The temptation for wives to claim abuse.

In our age claiming abuse is a powerful tool for wives to punish their husbands.  This creates a profound temptation for wives to betray their husbands for any or no reason.  Everything is abuse, and for a husband to be accused of abuse is to be considered guilty of abuse.  This temptation is most powerful when families are already under strain.

We can see a disturbing example of this in the recent article from Christianity Today: Pastor Saeed Abedini’s Wife Halts Public Advocacy, Citing Marital Woes and Abuse.  Pastor Abedini is serving an eight year prison sentence in Iran for spreading the gospel.  In a Washington Post op-ed piece on October 23rd, Pastor Abedini’s wife  wrote of the abuse her husband faces in the Iranian prison:

Since the nuclear deal in the summer, it is not only more difficult to maintain hope, but the reality of my husband’s situation has grown worse. He remains in grave danger and in need of medical treatment.

Even as President Rouhani was preparing to address the United Nations in New York last month, Saeed was being beaten and interrogated by Iranian guards in prison.

But as the Christianity Today article explains, shortly after writing the op-ed piece sent a series of messages to a mailing list of Pastor Abedini’s supporters accusing him of abusing her and announcing that she was halting her public efforts to have him released from prison (emphasis mine):

In two emails to supporters, [] revealed details of her troubled marriage to Saeed Abedini, an American citizen and pastor imprisoned in Iran since September 2012.

Those troubles include “physical, emotional, psychological, and sexual abuse (through Saeed’s addiction to pornography),” she wrote. The abuse started early in their marriage and has worsened during Saeed’s imprisonment, she said. The two are able to speak by phone and Skype.

Touring the country to advocate for Saeed’s release while coping with marital conflict proved too much, she wrote.

Christianity Today reported ‘s accusations against Pastor Abedini without challenge;  to be accused is to be guilty in the eyes of most.  Moreover, everything is abuse.  Naghmeh’s claim that her husband sexually abused her by looking at pornography is in line with modern Christian thought.  Focus on the Family endorsed Life Skills International defines “looks at pornography” as sexual abuse in their Power and Control Wheel.

However, even if you accept that looking at pornography is sexual abuse, surely Pastor Abedini isn’t being provided with pornography in the Iranian prison.  Yet made this accusation to his supporters after he had already been in prison for over three years, and claimed that the abuse had gotten worse after he was imprisoned.  Likewise, his only contact with Naghmeh has been through phone and skype, so he can’t possibly be physically abusing her from prison either.  This leaves the one possible remaining charge, that he has been emotionally and psychologically abusive since he has been in prison.  While it is certainly possible that he has said unkind things to his wife while enduring prison and torture, surely Pastor Abedini can’t pose a threat to his wife from an Iranian jail cell.  Any way you look at it, it is clear that this isn’t about protecting herself or her children, but about humiliating her husband.  ‘s claim is that her reason for broadcasting these things is “to be real”, and to help her husband (emphasis mine):

It is very serious stuff and I cannot live a lie anymore

But that does not mean he has not been battling with his own demons which I am believing that he can be freed of…

I wanted to be real and ask you to pray for real things (I have opened myself up to you), but without judgment and without losing your love for your brother Saeed who is fighting for his life in the dark prison. This is what the Lord has been showing me, to love unconditionally the way He loves us. To see the sin, but love the sinner and to intercede for freedom from the sin. And not to give up. Not to ever give up on your loved one. To persevere and to endure.

None of the obvious problems with Naghmeh’s public accusations against her husband are brought up by Christianity Today.  They present the allegations without challenge, even though he can’t possibly be sexually or physically abusing her from prison. The article opens with:

For the past three years Naghmeh Abedini has publicly battled her husband’s captors, advocating for his release from an Iranian jail.

Behind the scenes, she also struggled with his inner demons.

No matter how absurd the claim, the husband is presumed guilty merely by being accused.  This is true even in an extraordinary situation like Pastor Abedini is in.

Pastor Abedini isn’t in a position to defend himself, and the woman he trusted to fight on his behalf is the one who has publicly attacked him.  Along with his faith in God, knowing that his family and other Christians were supporting him has to have given him a source of strength while his captors have tormented him over the years.  Knowing that he has been betrayed in this way must now make the torment all the more difficult to bear.

However, as bad as the situation is there is still a chance for Naghmeh to repent.  She appears to at least partially understand the magnitude of what she did:

In a statement to Christianity Today, Abedini said she regretted sending the emails, which were written in a time of emotional distress.

This is a first step, but repentance would require truly turning away from this ugliness.  Clearly she was in a position of emotional weakness, and the ever present temptation to punish her husband by claiming abuse was something she was not able to resist.  If she confesses this, she can not only begin to right the wrong she has done to her husband, but she can also help modern Christians understand the cruelty of offering this temptation in the first place.  There is no kindness in encouraging wives who are in pain to lash out to punish their husbands the way we do.

This entry was posted in Christianity Today, Domestic Violence, Dr. Paul Hegstrom, Duluth Model, Focus on the Family, Pastor Abedini, Rebellion, Wake-up call. Bookmark the permalink.

463 Responses to The temptation for wives to claim abuse.

  1. embracingreality says:

    Leave it to a selfish woman to wallow in her perceived victimhood while her husband rots in what must be among the worst places on earth.

  2. Pingback: The temptation for wives to claim abuse. | Neoreactive

  3. okrahead says:

    Job’s wife. And Job’s friends.

  4. Anchorman says:

    She just gave the Iranians free license to beat him to death.

  5. okrahead says:

    Knowing the Iranians, it is entirely possible they contacted her, either directly or by proxy, after finding out about her article and let her know either she stopped her advocacy and disavowed him or things would get much worse for him. This sort of thing has long been common among totalitarian governments of all stripes, and if so would put Christianity Today in an even worse light, if such is possible.

  6. Pingback: The temptation for wives to claim abuse. | Manosphere.com

  7. I thank Naghmeh Abedini for once again showing us bachelors the wave of the future. Thank you Naghmeh. I am grateful for you and your loathsome sisters for shedding the wool from our eyes.

  8. Anchorman says:

    Pray for the immediate release of this man.

    His captors will be merciless now and the mental torture of her betrayal may push him to suicide.

  9. Dalrock obviously doesn’t realise that because he is in prison, he cannot and will not do his share of the house chores. This is emotional and psychological abuse. The scoundrel! He should be released from prison for only that period of time taken for him to do his duties, after which, the beatings may resume with Naghmeh’s blessing.

  10. Ras Al Ghul says:

    There is a reason Dante placed betrayers in the lowest circle of Hell.

    This is also why I no longer care if a woman claims she was abused while living in Western Civilization.

  11. gordax says:

    @feministhater that was pure gold!! i gotta save that line

  12. Jack Russell Terrorist says:

    This means that Wifey wants an oversized, overpriced Cadillac Escargo UV, and only gets a Ford Escape, this will be considered abuse as she didn’t get what she wanted.

  13. Lang says:

    I was reading a story in the Oregonian yesterday about a woman escaping an abusive situation and found myself not believing it. It read like one long, drawn out excuse for leaving her husband. I don’t know if i will ever believe any woman initially without SUBSTANTIAL proof claiming abuse, racism, sexism, harassment etc ever again with SO MANY being faked daily.

  14. Tam the Bam says:

    Phase II: Dump this turn-the-other-cheek LOSER! Find solace in a truly manly, beardy Mad Mullah.
    Seems that for some, the only true religion is the most theatrically violent (in this world), therefore .. avoid all Christians (Buddhists, Sikhs, atheists etc.)
    If she’s being pressured by the state it’s still no excuse, she could have complied by remaining silent. That’s how the Gulag worked, shoot one, terrify a hundred. It’s not as though that kind of fascist is the majority, anywhere on Earth. Most people are pretty normal.

  15. Easttexasfatboy says:

    Yeah, it ain’t hard to imagine Iranian Intelligence arranging a quid por quo. That’s the smart thing to do. That being said, false accusations of abuse are commonplace. But! There’s a light on the horizon! Actual, real life abusers and rapists are being imported just for the feminists.

    On a darker note…..there are certain types of men that will not suffer a false accusation. They don’t have to target the woman. Family will do just fine. That’s what’s coming in the future. Mom and dear old Dad pay for the sins of their daughter…..you know what? That sounds suspiciously like the whole honor killing system in Islam. How about that?

    That’s why the woman’s father throws the first stone, if he’s alive. It really devolves unto the oldest male. That’s how they prevent blood feuds that kill a lot of people. This is what’s coming. Feminists truly believe they have the upper hand.

    I truly believe civil insurrection is coming. The only real way this gets sorted out is by extreme ruthlessness. It’s going to be a severe wakeup call to American women when men refuse to defend them.

  16. Ras Al Ghul says:

    Easttexasfatboy:

    “I truly believe civil insurrection is coming. The only real way this gets sorted out is by extreme ruthlessness. It’s going to be a severe wakeup call to American women when men refuse to defend them.”

    There will always be suckers

  17. bkilbour says:

    The kind of solipsism necessary to believe you are the victim when your husband is in a ruthless foreign prison, and the speed at which the hamster has to spin to rationalize it with “abuse,” makes me look at all women with suspicion. Even my wife, definitely my mother, especially strangers. Madness, all of it.

  18. honeycomb says:

    Per Hillary Clinton .. “women and children are the hardest hit by the loss of a husband [/slave]”.

    Wether dead or alive living the dream or rotting in a prison cell. Separation from his duty to be a slave to her needs is his crime.

  19. Easttexasfatboy says:

    Ras, yeah…..there’s always suckers. However, if we can convince 10% to hold off on marriage and defending women, that will change other men as well. There’s no reason to trust women anymore. They can ruin us for no particular reason. Who, exactly, will have children with such women? I realize that is a horrific statement.

  20. Aservant says:

    I have a friend that I recently made “full-red pill”……he was a pretty common traditional conservative a couple of years ago that was leaning more and more to the right…..and then a no-fault divorce came out of nowhere. My time had arrived and brought him into the manosphere, among other places.

    I told him something recently that many here already believe; that the near future will be dominated by a feminist totalitarian dictatorship, and in fact, in many ways, it is already here. He found that statement to be kind of extreme a few months ago. Since then I have sent him links to articles every week, sometimes several times a week, that prove the case. He doesn’t see that statement as so extreme any more.

    The link to this post will be in his inbox in a few minutes as well………

  21. What a sick, sick woman. Seriously, you’re husband’s in prison for preaching the Gospel and she has the nerve to accuse him of abusing her.

    I hope this pastor gets free, forgives her when she apologizes, then divorces her and marries a better woman.

  22. bkilbour says:

    I also suspect this means she’s cheating on him

  23. Aservant says:

    I agree Lang, I’ve been there for some time, and as easttexasfatboy says, I know it is a terrible thing to say……but I won’t deny it is the way I feel. Unless I see the woman with serious, physical injury and I can verify without a shadow of a doubt that she hadn’t been up to malicious devious tricks and/or manipulations, maybe even attacked first, to provoke the assault, I don’t believe a damn word of these victim narratives anymore. They are the collective boy who cried wolf too many times.

  24. Easttexasfatboy says:

    Gents, women have the whip hand at this time. We just have to shelter in place right now. We won’t get any relief until there’s a societal reset. Personally, my only hope is the Kingdom of God. Things will continue to get worse, just as the Bible fortells.

    But, we have to deal with what’s on our plate…..churchy Hypergamy. Honestly, I reckon that once that comes to the fore, that’s all she wrote. MGTOW is a shelter, to be sure……but a lot of us have had our butt kicked getting here.

    So, what do you do when you’re accused of abuse? Seriously…..got a passport? Got a ome money stashed back? You need to realize that your kids are economic hostages, who are being indoctrinated while you can’t defend yourself. Some guys would stay. I wouldn’t. You can’t materially affect the situation. The Philippines are nice.

  25. A Regular Guy says:

    Dalrock, I appreciate that you have exposed this sin in a Christlike manner with a heart of reconsiling the sinner back to God. I for one, can barely think clearly after reading this because I’m seething with rage.

  26. A Regular Guy says:

    What man would marry after reading this? I’m speechless.

  27. Opus says:

    Where is it that women are being groomed (to use the jargon) as to their being victims? In the present case it would appear to be through Church organisations. Women having a tendency to be Hyperactive Children seem most susceptible and impressionable. What however as to children themselves? I must here confide a confidence: yesterday a friend of mine told me of the strange behaviour of his teenage daughter; she has been making luridly bizarre (and happily disprovable) allegations as to sexual abuse involving facilitation of her parents. The State sends in the Social Services. The allegations are shown to be false stop and then start again and once again this requires State Intervention. I told a mutual friend: to my amazement he said that he too had received a call from Social Services because his step-son had repeated, at school, his Mother’s threat that if he did [x] again she would kill him; the state taking her figure of speech literally. I was open mouthed. Children are even more impressionable than women; the State treats any nonsense they say seriously thus cutting Father’s, who are powerless, off at the knees; children know that no repercussions exist for their tittle-tattle.

    I could were this my blog have written a very long essay expanding on this: this is the State’s attack on Heterosexuaity, Marriage and Fathers. This is a terror in the same sense that there was a Terror in France in 1794. The terror (unlike that in 1794) has entered the Church.

  28. Gunner Q says:

    What a strange news story. CT’s publishing unverifiable, years-old allegations against a minor celebrity is blatantly unethical because of the obvious risk of slander/libel. On top of that, they ran a story about a woman who already recanted her allegations and, their own quote, “She asked for privacy and prayer.”

    “”I would appreciate for those who care about Saeed and our family to give us time for rest and healing and to respect our privacy,” she told CT.” CT obviously didn’t respect her wishes.

    Naghmeh doesn’t strike me as the treacherous party here. The article sounds almost as if she started to push the SJW narrative, caught herself, is trying to pull back from the whispers and Christianity Today is trying to coerce her into continuing the betrayal. I don’t see why else they would have run this article.

    One method the devil uses to force people to live a lie is to use their initial deceits and betrayals as leverage against them should they get cold feet and try to repent. I suspect that is what’s happening here. Because of this article, either Nagmeh confirms her allegations after all or she’ll be publicly discredited.

  29. Art Deco says:

    She appears to have had second thoughts

    http://www.worldmag.com/2015/11/naghmeh_abedini_regrets_emails_alleging_abuse

    Whole business reminds you of this scene:

    The returning POW’s wife gave him his walking papers not long after.

  30. Art Deco says:

    On the author:

    Bob Smietana is a Nashville-based correspondent for Religion News Service and former religion writer for the Tennessean. He’s a frequent contributor to national publications like Sojourners, Christianity Today, U.S. Catholic, and On Faith, and the co-author of three books. He currently serves as president of the Religion Newswriters Association.

    He appears to have cut ties with Religion News Service, which is now for all intents and purposes a subsidiary of the Arcus Foundation (which is run by a quondam official of the Obama Administration named Kevin Jennings; Jennings is ‘controversial’ for a reason – he’s a pederast). Sojourners and U.S. Catholic are red flags. A dozen years ago, I would not have thought Christianity Today would have conceived of itself as having much common cause with either. Ain’t much left of the evangelical press.

  31. Hawk&Rock says:

    Hard to wrap your mind around the depth of betrayal and narcissism here. It’s so monstrously despicable that it’s bewildering. One of the sickest most disheartening things I’ve read in quite awhile.

  32. Chris says:

    Is this friggin’ lady serious? He’s in a proverbial Hell on Earth, and this is her way of supporting him? And have Jesus’s words on lust in the SOTM been taken so far out of context that struggles with pornography justify divorce?

    Just in case I haven’t thanked God enough times for the fact that I’m asexual….

  33. Hoyos says:

    Maybe it’s a long shot, but is it possible that Iranian security services got at her? They would certainly have an interest in seeing his reputation destroyed. You know the sort of thing, “say this, or we will have him killed, etc.”. Again, probably a long shot.

  34. feeriker says:

    Yet another reminder that hypergamy is ever-present (a.k.a. AWALT). That Churchianity Today has served as the mouthpiece for this travesty should also surprise no one.

    What a sick, sick woman. Seriously, you’re husband’s in prison for preaching the Gospel and she has the nerve to accuse him of abusing her.

    This just further obliterates the mythical facade of the “strong Christian woman who leans on God in times of trial.”

    Nope. Without her husband’s spiritual headship she’s adrift, a sail unleashed from its mast and flapping in the wind. I’m also at this point compelled to ask: where are Nagmeh’s male relatives in all of this to give her strength and guidance? Does she not have a believing father, brother(s), uncle(s), or cousins to assume her husband’s duties in his absence? Whatever the case, this is Exhibit A in demonstration of “women are very clearly the weaker vessels.”

  35. Easttexasfatboy says:

    Betrayal is very painful. But it’s a part of modern marriage. Probably be best to forget having kids. It’s a terrible thing…..when you realize that your wife has such power over you.

  36. Nothing to see here, it’s simply a self justified preemptive slur to execute a branch swing and the fem collective is simply playing its part.

    Her situation is particularly difficult as branch swinging from a potential matyr requires an extra dose of hamsterbation.

  37. Tam the Bam says:

    ” she has been making luridly bizarre (and happily disprovable) allegations as to sexual abuse involving facilitation of her parents.”
    Ah. The girl who cried “Dinosaur!”

  38. Pingback: The temptation for wives to claim abuse. | Reaction Times

  39. feeriker says:

    Her situation is particularly difficult as branch swinging from a potential matyr requires an extra dose of hamsterbation.

    The Greek Hamster chorus of FI enabling will chant something to the effect of “how dare he have put himself into such a predicament that would jeopardize his marriage! Surely God would never ask such sacrifice of a married man! His own ego and desire for martyrdom is what got him into his current state, not commands from God to go forth and preach the Word unto the ends of the earth. For surely Our Heavenly Father would never ask such a terrible sacrifice of one of His precious daughters. Renounce and prepare to divorce him, oh Nagmeh, for surely you deserve better and better is what Our Heavely Father wants for you!”

  40. Dalrock says:

    @GunnerQ

    On top of that, they ran a story about a woman who already recanted her allegations and, their own quote, “She asked for privacy and prayer.”

    I’m not aware of her recanting. If that is true it is excellent news. Could you point me to a source for this? I’m only aware of her stating that she wishes she hadn’t sent the email. As for privacy, she made what I would consider public allegations against her husband. Going silent after that tends to cement the allegations. She wanted the world to know these things about her husband and then stopped talking.

  41. greyghost says:

    This is normal behavior from women. She still needs her ass kicked for pulling this as a wife (throw in Christian). The so called Christian church fails again with their lack of faith. All they had to do was call her a disloyal whore and use her as an example of an unfaithful wife to God and her husband .(imprisoned for spreading the word etc.) They should have dogged her to suicide for this stunt. Knowing women she would have made the miraculous repentance and restored herself as virtuous and pure if not other women would see her fall from grace and loss of all status.
    Instead they chose to be Christian pussy worshippers and churchianed themselves out to further degrade Christian marriage and all marriage far more than any gay guy trying to undermine marriage.
    Good behavior from women is good behavior regardless of the motivation. They are women and men need to understand this

  42. Paniym says:

    I’m in the process of separation (and probably divorce) after 35 years of marriage. Shortly before our separation my wife accused of emotional abuse. It was strictly her hamster working overtime trying to justify dumping me after 35 years. You could see it in her face and composure.

    It’s really sick that most of Christianity gives this women cover. There is no recourse or defense on the part of the husband. If she said it……then it must be true. So now I’m strapped for spousal support for the rest of my life. Did you catch that????? I said for the rest of my life. You know…… until the day I die. Death is the only escape! Some justice…..Some equity…..Some fairness….. I don’t think God is happy.

  43. Paniym says:

    should have been “accused me of emotional abuse.”

  44. When I read this as mentioned the other day I was able to spit it out before it infected me. Now I know there is another level, lower and deeper, that the evangelical feminist collective will go to. Watch carefully. Watch women in your own lives, at work, at church, friends and sisters of your wife, maybe even your wife.

    Its not enough to say she (whoever she may be) doesn’t embrace this woman’s treachery. That is easy for most women to say. But some biochemical response begins when they hear the word Abused Wife, not unlike the one that is started by the words Single Mom, and they will equivocate in the most clever ways. “Yes I agree that it was wrong for her to publicly out her husband like that. She is to seek out a multitude of counselors (a female favorite as it can be read to mean blather with every woman you know as well as some random female strangers about this) and let the church follow Matthews discipline template…..they love the idea of the church having some sort of tribunal for men, highly confidential to be sure, but……but but but that means they have to ytell folks to pray for the man under church discipline which is herspeak for -tell everyone.

    The majority of Christian women will be unable to outright rebuke these actions.

  45. goodkid43 says:

    I have been visiting this site for almost two years on a semi daily basis and cannot express enough my gratitude for the wisdom and insight that has been mined by Dalrock and the commentators. My life and my current relationship of two years is greatly enriched because of this site.
    However, having over three hundred books on memoirs of those who survived the Gulag in the USSR during the period between 1917 and 1953, there were literally millions who were forced to reject and denounce their own family members and/or friends OR face prison and torture themselves if they refused. And we are not talking American prisons. There is a high probability that this is what has occurred. When I read Dalrock’s article, the situation had all the markings of a soviet style “confession”. Sadly, we have forgotten the memory of the show trials of Stalin in which innocent people admitted guilt through torture.

    What is more devastating is that an organization such as Christianity Today would print such trash without verification AND knowing full well the history of the twentieth century and the widespread use of the false confession under torturous duress…..
    May God bless the labors of Dalrock and the commentators on this site. Only in heaven will you know the true scope of the fruit of your efforts.

  46. It is written, “The wise woman builds her house, but with her own hands the foolish one tears hers down.”

    So it is at the individual level and so it goes in ever expanding circles like the ripples in a puddle when a pebble is dropped in. Obviously there are no political solutions and the only thing left is individual solutions, but this will not end well. The United States, as a nation, rests on an infrastructure that is both so complex and at the same time so fragile that it wouldn’t take much to break it. Once it’s broken it’s a case of Humpty Dumpty and all the kings horses and all the kings men won’t be able to put it back together again.

    Having a passport and some cash stashed away isn’t a solution unless you actually expatriate and develop a personal network in some other country. I have lived almost 1/3 of my adult life outside the US and about the only way it works is to have an in-demand skill that pays well, learn the language and then very carefully marry into the right family. The ultimate insult (speaking of an expat) was “he married a maid.” Not that he was banging her (it’s expected if she’s cute), or even fathered children with her (it happens), but that he put a ring on it. Pure stupid.

    Most people will never leave the US, even on vacation. Even when they do, they generally don’t learn the language of where-ever they go. I’ve seen lots of military retirees living in the Philippines slowly drinking themselves to death while the wife is banging the yard boy. I’ve met other expats who went native, married well and went into business leveraging the wife’s family contacts. The point is either make money online or make money in the economy there because the day will come when the SS or retirement money doesn’t get deposited and then what?

    You also have to be aware of the security situation and gringos are notoriously easy to kidnap. Kidnapping is a cottage industry in lots of so-called nice places, and the worst places tend to be places that were at one time a colony of Spain. If you really want to dig in, go to a place in which your genes blend in. Hint: If you’re white I’m told that Iceland is really nice if you can deal with the cold.

    But it’s just a pipe dream for most folks. Get rural and build a defensible home out of concrete and steel. Site the home in order to maximize defensive options. Learn how to produce food, store food and be able to defend said food. Then do it. Things literally cannot continue as they are and it won’t be pretty when it blows up. Let the supply chain break and the ability to produce and store food will mean the difference between surviving and starving. The ability to defend said food will mean the difference between life and death.

    When that happens, watch how fast women change.

    Giving women the vote was something along the lines of giving idiot children machine guns to play with. Perhaps it seemed like a good idea at the time, but while time has proven that not to be the case we are now looking down the barrel and they’re locked and loaded. When conditions change, and they will, women will rediscover the virtue of being virtuous. Until then the only thing you can do is position yourself accordingly.

  47. The Question says:

    Too many people need to read Richard Wurmbrand’s book Tortured for Christ. When he was finally released from prison by the Romanian Communist regime, they told him if they preached against them in America they’d spread rumors about him and pay a girl to claim she was his lover and possibly even hire a gangster to kill him. They told him that Americans would believe anything they’re told, no matter what the source.

    It could well have been the case here. Why should we believe anything we’re told?

    Ironically, when Wurmbrand came to America, he had no intention of preaching against communism until he discovered how much it had infected the churches, who all thought it was a well-intention ideology and oppose him speaking badly about it.

    Sound familiar?

  48. >The abuse started early in their marriage and has worsened during Saeed’s imprisonment, she said.

    WTF? He is in Prison being beaten and tortured and he continues to physically and sexually abuse the woman from the other side of the globe? She is another of Hillary Clinton’s “War Victims” cuz, you know, women are the REAL victims of war and women are the REAL victims when their husbands are imprisoned and tortured.

    My God how could we have let it get so bad? Come Lord Jesus.

  49. Easttexasfatboy says:

    AT, if folks take the time to read some medieval history, that would reinforce your comments. Most of the kind souls here couldn’t pull a trigger, imo. And that’s what it will take. Famine is going to return, no doubt about it. Thing is, if you’re a prepper, best be circumspect. You cannot feed your friends. Cold, but true. Much less starving women.

  50. JAG101 says:

    Maybe she has a boyfriend. Maybe the Iranian government contacted her. Maybe the US government contacted her.

    Does this situation remind anyone of the Bo Bergdahl situation, where the dad apparently converted to Islam?

  51. rugby11ljh says:

    God is love

  52. Dalrock said, “Going silent after that tends to cement the allegations. She wanted the world to know these things about her husband and then stopped talking.

    Bingo. I remain skeptical of any repentance on her part.

  53. Smithy says:

    I see Christianity being the problem here. If she was Muslim, and even if the accusations where true, she wouldn’t dare say these things. Why? Because if she was Muslim her husbands friends would beat her to death. But instead she’s Christian and has a gaggle of beta-fags only too keen to stick the boot in to the the man.

  54. ray says:

    Wait, her name is Nag-meh?

    Take that, Richard Dawkins.

  55. DrTorch says:

    Maybe it’s a long shot, but is it possible that Iranian security services got at her? They would certainly have an interest in seeing his reputation destroyed. You know the sort of thing, “say this, or we will have him killed, etc.”. Again, probably a long shot

    Long shot? That’s the first thing that came to my mind. Seems like the most obvious answer. Way too many unknowns to call this wife out for a rebuke.

    The staff at Christianity Today however are well deserving of another rebuke. At this point every subscriber should cease from purchasing that rag.

  56. Dale says:

    Paniym

    Very sorry to hear your plight. May God guide you and give you his love.

  57. nick012000 says:

    @Dalrock: Heh. Interesting that you’d publish this today, since when I was on the train home from church today, I was struck with an idea of how to bring the whole edifice of Marriage 2.0 tumbling down: a man, whose wife divorced him and landed him with a huge “imputed income” for child support, converts to Catholicism or Orthodoxy, joins a monastery, and swears an oath of poverty. The State comes after him for money he doesn’t have, and can’t earn without violating his Freedom of Religion (thanks to the oath of poverty). I have little doubt that, as a monk, he’d be able to get lawyers to take the case pro bono if he can’t get lawyers associated with the greater Church structure; he then takes the case up to the Supreme Court, and hopefully gets the whole structure ruled unconstitutional.

  58. greyghost says:

    Is the wife still living in Iran? If she is the Iranian government most likely tightened her up. Strong hand wins again.

  59. Dave says:

    Knowing the Iranians, it is entirely possible they contacted her, either directly or by proxy, after finding out about her article and let her know either she stopped her advocacy and disavowed him or things would get much worse for him. This sort of thing has long been common among totalitarian governments of all stripes, and if so would put Christianity Today in an even worse light, if such is possible.

    I think this is highly unlikely. To disavow him is simple enough: she would simply say, publicly, that she will no longer advocate for his release “because it is God’s will for him to suffer”, or something along that line. She would never have publicly crucified him, and maligned his Christian testimony, and personal integrity, and put him to an open shame.
    What she did was far more than “accusing” someone. She went all out to betray him, and humiliate him, destroying not only his ministry, but his name and dignity. Moreover, she tried to turn the good people of God against him buy painting the suffering pastor as a hypocrite, who really wasn’t committed to doing God’s work with a true heart anyhow.

    This woman is an agent from the very pit of hell. Unless she publicly repents of her sins and recounts those obvious lies she will never find forgiveness.

  60. Dave says:

    Iranians don’t need an excuse before they punish a perceived enemy. The mere fact that this pastor isn’t a Muslim is reason enough to jail and torture him.
    This woman was not cajoled by anyone to publicly humiliate her husband; she did it of her own freewill. The fact that she later “regretted” her lies, and said so publicly, proves that she was not coerced into telling those lies. She definitely deserves every rebuke she gets.

  61. Liz says:

    The article indicates that the wife sent two e mails to “supporters”. But it doesn’t say who those supporters are. They might have been friends or people she sincerely thought were trustworthy to confide in. If she wanted to pubicly excoriate the man I doubt she would have done it by sending out two private e mail letters. Should could have just contacted the publication directly if that was her intent, couldn’t she? It doesn’t sound like she has anything else to say beyond the fact that she regrets sending the emails.
    Why did the people who received these e mails feel it necessary to contact this publication with these details?

  62. Anchorman says:

    If she is in Iran, it’s a very recent arrival.

    She’s been touring the US this year and their children are in Boise, Idaho.

  63. Remo says:

    So in other words the Iranians threatened her and she folded because she is weak and he’s in prison. Women are scared children and should NOT be trusted in situations like this – that used to be wisdom… “Abuse” is now used by the devil (big surprise) to slam a good man spreading the gospel and the truth. She’s afraid of Earthly torture and he’s innocent of these stupid charges. May our LORD GOD in heaven bless him…

  64. Looking at accounts of prisoners of Christ in China: the Chinese would parade women in front of the “accused” and have them suggest that they had sexual relations with the husband. It’s quite possible that the Iranians gave pornographic material to Saeed, it is also possible that they have pictures of Saeed with this material (incriminating or otherwise) and then sent these to the wife. They are torturing the man, this is merely an extension of that practice and now his wife is complicit, as is Churchianity.

    Apparently nobody understands that anything that is being said via Skype or telephone may be under duress. In rape culture parlance, Saeed doesn’t have the ability to consent. Anything that is being said under duress might as well be attributed to the Iranians. Likewise, the women is under duress and even though she has betrayed him it is understandable. My anger is with the anti-marriage wolves in sheep’s clothing.

  65. Minesweeper says:

    Sounds like a prelude to a forthcoming divorce if recent experience rings true. Once a woman starts alleging abuse I think she is publicly declaring she is done with the relationship and has found grounds for exit. Generally with another near at hand guy to comfort her in her troubles.

    The reality is he has already been tarred by this, even is she said it was made up or she regrets it. She will receive no comeuppance for it, from the church at large anyway.

    Why any man would trust a woman nowadays is beyond me.

  66. @nick012000:

    “converts to Catholicism or Orthodoxy, joins a monastery, and swears an oath of poverty”

    A Catholic monastery would not accept him if he told the truth about why he was entering, and would likely expel him once that truth came to light. He would not be protected as you are assuming. They would not take it lightly that he was abusing their vow of poverty. I’m sure they would also have some sympathy for his situation, but not enough to provide him a haven under false pretenses.

  67. Easttexasfatboy says:

    Women today are like feral dogs. True, they wag their tails, but they’ll bite you. They’re not domesticated. American women aren’t trustworthy……because there isn’t a level playing field. Hormonal women can accuse a man, ruin him in an instant…….and then realize what she has done. Not to mention the cold calculating woman who destroys her family for profit.

    Young men are learning this. Some will watch what happens to a relative…….and realize women are legal thieves. Some will become MGTOW, others will become radicalized, with ISIS and other Islamic groups in mind. History shows what happens when the young men of a nation are alienated. It ain’t pretty. Once a young man understands that women are useless, and a family ain’t ever going to happen, all sorts of bad things start to happen.

    Islam promises revenge. Masculinity demands revenge. Feminists actually believe that they can control masculine behavior with drugs and indoctrination. History suggests that is going to be one of the biggest mistakes women have ever made. Massacres happen when hatred overflows.

  68. Jim says:

    “It’s going to be a severe wakeup call to American women when men refuse to defend them.”

    I know I won’t lift a finger. If she’s getting beaten, raped or killed I’ll just sit back with a cigar and watch from a distance or go on my merry way. Why the hell should I out MY LIFE on the line for cunts who think it’s they’re right to do as they please and I just have to take it? FUCK that!

    ” Paniym says:
    November 21, 2015 at 6:14 pm

    I’m in the process of separation (and probably divorce) after 35 years of marriage. Shortly before our separation my wife accused of emotional abuse. It was strictly her hamster working overtime trying to justify dumping me after 35 years. You could see it in her face and composure.

    It’s really sick that most of Christianity gives this women cover. There is no recourse or defense on the part of the husband. If she said it……then it must be true. So now I’m strapped for spousal support for the rest of my life. Did you catch that????? I said for the rest of my life. You know…… until the day I die. Death is the only escape! Some justice…..Some equity…..Some fairness….. I don’t think God is happy.”

    THIS is why you DON’T get married. I know a guy who after about 10 years his once good wife turned on him and now he’s fucked. STOP looking for the unicorn. They do NOT exist. And people wonder why I’m in favor of something that Dalrock has stupidly banned people from talking about here. Sorry but reason is not working (this is kind of obvious). This isn’t rocket science. Hello?

  69. Liz says:

    This woman has a Facebook account.
    Has she made any public statements to match the ones taken from a private exchange?

  70. Pingback: Against this system of divorce courts. [Matt 19] | Dark Brightness

  71. Gunner Q says:

    Dalrock @ November 21, 2015 at 5:52 pm:
    “Could you point me to a source for this? I’m only aware of her stating that she wishes she hadn’t sent the email.”

    That’s how I read her regret over making the accusation. It makes no sense to me that someone would make a truthful accusation and then regret doing so, or that they would defend an accusation by going silent. Refusing to continue the lie is a positive step towards formal repentance… unless she made a false accusation, was surprised that people might want details and went silent because Sumo Hamster couldn’t plan two seconds ahead…

    SIGH, I’m going back to bed and huddling in my MGTOW blankets. Women suck.

  72. dvdivx says:

    Just remember that her betrayal is NOT a reason for divorce to most Christians as she did not commit adultery. And one wonders why marriage is disappearing. Asking him to forgive his wife is one thing asking him to still have her as his wife is something well over the line.

  73. Liz says:

    “That’s how I read her regret over making the accusation. It makes no sense to me that someone would make a truthful accusation and then regret doing so, or that they would defend an accusation by going silent. Refusing to continue the lie is a positive step towards formal repentance… unless she made a false accusation, was surprised that people might want details and went silent because Sumo Hamster couldn’t plan two seconds ahead…”

    There’s also the possibility that she intended it to be a private exchange between herself and the person (or persons) she sent the e mail to.

  74. Liz says:

    Here is her Twitter account. I see nothing here to indicate her intent to claim abuse publicly. If that were her intent, it would seem a good place to do so rather than via a private e mail exchange which she has expressed regret for.
    https://twitter.com/naghmehabedini?lang=en

  75. It is not just a temptation to claim abuse, but it is also a preventative threat. If a wife is corrected by her husband for her insubordination she can claim abuse and he is convicted without another word. If the marriage has gone of the tracks, and corrective leadership by the husband is likely to result in a charge of abuse. In fact, the threat is so inanimate that if a husband fails to make his wife sufficiently happy, not only might he end up divorced with his livelihood forcibly taken along with his children, he could also become a public outcast and a reproach in his social circle. It is a weapon against Biblical headship, am husband can only exercise his headship if it makes his wife happy, if she ain’t happy it must be abuse. The Duluth model is as helpful to marriage as C4 explosives are to brain surgery!

  76. inanimate = IMMINENT.

    Auto incorrect strikes again – my most humble apologies!

  77. Liz says:

    Dalrock: “As for privacy, she made what I would consider public allegations against her husband.”
    Based on what evidence?

  78. Liz says:

    It comes down to whether or not she had a expectation of privacy.
    If this were a private exchange between herself and trusted “supporters” (I’m assuming this would include some pretty close friends). She doesn’t sound very smart, but it isn’t a question of what a rocket scientist would consider reasonable, it’s a question of what the average person would consider a reasonable expectation of privacy.
    I see no evidence in this article on which to base that judgement.

  79. Roger says:

    Women’s ability to turn ANYTHING into their personal victimhood is truly remarkable. And the sad thing is that men seem to have a gut-level, natural sympathy for female suffering, imagined or real (though women seem to have to such gut-level reaction to male suffering), and this situation only props women up in their bid for the victimhood championship.
    In most respects, my mother was an excellent wife to my father, but one time she really got on my nerves was when my father was suffering extreme pain from what turned out to be terminal cancer. Her antics at that time seemed calculated to draw all the attention to herself: “You just can’t imagine how wracked I’ve been with worry and sleeplessness …” etc. etc. As if to say “don’t pay any mind to HIM; I’M the one who’s suffering.” And don’t we get similar reactions on a regular basis if we complain about anything to a woman? Don’t they often respond with one-up-womanship: “You think YOU’VE get problems? Well let me tell you about …” Remember guys: they hold the patent on victimhood.

  80. Anchorman says:

    Back under a new name, “Liz” again wants men to not believe their lying eyes, regarding the behavior of women.

    How, in any way, could the “abuse” have gotten Bworse since he’s been physically and emotionally separated from his wife? It can’t, unless it’s the imagined “abuse” women accuse men of perpetrating by not giving in on all fronts and being groveling slaves to the new woman.

    This woman just gave Christian persecutors a free hand to beat, break, burn, mutilate, and kill her husband.

    She “regrets” publicly, but only so people, like Liz, can furiously rebuild the mound and provide plausible deniability that the wife did it deliberately so she can be cut free to get pounded by the guy she’ll gradually unveil…once the husband God provided for her is dead.

  81. Liz says:

    I’ve only had the one name.
    One thing I’ve noticed, in reading the media through the years. On any subject (or event) that I’ve been truly knowledgeable about, or had personal experience with, the media portrayal has been almost 180 out from reflecting the reality of what I’ve experienced/know. I’ll bet a number of people here have observed this as well.

    So I read very carefully and try not to jump to any conclusions until enough facts are known to form a knowledgeable conclusion.

  82. Dalrock says:

    @Liz

    It comes down to whether or not she had a expectation of privacy.
    If this were a private exchange between herself and trusted “supporters” (I’m assuming this would include some pretty close friends). She doesn’t sound very smart, but it isn’t a question of what a rocket scientist would consider reasonable, it’s a question of what the average person would consider a reasonable expectation of privacy.
    I see no evidence in this article on which to base that judgement.

    What you are suggesting is she whispered awful accusations against her husband while he is in prison for his faith, and when the whispers got out of control she clammed up. I don’t see where this really helps.

    Assuming she hasn’t done this under duress (as suggested by other commenters) the betrayal is real and she has not repented. As you have pointed out she has social media at her disposal, and if she wants to set the record straight she can do so in an instant. It isn’t just CT that is running stories about her husband being an abuser, other Christian media outlets are spreading the accusations far and wide. I have seen news stories based on her facebook posts, and she knows how to reach out to the media having done a multi year media campaign. Whether she only intended to betray her husband to a few close friends, or all of his supporters, isn’t much of a consolation.

  83. Liz says:

    Who she sent this to would be a good start. It would actually pretty much settle it all for me. If she sent out a mass e mail, she had no reasonable expectation of privacy. If she sent it to a couple of trusted people and didn’t expect them to reveal it, she did have a reasonable expectation of privacy. The article offers no context.
    I don’t know why this is such a reach. I wasn’t even familiar with this person or this case (until now anyway). I would do this with any case. I’m very careful about media accounts and her reaction here does not fit the narrative.

  84. Liz says:

    “What you are suggesting is she whispered awful accusations against her husband while he is in prison for his faith, and when the whispers got out of control she clammed up. I don’t see where this really helps.”
    Or she was confiding privately in an e mail to a friend, during a very emotional time, and didn’t expect the information to go public.

  85. Minesweeper says:

    @Roger says: “Women’s ability to turn ANYTHING into their personal victimhood is truly remarkable. And the sad thing is that men seem to have a gut-level, natural sympathy for female suffering, imagined or real (though women seem to have to such gut-level reaction to male suffering)”

    You mean women DONT seem to have to such gut-level reaction to male suffering ??? Cause they sure as hell dont.

    Liz, FFS, her email would have been on a mailing list to x subscribers. not private convo, otherwise CT wouldn’t have broadcast it. its hard to believe woman are this callus , but im sure you know they are.

  86. shadescale says:

    Dalrock:

    A bit OT, but I finally found a web archive of Christian Men’s Defense Network (now a dead site).

    https://web.archive.org/web/20120414041727/http://cmd-n.org/

    Get at it while you can.

  87. Minesweeper says:

    @Liz, considering 1 in 4 women will have their in own in-utero unborn child suctioned out of them to die at their own bequest, throwing their in jail husband into the meat grinder is not a stretch at all, her only worry is who pays her rent + food after this, he doesn’t even figure in her decision.

  88. Aservant says:

    Liz, do you not get the fact that what most here, if not all, are taking the most exception with is the fact that it is IMPOSSIBLE for her to be abused worse than ever if HE IS IN PRISON AND HAS NO PHYSICAL CONTACT WITH HER.

    Let’s play devil’s advocate here to make a point. Let’s say that each time she has spoken with him for the past year, he cusses her out in the most extreme, vulgar way, which I very much doubt. And even if he is doing it, could it be because he is being tortured and therefore is acting out? Very possible. But let’s say he is doing it just because he is “all abusey”…….just an abuser…..ya know? Getting cussed out in a vulgar way when someone isn’t and can’t even be in your presence doesn’t qualify as terrible abuse. Sorry. Crappy behavior, yes. Very disrespectful, yes. An increase in his abusive behavior? No.

    So whether she said it even to herself and someone overheard, the fact that she is so narcissistic and traitorous to even consider her situation as abusive while her husband is in an Iranian prison is the point here. It is only compounded that she said it publicly or even wrote it in an email to one friend.

    And just as alarming is this fact either seems to have escaped you completely or you could care less. What seems to be important to you is trying to justify her point of view in whatever way you can. This strikes me, and I’m sure many others here as well, as almost criminally psychotic.

  89. Liz says:

    “Liz, FFS, her email would have been on a mailing list to x subscribers. not private convo, otherwise CT wouldn’t have broadcast it. its hard to believe woman are this callus , but im sure you know they are.”

    CT didn’t broadcast it. They took portions and said she’d sent it to “supporters”.
    Yes indeed, if she hit the list of subscribers that would be a mass e mail. So I ask again….anything to indicate she did this? This e mail doesn’t seem to be accessible anywhere. She didn’t twitter anything about this. I can’t find anything on her facebook account (but I don’t have facebook…I’ll take someone’s word for it if they can find it).

  90. Minesweeper says:

    @liz, women won’t think twice about aborting their own children if its an inconvenience to her. I have seen this even amongst christian women, the disconnect is staggering. Women really don not possess the mental facilities to decide what should be done with a healthy pregnancy.

    If they will kill their kids in a heartbeat, when hubby stops meeting his assigned appraisal goals for the year, expect him to be suctioned out of her life also.

    It dosnt matter if she vented this privately or in public (I suspect the latter), she is done with him. And wants him terminated from her lifestyle. Now she can obtain supreme victim status. and hopefully a wealthy beta to pick up his obvious slack in her life.

  91. Dalrock says:

    @Liz

    Or she was confiding privately in an e mail to a friend, during a very emotional time, and didn’t expect the information to go public.

    I think you are in denial of the basic betrayal. Even if she is just whispering these accusations in confidence, she is betraying him. It is troubling that you can’t see that speaking this way about her husband, even only to her girlfriends, is a problem. Do you say awful things about your husband to your girlfriends? Do you think that wouldn’t be a massive betrayal, even if they kept your confidence? Are you foolish enough to think that everything you say about your husband to your girlfriends doesn’t go straight to the gossip mill? Moreover, when this blew up on her she had an even greater obligation to set the record straight, and as you have pointed out she has the tools to do so. Had her friends not spread the message, she would still need to set the record straight (just with a smaller number of people).

    You also are overlooking the fact that leading up to this she lead a three year media campaign to raise awareness about her husband. Part of her message was an explanation of why she was going to stop this campaign. Her silence is confirmation of the message she sent.

  92. Minesweeper says:

    @Liz says:”CT didn’t broadcast it. They took portions and said she’d sent it to “supporters”.”

    No CT did broadcast it, sticking it on their website front page for ann and sundry to read. Is a broadcast.

  93. Minesweeper says:

    @D, you are right, Liz can’t see the betrayal in any shape or form. It is beyond her to criticize her own form and what she would do herself.

  94. Liz says:

    Let’s look at the facts. For three years this woman has rallied around her husband and supported him massively. She has written letters/done public speaking engagements/lobbied/ ect.
    She sent two e mails. We don’t know to whom. Now she has expressed public regret and retreated. She isn’t acting like a woman who is attempting to purposely betray her husband and drum up “abuse sympathy”, she is acting like a woman who feels disgraced after some private information she thought was made in confidence was released.
    The above could be wrong. She might want to humilite and betray him. She might have, after three years of support, suddenly decided she wants to generate sympathy for herself as an “abused” spouse. But that’s not what the limited information here would indicate to me.

    Do I speak that way about my husband? No. But I’m not in her situation. What other people share and speak about in confidence in their private lives is none of my business. I don’t wonder what you, Dalrock, say about your wife in private e mails either. Why would I?

  95. Minesweeper says:

    In other news, I dropped my teen child off at the train station today, displayed alot of affection +love, afterwards, the number of late teen\early twenties female eye’s that were fixated upon me was astonishing.

    They looked like they have never experienced a fathers adoration+love before.

    Its so tragic. And beyond explanation.

  96. Liz says:

    “Part of her message was an explanation of why she was going to stop this campaign. Her silence is confirmation of the message she sent.”

    The article claimed in the title that she was dropping the campaign. That wasn’t a quote from her. She said she needed to take a rest.

  97. Minesweeper says:

    @liz, do you hear her complaining that some private confidence was leaked? or misunderstood ?

    grow up.

    “Do I speak that way about my husband? No. But I’m not in her situation. ” – would you in her situation ?

  98. Asteriks says:

    FYI, when we see things like this in the mainstream media, I encourage people (Dalrock himself?) not just to let go on the blogs of their choice (their own or others’) but to write letters to the editor of the publications in question…

  99. Minesweeper says:

    this is why men need multiple wives, in his situation, maybe one will stay friendly and loyal. But just 1.

  100. DEN1 says:

    No doubt, she’s been given hundreds of thousands or perhaps millions in donations over the years. What better time than now, to take the money and run? Won’t be long before her profile appears on Match or Christian Singles.

    In the world of divorce, its a pretty sweet deal.

  101. patchasaurus says:

    Wow, this Liz is a real piece of work. She just ignores the hard truth of the betrayal set out and even alludes that Dalrock himself betrays his mate in private emails.

  102. Minesweeper says:

    Liz, just think, if she files for divorce in the USA, she can get imputed income, so he even owes her WHILE HE IS IN JAIL IN IRAN !!!

    WAOW, its a win win situation for her !!! He had better get out and then get arrested the minute he gets off the plane, and STILL the imputed income will increase !!

    He has alot to look forward too if the Iranians ever let him go.

  103. Liz says:

    “@liz, do you hear her complaining that some private confidence was leaked? or misunderstood ?”
    No. She has said nothing at all. Which seems pretty strange to me if her intent is to generate sympathy for herself and paint her husband as an abuser.

  104. Minesweeper says:

    @Liz, you should contact her, imputed income while being tortured in an iranian jail — FTW !!!!!

    This will be used as the poster child of feminist oligarchy. This will sort the men out from the boys.

  105. Liz says:

    “Wow, this Liz is a real piece of work. She just ignores the hard truth of the betrayal set out and even alludes that Dalrock himself betrays his mate in private emails.”
    Dalrock asked ME the same thing. Was he alluding that I say awful things about my husband? I didn’t take it that way.

  106. Minesweeper says:

    @Liz says:“@liz, do you hear her complaining that some private confidence was leaked? or misunderstood ?” No. She has said nothing at all.

    And its deafening. Particularly for the poor sucker being reduced to a brown stain in jail.

    This will be known far and wide. The end has come.

  107. Minesweeper says:

    @Liz says:””“@liz, do you hear her complaining that some private confidence was leaked? or misunderstood ?” No. She has said nothing at all. Which seems pretty strange to me if her intent is to generate sympathy for herself and paint her husband as an abuser.”

    you don’t understand this at all do you ?

  108. Jack Russell Terrorist says:

    You read my mind Minesweeper. I came on here to post about Pastor Saeed and what he has to look forward to when he returns to the US. She will divorce him and say Jesus wants me haaaapy. He will be arrested publicly and put in jail for “non-support” .

  109. Dalrock says:

    @Liz

    Part of her message was an explanation of why she was going to stop this campaign. Her silence is confirmation of the message she sent.

    The article claimed in the title that she was dropping the campaign. That wasn’t a quote from her. She said she needed to take a rest.

    It wasn’t just the title. The CT article stated:

    Touring the country to advocate for Saeed’s release while coping with marital conflict proved too much, she wrote.

    It is possible that CT is stating something that wasn’t in her message, but if that is the case she has the ability to quite easily correct the record.

    But you are still refusing to accept the basic betrayal. Even if your assumptions are correct and she only wrote the accusations to a small group of girlfriends, do you not see the betrayal? Do you not also see that she is responsible for this going to the media even if she only hoped to gossip a little bit about her husband?

  110. patchasaurus says:

    The odds of the wife ever even seeing the sinful betrayal, let alone repenting and turning from it and honoring her husband, would take nothing short of a miracle. I have lived this situation for the last three years. I have been subjected to virtually every offense this site and others report on from my estranged and soon to be ex.

    MINESWEEPER speaks accurately with: “men seem to have a gut-level, natural sympathy for female suffering, imagined or real” and I have watched trusted friends turn from me in disgust upon hearing their wives echo my wife’s lies and allegations without even seeking evidence or any perspective whatsoever.

    I knew I was in trouble years ago when our dinner conversation would turn to what a jerk one of her friend’s husband was. Uh-oh, I thought, what is that other lady saying to her husband about me right now. I would promptly stop her gossip and disparaging talk of someone we didn’t even really know. This agitated her. Soon enough I learned my concerns were true and I was a horrible abuser and controller, whatever that is supposed to mean. Special butterfly could not spread her wings wide enough and be glorified I guess. My wife found all new friends who did not know me and did not know my children, distanced herself from those mature and Godly women and couples in our lives who would hold her accountable and speak truth. Soon enough her minions, I call them the hens when not angry, the coven when feeling darker, were accompanying her on outings and getaways and actually sat in the front row of the initial divorce hearing for temporary orders when she tried to have me removed from my home and children.

    Again, this is deep betrayal and the very worst poison on marriage. My closest friends and thankfully a very traditional and sound pastor have all stood by me and it is this pastor’s wife who declared that only a true miracle would change the heart of my wife and turn her from her sin. The divorce will be final in two weeks.

    For anybody, Liz, to even attempt to put this horrible action into something acceptable or explainable only confirms that you are of the same ilk. Be gone.

  111. Liz says:

    “But you are still refusing to accept the basic betrayal. Even if your assumptions are correct and she only wrote the accusations to a small group of girlfriends, do you not see the betrayal? Do you not also see that she is responsible for this going to the media even if she only hoped to gossip a little bit about her husband?”

    There are (again) a couple of possibilities here, and my opinion would differ depending.
    1) She lied, and denigrated her husband to close friends. Definitely a private betrayal.
    2) She is telling the truth. This is still a private betrayal, but more understandable in the context of three years of rallying for support. Particularly if it’s relayed in certain context (and again, there is none here…I can guess best case scenario, or worst either way it’s just a guess. I’d really like to know what the e mail said).
    Neither of the above are public betrayals. A public betrayal would be much much worse. There seems to be a lot of vitriol toward me here. That’s fine. I could be wrong and you might be right. It’s highly likely that is the case, but I dont’ see any advantage of jumping to that conclusion considering the woman’s history here. As far as I can see she has been very loyal until now, so I’m offering the benefit of the doubt until something more concrete comes out.

  112. Liz says:

    “Be gone.”
    Okay. Bye.

  113. feeriker says:

    Would anyone be surprised if Saeed converted to Islam after this betrayal, especially if his “church” stood in his wife’s corner?

    It would be a terrible tragedy, but, to be honest, I couldn’t blame the man one bit if he apostasized.

  114. patchasaurus says:

    There is one acceptable setting for a wife to speak of issues with her husband or her marriage. It is in the company of trusted and Godly close friends, in the presence of her husband, with her husband initiating a confession of a misdeed or sin on his part, and the wife speaking only on how it has affected her for the sake of her receiving prayer in the matter, and her speaking of this with her husband’s permission. This is not mandatory or required as a means for a man to repent of sin and is never a practice to be demanded by the wife, but it is appropriate for a contrite man of God to confess in this setting if he is so led. His sin is ultimately between himself and God Almighty.

  115. Minesweeper says:

    @patchasaurus says:” Be gone.”
    @Liz says:”Okay. Bye.”

    Well just shows you how much a woman can take. A anonymous commenter will scare her off while a man gets tortured in jail. But its Liz that;s getting abused.

    My granddad had his foot blown off in WW1 as a teenager\early 20’s and lets just say, not a women ever gave a f*ck, in fact he even had a white feather pinned to his lapel by a women on a bus, while he was back after being rescued and dragged (by a man) after being blown to shit on no man’s land.

    Female lack of care for men, is astonishing.

  116. Liz says:

    “Well just shows you how much a woman can take. A anonymous commenter will scare her off while a man gets tortured in jail.”
    Are you saying you want me to stay?

  117. Liz says:

    I dont’ really see a whole lot of constructive engagement going on here (except for Dalrock, thankyou, much appreciated).
    I haven’t claimed abuse, but it’s pretty pointless to respond to rotten tomatoes.

  118. Minesweeper says:

    @Liz, but of course. But we are made of hardier stuff.

    We know and understand and read that you are the weaker sex, but it shocks us just how far it goes.

  119. Minesweeper says:

    @liz, you are being engaged, and have not claimed abuse. Unlike almost every woman in a divorce. What else do you want to know ?

  120. Liz says:

    I’ll lurk and just read for a while, Minesweeper.😉

  121. This is pretty obvious to anyone who has seen the pattern before.

    1. She wrote the emails,
    2. She doesn’t deny she wrote the emails.
    3. She doesn’t deny what she wrote in the emails
    4. She doesn’t claim to be misquoted or taken out of context.
    5. She only regrets sending the emails but leaves the allegations in place.

    That’s her story, she’s sticking to it and she has publicly buried the knife in her husband’s back.

    Translation: she’s done with him, tired of it all but wants an exit strategy in which she isn’t the disloyal witch who abandoned her husband while he rots in an Iranian prison. She has already moved on but she has to make her exit in the correct manner.

    This is the key part of the script: In order for her to be righteous he has to be a monster. She can’t allow herself to be seen as the heartless witch she really is so in order for her to walk away while her husband is rotting in a foreign prison for preaching the Gospel, she has to destroy his character. She’s now done that with the help of “supporters” and CT. She made the obligatory “regrets” comment and she can keep her mouth shut now because others will continue to fight the battle to destroy her husband for her. She might ask for privacy in this difficult time.

    What follows will be difficult phone calls with her husband now that she’s very publicly knifed him in the back. Any outrage on his part at her very public betrayal of him will be documented and used against him as more evidence of his abusive and controlling behavior. Some form of counseling will be done to preserve appearances and then she will quietly and with great dignity announce she feels like God has led her to file for divorce. Later she’ll marry some other guy who helped her “so tremendously” during this “time of incredible difficulty.”

    Just watch.

  122. Minesweeper says:

    @patchasaurus, you have my full sympathies.If I could help I would.

  123. patchasaurus says:

    You are helping and have for awhile now. Thanks.

  124. Anon says:

    About Liz :

    But you are still refusing to accept the basic betrayal. Even if your assumptions are correct and she only wrote the accusations to a small group of girlfriends, do you not see the betrayal? Do you not also see that she is responsible for this going to the media even if she only hoped to gossip a little bit about her husband?

    Perhaps because Liz wants to keep open the option of doing this herself (or she has already in the past).

  125. Minesweeper says:

    @AT, do u forget he is in jail ? What will occur is that she is feeling neglected, abused, abandoned. She needs a man to be with her. She can’t wait any longer.

    Frivorce. new marriage for her, keep the kids. Her ex screwed over, abandoned to oblivion.

  126. Minesweeper says:

    @patchasaurus,🙂

  127. @Minesweeper
    What will occur is that she is feeling neglected, abused, abandoned. She needs a man to be with her. She can’t wait any longer.

    The point is the character assassination had to take place because the script calls for it. She is the monster who *must* make herself look like a victim, abused by her husband. That allows everyone to overlook what she really is while they spit on her husband.

    Odds are she’s already got another man and that’s why she’s pulling the plug, but this woman will continue to do “ministry” work for many years to come so she has to follow the script. In fact, she could be vaccinating herself in case some stories about the boyfriend come out because now that she’s accused her husband of abuse it won’t matter. She was abused.

    The script must be followed.

  128. Minesweeper says:

    @Artisanal Toad says:”Odds are she’s already got another man”

    Absolutely, I would say, from experience of the divorces in our previously large social circle 90% initiated from females.

    Men really do fail to understand, their social network i(in marriage) s initiated by women and they can collapse it like a neutron star if they so desire

  129. REASON says:

    There is something fundamental that Modern Christians seem to fail to realize.
    There is no new sin under the sun. Any sin and the most common sins we as humans are going to commit, we are given examples in the Bible.
    Its funny how in the Church today, the Husband is always a monster and an abuser no matter how devoted to righteousness he was before charges were made against him……….
    However in the Scriptures we see almost no example of an abusive husband to his wife, but a recurring problem of a Husband’s devotion to his wife and desire to please his her leading to disastrous problems.
    It’s sad that most leaders fail to realize the problem is not Selfish and uncaring husband but Uxoriousness at the expense of faithfulness to God

    1). It started with Adam and the entire human race was plunged into a mess because the devil emotionally manipulated eve into disobeying God and Adam followed her knowing it was the wrong thing to do.
    2). Abraham got into a hot mess with God after he listen to Sarai as to how to work out Gods plan for a Promised seed……Led to Ismael and tension between Hagar and Sarai. After the tension Sarai demanded that Abraham got rid of Ismael and Hagar. Nice, man had to send his son away to please his wife, who caused him to have said sin in the first place.

    3). Dinah’s quest for “sisterhood” and defiance to then cultural norms caused her to be raped and led to Simeon and Levi massacring and whole village of men and resulting in a prophetic curse from their father
    4). God almost killed Moses because he passed on circumcision responsibilities to his wife, who ended up cursing him when it was found out she failed to carry out the job resulting in Moses almost losing his life.
    4). Samson’s love for women caused him to be manipulated and lose a riddle to the Philistines through wife betrayal.
    5). Again Samson didn’t learn his lesson in the first instance, then he faced the ultimate embarrassment of losing his sight and being a prisoner of his enemies after being betrayed by Delilah
    6) Solomon’s love for Women especially ones God forbid caused him to bring Idolatry to Israel
    7) And then there was Jezebel……………..must I go on.

    I think the fundamental issue to be avoided and the problem men have is not becoming abusers, but becoming Sinners before God by placing too much unhealthy priority on women.

    What Pastor Saeed needs now is not his wife’s repentance…..God will deal with her and her betrayal and bringing the name of Christ to ill repute. What he needs is he overwhelming support and prayer from us men who should be like warriors by his side who will not let a wounded soldier die are the hands of the unrighteous. It is us en through brotherly love that will have to do the work necessary to give our brothers hope, to restore order to this ever maddening place and to let both Women and the government know that we will not allow this Madness to continue.

    “The fight is on, O Christian soldier,
    And face to face in stern array,
    With armor gleaming, and colors streaming,
    The right and wrong engage today!
    The fight is on, but be not weary;
    Be strong and in His might hold fast;
    If God be for us, His banner o’er us,
    We’ll sing the victor’s song at last!”

  130. Easttexasfatboy says:

    It ain’t pleasant, and it surely ain’t PC…….but really, gents…..it’s rank, malodorous churchy hypergamy. Out in the open. Yeah, she’s in the process of doing her husband……but if her husband is right with the Lord, well, He surely knows how to deal with a daughter of Eve. Women, deep down, don’t believe they’re accountable, imo. We were warned about things like this……apostasy takes many forms……Women as well as men.

  131. Spike says:

    So, Pastor Saeed is in prison for the sake of the Gospel of jesus Christ.
    His wife decides to publicly humiliate him by airing their dirty laundry, be it real or perceived.

    Regarding pornography: “A satisfied man never wanders” – Italian proverb.
    Regarding “abuse” – you might cut him a bit of slack, NAGmeh – he’s a little preoccupied, being tortured in prison and all. I understand that to be minor compared to whatever it is has happened to you.

    Just when you think women can’t get any lower after having hit the bottom, they still manage to start digging.

  132. REASON says:

    now things has me thinking
    Can our government advocate for the release of a man who is watching Porn in Prison and abusing his wife while he should be praying?………..
    Good Lord she has gotten him good

  133. feeriker says:

    Women, deep down, don’t believe they’re accountable, imo.

    There’s no “deep down” about it whatsoever, and it’s not just your opinion.

    Women overtly, vociferously WILL NOT allow themselves to be held accountable by anyone for anything. Not EVER.

    And AWALT. I have yet in my more than half a century of life to hear ANY woman, of any age, socioeconomic class, or religious belief ever admit to being accountable for anything or to having been at fault for anything.

  134. JDG says:

    Abuse defined:

    1) Anything a man does that doesn’t involve submitting to a woman.
    2) Anything a man does that doesn’t please the woman he is submitting to.
    3) Anything a man does at the behest of a woman that doesn’t turn out the way she wants.
    4) Anything a man does at the behest of a woman that does turn out the way she wanted before she changed her mind.

    Did I miss anything?

  135. Andy G says:

    Reminds me about the story of the Australian business man locked up in a Dubai jail on dubious charges.
    All of the media coverage was about his poor wife and daughter and how hard it was for them and occasionally they mentioned the husband.
    It was as though a Dubai jail is somehow still a 5-star resort! Not one photo of the jail, any of the cells or information about what his life is like in jail. All about how hard it is for his poor wife at home.

  136. Sam says:

    @Dalrock, long time reader here, been through the bulk of blog content and it’s been very helpful.

    I have personally stopped using the word “abuse” along with a few others as the meaning is too transient. Are there times you would still use the word? If so, do you have a working definition?

    Thanks.

  137. Yet Another Commenter, Yet Another Comment ("yac-yac") says:

    Abuse defined:1) Anything a man does that doesn’t involve submitting to a woman.
    “JDG”

    So, JDG, IIUC, you’re saying, that FI would claim, that MGTOW is “abuse”, then?

    Pax Christi Vobiscum.

  138. Yet Another Commenter, Yet Another Comment ("yac-yac") says:

    … Because, if you’re right about that, then, the correct reply is, “What Part Of ‘No’ Don’t You Understand?”

  139. Yet Another Commenter, Yet Another Comment ("yac-yac") says:

    As in:

    “Why Won’t You Man Up And Marry Those Sluts?”

    “What Part Of ‘No’ Don’t You Understand?”

  140. Dave says:

    @Liz:

    This woman has a Facebook account.
    Has she made any public statements to match the ones taken from a private exchange?

    So, you’re suggesting that because she did not post the florid details of her husband’s pornography use on facebook, it proves that she was not interested in making it public? Really? Does that even make any sense at all?
    Private mails or not, this woman has no business telling “supporters” about her husband’s private struggles. By virtue of her position as the spouse, she is entitled to privileged information about the man, and it is nothing short of betrayal to expose his secrets to anyone for no good reason. In her letters, she did not mention how she prayed for her husband to get delivered from pronogrphy. She did not ask these “supporters” to keep the conversation private. She thoughtlessly and carelessly exposed the weaknesses of this man (if true at all) to the whole world, permanently tarnishing the man’s name and integrity. No matter how you cut this woman’s behavior, she is as guty as sin, and will need to repent publicly.

    One of the major reasons marriages don’t last is because the parties talk too much—to other people, and too little—to each other. The third person that should know the intimate details of a marriage is God, and no one else. Women have this unhealthy tendency to open their mouths to their “close friends”, and reveal the most intimate details about their husbands. Frankly, it is pretty disgusting to see how many women treat their marriages. They reveal intimate information about their men to total strangers without thinking about the repercussions of such careless behavior. When they end up losing their husbands to their “best friends” they begin to cry foul. I wonder what they expected; their best friends know everything–including the size of their husband’s manhood and the last time they made love. Nothing is sacred anymore. Men do this also, but to a much lesser extent.

    When you marry someone, you leave other people, and cleave to that person. That also means you leave other people out of the intimate details of your marriage as well. It is a great act of betrayal to reveal privileged information for no genuine reason.

  141. Random Angeleno says:

    @unwobblingpivot @nick012000:

    “converts to Catholicism or Orthodoxy, joins a monastery, and swears an oath of poverty”

    A Catholic monastery would not accept him if he told the truth about why he was entering, and would likely expel him once that truth came to light. He would not be protected as you are assuming. They would not take it lightly that he was abusing their vow of poverty. I’m sure they would also have some sympathy for his situation, but not enough to provide him a haven under false pretenses.

    Just to clarify this point further: not only Catholic monasteries, but also Catholic seminaries and communities as well: they will not accept anyone with significant debt and/or judgements to his or her name. This is most common with student loans, but can also occur with other debts. It doesn’t matter if the prospective entrant has his heart in the right place because no Catholic community wants to get stuck with the debt or with helping the entrant deal with it. I was in a different parish while on travel some months ago and I happened to see a few lines on a back page describing a fund for helping entrants at the local seminary pay off their debts.

    Sorry to take this off track …

    About wives claiming abuse, I’ve seen this sort of thing myself and it is one of the things I will vet very hard about if I ever consider a woman for marriage. Right now, no, but one never knows about these things and there are still a lot of functional couples around, I know several; we just don’t read about them. Along the lines of Dalrock’s vetting guidelines, I’d do it in roundabout ways and read between the lines of her responses. You gonna question her up front and center, she’ll tell you whatever she thinks you want to hear. Not what you want, you want to know how she actually feels, you’ll have to be a bit devious and indirect to get there

  142. mike says:

    And, remember, these people regularly abuse the term of “addiction”. Usually, it’s a one-off or other moment of weakness while they are being starved of affection from their wife.

  143. scientivore says:

    There are multiple reasons why I never married, one of which is damaged trust for women. There are several things that damaged my trust for women, one of which was a betrayal of privacy from a female friend in college.

    I would hear a humorous anecdote told back to me distorted into a grotesquery, as from a funhouse mirror; whatever spin would reflect worst on me. And I had to cut out all but my three best friends from my life, and then finally tell each one of them a different story, just to find out who was doing it.

    Turned out she was only telling one person and didn’t think her childhood friend should count, even though my friend was the only person who couldn’t tell that her friend was a horribly malicious gossip who cut down everyone (including our mutual friend) to make herself feel better about being a social reject (bit of a vicious circle there).

    What she did was wrong. Her reasons do not excuse her betrayal of my trust, and it hurt me both socially and emotionally, with real long-term consequences for my life course.

    And that was just a friend. Treason is evil, with evil fruit, and it would take a breathtakingly powerful Rationalization Hamster to excuse this woman’s betrayal of her husband.

  144. Darwinian Arminian says:

    I see something like this and I find myself almost hoping ( almost, mind you) that the explanation behind the whole mess is that Iranian intelligence somehow got to her and blackmailed or threatened her into sending out those e-mails in the first place. That’s not a pleasant thought, but consider what it means if it was all her idea — that she knew the abuse claim would allow her to garner sympathy and then step away from the ordeal for a while with no questions asked. If that’s true?

    American men have now reached the point where their own culture can and will do a better job of destroying their marriage than a theocratic death-cult that employs murder and torture as tools of governance.

  145. patchasaurus says:

    @JDG no, that covers it in full

  146. feeriker says:

    Regarding pornography: “A satisfied man never wanders” – Italian proverb.

    Expecting a woman to satisfy her husband sexually is putting demands on her by telling her that she has responsibilities to her husband as a wife. That, by definition, is abuse.

  147. patchasaurus says:

    Gents, as has been forewarned, this will not change in our lifetimes. If you are among the fortunate few who married the last of the Godly women, use all lessons here to keep your union Godly and whole. To the rest of us; stay in constant prayer and despite the ruin perpetrated on us, let us teach our children well and persevere, never forsaking scripture and holding true to the timeless truth of God’s model, never being ashamed of the Gospel for the sake of our lineage, if not for ourselves, for our offspring and for a shift in this wayward culture. One day we will stand before our maker and it will all be sorted out. Take heart.

  148. patchasaurus says:

    NO woman speaks truth in this modern western culture. Take for example LIZ, who skirted every truth that Dal and othesr put forth. She played the FI at every turn in attempt to bait us all for attention and to sway us from the truth that was so evident. On my admonshment she said goodbye clearly and abruptly, but lied and stayed lurking, using the thinest angle of comments to return, turning it into an invitation as if she was somehow missed, flirting brazenly, tho she be married, with MINESWEEPER, seeking validation and using it to rejoin. Pathetic. Western women are so predictable and weak. Their word means nothing. Why does this jezebel even seek our company if she has a Godly husband to tend to? It is in the guise of wanting to serve him better, but her comments betray this to her lust: tingles from alpha strangers.

  149. patchasaurus says:

    @liz tee hee hee, you want me…

  150. patchasaurus says:

    i’ll bloviate some more…

  151. patchasaurus says:

    not to mention that she insulted every commenter by stating that there was no insightful dialogue here while going down on dalrock in gratitude. Hussy.

  152. Darwinian Arminian says:

    @feeriker

    Would anyone be surprised if Saeed converted to Islam after this betrayal, especially if his “church” stood in his wife’s corner?

    I actually hadn’t thought of that, but you know, it really does underscore just how truly rotten this was on her part. After spending years getting beaten and starved in a maximum-security hellhole it’s going to be natural for any man to cherish the idea of returning to the arms of a loving wife on free soil of his homeland. But guess what? That option’s not on the table anymore! Even if the Iranians have mercy and release him now he’s stuck going back to a woman who spoke ill of him to many in his hour of greatest need, only to then to receive the greetings of a church and government system ready to investigate him for new crimes because she did so.

    So with the option of a happy homecoming and a return to your normal life gone . . . God, I hate saying this, but switching sides is going to look like an appealing choice. Especially if the Iranians play this smart (and they often do) by offering him some sort of hero status for publicly renouncing his past allegiances.

    Pastor Saeed’s now stuck between current enemies that could offer him a way out (to their advantages, of course) or former friends and family that went out of their way to stick a shiv in him (with more to come, should they meet again).

    As a past sage once asked: The Lady or the Tiger?

  153. RichardP says:

    Guys, Liz is making only one point, and it is a correct point: there is no evidence in what is presented on this thread that Pastor Saeed’s wife intended to publically humiliate him. Liz is not defending the wife. She is simply making the point stated here. I am not defending Liz here. I am defending the point she made. It is a correct point, and it stands on it’s own – regardless of whether all of the other accusations made here against the wife are also true or not. It’s not an either/or thing, even tho most posters here are trying to frame it as that. Liz can be correct while Dalrock and others can also be correct.

  154. goodkid43 says:

    It is too convenient and a perfect outcome for Iran that Nagmeh smears the reputation of her husband AND cancels her future engagements speaking out against Iran. As one previous commentator stated, this is similar to the threats that Richard Wurmbrand received as described in “Tortured for Christ” i.e. if you speak out against Communism you will be smeared and executed by proxy.
    To put it in real terms, would Dalrock shut down this site and disavow all that he is RIGHTLY speaking against if he were threatened with death for him AND his wife AND children?

    Again, having a wife condemn her husband as a traitor was common practice under Communism. And if she refused, she would be tortured, sent to prison or eventually executed. Many Russian memoirs relate the guilt that they or others that confessed to them in the prison cells carried because of the forceful betrayal of family/close friend. it is a real possibility that Nagmeh is forced to take such actions or face the death of her husband, herself and her children plus other family members that may still be living in Iran.

    if her husband was abusive, she would have never spent those three years in defending him and speaking out for him.

  155. I don’t think the Iranians had to lift one finger to get her to do what she did. What could they threaten her with.. his death? Wouldn’t matter, they could kill him anyway at anytime. That would reflect badly on Iran no matter when they killed him. It doesn’t serve their purpose to try and get her to do what she did.

    The way that CT takes her word and her husband’s torment and turns her into the martyr, is exactly the angle she was going for. She wanted attention and got it.

  156. ray says:

    I second that, REASON. Each of us taking a minute to pray for pastor Saeed is good advice, and we should not assume our prayer will be ineffective, although he is held by a cruel spirit and nation.

    Iran who was Persia should remember Japan at close of WW2. Torturing American p.o.w.s did not, let us say, argue on Japan’s behalf when it came time to make decisions about firestorms and a-bomb drops.

    If Iran can’t remember mercy towards Saeed — a brave man, and thus worthy of respect — then I pray the memory of Japan is still fresh in the Persian mind.

  157. ray says:

    patchasaurus at one-ten: hear hear.

  158. Dave says:

    Guys, Liz is making only one point, and it is a correct point: there is no evidence in what is presented on this thread that Pastor Saeed’s wife intended to publically humiliate him. Liz is not defending the wife. She is simply making the point stated here. I am not defending Liz here. I am defending the point she made. It is a correct point, and it stands on it’s own – regardless of whether all of the other accusations made here against the wife are also true or not.

    Liz’s point is indefensible, as was the pastor’s wife’s. Of what use is it to bring up the man’s pornographic use (assuming it is true) when that man has been in the gulag for 3 years? Did he begin to use porn in prison? If he had been using it before he was captured by the Iranians, why did she wait 3 years to bring it up? What exactly would be her motive for telling “supporters” if not simply to tarnish the man’s image, and portray him as a man unworthy of support? And, did she need to send this detail in an email? Reason would suggest that if she wanted to confide in a “close” friend/relative/acquaintance, she would have discussed it verbally, not sat down and composed TWO emails, detailing damaging information about her husband. The mere fact that she had to write them in emails means that she really was not as close to the people she told as Liz would have us believe.
    Even if the communication were private, it would still be wrong. You don’t mount a damaging whisper campaign against your husband when he is being tortured by an ungodly and autocratic regime. You do everything possible to get him out first. Everything else must be put aside. Could anyone imagine a man whose wife was captured by Al-Qaeda or ISIS, with the knowledge that she is being tortured, possibly raped, and may eventually be killed, if that man were to begin telling “supporters” that, “O gee, supporters should stop helping this woman; she was a spendthrift and disobedient to me when we were together; she would not cook or clean; she was a lazy person, who partied hard, and even used porn and refused me sex many times”?
    Would anyone be wrong if they thought that the husband is insane, even if all his accusations were true? I don’t think so.

    And, there was ample evidence in the emails to show that the wife indeed was intent on publicly humiliating her husband. You could write about a person’s addiction with a tone suggesting that you are seeking help for them, or you could portray them as never-do-wells who have become dope heads. This woman chose the latter, and sweetened her destructive betrayal by lying outright. How in the would could the husband have abused her MORE after he became incarcerated? Her claims run contrary to all reason and common sense.

    It is clear that the wife’s motive was to cause damage—real damage to the reputation of her husband, and to portray herself as THE victim, at a time when she should be focusing on helping her husband get out of prison.

    Liz is just the typical American woman who cherry-picks on clear evidence, straining at a gnat, but swallowing a camel. As far as Liz was concerned , the pastor’s wife could do no wrong, even after almost irrevocably damaging her persecuted husband’s Christian testimony and personal integrity. Shame.

  159. Minesweeper says:

    @RichardP, liz look below:” In two emails to supporters, Abedini revealed details of her troubled marriage to Saeed Abedini, an American citizen and pastor imprisoned in Iran since September 2012.

    Those troubles include “physical, emotional, psychological and sexual abuse (through Saeed’s addiction to pornography),” she wrote. The abuse started early in their marriage and has worsened during Saeed’s imprisonment, she said”

    One email AND another to supporters (just to emphasise it), which is prob a 100k’s mailing list, this isn’t a intimate chat with a girlfriend who betrayed her confidence.

    Note the abuse became worse during his imprisonment, so whatever abuse she is suffering from him it is it can happen over a monitored phone call.

  160. Minesweeper says:

    THe fact that pr0n was mentioned tells you its a distraction tactic, nothing seems to rally the cry of “what a horrible husband you need to divorce him” (even though he has not committed adultery) of the western female evangelicals.

    The reality is, she is unhappy and can’t go the distance of supporting him in jail. Therefore she will have to engineer an acceptable out while she parades the new guy who is meeting all her needs esp prob sexually right now.

    In fact the one thing I have seen from recent experience with western christian females is that when women alleges this they have committed adultery already and are seeking to assuage her guilt. Its the old switcheroo. She commits adultery but he is the sinner so its therefore sanctified.

    I have seen this behaviour again and again unfortunately. She has been without for years now, not a single female will blame her. NONE.

  161. Minesweeper says:

    Im not alleging anything, but its a common tactic and women follow a very close script. I would also think she has been schooled by someone in how to do this. This is why divorces happen in clusters, the women get around, talk, teach each other what to do.

    I think the term is a divorce storm? Certainly our experience, 50% of our church marriages, dead in the water over 18 months.

  162. scientivore says:

    @ RichardP: “Guys, Liz is making only one point, and it is a correct point: there is no evidence in what is presented on this thread that Pastor Saeed’s wife intended to publically humiliate him.”

    No, no, the train is fine. Just wash off the brain matter and viscera. The train is fine.

  163. Liz says:

    “Guys, Liz is making only one point, and it is a correct point: there is no evidence in what is presented on this thread that Pastor Saeed’s wife intended to publically humiliate him. Liz is not defending the wife. She is simply making the point stated here. I am not defending Liz here. I am defending the point she made. It is a correct point, and it stands on it’s own – regardless of whether all of the other accusations made here against the wife are also true or not. It’s not an either/or thing, even tho most posters here are trying to frame it as that.”

    Thankyou.
    I live by the adage “parial information is worse than ignorance”. When I read ANY media account (especially one that potential disparages a person’s character who has a history that as far as I know would not support this account) I take it with a heaping cup full of salt. Outright fabrications are rare, but partial information that conveys a very inaccurate picture isn’t just common, it’s pretty much de rigueur.
    Example of the straight story:
    A dog attacks a small child and a man uses his cane to beat the dog back off of the boy. The boy cries.
    Media story:
    A man beats a dog with a cane in front of a crying boy.

  164. Minesweeper says:

    The turnaround is stunning :

    October 19, 2015
    http://www.christianpost.com/news/naghmeh-abedini-under-attack-christians-muslims-147974/
    “Naghmeh Abedini, the wife of American pastor Saeed Abedini who’s imprisoned in Iran, has said that she’s been receiving personal attacks from people who accuse her of not being a good mother for traveling so much; for her lack of formal Bible education, and for the clothes she wears”

    She is being so oppressed by what she wears !

    “The Lord spoke to my heart and showed the worries of the future that I am carrying with me … worries of in what condition I will receive Saeed and how our marriage will look like and in what condition the kids will have their father.”

    http://www.religionnews.com/2015/11/20/imprisoned-pastors-wife-kept-marital-abuse-secret-now/
    “Twelve days later, she released a statement saying she regretted her previous emails. “I was under great psychological and emotional distress,” she said.”

    http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/53196-naghmeh-abedini-claims-abuse-halts-public-support-for-imprisoned-husband-saeed

    I mean its really everywhere, a perfect campaign has been waged by her. Not only has he lost his wife but his only public supporter. He is in deep deep trouble right now.

  165. Liz says:

    Media story: A man beats a dog in front of a crying boy.
    Liz says: “Well, you never know, you have to wonder what the context is here…”
    Masses respond: Liz wants animals to be beaten!
    Liz: “No, I don’t advocate beating animals, I just think…look at the history of the guy. He hasn’t beaten any animals. Does this match his character?”
    Masses: Grow up! You want to beat animals too, don’t you?! Nevermind you do! See Liz cherry pick!

    I once had a big debate with a conspiracy theorist who asked, “How could they analyze DNA evidence in the plane crash based on fingerprints?”
    I said there must be some other explanation. And it was pretty much the same response as what I”m getting here. Eventually we found the original article and it said, “DNA fingerprints”. That little word did change things. But of course, I’m still the dumbass.

  166. greyghost says:

    It is interesting how a woman can make accusations in private to a media outlet. They run it publicly and then same woman regrets private conversation. She looks victimized by the big bad world Toasted ice. This is normal and done on the fly, Complete lack of empathy and logic has outcomes that will make the logical thinker think he is seeing technical geneous . Bad mouthing a husband in prison for talking about Christianity makes her look bad I have regrets for what happened purity of the victim restored.

  167. Liz says:

    “It is interesting how a woman can make accusations in private to a media outlet.”
    Again, in the context of what I describe she didn’t. OBVIOUSLY if she made accusations to a media outlet that would be PUBLIC, not private.
    From what I’ve read (only recently, the past day since I first read this thread), she doesn’t seem terribly bright, and English is her second language. My mother is an immigrant and English is her second language. She doesn’t convey her ideas very well in writing either. So, I go by EXACTLY what is stated in the article and consider how else this could be interpreted.

  168. Hawk&Rock says:

    This is indeed just part of the typical exit script. Whether there is another man in the picture or not (she at the very least likely has a replacement in mind), she is done with her husband and needs to exit the marriage in a way that preserves her image as a good wife trapped in an unhappy marriage by a bad man. That’s it. Period.

    Compared to most men, many women are masters of using whisper campaigns and the gossip mill to shape and control whatever narrative she chooses. Rerwiting the marital history to paint the husband as a villain is par for the course (ask any man who has lived through his wife having an affair). The only thing that makes this particular betrayal remarkable is that her husband has been suffering in an Iranian prison for the past few years.

    It’s interesting how some people (e.g. Liz) will bend over backwards to justify or try to mitigate the seriousness of even the most shocking acts of betrayal….

  169. Minesweeper says:

    Do we dare to take bets for when she will be filing citing “irreconcilable differences”?

    She will give the kids one last christmas as a family, then early next year will drop the bomb.In my humble opinion.

  170. Minesweeper says:

    H&R – yep, Liz states she believes the article, but not where it states she sent 2 emails out.

    its beyond women to see their own nature.

  171. Liz says:

    “H&R – yep, Liz states she believes the article, but not where it states she sent 2 emails out.”
    I’ve stated precisely that. She sent two e mails out. We dont’ know to whom. Everyone they know, and especially those they are close to, could be called “supporters”.

  172. Minesweeper says:

    @Liz, emails to supporters will also be to outlets. To keep up on current events etc. Do you need her to publish the 100k mailing list for you to believe what she has done ? If its leaked, look for the word “leaked”.

    Oh in other news, I’ve got a great bridge to sell you. I can tell you would love it.

  173. Liz says:

    “You could write about a person’s addiction with a tone suggesting that you are seeking help for them, or you could portray them as never-do-wells who have become dope heads. This woman chose the latter, and sweetened her destructive betrayal by lying outright.”
    The above is an assumption. Again, there isn’t enough information here to know. The tone might have been more alligned with the first bit than the second.
    The e mail isn’t there, the woman isn’t even quoted in the e mail, the information given is very general.

  174. Liz says:

    “@Liz, emails to supporters will also be to outlets. To keep up on current events etc. Do you need her to publish the 100k mailing list for you to believe what she has done ? If its leaked, look for the word “leaked”.”

    Where in the article did it say she sent out an e mail to all supporters? Where did it say she sent it out en masse? As I’ve stated (many many times) if that is true there is no privacy expectation. That would be a public disclosure and my suspicion would be wrong. There is no reason to conclude that with the information from that article (and I haven’t read anything illuminating elsewhere…if I did, I would share it and agree with you).

  175. Hawk&Rock says:

    I see, Liz. This poor woman is not only the victim of an abusive husband who has trapped her in a miserable marriage but also of treacherous “supporters” who betrayed her confidence. Does anyone know if there is someplace we can send money to help her through this difficult time in her life?

  176. Liz says:

    “I see, Liz. This poor woman is not only the victim of an abusive husband who has trapped her in a miserable marriage but also of treacherous “supporters” who betrayed her confidence.”

    Someone might have betrayed her confidence. That is my suspicion, yes. I offer that as another POSSIBLE explanation of this strange turn of events that seem to contradict his character which has been on public display for the past three years.
    I have no opinion of the other…because, as I’ve repeatedly stated, there isn’t enough evidence, and really unless she makes it public (public=reveals information in a way where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, which she may have done but (ad nauseum again) there is not enough information to form that conclusion) it’s really NOMFB.

  177. Liz says:

    Intended to say “her character” above.

  178. Minesweeper says:

    @H&R, OH MY, Liz took your post without a hint of sarcasm and swallowed it whole.

  179. Liz says:

    Yeah, Minesweeper. I sure have egg all over my face. Wow am I dumb.

  180. Anchorman says:

    “Second language”

    Naghmeh has been in the US since she was nine.

  181. Liz says:

    “Naghmeh has been in the US since she was nine.”

    That’s unfortunate.
    She doesn’t write as though she’s been in the US since she was nine.

  182. Anchorman says:

    REBUILD…THAT…MOUND!!!

  183. Liz says:

    Do YOU think she writes like a person with a good command of the English language? I’m just stating what I see and interpret.

  184. Liz says:

    If any version of the persons throwing metaphorical brickbats at me for my suspicions here are correct (and as I’ve stated again and again that could very well be the case), it will all come out soon enough, won’t it? If this woman with a history of good character has now abandoned her husband for Fred or Abul or whatnot, that will come out. What’s the point of jumping on me for suggesting there might be a possible explanation?

  185. patchasaurus says:

    I guess there is no end to the attempt to frame shift the whole thing. Maybe Liz, in her great wisdom, can just inform us of the appropriate number of people to betray your husband, the level of privacy aceeptable to betray your husband, the association necessary between the parties for a wife to betray her husband. Who is she really defending if not herself.

  186. Anchorman says:

    Husband betrayed by wife and captors given ammunition to beat and torture him…wife hardest hit.

  187. Heidi says:

    How appalling. Not only is this a betrayal of a man who’s undergoing great suffering, but it is a black eye to Christianity in Iran.

  188. Yet Another Commenter, Yet Another Comment ("yac-yac") says:

    Gentlemen, I observe that “Liz” has shown a considerable level of skill, in this thread, at getting and then retaining rather a lot of male attention.

    As in, yours.

    Just sayin’.

    Pax Christi Vobiscum.

  189. feeriker says:

    “Naghmeh has been in the US since she was nine.”

    That’s unfortunate.
    She doesn’t write as though she’s been in the US since she was nine.

    Maybe not, but in every other respect she seems to have the whole Modern American Woman[TM] thing down pat.

  190. feeriker says:

    I see, Liz. This poor woman is not only the victim of an abusive husband who has trapped her in a miserable marriage but also of treacherous “supporters” who betrayed her confidence. Does anyone know if there is someplace we can send money to help her through this difficult time in her life?

    If that truly is what she believes, then it sounds like symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia. Maybe she’s more desperately in need of help than we thought.

  191. Liz says:

    “Maybe not, but in every other respect she seems to have the whole Modern American Woman[TM] thing down pat.”
    Starting two weeks ago?
    The history of behavior pattern doesn’t fit.

  192. Liz says:

    Maybe the networks have contacted her to do a reality show.

    (just kidding…but for this type of behavior pattern change, I’d expect to see a person who has been on reality television. She doesn’t seem to seek that, so again I’m going to give her the benefit of the doubt, even if that’s unpopular).

  193. JDG says:

    So, JDG, IIUC, you’re saying, that FI would claim, that MGTOW is “abuse”, then?

    Yep! So is expatriating and getting yourself locked up or killed (unless done so at the behest of the woman being submitted to SO LONG as she is happy with the results AND she hasn’t changed her mind about it at anytime).

  194. Hawk&Rock says:

    Bottom line: Love your sons enough to tell them the truth — that the world views them as completely disposable; that to the world they are what they can provide — nothing more; and even if you are a top provider (indeed, especially so) no one cares about your hopes or dreams or really gives a shit if you’re in pain or in trouble. Other than the love of your parents and close family, you are on your own out there so love them back, make a few close friends; be loyal and honorable; work hard and above all be smart and keep the faith because you cannot afford to make too many bad decisions.

    Romantic fairy tales about soul mates and for richer or poorer and til death do us part etc. are for people that matter, people who can afford to engage in comforting fantasies. They are not for the disposable ones.

  195. thedeti says:

    Liz:

    Naghmeh Abedini shouldn’t have sent those emails to ANYBODY. Her doing so is a betrayal of her martyr husband. Your inability to see this is, well, a bit surprising given my interactions with you elsewhere. But, ultimately, it’s expected, since I’ve come to the conclusion that men and women simply cannot discuss these issues in any significant way. Men simply cannot discuss male sexual interests and male interests in marriage, male needs in marriage, with women in a way that women will ever “get” in any real, visceral way.

  196. feeriker says:

    Yep! So is expatriating and getting yourself locked up or killed

    Not if you make sure that she’s financially set for a couple of lifetimes. Otherwise, yes, you’re an abusive scumbag for getting killed or imprisoned (especially in a hostile foreign country) without taking her wellbeing into consideration.

  197. Ernst Schreiber says:

    If this were about a wife’s adultery becoming common knowledge, Liz would be complaining about gossip.

  198. feeriker says:

    “Maybe not, but in every other respect she seems to have the whole Modern American Woman[TM] thing down pat.”
    Starting two weeks ago?
    The history of behavior pattern doesn’t fit.

    Why assume that it all started just two weeks ago? Sure, that might be the first overt manifestation of this behavior that the public at large has seen from her, but the attitudes and mindset that precipitated it are clearly the result of long-engrained attitudes, which don’t just magically embed themselves in someone overnight.

  199. Fiddlesticks says:

    @Darwinian Arminian
    Blackmail was my first thought as well. Giving benefit of the doubt to his wife for now.

  200. Liz says:

    Deti: “Naghmeh Abedini shouldn’t have sent those emails to ANYBODY. Her doing so is a betrayal of her martyr husband. Your inability to see this is, well, a bit surprising given my interactions with you elsewhere.”

    I’ve already mentioned to Dalrock I think that is a private betrayal. But a private betrayal is not the same as a public one.

  201. @Liz and @Dalrock:

    Dal, you really should reconsider the male space/ female banhammer paradigm. These girlies show us the true face of female solopsism. It doesn’t matter WHAT a woman says or does, she is ALWAYS the victim.

    Susan Smith murders her babies? A MAN must have made him do it.

    Man locked in an Iranian Hellhole? A MAN would have broken out and made it to the mailbox to send a check to his long suffering wife.

    I told my wife I wasn’t interested in fucking her loose pussy and fat belly this week and posted the story. The fem defenders and manginas crawled out of the floorboards to excoriate me and assure me that divorce was nigh….because speaking to a PRINCESS in anger is ABUSE!

    Take a read where I SHOOT the elephant in the room:

    https://www.reddit.com/r/marriedredpill/comments/3tpmr6/no_i_dont_want_to_have_sex_with_your_fat_belly/

    Yes, saying cross, angry words is abuse (if a man does it- but certainly NOT if a women does it).

    Acting like an emotional, screaming, harpy emotion vampire is not abuse (unless a man does it).

    Lying about your own sexual victimhood is not abuse (unless a man does it- then it’s ‘perjury’).

    We can see the lies of Liz and the total inability to even take a tiny bit of energy to consider the perspective of the man because emotional abandonment IS abuse (unless a woman does it).

    Keep posting Liz and keep confirming everything we say and everything we believe.

  202. Liz says:

    “Why assume that it all started just two weeks ago?”
    Why assume that it wasn’t? Is there any other indication that she had poor character before this event? If so, okay, I agree (I’d say I’d eat crow but really I can easily be persuaded either way, so it wouldn’t be eating crow). If not, what assume the worst now?

  203. JDG says:

    … without taking her wellbeing into consideration.

    Not merely her well being, but her happiness (one must keep one’s priorities straight). If at any point she becomes unhappy, you are an “abusive scumbag”.

  204. thedeti says:

    Liz:

    A private betrayal is still a betrayal.

    Naghmeh’s behavior in this circumstance is disgusting and shameful. CT’s complicity in publishing the emails and their content is even more disgusting. Naghmeh’s silence is tacit confirmation that she wrote the emails, that she INTENDED their publication, that she believes the material in the emails is true, and that she intends for her husband to rot away while she does pretty much whatever she wishes.

  205. Liz says:

    “Dal, you really should reconsider the male space/ female banhammer paradigm. “
    What does this mean?

  206. thedeti says:

    THis has been hinted at elsewhere.

    Naghmeh has done this probably because she’s preparing to branch swing. Naghmeh Abedini is an attractive, well-put-together woman. She likely has met another man, and is preparing to divorce her husband who languishes in prison for his faith. In order to do this, she has to vilify and excoriate her husband publicly. She likely leaked the emails hoping a major publication would pick them up; and sure enough, CT did.

    There is no other reason an ostensibly Christian woman would say such inflammatory things about a martyr husband. She’s getting ready to divorce him in absentia. She’s given up hope that her man will be there to take care of her. So she’s going to find another one. In order to leave him “properly”, she has to make him out to be a monster.

  207. JDG says:

    Naghmeh Abedini shouldn’t have sent those emails to ANYBODY.

    Yep!

    The only excuse I would accept would be if the Iranians threatened to kill her husband if she did not write and send character assassinating emails. Even then she should have checked with him first if possible.

  208. Liz says:

    “A private betrayal is still a betrayal.”

    Hence, the word betrayal.

  209. Liz

    We men observe a woman (with a history of good character in her public persona) who is separated from her husband under traumatic circumstances. She is here in the US running a media campaign for years doing a lot of traveling and coming in contact with plenty of attractive men of high value while her husband languishes in an Iranian prison. So brave, but she’s lonely. She has needs. She wants comfort in her time of great hardship.

    We men are simple but observant creatures and we tend to notice patterns and how certain situations tend to produce a remarkably similar result. I hold the view that women will commit adultery far more often than most are willing to admit; especially if they’re ovulating and haven’t been laid for a while. When a woman commits adultery, especially one who previously was of good character, it tends to change them rapidly.

    Once it’s done it can’t be undone. The emotional response could be anything from crushing guilt to wild exhilaration but it doesn’t matter because things will never be the same again. As I’ve already stated, she probably has another guy on the side and she’s done with her husband. Finished. But maybe it was a one-time thing, she was consumed with guilt, she had to talk about it and in doing so she couldn’t resist the temptation to justify herself by claiming to be abused. Maybe it’s just an emotional affair and she hasn’t dropped her panties yet. It doesn’t matter.

    Let’s suppose she and two close and trusted confidants had an email exchange in which she sent those two emails, the text of which has not been revealed. That leads me to believe she confessed and it was the confession that prompted the allegations against her husband. These trusted confidants, being savvy media professionals, realize she has a major problem and decide to get her onto the script before she self-destructs. Without her knowledge they use their contacts to have the story placed in CT and used privileged information from those emails to shamelessly attack her husband’s character. She is presented with a fait accompli.

    That seems to me to be the best light to look on your argument but it is her response to the story that is so telling. It’s also known as the duck test.

    QUACK! She regrets sending the emails. QUACK!

    Your “point” of not having enough evidence to say she tried to publicly humiliate him is one giant deflection to get away from the fact she betrayed her husband and as a result he has had his character publicly assassinated. Her allegations are ridiculous and certainly exaggerations if not outright lies. Dalrock patiently tried to explain that she betrayed her husband and you took the position that it was only a private betrayal, not a public betrayal and is thus none of your business.

    It does not matter whether she intentionally coordinated that hit piece or whether someone else did it without her knowledge and what she thought was private got published. The fact remains the allegations made by her were published and by her silence afterward she’s sticking with the story, supporting it.

    The duck is fine, it’s on the train.

  210. Gunner Q says:

    feministhater @ 3:32 am:
    “I don’t think the Iranians had to lift one finger to get her to do what she did.”

    Agreed. Plenty of feminists in the West to help a lonely wife in the limelight go EPL.

    “The way that CT takes her word and her husband’s torment and turns her into the martyr, is exactly the angle she was going for.”

    Which is why I originally questioned the ethics of CT running this article. Women are notorious for using media and courts as weapons so the savvy journalist/judge deals in facts not unsupported allegations. One could argue that the wife ending the campaign to free her husband was newsworthy, okay, but the counter to that is the Iranians letting Pastor Saeed read your article to find out his wife publicly betrayed him and no longer wants him free. Ugh.

    feeriker @ November 22, 2015 at 6:22 pm:
    “Would anyone be surprised if Saeed converted to Islam after this betrayal, especially if his “church” stood in his wife’s corner?”

    I would be surprised, actually. Men who suffer for Christ are the ones who develop true faith, faith that no power in this world can break. Saeed sounds like the real deal.

    We believe in Christ because Christ is God, not because the membership card comes with fat benefits. A lot of us here are Christian despite the treachery of “Christians” we trusted.

  211. Liz says:

    “Let’s suppose she and two close and trusted confidants had an email exchange in which she sent those two emails, the text of which has not been revealed. That leads me to believe she confessed and it was the confession that prompted the allegations against her husband. These trusted confidants, being savvy media professionals, realize she has a major problem and decide to get her onto the script before she self-destructs. Without her knowledge they use their contacts to have the story placed in CT and used privileged information from those emails to shamelessly attack her husband’s character. She is presented with a fait accompli.”

    That’s one possibility.
    However, I don’t think the possiblity that she confided in a couple of trusted confindant “media professionals” who reworked the message to make her “sound better” (I’d have to wonder why they would convey the message in the first place? It doesn’t actually reflect well on her if these are media savvy individuals) is any more likely than the one I suggested. I think my suspicion is the more likely.
    And if she is branch swinging, again, that will be pretty evident, pretty soon.

  212. feeriker says:

    Liz:

    A private betrayal is still a betrayal.

    The fact that Liz appears to think that there’s some qualitative moral difference between a private and public bwtrayal strongly suggests to me that further discussion with her of this matter is pointless.

    Let me add my thanks to Liz for joining her sisters in confirming pretty much everything we’ve said here about the nature of women.

  213. Liz says:

    “The fact that Liz appears to think that there’s some qualitative moral difference between a private and public bwtrayal strongly suggests to me that further discussion with her of this matter is pointless.”

    Yeah, I’m going to say from my perspective I’d rather my husband “share” my shortcomings in a private e mail than put it up on a billboard and announce it across the worldwide media. Perhaps I am unique in this respect, but I really doubt it.

  214. @minesweeper: not a single female will blame her. NONE.

    It is really bizarre as demonstrated by Liz and ANY other woman. They can’t empathize with the Husband because….penis and patriarchy and she don’t need to take no shit from no man. I told my Proverbs 31 Wife and she IMMEDIATELY came to the woman’s defense- “Awww, Blue, you can’t blame her. She snapped under a terrible amount of pressure. That is just terrible.”

    Sure! It….just…..happened.

    “How did that guy get stabbed?” Says Investigator Dalrock to the woman as he surveys the crime scene. The crazed woman is holding the bloody knife used in the murder. She is covered in the victims blood, and flailing with the knife stabbing and swinging it through the air slaying phantoms as she flings blood everywhere

    The woman grips the bloody knife, pointing it at Dalrock. She crouches and snarls at the investigator but says nothing further.

    Fortunately there are other women (and mangina/White Knights) nearby!

    “The knife just went in,” one childlike female calls out. She is not at fault. A woman cannot have done anything wrong. Her carrying the knife to the crime scene and repeatedly plunging it into the victims back was like nothing compared to the volitional will of the knife that “just went in” all by itself.

    “It….just…happened,” another womanchild booms. She is not at fault and you can’t blame her for snapping under pressure.

    “A MAN(gina) made her do it,” says an infernal White Knight. She is not at fault. Somebody in the U.S. government must have told her to do it.

    “The Devil made her do it,” cries a host of defenders. She is not at fault. The Iranians threatened her. The default assumption MUST be that she cannot have done anything wrong.

    I always say if women favor women, and men favor women, then women demanding to fight on an equal playing field is not exactly “equal” now is it?

  215. Liz says:

    “It is really bizarre as demonstrated by Liz and ANY other woman.”

    Now, now, that isnt’ fair to Heidi above.
    What is bizarre to me is this reaction to my suggestion there might be some plausible other explanation (other than the Iranian government forced this upon her…which is certainly another explanation but I think it’s probably less plausible than the one I suggested).

  216. feeriker says:

    Yeah, I’m going to say from my perspective I’d rather my husband “share” my shortcomings in a private e mail than put it up on a billboard and announce it across the worldwide media. Perhaps I am unique in this respect, but I really doubt it.

    So you would be ok with your husband betraying you(r trust) with God-only-knows-who-else, publicly or “privately”, rather than taking his gripes to the source (i.e., YOU)?

    Yeah, um, sorry, but color me deeply skeptical of your assertion, as it matches up with precisely ZE-RO other examples of female behavior I’ve observed in my many years.

  217. PokeSalad says:

    I’ve already mentioned to Dalrock I think that is a private betrayal. But a private betrayal is not the same as a public one.

    Do you think God weighs “private” (not to Him!) betrayals any less than “public” ones?

  218. OKRickety says:

    Chris said on November 21, 2015 at 4:06 pm
    And have Jesus’s words on lust in the SOTM been taken so far out of context that struggles with pornography justify divorce?

    Of course they have! But they would say it is not “out of context”. The argument? Lust is adultery (Matt. 5:28) and adultery (for most Protestants, anyway) is a Biblical reason for divorce (Matt. 19:9), therefore porn use justifies divorce.

    Even though adultery is an allowed reason for divorce, the spouse is not commanded to divorce when it happens. I would think the ideal Christian response would be to follow the Christian discipline process given in Matthew 18:15-17. If the adulterer repents, then reconciliation to God, the spouse, and the church should occur. Anyone ever hear of this happening?

  219. feeriker says:

    “The knife just went in,” one childlike female calls out. She is not at fault. A woman cannot have done anything wrong. Her carrying the knife to the crime scene and repeatedly plunging it into the victims back was like nothing compared to the volitional will of the knife that “just went in” all by itself.

    “He was ABUSING her!” shrieks the Greek chorus of wimminz and white knights. “How could you possibly believe that any womyn could commit such a grotesque and perfidious act if a man wasn’t ABUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUSING her???????!!!!!!!”

  220. feeriker says:

    Do you think God weighs “private” (not to Him!) betrayals any less than “public” ones?

    Only for women.

  221. Liz says:

    “Do you think God weighs “private” (not to Him!) betrayals any less than “public” ones?”
    Yes.
    A lot of it is based on “harm”.
    For example, simply thinking about shagging the secretary is not as bad as actually shagging the secretary surreptitiously, which is still not as bad as shagging the secretary and recording it and then selling the porn on the world wide web. The first really isn’t that great of a sin. Most people have sinful thoughts. The second is acting on that sin, which is worse than just thinking about it, but not as bad as publicly humiliating the spouse in an action that resembles…not only shamelessness and a far deeper violation of trust but actual pride and profit from the action, as the third would.

  222. feeriker says:

    Of course they have! But they would say it is not “out of context”. The argument? Lust is adultery (Matt. 5:28) and adultery (for most Protestants, anyway) is a Biblical reason for divorce (Matt. 19:9), therefore porn use justifies divorce.

    Of course they ignore the inconvenient little factoid that nowhere in the Bible is there grounds given for a woman to divorce her husband – for any reason, including adultery.

  223. PuffyJacket says:

    Naghmeh has chosen not to clear the air publicly, which tells you everything you need to know.

    The abuse “worsened during Saeed’s imprisonment”? You’ve got to be kidding me.

  224. PuffyJacket says:

    That Liz has chosen to run the hamster race on Naghmeh’s behalf is very telling. Embarrassing, actually.

  225. thedeti says:

    @ Liz:

    “Yeah, I’m going to say from my perspective I’d rather my husband “share” my shortcomings in a private e mail than put it up on a billboard and announce it across the worldwide media. Perhaps I am unique in this respect, but I really doubt it.”

    I can’t believe I even have to explain this.

    The fact that a spouse puts “shortcomings” in an email to ANYONE other than a therapist, EVEN PRIVATELY, is a BETRAYAL.

    ANYONE.

    A spouse’s announcement of his/her spouse’s sins to ANYONE is betrayal. These are private matters — matters to which NO ONE should be allowed access.

    I expected better from you, Liz. Your defense of this woman’s actions is, well, surprising. I very much doubt you’d like it if your own husband shared your shortcomings with ANYONE, in an email or otherwise.

  226. wqevqw says:

    NAGhMEH.
    Nag and Meh.
    Heh

  227. Liz says:

    Deti: “The fact that a spouse puts “shortcomings” in an email to ANYONE other than a therapist, EVEN PRIVATELY, is a BETRAYAL.
    ANYONE.

    Why would a therapist be “okay”? What about a member of the clergy? We have no idea who she contacted or who relayed this information. All we know is that it was sent in an e mail and we have a rough overview of what was said. I myself an a very private person, and I would not trust a therapist…but I don’t have any problems I’d feel the need to share with anyone.

    “A spouse’s announcement of his/her spouse’s sins to ANYONE is betrayal. These are private matters — matters to which NO ONE should be allowed access.”
    Therapist? No?

    “I expected better from you, Liz. Your defense of this woman’s actions is, well, surprising. I very much doubt you’d like it if your own husband shared your shortcomings with ANYONE, in an email or otherwise.”
    I wouldn’t “like it” if my husband spoke ill of me in any context. But I definitely make a distinction between statements made in private (I’m sure he has said many things that might be taken out of context) and statements that are intended to be made public.
    Furthermore, I’m not “defending her actions” if they were as described by Dalrock. I’ve suggested there might be another explanation. I don’t know a lot of people who would see no difference between private actions and public actions.

  228. PuffyJacket says:

    @Deti

    Your defense of this woman’s actions is, well, surprising.

    Hardly surprising. Yet another example of “Team Woman” on display, and yet another demonstration of how women are incapable of conceptualizing any sort of fairness with men. Even when the man is her own husband, and that man has been falsely imprisoned and beaten for preaching the very faith she supposedly professes.

  229. Anchorman says:

    “Do you think God weighs “private” (not to Him!) betrayals any less than “public” ones?”
    Yes.

    Scripture backs this up….where? Notice there’s no attempt? She only knows enough to confuse conversations among believers and this topic hasn’t hit the common areas she has rehearsed.

    This is when the mask slips.

  230. dvdivx says:

    “feeriker says:

    Of course they ignore the inconvenient little factoid that nowhere in the Bible is there grounds given for a woman to divorce her husband – for any reason, including adultery.”

    By the same logic she can not just bad mouth her husband here publicly but fly to Iran and torture him herself and he would not have a reason for divorce either. The view of Christians on marriage currently is that it should be a model of suffering and hell on earth rather than something someone would actually want, In the long run it’s this that will do more damage to Christianity then even muslims killing Christians off.

  231. patchasaurus says:

    @yak yak and others who make a valid point that we are only giving Liz the attention she craves; it is also very relevant and a live case study to watch her work. She proves so many truths put forth on this site one after another. It’s grotesquely fascinating. Notice how she doesn’t answer direct questions such as the appropriate number of people with which to betray a husband. Notice how she continually changes frame, uses outlandish examples to make nebulous points. We all have seen when a woman does publicly shame a man by maniacally spray painting an offensive slur on his car or house, the equivalent of her billboard scenario. This action is laughable and does not bring credibility to the accuser and therefore not nearly as hurtful as if she were to secretly go to trusted friends and family members and disparage and shame and her husband. This action causes far greater damage and from a MAN’S PERSPECTIVE is a very deep betrayal. It is known among the wise that what is done covertly is far more malicious and damaging than the overt.

    Liz blathers on about her keen ability to see through the media with her clever “man beats dog story”. Whoa, is she saying that control of information is power? That social justice culture drives ignorance? That the media actually sensasionalizes and skews stories to further an agenda? That the whole and real truth is concealed? Whoa! It’s not as if this very site, in a macro sense, is dedicated to overcoming all of these things by bringing hard data in graphs and charts and well-referenced sources and intelligent commentary. Thanks Liz!

    Most interesting is following the comments and noticing how many men are swayed to her thinking and really value her input and discernment enough to keep her commenting. The number is zero. Zero men, Liz.

  232. Anchorman says:

    It’s the classic reframe.

    It’s never the betrayal, which is undeniable. There’s no Scriptural basis to excuse betraying a spouse or a fellow believer.

    No, the reframe is to direct men into a rabbit hole about “private vs public.”

    It’s hysterical because the betrayal is public. The wife voiced it outside the house, outside the marriage. Yet, Liz wants to reframe “private” to mean anything the wife wants it to mean. In this case, “private” means outsiders who “should have not spread it.”

    That’s not “private” at all.

    That’s calculated release to the public.

    There’s no difference.

    She has more snares waiting down the rabbit hole to continue the reframe and divert the conversation.

  233. Liz says:

    “Yet, Liz wants to reframe “private” to mean anything the wife wants it to mean. In this case, “private” means outsiders who “should have not spread it.”

    I was actually pretty specific and said that “private” would mean a person she thought she could confide in and trust. This is hypothetical.
    I did not expect my hypothetical to lead to this level of vitriol, but it’s pretty interesting.

  234. Anchorman says:

    Tone policing

  235. stevesam221 says:

    “A spouse’s announcement of his/her spouse’s sins to ANYONE is betrayal. These are private matters — matters to which NO ONE should be allowed access.”

    Yet there was once a popular female blogger in these parts who talked often of her husband’s numerous affairs and that was never called betrayal.

    “I expected better from you, Liz. Your defense of this woman’s actions is, well, surprising. I very much doubt you’d like it if your own husband shared your shortcomings with ANYONE, in an email or otherwise.”

    How is that surprising? Haven’t some of you men been around for years and you still don’t get AWALT? That is what is surprising.

  236. patchasaurus says:

    Hey, more great hamsterbation. Liz turned it into a “would you rather” and defends her position by saying it would be better FOR HER if her husband humiliated her privately instead of publicly. Well duh, she’s a woman after all. Then she predictably tells a parable of a MAN banging his secretary, because you know. And then he posts video of it on the internet for “pride and profit”. Why this parable? Why not a woman who destroys her husbands character and reputation publicly for pride of shifting his martydom onto herself and for profit of media attention and the very likely end that she will eject him and marry up. Oh that’s right, she has never dispalyed that kind of character before. She must be innocent because she was so faithful and honoring before and this just does not line up. She must be right, there’s something going on there. Well let’s ask every man who has been nuked if that was not the description of his wife before it blew up and if that was not the consensus of the whispering crowds in the aftermath. This is textbook stuff.

  237. Anchorman says:

    And, again, no Scripture to justify “private” betrayal.

  238. Liz says:

    “And, again, no Scripture to justify “private” betrayal.”

    I guess it’s a good thing I didn’t say private betrayal was a good thing then.

  239. Blah, blah, blah Liz. Rebuilding that mound is tuff work! No one here cares whether it was done publicly or privately, she aired her mouth and the damage has been done. She has a choice either to repent or remain silent. She has chosen the latter and left her husband to rot with accusations over his head that he cannot defend. Only a truly wicked person does that to someone they love.

    So leave and don’t come back.

  240. Anchorman says:

    I guess it’s a good thing I didn’t say private betrayal was a good thing then.

    Reframe

    Nope. You said God sees a distinction. You said God doesn’t think it’s as bad.

    You offered no Scripture to back it up.

    You were caught, spreading venom, and tried to reframe about “good.”

    Been around this site too long to fall for the reframe.

    Justify your position using the Word of God…or simply accept there is no difference and that her betrayal is indistinguishable in severity.

  241. Anchorman says:

    It sucks when guys don’t fall for the reframe, huh?

  242. patchasaurus says:

    Ok now we are getting somewhere. It is a “private betrayal” with “a person” (one) whom she thought she could confide in and trust. Yes! that must be what happened. Liz nailed it. Or wait, there is the persistent demand for a Scripture reference for this betrayal and mildness of it and not an exagerated scenario she makes up to prove her point. There is also a nagging detail in the secular sense: what was her motive in confiding in this one private and trustworthy person? What would be accomplished?

    The fact is that she is wrong with all of her scenarios and examples. Godly people know that what is done in the dark, sneaking and whispering, is the worst of sin.

  243. Liz says:

    “Nope. You said God sees a distinction. You said God doesn’t think it’s as bad.”
    Really? Quote please. I’d love to see where I said that.

  244. Liz says:

    Just to add, “less of a sin” does not mean is ain’t a sin.

  245. Liz says:

    Oh, sorry…just reread. Yes, I think intent matters (for both human law, and divine law).

  246. Kevin says:

    I add my voice to saying this example is so unusual that it illustrates nothing. Totalitarian regimes, like college students, are big on public humiliation and denunciation. I don’t know what happened here, but given the possibilities that historically well illustrated its hard to draw any conclusions into her claims of abuse. Abuse is a new found ridiculous issue that has infected my church as well, but I have no idea if this women in this unique circumstance typifies it.

  247. Anchorman says:

    Quoted above.

    “Do you think God weighs “private” (not to Him!) betrayals any less than “public” ones?”

    Liz: Yes.

    YES God provided direction on the issue (Scripture)

    YES Private is less than public, in God’s Word.

    You agreed, because Team Woman.

  248. patchasaurus says:

    At 11:39 am Liz was asked if God weighs private betrayals lesser than public ones and she replied “Yes.”

  249. Anchorman says:

    Oh, sorry…just reread. Yes, I think intent matters (for both human law, and divine law).

    Ahhhh, now we’re getting back to it (when I earlier stated this is when the mask slips).

    Which “divine” do you worship, Liz?

  250. Anchorman says:

    Ain’t my first rodeo.

  251. patchasaurus says:

    Well, it is a divinity that is apparently most concerned with people getting embarressed in front of other people and who bases judgment of right and wrong on this. My God of the Bible is not too concerned with this. He does speak out on wives humiliating their husbands in the city gates, of all things, but it is not a central theme in the Good Book

  252. Liz says:

    ““Do you think God weighs “private” (not to Him!) betrayals any less than “public” ones?”
    Liz: Yes.

    Yes, in the context of intent, motive, and harm. Intent, motive, and harm matter to God.
    You truly see no difference between the two?
    Do I really have to come up with scripture that indicates God looks into your heart and knows the motivations of people?

  253. thedeti says:

    @stevesam:

    “Yet there was once a popular female blogger in these parts who talked often of her husband’s numerous affairs and that was never called betrayal.”

    Differences:

    1. That female blogger spoke of those matters anonymously, then was doxxed and outed against her will.

    2. That female blogger’s husband repented. She also repented of her sins and issues. She also never left her husband to twist in the wind; leaving others to wonder about his conduct and motivations. She defended him, submitted to him, and stayed with him, regardless of what the two of them did or said about each other.

  254. patchasaurus says:

    Oops. sp. “embarrassed”. Now i’m publicly shamed by my own self. Sin?

  255. Anchorman says:

    It’s typically at this point that one of three things happen:

    1) She becomes tired of the conversation and writes me off as “needlessly argumentative,”

    2) she gives a non-answer answer, or

    3) she becomes too busy to talk and drops back into the conversation to derail later, after enough time passes and posts fill up.

  256. Anchorman says:

    Do I really have to come up with scripture that indicates God looks into your heart and knows the motivations of people?

    REFRAME

  257. Anchorman says:

    Sucks, huh?

  258. Liz says:

    Is this my queue to throw an “amused mastery” smirk?

  259. patchasaurus says:

    She humiliated her husband, her imprisoned tortured evangelist husband, in the city gates. By a made-up scenario it is surmised that she did not intend to, that she only meant to tell one private and trustworthy confidant in total secrecy. Um-hmm. This hogwash derails the entire focus that these deplarable actions are rampant in wives, without foundation, used to destroy good men, falsely charging abuse, widely accepted by church and state on women’s word alone. DESTROYING FAMILIES

  260. patchasaurus says:

    PROVERBS 14:1

  261. Liz says:

    “That female blogger’s husband repented. She also repented of her sins and issues. She also never left her husband to twist in the wind; leaving others to wonder about his conduct and motivations. She defended him, submitted to him, and stayed with him, regardless of what the two of them did or said about each other.”

    That’s still a betrayal, isn’t it? The difference would seem to be motive and intent.
    Can we just give this woman a short while and see what she does before pronouncing her a horror of a human being?
    I don’t know much about her, but up UNTIL now she seems to have been of good character.

  262. RichardP says:

    You guys are truely embarrasing yourselves.

    1. Liz herself has stated that she is not defending Pastor Saeed’s wife.

    2. Liz made a correct observation that there is nothing in the referenced information to indicate that Pastor Saeed’s wife intended to publically humiliate him.

    Your assumptions that she did intend to publically humiliate her husband may be correct. But your assumptions have exactly zero to do with the point made – which is stated at # 2 above. Your assumptions are not part of the public record, and the public record is what Liz was refererencing.

    You all are projecting onto Liz all kinds of beliefs you have about women. Reframing and rebuilding the mound. How is pointing out the obvious fact stated in Point 2 above reframing anything or rebuilding any mound. I could maybe see some justification in charging her with reframing or rebuilding the mound if, in addition to stating the correct information at Point 2, Liz was defending Pastor Saeed’s wife. But she isn’t. And she has stated that fact.

    Don’t listen to what Liz actually says. Instead, throw at her all of the shortcomings of women, just because her name makes her sound like she is a woman. How embarrassing for all of you. And none of you can apparently see that is what you are doing. Even more embarrassing for you.

  263. bradford says:

    Don’t argue with women. This not a reasoned discussion of fact, it is a contest. You will never get the last word.

  264. stickdude90 says:

    Dal, you really should reconsider the male space/ female banhammer paradigm.

    I second the motion.

  265. Anchorman says:

    RichardP,
    My issue with liz is her refusal to consider the wife’s action(s) as betrayal.

    When asked, she says (not in so many words), “God supports my position.” She was asked to prove it. She couldn’t.

    She (Liz) wants to reframe the debate in different directions and find many ways to rationalize the betrayal. I think emotions are high because the betrayal Liz wants to whitewash as “not as bad” will result in increased beating of a man of faith.

    But let’s focus on the posiible hurt feelings of Liz and the wife, RichardP.

  266. Liz
    What is bizarre to me is this reaction to my suggestion there might be some plausible other explanation…

    I did not expect my hypothetical to lead to this level of vitriol, but it’s pretty interesting.

    Liz, let’s try my hypothetical called “Empathy 101.” All questions are rhetorical until the last one.

    Imagine you had been quarantined in a hospital for years with a strange incurable disease that might be curable some years from now so your husband has been out raising money and campaigning for a cure. But it sure is lonely with the wife quarantined and she may never get out and he has needs, ya know?

    Let’s say he was feeling guilty about shagging his secretary a couple of times a week while you were in the hospital and got drunk. Then he sent someone an email discussing his troubled, emotionally distressing marriage and his decision to quit campaigning for a cure… along with lurid details about your sexual proclivities involving honey and the family dog and complained about his emotional distress and torment at the knowledge you harbored strange fantasies about spraying cats with pepper spray… and was worried about your influence over the kids.

    Setting aside his shagged out secretary for the moment (would it be worse if he was banging the 15 year old babysitter?) because you don’t know anything about it, wouldn’t you agree that when he sent that email he completely betrayed you and your trust related to the time you were extremely drunk and told him way too much about what you wanted to do (but never actually did do) with the honey, a dog and the neighbors obnoxious cat? Isn’t that the kind of thing that is supposed to stay strictly in confidence?

    Would it matter that the people who published it left out the part about your foot fetish and that you wanted the honey on your toes so the dog would lick it off… and instead allowed everyone to assume the honey was for somewhere else and let them wonder where? Or that they made it sound like it was a current hobby of yours instead of a drunken rant from years ago before you got quarantined? Or was hubby the one that did that?

    And shouldn’t hubby at least have clarified things if he loved you and cared about your feelings? Wouldn’t his silence on the entire subject speak volumes about his true motives and intentions regarding the email, or would you lay in your hospital bed thinking “maybe there’s another explanation”?

    Wouldn’t you have wanted your husband to immediately say it was all a fabrication, to defend you, support you, deny the allegations (and we’ve never even had a family dog, you can call the hospital and ask my wife) and say that while his emotional exhaustion might slow him down he would continue the campaign to find a cure for your strange disease rather than letting the campaign go?

    Really. Isn’t that what you would have wanted to hear rather than “I regret sending that email.” Imagine laying there all alone with those words ringing in your ears as the only response your husband made after his lies about you were used to slander you as a pervert.

    Now you’re laying there in your hospital bed in quarantine unable to defend yourself and the story is all over the news and Christians everywhere are supporting your husband as a brave soul and so courageous to *still* be married to a pervert like you. (While the honey and dog thing sounded gross, they couldn’t imagine what you’d do with a pepper-sprayed cat and their imaginations went crazy. Whatever it was had to be really perverted.)

    I don’t think you could deny that you’d been betrayed and it boiled down to a single action, the moment hubby hit the “send” button. It doesn’t matter why he sent it, who he sent it to, how it got published or how things work out later (is the babysitter pregnant?), but he doubled down on the betrayal when all he had to say afterward was “I regret sending that email.”

    You were betrayed while you were helpless to defend yourself and everybody who joins in celebrating your husband’s courage for sharing his horror story about you or just defends him for doing it has joined in his betrayal of you. That is the monstrosity of all of it.

    Now… Laying there in that bed being heckled by the nurses while your husband is feted as a hero in public for being married to a pervert like you… because there’s zero evidence he’s banging the babysitter and shagging the secretary so he’s still a good guy, of good character for years. He hasn’t divorced you or even talked about it but you know motive and intent on that email got settled with the “I reget sending that email” as his only response. You have been deliberately crucified by the man who made a vow to love you and defend you all the days of your life.

    Alone in your room, publicly branded as a pervert by your own husband, your only real supporter in your fight to one day get out of that room, how does it feel Liz?

    If there’s a sick feeling in your gut at the incredible level of betrayal you’ve just experienced, congratulations, it’s called empathy. It comes naturally to men.

    The answer to the question of giving this woman a short while to see what she does before pronouncing her a horror of a human being should now be evident to you. She’s already proved she is.

  267. Dave says:

    No, the reframe is to direct men into a rabbit hole about “private vs public.”

    Bingo! Anchorman nailed it. Did anyone notice that the discussion had actually been derailed into this superficial “private” vs “public” betrayal? As if it matters. Whether they stab you in the back on live TV, or they do it while you’re having Thanksgiving dinner with close family members don’t matter; the knife will still cause the intended damage.

  268. Dave says:

    As someone pointed out upstream (Artisanal Toad?), it is only a matter of time before she announces her new boyfriend, who “really cares” about her and will never use porn, or abuse her.
    Talk of a lying, shameless unfaithful adulterer.

    An older woman was trying really hard to justify why she left her husband who had developed dementia. She said he “became abusive”. Really? People with dementia would call the cops on their own reflections in the mirror. A man with dementia had to be detained in the ER where I worked last week because he told his wife in Indiana that he was going to “pick up some things from the store”. Alas, he drove all the way to Kentucky! It was after his wife put out a missing person alert that the police got the man, and brought him to the ER, to await the arrival of his wife, who would have to drive many miles to come pick him.

  269. Dave says:

    I have a theory about why many women find it really easy to betray their husbands, particularly in their hours of need: these women have never really bonded with their husbands in the same way that God intended. It is on record that God recognized the potency of a woman’s natural devotion to her man. But a woman who has jumped from bed to bed before her marriage has lost this ability to bond, and will therefore find it easy to see her husband as just another c0ck.

  270. Liz says:

    “Alone in your room, publicly branded as a pervert by your own husband, your only real supporter in your fight to one day get out of that room, how does it feel Liz?”

    Very very badly.
    I would hope to speak to my husband as soon as possible, and his intent and motivations (whether he intended me harm) would matter to me a great deal.

  271. Hawk&Rock says:

    @Dave,

    The woman with the sick husband need not have tried so hard to justify her betrayal. I predict that the generations coming up won’t even bother concocting an “abuse” story.

    Men are what they can provide — nothing more. The state and society now fully recognize this fact. When he developed dementia, he ceased to be an asset to her. This alone would be enough to justify her heading for greener pastures. But he actually became a liability to her! That is way, way beyond the pale of what a wife should be required to deal with. Men exist to provide security and material comfort to women. When they are no longer able to do that, they become useless eaters.

  272. Anonymous Reader says:

    Liz
    I’ve already mentioned to Dalrock I think that is a private betrayal. But a private betrayal is not the same as a public one.

    “Three can keep a secret if two are dead” – attributed to Ben Franklin and others.
    Any woman who engages in a “private” betrayal and then claims to be surprised when it goes public is just playing the old game of plausible deniability. I do believe that you know that. It is interesting that you are choosing to pretend otherwise.

    As for the “why”, this woman has been moving in conservative feminist circles for years. People in general are influenced by those they associate with, hence the old saying “A man is judged by the company he keeps”. Women in particular are more prone to be influenced, both overtly and subtly, by those they are in contact with. Therefore, it seems quite likely that this woman is merely parroting back what she has heard from her deeply religious sisters – that porn is adultery is abuse.

    Never mind this particular woman. The leak is an indictment of not just the magazine, too. This is, as Dalrock makes clear, standard procedure in the churches. And that in turn proves just what the churches are serving: the Female Imperative.

  273. Looking Glass says:

    @Anchorman:

    I think we can sum up Liz’s point of view as “Well, Brutus wasn’t WRONG”.

    She seems literally incapable of understanding knifing someone (when they’re a TORTURE PRISON) is wrong. This is why the ban-hammer needs to be queued up. And people need to stop responding.

  274. Liz
    If that answer is true, then you’re a six-sigma outlier because all of us here know how normal women react to being publicly betrayed. Unless the real reason you’d want to meet with him and get answers involves guns, ropes and a rusty butterknife. That would make you normal.

    Back to the woman in question, it’s the same story. It literally does not matter how the story got published, the fact is she first betrayed him by writing the emails. Then she publicly doubled down on the betrayal and left him swinging in the wind when her only response on the matter was “I regret sending the emails.”

    I’d say there’s nothing left for them to talk about because that silence on her part and refusal to clean up the mess she made speaks volumes. In fact, the question of whether she intended to publicly humiliate him is irrelevant and a deflection away from the real issue. She betrayed him by first doing something she shouldn’t have done (violation of 1st Peter 3:1-2, she opened her mouth) and then again by not doing something she should have done (violation of James 4:17).

    This is so common now in the church as to be the standard script. This is particularly tragic because the Iranians have years ahead of them to use the betrayal trauma she just inflicted on him to break him. The magnitude of her betrayal in these circumstances is off the scale and I think your vigorous defense of the question of whether she intended to publicly humiliate him is what has had men here incensed because public humiliation is simply one effect and not nearly the worst one. The injury was her betrayal, not once but twice. I have no doubt she will twist the knife with her next move.

  275. Kirk Parker says:

    Deti,

    Your inability to see this is, well, a bit surprising given my interactions with you elsewhere.

    Maybe Liz is just better at keeping her cover. But no worries, it’s certainly blown now.

  276. Liz says:

    “If that answer is true, then you’re a six-sigma outlier because all of us here know how normal women react to being publicly betrayed.”
    I don’t think so. If the instances were similar to the scenario here I would notice the way the article is written and the lack of actual quotes.
    I do not trust the media anyway (I have many reasons not to, and I have seen information manipulated in a similar manner first hand, to people I am close to) and I would wonder why they printing the information in this manner. And I would want to speak to my husband.

  277. stickdude90 says:

    Can we just give this woman a short while and see what she does before pronouncing her a horror of a human being?

    The CT article was published 11 days ago. How long should we give her to correct the record if in fact CT completely made things up?

  278. greyghost says:

    Hey Dalrock, Is Liz the actual chick from the article?

  279. Minesweeper says:

    Oh come guys don’t you think you are being too hard on her, I mean how else is she able to stop the “emotional, sexual, mental” abuse thats coming from her jailed husband via skype and phone ?

    Obviously – a divorce is far more effective than an Iranian jail for stopping this kind of thing.

    Amiright ?

  280. Minesweeper says:

    Its just logic really, an Iranian jail + jailers HAVE NOTHING compared to the power of a divorce to stopping his abuse travelling halfway round the world.

  281. ” there was once a popular female blogger in these parts who talked often of her husband’s numerous affairs and that was never called betrayal.:

    Sunshine Mary was a pseudonym in case you didn’t know. When her dirty laundry went public she withdrew. She went out of her way to avoid publically humiliating her husband and family . This is not apples and oranges but apples and computers. Two different cases.

  282. Dragonfly says:

    This is interesting that the discussion has turned to private or public betrayal of one’s spouse… I mean, the beginning of the manosphere gave way to men sharing intimate and private details of their wives bad or severely disrespectful behavior toward them. One could argue like Dalrock said, that telling “ANYONE” those sordid details about their wives was a private betrayal – a violation of the privacy in their marriage. But then you look at the context, and it’s done in a presumably “safe environment” where these men have good reason to believe the info they’re divulging won’t get back to harm her. Those men were frustrated, maybe even angry at the time of writing about their wives’ failures, but you can be sure they didn’t want to harm her, or damage her reputation.

    Now, if someone who had information on who these men really are in their real life, or if the environment wasn’t safe – if dal published the identities, IP addresses, emails etc of these men, that would be a bigger betrayal than the men themselves revealing incriminating facts about their wives. That’s why dox-ing is such a betrayal, because it violates what **should** be a safe anonymous environment.

    It’s the same possibly with what happened to her – she may not have known it would be unsafe to share with someone in a private email. Is it still a massive betrayal? Yes, but it isn’t possibly the same as her having maybe malicious intent. Just like the private betrayals of the marriages talked about in the manosphere, the context and the intent really does matter.

  283. scientivore says:

    @ Anchorman: “Scripture backs this up….where? Notice there’s no attempt?”

    Heh. Quite the opposite, really. Over and over, the sin in the heart is as bad as the act. There wouldn’t even have to be any emails for the betrayal in her heart to be a sin! Legalistic cow patties have no place in Christian theology, since it is not good intentions that save us, but Jesus. “Intent, motive, and harm,” my ass.

    @ RichardP: “You guys are truely embarrasing yourselves.”

    White knights always project.

    @ Liz: “That’s still a betrayal, isn’t it? The difference would seem to be motive and intent.”

    You continue to fail to acknowledge that regret is not repentance.

    @ bradford: “Don’t argue with women. This not a reasoned discussion of fact, it is a contest. You will never get the last word.”

    Are you sure? Perhaps you just don’t have a big enough… shiv.

    Betrayal is evil. And anyone who tries to excuse evil must be a fat slut, because xe is then necessarily engaged in dishonesty, and everyone knows that liars are all androgynous fat sluts.

  284. Minesweeper says:

    I don’t want to labour this point, but this man in jail is able to sexually abuse his wife from halfway round the world.

    He must be very well endowed.

  285. Liz says:

    “@ Liz: “That’s still a betrayal, isn’t it? The difference would seem to be motive and intent.”
    You continue to fail to acknowledge that regret is not repentance.”

    I didn’t know I was supposed to.
    Okay, I acknowledge that regret is not repentance.

  286. James 4:17 says that to the person who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, that is sin to him.

    Since we’re back to my hypothetical… This isn’t about your mistrust of media, it’s about your husband’s official response to that hit piece and his perceived duty to defend you if the charges were not true. Your husband wrote the email. Either he meant that hit piece to happen or is pleased that it happened, in either case his silence is a callous public betrayal.

    If he did not mean for that to happen or he was taken out of context or misquoted he has a serious responsibility to defend you and set the record straight. His silence here is an indifferent public betrayal.

    If he refused to set the record straight because the email also contained details of him shagging the secretary and banging the babysitter and he stayed silent for fear that it would come out, his silence is a cowardly public betrayal.

    Which do you think would be the worse of these very public betrayals, Liz? He wrote the email and he’s the only one who could possibly defend you and set the record straight. You’re laying in a hospital bed in quarantine unable to defend yourself.

    Perception is everything here: His failure to defend you is for him to side with the article. His failure to clarify or correct is to side with the article as written. His only course for mitigation of the damage caused by that email is to defend you vigorously and everybody knows it. Therefore, his silence = agreement with the lies and that’s a public betrayal and the *why* is irrelevant except for the shouting afterward.

    Given the circumstances described his only honorable response would have been to tell huge whopping lies and deny the whole thing, defending you to the death. But, he didn’t. He left you swinging in the wind, an easy target for all the ankle-biters who gleefully piled on. The Village Voice interviewed a dozen experts on kink and ran an article with a photo of you under the title “What does she do with honey, a dog and a pepper-sprayed cat?” Wild speculation followed.

    @Minesweeper

    I know Liz from other places and she’s not normally like this. At all.

  287. Isa says:

    @Liz
    Step off the subject. Repeating again and again the lack of any proper documentation (quotes etc.) the nebulous motives of anyone involved (CS, the “friends”, the wife, the Iranians) to people who are arguing about the fact that All Women Are Like This and discussing female betrayal is not going to resolve anything.

    Key points of interest in the story: how women use the media to bludgeon their husbands, how the media can create narratives out of whole-cloth that people then believe unreservedly to fit a social narrative (see Rolling Stone). Sussing out the motives of individual people isn’t useful.

  288. L.Lurker says:

    @bluepillprofessor:

    If you ‘go out of your way’ to avoid humiliating your spouse, you don’t air your dirty laundry and talk unfavorably about them in public at all. Ever. As a rule.

    But nice try at selective white knighting. Unintentionally hilarious, given the context, heh.

  289. greyghost says:

    I don’t want to labour this point, but this man in jail is able to sexually abuse his wife from halfway round the world.

    He must be very well endowed.

    throw away the key he is just plain out of control. Too much thug alpha game for his wife. This guy needs a straight up loose stink hole slut.

  290. greyghost says:

    LIz
    That regret stuff is just a virtue recovery play.

  291. @Dragonfly

    One could argue like Dalrock said, that telling “ANYONE” those sordid details about their wives was a private betrayal – a violation of the privacy in their marriage.

    Massive reframe here. First, the vast majority of horror stories in the manosphere involve *ex* wives and what they did which can be substantiated by extensive court records. Second, it is to be assumed those sordid details are true (we assume the court’s records to be true), unlike the ridiculous accusations Naghmeh made against her husband. The abuse got worse while he was in prison and she was in the US? Really? Really? Third, such accusations do not publicly identify the wife and she sure as hell isn’t languishing in Iranian prison being tortured for being a Christian. In fact, just the opposite- those women are usually living in the house their discarded husband bought them receiving a check monthly that he’s required to send under threat of being jailed. There is no comparison here.

    Then too, it was Liz who broached the private/public betrayal paradigm, which amounts to zero in terms of validity. I will grant that the amount of collateral damage is different between the so-called public and private betrayal, but that is just effect, it isn’t the magnitude of the injury. If you cuckold your husband in private it’s the same as cuckolding him in public for all to see and the public response to that is incidental to the injury, which was the betrayal.

    I hate to be crude, but it doesn’t matter if you sell yourself for $10,000 or $100, it’s still prostitution. Should your husband feel like he has bragging rights because he’s married to a high-dollar whore?

    Now, if someone who had information on who these men really are in their real life, or if the environment wasn’t safe – if dal published the identities, IP addresses, emails etc of these men, that would be a bigger betrayal than the men themselves revealing incriminating facts about their wives.

    That’s because of the double-standard. Dalrock (just as one example) releasing info would not necessarily expose said ex-wives to any scrutiny, only the men who had made the allegations, who would then be attacked. It would be a betrayal of the men who made the allegations, not the women who had the charges made against them. This is the opposite of what we see in this narrative… hence the reframe.

    @Isa

    Care to play? Take my hypothetical at 2:45pm and tell me how you’d respond. Tell us how you’d deal with an incredible betrayal at a deep personal and spiritual level by your husband when you were helpless to respond and at the mercy of others. Or, in the alternate, please explain how it wouldn’t be a massive betrayal of your person, your trust and your marriage.

  292. enrique says:

    In Islam, unlike Christianity and the West, we do not take the word of women on anything, for the most part–for good reason. GOD (Allah [swt]) did not intend for women to lead men in ANYTHING, nor to have any say in ANY matters outside of mothering, taking care of a home, etc. Women are like children, and should be treated as such in most situations. Their word means basically nothing, they have no moral compass in most cases, and no ability to reason or consider their accountability.

  293. Cane Caldo says:

    According to the Idaho Statesman, who interviewed her about the article from Christianity Today, she emailed her supporters.

    According to the news outlets who want to take about abusive husbands, she emailed friends.

    The fact that CT ever got ahold of the emails strongly suggests Naghmeh was indiscreet, and therefore not betrayed. That suggests the Idaho Statesman has the correct term: Supporters.

    Naghmeh is in Idaho, not Iran. For three years she has engaged in hundreds of talks, activisms, etc. All the while, supposedly, Saeed has been abusing her with porn-from-prison. Therefore, for the story of Iran-arm-twisting her to bad mouth Saeed privately to hold water, we must believe that the Iranians were fine with her hundreds of protests, but suddenly needed her to undermine him merely to a couple friends.

    As far as Liz’s foolishness: Empath called it way up there when he rightly noted that “abuse” is a dog-whistle that women can’t ignore.

  294. greyghost says:

    Thank you Cane That Liz was something huh?

  295. feeriker says:

    Hawk&Rock says:
    November 23, 2015 at 3:38 pm

    Isn’t it amazing that in the second decade of the 21st century it’s still necessary to point this out?

  296. JDG says:

    So if a woman is abused when her husband looks at porn, is the husband abused when the wife reads 50 shades of gay?

  297. Liz says:

    “According to the news outlets who want to take about abusive husbands, she emailed friends.”

    Do you have a link for this? I’d like to read it.

  298. Liz, I like you. Rule #1, when you find yourself at the bottom of a hole STOP DIGGING!

  299. Liz says:

    LOL Artisanal Toad.😀
    I’d just really like to see something that might offer some context to this.
    I want to know how a person who “For three years” engaged in “hundreds of talks, activisms, etc” could (ostensibly) change her tune so suddenly and so strangely. It doesn’t add up. That doesn’t mean it isn’t true, but context (iow more information) would help.

  300. >>>”I know Liz from other places and she’s not normally like this. At all.”

    AWALT, neither is my wife but she came to the immediate defense of team woman. Hate to mix analogies but it is just another brick in the Matrix.

    >>>”If you ‘go out of your way’ to avoid humiliating your spouse, you don’t air your dirty laundry and talk unfavorably about them in public at all. Ever. As a rule.”

    Blogging under an assumed name is NOT airing your dirty laundry so I Disagree. I am writing a book that reveals personal and intimate details about my marriage. I blog all the time about intimate and very personal details. I would not want my wife to read some of what I write and certainly would not want anybody to associate them with my wife because I definitely do talk unfavorably about her at some points in the narrative. This is the internet. I am Bluepillprofessor and my wife is Mrs. Blue. If I was sending an email to a list-serv under the name Dr. ______ I would be much, much more careful about what I revealed which could embarrass my wife or even make her look less than perfect. Again, this is way past apples and oranges and very different cases.

    This email the chick sent was a profound attack on this man. It was a breathtaking, incredible betrayal. If the Iranians threatened her she didn’t have to include the Porn allegations. That was an obvious trigger and a gratuitous attack on his message as a Christian witness. The men see it and understand. The women want to retain this superpower Dalrock has identified for us and are twisting and turning trying to justify it in any way possible.

    I am imagining if my wife went on Married Red Pill and sent a message to people who listen to me that I was mentally, emotionally and sexually abusing her and that our message about marriage is a lie. I haven’t even suffered for “my”/our message and our message is hardly the Good News, nor is it my life’s work, nor is it my livelihood, nor is it even set in stone as we are more than willing to change when something else works. Blogging and writing are just hobbies. Yet I could not imagine forgiving such a betrayal. The man must be going through more torture than anything the Iranians could have possibly done. I will pray for him.

  301. Liz
    Don’t take this the wrong way, but Mike isn’t deployed and I assume you haven’t fucked around on him. I’ll take that as a given. But if you had, the experience of more guys than you can imagine would say that your personality would change overnight if you had. That’s also personal experience and I’m not going to throw rocks at it or claim the fallacy that it can’t happen. It does happen. Her husband has been locked in a foreign prison since 2012.

    Before you throw rocks at me, answer the question: Got needs? How long does a deployment last? How long has he been locked up in a foreign prison? I’m not so stupid as to ask how long you’d keep your legs crossed, I know I’d get the Sunday School answer. But this is a culture saturated with sexuality. What are the odds? How long do the odds get when the wife is in constant contact with attractive high-value men as she lobbies for his release?

    QED.

    And look what happened. I know, I’m asking rude questions. Fine. Color me rude, but figure the odds.

  302. Yet Another Commenter, Yet Another Comment ("yac-yac") says:

    The woman with the sick husband need not have tried so hard to justify her betrayal. I predict that the generations coming up won’t even bother concocting an “abuse” story.

    Men are what they can provide — nothing more. The state and society now fully recognize this fact. When he developed dementia, he ceased to be an asset to her. This alone would be enough to justify her heading for greener pastures. But he actually became a liability to her! That is way, way beyond the pale of what a wife should be required to deal with. Men exist to provide security and material comfort to women. When they are no longer able to do that, they become useless eaters.

    “Hawk&Rock”

    My hypothesis is, this is also where and how the system will (eventually) fall apart.

    Dalrock recently wisecracked (in the comment threads to another post) that the current
    system is one of “from each according to his abilities, to each according to her needs.”

    But, that in practice requires court orders, and bailiffs (or sherrifs, or whatever they’re
    called, varying with jusridiction), and cops, and a bureaucracy, etc. — But what happens
    when a critical mass of even those [men] caught up in the enforcement process have
    also seen close-up (brother/father/son), or first-hand (personally) destroy male lives?

    There’s an old joke, that a conservative is a liberal who’s been mugged, and a liberal is a
    conservative who’s just been arrested. Well, what happens when a critical mass of White
    Knights and Manginas (etc.) have been frivorced into penury?

    The real questions, though, are:

         what is that critical mass? And,
         when does society reach it?

    Pax Christi Vobiscum. (ツ)

  303. Yet Another Commenter, Yet Another Comment ("yac-yac") says:

    My point above being (in case it isn’t clear), that at the end of the day, women are 100% dependent on the men who enforce these statutes & court orders, to en-force them.

    100%.

  304. Yet Another Commenter, Yet Another Comment ("yac-yac") says:

    In fact: Suggestion to Dalrock for a possible future posting topic (since you are so excellent at digging up obscure yet highly relevant stats): how do divorce stats for cops & judges compare to those for the population at large [values & trends]? (Or, topics along those lines …)

  305. Liz,

    I respect your skepticism, but I do not share it. I’m not interested in discussing it, so I’m not gonna, beyond saying that if the Iranians are behind this, they are behind ALL of it. As in: let’s assume they’ve been trying to tear apart this nation by agitating for the the marital equivalent of an Arab Spring. If so, that would make our women and the US judicial system their useful idiots.

    If you don’t want to consider *that* angle, then I can happily refrain from engaging you on this thread.

  306. Lest we forget that AWALT:

    Then his wife said to him, “Do you still hold fast your integrity? Curse God and die!”
    -Job 2:9

  307. Hawk&Rock says:

    @ Liz 8:21 pm

    Hahaha. Can’t tell if you’re playing coy for the team or are really not avwoman…

    It adds up perfectly when a woman has screwed or desires to screw a man other than her husband. Ask any man who’s been through it. The “overnight” change in character is straight from the script.

    When you ask, I would advise not trying to defend the adulteress. You might find his reaction surprisingly vitriolic.

  308. justdoit says:

    I don’t know where to submit links, but here is a link that some facebook-friend of mine posted. It is the usual stuff demanding that men man up and do this and that.

    http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/when-the-not-yet-married-meet-dating-to-display-jesus

    Especially funny is the part of demanding that men MAKE PHONE CALLS to set dates. Does anyone know any woman under the age of 40, as of year 2015, that actually TALKS on the phone with men. I don’t think I do.

  309. hadavar says:

    I find the halakhic concept of “lashon hara,” a very serious sin in the rabbinic tradition (and for what seems to me to be obvious good reason), to be instructive here, and though I know most here aren’t of this faith, I hope that a brief exposition on it will not be unwelcome; it applies perfectly to this situation and I think most of us can agree that it is a useful heuristic for judging whether or not a person’s speech has been evil, regardless of whether it’s a law from God or a creation of man.

    Speech about another person is lashon hara if it is 1) true 2) previously non-public 3) negative information 4) that is not seriously intended to remedy a situation. Of course, if #1 is false, then it’s an even worse sin.

    –If you speak negative information that is already public knowledge about a person, you might be a gossip (still serious enough for the Scriptures to forbid it numerous times), but you may not have engaged in lashon hara.

    –If you speak previously unknown positive information about a person, you may not have engaged in lashon hara.

    –If you speak negative previously unknown information about a person but it is clearly intended for the improvement of the situation (to bring a sin before your church for the purpose of a righteous rebuke, for example, or because you require counseling from an impeccable source, or because the law requires you to testify regarding an incident of lawbreaking, or the like), you may not have engaged in lashon hara.

    Now, let’s leave aside the unbelievability of the woman’s claims of abuse and assume that everything she said was true. Let’s go one further and leave aside the fact that she was discussing her faithful husband, a man suffering unimaginably for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven, its God, and its Messiah, and assume that she was instead speaking about her terrible ex-husband, one who unironically fits every feminist SJW trope of terrible men– boinked the babysitter while whipping his wife with a rusty barbed-wire strand, then ran off to some Pacific island to enjoy a harem of Southeast Asian beauties while leaving his wife to care for their 19 kids all alone. (I know, it’s hard to read that sentence unironically, but bear with me.) Viewed in the light that the avoidance of evil speech is critical, how well does her speech hold up?

    Even if her words were about a caricature of an evil man and totally true, did she speak non-public negative information about a specific, identified person, while not seriously believing that her speech had a good chance of solving the situation?

    Does it matter that it’s her faithful husband who had every right to expect faithfulness in return, rather than her handlebar-mustache-twirling evil ex? Does that make it worse? Better? Does it matter that some of the allegations as reported (and which she has not denied making) are patently impossible? Does that make it worse? Better? How well do considerations of intention, or “intended limited release stymied by gossipy friends”, or any of the other matters that have been held up as potential ameliorating factors for her chosen behavior, measure up against this standard? Are they even relevant to the question?

    And what happens when we flip the modern Christian standard of “I can say anything unless there’s no doubt that it’s evil speech” to the traditional Orthodox Jewish standard of “I can’t say anything unless there is no doubt that it is not evil speech”?

    Answers are left as an exercise for the reader. Personally, I think the Orthodox are right on this one.

  310. Dalrock says:

    @Cane Caldo

    According to the Idaho Statesman, who interviewed her about the article from Christianity Today, she emailed her supporters.

    I haven’t seen that article, but I think from the wording of the mail quoted in the CT article it is pretty clear that it was a mass email. It has a somewhat formal style that one uses to write to a large group.

    Also, upthread a comparison was made with anonymous comments/blog posts and emailing a few friends about details of the marriage. I am very careful in what I share on the blog, and whenever I write about my wife I let her read it first and make sure she is comfortable with what I’m sharing. But still, there is a fundamental difference between anonymous posting where the expectation is the audience could be large but doesn’t (and wont) know the person being discussed, and writing to a small group of people who know who your spouse is. It can still be irresponsible to share information anonymously because anonymity can prove fragile, but in the case of dishing dirt to a close group of conspirators the intent is for them to know this information about someone they know.

    What Liz is claiming went wrong for Naghmeh is more people learned the dirty laundry about Saeed than Naghmeh hoped. Naghmeh mentioned Saeed by name, and stated outright that she wanted them to know this information about him. This is an intentional betrayal, and claiming that Naghmeh hoped to keep her betrayal secret doesn’t make it better. That Liz can’t understand this after having it explained in detail is disturbing. Had CT and the rest of the media, and even Saeed never learned of the betrayal, this would not have changed the fact that the betrayal occurred, just like stealing or murder aren’t better if you manage not to get caught.

  311. Cane Caldo says:

    Liz said:

    I want to know how a person who “For three years” engaged in “hundreds of talks, activisms, etc” could (ostensibly) change her tune so suddenly and so strangely. It doesn’t add up. That doesn’t mean it isn’t true, but context (iow more information) would help.

    It is my experience that more information does not decrease a dog-whistled woman’s (Liz) fervor to excuse the whistling woman. The only information she will hear is that somehow, someway, the man either is abusing her, or he is allowing her to be abused. Such abuse–however faint and regardless of the perpetrator– of course, excuses any bad behavior on her part.

  312. Moses says:

    Women are acutely sensitive to social pressure and criticism. It’s their nature.

    Some women behave badly. They leave their husbands (or their husbands leave them). But then there’s that pesky problem of social stigma.

    Solution?

    Easy! Just claim he was abusive. Presto! Social approbation instead of ostracism. It’s like heroin for women.

  313. BradA says:

    Amazing,

    Betrayal is betrayal. It doesn’t matter whether it is private or public. I may let some things slip through, but you will note I say very little about my own wife here, largely for that reason. A man should be able to expect complete loyalty from his wife. Giving an out for the widely abused charge of “emotional abuse” is bunk. Claiming sexual abuse because the husband views pornography is also bunk, even if that is an addiction on his part. It would only be abuse if it caused the husband to do abusive things to the wife.

    I doubt any of those giving the OP lady the out would allow for a husband sharing things “in confidence” with friends. It would be a one-way street. Though men are much less likely to make things up. They may gripe, but I cannot think of a made up issue a man would normally gripe about.

    (I have been away at a gaming convention having a great time away from all this. Though this stuff reinforces the need to speak up, especially in the churches. That is one reason I won’t shy away and will live with the chips wherever they fall.)

  314. BradA says:

    So if a woman is abused when her husband looks at porn, is the husband abused when the wife reads 50 shades of gay?

    That was the thought that immediately jumped to my mind JDG.

  315. Cane Caldo says:

    @Dalrock

    I haven’t seen that article, but I think from the wording of the mail quoted in the CT article it is pretty clear that it was a mass email. It has a somewhat formal style that one uses to write to a large group.

    I agree with your reading of the tone, and the Idaho Statesman’s article backs our reading.

    http://www.idahostatesman.com/latest-news/article44752770.html

    The author of the Statesman article says that it was the CT article which prompted their own story, and that Naghmen gave them (The Statesman) two different statements about the matter. At it top it says: “Highlights: The claims were sent to supporters in an email blast; Abedini now plans to be a private advocate”

    I suspect that (for whatever reason) she wants to stop supporting her husband, and there is no more readily accepted excuse than “abuse”. It is an incendiary bomb, and very few will ever care if it’s true. Of those few most will not be willing to investigate because nothing survives that kind of heat. Read the comments at the Statesman: Half of the people wish Saeed worse!

    Here’s the plan, I believe:

    1. Throw the bomb.
    2. Before the smoke settles, step back from “public support” to “private support”. Back in private support no one can see whether she actually supports him or not. If, in the future, anyone dares to claim she isn’t, then she can claim they are invading her privacy. It’s genius because, it is within the arena of private support that Saeed is supposedly abusing Naghmah. Her private support–by necessity, you see!–will have to be very limited so as not to be open to abuse.
    3. Under the smoke of “abuse” and in the dark of “privacy” she can divorce him with relative deniability of wrongdoing. If not divorce itself, then manipulation of Saeed by threat of divorce.

    What Liz is claiming went wrong for Naghmeh is more people learned the dirty laundry about Saeed than Naghmeh hoped.

    Yes, but this isn’t as damning as it might seem to the logical person. It’s a rope-a-dope strategy. Liz knows the public sentiment is against husbands, abusers, and especially husbands who are perceived as abusers; or even the specter of it.[1] According to the abuse game theory: If you admit that dirty laundry (abuse) exists, then whatever else happens cannot be the fault of the abused. Period. (This goes back the monstrous efficacy of the abuse-claim bomb.) So when you say that Naghmeh is airing dirty laundry, she hears you enabling abuse. She’ll cop to a technical betrayal because she knows most people agree that “technical betrayal” is another word for “giving voice to the abused”; which is a virtue.

    Liz will just keep distracting away until the only uncontested fact is that Saeed abused Naghmeh; which is the whole game.

    [1] It’s so pervasive that in this very post’s comments are a dozen excuses for the woman; written by denizens of the Men’s Sphere.

  316. Isa says:

    @Artisanal Toad
    “Care to play? Take my hypothetical at 2:45pm and tell me how you’d respond. Tell us how you’d deal with an incredible betrayal at a deep personal and spiritual level by your husband when you were helpless to respond and at the mercy of others. Or, in the alternate, please explain how it wouldn’t be a massive betrayal of your person, your trust and your marriage.”

    I don’t need hypothetical. I have been burnt both in public and private over the years, especially as I have been the person medically isolated and unable to communicate or respond to whatever story is going around.

    A private betrayal is not compounded with loss of face and scandal in the community. This betrays not only my person, but everyone associated with me as my reputation reflects directly back onto my parents, siblings, and hypothetical children. When slandered over email, I will get phone calls directly to me. When in public, they will be directed towards my family members, in laws, friends etc. and they may also face discrimination in person. I much prefer not having to deal with the guilt and shame of my loved one’s situation as well as the pain of betrayal due to misplaced trust which was ultimately my fault.

    As to how you deal, recognize that no one is capable of never betraying you. The only trustworthy being is G-d. Otherwise, keep anything you would be ashamed of people knowing to yourself and attempt to remain emotionally detached in these types of situations. Things only become personal when you allow them.

  317. JDG says:

    It would only be abuse if it caused the husband to do abusive things to the wife.

    But Brad, if a woman is unhappy, what more proof of abuse do we need?

  318. Looking Glass says:

    One other incredibly pernicious aspect of the claim of abuse: even questioning the claim puts you in a situation to call the Woman a liar. It’s a very evil trick. Especially in this case.

    I’d say “shame on any Woman that does this”, but it’s really not Shame that should be their worry. It’s the Great White Throne that they should fear.

  319. Spike says:

    feeriker says:
    November 23, 2015 at 1:09 am
    Regarding pornography: “A satisfied man never wanders” – Italian proverb.

    Expecting a woman to satisfy her husband sexually is putting demands on her by telling her that she has responsibilities to her husband as a wife. That, by definition, is abuse.

    Feeriker: I was wondering when someone was going to pick that up. Sure enough!

    This morning I was watching the news over breakfast.. There is a new documentary on the ABC (Australia) about domestic violence. The interviewed host said that the following was abuse:

    -If he (male partner) tells you (female in relationship) to post less on Facebook.
    -If he tells you you are spending too much money
    -If he says that he doesn’t want you wearing mascara, lipstick or he wants you to dress differently, even if it is more modestly, in public
    -All of these should be told to police so there is a record, because any or all of these are early warning signals that he will escalate to extremes.

    …..So maybe MGTOWs have a point?

  320. greyghost says:

    MGTOW is founded in logic and common sense. Anything less is hopeful romance for what ought to be. More effort needs to be at restoring Christian relationships between men and women than hair splitting some rationalization that that relationship can be found and is possible. Like at that ridiculous list Spike posted up. Notice the reported to police. The madness is in the law. By law there is no wife regardless of how well you can recite bible verses a real world struggle is here on this earth. will men of faith stand up or will they let sinners fight this for them to keep their souls clean. Faith is where it is at.

  321. Liz says:

    Cane Caldo: “It is my experience that more information does not decrease a dog-whistled woman’s (Liz) fervor to excuse the whistling woman. The only information she will hear is that somehow, someway, the man either is abusing her, or he is allowing her to be abused. Such abuse–however faint and regardless of the perpetrator– of course, excuses any bad behavior on her part.”

    You referenced a source and now refuse to cite the source you’ve referenced? I have to wonder what the point was in referencing it in the first place? Does this source actually exist or were fabricating on to use it as a rhetorical device (that’s a new one for me)? Now when I request it, “oh well…it’s my experience more information will not change anything for you….”
    Noted.

  322. Liz says:

    It’s amazing how much information about a person’s character can be gleemed from one short rather unrevealing article. That hasn’t been my experience in reading media pieces. It also hasn’t been my experience that more information can’t be useful or revealing.

  323. Liz says:

    Dalrock: “This is an intentional betrayal, and claiming that Naghmeh hoped to keep her betrayal secret doesn’t make it better. That Liz can’t understand this after having it explained in detail is disturbing.”

    Well, there seems to be some disagreement on this forum about betrayal. Some posters seem to believe that anonymously writing about their spouse’s shortcomings is fine and not a betrayal. I’m sure many people say unkind things about their spouses in this very forum. Do you find that disturbing as well? Is it a betrayal? Welll…I’m with you. I don’t disparage my husband online, even anonymously. But I don’t think doing so it equivalent to broadcasting it to the world in an unanonymous context. Though, of course, there is the chance the identity will be revealed as nothing online is truly private. In the context here we dont’ actually know what we said, and we dont’ actually know the context it was said.

    A long, long time ago an Italian journalist was kidnapped, and shot along with her rescuer, at a checkpoint in Iraq. At the time there was little information coming out. I knew the rules of engagement, and a few other things about Iraq checkpoints. The public vitriol was severe. The shooter was a murderer, he should be executed, yadda yadda. It was particularly interesting because half of my relatives of Italian so I would be trying to explain things on the phone to them. When the real story (the WHOLE story, not just snippets) came out, there really was no way for any reasonable person to refute that the soldier was in his rights to shoot. But it took a while and in the meantime I was called a lot of names, my character disparaged, and so forth. I’ve been there before.

  324. Just rename this post to ‘The temptation of Liz to post and claim absurdities ad infinitum’.

  325. …..So maybe MGTOWs have a point?

    Oh, they have a point, a pretty gaping big one..

  326. HayeksGhost says:

    Am I the only one who thinks there’s another man involved here?

  327. greyghost says:

    It’s amazing how much information about a person’s character can be gleemed from one short rather unrevealing article. That hasn’t been my experience in reading media pieces. It also hasn’t been my experience that more information can’t be useful or revealing.

    It’s called red pill. The days of the drone are over.

  328. greyghost says:

    Liz.
    That story about the check point is called taking care of your own. Standard stuff A police officer can shoot a 12 year old boy. under any circumstances and come out like the helpless victim. That is how it is done.
    BTW it seems to be very important to you that this women can unload her wedding vows and get some new dick with out loss of purity in her statue.
    I wouldn’t worry to much the only people that see her are the guys here. The rest of the world sees a victim that needs support.

  329. Liz says:

    “BTW it seems to be very important to you that this women can unload her wedding vows and get some new dick with out loss of purity in her statue.”

    I don’t see any reason to believe that she is an adulterer based on the information given.
    I posted a contrary idea, and it wasn’t a suggestion that there was no betrayal and it wasn’t a suggestion the she is in the right. I just think there might be context missing and jumping on the bandwagon that this woman is an evil adultering pig who intends to harm her husband (add more creative pejoratives) might be incorrect. I think this because the behavior pattern doesn’t fit, and it really doesn’t look (from the small perspective we have here) like she is attempting to disparage her husband and seek attention. But..I also acknowledge I could be wrong. It might be exactly that. But I don’t think we have enough information to conclude that. Context is everything.

    I suspect many metaphorical barb throwers haven’t read what I’ve actually stated. My suspicions are confirmed when posters continue to claim I’ve made statements I have not (example, that I don’t think private betrayal is betrayal…having stated categorically I do, several times, I’m not sure what else can be said).
    I guess much like everything else in human psych if you say it a few times it’s true and if you refute what you’ve never said you’re just “rebuilding the mound” or “reframing” or some such. But, it’s seems a place to throw metaphorical brickbats at anyone with the temerity to post a contrary idea, even if the idea is only, “Gee, we don’t have enough information to form any real conclusions here”.

  330. Heidi says:

    Thing is, Naghmeh Abedini doesn’t need defenders; she can offer further explanations or defense, if she wishes. Pastor Abedini does not have that luxury.

  331. Yet Another Commenter, Yet Another Comment ("yac-yac") says:

    START
     Let N = unbounded
     Let LizScore = 0
     Let $LizConcedes = “There isn’t enough information to say it was a betrayal.”

     For I = 1 to N
     Input ($Liz.says)
        If [Distilled ($Liz.says) = “NAWALT, benefit of the doubt, etc.”]
         Then
          If [DalrockHomeTeam response = ignore]
            Then
              GOTO move.along
            Else
           LizScore = LizScore+1
        ENDIF
       Else
          $LizConcedes = “OK, I guess it was a betrayal.”
        ENDIF
     Next I
    END

    ==========

    By my count, so far, LizScore = 139 or something like that.

    Just sayin’

    Pax Christi Vobiscum. (ツ)

  332. enrique says:

    If the Iranian intel division actually orchestrated this, which could be possible through a variety of means we don’t know (which are not apparent to the outsider), then it would be the ultimate example of using game theory against an opponent (US/West) based upon culture. If you knew that simply starting the whispers, manipulating her perceived outcome (for herself), or kids or whatever, to get her to abandon him, then that would be an intel tactic to use. I don’t know all the facts.

    I suspect she is doing and feeling what spouses feel in long-term care situations: fatigue, and this will give her a way out, to be done publicly speaking, to be done having this be the focus of her life. She can’t just stop supporting him and face her church and other Christians, so she has to have a bullet proof plan to inoculate her from (human) judgment, public perception, scorn, etc. A woman claiming abuse, even illogically and retroactively, can just about do anything she wants at that point, including blowing a guy’s head off, or stabbing him to death. In this case, she needs to get rid of him, but it’s not easy, since he is a perpetual presence in her life, from a location she cannot do anything about.

    Also wondering if there will be money on the back end of this and this is the foundation of a narrative to serve that purpose.

  333. Liz says:

    Heidi: “Thing is, Naghmeh Abedini doesn’t need defenders; she can offer further explanations or defense, if she wishes. Pastor Abedini does not have that luxury.”

    She could explain further, but it is pretty common not to go immediately back to the media PR team if one has been deceived by the media (unless one is a politician or celebrity personality).
    From what I’ve read of her (before this incident) she seems simple, and has supported her husband very very much up until that time. I think that sort of person deserves a modicum of the benefit of the doubt (unless and until more information comes out to indicate otherwise).

  334. enrique says:

    The interesting thing is, how commonly women reverse prior claims of abuse by saying they uttered those claims “at a really emotional time” etc. Ivana Trump said that, didn’t she, when questioned about a prior claim she made about Trump. Having seen this in my own personal life, it’s always the same–a lack of accountability for women. They almost are winking at you with it, as if to say “duh, I claimed it because I needed to at a certain time in my life…that time is over now”, like a fake traffic injury:

    “THAT neckbrace…? oh…that was just for court…I’m good now”

    And if the woman goes back and forth or is challenged, she claims “it’s complicated” and “you have no right to blame the victim”.

  335. Liz says:

    Anecdotally, I’ve known quite a few people who were in the media spotlight for actions that were taken out of context, and I can’t think of a single one of them that went to the media to state their case. They withdrew (a lot of that was at the lawyer’s request, but not always…these weren’t all legal cases).

  336. Liz says:

    “Let $LizConcedes = “There isn’t enough information to say it was a betrayal.”

    Evidence number 20+ that some posters aren’t reading what I’ve actually stated.

  337. PokeSalad says:

    For example, simply thinking about shagging the secretary is not as bad as actually shagging the secretary surreptitiously, which is still not as bad as shagging the secretary and recording it and then selling the porn on the world wide web. The first really isn’t that great of a sin. Most people have sinful thoughts. The second is acting on that sin, which is worse than just thinking about it, but not as bad as publicly humiliating the spouse in an action that resembles…not only shamelessness and a far deeper violation of trust but actual pride and profit from the action, as the third would.

    Thanks for this. I was 99.9999% sure you weren’t worth the time to read, you have now confirmed.

  338. Gary says:

    It’s been said by others but it’s worth repeating in brief:

    She wants an exit strategy.

    And I have a little bit of sympathy for her situation. She’s worn out, probably lonely, probably upset. She’s lacking human connection with a man she loves. And so she’s trying to rack her brain to look for justification to dump her, and came up with abuse. So she emailed her friends with the information, in the hope that she would gain support, because she knew that in this situation, it would look very bad if she straight up dumped him.

    Problem is that in this situation, people had sympathy for Saeed and where he’s at, even if they bought into the idea that he abused her. So now she’s back-tracked.

    It’s obviously a terrible betrayal and she hasn’t thought about the fact that if her husband does survive and comes back, she has deprived her children of an intact home. But I can also see that she’s been worn down. What she needs is the Church to step in, remind her of her obligations to her husband, but also support her through what is a terrible situation.

  339. Liz says:

    I admit I could have used a better example.

  340. feeriker says:

    One other incredibly pernicious aspect of the claim of abuse: even questioning the claim puts you in a situation to call the Woman a liar.

    Maybe I’m just wired differently than most, but the thought of calling any woman a liar, no matter how sainted or “victimized” she appears to be, bothers my conscience not one little pinprick. If the shoe fits …

  341. feeriker says:

    A thought just occurs: If Saeed suffers a full-on frivorce at the end of all this, with all of the attendant misery and with Nagmeh going full-on Jezebel bitchtard in the process, might we see Saeed, after getting a “red pill suppository,” become a prominent “MGTOW Minister?”

    Whatever might happen, it’s bound to be ugly beyond comprehension and will be a propaganda coup for the Iranians.

  342. Gunner Q says:

    enrique @ November 23, 2015 at 7:13 pm:
    “In Islam, unlike Christianity and the West, we do not take the word of women on anything, for the most part–for good reason.”

    Christianity is in general agreement on this, only somehow our churches got to teaching the exact opposite of what our Bible says. Commies in the legislature didn’t help.

    It’s totally insane, under any government and religion, to believe there’s no mental or emotional differences between men and women. It ain’t just body parts and a few pounds of muscle.

  343. >What she needs is the Church to step in, remind her of her obligations to her husband, but also support her through what is a terrible situation.

    Are you new to this blog? What will happen is that team woman will rally around this abuse “victim.” Team women and manginas will welcome her new boyfriend into the church with open arms. The media will not report about her boyfriend. The man will return to a broken and empty life, a church that has abandoned him, and a “wife” who divorced him in prison, took, away his children, and deliberately destroyed his Christian witness. Nobody in the church will even speak to him.

    He had media appearances and best selling books and a loving family and his religion to return. Now he has nothing and his “wife” made sure of it just so she could make herself FEEL a little bit better. The same reason Liz and all the women are defending her. That poor women must FEEL trapped. I hope that poor woman rots in hell but first lives a long, lonely life of cats and pump and dumps by players and assorted scoundrels. I truly hope she suffers. Is that wrong?

    If she just wanted to screw around she could have kept her fucking mouth shut. She wanted an EXCUSE to screw around. This is what women do all the time. They break the man deliberately and maliciously They file for divorce, take away a man’s children with lies, and drive him to suicide. Then they then gleefully tell their friends how LUCKY they were that they got out of that horrible relationship just in time even though THEY made it horrible and much of the time the man has no idea what has even happened. YOUGOGIIIIIRRRRLS. You don’t got to have no loyalty and you sure don’t got to stick to no man cuz, vagina.

  344. Cane Caldo says:

    @yac-yac

    By my count, so far, LizScore = 139 or something like that.

    Just saying’

    Good call, and that’s why I haven’t engaged Liz directly. (Dalrock has to since it’s his blog.)

    Liz lies when she says context is needed to form a sure opinion. She lies when she implies that there is too little information in the articles from Christianity Today, the Idaho Statesman, and the other articles; just as she lied that I “refused” to link to the Statesman article as a (possible) rhetorical ploy. (In fact a search engine query for “Idaho Statesman Naghmeh” takes one right to an article on the Statesman’s investigation.)

    The context which existence she denies is modern American Christianity. It vilifies men on a tithe of rumor; yet twentyfold of true evidence is not enough for them to even tell a criminal woman to shut up.

  345. feeriker says:

    I truly hope she suffers.

    Even more than that, I hope that no good comes to any “church” that enables her in her destructive sins.

  346. Dalrock says:

    @Liz

    Anecdotally, I’ve known quite a few people who were in the media spotlight for actions that were taken out of context, and I can’t think of a single one of them that went to the media to state their case. They withdrew (a lot of that was at the lawyer’s request, but not always…these weren’t all legal cases).

    But even this argument, the claim that she is simply remaining silent (after plunging the knife) is not accurate. She has issued a statement through her lawyer. See Cane’s Idaho Statesman link above (emphasis mine):

    Representatives of the American Center for Law and Justice indicated that they respect Naghmeh Abedini’s wishes for privacy and would continue to work to help Saeed Abedini get released.

    In recent days, Naghmeh — Pastor Saeed’s wife — has revealed that she is dealing with some very serious personal issues inside her family. She has asked for privacy and prayer. We are respecting her request. The ACLJ will not have any comment on the personal issues that she is addressing.

    This:
    1) Confirms that she wrote the emails.
    2) Reinforces the content of the emails.
    3) Confirms that she is is (for the time being at least) no longer publicly campaigning for Saeed’s release.

    But as Cane noted, this is a game of rope a dope, and this is precisely why I have changed the moderation rules*. I have held off on invoking them to this point in part because other commenters were baiting you with statements that if you withdrew you were conceding their argument.

    *The problem is not that women do not agree, but that very few women can disagree and present logical arguments to issues they are personally/emotionally invested in. The temptation is very strong, especially the longer the discussion goes and when there is an emotional investment, to go for a strategy to obscure the issue long enough that readers will either become bored or confused. Compounding this problem is that the women who do this don’t understand the difference between this and a logical disagreement.

  347. Liz says:

    “just as she lied that I “refused” to link to the Statesman article as a (possible) rhetorical ploy. (In fact a search engine query for “Idaho Statesman Naghmeh” takes one right to an article on the Statesman’s investigation.)”

    I requested a link to the sources indicating, “she emailed friends”. That wasn’t the Statesman. The Statesmen indicates nothing that wasn’t already said in the CT article. That is why I requested a citation of the source of this information. I haven’t seen that particular bit anywhere.

  348. Liz says:

    Dalrock: “I have held off on invoking them to this point in part because other commenters were baiting you with statements that if you withdrew you were conceding their argument.”

    Point taken, I respect your forum rules. I had no idea I was violating them and will not comment further.

  349. enrique says:

    Gary: like I was saying… lol.

    Yes, she wants a way out, she knows he is never going to be released and like a spouse lying in a hospital bed in a vegetative state, she’s fatigued. There could be many underlying reasons, but clearly, claiming abuse and that he’s a bad guy is key to getting the P-pass. The church will enfold around her to support her “strong, independent” decision.

  350. BradA says:

    The local Christian radio station we have been listening to plays the ACLJ show daily and it seemed to me that they are really just fundraising for themselves. Filling out surveys, for example, has no value other than generating a mailing list for them (and possibly others) to hit up for donations.

    I was more disposed to them much earlier in their life, but I am not impressed now at all with them.

  351. Dalrock says:

    @Gary

    She wants an exit strategy.

    And I have a little bit of sympathy for her situation. She’s worn out, probably lonely, probably upset. She’s lacking human connection with a man she loves. And so she’s trying to rack her brain to look for justification to dump her, and came up with abuse. So she emailed her friends with the information, in the hope that she would gain support, because she knew that in this situation, it would look very bad if she straight up dumped him.

    I share your sympathy, in that she clearly was severely tempted. This temptation would always be there, but our culture (including Christian culture) is right there whispering in her ear and standing by to magnify the impact. It is both evil and cruel.

    As for the nature of the temptation (assuming she wasn’t coerced), there could be other explanations aside from a desire to create moral cover to exit a very difficult marriage. It could be as simple as she was hurting a great deal, and perhaps she was angry with Saeed at the moment (over anything, past or present, real or imagined) and lashed out as the culture repeatedly whispers to do.

    It could also be that she was understandably exhausted and a bit (or more than a bit) jealous of all of the sympathy that is flowing his way. As Empath has written this kind of attention is a powerful motivator, especially for women. One hint that this might have been a factor is her second to last tweet before going silent:

    This is a great article that summarizes some of what the Lord has been teaching me. I hope it encourages you all!

    The link is to a Christianity Today article about one of Naghme’s facebook posts. The title of the article is: Like her husband Pastor Saeed Abedini, Naghmeh also under fire for her strong Christian faith

    Her accusations neatly change the focus from Saeed to herself as the victim. Instead of him being the one suffering imprisonment and abuse as a result of his loyalty to Christ, it is now her who is suffering these things.

  352. Dave says:

    @Dragonfly

    It’s the same possibly with what happened to her – she may not have known it would be unsafe to share with someone in a private email.

    It was never established that she sent private emails. It was only ASSUMED by Liz, and now by you. Please let’s go easy on the massive reframing.
    But, seriously, why is it that women seem not to be able to discuss a topic as it is presented without reframing it into something else? Not only here but virtually everywhere you have to debate a woman. Do women reframe issues and situations consciously, or it is simply part of their nature?

  353. OKRickety says:

    bluepillprofessor said on November 24, 2015 at 9:21 am

    Gary said on November 24, 2015 at 8:35 am
    What she needs is the Church to step in, remind her of her obligations to her husband, but also support her through what is a terrible situation.

    Are you new to this blog? What will happen is that team woman will rally around this abuse “victim.” Team women and manginas will welcome her new boyfriend into the church with open arms.

    @BPP,

    While your statement is true, why lambaste Gary for also making a true statement? It’s obvious to most readers that you (and many other commenters) are correct, but it is also appropriate to proclaim what Christ’s church should do. How does it help to just point out the negative, without teaching the truth?

  354. enrique says:

    A woman whispering a “truth” to another woman, is a manner in which to spread said material. Every woman knows it, every man should be mindful of it. In companies and government agencies, women typically start by telling a pre-selected co-worker (before even going to HR), that they feel “really creeped out by Bob in the mail room”, aware that a month later, HR will seek out “witnesses” to verify contemporaneous claims. It goes on all the time.

    This was all about narrative setting, and may wind up being about money at some point, against any variety of people/entities.

    OFF TOPIC (Sorta): Btw, any lawyers in here know if any CLASSMATES of “it’s a clock in a briefcase, duh!” boy have a cause of action to sue HIM for the distress caused by his actions? I would think good discovery and depositions could demonstrate it was NOT his creation, was not part of any ongoing science project, was not solicited to be brought to school as part of any project, was not unique, and was unreasonably placed inside a briefcase to “illicit fear and distress” upon fellow students.

  355. Chris says:

    “The local Christian radio station we have been listening to plays the ACLJ show daily and it seemed to me that they are really just fundraising for themselves.”

    The ACLJ is largely an extension of Fox News – GOP gigolos.

  356. Ernst Schreiber says:

    It’s amazing how much information about a person’s character can be gleemed from one short rather unrevealing article. That hasn’t been my experience in reading media pieces. It also hasn’t been my experience that more information can’t be useful or revealing.

    Other than the murder, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?

  357. Anonymous Reader says:

    What she needs is the Church to step in, remind her of her obligations to her husband, but also support her through what is a terrible situation.

    Yeah, sure. Look, it is entirely possible that she picked up the whole “porn use is adultery is abuse” meme from her “sisters in the church”. That’s a major part of the Original Posting, you see; that the American churches have adopted the idea that accusation of abuse is conviction, and therefore once the nuclear bomb of “He Abused Me” is dropped all debate, all discussion, in fact all thought immediately ceases in favor of endless emoting.

    Please name a church that teaches “women have obligations to their husbands”, and be specific, not “The Catholic Church” or “The Baptist Church”. Give a name like “Third Baptist Church of Midworld, Flyover, Pastor John Smith” that can be checked.

    Thanks in advance.

  358. She wrote an email that cast a pall of abuser over her imprisoned husband. If she is repentant about that all she would make as public a retraction as she could muster. Period.

  359. Hawk&Rock says:

    God wants Neghmeh to be happy. Anyone here who denies that denies that God is love.

    Who are any of you to judge how God’s will is realized for her?

    Anyone who doesn’t support her fully is not a real Christian and I feel sorry for you.

    Her husband? Who knew he was so compromised by sin? It must have been torture for his wife to cover up for him all these years! I will pray that he can overcome his demons. He has much work to do. Much hard work.

    …and that’s correct modern view of situations like this.

  360. @God is Laughing

    It’s too late for that. Any retraction at this point is *PROOF* she was abused and is still being controlled and coerced all the way from a prison cell in Iran. Haven’t you read the handbook? Retraction = Confirmation of Abuse.

  361. enrique says:

    Artisanal: Exactly. A retraction, per the Feminist manifesto, only lends credence to the original claim. Just like claiming rape 6 weeks after sleeping with a guy and texting him how awesome of a couple you would make–is only further evidence of the grip of patriarchy and proof of rape.

    The purpose of the allegations are the allegations themselves…the are “truthSpeak” once stated and are the cultural equivalent to a jury foreman standing upright to read your conviction of guilt.

  362. Pingback: “Paid off debt!” “Empower women!” “Live for me!” …..Proverbs 31:1-3 | Empathologism

  363. @Dalrock
    If you don’t delete this and ban me for saying this, I request any discussion of my comments be limited to men. Thanks.

    @Dave
    But, seriously, why is it that women seem not to be able to discuss a topic as it is presented without reframing it into something else?

    This thread has been very enlightening for me and as a result I am changing my personal policy.

    In any discussion the clear facts will far more often than not put a woman’s bad behavior on display; women will automatically take it very personally as if it were an attack on them and it’s a visceral response like the fear of being punched in the face. Instant NAWALT argument and then reframe, deflection or strawman to derail the discussion. Why? Because AWALT.

    I’ll say it again. AWALT. Why? Because they are ALL under the curse given to their mother Eve.

    Write it on the back of your hand: All women are cursed by God and becoming a Christian doesn’t change that. It’s true that with the power of the Holy Spirit women can overcome the effects of the curse, but it will always be a struggle because the curse won’t go away until we get glorified bodies and *all things* are made new. That hasn’t happened yet.

    The subject of women being cursed by God is one that I have never seen any serious discussion of. I suspect the reason is it’s so offensive to men that it can’t be discussed. Yes, you heard me. Offensive to men. In a judgment-free setting women can and do admit how they really are. It’s the men who can’t deal with the bitterness of the Red Pill that can’t handle it. My mother? Yes. My wife? Yes. Every single one of them. Deal with it.

    Every significant talking point of red pill wisdom can be completely explained by Genesis 3:16.

    That, Dave, is the weak point all women have. They were born with it. Women intrinsically know what they’re really like and the only question is the level of veneer on top of it. They rush to defend other women out of the instinct of self defense.

    So, what’s the problem? MEN are the problem. I’ll say it again. MEN are the problem. It’s right there in the book, women are cursed. Men were not.

    “Your desire shall be for your husband”

    That word desire is used only two other places, once in Genesis 4:7, a desire to control; and again in SoS in the sense of sexual desire. Blue-pill Biblical scholars and pundits have argued for centuries over which should be the usage in Genesis 3:16 but Red Pill wisdom reveals that it’s both. This is where hypergamy comes from, it’s part of God’s curse on women. First they seek to control and that’s where the fitness tests come from. When the man establishes he’s fit the sexual desire follows.

    “And he shall rule over you.”

    Ephesians 5:22-24 points straight back to that. Why is the wife to submit to her husband in all things? Because God said so in Genesis 3:16 and that should be read as a COMMAND to men to rule over their women. The problem is the men aren’t ruling over the women. That’s why giving women the vote was completely contrary to what God ordained.

    It isn’t that women are feral beasts, it’s that they are cursed by God. I’m not going to do a full-blown Bible study on that passage here, but part of loving your wife (or any other woman) is to recognize her for what she is. Cursed. So when the question of whether women have moral agency comes up, remember the truth: they’re cursed.

    I’m thinking there are men reading this and their blood pressure has risen a few dozen points by this time, so I’ll say it again. Women are cursed by GOD. Every single one of them. Even that beautiful daughter of yours. MGTOW isn’t the answer, the answer is in Genesis 3:16. Rule over them. Hold them strictly accountable.

    You can’t love them until you recognize that fact. However, the cultural resistance to doing so is so strong that even on a blog like this, some subjects in the area of holding the women strictly accountable are taboo. Think about that. Our blog host has specifically stated that discussions of marital corporal punishment are off limits and I’m guessing that it’s because the subject is extremely inflammatory and culturally unacceptable. He has not specifically stated that I can’t discuss polygyny, but that too seems to be a taboo subject judging by the posts of mine that he’s deleted.

    The subject of banning women has come up on this thread but I’m not saying not to allow women into discussions, I’m saying men should recognize them for what they are. So, when you see women doing what women do so well (NAWALT, etc.), there is a simple response that will separate the men from the manginas.

    Remember The Curse

    Don’t argue with them or point out what they’re doing, just say it.

    You Are Cursed

    Saying that to a woman, any woman, hurts, doesn’t it. I know Liz from other places on the web and I like her. But, in this thread, I’ve come to realize that as much as I like and respect Liz, she’s still a woman. A married lady and a mother, but still a woman, cursed by God.

    Men, saddle up. Women are not the enemy. The real enemy is the men who refuse to recognize that God cursed women and women are the way they are: cursed. The men who grant women autonomy and refuse to hold them accountable.

  364. Pingback: Guilty if charged | Dalrock

  365. Minesweeper says:

    @JDG says: November 23, 2015 at 8:02 pm
    “So if a woman is abused when her husband looks at porn, is the husband abused when the wife reads 50 shades of gay?”

    Of course not, for the translated scripture states its only looking at women that’s adultery of the heart. Billionaire male S&M fetishes dont count, not does it involve looking, reading isnt part of the (terribly bad) translation.

    Matthew 5:28-29New International Version – UK (NIVUK)

    28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

    So looking, woman – tick
    reading, man – nope

    Its almost as if the translated scripture was designed perfectly for women. Saying that, if she was watching leso porn herself and looking at woman, would anyone condemn her for that or consider her husband being abused by her?

  366. feeriker says:

    Her husband? Who knew he was so compromised by sin? It must have been torture for his wife to cover up for him all these years! I will pray that he can overcome his demons. He has much work to do. Much hard work.

    And maybe the fact that he’s locked up in an Iranian torture prison is because he’s being punished for those sins.

    I’m very surprised we haven’t heard THAT ONE yet from the churchian pitchfork-torch-and-shotgun brigade.

  367. JDG says:

    surgery-could-give-men-wombs-1302360099545142.html

    Feminists everywhere are rejoicing. They couldn’t ever really become men, so the next best thing is to make men into women.

  368. patchasaurus says:

    Seriously, dragonfly picking up with the “private email to a trusted friend” theme. Rididculous.

    DALROCK perfectly stated “The temptation is very strong, especially the longer the discussion goes and when there is an emotional investment, to go for a strategy to obscure the issue long enough that readers will either become bored or confused. Compounding this problem is that the women who do this don’t understand the difference between this and a logical disagreement.”

    And cannot understand no matter. Liz has agreed to comment no further with no comprehension at all, just claims she didn’t know any better.

    The only issue that matters is that a Christian husband and father was declared a mental and emotional abuser and a porno freak by a betraying wife while he has no ability to stand against the charges. Really, there is no stand to take in the current cultural climate that would not bury him or any one of us even further. The only accepted actions are full comfession and then submission, emotional brokenness and contrition, an apology to everybody, sex addict classes and reprogramming, and we all know what the result of these actions is: The empowered warrior wife ruling everything while having the public image of a long-suffering, gentle and oh-so-godly woman who has such a hard path being married to such a miserable wretch of a man, who himself lives out his days as a disgraced and neutered lap dog, just working and hoping for a scrap of attention. SHUDDER.

  369. infowarrior1 says:

    @Minesweeper

    The NIV since the 2011 version has been the feminist translation. There are many example as documented by the council for biblical manhood and womanhood (although they themselves are caving) in a PDF comparison with the 1984 version.

  370. Anonymous Reader says:

    surgery-could-give-men-wombs-1302360099545142.html

    JDG
    Feminists everywhere are rejoicing. They couldn’t ever really become men, so the next best thing is to make men into women.

    Not all men. Not the Alphas, the 20%. Just the unattractive ones. You know, the 80%. The beta orbiters, who will do anything, anything for a hope of a woman’s affection.

    It would be the ultimate in AF-BB…so we can expect the 3rd stage poz feminists to cheer for this.

  371. Ernst Schreiber says:

    @Artisanal Toad?

    And what does it mean that God cursed the ground instead of Adam? How should we read Paul’s admonition to husbands in the rest of Ephesians 5 in light of Genesis 3:17-19?

  372. OKRickety says:

    @Artisanal Toad

    Thank you for the very thought-provoking comment. I think there is much truth in it.

    Artisanal Toad said on November 24, 2015 at 3:04 pm
    In a judgment-free setting women can and do admit how they really are.

    That, Dave, is the weak point all women have. They were born with it. Women intrinsically know what they’re really like and the only question is the level of veneer on top of it.

    In my experience, it is a rarity for women to admit their true nature. I think that women intrinsically desire their husband, but that desire is coated with layers of denial until it is almost impossible for it to be reached, if they are even able to recognize that it actually exists deep down inside.

  373. JDG says:

    Please name a church that teaches “women have obligations to their husbands”, and be specific

    Although I do attend such a church, and I believe John N does as well, I choose not to name it for obvious (to me at least) reasons. There may be another more prominent church, Grace Community Church in Sun Valley CA that teaches this, though I can not say 100% for sure.

    On You Tube I’ve heard the pastor (John MacArthur) teach that wives do have obligations, but I’ve also heard him use the term “mutual submission” while re-defining the term “submission” to mean that the husband submits to the needs of his wife rather than the will of his wife.

    It was still to much for me to agree with entirely (mutual submission is not taught in the Bible IMO, even if we redefine it); however, he did actually mention obligations of the wife toward her husband. Whether or not they consistently teach this I cannot say, but it is possible as the pastor is typically consistent in other male / female matters.

    I only mention this to say that there are small pockets of us here and there, but we are vastly outnumbered.

  374. JDG says:

    So looking, woman – tick
    reading, man – nope

    Its almost as if the translated scripture was designed perfectly for women.

    I think that for most of history it was understood that a woman could not divorce, let alone divorce because a man looked at another women with lust. In spite of how a twisted society may view them, these passages do not render special privileges to women.

  375. JDG says:

    The beta orbiters, who will do anything, anything for a hope of a woman’s affection.

    The poor slobs. We really do live in a sick society.

  376. L. Lurker says:

    @Dalrock:

    The problem is not that women do not agree, but that very few women can disagree and present logical arguments to issues they are personally/emotionally invested in. The temptation is very strong, especially the longer the discussion goes and when there is an emotional investment, to go for a strategy to obscure the issue long enough that readers will either become bored or confused.

    Since Liz presented cogent and valid rejoinders to this discussion, such as it was, your accusation that she somehow fit the mythical irrational female mold does not have merit. If anything, the emotional investment of those who were unable to consider the validity of her arguments was so strong as to render their arguments, such as they were, irrational, and often vitriolically so.

    I have no bone to pick here, or sides to choose, but your accusation directed at Liz is pure projection, I’m afraid. You just cannot see it, because such is the nature of projection.

    Compounding this problem is that the women who do this don’t understand the difference between this and a logical disagreement.

    Would you consider this (just a latest random sample from this thread) an example of logical disagreement:

    Remember The Curse

    Don’t argue with them or point out what they’re doing, just say it.

    You Are Cursed

    Saying that to a woman, any woman, hurts, doesn’t it. I know Liz from other places on the web and I like her. But, in this thread, I’ve come to realize that as much as I like and respect Liz, she’s still a woman. A married lady and a mother, but still a woman, cursed by God.

    I’d certainly hope not.

  377. patchasaurus says:

    The only option for the accused and betrayed husband is to to stand his ground and reject every accusation of the sort. This does, of course, lead to him being run over and buried, but it is not his destruction. Yes, she will divorce. Yes, he will lose status and relationships in the community. Yes, he will lose time with his children. Yes, he will lose much of his earned resources. What he will not lose is his dignity. I think Rob Roy said that dignity is a gift a man gives himself. He will not lose his character, nor his faith and right standing with God. He will not lose his health, unless he lets the emotional pain take hold into physical illness. This is dangerous! Depression really does make one sick. The man of courage must take heart and overcome all of these things. Trust God and His promises.

    I strongly disagree that the anecdotal descriptions from men’s personal lives here on this site are betrayal. There is first the basic and understood realm of anonymity, although this can be fragile and I myself have concerns about this. More to the point is that what is found here are not betrayal, but rather responses to betrayal. This is the safe haven for a man to defend himself against betrayal. It is a very important aspect of spaces like this. It is through seeking and finding this common struggle, these many kindred spirits, that made red pill truth a reality to me. Data and essays about the state of culture and the nature of women are one thing, but countless tales from men JUST LIKE ME and the struggles they face, the shocking actions their wives take, the brutal honesty required to put THAT stuff out there, this is what has truly changed my life. This is what has turned me from a simpering wimp into a fearless bad ass. I like whan Ali said, “I’m a bad man and I’m knocking out all chumps.”

    I WAS the cover boy for beta boy kitchen bitch magazine. I did more for my wife and home than anybody I knew. I cooked and cleaned and drove her around and picked up the kids and spent my way into perpetual brokeness even though I make a great living. It’s just that ass flattering Lucky Brand jeans go for about $150/pair and she bought them 6 at a time. Thye more I did the more contempt I received and the less sex. Soon I was declared a sex addict for wbeing upset that I didn’t get it. Then I was labeled controlling for withdrawing my side of the equation in weak retaliation. Then I was labeled ABUSER. Sexua Abuser, for expecting it. Emotional Abuser, for not tolerating rejection and her overall lousy attitude. Spiritua Abuser, for daring to stand on Scripture and marriage vows to correct her.

    I was THIS CLOSE to caving on the whole thing even though I knew it was all her. After all, a good dad does whatever it takes to keep the kids and wife all happy and whole. I was signed up for counseling and marriage intensives and retreats and sex AA. The whole thing. Somehting deep in my soul pushed back hard and then I found Dalrock and then I found Rollo and the rest is history.

    I will never look back and the last two years have been very difficul- displaced, broke, lonesome, very concerned, but by the end of the year I will have restored all relationships that matter to me (forget the phony churchians who tried to shame me), I will have my home back (which I owned outright, was actually 100% debt free going into this) and will have full custody and primary residence with my remaining two sons in the house (both teens). My business has taken off, my network of people has improved dramatically and all of my true friends and associates are angling to participate in new ventures with me (I am a developer and investor). I am not even thinking about involving a woman in this. I am not MGTOW by choice, but I am a strong Christian and not given to sleeping with women out of marriage and I am not going to get married. This is going to be the most difficult part for a while, but I am confident in my integrity and in God.

    I never disparaged my wife in court, never sunk to her level of aligning community and church people, never called her names. I remained stoic, stayed focused and kept frame throughout, never varied my position and never compromised the TRUTH. I recounted to essential people her actions in as factual a manner as I could, recounted some of her words quoted directly, although as all of you surely know, those words NEVER lined up with her actions. I did all of this necesarily and it was not a betrayal. I will be divorced in less than two weeks now after over 2 1/2 years of difficulty, but I NEVER betrayed my wife.

    No woman lurking here and jumping into the conversation can add to or gain anything from the harsh and very real truths of this original post or really anything that is spoken of here. They are only observers and casually using this for their own feels and confidence. This is what made me so vocal and hostile toward Liz. She and hers will never get it. They have no skin in the game. Whether you know it or not, we ALL MEN have skin in the game.

  378. patchasaurus says:

    @L Lurker

    Care to summarize her cogent and valid rejoinders?

    Are you really claiming you culled AT’s statement as a “random sampling”?

    I’m not attempting to agree with or challenge his statement, but are you able to summarize why you take issue with AT’s statement rather than just smugly implying it (“I’d certainly hope not.”)?

  379. patchasaurus says:

    I won’t ask about the irrational female being “mythical”. I get you. I know you.

  380. L. Lurker

    I’m literally laughing my ass off at your comment. You’re new here or you would know that Dalrock barely tolerates me and there are others who honestly believe I’ve been banned here. You’d know that if you were a regular reader. I make *EVERYBODY* uncomfortable when I start quoting Scripture or talking about Biblical ideas. The idea that I’m a *random sampling* of literally *anything* is hilarious. Honey, I’m a six-sigma outlier in anybody’s book and I don’t care if you’ve got your panties in a wad, you’ll just have to deal with it.

    Contrary to what he’s said to me in the past, I do have respect for Dalrock so I’m not going to unload on you. Believe me, I could leave scorched earth here. But… the bottom line is your argument is with God. Not with me, not with Dalrock or anybody else. Your problem is you don’t like what God has said and it makes you angry.

    Woman, you are cursed.

    My best advise for you is to settle down, put it out of your mind and go give your husband a blowjob.

  381. Minesweeper says:

    @infowarrier,JDG

    I prefer the Wycliffe Bible (WYC)
    Matthew 5:28 But I say to you, that every man that seeth a woman [for] to covet her, hath now done lechery by her in his heart [now he hath done lechery with her in his heart].

    My point being that the translation is specific to looking at woman (as its presented), mostly from a man’s perspective. Women get a free pass checking guys out – even looking at them !! And as for reading, well its not mentioned here.

    OUtrageous, the sexisms !

    Now the greek on the other hand has a different meaning entirely.

  382. JDG says:

    the mythical irrational female mold

    lol … yeah, I remember that one. That’s the myth that keeps proving itself true. What do we call “myths” that are repeatedly proven true?

  383. Minesweeper says:

    @JDG says:”I think that for most of history it was understood that a woman could not divorce, let alone divorce because a man looked at another women with lust. In spite of how a twisted society may view them, these passages do not render special privileges to women.”

    REally? I think nowadays they may have missed that memo.

  384. JDG says:

    REally? I think nowadays they may have missed that memo.

    They’re missing more than a memo.

  385. patchasaurus says:

    Perhaps the “cogent and valid rejoinder” of Liz was the hypothetical and illuminating (not) “man beats dog while child cries” gem, used as a misdirection. I have one of my own:

    Man goes before judge, charged with having sex in public with a dead dog, testifies, “Your Honor, I SWEAR I did not know the dog was dead!”

    Some people just don’t get it.

  386. BradA says:

    AT,

    You don’t make me nervous in the slightest, mostly because many of your quotes are taken completely out of context. I agree with some of what you post, but only when it really does line up with the Scriptures, not when it fits your own views.

    Just a general comment though. You are not as important as you think you are. Neither am I for that matter, but then I don’t think I am.

    LL,

    You failed to realize that Liz did not understand that betrayal is betrayal. Public betrayal is worse, but private betrayal is still very wrong coming from a wife. It is worse when it is made up, for how could her husband be abusing here physically or sexually when he is locked up in another country?

    General note: I fail to see the connection of how a woman is “abused” because a man consumes porn. Such may be unhealthy, but it does not impact her. The only impact I could see would be from the Scripture that says a married person’s body is their spouse’s not their own, but then that would require the reverse which is not pushed. I still don’t see porn use as abuse, no matter how harmful it may or may not be.

  387. patchasaurus says:

    re: AT
    Not attempting a massive misdirect. Not attempting a shaming campaign. However, it is necesary for men to hold one another accountable. Neither do I find you nervous making. Your comments occasionally are intriguing and thought provoking. I must agree that you take most of Scripture out of context to serve your agenda, and this is something you need to search yourself in for idolatry and general sin. Mostly, honestly, I see you as an outlier for sure, but probably not in the sense you wish to be viewed. Earthen subterranean living will only ever appeal to a very slim few and ginseng farming as well. Sharing hearth, table, most of all bed with multiple so-called wives will never resonate with Christ followers and is not supported by the whole of Scripture.

  388. theasdgamer says:

    The key take away from the RNN article is that Mrs. Saedini halted her public advocacy. I know that a lot of people here want to tar and feather her for false abuse claims, but likely those were just a smokescreen that we were supposed to conclude were obviously false. Mrs. Saedini needed some sort of rationale for halting the public advocacy and she erred in sending the rationale in emails, which she admitted. I suspect that the rationale was needed because of some deal cooked up between the Iranian govt. and Mrs. Saedini, likely to get better treatment for her husband.

    Mrs. Saedini is going through trials. Don’t make it worse. If you want to help the pastor, find a way to do it with direct action or else pray.

    All that being said, Dalrock is perfectly correct to heap scorn on the churchian feminazi propagandists for using Mrs. Saedini’s trials to push their agenda.

  389. Gunner Q says:

    ” I suspect that the rationale was needed because of some deal cooked up between the Iranian govt. and Mrs. Saedini, likely to get better treatment for her husband.”

    You mean, she ruined her husband so the Iranians would no longer have to? I don’t see how this situation could be any part of a good-faith deal with Iran.

    We’re talking about the difference between being killed by an enemy soldier in combat and being falsely accused of war crimes as part of your leader’s peace offering. Just shoot me, please.

  390. theasdgamer says:

    @ Panyim

    I’m in the process of separation (and probably divorce) after 35 years of marriage. Shortly before our separation my wife accused of emotional abuse. It was strictly her hamster working overtime trying to justify dumping me after 35 years. You could see it in her face and composure.

    I’m sorry to hear that. I know about separation, having gone through it twice.

  391. theasdgamer says:

    @ Liz

    Is this my queue to throw an “amused mastery” smirk?

    No, amused mastery is the queue to the right.

  392. theasdgamer says:

    Lots of men are jumping the gun when a woman is counseling waiting on more info. Stop and think.

  393. Tim says:

    The emails were the not the root betrayal. They are evidence of the true betrayal which was her deciding not to support her husband anymore in rebellion of her marital commitment to her husband and God. The e-mails are evidence of her awareness of her own guilt in that she felt she needed to manufacture an excuse for her betrayal.

    Whether she sent her justification for her reneging her commitment to a mailing list of supporters or some friend or a major media outlet doesn’t change anything about that decision not to be his help-meet.

    Scriptural notes.
    There is no audience size specified in “thou shalt not bear false witness”.
    There is a required minimum number of separate people making an accusation/bearing witness against someone before it should be granted any credulity by other believers.
    There is a Godly process in dealing with someone who has sinned against you: first pray, then confront them privately, then confront them privately with a brother or sister, then confront them with an elder, then take it to the whole church. Nowhere in the process is gossiping/accusing them behind their back. At any point if they repent, you are to forgive them completely.

  394. theasdgamer says:

    Some of you married men might find help in my post, Submission Shit Tests. One of my best, I think.

    https://theasdgamer.wordpress.com/2015/11/25/submission-shit-tests/

  395. OKRickety says:

    Tim said on November 25, 2015 at 10:23 am
    There is a Godly process in dealing with someone who has sinned against you: first pray, then confront them privately, then confront them privately with a brother or sister, then confront them with an elder, then take it to the whole church. Nowhere in the process is gossiping/accusing them behind their back. At any point if they repent, you are to forgive them completely.

    I agree that Christian discipline (Matthew 18:15-17) is one of the most-ignored and least-taught passages of scripture. In this case, I don’t know how this would be applied since her husband is jailed in Iran, but that does not give her the freedom to act as she has.

  396. theasdgamer says:

    @ Heidi

    Thing is, Naghmeh Abedini doesn’t need defenders; she can offer further explanations or defense, if she wishes. Pastor Abedini does not have that luxury.

    Assuming that Mrs. Abedini isn’t being coerced by the sadistic Iranians to make it appear as though she is dumping her husband, it might be true that she doesn’t need defenders. The pastor certainly needs defenders.

  397. Anonymous Reader says:

    JDG, thanks for pointers. If memory serves, Elspeth has mentioned John MacArthur a time or two favorably. Not picking a fight, but those exceptions tend to prove the rule, as this whole Saeed fiasco in the Churchian media clearly shows.

  398. JDG says:

    AR – No arguement here.

  399. jeff says:

    Watch out for John Macarthur…

    He has changed his position on things. Divorce, Submission, Wine (something else but can’t remember).

    If you have to change your position either: you were wrong in the first place and didn’t study and therefore have taught falsely. God will forgive with repentence, but JM hasn’t. or you should have kept your mouth shut in the first place. Which one has he done?

  400. JDG says:

    jeff – I’ve changed my position on things too as I’ve grown. As long as he has changed to agree with the Bible I’m okay with that. If he is moving away from the Bible, that’s not okay. I’m no expert on JM, but if I see any notable changes for the worst I will post them. So far what I’ve seen and read has been pretty consistent.

  401. Pingback: An Implicit Agreement? | Spawny's Space

  402. Anonymous Reader says:

    On the topic of changing one’s mind…in my opinion the “why” and the “how” matter. I will use the word “why” to refer to the specific process of changing my mind, and the “how” to refer to my outward manifestation. The perfect example: The Glasses, aka red pill.

    Most men under the age of, hmm, 70+ maybe, were brought up with some degree of brainwashing about women. That 70’s equalitarian “men and women are exactly the same” femnist cowshit specifically was jammed into our heads through mass media, through “educational” brainwashing, for a lot of men they got it in the churches as well. This junk isn’t in tune with reality. I used to think in equalitarian terms, I was wrong, I changed my mind.

    Why did I change my mind? Because I stumbled into the androsphere and I read and argued and thought, and I tested manosphere claims against reality. I tested basic Game principles, and found that they worked a whole lot better than all the flower-petals-and-footrubs garbage. I tested Amused Mastery and found it to work amazingly better than supplication. I tested Agree & Amplify and found it worked, while crawling and scraping failed.

    I also read studies, not just the press reports but the actual studies that demonstrated clearly vast differences between male and female brains and behavior. I read the science. I understood the science. I understood the methods used to test the hypotheses. As someone who is data driven, I have learned over the years to discard a hypothesis when it fails testing.

    As for “how”, I have been upfront in the androsphere about where I was, vs. where I am. Now I insert bits of unpleasant truths into conversations In Real Life as well, and use my knowledge in personal relationships, even brief interactions with strangers.

    This is, in my opinion, the honest way to proceed. “I used to believe X, but I was shown clearly that was a false position, and that Y is closer to the truth” encapsulates the “why” and “how”.

    If a preacher or a motivational speaker changes his position on some Bible quote but does not explicate the “why” and the “how”, then further questions must be asked. For example, I know a man who was a Baptist. He was raised to believe that drinking alcohol was a sin. As an adult, he apparently drifted away from church entirely, and now he’s in another denomination where drinking alcohol is regarded as an individual choice, but drinking to excess (drunkenness) is regarded as a sin. He still doesn’t drink alcohol. But he’ll buy a round of beers, with a root beer or iced tea for himself, without a problem. His position is this: he has been shown that the previous belief, “drinking is sin”, was based on a flawed reading of the Bible. He has no problem with other men drinking. He chooses for various reasons to still refrain from drinking alcohol.

    Summary: “I used to believe teetotal was Bible truth, but now I know that was a wrong reading. I still abstain for my own reasons, and will oppose drinking to excess, but have no problem with alcohol per se”. In my opinion, this is an honest way to proceed, because the chain of reasoning can be seen clearly. The “why” and “how” are clearly demonstrated. Logic is shown to be part of the change. It’s not an emotional spasm, or an underhanded “Oceana has always been at war with Eastasia” sleight of hand.

    And yeah, I admit that it’s a classic male reasoning chain. Eh, I was Born This Way….

  403. Jim says:

    “…..So maybe MGTOWs have a point?”

    Gee, no shit sherlock.

    “your accusation that she somehow fit the mythical irrational female mold does not have merit.”

    The denial is strong in this one….to the point of the ridiculous. If this isn’t a joke this person is either a woman lying to us and herself or it’s a pussified male in denial. dime a dozen.

    @Artisanal Toad:

    Ok, I agree with what you said accept one thing (but only partially). you said the answer isn’t MGTOW but ruling them. Ok, great. When we get of women’s ability to call 911 and use the Feminazi Gestapo to destroy our lives I’ll agree with that. Until then I’m MGTOW.

  404. Jim says:

    “…..So maybe MGTOWs have a point?”

    Gee, you think?

    “our accusation that she somehow fit the mythical irrational female mold does not have merit.”

    The denial is strong on this one, to the point of the ridiculous. It’s either a woman or a pussified male.

    @Aresinal Toad:

    I agree with you but you did day that MGTOW is not the answer. Maybe not in the long run but until the women can’t dial 911 for the Feminist Gestapo to come and destroy my life I’ll take MGTOW any day.

  405. Jimm says:

    I’m just always amazed how women can just get away with literally anything and even the Christian churches don’t get it. That’s just incredibly bizarre.

  406. Kate Minter says:

    When a woman cries “abuse,” it often means the man stopped taking hers. He was “verbally abusive” means he yelled back at her. He was “physically abusive” means he defended himself when she attacked him. Abusers accuse their victims of abuse to confuse them and put them on the defensive. Never defend. Never never take the bait. Never apologize.

  407. Minesweeper says:

    @Kate, generally, returning the behaviour pelted out by females to men, – screaming, slaps, raging, controlling, manipulating, lying, is regarded as abuse. And tbh, if you suffer for years just taking it, is also regarded as abuse.

    So really, the question nowadays is, what isn’t regarded as abuse by a woman?

  408. Paniym
    So now I’m strapped for spousal support for the rest of my life. Did you catch that????? I said for the rest of my life. You know…… until the day I die. Death is the only escape!

    Why not just QUIETLY liquidate and leave the country? I don’t understand men who refuse to consider this option. After alimony and/or child support is taken out there is often little left for a man to live on normally, even higher earners ($50-100k). Are these men so greedy or so cowardly to not say fuck it and leave. If a man is being forced to give half or more as it often is to his ex so she can screw her new lovers in the house he paid for that is called SLAVERY.

    Fairness, justice and equity do not exist in family law. This is not a new thing. That is why ALL men who are still married should always have a plan once the hammer falls. Men who do not end up screwed. Because every man is more likely to find himself a defendant in a divorce case than not, men who do not prepare are fools.

    I’m going through the same thing. Wife knows I will either leave the country or eat a bullet than give her a dime. I refuse to pay for kids I am nothing but a free babysitter to. Once a man is evicted from his family is is only a matter of tie until the paternal bonds are irreparably damaged. This is for most men. There are a few that can deal with their ex’s but that is rare. In most cases a man needs to really kiss his ex’s ass just to see the kids. And that is usually after spending 10’s of thousands in the divorce litigation. Why bother? Buy a boat, travel, do something fun with the money instead. If she is going for half of your future earnings leave the states and laugh as she hopefully struggles. It’s the only way women will learn, if they feel tremendous amounts of pain. Most men are today are so weak and will still run to help their former wives. Why because she stole you kids and so you can see them 8 days a month? This is the woman that destroyed your world. This is the woman that is giving her pussy away every weekend you have the kids. For the Christians she is committing adultery. For Christians that agree to support a woman with their money are complicit in their sins.

    Be tough as nails and be willing to walk away from the kids and from her. The kids may find you later if they are not poisoned too bad by the wench. Either way who cares if they do. Her leaving is a gift wrapped in a curse.

    We men are the ones abused, by our exes, by the courts and by society.

    You are only a slave if you allow yourself to be. You are free now brother!

  409. Pingback: Trading places. | Dalrock

  410. Taylor says:

    Your article is despicable. All your presumptions are sick. Your words have the tone of one who is an abuser yourself, minimizing the situation and the damage caused by your own behavior so as to excuse yourself of abuse you yourself have afflicted on others. Do the world a favor and keep to yourself.

  411. ccmkelly says:

    Wow. I cannot believe this post or the comments being made. Has it ever occurred to you that sometimes our feedback isn’t needed? It’s okay not to say anything at all (I realize I’m violating that principle right now). But, seriously – from a recovering Know-it-all to another – may I just say: You can’t possibly know what motivates Naghmeh or what her situation at home has been. The Bible warns against assuming you know what motivates someone else’s heart. She has been loving and respectful of her husband while telling her side of the story. There are two sides to every story. Let Saeed tell his side. All you need to do is lift them up in prayer, to a Savior who both forgives the sinner and provides refuge for the oppressed. That is His heart. Let love be what guides you, for BOTH the people involved in this marriage. You are so ready with an answer and a condemnation over something you know nothing about. It baffles my mind! It reminds me of Job’s friends. They were well-meaning but completely wrong. They spoke into a situation they knew nothing about. There are pastors involved personally, and hopefully counselors too – your judgement is not needed, and cannot possibly be a credible source. You seem to understand very little the complexities involved in emotionally abusive relationships. All this post has done is invite people to come throw stones. This online attacking of strangers is the American way of stoning, and it is extremely destructive. Let’s be a people who loves MERCY, who values being slow to speak and quick to listen, and who hold back our tongues over situations we know next to nothing about. The world will know we are His disciples by our LOVE. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, and let our sister Naghmeh walk away; you have no idea the battle she has faced. Sometimes, you don’t need to have an answer. And, much more often than that, you just don’t need to stand up on a soapbox and blare your answer – right or wrong as it may be – through a megaphone. The Scriptures encourage us to lead quiet lives where we mind our own business – maybe do this, and experience the blessing that comes with it.

  412. ML Caron says:

    Why is it so hard to accept this as real? There may very well be two truths here: Pastor Adedini has been falsely imprisoned and persecuted for his faith. Pastor Abedini has abused his wife. These two truths are not mutually exclusive. One does not negate the other. Too many pastors and leaders have presented Godly image to the world while his life was darkened by secret sin. Consider, if this be true, what Nahgmeh Abedini has done: she has continued to advocate for the release of the man who abused her. Nahgmeh speaking this truth is an act of loving faithfulness for her husband and their children. Refusing to conceal this sin is an act of love, of Godly obedience, because the state of his soul is more important than his reputation. God delivered him from one prison; may he also delivder Nahgmah and Saeed from this prison as well.

    http://spiritualsoundingboard.com/2016/01/16/saeed-and-naghmeh-abedini-two-kinds-of-violence-both-still-a-prison/

  413. Boxer says:

    Dear Caron, ccmkelly, et.al concern trollers:

    Why is it so hard to accept this as real? There may very well be two truths here: Pastor Adedini has been falsely imprisoned and persecuted for his faith. Pastor Abedini has abused his wife. These two truths are not mutually exclusive.

    Pretty difficult to believe her claims that the abuse worsened during his imprisonment.

    Care to explain how Saeed abused his wife, while he was in Iran, and she was in Idaho??

  414. greyghost says:

    Check out the angry double down. You are a monster Dalrock.

  415. Looking Glass says:

    @ML Caron:

    “Blind” and “foolish” are the words that come to mind when thinking about your comment.

    “Why is it so hard to accept this as real?” Why? Because basic logic says she started a Whisper campaign, removed all references of her Husband from her public profile and has now shown that she had contracted lawyers quite a while ago. If that doesn’t scream Planned Divorce, I don’t know what to tell you beyond: you’re an idiot. That is most definitely not what a Faithful Christian Wife would be doing.

    Next, there’s this little thing call “The Bible”. You might have heard of it? There’s both rules & procedures for dealing with Christians in error. Convincing fools, like you, with trendy buzzwords to build her own personal brand and act as oppressed victim. Yet what she’s actually claimed was he had a problem with Porn. So you’ve now elevated an allegation of a pornography issue to something that should be made public and used as a reason to divorce the Man. All you’re doing is rationalizing the evil in Naghmeh’s heart. You are the one that should be ashamed.

  416. JDG says:

    ML Caron and other heretics who falsely represent Christianity:

    Too many pastors and leaders have presented Godly image to the world while his life was darkened by secret sin. Consider, if this be true, …

    Why should any bible believing Christian consider her accusations true? Why should anyone even give her accusations a second thought?

    1 Tim 5:19 – Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses.

    If he were to suddenly start publicly accusing his wife of being a treacherous whore would you take him at his word as you have his wife, or would you require something more than a story that doesn’t fit with the known facts and zero evidence? Admit it. Deep down inside you believe that women can do no wrong and only men are capable of evil.

    … Consider, if this be true, what Nahgmeh Abedini has done: she has continued to advocate for the release of the man who abused her. Nahgmeh speaking this truth is an act of loving faithfulness for her husband and their children.

    Publicly shaming her husband and taking steps to remove him from the lives of his children are not acts of love regardless of what your indoctrination has taught you. “Abuse” is one of the most misused words of our time. It’s right up there with “rape” and “racist”.

  417. ccmkelly says:

    Am I blocked from commenting on this site now?

  418. ccmkelly says:

    @Boxer – It may be difficult for you to believe that the abuse worsened while he was in prison. But does that mean it’s impossible? again, I say – you don’t know the story. You are not on the inside. They obviously had plenty of contact while he was in prison. If you read her side of the story, she says he threatened to divorce her if she did not do certain things. We don’t know what those things were. Truly? It’s none of my business and it’s none of yours. But you do not know the story. Why throw stones? Why judge her? Why assume the worst? Why not just hold back judgment and let those who are actually counselling them speak into this? Why not just let Saeed speak for himself? Why not just lift them up in prayer?

    Emotional abuse is real and it possibly could have happened, even though it seems to be the hardest thing for all of you to comprehend. Why dedicate all the time and energy it took for the author to write this post and all these people to comment when none of us know anything about what happened? Is this glorifying to God? Is this why Jesus came to live the perfect life for us; is this why He came to die on the cross? Is this the Resurrection life? The Body of Christ, sitting safely behind our computers, crucifying people we don’t know about situations we are not privy to? What is the point of this?

    Maybe we should all be looking at the logs in our own eyes and not the specks in everyone else’s. Why are we so quick to think we know what happened? Why do we feel such anger rise up in our hearts so quickly? Why do we in the comments section feel such hate toward those who see things differently than we do (even calling them heretics who falsely represent Christianity, @JDG)? Why the need to condemn people’s hearts over something that doesn’t even involve us in the slightest?

    We are saved by grace. We are not saved because we have all the answers. We are not saved so that we can make judgement calls on everyone’s lives. We are saved to love. We are saved to worship.

    I just…I cannot understand this post, these comments, all the anger directed at all the people. Is this the Body of Christ? Is this the fruit of the Holy Spirit? Is this going to work some good in this broken and hurting world, into the hurting hearts of the family involved? Why are Bible verses here used as weapons? Does this make you feel holy? Does it make you feel righteous? Is it making you either?

    You all only know about this story in slivers and parts, and yet you fancy yourself the judge of people’s hearts. Sounds like someone else I know, through his letters in the New Testament.

    Paul (when he was called Saul) thought he knew the right answers too. He thought he was right. He thought he was holy. As we see when he describes himself in his letters, he was the pharisee with the MOST to boast about. Except that he was actually the chief of sinners and didn’t know it yet.

    Because when you’re wrong, but you think you’re right – well, it feels a whole lot like being right. Paul thought he was right, and he approved the death of Stephen and threw Christians into prisons with a clean conscience and a pure heart. He felt, like many of you clearly do, righteous indignation. As it turns out, though he fancied himself a spiritual giant, he was very immature. What he thought were great works of righteousness were actually breaking Christ’s heart.

    He explains it to us in his first epistle to the Corinthians. He tells us what a child he was – that when he was a child, he thought as a child, he spoke as a child, he acted like a child. Much like many of you. He threw stones, and if he didn’t throw them himself, he approved of those who did.

    But then?

    “When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. 12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

    13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.”

    Read 1 Corinthians 13. You are clanging symbols, people. And I’ve been there too. But without love, you are nothing. (Yes, you @Looking Glass.) And these words? That you so angrily type out of your feelings of self-righteousness? They are amounting to exactly zero in the Kingdom of God. You have gained exactly nothing by wasting your time on this blog.

    So, let me leave you with 1 Corinthians 13 to hopefully cut your hearts like it has cut mine in the past. And then I will say the words of Jesus to you (the words he told the adulterous woman surrounded by self-righteous stoners such as yourselves): You are forgiven. Go and sin no more.

    1 Corinthians 13
    New International Version (NIV)

    13 If I speak in the tongues[a] of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast,[b] but do not have love, I gain nothing.

    4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

    8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. 12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

    13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

  419. JDG says:

    ccmkelly says:
    January 29, 2016 at 1:01 pm

    It may be difficult for you to believe that the abuse worsened while he was in prison. But does that mean it’s impossible?

    Not impossible, but highly improbable, so why even give it the possibility of credence? Where are the two or three witnesses necessary before bringing a charge against an Elder?

    again, I say – you don’t know the story.

    Neither do the various writers who published Mrs. Saeed’s accusations without anything but her say so, and neither do YOU.

    You are not on the inside. They obviously had plenty of contact while he was in prison. If you read her side of the story, she says he threatened to divorce her if she did not do certain things.

    Where is HIS side of the story? Why are you so eager to believe her?

    We don’t know what those things were. Truly? It’s none of my business and it’s none of yours. But you do not know the story. Why throw stones?

    If defending the pastor is throwing stones, then what is accusing him? What is giving credence to such accusations without evidence?

    Why judge her?

    Why judge HIM?

    Why assume the worst?

    This is my question to you who ignore the scriptures yet try to lead the blind. Why have so many of you assumed the worse of a pastor who has spent the last four years in a third world prison for refusing to forsake the risen Lord?

    Why not just hold back judgment …

    Indeed. Why haven’t the accusers of Pastor Saeed held back judgement? Why was the accusations ever given a platform? I think you know.

    … and let those who are actually counselling them speak into this?

    Why should there even be counseling? His wife needs to repent and submit to her husband. She is supposed to be his helpmate, not his accuser.

    Why not just let Saeed speak for himself?

    Indeed, why are so many “Christians” slandering him with so much as a second thought in spite of the impossibility of the accusations. Do you suppose the Iranians flew him home so he could beat his wife and then flew him back to prison?

    Why not just lift them up in prayer?

    Many of us have been and are doing so. How many of his accusers are praying for him?

    To be continued…

  420. JDG says:

    ccmkelly says:
    January 29, 2016 at 1:01 pm

    Emotional abuse is real and it possibly could have happened,

    The fact that you could say this is revealing. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS EMOTIONAL ABUSE. You are indoctrinated and make light of those who have REALLY been abused.

    I say t you that if emotional abuse were really a thing, then MEN would have a much better claim to it than women. But it is not real. Rude behavior and hurt feelings have nothing to do with being abused. Shame on people like you who claim other wise and open doors for weak willed women who are bent on sinning to destroy their families.

    even though it seems to be the hardest thing for all of you to comprehend.

    There is nothing to comprehend except that most of society has succumbed to politically correct thinking and turned away from biblical teaching. You show me in the Bible where “emotional abuse” exists.

    Why dedicate all the time and energy it took for the author to write this post and all these people to comment when none of us know anything about what happened?

    Because a man of God has had his support taken from him and his reputation slandered. In situations like these the mother OFTEN slanders the father in front of his chidren. Are okay with that too? Why don’t you ask this question about time and energy to Pastor Saeed’s accusers?

    Is this glorifying to God?

    Is it glorifying to God to accuse a man in prison for his faith of abusing his wife? Is it glorifying to God to alter the meaning of words (abuse) so you can paint a bad mark on a man’s reputation, a mark that can give his wife ungodly leverage to take his children and ruin ant ministry he is involved in?
    SHAME ON YOU PEOPLE.

    Is this why Jesus came to live the perfect life for us; is this why He came to die on the cross? Is this the Resurrection life?

    Shame on you for trying to use the atoning work of the Cross to shame Pastor Saeed’s defenders.

    The Body of Christ, sitting safely behind our computers, crucifying people we don’t know about situations we are not privy to?

    Pot – meet – kettle

    What is the point of this?

    For the accusers – to undermine the work that Pastor Saeed has done for Christ and destroy the possibility of future work.

    For the defenders – To defend a man of Godwho was unjustly accused and slandered.

    Rant over.

  421. JDG says:

    Pot – meet – kettle

    is not supposed to be in italics

  422. ccmkelly says:

    I have held back judgement, and I think we all should. I never took a side. I am open to the thought she is telling the truth, that’s all. And I don’t understand the point of all of you – who are as UNinvolved as I am – taking such a definitive, angry side. Maybe Saeed has been unjustly accused (though I think Franklin Graham would have come out and said as much – maybe?) – let him defend himself. But condemning someone you don’t know about a situation you are not privy to is a waste of your time and mine. I don’t even know why I keep coming back to this board. I will let you all be now.🙂 Fight amongst yourselves.

    And no such thing as emotional abuse? @JDG – it must be nice to have a cold, hard answer for everything. I should feel more grace for you, because I’ve been there too. But it’s hard not to roll my eyes and chuckle…I just sincerely hope you are not in any kind of church leadership. But hey – just my truthful yet presumptuous opinion. I don’t know you – maybe if I did, I would understand you better.

    Don’t worry all, I’m signing out! Peace to you.

    (And sorry for a the repetitive posts. Not as computer savvy as I would like to be!)

  423. ccmkelly says:

    And…I’m back to tell @JDG – I’m sorry I took that dig at you. Truthfully, I feel offended by your stances and scared of people like you because you don’t seem like a safe person in a world full of hurting, broken people. But you and I (and probably the majority of people who read this blog – I don’t – it showed up in my Facebook feed) can agree to disagree about emotional abuse. It does not need to be my personal mission to come into a blog I largely disagree with anyway and try to get everyone to change their minds. Thankfully we are not saved by knowing that right answer – we are saved by Christ’s work and God’s grace! He sees you as someone worth loving and so I must and can too! Even if we disagree.

    I have signed petitions, sent money and prayed hard for Saeed’s release, as I’m sure you all have. I was and am so thankful the Lord heard our prayers! Maybe I am open to the idea that the entire story of abuse isn’t fabricated because I know how weak we all are. Rich Mullins has a great song, “We are not as strong as we think we are.” This is true about me – maybe it is true about Saeed. Maybe it’s true about his wife. Actually – let me rephrase – it is DEFINITELY true about all of us. So we should not be shocked, outraged and condemning when good men (and good women) fall. If the story of abuse is true, I pray Saeed will come into the light, boasting in his weakness and thus magnifying the strength of Christ in his life. Because when we’re weak, He is strong. If it is false, I pray the truth will come to light. No matter what though, the answer is love. Not outrage.

    We are to seek justice and I believe that’s what motivates people on both sides of this story. But we are to LOVE MERCY. Seek justice, but love mercy. I pray we will be a people who are motivated by an eagerness to show mercy to people instead of stoning them in the blogosphere. And that we will be strong enough to admit we actually don’t have all the answers, so that we can walk humbly with our God.

    Anyway – sorry I felt the need to dig at you @JDG. Like I said, we are not as strong as we think we are. 😉

  424. Minesweeper says:

    @ccmkelly says:
    “I have held back judgement, and I think we all should. I never took a side. I am open to the thought she is telling the truth, that’s all.

    And I don’t understand…….

    Yes we know.

    Now go and find a non-feminised non-beta non-whipped male to explain this to you. If you can find one.

  425. Liz says:

    ccmKelly,
    How is Saeed supposed to defend himself against these accusations? (this question is rhetorical)
    He came home from years in an Iranian prison, to a domestic lawsuit and a public abuse accusation. That tells us all we need to know about Naghmeh.
    Whatever she said in her odd public statement about wishing for reconciliation and her deep love and Christian faithfulness and so forth. This isn’t Christian behavior. And she does not love her husband. This is disloyal in the extreme. ‘Nuff said.

  426. Liz says:

    The public should hit her with a “sod off” shot gun.
    -Liz out

  427. Minesweeper says:

    @Liz,

    “ccmKelly” – will never understand what you are saying. I’m sure you know this by now.

    If a christian pastor helping plant churches and orphanages in a muslim stronghold while imprisoned and facing torture for over 3 years, then comes home to face false abuse allegations, TRO’s, separation from (x)wife+children and soon to receive imputed income demands (jail worthy) and probable (very definite – unfortunately) divorce.

    Doesn’t hit any chord with her.

    I doubt you can either.

  428. ccmkelly says:

    Yes @Minesweeper, because that’s what I said.

    Way to “reason together” people. Brilliant.

    My bad – I should have known better than to attempt engaging with the type of readership “dalrock” has been able to procure.

    You all just go on being you.

    Ciao!

  429. Minesweeper says:

    @ccmKelly

    Are you able to follow even this simple instruction : “Now go and find a non-feminised non-beta non-whipped male to explain this to you. If you can find one.” ?

  430. Minesweeper says:

    @ccmKelly

    You will be able to understand easier what happens at the event horizon of a black hole, than this matter.

  431. Ciao!

    For realz now or will you be back shortly with a better quip?

  432. Boxer says:

    Aww Gee, I missed CCMKelly’s reply…

    @Boxer – It may be difficult for you to believe that the abuse worsened while he was in prison. But does that mean it’s impossible? again, I say – you don’t know the story. You are not on the inside. They obviously had plenty of contact while he was in prison.

    They had plenty of contact when he was in Iran and she was in Idaho?

    This is getting crazier and crazier. How is it possible to beat someone up from 12000 km away?

    If you read her side of the story, she says he threatened to divorce her if she did not do certain things. We don’t know what those things were. Truly? It’s none of my business and it’s none of yours. But you do not know the story. Why throw stones?

    Because she’s denying a little girl and boy their father. Kids need fathers and mothers. Do you deny this?

    Why judge her?

    Because I care about high culture and civilization, and Naghmeh has decided to enrich herself at the expense of civlization, which requires healthy families and adults who were raised in two-parent homes.

    You faggots and feminists are really something. I have to hand it to you. You can defend the indefensible without an ounce of shame. Pathetic.

    Boxer

  433. Minesweeper says:

    @Boxer

    “This is getting crazier and crazier. How is it possible to beat someone up from 12000 km away?”

    Because the feellzz, suspend your reality for a moment and just consider what she has had to live through, with a bought house, kids in school, health care, money from churches.

    Its not enough I tell you, he has abused her by not providing that McMansion she dreamed of and all the sex she could cope with.

    The abusive bastard he is.

  434. Jim says:

    “This is getting crazier and crazier. How is it possible to beat someone up from 12000 km away?”

    Because vagina. That’s it. The laws of physics don’t matter.

  435. Minesweeper says:

    @Jim, the laws of sanity, now do not apply. its is clear now, the lunatics have taken over the asulym.

  436. Oy Emotional abuse.
    I try to stomp on that notion when I see it.
    The language of emotional abuse….
    -emotional abuse is worse than physical abuse, the scars are hidden
    -emotional abuse robs women of identity and self esteem
    -emotional abuse must be carefully identified using checklists

    Women recruit emotional abuse victims. Watch as women on Christian Forums or CAF forums post a fairly low level marital problem and within the first three responses will be another woman saying , “You do realize this is abuse don’t you”. Purely recruiting. Vicarious kicking of a husbands ass, any husband, by proxy authorities (church and law) who are leaning in to intervene at the closing of the first syllable of the word abuse.

    Verbal/emotional abuse…..worse than physical abuse. Test it.

    A woman is being beaten, literally pounded or being choked or something…..freeze time….ask that woman in that moment if she would prefer to keep receiving fists, or if it would be better that he stop and begin calling her harsh names and making esteem stealing remarks.

    How many physical abusers do so while in no way meting out verbal abuse at the same time? How many physical abusers are wonderfully pleasant people who inexplicably are prone to sudden urges to beat the crap out of someone, then stop and go back to being pleasant people?

    Perhaps a trip to a hospital where a victim lay in recovery after having a rib puncture her lung from a body blow. ask that woman if she’d say she would be in worse pain then, and for a longer time in the future, had the person doing the damage chosen to berate her instead.

    The problem here is that abuse has been up-defined so hysterically, and it is a veritable fount of empathy, and it is cover for many of a woman’s sins, and stupid pathetic men take every whisper of the term from any woman as a sign of grave happenings that demand instant action. Once, good men would knock the shit out of a man for blacking his wife’s eye, for the most part. But they would groan and walk away if a gaggle of gigglers started yammering about remote control abuse, or financial abuse, or if they claim emotional abuse because the spouse isnt living with them in an understanding way they would laugh and derisively say “then become more understandable”, there…..fixed. Given no quarter, there was no traction to what today has become another trigger for sunk chest crouched over ninnies to gush about while seeking the IOLI’S (Indications of Lift interest) from the women in earshot.

    ccmKelly

    And Franklin Graham…..deploying the old, -there are two sides to the story-trick is lame. Of course there are. There are liars everywhere and there are those under the deceit of their hearts and their personal jesus You, ccmKelly are deceived, Franklin Graham to his credit doesnt so much seem a Lift Chaser, but he clearly does fear his wife, his sister, and other females in his family and circle.

  437. Liz says:

    If anything can be called “emotional abuse”, it’s getting hit with a domestic lawsuit upon returning home after spending nearly four years in an Iranian prison.

  438. Dalrock says:

    @Liz

    If anything can be called “emotional abuse”, it’s getting hit with a domestic lawsuit upon returning home after spending nearly four years in an Iranian prison.

    We need a ruling from Dr. Hegstrom on this. Is what Liz wrote still “knowledge abuse”, even though she is a woman? Clearly it is abuse for me to quote her writing it, but did she commit abuse when she put her fingers to the keyboard here?

  439. Jim says:

    “Liz says:
    January 30, 2016 at 1:23 pm”

    Yup. All while having the accuser play the victim. On top of this she knows her word will be believed over his because vagina.

  440. Minesweeper says:

    @Jim, you give them waaayyy to much credit.

    Its anything that identifies as female, with or sans vag, bruce jenner who apparently is still packing meat+ 2 veg, could make the same claim against Saeed and will prob be believed.

    They have created a culture that no matter how ridiculous the accusation against a man, it wil be believed.

  441. Minesweeper says:

    @empathologism

    No I think we need to go the other way/

    Does she make you pay all the bills ? its Emotional abuse.
    Does she constantly threaten divorce ? its Emotional abuse.
    Des she withhold your kids from you ? its Emotional abuse.
    Does she alienate you from your family ? its Emotional abuse.
    Does she stop you going out with your pals ? its Emotional abuse.
    Does she stop you going to the church you want ? its Emotional abuse.
    Does she refuse to work ? its Emotional abuse.
    Does she refuse to have sex ? its Emotional abuse.
    Does she scream and rage over the slightest thing ? its Emotional abuse.
    Does she spend all your money ? its Emotional abuse.
    Is she unresponsive in bed ? its Emotional abuse.
    Does she not do what you want when you want it ? its Emotional abuse.
    Does she refuse to follow your leadership ? its Emotional abuse.
    Does she take your house\pension and future in divorce ? its Emotional abuse.

  442. Pete says:

    This is the best article on this couple and on the subject of vindictive accusations I’ve ever read. I have seen this happen to several friends. In each case the wife was cheating on them. In order to justify their sin they attempted to destroy good men. One threw rolled around in the mud on a rainy day and called 911. The other got caught roughing herself up in the bathroom, and finally one was coached by FFFP to think up any verbal thing she could and “make him look as bad as possible to get a restraining order. All three were caught lying, but still arrests were made, and good names were destroyed.

  443. Ryan says:

    So glad you wrote this article. It seemed so bizarre when she suddenly sent out those accusations, and right when her husband returned home. There are some strange motivations present. I don’t know if she enjoyed being “famous” and him being gone? Why would she try to attack him so publicly after seeming so dedicated and committed over the past years. As you illustrated, the allegations didn’t add up. Even if it had been a problem in the past, why try to bring extreme injury to her husband’s public image? If she cared half as much as she put on over the past several years, they could have sought counselling privately.

  444. Ann Bowyer says:

    Ryan, I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. I’ve heard it said that when men have been imprisoned for an extended time, their wives soon learn to become very independent. Then when the husband returns to ‘the little woman’, she is no longer the same, but prides herself on her strength and independence. There is often no recognition on her part of the difficulty her husband must be facing in adapting to freedom and family life once again, and she is loathe to let go of the independence she feels is now her right. And yes, I think her moment of fame has played a big part in all this. But I feel incredibly sorry for Saeed, who is the true victim here.

  445. Vashra Araeshkigal says:

    So…you know he was *convicted* of a domestic abuse charge back in 2007 right? And he was convicted because *he* pleaded guilty? Now he’s all “I didn’t speak English very well, I didn’t know what was going on.” Seriously? I’m so completely not impressed with that answer.

    I’ll grant that I refuse to consider “addicted to porn” as “sexually abusing my wife.” That’s nuts. Unless he’s forcing her to engage in the stuff from the porn films under duress, that’s an addiction, but it’s not abuse.

    The main problem is that a lot of men do not “get” that some things are *abusive*. They’ll crawl all over the “you are being disrespectful to me by your words/tone” accusation towards their wives (and certainly more than a few women *are* disrespectful in word and tone when arguing), but by God if you call them out on the hateful things they say….well they’re just angry because you made them angry and that’s their *right* (but not yours, you’re never allowed to be disrespectful or provoked, because you’re a woman). If a man’s biggest argument against being an abuser is to point out how he’s not an even bigger abuser with arguments like “Do I *hit* you?” then he’s already over the line.

    Here’s a fun test: If you think you aren’t being abusive, try recording your next argument and play it back for your minister or someone else you respect to listen to, unedited. If you don’t want them hearing what you sound like when you’re arguing with your wife, then you are being verbally abusive. She might be TOO…but that’s not the issue in play here.

  446. Jessie says:

    Is it not possible that he was, in fact, abusive? That doesn’t take away from the fact that he loves the Lord and that his time in prison was terrible. Christians do terrible things–we are human and are battling the the flesh every day. To be a Christian is not to be perfect, but to recognize our need for the One who is perfect–Jesus. It is dangerous to write a post like this when abuse is a real danger. Women are most often the target of domestic abuse because we are physically weaker (the weaker vessel, some might say). That is not to take away from the fact that men are abused as well. 1 in 4 women experiences abuse in her lifetime, and 90% of abusers are known to the woman. Why would those people not also be in our churches? This is a DANGEROUS post for the Church.

  447. Minesweeper says:

    “Here’s a fun test: If you think you aren’t being abusive, try recording your next argument and play it back for your minister or someone else you respect to listen to, unedited. If you don’t want them hearing what you sound like when you’re arguing with your wife, then you are being verbally abusive. She might be TOO…but that’s not the issue in play here.

    Nailed it. She will be.

  448. Feminist Hater says:

    The main problem is that a lot of men do not “get” that some things are *abusive*. They’ll crawl all over the “you are being disrespectful to me by your words/tone” accusation towards their wives (and certainly more than a few women *are* disrespectful in word and tone when arguing), but by God if you call them out on the hateful things they say….well they’re just angry because you made them angry and that’s their *right* (but not yours, you’re never allowed to be disrespectful or provoked, because you’re a woman). If a man’s biggest argument against being an abuser is to point out how he’s not an even bigger abuser with arguments like “Do I *hit* you?” then he’s already over the line.

    Yeah, no. Most verbal abuse and physical abuse in relationships is done by both parties. Only the men seems responsible though… It’s also often initiated by the woman. A man defending himself is not an abuser.

    We cannot stop people having arguments, even heated ones, but we can stop them hitting each other, which is why men state that when being accused of abuse. Emotional abuse is an over used and abused form of disarming a man of his right to argue back and state his position. It is also used to batter men and abuse them. Enough!

  449. Minesweeper says:

    @Jessie says:”It is dangerous to write a post like this when abuse is a real danger.”

    Yes it is, Saeed was recently put in hospital (on his sisters FB) due to the stress his soon to be x has put him under. We are talking life and death, its for no minor reason men commit suicide at 10 times the rate women do during a divorce. The current culture\law\church Is literally killing men.

  450. Minesweeper says:

    Jessie, That is what abuse is.

  451. Minesweeper says:

    This is what abuse looks like Jessie.

  452. Linda says:

    You are a disgusting “Christian” being judge and jury to Naghmeh. How dare you and your Trump loving commenting ignorants decide you know what and when things happened? The church is offensive with all of you and that’s why I haven’t been attending for several years.

  453. JoyousMom says:

    Hmmm….this is supposed to be a Christian blog? Reading it and the comments, one would not think it is so.

  454. Anon says:

    ‘JoyousMom’,

    Hmmm….this is supposed to be a Christian blog? Reading it and the comments, one would not think it is so.

    This blog is more Christian than anything you read. What qualifies you to such an opinion.

    It is obvious that you want to remove all accountability from women, and set civilization back thousands of years.

  455. Minesweeper says:

    @Anon,

    She cant discern the difference between true “Christianity” and “”Christianity” as goddess worship”” that the “church” she attends currently practices.

    The bible contains many warnings about putting women in charge over men Nag-me is clearly in charge in this marriage and we can see the disastrous consequences that have resulted.

    We ignore the Lords instructions at out peril.

  456. Hank Flanders says:

    JoyousMom

    Hmmm….this is supposed to be a Christian blog? Reading it and the comments, one would not think it is so.

    It’s helpful to specify whose comment or comments you’re referring to.

  457. feeriker says:

    C’mon now, guys, have you all forgotten? Pointing out/holding women accountable for their sins = “unChristian” (and “misogynist,” and “hateful,” and “abusive,” and “unloving,” and … etcetera).

    FI 101, this.

  458. Feminist Hater says:

    Poor Linda and Joyless Mom!

    Are we getting to you?! Good!

  459. Dota says:

    Linda

    “The church is offensive with all of you and that’s why I haven’t been attending for several years.”

    That’s good. The Church needs a mass purging in order to survive. Quality trumps quantity. Keep yourself and your feminist friends out of Church. Thank you for your service.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s