liberals, by conservatives, by corporate greed, by cruel fate, by a cruel mother nature, even by other women. But nothing is ever her fault.

    She is good. She is amazing. She is a victim. She is a survivor. She is strong and smart and independent. Why the Right Man hasn’t come along to recognize her own sheer awesomeness is … somebody else’s fault.

  122. Scott says:

    Gaza-

    Excellent.

  123. Cane Caldo says:

    @Gaza

    That was an engaging story, and–as others have said–you should write more.

    I am having trouble understanding this part:

    In any case, I eventually met a woman. She was from a traditional, working class family as well, but as a woman at the forefront of the go-girl generation she held her individualism and career achievements a bit too close to the heart.

    Fast forward. At 32 (I was 34) the wall inspired her to jettison our engagement for a more successful version of me – an older alpha who would finance her next stage of professional development and personal exploration. Off they went.

    In the aftermath, I was laid off from work, had to liquidate mutual assets made in anticipation of the now defunct marital bliss, and sell a house at the bottom of the recession in ’09.

    Did your fiancee take up with your boss? Did you all work at the same place of business?

    Had you bought a house with this woman? Were you living together? Did you liquidate the other mutual assets because you needed the money (e.g., they were really your assets which you treated as mutual), or because they truly were mutual and you had to split them?

  124. Dalrock says:

    @Artisanal Toad

    You made the charge, back it up. *WHERE* have I disrespected you. *WHERE* have I insulted you as a host. *WHERE* have I transgressed your rules. Links or it didn’t happen.

    Like I said, you are being disrespectful while simultaneously denying that you are. There is nothing respectful in your tone here. You are demanding my hospitality, and insulting me in the process. On this thread you started with:

    What I don’t understand is why the discussion of solutions is stifled. Yes, we have to deal with the hand we’ve been dealt, but there are always solutions. From what I can see, the only solution that’s allowed to be discussed here is MGTOW, which has serious problems vis-a-vis Romans 1:26-27. God’s very first command to mankind was “Be fruitful and multiply…” and that was to take place within the bounds of marriage. So why is it that on an ostensibly Christian blog that the only response to the ongoing defenestration of marriage that the only acceptable response that can be discussed is MGTOW?

    Yes, Dalrock, that’s for you. If Biblical solutions cannot be discussed, of what use is discussing the subject? I lay it squarely before you. You can delete this or you can answer. You’ve alluded in the past to “vigorous debate” but I notice that you confine debate to “acceptable” subjects only with respect to modern evangelical Christianity.

    Then you accuse me of pandering to women because I won’t pander to you:

    From what I can see, you refuse to open anything I say to “vigorous debate” on your blog because you don’t want to deal with the outcome. Believe it or not, I understand. You don’t want to offend women in your core demographic. To me, that paints you as a sell-out. I truly regret to have to say that because I have tremendous respect for what you’ve done in the past, but there comes a time in which one has to draw a line in the sand.

    You don’t see any disrespect in the way you have been writing to me, and I don’t know how to help you there. If you truly can’t see it, I won’t be able to explain it.

    Not only is this disrespectful, but it is untrue. You are trying to claim that everything is out of bounds, but the reality is you object to not being permitted to repeatedly take discussions off topic to your pet fetishes. You want to have regular discussions on the benefits of polygamy with girl on girl action and spankings to solve the problem of the family courts and out of control domestic violence claims, but I don’t, and I don’t want to host the conversation. Anyone interested in the topic can go to your blog. At first you claimed that I failed to explain the rules to you, and now you complain that I did explain the rules to you.

    Like I said, piss off. If you don’t want to participate here, so be it. But stop insulting me while demanding my hospitality.

  125. greyghost says:

    Deti

    When you get all the way down to it, that’s why men and women are still marrying. Men, because they want sex and kids; women, because they want social standing and access to money. And marriage, when done right, benefits everyone involved, especially the kids. That’s why people are still doing it; why they still want it.

    Every effort must be made to make it the case. A large number know we will never have such a marriage what can we do to screw up the status quo we have now. Men and women are interested in that. The guys at ROK’s are full of men taking on the establishment fighting our battle daily. It would be interesting to see the men here discuss ways to destroy this culture with the goal of creating a culture that thrives in biblical marriage.
    Agree or disagree some men are taking some action.
    http://www.returnofkings.com/73134/how-patriarchy-will-return

  126. Gunner Q says:

    Gaza, welcome home. First beer’s on us.

    Casey @ 9:31 am:
    “Lawmakers, politicians, policy makers, feminists, police, etc. will keep pushing…”

    I know quite a few police aren’t happy with the current situation. A couple small politicians, too. There’s a reason the Elites prefer to advance via judicial tyranny: too many men won’t swallow the “man fault” lie.

    Full reversal is unlikely but there will be some good-sized cracks in the system. If I was a small-town California mayor, I’d build a prison specifically for “deadbeat dads”… only it would be run as a latter-day monastery with State money spent on minor comforts instead of lots of guards. The “inmates” would keep it clean and live in peace & quiet, I’d make a modest profit and Sacramento would be impressed at how cheaply it was operated.

    This sort of thing is a long-standing “tradition” of Christianity. As we get persecuted for our high morality and honest living, some of our purported persecutors will quietly make mutually beneficial use of us. In the Bible, this happened to Joseph, Daniel & friends and Paul.

  127. Dragonfly says:

    @Robin Munn, I know, it’s been almost 2 years since we saw, too in December 2013… I think it’s burned into my memory mostly because my son was right there, and the portrayal of the masculine was just so terrible. Boys constantly get these messages from society that girls are better, that they are the ideal, and that movie was just another depiction of that.

    It’s just really interesting that it was so popular, but with the opposite of what the old fairy tales themes used to be – and I’m not talking about Disney, I’m talking about the real fairy tales that children used to hear told. Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Snow White in particular, all had the strong, masculine, probably too-perfect, handsome prince. We all know that with Disney’s portrayals of those (mostly accurate), women grew up expecting a fairy tale life, with a hero to save her. That has it’s own set of problems, but now, especially in Frozen, the male “hero” is shown to be the opposite of any kind of believable hero, so that the female comes out being the real one in charge, and the one who constantly is needed to save the day.

    And the message that wrote before when I commented is strangely the same one Sheryl Sandberg espoused about who to play with and who to actually pick to marry. Marry the dumb one that you can control, who doesn’t know how to be dangerous or a hero. Play with the handsome smooth men, but never trust them, their bad deep down and not good for long-term commitment.

  128. Hawk&Rock says:

    Just when I despair that the comments section here has nothing valuable to offer, someone like Gaza comes along.

    Well written, Gaza! Thanks for that.

  129. Casey says:

    @GunnerQ

    “I know quite a few police aren’t happy with the current situation. A couple small politicians, too. There’s a reason the Elites prefer to advance via judicial tyranny: too many men won’t swallow the “man fault” lie.”

    And therein lies the problem. Men are kept quiet, and punished if they speak out against the tyranny levied upon them.

    Feminists are the pigs in “Animal Farm”; and any animal that stands against the pigs is picked off/disposed of.

    “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”.
    The rabid re-writing of history and laws until tyranny reigns and war/collapse is inevitable.

  130. Looking Glass says:

    @Casey:

    The entire mess can actually be changed very rapidly. It’s really only just a few laws that would need to be obliterated.

    The issue we have to deal with is getting things changed before we get an excessive body count, as the costs of the current system are already massive in Life & Money. Our Black Robed Masters are the means by which nearly all of this has been pushed, but they’ve created a situation that will lead to direct political violence. It’s going to be a sad day, but you reap what you sow. And may God repay them for their evil.

  131. Casey says:

    @ Looking Glass

    I agree. If I had the power to re-write a handful of laws………..things would change remarkably & quickly.

    The problem is I don’t hold that power. The situation won’t change……it will just reach an inevitable, explosive conclusion.

  132. zodak says:

    a guy i know posted an article about men going on strike & some girl wrote something like “girls are independent, feminist, blah, blah & men need to step up their game if they want to marry us.” she didn’t read the article & didn’t realize that she was no longer in a position to dictate the terms of marriage. i responded with “lol, men don’t want to marry anymore” because they are laughable in how clueless they are about the world they’ve created & it’s pointless to argue with them.

  133. Anon says:

    AT said to Dalrock,

    You don’t want to offend women in your core demographic. To me, that paints you as a sell-out.

    Didn’t Dalrock very recently change the comment policy to heavily restrict the comments of almost all women? That doesn’t sound like ‘pandering to women’.

    On the other hand, anyone who is big on polygamy is in fact pandering to women, since the biggest losers under polygamy are beta males.

  134. Squibby says:

    The hivemind is going to throw a temper tantrum when gen x bachelors start retiring much earlier than gen X career girls. This will be the final insult to marriage 2.0.

    Bachelor mostly fit into two groupings; the loser/slacker or the achiever/saver. They may seem poles apart but, really they are not. Both are comfortable with frugality and self-denial. Career girls, on the other hand, seem to spend all their income (and then some of Dad’s). No matter how much they make, they are not savers. Men are better with money. They just are.

  135. Easttexasfatboy says:

    Frugality is a good thing. MGTOW means supporting yourself. For instance, cooking your own meals. Stocking up on food. Making smart decisions for your self. You see, this society can’t keep going. So, get ready…….prepping isn’t a sin…..just make sure no one knows about it. Medieval times are headed this way, and a man has to get ready for the storm.

    IMO, there’s no way we can make the possible political changes to set things right. Personally, I’m going with the belief that God is going to discipline the wicked. If you’ve read the Bible, well…..drought and starvation are extremely effective.

    America isn’t the good guy anymore. Bloodguilt is the reason. Sexual deviance certainly plays a major role, no doubt. Infanticide brings Divine retribution, as I understand it.

    So, marriage is being destroyed. Demons are indeed active, aren’t they? It’s all explained in the Bible. I choose to believe it.

  136. SirHamster says:

    @Anon:

    AT is unwilling or unable to use words in accordance with their definitions. He uses pseudo-dialectic – claiming the rational high ground while not actually using reason – as can be seen by his untrue claims (e.g. lies) about our host here.

    This isn’t the only blog where he is desperately seeking an audience.

  137. BradA says:

    Claiming no Biblical solutions are put forth here AT is idiocy. That always underlies my comments.

    Your ideas are not the only Biblical ones. Even suggestions of polygamy have a Biblical root, even if they are misguided. (I agree with Boxer that the reality would not fit the fantasy in the minds of some.)

    ====

    I know what, I can argue against polygamy with foreign wives and then see if the RCC and OC support that!

    (Have I bothered everyone yet?)

    /sarc for the humor impaired.

  138. John says:

    I believe Gaza is not only a gifted writer but an example of his generation.

    Someone earlier posted about my children’s generation having first hand experience. It is so true. My kids are 19 and 21. Both in university found their first partners. Neither dated….At All in high school. Their entire circle who hung out at our house 30+ kids 17-20. Not a couple among them. It is just their way. It wasn’t the geek squad either. Lead girl in the drama dept. two or three rugby or soccer jocks. Valedictorian. You get it. Coupling off just never occured to them.

    In highschool I had four gfs. My wife a late bloomer not til college but then had a few. Then we reconnected after college (we were friends in high school but never dated). Married 28 years now. But we Dated! Everyone did. High school was thesafe place to fail. To dump andbe dumped. Hormones aside, how nucleara rejection can a highschooler go…comparitively. And how complicated a breakup?

    I can’t imagine my first awkward date being at twenty. or my grade nine breakup happening with a gf i might have cohabitated with. Highschool is the training wheels of dating. Now its gone so the new lovers play on the highway.

    Secondarily, the big tell. Not one of the thirty plus of their crowd lived with both birth parents. My kids were politely called the freaks because there was no “so where you going for the holidays?”
    ” um home…duh”
    ” but which one? Oh yeahyou only have one.”

    Lived experience. The one night scope to see thru the feminist, shaming, rationalizing fog. NAWALT? But Mom was! How do you counter that????

    I figure the over thirties can be lied to, shamed, etc. They don’t know better.

    But those 15-25 today all have lived it. Seen it. They may be blue pill skill wise for lack of fatherly guidance. But they can’t notbelieve their own experience.

    As notesfromaredpillgirl says on her blog. Let those with ears hear.
    Well the kids have been listening at the top of the stairs for a loooooong time.

    Horseman

  139. Gaza says:

    @MarcusD/JDG/Casey, et al.
    I appreciate your feedback. I will on occasion parachute in with thick paragraphs, but I leave most of it to the deep thinkers already hard at work to keep the discussion going.

    @Cane
    I’m verbose, so I abridged to spare potential readers the time-suck of wading through those years. But reading again I see there was much left out. If you care to read, the unabridged:

    My relationship took the modern tack of the slow-build toward marriage. I was quite beta, blue-pill nice guy (TM). Both of us looked to marriage kind of like how women these days look to children, as in, “yes, someday, just not now.” After a year or so of dating, I was prepared to marry, but like many men I left it to her to make it into a priority. She had other priorities. In fact, she would always find something else to accomplish first.

    My career asked much of me so I allowed my personal life to take on a kind of path of least resistance. She was quite ambitious and had much more specific ‘accomplishments’ to be checked off before marriage and family. The career arms race was on. And it was the source of pretty much all of our discord. Our social circle was high-achieving. So while many did in fact marry “young”, many others were chasing careers. She felt had a lot to prove.

    I lived on the west coast but worked a lot in NY, so I spent a lot of time away from home. She lived and worked more locally, though also had assignments on the road. Out of some kind of economic and practical synergy we concluded that “it was time” and so we got engaged.

    At the time I had small apartments on both coasts. We decided to move in together and so bought a house. I sold my west coast apartment in that deal, but kept the city apartment. Upon moving in, we began merging assets – to put it coldly.

    We both worked in the investment fields (different firms, different jobs) and so being future oriented, we began to enter into investments together in addition to our home – which was a fixer-upper of course. The engagement became a kind of perpetual thing. I ended up in a state of flux where I was being forced to stay in NY full time. A bad time to be planning a wedding. (Notice: planning a Wedding? Its never about being Married, always about planning the Wedding. Digress)

    Around the same time she had landed a career-making deal in SFO. She was not inclined to leave SFO, I was not inclined to turn down a promotion and have to find a new job. What would later prove to be a death sentence to my station at my firm, I orchestrated a maneuver in which I was able to convince them to start a west coast office as opposed to moving me back to NY.

    This is around year 2 of the engagement. For the next 18 months I became a bit of a rock-star as the office was doing well. This, of course, required me to work 6-7 days a week for long stretches. The home life suffered.

    She also was doing quite well. Together we managed to invest ourselves, literally, into a variety of speculative opportunities based on those provided via our careers. There was even a bit of crossover in terms of helping each other out.

    But this fiscal activity did not reflect the emotional progression. We were investing financially but divesting emotionally. There was a day when I told her I wanted to ‘retire’ from work. I just wanted to be with her, to slow down, to connect, and to enjoy a simple life. “We never see each other” was met with the idea that we were “building for the future”, which played right into my wheelhouse as a beta provider. But she did not take well to the idea of me finding a different path. This began to weigh on me.

    She couldn’t see me as anything but the finance guy. The ego-investment in what we were constructing was too significant to unwind, and she had zero interest in altering her trajectory or hitching herself to a man that was not on the alpha train – at least in terms of status. I had trapped myself. I think this is also what cemented her resolve to open the gates of hypergamy.

    We spent one more year bumping into this issue, which become more confrontational as the great recession loomed. I knew the wheels were coming off. Hell, I’d been loosening the wheels myself. It was part of why I had been wanting out.

    The greed, the dark-arts of that world weighed on me greatly. It became really sketchy really quickly. My success turned into a curse. The tallest nail gets pounded kind of thing. I ended up being pressed into running deals that I knew were set up to fail – with a significant portion of my comp being funneled into the deals and into the stock of the firm.

    The music was going to stop and we’d sold the chairs long ago. I was making money but it never really felt real to me, just some kind of game. Turns out I was right.

    One day half of my team was unceremoniously let go. I got to tell them: “you are being laid off, I don’t know anything more than that. Here is the number you call, they will walk you through it” and with that, and an escort out by HR and security, they were gone. People I had spent more time with than my fiance were just gone.

    Most of the other half were reassigned to more defensive roles. The tip of the spear had blunted against reality. I was now a deal guy with no deal team in an office that had no reason to exist in a firm that was shedding thousands of people per week because the profit margin had compressed to 38% from near 60%. Profit. We weren’t even losing money. But other sections were – or were about to.

    One day she just told me we should separate. Within a week I was laid off. Or rather, offered a deal to accept some months of severance, my 8 weeks of unused vacation, and health benefits for the year as long as I signed the confi, non-disclosure, forfeited any claims, and effectively waived the voting rights to my stake in the subsidiaries I’d been forced to invest in along the way. (Most of which were later put into varying degrees of bankruptcy or cannibalized to line their parachutes with gold.)

    Suddenly my big swingin’ D was a dime a dozen. I was getting calls from guys every day that had just been let go. Without a foreseeable income, keeping the house was out. I wouldn’t want to buy her out anyhow. We sold it at a loss to the one buyer who showed up. We were lucky actually.

    I then had to sell my NY apartment to cover the combination of those settlement costs as well as a sudden tax liability I had due to various conversions that became income to the IRS when I was let go from the firm.

    So we had to unwind common assets that were essentially illiquid. Which required creating liquidity from elsewhere and splitting based on a kind of shoot-from-the-hip valuation. So I was draining my munis and anything that would clear, to extricate from our combined lives, all while everything I had brought in on my own was in an unmanageable freefall. I was able to salvage a modest nest egg but it was a fraction of what had been on paper just 12 months prior.

    Due to regulatory issues I was subjected to, and our unmarried status, I had also contributed with her to a number of investments through her firm without the benefit of being a legal party to the transaction. In the end, I had to walk from a couple hundred grand because I had no legal (papered) claim. She assured me that some day we would settle up. I haven’t heard from her in six years. I don’t expect to.

    It would be a year or so before I found out through mutual friends that she had been plotting her escape for well over a year. That she had found her next branch – a client who ran a couple of successful businesses, even earlier. They had gone on several business trips over the years. LOL.

    What struck me the hardest wasn’t the other guy, but it was that she had continued to pressure me into staying at my job “for us”, continuing the lifestyle that was killing me and our relationship “for the future”, and to continue to buy into the long game, even though she had already secured her parachute and her new pilot.

    She told me it wouldn’t be “fair” of me to leave my job and have her making the bulk of the income. She let me hang just so her exit would be cleaner. Comedy or tragedy?

    So many mistakes packed into those years it has taken me these six years just to understand the basic mechanics of it all. The emotional stuff pops up like arthritis with an approaching storm but is no longer the F5 shitnado that it was that first year.

    I was lucky. I had the resources and only myself to take care of. My heart goes out to the men who have kids and lack the financial buffer to stay upright. I saw it with my own brother (frivorced with a kid). He’s still suffering 10 years later. The darkness grows in his heart with each passing year.

    That’s the real mindf*ck. The system is set up to punish based on the very success it requires to enter into it. That is a psychic toll that cannot be paid. There is no way a man can reconcile that, so he just plows on or he burns it to the ground.

    I don’t even blink when I read about men losing their shit or checking out. How can it not be a natural outcome of this system? Preemptive opting out may be bad for the future, but it is still better than being jettisoned into a culture that despises you, with nothing but a head full of lies, and a future as a slave to the divorce-industrial complex.

    Oh by the way, my bro is also a Veteran. I hope Veterans Day finds all of you warriors well fed and warm hearted. Cheers.

  140. BradA says:

    Gaza,

    I don’t know where you are spiritually, but I would recommend you find some Christian men like those here to connect with where you are. Each of us may have a different perspective, but I would expect most here would gladly help you figure things out. You still have a lot of life left to live.

    I believe the Scriptures have the answers, but we must dig them out. I believe many here hold the same and nothing can replace that personal connection in many ways.

    I am not sure exactly what a 3rd tier city is to you, but even a smaller city should have someone who has his head on somewhat straight.

    Lousy situation you went through, but it is all too typical of what I see today.

  141. BradA says:

    To the RCC convert:

    I believe the RCC, the Orthodox Church and even some Protestant churches have some men who don’t buy into the world’s ways. The approaches may vary, but I would second Dalrock’s recommendation to not stop progress merely because of that. Seek out those with similar thoughts that you can fellowship with and you can be of great value strengthening them.

    Dalrock,

    The thing I thought of the most from the OP is the idea of momentum and how that always influences human behavior. That is one reason things haven’t crashed yet in the marriage arena, but it is also the reason that changing to what is good and proper will almost certainly take a long time, even when things are eventually fixed.

    I have no idea how that fix will take place, but I agree with you that “what can’t continue won’t continue.” The change will not come because some are convinced it is so good, it will come because reality always reasserts itself eventually.

    ====

    Something for those who take the Scriptures seriously to consider: Read the end of the first chapter of the Book of Romans. Note that the vileness comes because people reject God as the Creator and He then gives them over to follow all kinds of vile things. The vile things are a result, not a cause, in many ways.

  142. Bruce says:

    “I believe the RCC, the Orthodox Church and even some Protestant churches have some men who don’t buy into the world’s ways.”

    And women too. They’re the ones that the world calls “fundamentalists.” The Catholic ones have women that wear mantillas on their heads. The Protestant ones homeschool, practice courtship instead of dating, etc. I assume there are Orthodox ones – ROCOR? There are Mormons and Jehovah’s Witness ones too.

  143. Dalrock says:

    Thank you Gaza. As others have noted, you indeed have a gift.

    @Casey

    Those that believe this situation will right itself in our lifetimes, or the lifetimes of our children (no matter how young they may be) are fooling themselves. Marriage is in terminal decline, with no hope of returning to its once elevated, pivotal, and organizational role within society.

    I certainly don’t expect marriage to be restored in my or my children’s lifetime. However, what can’t continue won’t. There is a tendency of the unthinkable to suddenly become obvious when the pain becomes high enough. While I don’t expect a full recovery of marriage, I wouldn’t be surprised if we start to see some attempts to improve marriage around the edges. However, as I’ve noted previously, any attempt to address the issue runs the risk of initially making the pain worse. This is because even an honest discussion of the problem will unleash pent up forces that are today being held back by a coordinated denial.

    Lawmakers, politicians, policy makers, feminists, police, etc. will keep pushing for more authority
    and rights for women while foisting accountability and responsibility onto men.

    Look at common-law status. Laws are currently being written to expect the same rights and responsibilities within common-law that a divorced spouse would get in marriage. IT IS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW!!!

    British Columbia has now adopted such legislation. If you live with someone for 24 months in a relationship……….you are married in the eyes of the B.C. courts. Alimony, property division, the whole 9 yards.

    The problem the lawmakers face here though is that this doesn’t solve the problem of broken incentives. In fact, it makes them worse. This is more coercion and quotas. If Stalin and Mao couldn’t make this economic model work, we shouldn’t expect Stalin and Mao light to suddenly figure it out. Yes they can write arbitrary laws taking men’s assets and incomes (just as they already are doing). What they can’t do is make such a system as productive and creative as one based on ownership and incentives. So yes, they will continue to write laws along the lines of from each according to his ability, and to each according her need. But this won’t solve the problem of a shrinking economy and tax base. In fact, they will make the problem worse.

    There are some other more minor problems with using de facto marriage as a replacement to real marriage (aside from the economic problems I mention above and the problem of fatherless children). De facto marriage doesn’t come with the status of real marriage, especially in the short term. A woman has to remain with a man for a long time under this scenario to start to be able to claim the man is invested in her. After all, what is being dispensed with is the public declaration of his investment in her. And either way, women who receive this public declaration of investment will always lord it over those who don’t. The other problem is more subtle. Part of serial monogamy is a focus on the present and a deniability of the past. Serial monogamy looks somewhat like a (mini) marriage if you only look at the current snapshot. What de facto marriage would risk doing is create a paper trail of failed mini marriages. If the State creates hard rules that living together or even banging the same man on the regular for 12 months creates a marriage, how many current “good girls” would end up being seen as 5 time divorcées by the time they are 30? And all without the status of having a wedding. These are more minor points, but the fact remains that women won’t like fake marriage without a wedding as much as they like fake marriage with a wedding. It will always be a step down, and in a country like the US where a generation of women banked on marriage always being there ready when they wanted to reach out for it, the loss of it will sting greatly. Yet the bigger problem is the fatherless children and the huge loss to the economy.

  144. Opus says:

    It is strange is it not that (and lets give them the benefit of any doubts) the best intentions of legislators always have effects which they assume could never happen: to take marriage as the example; it was surely unfair to force couples who clearly were entirely unsuited to each other to prevent them from having a fresh start, yet the introduction of no-fault divorce by playing to female hypergamy brought about the notion that divorce was not just normal but something most people might do. That in turn led to people – both men and women – thinking that marriage was something best avoided; that in turn led to a reduction in the birth rate; and with marriage 3.0 we will surely see the arrival of attempts to justify cuckoldry. I was truly shocked (though I do not think I can provide an adequate reason for my horror) when my friend (or perhaps ex-friend now) in inviting me to visit him one evening and informing me that the reason for the invitation being that his wife was out I enquired where she was. He said he did not know to which I replied that perhaps she was with her lover. He said he did not know and did not care.

    What surprises me is that before I went out to work, work was presented to me as an unrelenting grind, a rat race which one had been entered for and which one could not realistically avoid (only to be punctuated by a spell in the armed forces in our next Anglo-German war and if not that then certainly in South East Asia): now however women see work as a career, glamorous and empowering and fulfilling and more so than being a Mother and certainly more than being a Wife. If culture follows biology, Darwinists will have some considerable task in explaining this strange occurrence perhaps more so than literal readers of Genesis.

  145. Casey says:

    @ Dalrock

    Your points about fatherless children being the nucleus of the problem are both correct, and well-received by your followers.

    The sting of the loss of marriage to women who have frittered away their youth & market capital matters not a whit to me.

    I say ‘Feel the sting, baby’.

  146. jbro1922 says:

    @Dalrock

    The solution to that conundrum: the EPL narrative. At least when it “works.”

  147. Easttexasfatboy says:

    Dalrock, fatherless children are a grave social ill. Young girls are just as violent as the boys, if not worse. IMO, the biggest looming problem is civil disorder. Food shipments are easily disrupted, and starvation can result.

  148. Art Deco says:

    John, if your children had a circle of friends numbering 30 and not one lived in an intact family, their circle of friends was (in addition to being abnormally large) very peculiar. I would not generalize.

    As for Gaza, most aspects of his story are not archetypal. Very few people have high-flying careers in finance (and then give them up). Most men are married by their 29th birthday, and only about 20% of those in their early 40s are lifelong bachelors.

  149. Dalrock says:

    @Art Deco

    As for Gaza, most aspects of his story are not archetypal. Very few people have high-flying careers in finance (and then give them up).

    Correct. I continue to believe that a “marriage strike” isn’t what we are seeing. There are men like Gaza, but the far bigger group are men who weren’t motivated to prepare for marriage in the first place. They aren’t so much eschewing marriage as going with the flow in a system where marriage very often is postponed to the late 20s and early 30s. This is a very long time for a young man, and on top of that we have the official narrative that women no longer are looking for traditional providers.

    Most men are married by their 29th birthday, and only about 20% of those in their early 40s are lifelong bachelors.

    I don’t recall the specific stats on this, but at any rate the number of unmarried men in every age bracket is going up, and the percentage of unmarried men who earn nothing is going up at the same time. This is a terrible trend. Most of the blood may still be in the body, but we are hemorrhaging all the same.

  150. Cane Caldo says:

    @Gaza

    I’m verbose, so I abridged to spare potential readers the time-suck of wading through those years. But reading again I see there was much left out. If you care to read, the unabridged:

    I did care, thank you. And I’m glad I asked: The unabridged version has all the important details of assumptions, inertia, perverse incentives, and demotivation that, in the moment, seem like typical puddles in the modern storm rather than the quicksands that they are.

    @Art Deco

    As for Gaza, most aspects of his story are not archetypal.

    On the contrary, I found it to be what Novaseeker calls “bog standard” among American marriages. The career in finance, multiple domiciles and other things that make up the wealth aspect are uncommon, but the trajectory of the story has played out among many of my family, friends, and coworkers. Gaza’s investment portfolio is my friend’s 35″ flat-tube that he bought with his then-girlfriend for their shared apartment in 1998. Among my family: While ministry isn’t very financially lucrative, it has it’s own social capital and status which gets gutted even if it was the woman who moved-on, or stepped-out, whathaveyou. The men basically bail out on aspiration altogether.

    The stories I find surprising are the ones that follow the same initial trajectory, and then don’t end in dissolution/divorce and the man’s withdrawal from achievement.

  151. Novaseeker says:

    Gaza —

    A sad tale, no doubt. It’s easy to get sucked into that kind of spiral in that set. Most people in that set do marry and they stay married at higher rates than everyone else, but I have not seen many successful marriages in that set where both husband and wife were gunners. At some point, one generally takes the back seat, or a split happens. A woman who is determined to be a gunner really needs to either be a married dink, marry a sahd, or stay single.

  152. Anonymous Reader says:

    They aren’t so much eschewing marriage as going with the flow in a system where marriage very often is postponed to the late 20s and early 30s.

    Postponed by women, lurkers take note. It’s the 20-something women on the carousel who postpone marriage up to the age of 29, not the mythical “Peter Pan ManBoys”.

    This is a very long time for a young man, and on top of that we have the official narrative that women no longer are looking for traditional providers.

    Yeah, who saw any of this coming?
    Tell boys from kindergarten to age 18 how worthless and creepy they are while drugging them into submission to female feminist teachers, tell men all through college how evil they are via “yes means yes until it doesn’t” and other strongarm propaganda, tell men from college graduation through the age of 30 how superfluous and irrelevant they are to Strong, Independent Women…and by some bizarre, unexplainable process, they don’t magically turn into Sheryl Sandberg Approved Provider Dad material on their 31st birthday. Zowie!

    Who knew? Who could have predicted that treating half of the human race like scum for most of their lives would somehow affect their outlook on life?

    Art Deco
    Most men are married by their 29th birthday, and 40% of them are frivorced before they turn 40, too. Not that it matters. It’s only men. Expendable, right?

  153. BradA says:

    Opus,

    it was surely unfair to force couples who clearly were entirely unsuited to each other to prevent them from having a fresh start

    Why is that unfair? Many today assert that point, but they are wrong. Marriage must have consequences or you will have a mess like what we have now. Even mismatched couples can make it work if both parties will do so. The idea that we have to actualize the self so much is the core problem in modern society. Get everyone to care more about the partner they married (especially the wife) and you will end up with a much better foundation.

    Some will still hit rocks, but that is part of life, not an inevitable consequence.

  154. Dave says:

    If the past is any guide, women who tried but fail at the last minute to jump off the cock carousel into the safe arms of beta providers, rather than being remorseful and teaching the younger ones to avoid a similar fate, are far more likely to become bitter against the “man-boys who won’t man up and marry wonderful women who are ready to settle down”.
    Doubling down indeed, and gazing more intently at their navels. Apologies to Gaza.

    @Latecomer:

    This is because women have a dread of being judged. Women sense something is broken about their lives, but refuse to confront the possibility of it being their fault.

    Exactly why broken women need so much affirmation, and can’t bear to deal with reality.

  155. solitude says:

    Not that related but I don’t know how else to get articles to Dalrock. This is one of the only things I’ve seen in mainstream ops that actually expressed a marriage positive point. There is hope

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/molly-tolar/my-husband-doesnt-post-about-me-on-social-media_b_8521320.html

  156. JDG says:

    A woman who is determined to be a gunner really needs to either be a married dink, marry a sahd, or stay single.

    IMO she just needs to stay single.

  157. Hey, it is WOMEN who go on strike. THEY are the ones that don’t marry until their late twenties and thirties. They refuse until they’ve slept with a hundred guys. Until they’ve been on toxic-to-the-womb hormonal birth control for 15 or more years, requiring expensive reproductive treatments. Until they’ve ruined their bodies with drinking and partying. Of course, the tattoos, piercings, blue hair and obesity doesn’t help their cause for late-life marriage either. At the end of all that, a 30 or 35 year old man looks over the landscape and sees the typical American college-“educated” female at the age of 28-35, he sees all the women that wouldn’t marry him at age 22 or 24 and these men sensibly say no thanks. And the good ones are looking overseas to young, beautiful foreign-born women untainted by feminism. You see, it was the women that went on marriage-strike. At the end of that strike, the men are refusing damaged, used goods. And that isn’t the men going on strike, it’s the men simply saying, “Thanks, but no thanks”. Me, I like my women Brazilian. That’s it, folks. That’s my story, I’m sticking with it until I kick.

  158. theasdgamer says:

    @ Opus

    If culture follows biology, Darwinists will have some considerable task in explaining this strange occurrence perhaps more so than literal readers of Genesis.

    I assure you, the magical word “Evolution” has certainly not lost its compelling force. It has persuasive power akin to a Deity. “How” is really not a question that Creation Deniers need bother with.

  159. fakeemail says:

    These “Peter Pan” men can’t go back and dedicate their teens and twenties to education and career advancement any more than their would be brides can go back and undo the ravages of time, their student loan/cc debt, and a decade and a half of slutting around before looking for a husband.”

    Brilliant Dalrock, utterly brilliant! So many capable young teens/men were COMPLETELY ignored by women in their formative years who slitted around with the cool guys. So much so that they became demoralized and developed emotional problems that prevented them from becoming the accomplished providers they could have become. So their accomplishments are meager and all they see out there (at best) is fat, used-up old women, in their 30s who have miraculously discovered for marriage and children.

    I guarantee that this would not happen if young men received signal/interest from women EARLY and it was made clear they needed to advance themselves properly.

    To the extreme, but logical and consistent conclusion: women should NOT be in the workforce or academia. They should be in finishing schools learning how to be wives and mothers, PERIOD.

  160. Dave says:

    Marriage will be restored, on terms highly favorable to the stronger sex. Outside of tropical jungles and welfare slums, infants cannot survive to adulthood without it. Women will return to marriage when the alternative is getting “culturally enriched” by dozens of young male immigrants every time she steps out the door (thanks, Angela!). Men will return to marriage when they’re allowed to roger the wife’s 12-year-old virgin daughter.

  161. RICanuck says:

    Rod Dreher (yes, yes, I know he’s a beta pearl clutcher) posted the following this morning in regards to campus pc and aggrieved feelings. When the lurkers and commenters read the following replace “journalists, academics, and professional class “, with feminists, white knights, and churchians.

    “I’ll repeat the excerpt from Houellebecq’s novel Submission that I quoted in this space last night:

    Houellebecq’s quote:
    “History is full of such blindness: we see it among the intellectuals, politicians, and journalists of the 1930s, all of whom were convinced that Hitler could “come to see reason.” It may well be impossible for people who have lived and prospered under a given social system to imagine the point of view of those who feel it offers them nothing, and who contemplate its destruction without any particular dismay.”/end Houellebecq’s quote.

    I would invite journalists, academics, and professional class people to think about what this little campus p.c. revolution so many of you are embracing says to the huge number of people outside your narrow circles of privilege. Houellebecq is speaking to you. You are waging a culture war on the people who are not like you. They know you hate them, and are pulling the ladders up behind you. “

  162. Novaseeker says:

    Already on a growing number of college campuses, there are more women than men. The few and the proud – [not] – beta men who are there know they should not push too hard to meet girls. In their freshman relationship seminars they are told it’s not allowed, approach could be an assault. Because “unwanted contact” (i.e. a clumsy approach) can be grounds for expulsion for sexual assault on some campuses. So the obedient students just want to get their degrees without fuss and move on. They’re America’s grass-eaters. And women won’t date down blow their social/educational levels. You can’t make them. They just complain there aren’t enough men to their liking available. Not just here, of course. Ask the Japanese, or the urban Chinese.

    My Magic 8-Ball says this is where the crisis will really manifest. Solutions? Any ideas on how to make a lava flow go away?

    There really are only individual solutions to this. The culture is too big to influence in any meaningful way when your perspective is diametrically opposed to the leadership of the culture (media, Hollywood, academia, government, business).

    Individual success stories can be made, but they will need to be counter-cultural, and consciously so. The mainstream is sliding in the direction of fewer marriages outside the upper middle class, more cohabitation, more “monogamish” approaches to sexuality even among “committed” couples and so on. What connects the dots? Maximal optionality. That is what you are seeing among high schoolers, and it’s what we see in colleges and older as well — a large percentage of people are maintaining high optionality, as a priority.

    Hypergamy, in a context where women are equally performing or out-performing men, on the large scale, will also emphasize maximal optionality, because in that setting, it’s perceived that there are few men who are worthy of commitment, and so odds are the one you are with is an unworthy one, meaning that you need to maintain maximal optionality in order to ditch when the need arises for a male who is qualified in a hypergamous sense. This is the Japan scenario. It’s also a huge issue in the US among males who are below the higher value levels — women do not see any value in these guys, so the guys are left out and the girls flit between flings with qualified but non-committal men, ONSs, starter marriages, trial relationships and so on, because “there are no good men” in the hypergamous sense who are willing to commit.

    This has not yet hit the upper middle other than for a small number of women who simply waited too long (no, Kate Bolick, your peer women didn’t arry at 23 but they also mostly didn’t wait until they were 40 to get married, you dumbass — you failed to follow your own class’s script!) .. but it’s going to start to happen as the matriculation and graduation rates begin to trickle through the rising demographic. Remember, in Kate’s college years, the gender balance on campuses was not close to where it is now — that skew is going to come home to roost among college educated in the next 10-20 years, and it will almost certainly depress marriage rates among that class. When that happens, there will be a massive, and I mean a MASSIVE, uproar, because until now the upper middle class has been largely immune to the relationship chaos prevailing “below” them. That will come to a slow end in the next decade or two and then, and only then, will it be seen as a “crisis” of any kind.

  163. Gunner Q says:

    John @ 1:44 pm:
    “I can’t imagine my first awkward date being at twenty.”

    It was indeed awkward. I was sitting there thinking women look like normal people but aren’t.

  164. Novaseeker says:

    As one example of this kind of attitude I mentioned in my prior comment, this was posted by a woman in the last day or so on reddit in the context of a discussion about a recent Telegraph article about how women are much picker than men are when mate selecting:

    Being disappointedly single but with six adorable cats and the occasional one night stand from the local pub to take the pressure down is still better than starting a relationship with someone who will drain and diminish you significantly more than he assists and refuels and benefits you. Simple as that. Maybe there is a crisis but it isn’t a women’s crisis. Women are choosing the best option available to them and making of it what they can.
    On the plus side for men, there are multiple ways you can change to make the equation work out and have women assess you as being of more worth than owning half a dozen cats and a pair of fuck-me heels. These ways fall into two broad categories… you can cease looking like you will do things that drain her and you can start looking like you will do things that make a bit of draining worthwhile.
    You can demonstrate that you are not a little boy and will take care of your own shit and will never need or want your female partner to choose your clothes for you, pick up your socks for you or nag you to take a shower. You can increase your physical attractiveness. You can demonstrate emotional and financial security. You can show that you operate effectively in society without throwing tantrums or pursuing petty vendettas and it won’t always be her who is trying to maintain social relationships while you systematically destroy them. You can pick up useful skills and exhibit your willingness to generously use those skills. You can show that you value family and will treat her family connections as serious and valuable.
    And get this… most of the changes you can make in yourself to be of more worth to women also make you worth more to yourself. So if you make thos changes and don’t get what you want, you’;ve still been an overall winner.
    What isn’t being asked for is male perfection. What is being asked for is that a man makes the total package of what he offers in a relationship be of more worth than six cats and the occasional quick fuck with a random. Can’t do that? Tough shit, do without pussy or pay for it. Think you’re worth more that, are putting in reasonable and regular effort to find relationships and still can’t find a woman to be with? You’ve got your calculations wrong, you’re not as good as you think you are.

    This is the issue in a nutshell — they don’t see the men who are available for anything more than a quick lay or fling as being worthwhile as relationship partners. This is the intersection of hypergamy with male lack of achievement due to disinterest (and an overwhelming emphasis on the achievement and advancement of women at the expense of men). Of course, she doesn’t realize that by making herself available with her sex pumps in bars regularly, she is providing disincentives for men to bother making themselves good relationship partner material, and therefore making the problem worse for women, but that’s to be expected. From her perspective, it’s because there aren’t any good male relationship partners around anyway — and, yes, the men will be blamed for it, and already are being blamed for it, as you can see in her comment.

  165. feeriker says:

    To the extreme, but logical and consistent conclusion: women should NOT be in the workforce or academia. They should be in finishing schools learning how to be wives and mothers, PERIOD.

    I most certainly agree with that statement one hundred percent in principle. The reality, however, is that it would take a finishing school of Citadel/West Point rigor (and with equivalent attrition rates) to turn out an American woman today with even a pale imitation of the femininity of her grandmother. Realistically, it would be a fool’s errand and a waste of time and resources to even try.

  166. @Artis Todd: You say “give me examples of any disrespect” and 2 paragraphs later you say: “that paints you as a sell-out.”

    You are smarter than that. Knock it off. I agree with you completely about corporal punishment and I don’t agree with Dalrock’s decision (because free speech being what it is the true answer will emerge and I rather doubt it will be your- or my- answer) but it is not something he wants to deal with. Think about it, you might as well point a doxing bullseye on your chest. That’s not “sell-out” and you know it and it certainly doesn’t make his ‘core demographic’ SJW women.

    @Gaza: Your story is practically MGTOW porn. You should learn to plate them, not date them. It is also the story of the decline and fall of a great civilization.

    Finally, all this “Frozen” discussion is triggering me. Let it go.

  167. Dale says:

    @Siobhan
    her current plan is to get married at 20 and start a family

    @Artisanal Toad

    There is one commenter here in particular that I have recently decided to ignore again. I (mostly) skip over his posts and do not read them. The reason is that he can’t shut up. He repeats the same ideas over and over.

    Similarly, you have stated what you want, three times now on this post. Unless we are all stupid, we understood your view after your first comment. And certainly after the second. To quote the Frozen song mentioned upthread, “let it go”.

    You will not convince everyone.

    Normally I have the ability to respect your comments, even if I do not agree with everything. As one who normally enjoys your comments: You are being an ass today.

    @Robert What? and AR:
    >You have a much higher opinion of the intelligence of “policy makers” than I do.

    +1 for AR. Our politicians have no immediate motive to care about what strengthens the country 20 years from now. Each election term is for only 4 years. This interest horizon is far too short.

    @DEn1 and others
    >The next move: a marriage license with an expiration/renew date.

    I really doubt the women and lawyers would allow “limed term” marriages. These would (or should) have no alimony, as the woman knew up front that the marriage would end. So alimony, if any, would be stated in the original contract.
    And can you imagine any guy signing a document that clearly states that in exchange for sex for 5 years, he must:
    – pay alimony to her until she next marries, if ever, at a rate of 50% (or even 30%) of his wages
    – lose his children, and pay x% for 25 years (in Canada, CS can be continued until the “child” finishes university)

    The only reason marriage licenses work now is the man is idealistic, and chooses to not be aware of what he is signing. But when the document starts to clearly lay it out, I HOPE that most would refuse. Of course, I have to admit to the same idealism in myself…

    @Tom C
    >“I do” but also by either:
    >
    >a) living with a man for a specified period of time, or
    >b) having his child

    We almost have exactly this in Canada already. Going from memory, if he:
    a) lives with her for 2/3 years, or
    b) lives with her for 1 year AND has a child with her,
    then the government gives her the same rights as a wife. Laws and timelines vary by province, but the point is your suggestion is already here.

    @Gaza
    I want to give you some encouragement or hope for a better future. Unfortunately I have nothing to offer, other than to look to go to a different culture. Cheaper to live, and many of the women are vastly better.
    Regardless, well written.

    @Dave at 11:56:
    >Great is Madonna of the Americans!
    LOL!

  168. Dale says:

    @Siobhan
    >her current plan is to get married at 20 and start a family

    Sorry, I forgot to paste in my comments. I think you are doing well. As others suggest, model the wise wife. Ask your husband what he likes and then do it. One woman, maybe Dragonfly, related that she had been wearing something else, then changed into a skirt before her husband came home. Her daughter asked why she was wearing the new outfit. The wife said, “because Daddy likes it”. Be this kind of model.

    Good luck.

  169. Dale says:

    >fakeemail and Dalrock

    I know Dalrock has given charts supporting the notion of men who fail to successfully develop a lucrative career.
    Regardless, the claims about “Peter Pan” men, who are lazy and wile away their time on video games, always sounds like a lie to me.
    I know my small circle of friends is not the whole nation, yet the fact remains that none of my friends were this lazy, time-wasting lout. Sure, we had 1 or 2 evening game get-togethers each week. But we still achieved degrees and worked full time.
    Perhaps the problem is that I think a man who provides enough, is enough of a provider. I do not think a man with 2 children should be expected to earn enough for a family of 10. So my expectations are lower.

    I was making 100k a year in my mid 20s. Now mid 40s, still single. Some friends got married in their 20s, but many could not marry until their early 30s, or not at all.

    I and all of my friends have consistently worked or been looking for work. (I thank God I have consistently had work.) I do not claim they had high-status careers, but they make enough to support a family.
    Yes, my friends have been from church environments. But still, we have worked and some have “failed” to marry.

    What about the rest of you? Can you actually name a couple “Peter Pan” men who refuse to work? Or is this just a myth, something that you heard about from a friend of a friend? Or worse yet, you accepted some woman’s claims as truth?
    Personally, I know of 0 men who fail to provide enough for the family with which he is allowed to live.
    Personally, I know of 0 single men who fail to earn enough to provide for himself. (I am not interested in the asshole views of those who think we should force single or married men to support someone else’s family.)

  170. They Call Me Tom says:

    I was actually motivated in my twenties, hypergamy got in the way the first time around with the girlfriends then, and the frowning upon of ‘settling down’ by the women I dated. Most have experienced the rest of the story, when they started to hit thirty, they ‘wanted to get back in touch’. Without being deliberately vindictive, as I did give it a spin a few times to see where it went, it turns out that it’s hard to feel attraction to someone (and to invest in someone) who was previously so flaky. In the end I wouldn’t claim to be MGTOW, it’s just that the quality of person to make the investment in isn’t out there on the market (those women are still married obviously). I’ve got the income, home and neighborhood for a family, but I’m the fun uncle for my friends’ kids instead.

  171. Exfernal says:

    @theasdgamer
    In biology evolution is not a guarantee of continued survival of any species (or any kinship group regardless of size, for that matter). In the tree of life much more branches were terminated ‘prematurely’ than thriving to this day. Nothing magical about it.

  172. @Deti: “men and women are still marrying. Men, because they want sex and kids; women, because they want social standing and access to money. And marriage, when done right, benefits everyone involved, especially the kids. That’s why people are still doing it; why they still want it.”

    –Sure they still want it but it doesn’t exist. Read some more /r/Deadbedrooms or /r/marriedredpill if you think marriage guarantees sexual access.

    What is your MRP reddit handle again?

    I think the discussion of Marriage 3.0 dovetails right here because marriage 3.0 will exist for a very short time before the collapse as a feminist horror show. It will probably have affirmative consent laws, can I touch you there, and so on. Much like all the abstinence cults that died out in a generation, this form cannot last because the only men who would participate would be unlikely to get enough sex to procreate. Perhaps it could exist as the Cuckold States of America with the Alphas participating in marriage 4.0?

  173. scientivore says:

    @ Fiddlesticks: If the recent findings about neuroplasticity declining around age 25 are true, then it is going to much harder for today’s men to turn over a new leaf.

    Neuroplasticity continues until its function has been served. That means either success or giving up. My own neuroplasticity continued into my 30s; but I stopped trying to change in my mid-to-late 30s, and I’m pretty set in my ways now in my early 40s.

    The most important thing to remember is that men respond to women’s signals; and if there’s no optimism of imminent pair bonding, then they’re going to stop feathering their nests.

  174. Spacetraveller says:

    @ Dale,

    I think the ‘skirt change’ story you refer to came from Scott’s wife (I think her name is Michel or something similar?) not Dragonfly.

    Gaza’s story sent a dagger through my heart. So sorry you were betrayed by your ex-girlfriend, Gaza. Hope you find the peace (and one day, ultimate joy in someone else!) sometime soon.

    My husband has a similar tale to yours, I suspect. I still don’t know all the details, because he likes to keep them to himself – he is just like that.

    But you know, he met me when he was 42! So don’t lose hope. Of course I respect the possibility that you may not want to meet someone, I get that.

    In either case, a better time will come.
    Because God is good.

    And all you guys (and also gals) with a similar tale: my heart goes out to you.
    Courage, as the french say.

    Thank you John for mentioning the blog ‘notesfromaredpillgirl’.
    What a lovely lady. I thoroughly enjoyed perusing her posts.

  175. nick012000 says:

    By the way guys, there’s an easy solution for the problem of all the women your age being used-up sluts: don’t date women your age. Look up the Age of Consent in your state, then take a look around your church for families with daughters at about that age, and ask the father for permission to court her for marriage.

    Stack the odds in your favor: women who marry below the age of twenty have a divorce rate of 20%; women who are virgins at marriage have a divorce rate of 20%, so if you want a partner, go out and marry yourself a teenage virgin, before she hops on the cock carousel to “find herself”.

    It’s what I’m planning on doing once I finally find someone willing to hire me.

  176. iamadamalan says:

    I have young boys, I don’t know what to tell them to do.

    Right now MGTOW/TRP is winning the argument. Marriage is a raw deal there are no good reasons to do it. Marriage 2.0 is a suicide mission.

    And yet without some form of marriage we face cultural/societal suicide. If I wanted my, future my children’s future to look like Islam I’d move to Saudi Arabia.

    So what are our solutions?

    Some say game. I have my doubts. It doesn’t really change the structural issues. It doesn’t fix the total lack of suitable women. Even the guys over at Married Red Pill who are making dramatic turnarounds in their marriages say don’t get married.

    The church so called doesn’t have an answer, they are part of the problem. They lost control of marriage decades ago and are no longer relevant. What they preach has LESS objective appeal than what the culture has.

    So what are our solutions?

  177. ljess says:

    @Dalrock – Most men married by 29????? – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9oHkNiFdIs

  178. Opus says:

    @BradA

    I tend to agree with you but in my heart I find it hard to be a Marriage Nazi. We do not for instance, these days, insist that if your first job was unappealing that you should stay in it until retirement. We live in a world where both jobs and wives can be changed. Whether one would have been better off staying with ones first job or ones first wife must remain a moot point. I realise my liberalism here will be seen as the beginning of a very slippery slope yet I think of a chap I used to know, a teacher, like-able, kindly and quite good-looking who married a black girl; that fact might have had something to do with the fact that his very liberal parents had fostered or adopted a black person. He would not want to be thought of as racist and so…. It went badly wrong – mercifully without offspring being produced – and the last time I saw her (whilst she was stilled married to my friend) she was in a bar looking very butch-dyke and snogging some other woman. I am sure he must have remarried and more appropriately and more successfully, – anyway: I have just looked him up on Rate My Teacher where he scores five out of five on all categories except, strangely, for clarity. Hmm.

    This is surely going to be a bad week for me as I have already incurred the wrath of Heartiste (Roissy) for being Game-sceptic.

  179. Opus says:

    @Novaseeker

    I think that I must know that woman whose comment on Reddit you fully quote. This woman spends too much time hanging round her local pub, getting blotto and then being pumped and dumped by some visiting Alpha or pick-up Dude ten to fifteen years her junior. She is the woman no man takes seriously and would be embarrassed being seen as the man to whom she once succumbed. No wonder she finds men unappealing for the men she hangs around are just that, but that is her choice and thus she is looking directly at her MMV equivalent. Hamsterlation is superfluous with her fatuous shaming.

    Mrs Clooney was heading that way until she met George, but even winning the lottery is easy compared to snagging the world’s most desirable actor.

  180. ljess says:

    The comparing of leaving marriage and leaving a job is ridiculous – would you leave the job if you had to pay your past employer 30-40% of future pay for life plus pay for future training of all the younger people you initially trained and brought up in the company.

  181. LawDog says:

    I wanted to chime in after iamadamalan’s mention of possible solutions. I’m a lawyer by trade, as you might have guessed by the handle. I occasionally represent people, usually men, in connection with child support cases. Our firm also does some family law (divorce, child custody, etc). I also have experienced frivolous divorce, firsthand, so I see the ugliness of our current family law structure from all sides.

    Generally speaking, the law follows the culture. The laws can lead the culture, but there is a “lag-time” where the laws would be changed, and eventually, after a period of years, behaviors would change. In the case of marriage, the legal changes that could result in a restoration of marriage would be: (1) end “no-fault” divorce; (2) end child support; and (3) end any sort of post-separation spousal support (alimony being the most widely known). I’d be receptive to the idea of mandating that women not be allowed to enter into marriage without a male relative’s approval, and of not allowing women to initiate divorce for any reason. I personally do not believe women should vote, but I suppose that ship has sailed. In fact, none of the changes I have mentioned will likely happen before some collapse type event, but they would be a good start.

    What the legal changes I advocate will not do is change the culture. In discussions on marriage, I always tell people that the problem with marriage isn’t the other party to the contract, it’s the contract. Having said that, even if you fixed the contract, you’d still have the problem that there is a shortage of women who represent a “good bet” for marriage. The legal changes would be a big help, but I’m not sure how you change the culture to the point where it is producing good, marriageable women.

    As for child support — one of the most fascinating things I’ve discovered about child support cases is that a woman who perceives a man as a high, high alpha is much less likely to pursue past due child support from him. Said another way, my perception is that child support is generally used to punish men who might be referred to as “beta” or lower.

    Finally, someone above mentioned being skeptical of Game — I have found that the principles discussed on PUA type blogs do generally work. Over the past four years, I’ve experimented with some of those techniques and found them effective. Whether the principles the PUA crowd espouses are moral or not is a separate discussion, but they do generally provide an accurate picture of how women respond to different signals.

  182. Casey says:

    @LawDog

    We all know how to fix the situation, it simply isn’t going to happen.

    Neither anyone inside nor outside the legal community is going to commit hara-kiri to put forth that agenda.

  183. anonymous_ng says:

    @Dale-
    What about the rest of you? Can you actually name a couple “Peter Pan” men who refuse to work? Or is this just a myth, something that you heard about from a friend of a friend? Or worse yet, you accepted some woman’s claims as truth?

    Of my younger friends, I have one friend and a couple acquaintances that fit that description. My friend is almost thirty and has been screwing off and not graduating from college since he was twenty. A couple more guys seem content in their twenties to work at Walmart and a coffee shop respectively which pays enough to pay for a cheap apartment downtown and PBR at the bars and nightclubs, and sex with randos.

    I’ve got two friends with master’s degrees in comp sci or CIS that are happily engaged in the corporate world. One had a story not dissimilar to Gaza’s and is now living with an old girlfriend from college. They will probably marry. Eventually. Just because. The other is still in his twenties and is just enjoying some random sex.

    Then, I’ve got a friend who hit all the success levels, degree, MBA, good corporate job, wife, daughter, success. He plays a nice dread game naturally, and I expect they will have a successful marriage.

    I’ve got another friend who married shortly out of high school, and then divorced/got divorced. He’s unlikely to remarry, and has spent his twenties doing a little of this and a little of that. Turning thirty has seemed to focus him on financial/professional success, but he’s unlikely to ever remarry.

    So, it’s a mixed bag.

  184. Carchamp1 says:

    Long-time lurker here. Always interested to hear your take on marriage as I’ve been “studying” marriage for many years. “Studying” as in once I realized I was completely fucked I started looking into exactly what I signed up for.

    Anyway, I’m not a religious person. Because of that, my views are often diametrically opposed to yours. I’ve not found our differences important to me, though. I very much respect your viewpoints, especially within the context of your beliefs and values. To each his own.

    I was talking to a (Catholic) friend of mine a couple weeks ago and brought up what I think is a (huge) fundamental problem with the concept of modern secular/civil marriage. That is, marriage must be built on a foundation of faith, anchored by God. Allow me to elaborate…

    The question I have for our secular society is, why get married at all? And once you’re married, why bother staying married ’til death do you part? What is the point? For you, the answer to these questions is fundamental to who you are. Your faith is the reason and anchor. When you hit a tough patch in your marriage, you have a very good reason to stay the course and resolve conflict. Even in instances of suffering and bitterness there is a point to it all.

    Have you ever thought about the rational or “foundation” for secular marriage (and when I say marriage I mean the lifelong, monogamous kind)? My point to my Catholic friend was that there isn’t one. When I ask myself why I’m doing this (staying in my marriage) there are just crickets, so to speak, in my head. There is no “foundation” for secular marriage. The promises of twenty-somethings in “love” just doesn’t carry much weight, after all.

    Thought?

  185. BradA says:

    Opus,

    We do not for instance, these days, insist that if your first job was unappealing that you should stay in it until retirement.

    I don’t know anyone who made a lifelong commitment to their career, except maybe someone who joined the US Marines.

    Those who got married did make a life long commitment, at least they supposedly did so.

    The problem is that offering an out that can be gotten by claiming “bad fit” or something like that undercuts the whole notion of marriage. I believe it has been said many times that it is easier to get out of a marriage than a car lease. That is a messed up situation. Allowing the out encourages less up front thought about marriage as well as some to decide to bail because of “irreconcilable differences” when they could have worked it out.

    Some marriages may end up really bad, but we will ultimately have fewer of those if people realize they have to work it out rather than to bail.

    It is all about what you create incentives for. Allowing divorce for the “bad cases” will end up producing more “bad cases” that “need” to divorce. That ultimately harms far more than it helps.

    The pursuit of personal happiness above all else may be a cornerstone of modern life, but it is not a good end goal.

    ====

    I will assume that I am the one Dale is ignoring, which is fine by me. I do aim at a consistent message. I do find it ironic he appears to be single and over 40, yet can tell exactly how to find the right wife. At least some (like JDG) have done what they proclaim. Please let me know if I am in error about his singleness and he really is married to a foreign bride as he claims is so much better.

  186. Morgan says:

    @ Novaseeker

    Her advice to men is to work on themselves until they are worthy of her pussy, while she gives it away free to cads in pubs. Yet she doesn’t catch the point that if this man makes himself worthy of her pussy, what has she done all her life to be worthy of anything more than a cad in a pub?

  187. Carchamp1 says:

    Dalrock, You wrote this above:

    “The incentives in our new family system (the replacement for marriage, child support) have the same problem the Soviet model had.”

    This is one of the reasons I read your blog. There are very few people, even in the “men’s rights”, even the MGTOW, community who fundamentally understand that modern (so-called) family court IS based on a socialist/communist/Soviet model. And like the Soviet Union, modern civil “marriage” will ultimately fail. The incentives/disincentives will drive secular marriage into extinction. I do believe the availability of (horror) stories and (cold, hard) information on the internet will hasten that extinction.

  188. theasdgamer says:

    @ Exfernal

    In biology evolution is not a guarantee of continued survival of any species (or any kinship group regardless of size, for that matter). In the tree of life much more branches were terminated ‘prematurely’ than thriving to this day. Nothing magical about it.

    Hamsterlation of pseudoscientific gobbledygook:

    “Whatever is, evolution did it.”

  189. Carchamp1 says:

    Brad,

    If you make marriage impossible to get out of, that will only hasten the decline of marriage. I know this might be hard to believe for many on this blog, but most people really don’t want to be suffering, ball-and-chained to someone for life. Many people are getting married at all because they know they have an out.

    I don’t believe in secular marriage at all. It doesn’t make any sense. Only those with unwavering faith that marital suffering will lead to some just reward should dare enter a lifelong marriage commitment. That’s not very many people, even among church-goers.

  190. Thornstruck says:

    @LawDog

    “In fact, none of the changes I have mentioned will likely happen before some collapse type event, but they would be a good start.”

    I agree, the social structure you’ve outlined with State marriage (1) “no-fault” divorce; (2) child support; and (3) post-separation spousal support (alimony being the most widely known) still remains intact. I don’t think there will be a peaceable route of legislative reforms forthcoming which would address these issue.

    With respect to game and PUA, from my understanding of the concept of game, it’s parent category is social sexual dynamics. From the social sexual dynamic category is the sub category of intersexual interaction with which observational data has been detailed with actions and reactions between the sexes. Applied intersexual interaction is where the categories fraction depending upon the goals of it’s practitioner. The term game is affixed with it’s practitioners, PUA, primary goals of hedonism. I think Dalrock has identified, or at least better articulated, another applied intersexual interaction within the Biblical framework called headship.

  191. Morgan says:

    @ Lawdog

    Folks need to be aware of the changes you advocate. I don’t believe we’re that far away from such a change in the law, as the liberal feminists are actually beginning these changes for us. The expectation of life long support payments only comes from the culturally dead expectation of life long marriage. Now we already see feminists trying to undo that lifelong commitment with a marriage “pass” of 4-7 years. Turning marriage into that circus requires 1) the irrelevancy of no fault divorce and 3) the end of post separation spousal support. How can long term support be expected of a short term contract? I don’t know how it impacts child custody or child support, as the idea of 4 year marriages makes no sense in the context of raising well adjusted children. But this is a train we should be out in front of to bend to our will.

    As terrible as that future sounds, it may be the only way out of the current marriage 2.0 slavery of men. As a group we can continue to advocate the life long sacrament of marriage, while the secular society wastes it’s energy and efforts on child support fights. At least it gives catholic men a fighting chance by removing some of the legal weapons used by secular society to tempt our women to divorce. Remember, the legal definition of marriage has no impact on God’s expectations of us for religious marriage. I say let it burn.

    Lastly, this marriage “pass” also works against the FI in another way. The hypergamous imperative has one logical conclusion of AF and BB. Under the current system women get their AF in their youth, have a child or two, pump the alpha for child support for not committing to her, and then marrying a BB for financial security on top of the child support. A woman basically retires at 30 once she locks down that Beta, so she can stay at home with her children. And she can count on the life long financial commitments enforced by marriage 2.0 whether she stays with the beta or not. Perhaps with a marriage pass she’ll have to play nice to receive benefits. I believe legal marriage must be destroyed so that religious marriage can flourish.

  192. DrTorch says:

    Free Range Kids takes an excerpt from “Little Women” that ties in well to discussions here

    http://www.freerangekids.com/little-women-louisa-may-alcott-and-a-chapter-on-helicopter-parents/

  193. greyghost says:

    Maybe those changes in law should be openly proposed. Beats taking a tactical rifle course.

  194. Exfernal says:

    @theasdgamer
    What is the “it” you refer to?

  195. BradA says:

    Carchamp,

    If you make marriage impossible to get out of, that will only hasten the decline of marriage. I know this might be hard to believe for many on this blog, but most people really don’t want to be suffering, ball-and-chained to someone for life. Many people are getting married at all because they know they have an out.

    You are limited in your view to marriage 2.0. Marriage lasted in a form for thousands of years. It was not easy to get out of, yet it continued. We now have made it easy to get out of and it is failing. You have it exactly backwards.

    I would rather that the ones you mention not marry and marriage mean something than we have them make a pretend marriage and continue along in the modern fantasy land that will fail.

    I don’t believe in secular marriage at all. It doesn’t make any sense. Only those with unwavering faith that marital suffering will lead to some just reward should dare enter a lifelong marriage commitment. That’s not very many people, even among church-goers.

    Then they should not marry. Don’t call something else marriage just to get more marriages!

    Do you think we are better off now that marriage is easier to get out of and less of a truly life long commitment? Is it right that someone can get out of a marriage easier than a car lease?

    ====

    This situation kind of mirrors my views on helping unwed mothers. I believe we have gone too far celebrating single motherhood so we end up with more women in that situation AND more abortions, even if the percent of abortions is down. (I don’t know that it is or isn’t.) You don’t want to make bad behavior (pregnancy outside marriage or divorces in either case) seem acceptable or even give incentives for it. You will end up with more bad things if you do that.

  196. BigAl says:

    Dalrock, been lurking here for a while, love the site! Thanks for all the hard work.

    @LawDog, I am interested in marrying a woman down here in Texas. I realize it is a no fault state. I had an idea for an “ironclad” pre-nup that basically states “if either party initiates and files for a divorce (other than for adultery), they will not be granted custody or any shared assets of the marriage.” Could this ever work since it holds both sides accountable? Or would a family court rip it to shreds?

    I’ve vetted her extensively and found her to be a great woman worth my time, who shares my values and interests. Doesnt mean that makes for a foolproof marriage. I just want to create that sense of divorce not being an option really.

    If anyone has any good sites or forums to read up on prenups and divorce stuff, please let me know! I believe in due diligence and setting my marriage up for success. I suppose im looking to give a future marriage the support and incentives to stay married that society used to provide…

  197. Cautiously Pessimistic says:

    @ljess
    “would you leave the job if you had to pay your past employer 30-40% of future pay for life plus pay for future training of all the younger people you initially trained and brought up in the company.”

    Sure, if the alternative deals made up for it. If I’d given an oath to God, on the other hand…

  198. JT2 says:

    Question for LAWDOG

    Is there any way to have an enforceable pre-nup that could prevent the wife from filing for divorce within the Family Court system? Have a prenup that states that the divorce must be handled by arbitration, with the terms of the arbitration pre-specified by the prenup?

    The Family Court system is currently biased against men, so perhaps there could be some mechanism of preventing use of this weapon?

  199. ljess says:

    @Cautiously Pessimistic
    With God, there is no stumbling – With God, a marriage should be a benefit to both and the children. The world (most) has walked away from God and a price will be paid. – That being said, I can think of no alternative that would pay so much that it was worth more than my soul and good relationship with God.

  200. craig says:

    “Don’t call something else marriage just to get more marriages!”

    Carchamp, BradA is absolutely correct on this. It is an application of Reynolds’ Law: “Subsidizing the markers of status doesn’t produce the character traits that result in that status; it undermines them.” Cheapening the definition of marriage by making it a revocable contract incentivizes habits of life that are contrary to the virtues that once made marriage a marker of a life well lived.

  201. Opus says:

    @BradA

    I don’t really disagree with your views, but perhaps not having your faith makes it somewhat harder for me not to seek at least a little wiggle-room. Consider perhaps the most famous divorce in history; all the guy wanted was an annulment, and he really should have had it seeing that he had married his late brother’s wife and very much under parental orders when a minor himself. That led to another divorce, a death and two beheadings, as well as the dissolution and sale of vast lands, which in turn brought in a flood of money and which in turn financed the founding and flourishing of some thirteen colonies on the other side of the Atlantic.

    They say that America is a country of immigrants but if you read Jefferson you will see that is not a view he shares; those thirteen colonies were merely England overseas and people like Ben Franklin came and went as suited them. I wonder if in the 1730s when Franklin was working as a printer in The City of London whether Americans already had a different accent to those in the Mother country? If so, he does not say. The older inhabitants on Tangier Island sound as do some of the people who live in the West of England, but I digress.

  202. Carchamp1 says:

    Brad,

    First, let’s not forget that “marriage” throughout much of history did not look like the one man, one woman concept we think of today. I’m not religious, but I have read the Bible and “marriage” was much different 2,000 years ago than it is today. There’s no comparison. “Marriage” as we know it today has survived for only about a century.

    In any event, “marriage” has survived so long thanks to the rigid and deplorable lives people lived for thousands of years. We can’t even contemplate how difficult life was before modern economies, medicine, and other luxuries. “Marriage” used to be a matter of faith, yes, but also survival, inheritance, etc. People married, and stayed married, because it was essentially a requirement.

    Today, in the face of freedom, modernity, and secularism, “marriage” is really in need of a reason to exist at all (for most people). For those grounded in faith, “til death do you part” has a meaningful purpose. Absent faith, “marriage” is supported on the shakiest of ground. Honestly, I’ve come to think of modern “marriage” as a cultural fad that is going out of style. In any event, in our modern society most people are NOT grounded in faith and being trapped until death is a frightening proposition.

    If tomorrow marriage laws were amended to eliminate divorce and required spouses to stay together ’til death, “marriage” would collapse immediately. Only those truly grounded in faith would dare take it up.

    “Do you think we are better off now that marriage is easier to get out of and less of a truly life long commitment? Is it right that someone can get out of a marriage easier than a car lease?”

    Well, today we essentially have a one-sided commitment by men (even though most men getting married have no idea what they’re really signing up for). Women have been freed from their marriage (and family) commitments over the last 50 years. So, I don’t believe we’re better off now. I don’t think we’ve gone far enough. We’ve freed women from their marital commitments. I think we need to do the same for men. We need to abolish legal marriage and return it to the people of faith where it belongs. I don’t believe in social engineering, so I honestly don’t care if “we” would be “better off” that way, or not.

  203. ljess says:

    @CarChamp1
    I would say that your line of reason may only work if there was no God. Unfortunately, there is a God and he is going to set things straight. It will be unfortunate for those who do things thinking he is non-existent.

  204. Carchamp1 says:

    My line of reasoning works HERE. As many men have found out the hard way, when so-called “family” court wants to destroy you, God doesn’t step in and “set things straight.”

  205. Spike says:

    My first thought on this one Dalrock is that marriage is going to have an Islamic face.
    Regarding Western culture you will get an ever-decreasing pool of singular individuals with no family, no churches, no unions. No races, no ties and quite possibly no gender – a sort of Unsullied Army that you see on Game of Thrones. Meanwhile Islic couples will continue to beget children, while their ideology eats away our institutions until there is an environmental collapse.
    I’m hoping that Vladimir Putin may stop the rot as a modern Constantine, but perhaps this is will lead us to another war.

  206. theasdgamer says:

    @ Exfernal

    What is the “it” you refer to?

    Whatever we want it to be! Evolution has such tremendous explanatory power! Really, why try to shackle science????

  207. Isa says:

    @Opus
    Slight inaccuracies as per the kings age, vitality of father (or lack thereof) and reasons for marrying the first wife (as well as dispensations covering both conditions re virginity etc). However, point taken. He had such a weak claim to the throne that having as many children (male) as possible was quite important. Not sure why he didn’t marry off his daughter young like Margaret de Beaufort and get grandsons out of the mix but ah well.

    I suppose the issue for divorce is really divorce with children. If it’s just two adults who happen to have a piece of governmental paper that then decide to shred it, it doesn’t really do much harm to society. Broken families do. So if there was a duel tier system whereby anyone with a child trying to exit a marriage had a much harder time of it, it would solve a lot of problems.

  208. Dragonfly says:

    “My first thought on this one Dalrock is that marriage is going to have an Islamic face.”

    Oh Really?

  209. jeff says:

    Dragonfly,

    7:30 says it all, the beginning as well. They know we are opting for no kids to one or two. They breed like crazy and if one doesn’t make it? So what, they have more. Look at Detroit, first city to have full city council of muslims.

  210. Dalrock says:

    @Carchamp1

    The question I have for our secular society is, why get married at all? And once you’re married, why bother staying married ’til death do you part? What is the point? For you, the answer to these questions is fundamental to who you are. Your faith is the reason and anchor. When you hit a tough patch in your marriage, you have a very good reason to stay the course and resolve conflict. Even in instances of suffering and bitterness there is a point to it all.

    Have you ever thought about the rational or “foundation” for secular marriage (and when I say marriage I mean the lifelong, monogamous kind)? My point to my Catholic friend was that there isn’t one. When I ask myself why I’m doing this (staying in my marriage) there are just crickets, so to speak, in my head. There is no “foundation” for secular marriage. The promises of twenty-somethings in “love” just doesn’t carry much weight, after all.

    I think it is very easy to make a secular case for marriage. The moral foundation of this argument is the care of children. Children need fathers, and not just for financial support. Marriage is the only institution that truly provides a home with both a mother and a father. There is a good deal of anthropological research on this topic, although in recent decades I suspect it has fallen out of favor due to feminism. Bronislaw Malinowski writes about what he coined the “Principle of Legitimacy” in Sex, Culture and Myth around 1930 as I recall. See also The Garbage Generation By Daniel Amneus (1990). Another example would be the Atlantic article Dan Quayle Was Right (1993). Ironically I think one of the main reasons we don’t see much discussion any more on the impact of single motherhood is that the issue is settled. Pretty much everyone who studies the issue agrees that single motherhood is a disaster. Why poke the bear, given that at the same time we have at a government policy and religious level fully embraced single motherhood?

    The other issue is the incentive marriage provides to encourage men to produce beyond their own basic needs. This is a secular argument, and it deals with the very organization of our economy. This is one argument I’m surprised to see economists getting backwards. All of the research is focused on the mystery of why men “enjoy a marriage premium” where women don’t. They all have the causal arrow pointing the wrong direction, and are stuck in a bad model because of that. Men earn more to first attract a wife, and then to support a family. The latter part is well understood by the family courts, which is why family law judges are so insistent on imputing income (setting a quota) wherever the natural incentive of marriage doesn’t exist. But what family law judges across the nation understand is still baffling to economists and sociologists the world over.

    There is also the point about keeping a solemn vow. Under our secular society marriage is fully optional. With this in mind, there is no coercion to make the vow. The importance of keeping that vow should be obvious, and the problem with financial rewards for breaking such a vow should be even more obvious.

    Lastly, and I think this is the weakest secular argument for lifetime marriage (today at least), is the problem of STIs. Let us see a prevalence of incurable and dangerous STIs however and this problem with abandoning marriage could suddenly become a serious topic of discussion.

    I think if you look at it you will find that much of what I write about marriage doesn’t require Christian faith to accept.

  211. MarcusD says:

    Look at Detroit, first city to have full city council of muslims.

    Hamtramck, MI, Becomes First U.S. City with Muslim-Majority Council
    http://pjmedia.com/blog/hamtramck-mi-becomes-first-u-s-city-with-muslim-majority-council/

  212. Opus says:

    @Isa

    That is a very interesting idea, but despite my awareness of marriages which seem (and always seemed) a recipe for disaster, even Divorce where no child of the family (as the lawyers say) is or has been in existence can nevertheless be fairly catastrophic – especially for men; psychologically bad, I mean. Such men are then seen as losers by single females, and (say) as with our friend Krauser P.U.A. has led to a decade of his becoming a pick-up artist; not something to emulate even as one admires his effort and success.

    Where I have forgotten Tudor history, I make it up, but perhaps my Geography is more accurate for I can state that Tangier Island which must be at the end of Chesapeake Bay is in the State of Virginia (and not off the coast of Africa).

  213. BradA says:

    Carchamp,

    Dalrock answered your points better than I would have.

    Opus,

    I agree with compassion, but you still have the problem of letting the camel’s nose under the tent. It is purely theoretical now, but I would still do all I could to ban even that divorce if I had the power to do so as it quickly morphs to what we have now. You really do have one extreme or the other.

    Divorce would obviously still happen, but those involved would likely take a big hit for it (not just the men) and that would discourage those who really did not need that out.

    How would you prevent the situation we have now of the wife leaving with cash and prizes for almost any reason?

  214. Novaseeker says:

    I suppose the issue for divorce is really divorce with children. If it’s just two adults who happen to have a piece of governmental paper that then decide to shred it, it doesn’t really do much harm to society. Broken families do. So if there was a duel tier system whereby anyone with a child trying to exit a marriage had a much harder time of it, it would solve a lot of problems.

    It does, but in a different way. Married couples, even childless ones, tend to participate more in community life, institutions and so on, and also have a higher combined consumptive power. It has social and economic benefits for the society, beyond the raising of children.

    Many states already do have a dual tier system whereby it is harder (meaning takes longer) to get divorced if there are kids involved than if there are not. It doesn’t impact divorce rates much, because at the end of the day, you can still get divorced. We’ll never have a system where your right to divorce is less, in a fundamental sense, if you have kids — that probably would not withstand the equal protection clause. All they can do is make you wait longer (the hope is to give you time to reconcile, but most couples just wait it out and then divorce promptly once the period expires).

  215. Anonymous Reader says:

    I think if you look at it you will find that much of what I write about marriage doesn’t require Christian faith to accept.

    Dalrock beat me to it and answered in a more comprehensive fashion. Even hard core atheists should be in favor of stable marriages, if they value industrial civilization.

    Novaseeker
    We’ll never have a system where your right to divorce is less, in a fundamental sense, if you have kids — that probably would not withstand the equal protection clause.

    SInce when does any part of the Constitution apply to anti-family court?

  216. Novaseeker says:

    SInce when does any part of the Constitution apply to anti-family court?

    When Baby Mama wants to get divorced.

  217. Looking Glass says:
    November 10, 2015 at 12:42 pm
    @feministhater:

    The elites are that stupid, but that’s not the way it’ll play out. While we may talk about 4th Generation Warfare, the truth of the Nuclear Age is that it’s intra-state not inter-state. The warfare will happen within the major States. And it’ll not take on a Civil War aspect. Think more of campaigns of targeted assassination. (It’s actually surprisingly easy for “insiders” to cripple a country. There are relatively few people that actually run a country and making that job very dangerous tends to collapse things quickly.
    ——————————————————–
    Even that is not required. Parts of our infrastructure are remarkably vulnerable and could be used to cripple us with minimal cost and effort. Certain transformers hold the electrical grid together and cannot be easily replaced. Destroy them and it would take months or years to get the system back up and running.

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304071004579409631825984744

  218. Micha Elyi says:

    Consider perhaps the most famous divorce in history; all the guy wanted was an annulment, and he really should have had it seeing that he had married his late brother’s wife and very much under parental orders when a minor himself.
    Opus

    (1) Wanting ain’t enough for the marriage to be a nullity and a Declaration of Nullity to be issued. For the Church’s marriage tribunal to issue a Declaration of Nullity, the tribunal must find that a marriage never existed in the first place. Perhaps the shorthand term ‘annulment’ leads you to suppose that by issuing a Declaration of Nullity the Church has done something to a marriage analogous to a civil divorce doing something to a civil marriage. Nope, that’s not it. Don’t let the wording lead you astray.

    Here’s something that might help you avoid confusion:

    Can’t get a civil divorce unless there’s a civil marriage that Caesar recognizes.
    Can’t get a Declaration of Nullity unless there’s no marriage the Church recognizes.

    Now you should be able to see the difference.

    (2) No, “he”–King Henry VIII–should not have had said declaration. You may have forgotten (or been ignorant of) the fact that Henry had petitioned the pope for permission to be excused from the Church’s discipline that forbad marrying a brother’s wife–and it was granted on the grounds that, with evidence supplied by Henry himself, that not only had the marriage had not been consummated, which by itself would not be conclusive, but that his late brother had had no intention of consummating the marriage and was on that latter point found to be null.

    (3) Your “a minor himself” quibble is itself minor and easily dismissed. Henry was old enough to make up his own mind (in living memory 14 was old enough to marry in some parts of the US), was free to marry Catherine of Aragon or not, and understood what marriage is.

    (4) Just because Henry later looted the Church has no bearing on the validity of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon. Henry’s closure of monasteries and seizure of their lands was a catastrophe for England’s poor, yet the possibility of preventing that by lying and caving in to Henry’s demand for an annulment would have set off a catastrophe of another kind, in addition to being a sin.

    There’s a lot of chatter in this blog about a so-called Female Imperative (FI) and how it leads females to break marriages. Henry is an instance of a Male Imperative tempting a man to break his marriage and that man was weak and gave in to temptation. Ironically, England ended up being ruled by a woman anyway, followed by another woman, then Henry’s line went extinct. Henry’s search for “wiggle room” lead to the very outcome that was his excuse for seeking that wiggle room with respect to marriage in the first place. Plus, his name has gone down in history as a notorious philanderer, murderer, and heretic.

    P.S. Truth has no “wiggle room”.

  219. Dale says:

    @anonymous_ng

    Thanks for the run-down. With the possible exception of the guy not graduating from college, and thus possibly not paying off his student debts, it sounds like your friends are providing enough…
    But several of your friends just enough for himself. Since they have no family, I would not see a problem or accuse them of failing to provide adequately. A single man who genuinely provides for himself without sponging off someone else, seems to me to not be a parasite.

    @Dragonfly
    That was a horrid video. If the stats being quoted are true, it would appear the European countries are an example of the effectiveness of media and political brainwashing. How could the average people be welcoming a group that is shown to victimizes themselves?
    I prefer the Mexican and Ukrainian immigrants I have met. They are focused on building family lives, buying homes, and contributing.

  220. Isa says:

    @Opus
    I suspect that female divorcees have a harder time on the market than the male, although without the increased suicide risk and mental health challenges. Different psychological processes, as some woman already picked this man so he may be more desirable and I bet I can be better than her vs some man already used this woman, so she is less desirable.

    Overall though I am of the opinion that marriage ought only be entered into if there is some desire for children as otherwise, just live together as most partners do now. However, I have read through some research that states that the breakup of long time cohabitation has similar psychological effects as a divorce, so perhaps adults ought to live alone unless there is a child or potential child involved

    Interesting how different subjects get stuck in the mind. I’m quite good with history and science, but muck up names and faces pretty terribly. I’m just never could form decent memories of people in social situations, as if my brain saw them and discarded them as unimportant while the precise details of the draguls sending their sons to live with the ottomans as collateral are lodged in memory.

  221. Opus says:

    @Micha Elyi

    Sounds to me as if you have a dog in the fight. Either way intentionally or otherwise Henry was one of the greatest Kings of our sceptered Isle (I rather like Shakespeare’s somewhat underperformed eponymous play). What amazes me is that Henry would surely have been dumbstruck to be told that the general view is that his daughter by Anne Boleyn would become the most famous and much admired of all female Monarchs and was arguably (if I may speak and live, Sire) the greatest of all English Monarch’s [Duck’s for cover]. Elizabeth was lucky (the Armada, that Shakesperare moment, Il Pirata, Walter Ralegh, Sir Francis Drake). Were I Plutarch, I would, in my parallel lives, be comparing Eliz 1 with Thatcher M. also very lucky (Las Malvinas, a love match with Reagan R. unelectable opposition and with Michael Heseltine as a latter Day Earl of Essex and with a melt down of the common enemy not this time Spain but Russia).

  222. Unger says:

    This was linked on The Aquila Report earlier, so it’s now making its way around the Presbyterian world. Share and enjoy the work of another Christian shrink mouthing Biblical-sounding platitudes (without a shred of actual scripture, of course) to justify Marriage 2.0.

    https://wisecounsel.wordpress.com/2015/11/11/do-men-need-sex-wants-vs-needs-and-the-making-of-weak-men/

  223. Carchamp1 says:

    Dalrock,

    Thanks for the reply.

    As for the children, there is no perfect world. Shared parenting upon separation would provide children a relationship with both parents. This is the best solution. We can’t pretend that forcing adults to live together, even for the sake of the children, doesn’t present its own set of problems.

    Men enjoy a “marriage premium” because they HAVE to work harder. Been there, done that. The truth is wives, in general, are an enormous financial burden. Income is imputed in both spousal and so-called “child” support instances because the logical response to having your earnings stolen is to work less at a less demanding job. This system IS slavery btw.

    The problem is not in keeping the lifetime promise of a twenty-something, but the absurdity of making that promise in the first place.

    STIs are likely at the root of “sex inside of marriage” morality in the first place. It’s definitely a practical consideration everyone should keep in mind.

  224. Tam the Bam says:

    @MarcusD: Hamtramck, MI” I think they’re going to have to come up with a new city name at the first council meeting.
    @Gaza: to add to the general brown-nosing, that was … impressive.
    Seems it was true all along, that the best minds pre-Crash were hoovered up by the money-masters.
    But Place-Holder Boyfriend? Ew. Stinks.
    I suppose we’ve all been there, oneitis etc. It took me year to realise what was going on, when I was 19. One day I realized that it was dump her (and break her infantile frozen heart), or die a virgin (this was an exceedingly long time ago). You can guess what happened next. Call me the dice man.

    @Dalrock “If the State creates hard rules that living together or even banging the same man on the regular for 12 months creates a marriage, how many current “good girls” would end up being seen as 5 time divorcées by the time they are 30?”
    Excellent interpretation. That actually hits them where it hurts, below the Plimsoll Line of YOLO tankgrrrl self-indulgence foisted on them, right in the status/SMV. And therefore will not last long.

  225. Anonymous Reader says:

    Unger, that’s an interesting article. I can’t help but wonder what the author’s Testosterone levels are; a low T man would view the need for sex differently from a high T man. Perhaps we should start asking these writers, “Hey, what’s your T?”. Were I the Tzar, I would require any man writing on that topic to provide results from a certified blood test – cheek swab is not enough – taken at the time of writing. The same for women writing on the topic.

    Because I now suspect that there’s a lot of solipsistic writing on this topic, i.e. “Well, I don’t have a problem when my wife refuses me for a few nights, or weeks, or months, why can’t the rest of you men cope like me?”. Ditto those women who write, “Gah, what’s wrong with you men, I only want intercourse 4 or 5 days out of every 28, why do you want it more than that?” Low T manifests in many ways, but this one seems pretty obvious.

    It’s rather like someone with very bad vision going on at great length on how easy it is to not look at women in public, “Just don’t focus on them, that’s what I do, why can’t the rest of you do this?”. Because the whole world is a blur to him, he assumes the same of others.

    Final irony: the implied undertone of “God made women this way, you men accept it” in the article. Hmm. So using that theology, how did men come to have their sex drive, again?

  226. BradA says:

    Carchamp,

    As for the children, there is no perfect world. Shared parenting upon separation would provide children a relationship with both parents. This is the best solution. We can’t pretend that forcing adults to live together, even for the sake of the children, doesn’t present its own set of problems.

    Tough. Life presents a series of challenges. You build a solid base be requiring people to face up to those challenges, not to attempt to run from them and ignore the damage to others, let alone themselves.

    You are only looking at half the picture and assuming personal happiness is the ultimate goal. You will therefore fail to understand the problem.

    The problem is not in keeping the lifetime promise of a twenty-something, but the absurdity of making that promise in the first place.

    You have drunk far too much of the modern koolade. Parents have an obligation to the children they birth from the day they participate the act that conceives that child. They may buck out of it by murdering the child, but that does not remove their obligation. Many may fail at later points as well, but the obligation remains.

    Actions have consequences. Take your head out of your modern day rear and realize that life is more than what we have now. Look at the scope of history. Society survives because of strong families. Lack those and it falls.

  227. Casey says:

    @ MarcusD

    That link to the Toronto Sun article about Jennifer Lawrence is pure GOLD.

    “Hollywood beauty Jennifer Lawrence fears marriage is a long way off as “mean” men never ask her out on dates.”

    Men who don’t ask her out are ‘mean’. Excellent re-frame right out of the gate: Men are assholes. HAMSTER TRANSLATION: The Alpha boys I want to ask me out, don’t. Beta Chumps need not apply.

    “I can’t wait to be married. I feel like if I find that one person who I want to spend the rest of my life with, who I want to be the father of my children, that I would absolutely not f**k it up. But I’m also not banking on that.”

    HAMSTER TRANSLATION: I am going to ride the carousel well into my 30’s, and I absolutely am going to fuck it up. I will also simultaneously state I want to be married, and then cavalierly throw my desire for marriage in the waste bin in the next sentence.

    “No one ever asks me out,” she moaned. “I am lonely every Saturday night. Guys are so mean to me. I know where it’s coming from, I know they’re trying to establish dominance, but it hurts my feelings. I’m just a girl who wants you to be nice to me. I am straight as an arrow…”

    HAMSTER TRANSLATION: I am a feminist. You are a man who is trying to control me. If you don’t ask me out, you are a domineering prick. I however am blameless, truthful, and white as snow.

    “Downtime is normally the bane of my existence, it makes me depressed, not relaxed,” she explained. “But I was actually enjoying myself (when I wasn’t working recently, all I did was) hang out. Drink wine. I’ve got a bunch of friends who live really close, thank God.”

    HAMSTER TRANSLATION: I have an excellent gaggle of female friends who spur me on to keep fucking up my romantic life. I drink lots, and numb the pain of being alone.

    “And I’ve made friends with Mila (Kunis) and Ashton (Kutcher), two doors down. They’re awesome. I go over there uninvited. They’re probably getting pretty sick of me.”

    HAMSTER TRANSLATION: I really want to break up Mila’s marriage, and steal Ashton from her.

  228. Spike says:

    Dragonfly Re: November 12, 2015 at 4:40 pm

    Your video proves my point in its’ entirety.

    The “Refugee Crisis” swamping Europe consists of mainly men, of age 18-35. Very few are families with women and children.

    Germany alone is to accept over 1 million of these men, men from a war-torn country of Muslim faith. This means the following:
    -No understanding of the various socio-sexual revolutions
    -No understanding of liberal democracy
    -No understanding of working for a living (Muslim men consider paid work “Slavery”)
    -No understanding of the rule of law
    -No understanding of, or respect for, secular law.

    Europe had a problem with Islam BEFORE this influx. The main problem is the points in the above list.

    Now comes my main point:
    -Western women are converting to Islam at a rate of 3 women for every man.

    It isn’t the Christian or nominally Christian woman who is converting. it is the secular, educated, career-dedicated woman, jaded by career, promiscuity, and empty New Age beliefs*. Either her, or women who were once part of the working class who married young and got busy with families, until the compact between them and working class men was destroyed by Western elites. All of these women are Biblically illiterate, and of course equate the god of Islam with the God of the Bible, a patently false notion.
    This is a massive betrayal on the part of Western women, made all the more galling by the fact that Islam actually means “submission”. Thus, the women who have swallowed the Feminine Imperative who loudly yell “rape” at Christian men don’t think twice about a worse submission to a religion with a proven, contemporary record of barbarity.

    “If you put God and the devil on an equal footing, your civilization is destroyed”
    -Vladimir Putin

    *It is no surprise to me that New Age beliefs preceeded this invasion, from the 1970s to the present. There are 8000 yoga centres in Germany alone, and 25% of Europeans believe in reinacarnation, not resurrection.

  229. Dragonfly says:

    Yes, Spike, I agree with all the above, as shown in the video. I wonder if it will bring in a WWIII.

  230. Dragonfly says:

    Dale “How could the average people be welcoming a group that is shown to victimizes themselves? I prefer the Mexican and Ukrainian immigrants I have met. They are focused on building family lives, buying homes, and contributing.”

    Europe is welcoming of them because the politicians love Muslim voters for the most part. Quite a few of the higher ups in Europe actually are Muslim, and control many of the policies that are and have been, being made. They preach tolerance, even though they deal with violence somewhere over the most trivial things, almost daily. They had a problem with Muslims long before this, with all the violence, the MASSIVE rape epidemics in England, France, and Spain. The men running those rape gangs actually seem to be using a form of pick up artistry (although I could be wrong). They target low self esteem young girls and game them, and then eventually they drive a wedge between these girls and their parents, and then eventually have a gang of Muslim men destroy them sexually. The girls are then used as prostitutes/slaves. And that alone has been happening since the 70’s/80’s. Politicians have been looking the other way because they love getting the vast majority of Muslim votes.

    The video is from CH’s group I believe. I think it portrays what’s happening very well. Especially the interviews with the men coming in where they don’t even know why they’ve come there, and are “looking for their purpose” there. Some think it’s a Trojan horse for ISIS… ?

  231. rdchemist says:

    Europe is suffering from a lot of white guilt. Every culture has their sins, but the Holocaust is a doosey and it happened recently. So Europe is a little too eager to demonstrate that they aren’t like that anymore. Not a bad thing to try and do. Unfortunately, the logical fallacy is that they are putting all cultures on equal moral footing when they clearly aren’t. Islam is currently at it’s nadir of barbarism at the same time Europe wants to convince itself that we all can live side by side in peace. Europe’s problems are just beginning and it’ll drag the USA down with them if we’re not careful.

  232. feeriker says:

    *It is no surprise to me that New Age beliefs preceeded this invasion, from the 1970s to the present. There are 8000 yoga centres in Germany alone, and 25% of Europeans believe in reinacarnation, not resurrection.

    I will say without hesitation that this current invasion of Europe by barbarian infidels is the first stage of God’s painful, lengthy reminder to Europe of what happens when you abandon all belief in his son. Things haven’t even begun to get ugly yet.

  233. Dragonfly says:

    My husband and I just saw the attacks on Paris that happened tonight. I don’t even have any words.

  234. Dale says:

    The US is already going down. The US has the god of money. Funny enough, that god is going to destroy their strength through bankruptcy.
    The US, under Obama anyways, also is backing away from blessing Israel. Thus expect it to lose God’s blessing. Gen 12:2-3.
    My new Canadian government has also informed Israel that the strong and consistent backing given by the prior government is over.

    What country can I go to for laws that are based on Scripture? Could not be a democracy of course.

  235. nick012000 says:

    >The US, under Obama anyways, also is backing away from blessing Israel. Thus expect it to lose God’s blessing. Gen 12:2-3.

    The Kikes worship Satan, anyway. That’s why they’ve been given the rulership of this world, since Satan is the ruler of the material world. The Book of Revelations calls them the “Synagogue of Satan” for a reason. Jesus himself said “He who hates me, hates my Father as well”, and the Talmudic Jews believe that Jesus is condemned to Hell, and cast into a pit of boiling excrement.

    Communism, social marxism, and left-wing degeneracy in general are all Jewish constructs; Karl Marx himself was the son of a rabbi and descended from long lines of rabbis on both sides of the family, and the Frankfurt School, from whom feminism, the gay rights movement, the black power movement, and the other assorted schools of identity politics grew, was composed of Communist Jews who fled Germany following the ascension of Hitler to power.

  236. Dale says:

    @Dragonfly

    I just read an article on the terrorist attacks. It is 1,059 words long. And in all those words, despite there being witnesses and even five dead attackers, there is not one word about the appearances of the attackers.
    Reminds me of the video you linked to upthread, which included statements about how they cannot speak the truth without being accused of being “racist”.

    So, given the refusal to even try to identify the terrorists, I would cynically guess Muslim. It will be interesting to see if I am wrong.

  237. Anon says:

    -Western women are converting to Islam at a rate of 3 women for every man.

    Because women get gina tingles from Islam, and similar violent-dominant cultures. This is the only reason Islam is advancing against the (for now) much more powerful West.

    The greatest anguish of a cuckservative is denial of this fact. Most cuckservative’s approach to fighting Islam has a whiteknighting element to it, where the cuckservative thinks he is rescuing women from Islam, and the women will then love him.

  238. BradA says:

    Many confuse supporting Israel with doing what they want us to do. Stop the foreign aid and stop going into wars on their behalf. Stop telling what them to do in their own territory as well. Let Israel make decisions for Israel.

    I also wonder how much of God’s blessing can be on a country where so many celebrate debauchery and are in reality deeply hostile to Christians. They seem to be bringing a lot of their own troubles on themselves.

    I recall most recent presidents stepping away from Israel, whatever the political party.

  239. Anon says:

    So, given the refusal to even try to identify the terrorists, I would cynically guess Muslim. It will be interesting to see if I am wrong.

    Wrong? Haha!

    At least 15% of young people in France are Muslims, and that is before the recent mass-importation of even more.

    Name a major terrorist attack in the last 25 years, killing over 50 people, that was *not* done by Muslims (specifically Sunni-Arab Muslims).

    Lastly, remember that women get gina-tingles from Islam, particularly when contrasted against two Western archetypes available to her – the cuckservative and the lefto-mangina. Since women are the majority of voters and what they want becomes the mission statement of government, the same psychology of how women write love letters to serial killers, applied across the entire electorate of the West, explains why the West imports the most violent, gina-tingling group of all above all others. I mean, some peaceful Chinese or Vietnamese peasants are never what they talk about bringing in, assuming they *must* bring in anyone at all.

    The way an Islamic Caliphate is structured is far more attractive to the female mind than a dynamic, free-market, land-of-opportunity society. So when women+manginas are the majority of voters, why is this outcome a surprise?

    What surprises me is that these terrorist attacks still have only low-3-digit death counts. There hasn’t been a 4-digit attack since 9/11/01.

    Follow the gina tingles, and national policy and priorities are easily explained.

  240. Dave says:

    @nick012000

    Communism, social marxism, and left-wing degeneracy in general are all Jewish constructs

    It is amazing how people don’t know the Jews for what they really are, but I think that is rapidly coming to an end, because “their folly will soon be manifested for all the world to see”. Virtually all the major problems in the world today are caused by the Jews, directly or indirectly.

  241. Boxer says:

    Dear Fellas…

    It is amazing how people don’t know the Jews for what they really are, but I think that is rapidly coming to an end, because “their folly will soon be manifested for all the world to see”. Virtually all the major problems in the world today are caused by the Jews, directly or indirectly.

    Yes, of course. It’s not that feral wimminz are making bad choices. They’re simply pawns of the Jews and the Communists (fuck’n lol).

    For you guys who never got the memo, here’s the news: there are no more Communists, and “the Jews” aren’t controlling women’s minds, making them get abortions and divorces. What you guys are really doing is shifting blame from women to men with this crap. It’s Communists, Jews, Illuminati, and space aliens — all of which are men or include men, that are responsible for those poor, innocent damsels doing all those bad things. Amirite?

    Even if “the Jews” and “the communists” were conspiring to convince women to behave badly (which they aren’t, fuck’n lol) it wouldn’t matter. “Communists and Jews told me to get a divorce/get an abortion/have kids out of wedlock” is not a defense for crap behavior. Even if you looneys actually believe this nonsense, you should still put the blame where it belongs.

    Quit being white-knight kooks. It’s embarrassing as hell to the rest of us, who want to have an intelligent discussion.

    Regards,

    Boxer

    (P.S.: It’s actually the Mormons who are responsible for all of it. Check out Glen Beck sometime… he gives himself away.)

  242. nick012000 says:

    @Dale: Definitely Muslim. One of them was captured, and said he was a member of ISIS, from Syria. All the fucking “refugees” flooding into Europe right now are nothing of the sort.

  243. nick012000 says:

    >For you guys who never got the memo, here’s the news: there are no more Communists

    Yes, there are. They just put on tweed vests and took over the universities. Like I said, the Frankfurt School were the original source of the various strains of identity politics that have worked so industriously to undermine Christendom and the family. That includes feminism.

    Add in the Jew-controlled mainstream media continuously pushing moral degeneracy, and you’ve got a toxic brew for undermining society.

    >Yes, of course. It’s not that feral wimminz are making bad choices. They’re simply pawns of the Jews and the Communists (fuck’n lol).

    And they became feral in the first place because of Judeo-Communist subversion of our society. That’s what started the Sexual Revolution to begin with.

  244. Boxer says:

    Yes, there are. They just put on tweed vests and took over the universities. Like I said, the Frankfurt School were the original source of the various strains of identity politics that have worked so industriously to undermine Christendom and the family. That includes feminism.

    Uh huh. Care to “school” me about the Frankfurters? This should be fun. I’m all ears, and I have all their major works ready at hand. Please feel free to post references, whenever you’re ready.

    (Pinging Tam the Bam — you usually find this nonsense funny).

    Regards,

    Boxer

  245. Isa says:

    @Dale
    If you speak French, that news is much more explicit as to who said what and what the attackers looked like, the weapons they used, etc. It’s viewed as another direct attack on laicite and frenchness generally, to the extant that Hollande has closed the borders (unprecedented step in the EU). The French are chauvinist in the best sense, and will be more strict in the public square than ever before. I suspect the National Front will do well in the next election with perhaps a referendum on membership.

    Overall, news in the native language of people tends to be a bit more… reliable than translations. I suggest these articles if you can stand Le Monde.
    http://www.lemonde.fr/attaques-a-paris/article/2015/11/14/francois-hollande-c-est-une-epreuve-terrible-qui-une-nouvelle-fois-nous-assaille_4809722_4809495.html
    http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2015/11/13/fusillade-meurtriere-a-paris_4809485_3224.html#
    http://www.lemonde.fr/les-decodeurs/article/2015/11/14/attaques-a-paris-les-questions-que-vous-nous-posez_4809711_4355770.html

  246. nick012000 says:

    >Uh huh. Care to “school” me about the Frankfurters?

    It’s like I said: they were Jewish Communists from Germany who left prior to World War 2, and came to America. The actual academic group they founded is still around; it’s called the Institute of Social Research, and it’s at Columbia University. They were the ones who created Critical Theory; they postulated that a “traditional” Communist revolution wouldn’t occur in an industrialized Western nation unless it had been weakened beforehand, and that Christian morality and the family were the pillars that needed to be attacked in order to bring such a state about. So, among other things, they created feminism as a method of destroying the family and undermining Chrisitan morality as a result.

    >I’m all ears, and I have all their major works ready at hand.

    Then you know how poisonous they were, if you’ve actually bothered reading them.

    >Please feel free to post references, whenever you’re ready.

    How about “literally everything they ever wrote”?

  247. Pinelero says:

    One earlier comment above about Marriage 3.0 trying to justify cuckoldry is already being seen on the web. It’s totally unfathomable how a man would tolerate such a situation. Anytime you hear “open relationship” or girls night out, you know the marriage is on the down-turn, and it’s time to next.

    I’m new to the red-pill, and I’m getting over my grief in being fooled. However, I do recall when I was younger reading excerpts from the book, “Anatomy of Female Power” in which the matriarchy was discussed in disturbing revealing detail. I thought it was all nonsense at the time…..but now it seems to be prophetic.

  248. Hells Hound says:

    Hypergamy, in a context where women are equally performing or out-performing men, on the large scale, will also emphasize maximal optionality, because in that setting, it’s perceived that there are few men who are worthy of commitment, and so odds are the one you are with is an unworthy one, meaning that you need to maintain maximal optionality in order to ditch when the need arises for a male who is qualified in a hypergamous sense. This is the Japan scenario.

    Why are you calling it the Japan scenario? I’m pretty sure it doesn’t originate from there.

  249. Tam the Bam says:

    Yikes, thanks but no thanks mate, I’ll pass on that one. He’ll figger out that we’re conspiratizing 5th-column fellow-travellers, and then we’re sunk. He’s a smart one and no mistake, I want him to explain exactly how much of the incessant subterranean philosophizing these frankfurter bastads get up to has been exposed. So that deeper cover can be arranged, and their omnipotent stranglehold on all the institutions of Western Democracy cinched up tight.

  250. Tam the Bam says:

    Herp. Forgot this.

  251. Boxer says:

    Dear Nick:

    It’s like I said: they were Jewish Communists from Germany who left prior to World War 2, and came to America. The actual academic group they founded is still around; it’s called the Institute of Social Research, and it’s at Columbia University. They were the ones who created Critical Theory; they postulated that a “traditional” Communist revolution wouldn’t occur in an industrialized Western nation unless it had been weakened beforehand, and that Christian morality and the family were the pillars that needed to be attacked in order to bring such a state about. So, among other things, they created feminism as a method of destroying the family and undermining Chrisitan morality as a result.

    ctrl-c, ctrl-v, from some looney-tunes web page or usenet kook rant. I thought you were going to educate me, mate?

    Then you know how poisonous they were, if you’ve actually bothered reading them.

    Again, it should be a cinch to point out a couple of their worst passages. I’ve got Horkheimer’s Critique of Instrumental Reason open right here.

    How about “literally everything they ever wrote”?

    In other words, you don’t actually know what you’re talking about. I’m sure that’s all the Jews’ fault, too.

    I’m a big proponent of personal responsibility. If I do something stupid, I don’t tend to blame “The Frankfurt School” for the fact that I got caught. I extend that expectation to others. Most of the dull-eyed hos who are wandering into Planned Parenthood have never read anything by “The Frankfurt School” — lol, same as you — nor are they Jewish, nor do they know any “communists”. Most of them are your Christian sisters, who are behaving badly all on their own. You should accept that and work with it.

    Boxer

  252. Boxer says:

    However, I do recall when I was younger reading excerpts from the book, “Anatomy of Female Power” in which the matriarchy was discussed in disturbing revealing detail. I thought it was all nonsense at the time…..but now it seems to be prophetic.

    That is an absolutely fantastic book, written by a man who was born/grew up in West Africa, spent most of his career in North American academia (IIRC he taught political science at both Harvard and MIT) and who, at retirement, tried his best to warn us about feminism.

    http://therawness.com/AFP.pdf

    Rivalling Esther Vilar’s books, as one of the texts that the radical feminists would most like to burn. Spread it far and wide.

    Boxer

  253. nick012000 says:

    >ctrl-c, ctrl-v, from some looney-tunes web page or usenet kook rant. I thought you were going to educate me, mate?

    You can’t educate those who refuse to hear.

    >Again, it should be a cinch to point out a couple of their worst passages. I’ve got Horkheimer’s Critique of Instrumental Reason open right here.

    Then read the fucking book. Like I said, *everything* they wrote is terrible.

    >In other words, you don’t actually know what you’re talking about. I’m sure that’s all the Jews’ fault, too.

    You don’t need to read their works to see the fruit of them. I can see who they taught, and the chains of teachings. They gave rise to a particular intellectual school, and from that school rose others, and we can see the effects of those schools on our society. I don’t need to read Gloria Steinem’s shit to know what Feminism is about; I don’t need to read the Frankfurt School’s shit to know who they taught.

    >I’m a big proponent of personal responsibility. If I do something stupid, I don’t tend to blame “The Frankfurt School” for the fact that I got caught. I extend that expectation to others. Most of the dull-eyed hos who are wandering into Planned Parenthood have never read anything by “The Frankfurt School” — lol, same as you — nor are they Jewish, nor do they know any “communists”. Most of them are your Christian sisters, who are behaving badly all on their own. You should accept that and work with it.

    They don’t need to have read those works directly, because those works have become our culture, through our media and our education system, both of which are controlled by them, and by our laws, which are heavily influenced by them. Women tend to be malleable, and shaped by those around them; those “dull-eyed hos”, as you put it, were influenced by that degenerate culture into taking those actions.

    Also, since you brought up abortion: look up Molech. The Talmudic Jews, having turned away from God, have turned our society into a giant machine of ritual sacrifice dedicated to Satan instead.

  254. ljess says:

    “These “Peter Pan” men can’t go back and dedicate their teens and twenties to education and career advancement any more than their would be brides can go back and undo the ravages of time, their student loan/cc debt, and a decade and a half of slutting around before looking for a husband.”

    Sitting here wondering why any man would want to spend his early years (18 – 35) working hard and building up his fortune just so some used slut could take half or more. Personally, that would irk me to know end, building a personal future that would paint a bulls eye one one’s back. If a man becomes well established and wealthy then his best option is MGTOW/PUA.

  255. BradA says:

    I would note that my skepticism for some of what is called “supporting Israel” does not mean I support any of the conspiracy theories, such as those being put forth here.

    I do believe they can be very obstinate just as they were in the Bible, but that does not mean they are guilty of every evil in the world. Plenty of candidates help with that.

  256. Dale says:

    Anon
    >Name a major terrorist attack in the last 25 years, killing over 50 people, that was *not* done by Muslims

    Oklahoma fertilizer/truck bombing. But that is the only one of which I am aware. The rest fit the pattern you point out.

    Re Boxer at 2:25 am

    As is frequently the case, Boxer points out the obvious truths. (Thanks Boxer. I often enjoy and appreciate your brute logic.)
    Blaming the jews or whoever is rather foolish. Sure, give blame for the initial (or continuing) push that comes from those outside forces. For example, Russia uses RT and other media to further their lies, thus influencing people in other nations. The US environmentalists similarly fund environmentalist groups in Canada, thus advancing their desires even at the cost of damaging Canada.
    Blame the outside sources for their own actions.

    But the useful idiots in our own countries who act as traitors, sluts, and destroyers of civilization are to blame for their own actions. In this way, I am to blame for the past donations I made to charities that enabled women to steal children from their own fathers (women’s shelters).

    @Isa
    Thanks for the info and links.

    @Pinelero
    As a fellow traveller I welcome you.

    @ljess
    >If a man becomes well established and wealthy then his best option is MGTOW/PUA.

    This is one of many reasons why I think our political system is horrible. Any sane form of government would refuse to either encourage men to not become established and wealthy men, or to encourage such men to avoid committing to the formation of child-bearing families.

    We be in wonderland.

  257. Siobhan says:

    >>Anon
    >>Name a major terrorist attack in the last 25 years, killing over 50 people, that was *not* done by Muslims

    >Oklahoma fertilizer/truck bombing. But that
    > is the only one of which I am aware. The rest
    > fit the pattern you point out.

    Breivik killed 77 in 2011, to make an anti-Islamic, anti-feminist, anti-multiculture statement, I believe.

  258. Carchamp1 says:

    Brad,

    Please tell me why we need lifetime marriages for the children. I mean, I’m almost 50 and I don’t need my mommy and daddy anymore. Why would it matter if they got a divorce? “For the children” is just not a reason for lifetime marriage.

  259. Pingback: Lightning Round – 2015/11/18 | Free Northerner

  260. Quoting “nick” and someone else:

    “nick”>You can’t educate those who refuse to hear.

    someone else>I’m a big proponent of personal responsibility.

    Personal responsibility? You mean, like the responsibility for Operation Bid Rig? Or is that collective responsibility?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bid_Rig

  261. >”I’m a big proponent of personal responsibility. If I do something stupid, I don’t tend to blame “The Frankfurt School” for the fact that I got caught. I extend that expectation to others.”

    Yep, if a Yankee does something stupid, like trust Jonathan Pollard, you should not blame “The Frankfurt School” or the Israeli government for Pollard’s espionage.

    You should accept responsibility for everything bad that happens to you. Blame yourself. It’s all your fault. And then get ready to release Pollard on 20th November, because he didn’t do anything to violate your rights.

    http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/Jonathan-Pollard-to-be-released-November-20-410419

    And if you find that you’re a Yankee cuck, don’t blame the adulterers, blame yourself! Take personal responsibility!

  262. Original Laura says:

    @car champ. Lifelong marriage is better for the adult children because it makes it far easier for the adult children to help their aging parents . And society saves a fortune because two aging persons with serious health problems can often keep an eye on each other whereas if they lived separately they would each need outside help on a routine basis . In the later stages of life being married postpones placement in a nursing home often by years. If they have money they leave more to the next generation by avoiding the extra expenses of separate establishments and if they are poor they save the taxpayers by staying married as HUD housing only has to provide one apartment instead of two. etc..

    If your parents are older and only one of them can still drive a car you will figure out very quickly that it matters whether they are married or divorced.

  263. Scott says:

    Not sure where this goes. I couldn’t find the original comment I quoted.

    https://morallycontextualizedromanceblog.wordpress.com/2015/11/21/all-sacraments-are-permanent/

  264. SirHamster says:

    “I mean, I’m almost 50 and I don’t need my mommy and daddy anymore. Why would it matter if they got a divorce?”

    Young people look up to older people for solutions and examples. Parents divorcing even at that age signal to all their children/grandchildren and those in their community that vows of “till death do us part” don’t actually mean anything.

  265. Siafu says:

    Nice blog. Thank you and keep soldiering on. Now, I had many things come to mind while reading your blog.
    First, that God’s law of reaping and sowing is inescapable and just.
    Second, that Jesus’ description of the eschatological false religion is not just allegorical and illustrative, but accurate: a women decked with fine clothing, drinking from a gold cup, intoxicated with the blood of the righteous, being supported by a hideous, U.S.urper Beast-government that profits from her but devours her when she has outlived her usefulness.
    Third, that Isaiah 4:1 is the most offensive message for our time, while being almost like an apocalyptic justice-boner (pardon my french): “And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.”
    Lastly, that Malachi chapter 4 is a hopeful warning for the true church: “Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments. Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.”

    Regards

  266. 2084GO says:

    “The sins that are forgiven in confession do not come back to you as unforgiven.”

    this includes adultery.

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

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