Embracing no fault divorce is the natural result of elevating romantic love to a moral force.

Some time back my wife and I watched the old TV series Alfred Hitchcock Presents (1955-1962).  It is interesting to watch old shows like that because they give you a sense of the Hollywood propaganda of the age.  One line was frequently repeated, with slight variations:

He won’t give her a divorce, even though he knows she doesn’t love him any more.

This line was presented as scathing proof that the man being accused was a horrible monster.  Not only was he forcing a woman to remain married to a man she no longer loved, but he was also preventing her from marrying her (latest) true love.  Hollywood’s concerted effort to destroy the moral authority of marriage was clearly successful;  no fault divorce was enacted in California just eight years after the series ended, and the rest of the union followed suit.

The simple fact is the moment you attribute moral value to romantic love you are creating a rival to biblical sexual morality.  In biblical sexual morality it is marriage that creates a moral space for sex and romantic love (with romantic love not separated from sexual passion).  We have overturned God’s order here, and are now claiming that romantic love is the moral space for marriage and sex.  This is deceptively subtle, and at the same time demolishes the moral meaning of marriage.

The idea that romantic love confers morality to sex is an idea that goes back to the concept of courtly love beginning around 1100 AD.  Courtly love was in part a reaction to the widespread belief among Christians in the Dark Age that it was unseemly, and in fact sinful, for a husband and wife to have sexual passion for one another. As St. Jerome argued in Against Jovianus Book I:

Hence Xystus in his Sentences tells us that “He who too ardently loves his own wife is an adulterer.” It is disgraceful to love another man’s wife at all, or one’s own too much. A wise man ought to love his wife with judgment, not with passion. Let a man govern his voluptuous impulses, and not rush headlong into intercourse. There is nothing blacker than to love a wife as if she were an adulteress.

Passionless duty sex was for marriage, and passion was for adultery.  Courtly love built upon this idea with a twist.  It added a new concept of romantic love, separating out the emotional aspect of sexual passion.  This newly separated concept of romantic love was worshiped and seen as sanctifying.  CS Lewis summed up the concept of courtly love as (emphasis mine):

The sentiment, of course, is love, but love of a highly specialized sort, whose characteristics may be enumerated as Humility, Courtesy, Adultery, and the Religion of Love.

In the 1500s and 1600s the Puritan movement argued that passionate sex in marriage was not immoral, and fought against the idea of sanctified adultery in the form of courtly love.  However, some Puritans kept the seemingly innocent vestigial idea of romantic love as sanctifying sex.  In this new twist romantic love was seen as sanctifying sex within marriage instead of outside of it.  The famous Puritan poet John Milton wrote in Tetrachordon:

And although copulation be considered among the ends of marriage, yet the act thereof in a right esteem can no longer be matrimonial, than it is an effect of conjugal love.  When love finds itself utterly unmatched, and justly vanishes, nay rather cannot but vanish, the fleshly act indeed may continue, but not holy, not pure, not beseeming the sacred bond of marriage; being at best but an animal excretion…

This is as you will recall the same concept we constantly hear from modern complementarian preachers.  They teach that marital sex requires romantic love to consecrate it, otherwise it is merely rubbing body parts together.  This is not a biblical idea, and is in fact an anti-biblical idea.  Proverbs 5 tells husbands they should be like a rutting buck with their wives.  Moreover, the Apostle Paul tells us in 1 Cor 7 that marriage is for life, and that not having sex in marriage is a sin.

This idea is wholly at odds with what the Bible teaches us about sexual morality, and yet it has insidiously wormed its way into our modern thought process.  Once you invert the relationship between marriage and romantic love, what the Bible teaches is moral becomes sin, and what the Bible teaches is sin becomes virtue.  If romantic love sanctifies marriage and sex, it would be immoral to remain married should the sanctifying romantic love wane.  The writers of Alfred Hitchcock Presents understood this in the late 1950s, as did Milton in 1645.  The Tetrachordon, the piece from Milton that I quoted above, is a tract he wrote advocating no fault divorce:

Milton’s divorce tracts refer to the four interlinked polemical pamphlets—The Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce, The Judgment of Martin Bucer, Tetrachordon, and Colasterion—written by John Milton from 1643–1645. They argue for the legitimacy of divorce on grounds of spousal incompatibility. Arguing for divorce at all, let alone a version of no-fault divorce, was extremely controversial and religious figures sought to ban his tracts. Although the tracts were met with nothing but hostility and he later rued publishing them in English at all, they are important for analysing the relationship between Adam and Eve in his epic Paradise Lost. Spanning three years characterised by turbulent changes in the English printing business, they also provide an important context for the publication of Areopagitica, Milton’s most famous work of prose.[1]

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Complementarian, Courtly Love, Divorce, John Milton, Marriage, New Morality, Rebellion, Romantic Love, St. Jerome. Bookmark the permalink.

126 Responses to Embracing no fault divorce is the natural result of elevating romantic love to a moral force.

  1. Oscar says:

    @ Dalrock

    “Not only was he forcing a woman to remain married to a man she no longer loved, but he was also *presenting* her from marrying her (latest) true love.”

    I think you meant *preventing*.

    [D: Thank you. Fixed.]

  2. Pingback: Embracing no fault divorce is the natural result of elevating romantic love to a moral force. | @the_arv

  3. Novaseeker says:

    If romantic love sanctifies marriage and sex, it would be immoral to remain married should the sanctifying romantic love wane.

    Yes, very much so. And this is well embraced by the broader, secular, culture today, and of course that means the church has largely absorbed it by cultural osmosis.

    The current model of “hedonic marriage” (pace Stephanie Coontz) has as its core the romantic happiness of both parties. That is, this is the meaning of marriage, the purpose of marriage and, as a result, the justification of marriage, ultimately. Commitment, per se, is not. A commitment made based on actual, real, mutual romantic feelings is, of course, revered and celebrated (that is the essence of contemporary wedding celebrations) … but the commitment is understood to be subordinate to the romantic happiness of both parties on an ongoing basis. Should that romantic happiness fall off sufficiently for one of the parties, not only must divorce be made available, but it is morally required for it to be available. Why? So that the person in question can seek her romantic happiness in another coupling. In other words, if it happens that the romantic happiness generated by a marriage falls below an acceptable level, the entire moral raison d’etre of the marriage is no longer present, and therefore allowing access to divorce is a moral imperative — to do otherwise would block the most likely path to romantic happiness for one of the parties — in other words, it would block the path to the ultimate end of relationships and marriage, to begin with: romantic happiness.

    It’s in this way that romantic happiness has basically swallowed up everything that marriage ever was. It is both the justifier of entry into marriage, the sustainer of remaining in marriage, and, in its diminution, the justifier of leaving marriage. It IS marriage, full stop. There is no other foundation for marriage in our culture — certainly not “commitment”, because commitment only is honored as long as it is romantically pleasing to honor it. When it becomes the centerpiece of marriage, as it is in our culture, no fault divorce MUST follow, it is a moral imperative that it follows, there is no way out of that one.

    This is why no fault divorce was eventually inevitable when marriage started morphing toward romance as its basis rather than commitment. Feminists celebrate this for the most part (pace Coontz again, who famously wrote that “love conquered marriage”, by which she means *romantic* love), which is to be expected, because a romantic love based system, with all of the vicissitudes and replaceability that this implies, fits female hypergamy like a well-tailored glove.

  4. “This is as you will recall the same concept we constantly hear from modern complementarian preachers. They teach that marital sex requires romantic love to consecrate it, otherwise it is merely rubbing body parts together. This is not a biblical idea, and is in fact an anti-biblical idea. ”

    I don’t think anyone can disagree. I certainly don’t.

    But just look around.
    What do we honestly expect the modern complementarian church preacher to do under the current societal circumstances to succeed in filling those pews with tithing participants?

    Every where he casts his eye today are strewn the human wreckage from no fault divorce, broken families, out of wedlock births, co-habitation and adultery. Children, grandchildren, mothers and fathers, all human husks of their former selves. Depressed, angry, hopeless. Some are ridden with guilt. Female divorcees waltzing into church today are indignant, vindicated, empowered and triumphant, convinced they are modern day heroines of justice. Shining examples to women and girls, and “let that be a lesson” to the men.

    That preacher would have to be an absolute idiot not to emphasize and thoroughly exploit this positioning of romantic love to such an audience. It’s the perfect, positive, blue pill assertion. What better way to alleviate, defend, evade, explain and rationalize why they have arrived at their station? Why were their lives detonated? And why so thoroughly? Why did they abscond? And can they not see have they’ve now majestically fallen into God’s loving arms (the church) again?

    Romantic love is the reason. Romantic love first, always first.

    Responsibility? Accountability? Duty? Submission? Devotion to the sacrament of marriage, which is ordained by God and holy? For a modern day preacher to rail on of such moral things would be considered “emotional abuse” by modern parishioners, particularly female divorcees, single mothers and competing harlots. It would only invite revolt.

    “You divorced your husband because you weren’t in love with him anymore. God wants us to be in love all the time. And He wants you to be happy. Do you think for one moment that God put you on this earth but doesn’t want you to be happy and in love?”

    Whether you afford a complementarian preacher a flock of intact married families from 1957, or broken, decayed human wreckage from 2017, that preacher and his cohorts, will adjust the message, frequency and resonance just so in order to ensure those offering plates are filled to the brim.

  5. It is worth noting that anyone who has submitted to 1 Corinthians 7 — have sex when your partner desires it — finds that their relationship is extremely close. This includes secular and Christian wives. One need only google for 30 day (or even 1 year) sex/intimacy challenges.

    Sex causes intimacy and romance, not the other way around. Something, something, one flesh.

  6. Hmm says:

    A lot of modern confusion revolves around the “right to happiness” that people bandy about so freely. In the last article he wrote during his lifetime, C. S. Lewis took on that concept in an essay he titled “We Have No ‘Right to Happiness'” (published in “The Saturday Evening Post”). Here’s a link to the article, with slightly modified title:
    http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/issues/issue-7/have-we-no-right-to-happiness.html

  7. Adam says:

    Great post. This idea of romantic love and fault free divorce has come to a head I believe through the modern worship of happiness. Self help gurus have sold the idea for the past thirty years that we must be happy all of the time. Get your “seven steps to happiness” and all the rest of the nonsense.

    The upshot of this is that people are unable or unwilling to face challenges in their personal lives, and you will have serious challenges throughout the course of any reasonable length marriage. They also mistake happiness for love and vice versa. Thus when they need their constant happiness fix the consequences of this impact on their relationships. Throw fault free divorce into the equation and you end up with the disaster that we have today.

  8. The Question says:

    “No fault divorce was enacted in California just eight years after the series ended, and the rest of the union followed suit.”

    If there is ever a chance for someone of our type to annul (pardon the expression) these laws on a nation-wide scale and restore marriage back to a presumed life-long commitment barring abuse or neglect, they need to take it. As long as women can destroy their husband’s lives and any time, then they can never truly be the head of the household. They will be, at best, the leader with his wife’s consent.

  9. Lyn87 says:

    Novaseeker is on fire!

    Great post, Dalrock. I can’t think of anything to add (for now, anyway).

  10. BillyS says:

    Deep Strength,

    Sex causes intimacy and romance, not the other way around. Something, something, one flesh.

    It can, but it can also be a wedge, since it can build resentment. Attitude matters as well. The same act can be good with a positive attitude and bad with a bad attitude.

    It is always a good in marriage. I am just pointing out that one party (the woman) can negate the bonding value if she is not a willing participant.

    Remember all that “women are crock pots” BS? That is part of it too.

  11. Pingback: Stop trying to be happy all of the time. – Adam Piggott

  12. Our culture has reduced marriage, at the behest of the less radical feminist elements, to a monogamous social dating contract.

  13. davidtaylor2 says:

    Here’s my question, and it’s a serious one.

    Part of the Wiki entry linked above says the following:
    In many other states, especially California, the most popular allegation for divorce was cruelty (which was then unavailable in New York). For example, in 1950, wives pleaded “cruelty” as the basis for 70 percent of San Francisco divorce cases.Wives would regularly testify to the same facts: their husbands swore at them, hit them, and generally treated them terribly.This procedure was described by Supreme Court of California Associate Justice Stanley Mosk:

    Every day, in every superior court in the state, the same melancholy charade was played: the “innocent” spouse, generally the wife, would take the stand and, to the accompanying cacophony of sobbing and nose-blowing, testify under the deft guidance of an attorney to the spousal conduct that she deemed “cruel.”

    The Scripture says
    Ephesians 5:25 – Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it.

    and

    Ephesians 5:28 – So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

    What happens if a woman is in a situation where the man is disobedient to these principles? What if the man actually is abusing her? Or for that matter, abuse in a marriage in general?

    Some numbers:
    The Facts & Figures on Violence

    Information courtesy of The National Domestic Violence Hotline website:
    [http://www.thehotline.org/is-this-abuse/statistics/]

    On average, 24 people per minute are victims of rape, physical violence or stalking by an intimate partner in the United States — more than 12 million women and men over the course of a year.[1]
    Nearly 3 in 10 women (29%) and 1 in 10 men (10%) in the US have experienced rape, physical violence and/or stalking by a partner and report a related impact on their functioning.[2]
    Nearly, 15% of women (14.8%) and 4% of men have been injured as a result of IPV that included rape, physical violence and/or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime.[3]
    1 in 4 women (24.3%) and 1 in 7 men (13.8%) aged 18 and older in the United States have been the victim of severe physical violence by an intimate partner in their lifetime.[4]
    IPV alone affects more than 12 million people each year.[5]

    More than 1 in 3 women (35.6%) and more than 1 in 4 men (28.5%) in the United States have experienced rape, physical violence and/or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime.[6]
    Nearly half of all women and men in the United States have experienced psychological aggression by an intimate partner in their lifetime (48.4% and 48.8%, respectively).[7]
    Females ages 18 to 24 and 25 to 34 generally experienced the highest rates of intimate partner violence.[8]
    From 1994 to 2010, about 4 in 5 victims of intimate partner violence were female.[9]
    Most female victims of intimate partner violence were previously victimized by the same offender, including 77% of females ages 18 to 24, 76% of females ages 25 to 34, and 81% of females ages 35 to 49.[10]

    As I’ve studied the scriptures, the Bible doesn’t really directly address domestic violence. It just says how we should be loving our spouses. I believe one has to go to the Lord for guidance in these situations, but I’m interested in hearing what others have to say on the matter.

    How would you counsel a spouse that is an actual(not imagined or accused), ongoing victim of domestic violence?

  14. Mister says:

    So who killed Biblical marriage? With what? Where?

    The prude, with the eisegesis, in the Dark Ages!

  15. White Guy says:

    I’m curios of how you gents view real DV as well? Last time my wife hit me, (just a few months back) I wound up with a fat lip. I told her after she calmed down if she hit me again she’d have divorce papers in her hand the next day. I’m struggling on how to square this with 1 Cor 7…

  16. 1 Cor 7 states separation is allowed as a command from the Lord… “yet not I, but the Lord”

    10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: 11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

    Therefore, if there are circumstances where you cannot live with a spouse (e.g. actual DV by either party), it is not a reason for divorce but separation is allowed.

    No remarriage is allowed. Only reconciliation.

  17. gunner451 says:

    This concept is fully supported by the “marriage counseling” people as well, I remember back to when I was a younger man full of the juice of life and wanting to share that juice with my wife in some physical ways. Unfortunately for me she had decided that I wasn’t romancing her enough and so refused to go along with the program (i.e., duty lay once or if I was lucky twice a month). Well it came to a head in our relationship, so to speak, and then she forced me to go to marriage counseling to resolve the problem. The solution, romance her more, read the book of the month (that they always seem to want you to do and which proves a totally useless waste of time) and once that has been accomplished the sex will flow like water.

    Ya right, swallowed the red pill and everything was clear. Unfortunately too late I realized that I had made one of the biggest mistakes of my life marrying this gal and even with all the red pills in the world she was not going to budge from her bad behavior in this and many other areas, and with 10 years of marriage and a kid living in Kalifornia I was screwed. There are people on the web that say you can turn things around with red pill and alpha behavior but realize that the standard western slut has spent a life time in rebellion and carousel riding and is never, ever going to turn around. So the whole increased sex causes increased intimacy shtick that someone talked about is not going to happen with this type of woman as she really has no interest in intimacy and cannot bond emotionally with her husband because of her carousel riding past. In addition, in many cases she married because she was about to hit the wall and needed a sucker to take care of her, not that she was attracted to him (pretty sure that was my situation). The problem is, good luck finding a reasonably attractive woman in the west that is over the age of 18 that is not already well down this path.

  18. Matamoros says:

    @davidtaylor2 What happens if a woman is in a situation where the man is disobedient to these principles? What if the man actually is abusing her? Or for that matter, abuse in a marriage in general?

    The traditional answer is that she is to suck it up and be a wife. Indeed, such as wife, but that he will change his heart toward her, for there is some reason he is doing this.

    Many women Saints who were married were abused and beaten, yet became saints because they overcame it, kept praying for their husbands, and in many cases, secured his conversion.

  19. Matamoros says:

    The idea of a “soul mate” is a further refinement of the romantic love idea. That there is only one someone out there who can fulfill her longings and bring her true happiness.

    The reality is that it is up to a woman to get rid of the lists, weigh the suitors, and pick the best available at the time – and then to make a life with him, and build love and affection through their mutual actions – and her willing submission to her husband.

  20. Anonymous Reader says:

    davidtaylor2
    What happens if a woman is in a situation where the man is disobedient to these principles? What if the man actually is abusing her? Or for that matter, abuse in a marriage in general?

    Define your terms, starting with the word “abuse” and maybe your question can be discussed.

    Information courtesy of The National Domestic Violence Hotline website:

    Hmm. I think I hear the sound of the Duluth Wheel rolling up the sidewalk….

  21. Pingback: Embracing no fault divorce is the natural result of elevating romantic love to a moral force. | Reaction Times

  22. davidtaylor2 says:

    “What happens if a woman is in a situation where the man is disobedient to these principles? What if the man actually is abusing her? Or for that matter, abuse in a marriage in general?”

    Define your terms, starting with the word “abuse” and maybe your question can be discussed.

    By “abuse” I mean physical punching, kicking, biting, scratching. Black eyes, swollen lips, blows to the sternum, to the groin, to the knees, to the breast or any area where vital organs are. I mean spitting, slapping, throwing against the wall, being thrown out of the window, and being beaten until you are a bloody mess laying on your kitchen floor.
    By “disobedient” I mean that neither spouse is following the Biblical mandate to love(for men) or to submit(for women). They are instead living carnally, according to their own thoughts and rules and not the plan of God.

    “Information courtesy of The National Domestic Violence Hotline website:”

    Hmm. I think I hear the sound of the Duluth Wheel rolling up the sidewalk….

    Well, I looked up several places for stats online…
    http://www.americanbar.org/groups/domestic_violence/resources/statistics.html

    If you have a better or more trusted source, fine by me. Let’s read it.

    I’m not as focused in my question on statistics or percentages as I am on the fact that it happens. And in those cases where one or both spouses is engaging in abuse as I have defined it, how should they be counseled according to the Word of God?

  23. Anonymous Reader says:

    If you have a better or more trusted source, fine by me. Let’s read it.

    There are no trusted sources on Domestic Violence thanks to 30+ years of feminists poisoning the well. If a man shouts at his wife, that’s abuse … if she says so. If he prevents her from leaving a room, that’s abuse … if she says so. If he decides she’s overspending and cuts up a credit card or takes away the joint checkbook? Abuse. Tells her to stop Facebooking so much? Abuse. All of these Duluth Wheel forms of “abuse” wind up in the national statistics.

    The FBI keeps statistics on murder. Suppose that the FBI started including in that category every time anyone said “I should kill you!” or “you should drop dead”, how long before you’d stop paying attention to “murder” statistics? That’s what’s happened with “abuse” statistics, thanks to feminist ideas dating back to the 1970’s. Maybe you are aware of this and maybe you weren’t, but now you are.

    I’m not as focused in my question on statistics or percentages as I am on the fact that it happens. And in those cases where one or both spouses is engaging in abuse as I have defined it, how should they be counseled according to the Word of God?

    You are far from the first person to pop up out of nowhere in a thread about divorce with a tangent of “But what about abuse? What about abuse?”, so frankly I do believe you are not here to debate in good faith, but rather you are concern-trolling in an attempt to divert attention away from what feminism has done. I could be wrong. But your comments so far do fit a pattern that goes back over 5 years on this site alone.

    If you are in earnest, suggest you spend some time reading back postings of Dalrock’s on the topic of divorce, theres’ multiple years of them. It’s easy to search on a WordPress site, just use the keywords for this posting.

  24. You do realize all of those Women were lying in court, right?

  25. davidtaylor2 says:

    You are far from the first person to pop up out of nowhere in a thread about divorce with a tangent of “But what about abuse? What about abuse?”, so frankly I do believe you are not here to debate in good faith, but rather you are concern-trolling in an attempt to divert attention away from what feminism has done. I could be wrong. But your comments so far do fit a pattern that goes back over 5 years on this site alone.

    Unbelievable. You are beyond wrong. I’ve read Dalrock for years. As well as Alpha Game and Rational Male. Generally no need to comment because the articles and discussions are really thorough. I was asking a legit question. Just don’t remember either of them directly addressing this.

    Sounds like to me you’re projecting. I’m well aware of the multiple abuses of Feminism, female solipsism, carousel riding, losing bonding ability, Plan B’s/Beta boys, “man up and marry these sluts” and how Feminist doctrines have destroyed the American family. The scripture even speaks to it in Revelation 2:20. I speak on it all the time. Again, my goal here was to hear the opinions of others on the subject.

    So let me address Dalrock directly then…do you have any articles you could point me to that address this, has this already been covered? I may have missed it somewhere. Most of the Pastoral counseling these days among Protestants has been infected with Feminism, so it’s always the man’s fault. The men are humiliated, disheartened and destroyed in the process. Then divorced-raped. This is a trusted Manosphere site so I was just wanting to read more material on the subject.

  26. davidtaylor2 says:

    So anyway I found these:
    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/?s=domestic+abuse

    But they seem to mainly deal with deconstructing the myths around how domestic abuse is defined and wrongly used. I’m still kind of searching for more of a scriptural way to address the subject. Okay, thanks then.

  27. Qof the Great says:

    ““What happens if a woman is in a situation where the man is disobedient to these principles? What if the man actually is abusing her? Or for that matter, abuse in a marriage in general?””

    Scripture says stay.

  28. Qof the Great says:

    The chapter divisions do a lot of damage to this passage by separating wifely submission from the context of “What do you do when the authorities abuse you.”

  29. davidtaylor2 says:

    @Qof the Great:

    Hmmm, that’s interesting. I never saw 1 Peter 3:5,6 in the light of domestic abuse.
    5 For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to adorn themselves. They submitted themselves to their own husbands,
    6 like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her lord. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.

    The King James version uses the word “amazement” but I never thought to apply it in again, that context. I always viewed it as a matter of faith and trust, and trusting God while walking into an unknown future.

    I think that’s also what Matamoros was saying.

    @DeepStrength:
    Therefore, if there are circumstances where you cannot live with a spouse (e.g. actual DV by either party), it is not a reason for divorce but separation is allowed.

    No remarriage is allowed. Only reconciliation.

    Solomon also addresses these issues, which makes me think we need better vetting processes for men to avoid the bait-n-switch:
    Proverbs 21:9 – Better to live on a corner of the roof than share a house with a quarrelsome wife.
    Proverbs 25:24 – It is better to dwell in the corner of the housetop, than with a brawling woman and in a wide house.
    Because as Gunner451 was saying, ever after Red Pilling up while in the marriage, it didn’t seem to affect his wife.

    Also, if we reinstituted the virginity requirement; the standard of, no hymen-no diamond, then we wouldn’t have to worry about N count. The Old Testament talks about that:
    Deuteronomy 22:
    13 If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her
    14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,”
    15 then the young woman’s father and mother shall bring to the town elders at the gate proof that she was a virgin.
    16 Her father will say to the elders, “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17 Now he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’ But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.” Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town,
    18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him.
    19 They shall fine him a hundred shekels[b] of silver and give them to the young woman’s father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.
    20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found,
    21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.

  30. davidtaylor2 says:

    @Qof the Great
    “The chapter divisions do a lot of damage to this passage by separating wifely submission from the context of ‘What do you do when the authorities abuse you.’ ”

    Ah, I see. Tying what Peter is saying about suffering because of abusive authority-
    I Peter 2
    19 For it is commendable if someone bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because they are conscious of God.
    20 But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God.
    21 To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.
    22 “He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth.”
    23 When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly.

    -into his commandments to wives in the next verses. I gotcha.

    Then, this needs to be a part of Pastoral counseling, training, and prep for marriage.

  31. Gunner Q says:

    davidtaylor2 @ 3:31 pm:
    “Here’s my question, and it’s a serious one. … What if the man actually is abusing her?”

    Give up. Battered wives never leave their abusers. Just ask a cop.

    Seriously, give up. Don’t get involved. If there was anything to be done about a visible, undeniable, severe pattern of for-real physical abuse then the cops would already be doing it because assault & battery are crimes regardless of marital status and they’ll have heard about it from the ER doc or suicide counselor before you. The man is sick enough to do it, the woman is sick enough to enjoy it and only the white knight is stupid enough to interrupt their dance.

    They call it hybristophilia.

    White Guy @ 3:53 pm:
    “I’m curious of how you gents view real DV as well? Last time my wife hit me, (just a few months back) I wound up with a fat lip.”

    You’re doing right to threaten divorce. You can invoke both the unbeliever and she-didn’t-want-to-be-married-anymore clauses of 1 Cor. 7:12 so here, honey, let me file the papers for you. Happy birthday and BTW, that there’s an AT-fault divorce. I made a paper trail.

    In more civilized times, I’d recommend you hand her over for a couple days in the public stockade and that would probably be the end of her rebellion. The old ways taught lessons much more effectively than the modern litigation-prison system. I am certain we’d have many fewer sluts and Dindus if we exchanged years in jail for stripes on the back.

  32. davidtaylor2 says:

    The man is sick enough to do it, the woman is sick enough to enjoy it and only the white knight is stupid enough to interrupt their dance.

    They call it hybristophilia.

    Right and true, the Dark Triad love. I’ve always maintained that that lack of rationality itself is the only reason people need counseling in the first place. If you don’t love yourself enough to not want to be abused, then oh well.

    You’re doing right to threaten divorce. You can invoke both the unbeliever and she-didn’t-want-to-be-married-anymore clauses of 1 Cor. 7:12 so here, honey, let me file the papers for you. Happy birthday and BTW, that there’s an AT-fault divorce. I made a paper trail.

    What’s the necessary paper trail consist of that can create an at-fault divorce?

  33. JDG says:

    Deep Strength says:
    January 30, 2017 at 4:11 pm

    Therefore, if there are circumstances where you cannot live with a spouse (e.g. actual DV by either party), it is not a reason for divorce but separation is allowed.

    This is absolutely correct.

    Not many these days want to hear the truth, but sooner or later everyone will have to face the consequences of their choices. We all will reap what we sow.

  34. l says:

    “You’re doing right to threaten divorce. You can invoke both the unbeliever and she-didn’t-want-to-be-married-anymore clauses of 1 Cor. 7:12 so here, honey, let me file the papers for you. Happy birthday and BTW, that there’s an AT-fault divorce. I made a paper trail.” That would be a lot better if the command to never have a relationship with a divorced woman unless she was the victim of adultery. Women divorces thinking another rich stud is just around the corner.

  35. JDG says:

    The idea of a “soul mate” is a further refinement of the romantic love idea.

    Yep! The “one” is the one you marry, for better or for worse.

  36. Qof the Great says:

    @davidtaylor2 Note that Verse 3:1 begins with “Likewise…”

    Not only is Peter discussing wifely submission in the context of dealing with abusive authorities, he is explicitly linking the two topics.

    Then, to hammer the point home, he immediately cites winning over husbands who disobey God’s word as one of the goals of this submission.

  37. davidtaylor2 says:

    That would be a lot better if the command to never have a relationship with a divorced woman unless she was the victim of adultery.

    That’s another point I’ve long maintained as well, all of this stuff is tied together. We as Americans tend to pick and choose which commandments we obey. Taking all of them seriously and together however eliminates a lot of the problems we keep running into.

  38. davidtaylor2 says:

    @Qof the Great
    Not only is Peter *discussing* wifely submission in the context of dealing with abusive authorities, he is explicitly *linking* the two topics.

    Then, to hammer the point home, he immediately cites winning over husbands who disobey God’s word as one of the goals of this submission.

    Very well said.

  39. davidtaylor2 says:

    @Qof the Great
    Given that context, I have to echo what the disciples said to Jesus in Matthew 19:10:
    His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.

    Not disagreeing with scripture in the slightest, but I’m imagining having a conversation with my daughter. Telling her that, as a Christian woman, if her husband starts pummeling her, it’s her duty to show Christ by moving out, remaining unmarried, and trying to reconcile with the man that was clocking her by showing her godly reverence. In spite of whatever bruises she may have incurred from him.
    Or, not being scriptural in seeking a divorce, and having her life put on hold in the hopes that he may change.
    Again, not arguing with scripture. Just looking at the practical applications and the enormity of the responsibilities given this context.

  40. Dave II says:

    Women in general, it seems, do not know what true love is. All my childhood I heard them speak of it but in adulthood I’ve come to realise that they are confusing romantic love, which is based on sexual attraction, which for women is based on traits that can all too easily be faked, with true love, which is inseparable from exclusive commitment and is the leash that reigns romantic love back in when it wanders from the relationship.

    One confirmation of this is that the aged women are encouraged to teach the younger, among other things, how to love their husbands (Titus 2:4). Husbands are merely commanded to love their wives. No need to be taught how.

    Also makes sense how, in societies that value the biblical pattern of marriage sanctifying sex, even arranged marriages do better than those in “free” societies that marry out of romantic “love”.

  41. Scott says:

    Sex causes intimacy and romance, not the other way around. Something, something, one flesh

    Mychael calls it the “reset button.”

  42. Samuel Culpepper says:

    1 and davidtaylor2:

    Are you implying that a divorced woman is eligible for remarriage? There is no “adultery” exception when it comes to remarriage. Why on earth christian men these days go through all these scriptural gymnastics to justify marrying a used woman, is beyond me. I guess our kind is just that desperate. It is better to remain single and celibate than to be yoked to some other man’s leftovers; not to mention its adultery if you have even a basic understanding of marriage according to Genesis 2:24.

  43. greyghost says:

    Looks like another MGTOW article Dalrock.

  44. Novaseeker says:

    From the point of view of the civil law, there was always fault divorce permitted — the four As were the reasons: Abandonment, Adultery, Abuse, Addiction. Someone who presented with bruises that were from the spouse could easily enough evidence out a fault divorce for Abuse. So the issue doesn’t really have to do with the rise of no fault divorce, and the placement of romantic love at the center of marriage.

    If the discussion is about how the Church deals with abusive situations in marriages, that would vary by the church in question. In the Eastern Orthodox Church (mine), we would counsel for separation, and then evaluate whether the abusive spouse were repentant AND were capable of actually avoiding further abuse and placing the abused spouse in danger (this relates to physical abuse, not raising one’s voice when arguing about spending). If the abused spouse seeks to divorce, the church does not affirm that decision in itself, but that spouse can be readmitted to communion after confessing the sin of divorce (still a sin, even if the occasion of the divorce was abuse, because there is always the option of remaining married and separated) and observing a period of penitence. In Orthodoxy, under those circumstances, after a penitential period and counseling, the abused spouse would be eligible to be married again, albeit with a different ritual (we have a penitential form of marriage rite for second marriages, because the Orthodox Church views these as a condescension to human weakness).

  45. Dave II says:

    Qof the great said:

    “Not only is Peter discussing wifely submission in the context of dealing with abusive authorities, he is explicitly linking the two topics.”

    which reminded me of this:

    “If the spirit of the ruler rise up against thee, leave not thy place; for yielding pacifieth great offences.” (Eccl 10:4)

    which I think would go a long way in preventing IPV in cases where it is even a possibility, and reducing it where it is.

  46. davidtaylor2 says:

    Are you implying that a divorced woman is eligible for remarriage?

    No. The Lord speaks against that.
    Matthew 5:32
    But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, brings adultery upon her. And whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

    There is no “adultery” exception when it comes to remarriage.
    Why on earth christian men these days go through all these scriptural gymnastics to justify marrying a used woman, is beyond me.
    I guess our kind is just that desperate.
    It is better to remain single and celibate than to be yoked to some other man’s leftovers;
    not to mention it’s adultery if you have even a basic understanding of marriage according to Genesis 2:24.

    I agree with all of that, especially the part I emphasized.
    What I think has happened in American society is what God warned against in
    Leviticus 19:29
    Do not prostitute thy daughter, to cause her to be a whore; lest the land fall to whoredom, and the land become full of wickedness.

    We’re living in a land of whoredom and wickedness, and without a daughter being raised in submission to her father, saving all of her gifts for marriage, there aren’t any actual, eligible Christian women to choose from.

  47. Samuel Culpepper says:

    To all:

    In fact all of the discussions and rants that take place here could be discarded if christian men just refused to marry anything other than a virgin. That’s the biblical version of marriage anyway, so why are we trying to make wives out of whores,; even if it weren’t an adulteration, its still stupid and degrading to man. That’s how I am teaching my son and daughter; if they don’t head my advice, then they can live with the consequences for yet another generation. We have to reach our young men coming up, this stops the christian feminists at least. Marry young and marry a virgin; failing that just remain single and celibate and let the whores and whoremongers destroy themselves.

  48. davidtaylor2 says:

    @Novaseeker
    If the discussion is about how the Church deals with abusive situations in marriages, that would vary by the church in question.
    In the Eastern Orthodox Church (mine), we would counsel for separation, and then evaluate whether the abusive spouse were repentant AND were capable of actually avoiding further abuse and placing the abused spouse in danger (this relates to physical abuse, not raising one’s voice when arguing about spending).
    If the abused spouse seeks to divorce, the church does not affirm that decision in itself, but that spouse can be readmitted to communion after confessing the sin of divorce (still a sin, even if the occasion of the divorce was abuse, because there is always the option of remaining married and separated) and observing a period of penitence.
    In Orthodoxy, under those circumstances, after a penitential period and counseling, the abused spouse would be eligible to be married again, albeit with a different ritual (we have a penitential form of marriage rite for second marriages, because the Orthodox Church views these as a condescension to human weakness).

    Also very interesting. How the church deals with this very much varies by time period and denomination. That reminds me of the Lord saying that Moses permitted divorce because of the hardness of the hearts of the spouses. But that wasn’t His original plan or desire from the beginning.
    Which begs another issue: the way a post divorce situation is treated. That’s also different among Christians. Some are never allowed to remarry, both clergy and lay people. Some say, “divorce is not the unforgivable sin” and allow the divorced Christian to move into another marriage, whether male or female.

  49. Anonymous Reader says:

    davidtaylor2
    but I’m imagining having a conversation with my daughter. Telling her that, as a Christian woman, if her husband starts pummeling her, it’s her duty to show Christ by moving out, remaining unmarried, and trying to reconcile with the man that was clocking her by showing her godly reverence. In spite of whatever bruises she may have incurred from him.
    Or, not being scriptural in seeking a divorce, and having her life put on hold in the hopes that he may change.
    Again, not arguing with scripture. Just looking at the practical applications and the enormity of the responsibilities given this context.

    Ok, fine. Let’s test you on the flip side.
    * I knew a man whose wife was often working late. He grew suspicious and made a point to look into what this “late work” entailed. It turned out she was working it out with another man – having an affair after hours. The husband went home, apparently started packing up his stuff, then got his gun and shot himself. Would you counsel your daughter to at least consider not screwing around on the side? Or would you suggest that she just not get caught?

    * A year or two back I was surprised to learn of a woman who was arrested for spousal abuse. She hit her man on the head with a hammer, maybe more than once. When asked why, one thing she said was “I was tired of him”. Would you counsel your daughter not to hit her future husband with a hammer? Or are you just another one of those “it’s only abuse when it happens to women” types that I’ve seen over and over and over and over for years?

    * There was a couple in my area who were known for pretty loud fights. One night the delicate flower of womanhood stabbed her till-death-do-us-part husband in the chest with something sharp. He did not die immediately. He was able speak to the police, and claimed he’d run into somthing by accident, but could not explain what it was. Eventually he did bleed out. She hid the whatever it was so well the cops never did find it. Would you counsel your daughter against murdering her husband no matter how angry she got at him?

    There are more questions I like to ask of defenders of women, the scourges of “abuse”, but those will do for now.

  50. davidtaylor2 says:

    @AnonymousReader
    Whatever dude. I don’t have to prove anything to you. I couldn’t care less what you think of me. There are always people on the Internet who think they own public discussion forums. I don’t have to pass your “tests” to prove that I’m not a “woman defender” or whatever you’re blathering on about. Whatever beef you have is clearly in your head, not mine.

    I came here, to a site I visit all the time, for exactly what I stated: to hear on a trusted Manosphere forum more educated opinions about Scriptural perspectives. So far others have engaged in healthy conversation and the only one with a pre-determined agenda is you. Whatever’s stuck in your craw, I certainly didn’t put it there.

    It’s clear that you are projecting a hatred of whatever Male Feminist trolls you have encountered in the past, or whatever you perceive that to be. I am certainly not a Feminist or a troll.

    Always remember this, son: truth can stand up to scrutiny. I’ve really appreciated the answers others have been giving. It’s challenged me in ways that I never thought about scripture before.

  51. Anonymous Reader says:

    Returning to the original posting, which has been so artfully pushed away:

    I’ll have to go get the Alfred Hitchcock videos. I do recall something about Ronald Reagan’s own divorce in the 1950’s being rather unpleasant, and how this allegedly led to his signing the 1969 law. No doubt he expected that divorce would remain something only the upper class / upper middle class engaged in, because that was the pattern in the 1950’s and 1960’s prior to men’s fault divorce. As we all know, he was wrong. As we all know, when he was President he did … nothing.

    It is obvious that the importance of women’s feelings has been allowed to take precedent over every other aspect of marriage. This is completely in line with the Tender Years doctrine of the late 19th century, and even the Cult of Courtly Love. This is what we get for allowing feelings to take precedence over reason. There’s probably something in the Bible about that, others can track it down.

    It was feelings that led to VAWA as well; Joe Biden’s feelings to be specific.
    Look at churches that allow women into positions of authority, and I wager at the bottom you will find feelings about “fairness”, too.

    Dalrock, I submit that the whole inversion you articulate so well in the OP -despite the obvious attempt to threadjack – ultimately reveals the bankruptcy of relying upon emotion, upon feelings, because women live largely in a world of feelz and they are generally going to be better at projecting, articulating, manipulating feelz than men. Of course the white-knights who always want to protect women from their own errors, mistakes, and bad behavior are involved as well, but I dare say the white knight is ultimately motivated by feelz, not any rational thought.

    Feelings – or as many poets refer to it, “the heart” – is slippery and even deceitful. But the modern churches are alll about the feelz, much more so than about reason, or logic. This vein of thought you’ve been mining is really rich and interesting.

  52. Dalrock, I apologize for posting something semi-off-topic, but I think most readers will find it of general interest. Paul Craig Roberts wrote:

    In my days it was almost impossible to be guilty of indecent liberties with a minor, because the age of female sexual consent was 14. But as females sexually matured earlier, the age of sexual consent was irrationally pushed higher. Today the legal age that a male may have sex with a female is 18. In other words, the absurd American legal system pretends that women do not have sex until after they graduate from high school. Who can imagine college dorms full of virginal women?

    http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/01/30/justice-system-criminal-paul-craig-roberts/

  53. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    There’s a line in Titanic — a film that romanticizes infidelity — which says, “A woman’s heart is an ocean of mystery.”

    This idiotic statement, which says nothing of substance, is supposed to be profound. It’s supposed to justify, even glorify, any and all feelings that emanates from a woman’s heart. It suggests that a woman’s heart, and her feelings, are a source of wisdom and profound truths.

  54. Anon says:

    I have to confess, I cannot relate.

    I see how disassociating marriage from romance is efficient in the macro (since only ~20% of people are attractive to the opposite sex), and ensured all children grew up with both parents…

    But disassociating marriage from romantic love strips out what little joy there may be in the whole thing. Based on this, one could equally make the case that marriage was a byproduct of poorer, less literate, agrarian societies, and is too much work for too little return in modern societies…

    I can’t relate to a life with someone without romantic love. Children are supposed to be the buffer through which the husband and wife find common cause. But no romance… and the husband has to fuck the wife even after she becomes obese….

  55. BillyS says:

    I will bet most of those who are so strong on “no remarriage ever” are either married men who aren’t in that situation at all or single MGTOWs who are convinced they have a better way.

    I am not sure I see a good path in my case, but I will follow the spirit of what is written, not the foolishness of others. If those with unbelieving spouses who left were free to remarry, why are those with spouses who act like unbelieving spouses condemned to remain single?

    Note that remarrying has its own huge risk and it would take a specific unicorn to get me to follow that route, so it is unlikely, but I am not going to pass up a true unicorn if God brings one my way.

  56. BillyS says:

    I can’t relate to a life with someone without romantic love.

    Who said that? The idea that godly marriage should be pursued, not romance. At least that is what I read. “She’s lost that loving feeling,” kills a great many marriages today. That is not a good thing.

  57. feeriker says:

    It suggests that a woman’s heart, and her feelings, are a source of wisdom and profound truths.

    If we accept that statement as true, then we also accept it as an accurate description of the heart and feelings of a 13-year-old teenage girl. That’s approximately the age at which most women stop maturing emotionally.

  58. Sean says:

    @BillyS

    IIRC, you’re also a Protestant. If you’re curious as to how the no remarriage people feel, listen to the Rev. Voddie Baucham speak on the permanence of marriage here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3QkXb2cYBc

  59. Remarriage, as a topic, only begins when you separate out the genders. There are clearly different standards in the way the Lord expects of them. When you try to make it a singular topic, the discussion is already a failure.

  60. davidtaylor2 says:

    @LookingGlass

    Remarriage, as a topic, only begins when you separate out the genders. There are clearly different standards in the way the Lord expects of them.

    How so? I know the Bible never puts the power of divorce in the hands of women, but Matthew 19 says we’re both equally guilty of adultery in a remarriage situation.

  61. Lyn87 says:

    Almost every problem discussed in this thread, an several other recent threads, could be eliminated if the church would understand and heed this passage of scripture.

    Blessed is the man that trusteth in the Lord, and whose hope the Lord is. For he shall be as a tree planted by the waters, and that spreadeth out her roots by the river, and shall not see when heat cometh, but her leaf shall be green; and shall not be careful in the year of drought, neither shall cease from yielding fruit. The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? I the Lord search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings. – Jeremiah 17: 7-10.

    The profundity of those four short verses is breathtaking. It answers all the questions about abuse, divorce, remarriage, romantic love, duty, perseverance, feelings… IT’S ALL RIGHT THERE.

  62. @davidtaylor2:

    Don’t short-change the passage, as the Lord was responding to an intended trapping question. So there are cultural & biblical contexts that have to be waded through:

    Matthew 19:3-9 (ESV):

    3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” 4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” 7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” 8 He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

    The dependent clause, “except for sexual immorality”, is an entire textual argument unto itself when dealing with Deuteronomy reference that it’s calling out to.

    The problem is that people automatically take the passage, assume it’s directly talking about current “Marriage” laws and then extrapolate. That’s clearly not the case. Which is why there’s a gendered aspect to this.

    Women were never given the right to divorce in the Old Testament. Nor in the New Testament. Thus, a Woman being remarried after a divorce is a Sin. (Let’s skip a long theological argument if it’s 1 Sin or a constant chain or state of Sin. Has anyone mentioned there are a lot of rabbit trails in Theology?)

    For a Man, there’s no dumping a Wife to take another. (And realize the passage was from a time where multiple Wives was allowed, if extremely rare. Jewish Women being harridans has a couple of thousand years of pedigree.) So that’s pretty clear. No Trophy Wives.

    Now, the crux of the issue: in our modern societies, somewhere between 60% to 90% of divorces are Wife-initiated. (The numbers are hard to pin down, though we generally tend to use 70% around here as short-hand.) What is the Christian Husband’s role in a situation where he was removed by the State from his family? He has not divorced his Wife.

    That’s where things get messy. A Man having multiple wives is not a Sin. It is, however, generally terrible for everyone involved.

    And, by stating that, I’ve probably now killed this thread. (Just watch. I swear people have watch-scripts for the P-word.) But the topic is deep into the theological “woods”, and you run up against a lot of other passages. It’s not cut & dry because the direction given by the Lord is specific to certain questions & cultural norms of two very separate periods. Then one has to take into account their own denominational views on the topic.

  63. Lyn87 says:

    davidtaylor2,

    The scripture you’re referring to reads as follows, “And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.”

    As always, it’s important to understand the context of what is written. A man who married a woman and then discovered that she wasn’t a virgin could simply divorce her and be done with it – he would be divorcing her for premarital fornication. Easy-peazy. It’s also important to recognize that fornication is a general term for sexual sin, while adultery is a specific form of fornication: namely, sex involving a woman who is married to someone else. Under OT law, remarriage wouldn’t be a problem in cases like that because she would be stoned to death, and widowers are free to remarry. But the people Jesus was addressing in Matthew 19 were forbidden from executing people without the approval of the Romans, so the only way a man could be rid of his slutty wife was to divorce her. In that case, HE was permitted to remarry, presumptively because he is a functional widower (he’s not bound to a woman who would have been executed but for the law of pagan occupiers). The woman, however, does not go back on the marriage market, and any man who marries her commits adultery by doing so. The fault is hers, so she is bound but her ex-husband is not. That’s why a man who married her is committing the specific sin of adultery – she’s still bound in marriage, otherwise it would make no sense to speak of the specific sin of “adultery” with regard to her second marriage. You cannot commit adultery with your own wife… only someone else’s.

    A man who rids himself of his wife for any other reason is considered to have done so frivolously and is not free to remarry (although separation is allowed as addressed elsewhere in scripture).

    It doesn’t address women at all, and I assume that’s because Jewish woman of the day couldn’t initiate divorce. If we consider that they can now do so, it follows that the prohibitions would be similar both ways. The saying is a hard one, and the church has twisted itself into pretzels trying to soften it by carving out exceptions for abuse, abandonment, and addiction, which are now joined by any reason whatsoever, including loss of romantic love. But the message seems clear… marriage is for life, and although separation may be permitted in extreme cases, only fornication (including premarital fornication: don’t try to turn a whore into a housewife) frees the offended spouse to remarry (but not the offending one).

    For some relevant historical context, I just finished a book about the wives of Henry VIII, and one has to give a lot of credit to the way Catherine of Aragon responded to Henry’s serial adulteries, his marriage to Anne Boleyn, his abandonment of their marriage, and his general abuse (which included impoverishment for her and even death threats to her and their daughter). He really was a very bad man, yet to her dying day she refused to consider herself to be anything but Henry’s lawful wife. There’s no way to convey this briefly, but her surviving letters to him and about him are remarkable in their adherence to the idea of the absolute finality of marriage and her duty and personal commitment to be his loving wife. Even after years of increasingly-horrific treatment she never spoke or wrote a harsh word about him, viewing it as her duty to always support her husband no matter what. That’s inconceivable today.

  64. Dalrock says:

    @Anon

    I have to confess, I cannot relate.

    I see how disassociating marriage from romance is efficient in the macro (since only ~20% of people are attractive to the opposite sex), and ensured all children grew up with both parents…

    But disassociating marriage from romantic love strips out what little joy there may be in the whole thing. Based on this, one could equally make the case that marriage was a byproduct of poorer, less literate, agrarian societies, and is too much work for too little return in modern societies…

    This isn’t the point at all. Romance is wonderful. As is sexual passion. Biblically, they are not called out as separate concepts and in their joint form they are heartily endorsed within marriage. If either is missing, this is a terrible thing. But neither romance nor sexual passion confer morality on sex or marriage.

  65. Tarl says:

    “He won’t give her a divorce, even though he knows she doesn’t love him any more.”

    And she’s unhaaaaaaappy. And that’s the worst thing in the world!

    In reading this discussion, it improves your understanding whenever you see the phrase “romantic love” or “romantic happiness” to substitute the phrase “vagina tingles”. For example, to rephrase Novaseeker:

    [Vagina tingles] basically swallowed up everything that marriage ever was. [Vagina tingles] are the justifier of entry into marriage, the sustainer of remaining in marriage, and, in its diminution, the justifier of leaving marriage. [Vagina tingles] IS marriage, full stop. There is no other foundation for marriage in our culture — certainly not “commitment”, because commitment only is honored as long as [vagina tingles are present]. When [Vagina tingles] become the centerpiece of marriage, as it is in our culture, no fault divorce MUST follow, it is a moral imperative that it follows, there is no way out of that one.

  66. Dalrock says:

    @davidtaylor2

    Here’s my question, and it’s a serious one.

    Part of the Wiki entry linked above says the following:
    In many other states, especially California, the most popular allegation for divorce was cruelty (which was then unavailable in New York). For example, in 1950, wives pleaded “cruelty” as the basis for 70 percent of San Francisco divorce cases.Wives would regularly testify to the same facts: their husbands swore at them, hit them, and generally treated them terribly.This procedure was described by Supreme Court of California Associate Justice Stanley Mosk:

    Every day, in every superior court in the state, the same melancholy charade was played: the “innocent” spouse, generally the wife, would take the stand and, to the accompanying cacophony of sobbing and nose-blowing, testify under the deft guidance of an attorney to the spousal conduct that she deemed “cruel.”

    What happens if a woman is in a situation where the man is disobedient to these principles? What if the man actually is abusing her? Or for that matter, abuse in a marriage in general?

    You have totally misread that passage. It is a justification of no fault divorce. You don’t need no fault divorce for real abuse, but you needed to make up allegations of wrongdoing to get a frivolous divorce under the old system. It is saying in the bad old days when women like Jenny Erickson lost the tingles and got unhappy, the law forced them to accuse their husband of doing something terrible in order to get a divorce. These are examples of husbands being selfless (in a profoundly misguided way) by allowing their wives to slander them in court in order to allow her to follow her dream of shagging Harley McBadboy.

  67. PokeSalad says:

    According to those stats, a quick back-of-the-napkin calc says that, if true, nearly 30 million women have physically had the hell beat out of them at some point. Do you really think that’s true?

  68. thedeti says:

    @ Anon Reader:

    “I do recall something about Ronald Reagan’s own divorce in the 1950’s being rather unpleasant, and how this allegedly led to his signing the 1969 law. No doubt he expected that divorce would remain something only the upper class / upper middle class engaged in, because that was the pattern in the 1950’s and 1960’s prior to men’s fault divorce. As we all know, he was wrong. As we all know, when he was President he did … nothing.”

    That was a reference to Jane Wyman’s divorcing Reagan in the 1950s. It was a usual thing – both working, growing apart, not getting along with each other. Classic irreconcilable differences – irretrievable breakdown kind of thing. Neither were doing any of the four A’s, at least not that they were willing to admit. Wyman wanted a divorce and left Reagan, but didn’t really have grounds even though she sued him for divorce on grounds of “mental cruelty”. Reagan was heartbroken. He didn’t want a divorce, he knew she did, and he loved her too much to make her stay married to him, though he could have.

    Reagan knew he’d never so much as said an angry word to Wyman. But he agreed to admit to “mental cruelty” and gave her a divorce, because he cared about her too much to make her stay legally married to him. (Reagan fell into a pretty deep depression after that for at least a couple of years.) He was determined that no one else should have to agree in court to things they didn’t do so divorces could happen. So he signed the first “no fault” divorce into law as CA gov. in the late 1960s.

    Reagan didn’t do anything about no fault divorce because he really couldn’t. Regulating marriage and family matters is a state law issue and the feds don’t get involved almost all the time, unless, of course, a child’s constitutional rights are being threatened. The federal courts have time and again been presented with constitutional arguments about fundamental unfairness of the family court/equity courts as applied to men, and they steadfastly refuse to get involved, holding that these issues just are not of constitutional dimension.

  69. Johann Bachmeer says:

    @Davidtaylor2

    The Law is quite plain when it comes to adultury and it does not as you suppose condemn the husband:
    Deu 22:22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.
    (Nowhere present does it condemn the husband, if the wife plays the whore it is on her head, not his)
    Which is why when the Pharisees brought the woman before Christ he wrote the above on the ground.
    Joh 8:6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
    (Which is why he did not sentence the woman to death, but if they had brought both of them to him, the man and the woman, they would have been according to the Law but she was spared because the Pharisees spared the man)
    The Law states both the adulterer and adulteress must be killed and their blood is on their head and to compliment what Anonymous Reader said, if a father caught his daughter doing that in a marriage he would be the first to hang her, the woman herself would deserve no pity nor the man who she played the whore with as they would both be hung (as a positive detterant to adultury) and the man who killed himself he would be fully deserving of sympathy for his plight, unfortunately we do not live in such sane times.
    Yet there are those who say that Christ did away with the entire Law, yet the Jews still practiced the moral commandments even after they visited by their just judgement for rejecting Christ (the Seige of Jerusalem, 70 AD under TItus Andromedus), all the destruction of Jerusalem proved is that the Levitical preisthood was completed in Christ and the Law of sacrifices was likewise completed in him (Joh 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.) therefore the parts of the Law which commanded those things to be done were indeed done away in Christ with but the Law of Seperation (unique to the Jews to distinguish them from the world) and the moral Law was not, and that is self evident by the 3 crimes in the Bible which are worthy of death: Sodomy, Incest, Beastiality.
    And why hanging, well, hanging is unique in the Bible, and there is a special curse proclaimed with it: Deu 21:22 And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree:
    Deu 21:23 His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God;) that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

  70. davidtaylor2 says:

    You have totally misread that passage. It is a justification of no fault divorce
    I did not misread that passage. I know it’s a justification for no fault divorce.
    That wasn’t my question.
    My question was not about continuing to feed the charade. My question was, what happens if it’s not a charade? I understand completely that all of the “abuse” they were citing was fabricated. My question was, again, what if it’s not fabricated? I know some people of both genders that have perpetuated abuse on their partners.

    It is saying in the bad old days when women like Jenny Erickson lost the tingles and got unhappy, the law forced them to accuse their husband of doing something terrible in order to get a divorce. These are examples of husbands being selfless (in a profoundly misguided way) by allowing their wives to slander them in court in order to allow her to follow her dream of shagging Harley McBadboy.
    I know that. I’m familiar with Jenny Erickson. I know what she did. She did the same thing every woman solipsistically wants to do. Listening to her Hypergamous nature made her fall out of “love” with her husband, and as you’ve stated repeatedly, we’ve reversed the order. So she felt like since her feelings had changed, and her beta behaving husband now meant that her tingles were gone, “God wanted her haaaaaapy” and she wasn’t any more. So torpedoing the marriage was justified as far as she was concerned. I’m with you.

    So, one more time. What if a man’s clocking his wife? What if a woman’s punching her husband?
    NOT, “you don’t get that women make that up the majority of the time so they can hookup with the bad boys and divorce rape their husbands.” And, “you don’t get the passage because women fabricated abuse and their husbands went along with it.” Because I do get all of that.

    But Qof the Great answered the question I was actually asking.

  71. davidtaylor2 says:

    According to those stats, a quick back-of-the-napkin calc says that, if true, nearly 30 million women have physically had the hell beat out of them at some point. Do you really think that’s true?
    Nope.

  72. thedeti says:

    I know that the early writers separated out romance and sexual passion. And yes, churches and churchians and the prevailing wisdom of North American Cuckstianity is that romance confers moral force on sex and marriage.

    Our secular culture, which Cuckstians are marinating in, has taken this one step further. It is sex and sexual attraction which validate, and give moral force to, marriage and romance. You shouldn’t marry someone you’re not really really sexually attracted to, and of course you really aren’t going to feel any romantic feelings for anyone you’re not sexually attracted to or having sex with. A marriage is illegitimate unless sexual attraction is present. Dating and romance are all purposeless unless sexual attraction is there and the sex is great all the time.

    In my parents’ day it was romance > dating > sexual attraction > marriage > sex (usually). Sometimes it was romance > sexual attraction > dating >sex > pregnancy > marriage.

    In my day it was romance >sexual attraction > dating > sex > marriage

    Currently, its sexual attraction > sex > hookup > “talking” > f***buddy > friends with benefits > exclusive “dating” > lackluster sex > marriage > sex ends > divorce rape

  73. davidtaylor2 says:

    The Law is quite plain when it comes to adultery and it does not as you suppose condemn the husband:

    Nowhere did I say, nor did I assume, that the husband was condemned. Plus that same idea is already stated in Leviticus 20:10:
    And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

  74. thedeti says:

    Actually, to add to my earlier post, it’s : you shouldn’t marry someone you’re not having really really awesome sex with. And the only way you can know if the sex is awesome is to try out sex with as many partners as you can. That way you’ll know what you’re getting is the best. And you certainly shouldn’t have any feelings for anyone unless they really really turn you on so hard you can’t stand it. Marriage is illegitimate unless the sex you’re having (and you should already be having lots of sex) with your betrothed is really incredible.

  75. davidtaylor2 says:

    @Deti
    In my parents’ day it was romance > dating > sexual attraction > marriage > sex (usually). Sometimes it was romance > sexual attraction > dating >sex > pregnancy > marriage.

    Yep, me too. Parents and grandparents.

    In my day it was romance >sexual attraction > dating > sex > marriage

    Yep, me too.

    Currently, its sexual attraction > sex > hookup > “talking” > f***buddy > friends with benefits > exclusive “dating” > lackluster sex > marriage > sex ends > divorce rape
    you shouldn’t marry someone you’re not having really really awesome sex with. And the only way you can know if the sex is awesome is to try out sex with as many partners as you can.

    Yep, spot on.
    Feelings (meaning, women’s feelings) have been exalted to a blasphemous state, where the Word of God is not even considered. Nor does it matter to society. We should change our name to the United States of Hypergamy, in order to form a more Tingly Union.

  76. Lyn87 says:

    thedeti,

    I normally agree with you, but in this case you couldn’t be more wrong if you tried. First comes marriage, then comes sex. What you are proposing is essentially the same thing that feminists are proposing: the idea that marriage requires something else to be “valid.” It does not. Marriage is what legitimizes sex, not the other way around. Your prescription is not fundamentally different than what we have now: lots of unmarried people having sex with lots of other unmarried people until they find the one who turns the knobs juuuust right, then marriage to the person who inspires sexual oneitis.

    We know how well hook-up culture works out. Doubling-down on it won’t make it work any better.

  77. thedeti says:

    Lyn87:

    I wasn’t prescribing anything. I was describing what the world looks like now. I was describing the current prevailing cultural mindset.

    Trust me: There is no one around who understands the harm and destructive power of the hookup culture and indiscriminate premarital sex more than I do.

  78. BillyS says:

    Sean,

    IIRC, you’re also a Protestant. If you’re curious as to how the no remarriage people feel, listen to the Rev. Voddie Baucham speak on the permanence of marriage here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3QkXb2cYBc

    I am, though I grew up in the RCC. I know the arguments well. I also know that life is more complicated than a few simplistic slogans, even one dedicated to the seriousness of the Scriptures. I could pick a number of other issues many miss, so focusing only on this is not properly applying the entire Word of God.

    I was not married in the RCC, but I suspect I could get an annulment if I chose that route since we had no children. I am not going to spend time on that .

    ====

    Note that Jesus did not say what to do in a situation of having married a divorced woman. He did not say to put her away. The law specifically prohibits returning to a spouse after spending time married to someone else, so the fact something was adultery doesn’t appear to negate its valid state of marriage.

    The principle of “worship God in whatever state you find yourself in” would apply. Repent of past sin and work against it in the future, but you will never micro manage life.

    Looking Glass,

    (Let’s skip a long theological argument if it’s 1 Sin or a constant chain or state of Sin. Has anyone mentioned there are a lot of rabbit trails in Theology?)

    That is a core issue here and I would fall on the first argument end of things since I have no evidence of the latter. Jesus told the woman caught in the act of adultery to “go and sin no more.” He did not indicate any future action when in this state. He did not argue with the Samaritan woman that she really only had 1 valid marriage. He focused instead on where she was and how to go forward. He didn’t even chastise her for just shacking up. That doesn’t mean this was a good state of affairs, but it shows He didn’t see that as the most important focus either.

    I will still have only 1 wife if I remarry later, whatever AT has to say. I do agree arguing that arguing that point is a waste of time.

    Lyn87,

    But the message seems clear… marriage is for life, and although separation may be permitted in extreme cases, only fornication (including premarital fornication: don’t try to turn a whore into a housewife) frees the offended spouse to remarry (but not the offending one).

    We would do far better to put our efforts at this goal than worry about all the other elements, however important they are. It does go back to your point about dealing with being planted by the river. We must be tied to the Source and His standard. That is all that will change us.

    My wife would have had a much more pleasant life if she had the attitude you note in Catherine of Aragon. Few woman today have that, and it is the core reason we have such a mess.

    David,

    what if it’s not fabricated?

    Then treat it seriously, but require proof. Remember the story about the boy who cried “wolf”? That is what you are dealing with here. Overuse of claims of “abuse” have made it meaningless in cases where it may truly matter. Any case where an abused woman is unable to get free (it is always an abused woman, not an abused man, of course) should be blamed on those who overused the term to mean “disagreeing with your wife.” Arguing this point is not genuine and makes you come across like:

    Concern troll is concerned.

  79. Lyn87 says:

    Got it. I didn’t think that sounded like you. There are some guys who seriously advocate that sort of thing, though, despite the folly and inherent contradictions.

  80. illuvitus says:

    I’m pleased that my church has started a series premised on the idea that romantic and courtly love are corruptions, having replaced Biblical love, and that the way to a successful marriage is to turn back the clock. This history needs to be exposed.

    “Courtly love was in part a reaction to the widespread belief among Christians in the Dark Age that it was unseemly, and in fact sinful, for a husband and wife to have sexual passion for one another.”

    I’m not an expert on the early medieval period, but trusting this to be accurate, it’s hard to fathom a culture which could have such a sense of moral force that they feared even moral behavior done in the wrong way. Not that they were correct on this point, but it blows out of the water the silly notion I hear, practically daily, that “it’s just unreasonable to expect people not to have sex.” Our ancestors seem to have had a lot more self-control, even without distractions to make it easier.

  81. Damn Crackers says:

    Serious question, are there any non-Christian cultures that have/had anything like romantic love?

    Also, @Looking Glass and @Lyn87 – Your take on marriage/re-marriage has always been my interpretation too. I just want to say that before this gets into a whole p*lygamy discussion.

  82. Dalrock says:

    @davidtaylor2

    I know it’s a justification for no fault divorce.
    That wasn’t my question.
    My question was not about continuing to feed the charade. My question was, what happens if it’s not a charade?

    Then why did you quote two whole paragraphs regarding the charade, if your question had nothing to do with the charade? I was giving you the benefit of the doubt when I said you had read it wrong. If you aren’t stirring up confusion accidentally, then I can only assume it is on purpose. This isn’t just off topic, but as Anon Reader noted up thread off topic in a way that is perfectly tuned to derail the discussion.

  83. Boxer says:

    Kinda surprised to see Anon waxing all romantic and sheeeit.

    But disassociating marriage from romantic love strips out what little joy there may be in the whole thing. Based on this, one could equally make the case that marriage was a byproduct of poorer, less literate, agrarian societies, and is too much work for too little return in modern societies…

    I thought you were a hard materialist. My bad. I guess I like some applications of the materialist interpretation too. For example: romance being the result of proximity and sex. The early church seemed to acknowledge this in the “natural marriage” doctrine.

    You can see this in practice, no? Put two hormone-addled teenagers together for any length of time, and pretty soon they’re “in love.” Marry them off and tell them to screw each other to seal the deal. Then provide the proper social stigma for promiscuity and/or abandonment, and you’ve got a lifelong coupling filled with hot romance, in all but the most abberant cases.

    This really isn’t rocket science. We evolved (or were created by God) this way. Monogamy is the best strategic fit for a species which bears young that are unable to survive on their own. Shit, we can’t even walk for, what, 10 months? That means the mother has to carry the baby around everywhere she goes, which necessarily entails a father.

    This isn’t the point at all. Romance is wonderful. As is sexual passion. Biblically, they are not called out as separate concepts and in their joint form they are heartily endorsed within marriage. If either is missing, this is a terrible thing. But neither romance nor sexual passion confer morality on sex or marriage.

    I think part of the problem in a decadent society, like ours, which has completely abandoned the social sanction against sexual misbehavior, is the conflation of the euphoria of bonding with romance. The almost narcotic-like high feeling that comes from being in love for the first time doesn’t last. Without any social pressure, the members of each couple wander off to try and recreate it with others, over and over again.

    Boxer

  84. davidtaylor2 says:

    Then why did you quote two whole paragraphs regarding the charade, if your question had nothing to do with the charade?
    To let you know that I’d read it, but my question was in contrast to what was being said there.

    I was giving you the benefit of the doubt when I said you had read it wrong. If you aren’t stirring up confusion accidentally, then I can only assume it is on purpose. This isn’t just off topic, but as Anon Reader noted up thread off topic in a way that is perfectly tuned to derail the discussion.
    I am being misperceived. I was not trying to stir up confusion, derail the thread or discussion, or any of what you’re saying.
    I was just asking a question, but in so doing I clearly violated many protocols that I was not aware of. So I’ll bow out now, thanks.

  85. thedeti says:

    BillyS:

    Check your blog. I left a comment over there that’s in moderation.

  86. PokeSalad says:

    I know some people of both genders that have perpetuated abuse on their partners.

    Classic feminine (personalization) tell: I know someone, somewhere who fits this category, so it must be an epidemic.

  87. Mandy says:

    I’m sharing this with my teenagers as well as the CSLewis article Hmm linked.

    Thank you

  88. TimG says:

    This is going too far on both sides. They are all wrong and none have found balance. Marriage should be consecrated yet it isn’t a requirement. Love is not required for sex, but both are necessary for marriage and marriage gives sexual consent. Divorce is adultery and even more so if a wife or husband lost their love for a spouse. The proof is inherent to the trigger. Christian are duly warned that marriage is for life and any divorce decision should not be made trivially.

  89. Colorodomtnman says:

    Pastor Jermaine was caught laying hands on one of his parishioners wives; thankfully he says Jesus has already forgiven him.

    http://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/2017/01/30/tallahassee-pastors-tryst-spotlight/97135232/

  90. Gunner Q says:

    Damn Crackers @ 9:58 am:
    “Serious question, are there any non-Christian cultures that have/had anything like romantic love?”

    I’m sure Apex Alphas have long enjoyed it. Cucks as well as women tend to assume all men are Apex men because they care so little about the others. That’s how the likes of Milton can get away with prioritizing feels over vows, by assuming undesirable men simply don’t exist. Just a variation of cucks advising a young man to find a wife by “don’t be a jerk, don’t play the field, just pick out a nice girl and settle down”.

    Of course women are instinctively, naturally loyal to her man when one assumes the man is King David. This goes a long way to explaining how the likes of Glenn Stanton can spew toxic ideas without noticing the damage, when they’re the leaders of big churches and media empires giving advice that works only for leaders of big groups and empires.

  91. Oscar says:

    @ Damn Crackers says:
    January 31, 2017 at 9:58 am

    “Serious question, are there any non-Christian cultures that have/had anything like romantic love?”

    Yes. Greek mythology is full of stories of romantic love. In fact, the concept of “soul mates” comes from Greek mythology. According to Greek mythology, humans were originally created with four arms, four legs and a head with two faces. Fearing their power, Zeus split them into two separate parts, condemning them to spend their lives in search of their other halves.

    Muslim Arab literature also contains many stories in which the plucky, young, underdog, bad-boy hero romances some fat, old sultan’s young, beautiful wife (one of many, of course).

    Those are the only ones with which I’m familiar, but I suspect there are others.

  92. Opus says:

    It is often assumed at this Blog that no-fault divorce that is to say Divorce on Demand opened the floodgates in America to the high rate of Divorce that presently prevails with the usually implied assertion that returning to an earlier law will make women think again before firing the nuclear trigger. Whereas it might be the case that complicated and expensive legal proceedings might have some effect in stemming that flood-tide allow me to remind (as I must have said it before) that England does not have a no-fault divorce law and yet the divorce rate is no less than in America. We have our own version of Cruelty known as Unreasonable Behaviour and what you might wonder is behaviour that is unreasonable. The answer is anything, literally anything, that a man either does or does not do. I once saw a Petition wherein the behaviour complained of was not even that of the husband but of the parents in law. No Judge would have stopped that Petition turning into a Decree Nisi and the only reason it didn’t get that far was that the parents instructed their own lawyers to bring proceedings against the wife for Defamation – the wife withdrew the petition though in my learned opinion such an action would be bound to have failed.

    No one otherwise defends such Petitions as it will achieve nothing other than a large bill and as the wife usually has her fees paid by the State she can litigate until she bankrupts the country. The Judges always grant the prayers as set out in the Petition and would regard making life difficult for the wife as Misogyny. I never sat as a Judge with or without a pussycat hat on my head – merely horse-hair.

  93. MarcusD says:

    With statistics on cheating and the existence of the internet, I’m almost afraid to get married
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1040057

    Grad school childcare question
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1040099

  94. BillyS says:

    Deti,

    Thanks for pointing that out. I have cleared a backlog. I didn’t realize I need to pay attention to the little bell icon now.

    I am not sure if it will automatically approve certain people. I need to look into that.

  95. Anonymous Reader says:

    Preacher finds romantic twu wuv, or maybe just tingles, then husband finds them both…

    http://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/2017/01/30/tallahassee-pastors-tryst-spotlight/97135232/

    …now he’s found forgiveness. Anyone still object to the word “Churchian” anymore? Yes, this does tie to the OP because once again we have Feelz raised up to be the highest of Good Things.

    Notes:
    That husband should have kept his gun. He’ll probably need it in the future.
    Good thing he didn’t slap his adulterous wife, though — that would be abuse and a far more serious thing than merely screwing another man in The Marriage Bed, which, y’know, is just a case of “stuff happens”.

  96. Gunner Q says:

    “England does not have a no-fault divorce law and yet the divorce rate is no less than in America.”

    It’s the cash & prizes that drive the behavior. If a wife could have a no-fault divorce that came with no alimony, ostracism from her kids, no support–you wanted out of your family so you’re OUT–then no-fault divorce wouldn’t be nearly as popular.

    She wants the freedom to branch-swing on emotions without losing the safety net of marriage. That’s the real definition of “no-fault”… “un-haaappy”.

  97. Dalrock says:

    @Opus

    It is often assumed at this Blog that no-fault divorce that is to say Divorce on Demand opened the floodgates in America to the high rate of Divorce that presently prevails with the usually implied assertion that returning to an earlier law will make women think again before firing the nuclear trigger. Whereas it might be the case that complicated and expensive legal proceedings might have some effect in stemming that flood-tide allow me to remind (as I must have said it before) that England does not have a no-fault divorce law and yet the divorce rate is no less than in America. We have our own version of Cruelty known as Unreasonable Behaviour and what you might wonder is behaviour that is unreasonable. The answer is anything, literally anything, that a man either does or does not do.

    The key change for both of our countries was the view that romantic love (feelings) were what made a marriage valid. The fundamental shift was in public opinion. In the US the laws were then formally changed to remove even the pretense of marriage vows creating any meaningful sense of “commitment”. I take it from what you write that in the UK this formality was (largely?) omitted, but for practical purposes the same result occurred.

    For the record, my own opinion is that no fault divorce (formal or de facto) is not the most damaging legal assault on the family. Child support and other forms of cash and prizes are the most damaging, as they (and not divorce) are the replacement for marriage as the fundamental family structure. However, all of these things are of course related.

  98. Hose_B says:

    Its funny that now a Prenuptial agreement is needed to get what was already built into biblical marriage. However I sincerely doubt there are many young women who would sign a prenup describing biblical marriage.

  99. @Hose_B:

    Wouldn’t matter. Some random judge would just throw it out.

  100. JT says:

    Milton isn’t the sole voice of the Puritans on marriage. I’m sure others were less romantically inclined and more biblically sound.

  101. BillyS says:

    Very few young couples have many assets and things gained in a marriage are “common goods” in all ways I have seen.

  102. Opus says:

    @ Dalrock

    England, unlike America, is a Theocracy and the Bishop’s of the Church of England sit in the House of Lords – as if they are Peers of The Realm – which although its power (since 1911) has been restricted has great moral authority and it was probably because of the Bishops that the present system was devised. Their fear was that easy Divorce would facilitate theLlibertine – how stupid can one get! – as if the likes of Roosh or Roissy are concerned with matrimony before consumation but the fantasy was that men would trick women in to marriage and then abandon the unfortunate wife as soon as they had had their wicked way. The Judiciary, however, have largely ignored the law and acted as if there is divorce on demand much as the medical profession has ignored the intended requirements of the Act of Parliament permitting Abortion and treated Abortion as if it is on demand (which it is not).

    The result was, however, as you describe with women desiring marriage and then divorcing to obtain financial support and a free house (which they could then purchase from The State at a knock-down price and then after a few years sell at a massive profit). England being a lot poorer than America a Council House and State assistance (as well as the cost of the legal proceedings) was what most divorcing women thus sought and obtained. The position for the middle-class was slightly different: if the marriage was of short duration and no offspring had been produced (which was quite common) the parties went their own way, the man with the stigma of Divorce and the woman the victim worthy of sympathy but without financial repercussions for either party; if however their were children and a house purchased on mortgage the woman might were she to divorce gain the house and thus make life difficult for the husband though over the decades the husband would probably (as his former wife’s ability to pull a successful man faded) recover and do better. Grey divorce was rare. Imprisoning men for non-payment of alimony was in my experience unknown and a man could always return to court to argue that his alimony commitments should be reduced and usually they were. Most men lost contact with their children (the stress of seeing his children for an hour or two once a fortnight being psychologically too stressful) and the wife’s new husband would take over full responsibility for their upbringing.

    That was how things then were and it confirms Briffault’s Law that the conditions of the Family are determined by the female and not the male, the Judiciary merely putting those conditions into effect.

  103. Opus says:

    Three more points, if I may:

    1. Palimony was unknown to the law of England.

    2. The law of Alimony requires that the parties be placed as best as possible in the situation they would have been in had it not been for divorce but that does not mean a 50/50 split of assets, thus Paul McCartney paid a mere $10,000,000 to his disabled wife rather than half his fortune for $10 million was more than adequate to satisfy her needs.

    3. Female Petitioners for Divorce, I observed, tended to be physically and mentally unattractive whereas female Respondent’s tended to be attractive in both their face and in their personality. How could this be? I would suggest that women on the receiving end of divorce had been able to attract by reason of their beauty thrusting successful Alpha males, those same Alpha males however are the sort of men who continue to attract beautiful but younger women and can thus just about afford to Divorce and remarry. The Petitioning females perhaps had always felt that they had been cheated by having had to settle for Beta (or Gamma) males and surely overrated their MMV.

  104. Hose_B says:

    @Gunner Q. “Of course women are instinctively, naturally loyal to her man when one assumes the man is King David.”
    The example of King David made me laugh. Most men have committed less atrocities than David. Most notably adultery ending in impregnation and murder to cover it up……..
    But then again, if you just mean powerful alpha male……….(as opposed to moral) then your statement might be truer than we realize.

  105. Dalrock says:

    Thanks Opus.

    @JT

    Milton isn’t the sole voice of the Puritans on marriage. I’m sure others were less romantically inclined and more biblically sound.

    I believe this is true. Leland Ryken argues in his book Worldly Saints: The Puritans As They Really Were that Milton’s view was the accepted Puritan view. However, when I tried to track down the sources he referenced Milton was the only one that panned out. His other main quote was actually a Puritan quoting St. Jerome (same quote as is in the OP).

  106. Hmm says:

    For a summary of the Puritans on marriage, you might consider:

    Joel Beeke is the head of Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary in Grand Rapids, MI, and is widely read in Puritan literature. I have profited by many of his other books, but haven’t read this one.

  107. Gunner Q says:

    Hose_B @ 5:46 am:
    “The example of King David made me laugh. Most men have committed less atrocities than David.”

    The interesting part is that Churchian pastors are every bit as in love with Dark Triad David as their women are. I’ve seen them do four-month-long series on just how awesome King David was. They may be biologically male but their psyche is entirely female.

    It certainly explains how they apparently prefer lift-chasing to actual coitus, even with their own shoggoth. Also their typical reaction to criticism and dissent.

  108. Hmm. I think I hear the sound of the Duluth Wheel rolling up the sidewalk….

    De lose wheel cannot manage to lug nuts

  109. Original Laura says:

    @Dalrock said, “For the record, my own opinion is that no fault divorce (formal or de facto) is not the most damaging legal assault on the family. Child support and other forms of cash and prizes are the most damaging, as they (and not divorce) are the replacement for marriage as the fundamental family structure. However, all of these things are of course related.”

    Ah, but every young man and woman have spent their entire lives being reminded that no decision to be married is ever really final. They always know that they can cancel the marriage if it turns out badly, so they don’t put as much effort into vetting their marriage prospect as they might if they knew that marriage vows were truly enforceable. And the inability of one or both spouses to see the marriage as absolutely final can lead to one or both continually contemplating the pros and cons of ending the current marriage. If one spouse is constantly “thinking out loud” about how he/she might be better off without the current spouse, the other spouse may initially try harder to make the marriage a success. But if it gradually becomes clear that the complaining spouse is not actually capable of ever being satisfied in the real world, the other spouse will lose all hope of having a lasting marriage, and will reduce his/her efforts to make the marriage work.

    Among the working classes, there is often awareness that there will be absolutely no cash or prizes going in either direction, although if there are children, the ex-wife may qualify for various benefits (such as HUD housing) post divorce that she and her husband would not have qualified for as a couple. In marriages in which the spouse has a substance abuse issue, or can’t hold down a job, or spends money like there is no tomorrow, the victimized spouse often has no realistic expectation of receiving anything post-divorce. Instead, they think that if they can sever all links with the irresponsible spouse, they can finally achieve financial solvency.

    To some degree it really is a chicken and egg situation, but my vote is for no fault divorce being more of a root cause than “cash and prizes.”

  110. BillyS says:

    I would disagree with you Laura. That certainly plays a role, but my wife would have been much less hesitant to nuke our long term marriage if she knew she would have to live with others for the rest of her life. (She will likely end up having to do so in the end, but the money she extorted from me for a time will push that reckoning off a bit.)

    The ability to have me fund her new adventure played a greater role in her actions. I see no reason it would not do so for those with children.

  111. Hose_B says:

    @BillyS
    To further your point, many times it is the independence (or fear/rejection of submission) that drives the wife’s desire to leave. It’s an extension of the wife’s desire to rule over her husband. Power.
    My experience has been a long hamster wheel of stuff with the subconscious goal of usurping or denying authority. (I say subconscious because having it be a conscious decision would make me think things about my ex’s core morality that I would rather not believe. Blue pill, yes I know)
    All of the broomsticks she had me chasing were simply a shield from admitting an absolute refusal to see me as any sort of authority figure in her life.
    I did not understand the root cause for the first 17 years and it led to me believing that she simply didn’t love me. Referring to Laura’s post, i initially “manned up” and tried harder. (Very blue pill) and eventually gave up. Adultery and wasted years followed which made EVERYTHING worse.
    Even at the end, it wasn’t other women that stopped reconciliation. It was a refusal to give up being in charge of her life.

  112. Pingback: Splitting Eros Leads To Disaster | Donal Graeme

  113. Matamoros says:

    Here is a pretty good article on a real wife. A Saint for those suffering from broken, unfaithful and abusive marriages
    Blessed Elizabeth Canori Mora is a model of holiness lived even after happily-ever-after goes sour.

    http://aleteia.org/2017/02/02/a-saint-for-those-suffering-from-broken-unfaithful-and-abusive-marriages/

    As I commented there:

    “Elizabeth Mora’s witness isn’t a call to remain in an abusive relationship. ”
    On the contrary, she shows that women are to remain in their marriages, come what may, in fulfillment of her vows.
    Women today want all the good, but none of the bad, that can happen in marriage. Elizabeth Mora shows that it is possible to fulfill her vows, remain loving, and even become a saint, in what is now called an “abusive relationship”. Women should take her lesson to heart.

  114. Mark Citadel says:

    Erasing no-fault divorce is a huge priority. That will put feminism back in the box so to speak, and very quickly.

    By the way, my own blog has moved to WordPress. I can now be found at:

    http://citadelfoundations.wordpress.com

  115. BillyS says:

    Hose_B,

    It is clear to me now that my wife never found joy in serving and taking care of me. That means everything she did chipped away at the foundation rather than strengthening it, no matter what I did. That is a really sad thing.

    It is even sadder that many churches will embrace her with open arms if she comes to them. I do believe she is reborn, but she is definitely walking in sin and rebellion now.

    I can see that in my conversations (VERY LIMITED) with her. She is really nice in general, until she can’t get what she want. She will also throw in the little digs at me, but not respond to legitimate questions. She learned today that her “monthly amount” is really going to be tied to my paychecks (since it will ultimately be withheld) and will only be 1/26th the annual amount. That adds up to the right amount, but is less than even the monthly amount she expected.

    I do believe she is going to be in for a surprise next year when taxes are due on what she is getting. I have told her that, but I suspect she doesn’t really believe that and thinks this is tax free to her. That will be an unpleasant surprise for her (I suspect), but I am not concerned since she chose this route.

  116. johnmark7 says:

    Not sure about your sourcing on romantic or courtly love in the West. Was just reading this essay on Zoroastrianism and Mithra that convincingly points to Persia:

    http://www.altright.com/2016/07/25/the-return-of-zarathustra-part-iii/

    check it out. Plus parallels with Christian ideals and symbols from the time of 300 BC that are uncanny.

  117. Aha so much to consider. Marriage was sought out for alliances by way of property protection ergo the dowry. No matter the degree of pious contemplation it was the coffers that brought joy and happiness. Much like today the sanctity of marriage as legally binding teeters on the ROI as a back pocket insurance policy. Romantic love realized or not has always been as such and power by way of finance the same. Both equally enticing and if the sex is great even better.
    Thank you for the excellent post.

  118. Pingback: This Week in Reaction (2017/02/05) - Social Matter

  119. clulu says:

    i think the reason that romance is more important than marriage is because shacking up, relationships, AKA FORNICATION is not morally reprehensible anymore like it used to be….being in a relationship now is akin to being married in society’s eyes, it has achieved that honor that it didnt used to have. what happened to “making an honest woman out of her”? does anybody remember that? now all fornicating couples are considered “honest” and so that degrades marriage to simply a “piece of paper”……how many times, even in this blog do u hear “wife OR girlfriend” as if they have the same status? why? WHY do christian people give fornication legitimacy and honor? this is a real problem, that religious people dont want to address….cuz if they do, their churches would be empty i presume since they would offend nearly everyone, but thats what u have to do in order to be true to the bible and get things in order

  120. Pingback: Riding to Lancelot’s rescue. | Dalrock

  121. Pingback: Lancelot and the gruesome demand for the Full Titanic Experience. | Dalrock

  122. Pingback: A Course In Relationships | The Sound and The Fury

  123. Pingback: Was it true love? | Dalrock

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s