The one obstacle she can’t remove.

Shana Lebowitz at Business Insider writes that the problem with marriage is that it is so terribly permanent:

…I was left worriedly wondering: Is it possible that a couple can start out perfectly compatible, and then become less so over time?

Here’s the answer he gave: “Even if we achieve compatibility in the marriage, there’s no guarantee that that compatibility will remain strong over time.”

Yikes.

It turns out the danger is worst for carousel riders looking to marry at the last minute:

That’s especially true, Finkel added, if those two years are when you’re “in your late 20s, and you’re building a career, and you’re still hanging out some with your college friends, and you have some new friends.

This caused Lebowitz to recall an article she wrote in July, where she discovered that the problem with marriage was that divorce was seen as failure:

Finkel’s unsettling observations reminded me of something Susan Pease Gadoua, co-author of “The New I Do,” told me in July: It’s helpful to know you have an “out” of your marriage. That is, if one or both people grow out of the relationship, it might be upsetting, but it won’t be shameful to leave.

As Lebowitz’ explained in her July article, the idea of lifetime marriage is unhealthy (emphasis original):

When I spoke with Pease Gadoua in June, I asked her if it was useful to keep the possibility of divorce in the back of your mind.

She told me: “When people see divorce as never an option, it can create some unhealthy dynamics.”

This lead to a breakthrough idea.  What would revolutionize marriage, and make it really thrive as an institution, is easy divorce:

The implication for marriage is, if you accept that you might grow out of your relationship — or your partner might — you’re freeing yourself to be in the marriage because you want to, and not because you have to.

What is so telling about this is that easy divorce has been the law of the land for over four decades, and the church has even gotten with the program and stands by ready to rationalize divorce morally as well.  Feminists have gotten everything they could possibly want from our formal institutions.  And yet Lebowitz is troubled enough to write repeated articles on the topic because she understands a fundamental truth.  Other women will judge her as a failure if she marries and can’t stay married.  The exception here would be if she divorced, traded up, and stuck the landing.  But sticking the landing is a long shot.  If a woman could expect to do better than her first husband, she wouldn’t have settled for marrying the first husband in the first place.  Even worse, for round two she will not only be older with a history of divorce, but she will likely be a single mother.

So the fear remains, leaving Lebowitz with no other option but to try in vain to change the reality more stubborn than the law and the church.  While her readers may well like the idea of not being judged themselves, what she won’t be able to do is change the judgments her readers make about other women.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Aging Feminists, Business Insider, Divorce, Marriage, Shana Lebowitz, Status of marriage. Bookmark the permalink.

113 Responses to The one obstacle she can’t remove.

  1. Novaseeker says:

    It follows from hedonic marriage. If marriage is about joint self-actualization, that must realize that (1) staying is purely voluntary depending on whether the marriage is continuing to further that for both parties and (2) divorce must be an easy option precisely because the spouses may very well grow away from each other, thereby making the marriage impede, rather than further, their journeys of self-discovery and actualization — making it morally required to allow them to get out easily so as to continue those journeys without the marriage weighing them down (and maybe find a partner more suitable to continue that journey).

    This all follows, lock step and iron clad, from hedonic marriage being the core model of marriage in our society — and it’s the core model for most Christians as well, regardless of whether they pay lip service to the Christian model.

    Women who divorce and don’t stick the landing *do* lose status from that, it’s true, but on the front end the logic of this is compelling, because almost everyone buys into the idea of hedonic marriage, even if some SES groups practice it less than others (in terms of using the “out”).

  2. Pingback: The one obstacle she can’t remove. | @the_arv

  3. Dalrock, the link with the front-text of “judge her as a failure” has the wrong URL.

    [D: Thanks! Fixed.]

  4. squid_hunt says:

    This lead to a breakthrough idea.

    I’m always entertained when people go through the mental theatrics of simulating serious thought only to come up with the exact mainstream views they and all their friends had in the first place. And then they want to pretend like they came up with a bold, new idea no one has ever thought of before.

    It’s like a child asking if they can have a cookie and you ask them if they think they should be eating cookies before supper just to let them try to rationalize it.

  5. Tarrou says:

    It is precisely because I do not consider divorce to be an option that I have avoided marriage for almost four decades. Marriage to me is betting half my income for life that whoever I choose won’t change their mind.

    No thanks.

  6. earlthomas786 says:

    I don’t know if every women in the West agrees with this thought…but I have to be led to believe a majority do based on how the stats line up for who initiates the divorce. Marriage is not about the insitution or the vows, it’s not about the family or children’s well-being, it’s not about her husband…it’s all about her feelings changing and that’s why no-fault has to stay.

    Rather than put a man and her children through hell, why even get married if that’s their attitude…oh yeah, her feelings on wanting to get married.

  7. Werkof Rodann says:

    How much more obvious could these women make it that they just want to steal half a man’s assets? You could leave a relationship early if you never get married, but then you don’t get the prizes.

  8. honeycomb says:

    Th Wimmimz .. DON’T JUDGE ME .. you don’t know what I’ve been through ..

    My reaponse .. YES WE DO .. miles and miles of p3nis.

  9. earlthomas786 says:

    “When people see divorce as never an option, it can create some unhealthy dynamics.”

    Like fidelity, loyalty, working through problems that come up in marriage, adherence to vows, children who have their married father and mother together throughout their life…

  10. squid_hunt says:

    You could leave a relationship early if you never get married, but then you don’t get the prizes.

    You are describing a symptom. Feminism is a tool for dividing and conquering. The end goal is to abolish marriage because familial bonds are anathema to collectivists and authoritarians. People hold on to marriage right now as foundational. They are stretching it until people finally call it quit and give up on it. The greed of women and resentment of men is just one tool that is being used to destroy it.

  11. Non-Christian Female writer in NYC. This is a topic right up her alley. It’s always about “I deserve better!”.

  12. Luke says:

    One logical “solution” to her worry about the excessive permanence of marriage is simply having them expire after preset time intervals, like a fishing license. You don’t get a refund or any future consideration after those expire (no divorce court), so the highly understandable reason U.S. men now have for avoiding marriage would decrease. Children are of course the biggest issue, along with entangled property. If marital laws were changed such that NO property COULD ever be considered joint or entangled for a moment, ever, that would take care of the latter, at least.

    As noted previously many times before, what women want is for men to be married to them, but for them not to be married to men. Few men worth having will knowingly accept such a deal. Marriage frequency and duration will of course continue to decline, until its near-absence leads women to push for making marriage substantially more attractive to men, from mens’ POV. That’s IMO some years off yet, so nothing will change anytime soon except the details of how women whine.

  13. moarafat says:

    If divorce is a stigma that society has created upon women, “because divorce is always a women’s fault” then I can see where you are coming from.
    However, divorce doesn’t just have an effect on two people it affects the lives of the people who are closest to them. I.E children.

  14. UK Fred says:

    Shana Lebowitz seems to have forgotten one thing: if it isn’t permanent then it isn’t marriage as God intended. And if it isn’t permanent, then it isn’t good for the husband, or the children. I do not know what the present day statistics are, but in the Terman Longitudinal Study, it was found that children whose parents had divorced had a life expectancy of five years less than their peers, even after adjusting for economic and other factors.

  15. l jess says:

    Christian men need to realize that it is mandatory – do not have anything to do with a divorced woman (unless victim of adultery). The Bible gives no wiggle room in this – disobey and deal with the judgement of adultery.

  16. feministhater says:

    Just end child support and alimony and most of this stupid emotional crap stops. If a nasty, over 40 year old wife wants to leave… fine, there’s the door. You get nothing! Not the man’s money, not the children, nothing, you leave. End of story. Then lets see how much of this is really ‘growing apart’ and how much is really ‘time to fleece him’ bullshit.

  17. earlthomas786 says:

    Christian men need to realize that it is mandatory – do not have anything to do with a divorced woman (unless victim of adultery).

    Given how often women seem to make up stories of their victimhood…I’d simplify to just not having anything to do with any divorced woman.

    However, divorce doesn’t just have an effect on two people it affects the lives of the people who are closest to them. I.E children.

    Like I’ve read before and still agree…’divorce is just legalized child abuse’.

  18. Johnycomelately says:

    Her article shows exactly why the ‘marriage strike, man drought, where have the good men gone and peter pan’ trope is so absurd. Marriage to one man for life terrifies women who are having so much ‘fun’ being single. That is of course until they reach their epiphany phase.

  19. Scott says:

    Remember dudes. It’s men who are afraid of commitment.

  20. earlthomas786 says:

    Remember dudes. It’s men who are afraid of commitment.

    Yup…I keep remembering that each time another lady breaks up with me.

  21. BillyS says:

    Tarrou,

    It is precisely because I do not consider divorce to be an option that I have avoided marriage for almost four decades. Marriage to me is betting half my income for life that whoever I choose won’t change their mind.

    Pick the right state and it won’t be half your income for life. Texas is not perfect, but has caps on how long alimony plays out. My son has also claimed child support is now limited (it didn’t apply to me), but I haven’t investigated that.

    squid,

    You are describing a symptom. Feminism is a tool for dividing and conquering. The end goal is to abolish marriage because familial bonds are anathema to collectivists and authoritarians. People hold on to marriage right now as foundational. They are stretching it until people finally call it quit and give up on it. The greed of women and resentment of men is just one tool that is being used to destroy it.

    I am not seeking to reopen our debate, but even someone like you doesn’t see marriage as that vital today (feel free to correct me if I am wrong), so they have made significant progress toward that goal in even the more devout. I am not completely swayed myself, but even I see the strong merit for avoiding marriage for many, and that doesn’t bode well at all.

    I almost want things to blow up so we can get back to rationality, but the time during that will also be even nastier so I am not hoping for it soon.

    One logical “solution” to her worry about the excessive permanence of marriage is simply having them expire after preset time intervals, like a fishing license. You don’t get a refund or any future consideration after those expire (no divorce court), so the highly understandable reason U.S. men now have for avoiding marriage would decrease. Children are of course the biggest issue, along with entangled property. If marital laws were changed such that NO property COULD ever be considered joint or entangled for a moment, ever, that would take care of the latter, at least.

    I would not have accepted marriage with that deal. It is no different than shacking up, whatever it says on paper. Either we aim for God’s original plan of one man and one woman for life or we don’t call it marriage.

  22. BillyS says:

    Scott,

    Remember dudes. It’s men who are afraid of commitment.

    Women aren’t afraid of commitment, they just feel free to ignore it when they decide that is what they want to do. They will commit all day but it is not permanent in the eyes of most of them.

  23. Scott says:

    I was breathing the last few breaths of stagnant blue pill air in graduate school. Those were the years right before I met Mychael.

    I was 33, unhitched, in the best shape of my life, etc. However I was slightly out of sync with Rollos SMV/MMV men/women chart. You see, 33 is not a good year to be starting a new career. I was tall, dark and broke.

    I had no trouble getting and keeping girlfriends, and dated in several consecutive LTRs at that time.

    But the deal breaker? When marriage came up it was always my financial situation. I was not established in my field, I had student loan debt etc. I was a risk. On more than one occasion, this came up. Hang out on weekends and have a sexual relationship? Cool. Meet my friends? Cool. “But I’m looking for stability. Fun with you for now is fine though.”

    Mychael had the foresight to see that I was on my way to being a doctor and army officer if she dated me during the broke times it would be worth it. We met when I was a 3rd year and still had a big hill to climb to financial security.

    It’s not exactly a fairy tale but I have never sensed a fear of commitment from her, because she was there when I was a big risk.

    I was renting a shitty room in an even shittier apartment and barely able to put gas in my truck some weeks.

  24. PokeSalad says:

    Scott, if I may ask….what were the ages of these LTRs in question?

  25. Scott says:

    1-5 years younger than me.

  26. feeriker says:

    Shana Lebowitz seems to have forgotten one thing: if it isn’t permanent then it isn’t marriage as God intended.

    Shana Leboeitz probably doesn’t even believe in God (at least not the God of Abraham that Christians and her fellow Jews who are religiously observant believe in).

  27. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    What women really want is a double standard.

    1. Commitment from the man. The man must stay committed as long as the woman desires. A man who won’t commit is a Peter Pan. An immature man-boy.

    2. Freedom for the woman. The woman must be free to divorce whenever she wishes — without any legal, economic, religious, or social barriers or injuries. Her social and economic status must remain unharmed, if not improved.

    This reminds me of that mangina’s idiotic “Rules for Dating My Daughter.” One rule was that the man must continue dating his daughter until she wished to end the relationship.

  28. Frank K says:

    Rather than put a man and her children through hell, why even get married if that’s their attitude…oh yeah, her feelings on wanting to get married.

    AKA, wanting her “Princess Day”. Sometimes it seems that the groom is just another wedding accessory, like the cake or the limo.

  29. PokeSalad says:

    @ Scott – Interesting. They were at the Wall or quite near it, yet were still terrified of “settling,” perhaps? *hamster nods knowingly from his cage*

  30. Frank K says:

    Given how often women seem to make up stories of their victimhood…I’d simplify to just not having anything to do with any divorced woman.

    Especially given how rarely anyone bothers to verify her claims and simply accept them as fact. I’m sure Pastor Bob never asks for proof. Heck, the Catholic annulment process, which is very rigorous, is known to be abused. At least the Church says that an annulment grant is not infallible, and those seeking them are warned that if they lie or fabricate evidence, that they are asking for trouble. They can hoodwink the tribunal, but not the Lord.

  31. Frank K says:

    Christian men need to realize that it is mandatory – do not have anything to do with a divorced woman

    Sound advice. The problem is that there’s a good chance that the Pastor and/or his wife are divorced and remarried. Apparently in some Churchian circles all you have to do is “repent of your divorce” and you’re good to go.

    Without permanence, why get married? The only reason I can think of is to collect cash and prizes in the divorce.

  32. Scott says:

    Poke salad-

    I’m not sure. My personal dating–> marriage–> divorce–> dating–> remarriage trajectory never seems to fit the manosphere narrative perfectly so I usialk chalk it up as an outlier.

    I had fun between my marriages. The youngest was 22, 9 years younger than me at the time. But I was operating under the “old set of books” the entire time.

    (Meet-cute, call, date, sex, gets “serious,” meet parents, talk about marriage)

    I have learned a lot reading around here, but still don’t quite get where I fit into the rubric.

  33. earlthomas786 says:

    Without permanence, why get married? The only reason I can think of is to collect cash and prizes in the divorce.

    Especially if you want children. I think the permanence is just as much if not more for them than for the spouses.

    I do think femhater is probably right…if it wasn’t for the great economic incentives a woman usually gets in a divorce, the whole feelings reason would be put to a halt.

  34. Darwinian Arminian says:

    earlthomas786
    “When people see divorce as never an option, it can create some unhealthy dynamics.”
    Like fidelity, loyalty, working through problems that come up in marriage, adherence to vows, children who have their married father and mother together throughout their life…

    Of course! You see, fidelity, loyalty, and adherence to one’s vows are things that could bring temporary stresses and discomforts to the woman. That is why they are evil, and if they are necessary for an enduring marriage then that is also exactly why an enduring marriage will always be too much to ask of any woman. It’s almost comparable to the way that so many of today’s women are made to suffer through things like exercise, sweat, and a nutritious diet when their culture teaches them to never see obesity as an option.

  35. Pingback: The one obstacle she can’t remove. | Reaction Times

  36. Frank K says:

    But I was operating under the “old set of books” the entire time.

    (Meet-cute, call, date, sex, gets “serious,” meet parents, talk about marriage)

    This has certainly become the “new normal” in our secularized culture, even among many nominal Christians. It isn’t surprising that many young men are ditching the marriage part, whether or not they can date and get no strings attached sex.

  37. Frank K says:

    It’s almost comparable to the way that so many of today’s women are made to suffer through things like exercise, sweat, and a nutritious diet when their culture teaches them to never see obesity as an option.

    Nevermind what the culture says or does not say. Biology says it’s not an option. The healthy at any weight crowd are the equivalent of flat earth believers, except that obesity is physically harmful. As average lifespans continue to drop, especially for women, I’m sure they’ll find a way to blame men for it,

  38. Scott says:

    Frank K

    Having dated in the Christian world I would have to say that the number of people who don’t go by that script is statistically insignificant.

    If you’re not physical by the third date something went wrong.

  39. Spike says:

    What can I say for poor Ms Lebowitz?
    ”Cry me a river” might be a suitable sarcastic reply.
    The brains of the women in this article are terribly sick. First, Lebowitz is afraid that ”compatibility” drops over time (usually because wife takes husband for granted). Then her mentor , for want of a better term, Gadoua, tells her that it’s ”helpful” to ”know you have an out”.
    Nice.
    No question about why she is entertaining such life-destroying notions, no pause for considering the implications of her choices on others. I was reminded of an article I saw in a newspaper years ago that stated that one third of women knowingly get married to the wrong man.
    The modern woman, unfortunately thanks to the technology, safety and health the modern man has produced, is irreparably mentally ill. Her illness is sociopathy, narcissism, and solipsism.

  40. earlthomas786 says:

    Yes and we wouldn’t want women to have temporary stresses and discomforts. That’s why single women are so much happier and prove it by drinking wine constantly and accumulating cats.

  41. Dale says:

    In my experience, women are the ones who avoid commitment. (5 of the 4 women I proposed to said no), And I only proposed when I had a good paying job at least lined up.The actually are only interested in sex, and start being ready to marry when they don;t think they can ever get a better lover than the guy they have now.

  42. Um aren’t they confusing marriage with a “long term, monogomous, you have your place I have mine but we have fun and screw and stuff” relationship. Plus the legal access to resources upon departure.

    If I may not want the relationship down the road, why do I need to commit.

    From the Webster dictionary site
    Commitment
    “an agreement or pledge to do something in the future, a commitment to improve conditions at the prison; especially :an engagement to assume a financial obligation at a future date
    b :something pledged, the commitment of troops to the war
    c :the state or an instance of being obligated or emotionally impelled, a commitment to a cause”

  43. Boxer says:

    Dear Honeycomb:

    Th Wimmimz .. DON’T JUDGE ME .. you don’t know what I’ve been through ..

    My reaponse .. YES WE DO .. miles and miles of p3nis.

    What?! How dare you judge poor skanky princess?! Don’t you know that she was actually becoming a better and more valuable person, with each d*ck she rode?

    (Warning: Crass and NSFW)

  44. Novaseeker says:

    Women aren’t afraid of commitment, they just feel free to ignore it when they decide that is what they want to do. They will commit all day but it is not permanent in the eyes of most of them.

    Billy —

    Yes. But this is something that is fundamental to baseline “fallen” female nature. As the “weaker” and more dependent sex physically, they are much more baseline insecure than men in their natural/fallen state (that can be changed by upbringing/coaching/etc). So the ability to change their minds at any time for any reason makes perfect sense to their baseline level of insecurity — commitment makes more sense coming from a position of default strength, but makes much less sense coming from a position of default weakness. Flexibility makes sense if you are in that position.

    This has been known for a long, long time — it isn’t a manosphere idea. Heck, look at “la donna e mobile” (“women are fickle in love”) from Verdi’s opera “Rigoletto” (premiered 1851) or Mozart’s entire opera “Cosi fan tutte” (“women are like that” (premiered 1790). Many of us can still remember women talking about “it’s the woman’s prerogative to change her mind” (without explanation being given). This is in the baseline nature of women, and it persists today. It’s baked into the cake. It can be overcome by strong training and upbringing, and so there are some women who do overcome it or move beyond it, but without that it is a very strong baseline tendency in women, and especially in their dealings with men.

    Men seemed to forget this after second wave feminism much to their disadvantage. And most Christian churches have forgotten it entirely, it would appear.

  45. CSI says:

    If marriage is supposed to be temporary, why marry at all? Why not just live together? The powerful appeal of marriage to women is because it is supposed to be permanent (although now that’s mostly just an illusion). But remove even the illusion of permanence, than the allure of marriage will evaporate. Also, make it expressly temporary and all the financial benefits that accrue to women on marriage and divorce will no longer make sense and will probably be diminished or even removed. So by seeking to remove all stigma from divorce by making marriage an explicitly temporary arrangement, then marriage becomes pointless.

  46. earlthomas786 says:

    ‘Also, make it expressly temporary and all the financial benefits that accrue to women on marriage and divorce will no longer make sense and will probably be diminished or even removed.’

    I’ll believe it when I see it. If anything that will finally reveal to men what women think of marriage…and any man going into it have no excuse when they get bamboozled.

  47. honeycomb says:

    Boxer ..

    That video is a classic .. example of stupid .. and I’m anti-stupid (not anti-social .. which seems to be the same thing these days).

    ..
    ..

    The cure is here and available .. it just won’t be administered with the correct dose.

    But, the treatment must be started even if it’s an IV drip.

  48. PokeSalad says:

    So by seeking to remove all stigma from divorce by making marriage an explicitly temporary arrangement, then marriage becomes pointless.

    Yes, but from the woman’s perspective its very valuable in giving the illusion of commitment.

  49. Novaseeker says:

    Boxer —

    Well, yeah that’s just the classic projection. “Women find this kind of ‘achievement’ attractive in men, therefore it’s also attractive in women” — which of course is based on some fundamental and severe misunderstandings in the sexual strategies of men and women and the underlying reasons for them.

    Or as someone put succinctly quite a long time ago: a key that opens a lot of locks is a master key, but a lock that is opened by many keys is a shitty lock.

    Nothing to do with “owning your emotional states”, it has to do with supply, demand, difficulty of getting laid, and the ingrained sexual strategies of men and women. Now, as a Christian I may find it regrettable and immoral that men who fuck a lot of women are highly valued, sexually, by many women (even many Christian women), at least I understand the underlying reason why, in fallen human nature, this is so, and don’t spout projection nonsense like that silly video.

  50. earlthomas786 says:

    ‘What?! How dare you judge poor skanky princess?! Don’t you know that she was actually becoming a better and more valuable person, with each d*ck she rode?’

    And now to her it’s just as mundane an activity like reading a book or doing dishes. Wife her up fellas!

  51. earlthomas786 says:

    Women are the ones often afraid of commitment yet hide it well under the illusion of wanting it.

  52. Random Angeleno says:

    Cause. Meet effect. Not.

  53. honeycomb says:

    Look fella’s .. if marriage is out of the question with a divorced woman (i.e. married in the states eyes) ..

    WHAT’S the difference in a woman that has never been married but not a virgin (i.e. Married in the eyes of God)?

    (*One married in the states eyes & the other married in our Heavenly Fathers eyes.)

    Both are married .. and both would be adult’err(or)’ee.

    Prove me wrong (i.e. usual disclaimer applies .. I’ve been wrong before and stand ready to be proved wrong again .. maybe).

  54. Thornstruck says:

    @Boxer The best counter analogy I’ve read was an article called Bubble Gum. Here is the link should anyone be interested in the article.

    https://dannyfrom504.com/2013/03/10/bubble-gum/

    The video analogy would be her attempt at arguing chewed gum, stuck under a park bench, tastes better the more it’s chewed.

  55. Luke says:

    The posters noting that my “proposal” to have marriage licenses expire after a time would not be real (esp. Christian) marriages are correct. Going further, they also laudably and accurately see that men would see that as pointless. Well, guess what; if a man gets what he THINKS is “married” today in America, he’s only married to her, but she’s not married to him, not even on the first day. If she were genuinely married to her supposed husband, she would not have the legal right to do what she does to him when she decides to monkey-branch or just toss her husband while keeping his property, children, and future income. This is why I take the position that marriage in America is not even unwise, but impossible now. If someone were to suggest that I ever remarry, I would take that as constructive an act as committing suicide in guaranteed prolonged agnony. Without a time machine (or at least the option and willingness to abandon living in a Western country ever again) marriage is now impossible for American men. Any U.S. man who says he is married is either a d*mned liar or tragically (but likely not permanently) fooled.

  56. DeNihilist says:

    And crudely related –

    “women that don’t clean, cook or s-ck dick always ask,

    ‘ where are all the good men?’

    The good men just finished eating dinner and they are relaxing in a clean house about to get their dick s-cked”

  57. BillyS says:

    Honeycomb,

    Things like that are one of the reasons I would only apply what Jesus said to the narrow point He was answering, not to every marriage everywhere. He also never stated that the adultery was ongoing, just that it happened once.

    I wish He had discussed things in more depth, but He didn’t. He clearly sees follow-on marriages as valid (He said the woman at the well was married 5 times), but those would definitely not be the ideal if we go back to the beginning.

    It also seems like He was holding the man who divorced her accountable for the adultery, otherwise why would the disciples have been concerned? It would not be their problem if the wife committed adultery, right?

    I think the standard is clear, but living it out is more challenge, just like the Sabbath. Marriage was made for man, not the other way around. He is against bondage of all forms.

  58. BillyS says:

    Luke,

    You might be right if no marriages succeeded, but some do, in spite of the system. The system is truly evil, but righteousness can still happen and the alternatives are not all that great either. Stay single if you want, but don’t swing things the other way and make that a commandment.

  59. Luke says:

    BillyS, outside the Amish, the Orthodox Jews, and the Koranic hate-bombers, pretty much the only “marriages” that succeed now in the U.S. are the ones where one of the principals (the guy or the feminist) fricking DIE before she has officially murdered it. Of course, given the Damoclean threatpoint continuously hanging over the “marriage” from before it even commences, the likely maleducation of the young (if they’re taught by Education majors, I guarantee this), the likely rotten theological upbringing of the children (if they attend a Churchian church, i.e., allows pastorettes), the “please get Type II diabetes ASAP” feeding of the kids (if they’re not on a meat-heavy Paleo diet, again I guarantee this), etc., the kids are likely ruined even before/if she doesn’t get to frivorce the man who THOUGHT he had a wife before he inconsiderately dies.

  60. feeriker says:

    What women really want is a double standard.

    That includes (so-called) Christian women.

    At least the Church says that an annulment grant is not infallible, and those seeking them are warned that if they lie or fabricate evidence, that they are asking for trouble. They can hoodwink the tribunal, but not the Lord.

    We all know that people lie their way through that process with the ease with which they breathe. Women, in particular, feel ZE-RO compunction about doing so. This is why you will sometimes see me assert hereabouts that a sizeable percentage of women, if not a majority, do not really believe in a God Omnipotent, or that He is a God of righteous wrath as well as love. If they did, they would not be behaving as they do with such utterly arrogant and cavalier disregard for their own eternal souls.

    The problem is that there’s a good chance that the Pastor and/or his wife are divorced and remarried. Apparently in some Churchian circles all you have to do is “repent of your divorce” and you’re good to go.

    Yup. All that “God hates divorce” stuff is in that part of the Bible that’s soooo … First Century. We’re so much more enlightened than that nowadays (just ask our buddy “Pastor” Lee if he should ever decide to exercise his inner masochist and drop by for another visit).

  61. American says:

    I had to sit yet another woman hitting the wall down yesterday after she asked me out on a date and explain to her that she is wasting her time because I’m a celibate committed Christian who will never give anyone access to the levers of government to use on me or my finances. I value my liberty too much to voluntarily become her indentured servant. She’ll have to find another sucker to be her ATM machine because that’s what marriage has devolved into today.

  62. Anon says:

    Shana Lebowitz at Business Insider

    There is a typo in her surname. The ‘s’ is missing.

    Shana Lesbowitz.

  63. BillyS says:

    Luke,

    Dalrock would be at least one success story that does not fit in your profile.

  64. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Schools are now banning children from having best friends: http://uk.businessinsider.com/schools-are-banning-best-friends-to-protect-kids-feelings-2017-9?r=US&IR=T&utm_content=buffered109&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer-tiuk

    Thomas’s Battersea, the school George attends, bans kids from having best friends, Marie Claire reports. Instead, teachers encourage all students to form bonds with one another to avoid creating feelings of exclusions among those without best friends….

    The trend of banning best friends has been growing for several years, and it’s spread beyond European borders to American schools as well. Some psychologists and parents argue kids become more well-adjusted when they have larger friend groups and can avoid negative feelings associated with feeling left out.

    Critics, however, say the approach robs kids of the chance to form valuable coping skills. By grappling with mild social exclusion when they’re young, kids will emerge as more capable, resilient adults, these advocates argue.

    Schools are forcing children to be equal friends with everyone in class. And prohibiting children from preferring one child to another. I don’t know how schools hope to enforce this.

    Some mothers approve. How would these mothers feel if they were forced to give up their girlfriends, and be equal friends with a large group of random people?

    OTOH, I suppose this plays into women’s fear of being excluded from the tribe. Comforting to think that all the other children will be forced to be her child’s friend.

  65. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Boxer, that woman’s followup video is even more revealing. She mentions that she’s been “horny” since her late 40s, and “after I left my husband …”

    It seems she dumped her husband as she approached 50, perhaps because she had him on the hook financially. She then met lots of young guys on the internet. She now works as an “escort” (i.e., she’s a prostitute). Before becoming an “escort” she worked for a California school district.

    Now she’s written a book!

    Just think. Some poor guy was once married to this slag.

  66. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Here is the blurb from the back of that tramp’s book, The F-ck List, taken from Amazon:

    After 25 years of marriage, Schahrzad, mother of three, files for divorce and decides to embark on a powerful journey of sexual discovery, liberation and freedom. Her memoir, The F-ck List, takes us on her riveting ride over the course of two years, as she lets go of her inhibitions and explores her relationship to her body, desire, and sexuality. The F-ck List is a woman’s courageous story about healing old wounds, discovering pleasure, and claiming lust. A must read if you want to get turned on.

  67. necroking48 says:

    Question…. Is God a woman?

    Why I ask will be revealed at the end of my rant:

    After reading all the comments in here it is obvious that a couple of facts can be observed
    1: Excepting the extreme of circumstances, woman’s nature will not change,
    2: Society and current laws are heavily biased in women’s favor, and protect them at all costs, even if that means punishing men
    3: It is literal suicide for a man to get married to these creatures with those 2 FACTS being true

    So if that is the case, why do you all bitch and whine about it day after day? I mean, you’re not going to be able to change the way things are… The status quo is what it is

    Could it be that at a very deep level we still desire and want sex with these damaged creatures, yet our religion denies us even that
    We still can masturbate to release our sexual needs…. Oh wait!! That’s right, we can’t because according to the church that’s a mortal sin 😨
    So what to do? We can’t marry any woman who has been in a relationship or had a divorce because we then sin again….yet this creates a problem, 99% of all living women today have either been married or been in a long term relationship so we’re forbidden to entertain thoughts of being with them

    Yet we’re back at square one, we still need to get our sexual needs met 😨 oh the dilemma!!
    We can’t masturbate, we can’t have sex with prostitutes, we can’t be with 98% of any living woman without committing adultery

    Now I know why we come in here and bitch every single day, we’re literally being emasculated by our religious beliefs so we rage at women and the state of things, yet we don’t give each other any SOLUTIONS

    I for one would like to know if any of you have workable solutions?

    And don’t say celibacy as that is a sin according to the Bible, under those that forbid marriage in 1st Timothy

  68. necroking48 says:

    It almost seems like “God” acts like a woman in forbidding us any sexual release with these creatures and condemns us for wanting sex

    Sorry, I didn’t include my follow up post with the first one

  69. Luke says:

    Necroking, I don’t accept Catch-22s. Instead of resigning myself to being trapped, I figure I just got exempted from the whole deal. “When you’ve been given a choice between two evils, choose neither”, and all that. A wife that deadbeds a man for years that he can’t divorce without likely losing his property, future income, and children? He just got a “Moral to find a mistress/side GF” card.
    Marriage effectively no longer exists a Christian man’s country (as is the situation in the U.S.) and he does not have “the gift of celibacy” (as most men do not)? He’s theologically free of the requirement to marry before having sex, since expecting him to do so would be no more reasonable than expecting a man who lived 200 years before Christ came to Earth to have specifically accepted Him as his savior. See how that works?

  70. Scott says:

    Neckroking-

    At a very early age (probably 11-12ish) I recognized that nearly nobody was taking Christian teaching about celibacy before marriage seriously. I went to a private, Christian school that had all grades (k-12) and so we junior highers were in close proximity to the high school kids. It was obvious that most of them were having sex. This was in the early/mid 80s.

    Those who were “waiting” couldn’t get laid anyway, so it was kind of a funny position for them to take.

    Over time, my parents also started attending church less and less–this is after having gone from almost extreme fundamentalist type to basically zero attendance by the time I was a sophmore in high school (86-87 school year). They moved me to the public school that year, where all pretense of being “Christian” was shed.

    My parents remained married until I was 21, and long out of the house, so the divorce had a minimal impact on my development. But sex was another matter. I had eventually bought into the line that sex, in the absence of context was just a biological function, and that it only has whatever meaning you (and presumably your partner) attach to it. This was THE common belief among young people in the 80s and through most of the 90s, before the subjectivity REALLY took off.

    And so, as I have often pointed out in the past, “dating” or having a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship was perfectly normal and everyone–Christian or not–was hopping from one of these relationships to another, or a nerd. None of this struck me as odd until I was looking to marry the girl who would be my first wife–and she had held out. We were married at 23, and she had zero partners. I thought this was very weird at the time, but I was able to control myself for the entire 1 1/2 years we were dating/engaged.

    The proposition as you have laid it out is sound. It does seem that God’s restrictions and boundaries on sex are ridiculous, and seem feminized from the perspective of late 20th/early 21st century Americans. So you can do what I did, and disregard all of it until you are ready to get married! This has put me in a position of having no credibility around this topic though, as evidenced by some of the very nasty things written about me and my wife at some of the sites that critique the manosphere.

    So, I don’t know. I hope for external change–for the society to put up the kinds of guardrails (I have heard) we once had. I have just never experienced them in any real way. And like I said, I grew up with one foot in both worlds–the deeply religious Christian world and the secular one. They are not noticeably different.

  71. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Neckroking48, I’m in my 50s. I can live without sex. More than sex, I yearn for the emotional support and comfort provided by the idealized wife. A wife who is loving, loyal, good-natured, sense of humor, intelligent, and yes, attractive. (Even without sex, I don’t want to look at the Amazing Tattooed Colossal Woman from the circus.)

    I know idealized wives are unicorns. But I remain a blue pill romantic at heart, and a reluctant red pill MGTOW in deed. I lament that I can’t have what I desire. That she doesn’t exist. That I did all the things I was advised to do — get a good education, earn good money, be a gentleman, respect her feelings, etc. — and yet I remain alone in my 50s.

    In some ways I’m lucky. I was never divorced raped. But I’d surrender most of my wealth for such an idealized wife (who, by definition, would never divorce or betray me, but would stand by me “for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, till death us do part.”)

  72. earlthomas786 says:

    Question…. Is God a woman?

    No…Jesus addresses God as father. Your whole argument about sexual morality makes God a woman is just secular thinking.

    I for one would like to know if any of you have workable solutions?

    And don’t say celibacy as that is a sin according to the Bible, under those that forbid marriage in 1st Timothy

    You forgot the ‘and’ part to that statement which is the point in that passage:

    ‘But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude; for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer.’

    We get it…you most likely don’t care for sexual morality or celibacy, but that doesn’t mean you can shove your beliefs into Scripture. God’s will for Christians is to abstain from sexual immorality otherwise they will not know God.

    ‘For this is the will of God, your sanctification; that is, that you abstain from sexual immorality; that each of you know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor, not in lustful passion, like the Gentiles who do not know God; and that no man transgress and defraud his brother in the matter because the Lord is the avenger in all these things, just as we also told you before and solemnly warned you.’ (1 Thes 4:3-6)

  73. squid_hunt says:

    We get it…you most likely don’t care for sexual morality or celibacy, but that doesn’t mean you can shove your beliefs into Scripture. God’s will for Christians is to abstain from sexual immorality otherwise they will not know God.

    Yep.

  74. earlthomas786 says:

    After 25 years of marriage, Schahrzad, mother of three, files for divorce and decides to embark on a powerful journey of sexual discovery, liberation and freedom.

    The foolish woman destroys her house is verified yet again.

  75. feministhater says:

    So if that is the case, why do you all bitch and whine about it day after day? I mean, you’re not going to be able to change the way things are… The status quo is what it is

    The human ‘condition’ is to yearn for that which it cannot have. The ‘bitching’ as it were is trying to learn to live with the knowledge that you can’t have what you want.

    Now I know why we come in here and bitch every single day, we’re literally being emasculated by our religious beliefs so we rage at women and the state of things, yet we don’t give each other any SOLUTIONS.

    The modern day Church seeks to emasculate men whereas God gives men control over women, in the marriage bed and in every other sphere of life. The pernicious nature of feminism and egalitarianism is it seeks to usurp God’s ordained authority and replace it with female Goddess worship. The Church has succumbed to this, just as every other Western Institution has as well.

    God places both restrictions on female and male sexuality, the modern world has simply decided to forgo the restrictions on female sexuality and keep the ones placed on male sexuality. It now seeks to control you by using your wife. That is why I cannot agree with marriage, the Church as gone along with it and using women to control men, just as much as the state. Biblical marriage, the kind that we all long for… for most men, it doesn’t exist and a new version, filled with dangers, lurks in its stead. Beware of those who would cajole you into accepting a false version. They do not have your best interests at heart. Question, question, question. If they do not readily agree that marriage is a shit deal and that true Biblical marriage requires total submission of the wife to the husband… leave.

  76. Pingback: The More Men She F*cks (2) – v5k2c2

  77. earlthomas786 says:

    This is why you will sometimes see me assert hereabouts that a sizeable percentage of women, if not a majority, do not really believe in a God Omnipotent, or that He is a God of righteous wrath as well as love. If they did, they would not be behaving as they do with such utterly arrogant and cavalier disregard for their own eternal souls.

    @feeriker
    The darkest side of feminism is convincing these broads that they are ‘god’ (much like the serpent convincing Eve). Throw sexual immorality on top of that and they sure don’t know who the real God is anymore.

  78. Boxer says:

    Dear Red Pill Latecomer:

    Boxer, that woman’s followup video is even more revealing. She mentions that she’s been “horny” since her late 40s, and “after I left my husband …”

    It seems she dumped her husband as she approached 50, perhaps because she had him on the hook financially. She then met lots of young guys on the internet. She now works as an “escort” (i.e., she’s a prostitute). Before becoming an “escort” she worked for a California school district.

    Been to California. Not entirely surprised that they’re hiring prostitutes to look after the kids there. (One of my friend’s kid’s teachers was arrested for selling drugs in Los Angeles, years ago. This was after school hours, so she probably kept her teaching job.)

    Now she’s written a book!

    Truly hilarious. Thanks for this. I gave you credit over at Chez Boxer.

    https://v5k2c2.wordpress.com/2017/09/21/the-more-men-she-fcks-2/

  79. earlthomas786 says:

    I had to sit yet another woman hitting the wall down yesterday after she asked me out on a date and explain to her that she is wasting her time because I’m a celibate committed Christian who will never give…

    She must be on her last leg if she’s asking guys out.

  80. feministhater says:

    She must be on her last leg if she’s asking guys out.

    Plenty of walled out and stalled out women looking for a husband. Someone has to save her… and then pay her after the inevitable divorce. These women are desperate. Even going so far as to risk rejection for the first time in their lives. It’s glorious.

  81. earlthomas786 says:

    God places both restrictions on female and male sexuality, the modern world has simply decided to forgo the restrictions on female sexuality and keep the ones placed on male sexuality. It now seeks to control you by using your wife.

    Yeah that’s really what is going on here…and it really took the restrictions off of females in our modern times when hormonal birth control came into being.

  82. PokeSalad says:

    It now seeks to control you by using your wife and pastor

    FTFY

  83. Opus says:

    Hard not to feel sorry for women given the ease with which they can rack up a high N and yet perforce must do everything in their power to hide that N; with men the opposite is the case. That whore in the linked video speaks of societal condemnation but she means female condemnation; men don’t care but have an inbuilt resistance to marrying a whore – though some do.

    Novaseeker references The Duke’s aria in Rigoletto: Donna e Mobile (Girl on a Motorbike – and what a great movie that was too!) “Women are cheap today, Cheaper than yesterday, da, da, da da–da-da” etc. he might also have mentioned that other Verdi opera, the one referenced in Pretty Woman – which Richard Gere takes Julia Roberts to see – to rub her face in it; tactless or what – namely La Traviata which means The Fallen Woman. There, a woman of the demi-monde i.e. an escort, Violetta Valery falls in lurve with Alfredo Germont who is an aristocrat and a decade or two younger than Violetta. They love each other don’t you know but his Dad has a serious word with her -“the time will come when making love will no longer appeal to you” he explains and sees her off. In true operatic fashion she then dies of consumption and we can all then go home. Puccini’s La Rondine is basically a retelling of the same story. Puccini had a penchant for making operatic heroines suffer (look what he did to Liu in Turandot or Cio Cio San in Butterfly) and so in his Manon (Jeez that really does sound like Star Wars) prostitute Manon (heart of gold) ends up in Louisiana having been kicked out of La Belle France. His Fanciula del West (California Gold Rush) is all about a strong empowered woman who saves her man from the gallows and frankly is about as absurd as Beethoven’s similar themed opera Fidelio.

    Yesterday I mentioned Don Giovanni and today Novaseeker explains Cosi Fan Tutte with libretto by former tenured Columbia University Italian scholar and American citizen Lorenzo da Ponte. (AWALT) Wagner thought it morally vile as did every one else and (believe it or not, Mr Ripley) the first performance ever at London’s Covent Garden was as late as 1968!! I wonder how long it will be before it is once again consigned to the unplayable. In the meanwhile for connoiseurs of Blue Pill Opera I give you Janacek’s Jenufa where Jenufa (not on the pill) is made preganant – as if she had no say in the opening of her legs – by bad boy Laca yet then turns down marriage to his white-knight brother Steva. It all ends tragically, of course.

    Happily all that sort of thing has come to an end because most recent operas are about men falling in love with other men or lusting after small boys (anything by Britten) or as in Lulu (Berg) a woman causing havoc wherever she goes.

  84. Frank K says:

    I wish He had discussed things in more depth

    I think that it’s probable that He did, but it didn’t get written down, at least not in any scripture that the Church eventually declared to be canonical.

  85. Damn Crackers says:

    That prostitute from the video above isn’t really a woman, is she?

    Hey, all married and single guys here are fornicators. I am sure even the married guys here have had sex with their wives before seven days after her period.

  86. Damn Crackers says:

    @Earl – You don’t have to listen to St. Paul to know you don’t drink from another man’s cistern!

  87. Jason says:

    My parents met in 1964. After six months of dating they got married in 1965. Watched my parents struggle with a very, very sick older brother (born 1966) with no help (nor did they expect help) by the State. Watched them slowly build equity with a house, hard work, saving, thrift. Watched them do without so “I” could have (private high school, being an American exchange-student, private college). Watched them growing up………they never kept score on each other. They cried together, loved, and stuck by each other. The only time I ever saw my father cry when my mother was diagnosed with ‘stage 3’ cancer……he cared for her for her last two years of her life as she got worse and worse (bathed, carried, dressed, loved, doctors appointments, fed) until she succumbed at home a few months after their 42nd wedding anniversary. At her funeral…..I fell apart…wept, and bawled unashamedly at the altar. My father had done his crying for years taking care of her. He was stoic at the funeral. My parents were ‘cultural Christians’ (dad a fallen away Catholic, mother Church of England).

    My parents were always (Dad still) perplexed to why I never found someone, got married…..I tried to explain once to them back in my early 30’s. They just could not “comprehend” or “understand” the current dating climate, impossible standards an educated man like myself was dealing with in San Francisco (it was a bit selfish of me expecting them to understand looking back).

    They were a real team…..and not a deeply religious man…..my father mentioned to me over morning coffee for a brief visit after my June backpacking trek “Jason, I took the vows I made to your mother in 1965 to heart in front of family, friends, and God. Your mother took them seriously too. A man is only as good as his word in the end son. If a man or woman can’t uphold a serious promise like that….well, what good is that person in the end really?”

    I always wanted a “wife” with some of the serious attributes of my mother, and that woman is gone for the most part…….sure a few out there…but they are actually married to righteous guys.

  88. earlthomas786 says:

    “If a man or woman can’t uphold a serious promise like that….well, what good is that person in the end really?”

    Yup. That’s how serious the vows should be taken. It’s not based on your transient feelings…that’s building a marriage on sand so to speak.

  89. earlthomas786 says:

    ‘You don’t have to listen to St. Paul to know you don’t drink from another man’s cistern!’

    You’ll be drinking saltwater so to speak…because it ends in death one way or the other.

  90. Heidi says:

    “Why So Many Women Cheat on Their Husbands”:

    “It occurred to me as I listened that these women were describing infidelity not as a transgression but a creative or even subversive act, a protest against an institution they’d come to experience as suffocating or oppressive….[Women] were also unwilling to bear the stigma of a publicly open marriage or to go through the effort of negotiating such a complex arrangement.”

    ” “I shop and cook, my husband does dishes and empties the trash,” one told me. “We each do our own laundry. But I’ve always been in charge of the ‘calendar,’ and what I didn’t realize until recently is that in some way I’m in charge of managing many of our relationships….“I think there’s an incredible amount of deep resentment for women in America about divisions of labor,”

    https://www.thecut.com/2017/09/why-women-cheat-esther-perel-state-of-affairs.html?wpsrc=nymag

  91. Frank K says:

    Why So Many Women Cheat on Their Husbands?

    Because they can and it’s easy. They don’t need game, they don’t need to be beautiful, they don’t need to be charming or even pleasant. All they have to do is find a mark and let him know they’re willing, They can punch well above their weight and still easily get laid.

    Now, if they want more than a friend with benefits, it gets trickier. But from what I’m hearing, many will use a FwB arrangement as a way to get their foot in the door

  92. earlthomas786 says:

    “It occurred to me as I listened that these women were describing infidelity not as a transgression but a creative or even subversive act, a protest against an institution they’d come to experience as suffocating or oppressive….

    Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!
    Isaiah 5:20

  93. Frank K says:

    From the “why women cheat article”:

    There is a correlation between equal division of labor and better sex

    If that is true, do her extramarital lovers come over and clean the house before their bedroom romp? I seriously doubt it. They get the sex because they give her the tingles and hubby does not.

  94. Caligula says:

    “Women aren’t afraid of commitment, they just feel free to ignore it when they decide that is what they want to do.”

    The rationalization: I meant it when I committed then, but that was then and this is now.
    The rationalization: You’re not what I married anymore (“You were a good ol’ wagon but you done broke down”).
    It’s about the freedom to upgrade: if I can get better than you then why should I stick around?

    Marriage has become an uncertain business: it lasts or it doesn’t, with one person or another, here or in some other place.

  95. Robert What? says:

    There is zero incentive these days for a woman to stay loyal to her marriage. Why many young men still get married is a mystery to me.

  96. Pingback: Unshakable Belief | Spawny's Space

  97. Yet Another Commenter, Yet Another Comment ("Yac-Yac") says:

    Luke (September 20, 2017 at 4:15 pm) wrote (my emphasis added):

    “[…]As noted previously many times before, what women want is for men to be married to them, but for them not to be married to men. Few men worth having will knowingly accept such a deal. Marriage frequency and duration will of course continue to decline, until its near-absence leads women to push for making marriage substantially more attractive to men, from mens’ POV. That’s IMO some years off yet, so nothing will change anytime soon except the details of how women whine.”

    Luke,
    IMHO (YMMV), that’s not how it works. It’s not (again, IMHO) how it can work.

    This simply isn’t about “men and women in marriage (or not)”, or “men vs. women in marriage (or not)”.

    As others have pointed out (in this forum and elsewhere), endlessly, this is, rather, about “men, women, marriage, and the miscellaneous authoritarians and collectivists who, since the days of Antonio Gramsci and Trotsky, have been trying to destroy not just the ‘institution’ of marriage, or even the ‘cultural habit’ of marriage, but the very idea of marriage”.

    Your above-stated scenario seems to posit that it would be enough for “women to come to their senses”, and for “women to be fair”. You have left out the part about our wee authoritarian friends — of whatever purported political stripe — needing very badly to be ground under the heel of either technological and economic collapse, or societal collapse, or both.

    Ponder the fact that the 0.1% politically most powerful Americans (so, what? 350,000 or so people?), probably excludes up to half of the currently sitting Congressional Representatives, if you want to grasp how far the authoritarian rot has spread in the USA.

    … and I haven’t even got to the part where I would critique your “women to come to their senses” (really? why haven’t they done so already? what mighty obstacle stands between them and enlightement on this issue?) premise, or your “women to be fair” (really? grounded in their supernatural capacity for objective thinking, and notorious lack of solipsism? </sarc>).

    So, I think you are being excessively optimistic about how this is going to end. Tonight, the entire Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is without electricity. We will envy them for this.

    Pax Christi Vobiscum

  98. Dale says:

    Scott said: If you’re not physical by the third date something went wrong.

    Or, if you’re not physical by the third date, something WILL go wrong. I dated one feminine, beatiful, well-developed virgin who was in her late twenties. I knew from looking at her and seeing her feminine choices that she would have no problem meeting my emotional and sexual needs, should she choose to be a good wife. I also wanted to slow down the physical side of the relationship; e.g. I delayed giving her a kiss longer than she wanted.
    So, I did not lead us to engage in sexual playing, when she gave a blunt indication that she was willing. Within a month of the beginning of our relationship, she decided that she was not feeling sexual attraction to me, so she/we ended it. She said I was not physically attractive enough, but she knew how I looked when we started, so I suspect it was more a matter of her lack of passionate feelings in response to my behaviour.
    My mistake was in thinking that the woman would be mature enough to understand that a man showing restraint is not going to be generating the hots in the woman. And thinking this did not need to be explained to her. Maybe if I had the understanding then that I have now I could have led better.

    Given my limitations and her expectations for feelings/passions however, the relationship did not work. Perhaps it would not have worked anyway, but these two items, I think, guaranteed the failure.

  99. greenlander says:

    moderation test

  100. greenlander says:

    moderation test #2

  101. necroking48 says:

    Would anyone know how to contact Dalrock directly instead of in these threads?

  102. Karl says:

    Some women seem to be trying a “creative” way to both have their cake and eat it too:

    https://www.thecut.com/2017/09/why-women-cheat-esther-perel-state-of-affairs.html

    Two excerpts:

    “What surprised me most about these conversations was not that my friends were cheating, but that many of them were so nonchalant in the way they described their extramarital adventures. There was deception but little secrecy or shame. Often, they loved their husbands, but felt in some fundamental way that their needs (sexual, emotional, psychological) were not being met inside the marriage.”

    “It occurred to me as I listened that these women were describing infidelity not as a transgression but a creative or even subversive act, a protest against an institution they’d come to experience as suffocating or oppressive. In an earlier generation, this might have taken the form of separation or divorce, but now, it seemed, more and more women were unwilling to abandon the marriages and families they’d built over years or decades. They were also unwilling to bear the stigma of a publicly open marriage or to go through the effort of negotiating such a complex arrangement. These women were turning to infidelity not as a way to explode a marriage, but as a way to stay in it.”

    Yes, “unwilling to bear the stigma” indeed.

    Definitely an article worth reading!

  103. earl says:

    I don’t know about the whole time to be physical thing…I’ve gone physical on first dates and I’ve held back for months. Seems like in both cases the woman will find some reason to not be attracted anymore at some point. It may not play as big a part in her attraction decisions as we are led to believe…perhaps it has more to do with her *shudder* free will choice.

  104. Luke says:

    Karl, if my wife is banging some other guy, she’s already “out” of our marriage. She just didn’t have the decency to notify me first. While I’m at work to earn the money to feed/clothe/house her, she’s getting popsicled by some guy that doesn’t have to provide any of those? I want the same deal, or she’s gone from my life. That is, she moves out of my house, and I should still get to bang her, but providing her with no money in the future. If that’s the sale price on her body, I expect price-matching.

  105. Kate says:

    Divorce IS failure.

    The only way it’s important to stay compatible is in values. You must marry someone who values the institution of marriage even more than they value the person they’re marrying. Their ultimate dedication must be to God and His plan. Your partner will not be perfect, but God is.

    A good read: http://www.net-burst.net/hope/love.htm

  106. feeriker says:

    Question, question, question. If they do not readily agree that marriage is a shit deal and that true Biblical marriage requires total submission of the wife to the husband… leave.

    Be prepared to do A LOT of leaving.

    Jason said:

    My parents were always (Dad still) perplexed to why I never found someone, got married…..I tried to explain once to them back in my early 30’s. They just could not “comprehend” or “understand” the current dating climate, impossible standards an educated man like myself was dealing with in San Francisco (it was a bit selfish of me expecting them to understand looking back).

    It’s very, VERY difficult for parents of that generation (it sounds as if your parents were maybe a decade younger than mine) to understand what it’s been like out there in the SMP/MMP for the last 25-30 years. But give them time; they will eventually “put two and two together” and realize that the decaying society around them that they navigaye every day HAS TO BE adversely impacting intersexual relations.

    Just recently my 83-year-old mother, who was married to my father for nearly 53 years before his death from cancer six years ago, told me that she now not only understands why my ex-wife and I divorced (she recognizes fully and clearly that it was my ex-wife’s doing), but also why, if I had not met my (non-North American) fiancee, I would never have even have considered remarrying. She sees now how hopelessly polluted the waters are, how wretchedly different things are from sixty years ago when she was dating and married Dad, and it breaks her heart. “Women today don’t even try to be decent human beings,” she said to me in a conversation last week. “Some of my lady friends at church talk about their husbands in the nastiest ways, which makes me wonder why they got married in the first place.” (Mom and Dad spent the last 33 years of their marriage working together and living side-by-dide, 24/7. Were it not for her deep faith, Mom would have fallen apart over Dad’s death).

    A very long way from the angry denial of just six months ago when I described today’s American women, “Christian” or non, as insufferable and unfit for relationships.

    Jason, I’m betting that, given what your Dad said to you about taking marriage vows seriously, he HAS to know that almost NO women out there today (or many men, for that matter) even think about such a thing, let alone take it seriously. I’m sure he viscerally understands your position, even if he has a hard time voicing it.

  107. earlthomas786 says:

    “Women today don’t even try to be decent human beings,” she said to me in a conversation last week.. “Some of my lady friends at church talk about their husbands in the nastiest ways, which makes me wonder why they got married in the first place.”

    I’m assuming your mother dated, married, and lived partly in a time before artificial contraception and widespread sexual immorality injected into feminism happened.

    The bad part is even the woman who try to stay away from both have plenty of friends, sisters, co-workers, etc. who inject their bad ideas into their pysche. That’s why the waters are VERY polluted in the west.

  108. feeriker says:

    The bad part is even the woman who try to stay away from both have plenty of friends, sisters, co-workers, etc. who inject their bad ideas into their pysche. That’s why the waters are VERY polluted in the west.

    Exactly, although I’m not sure that there are many women, even “Christian” ones, who are making a serious, conscious effort to stay on the narrow path. That so many of them are just as susceptible to “the whispers” as self-professed non-believers is a very depressing thought. It serves as yet more evidence that Jesus’s admonition to be “wise as serpents, but gentle as doves” has fallen mostly on deaf ears since the day He uttered it. It’s also another reason why, far from being the salt of the earth, today’s church is sand in the mouth.

  109. Anon says:

    Exactly, although I’m not sure that there are many women, even “Christian” ones, who are making a serious, conscious effort to stay on the narrow path.

    Of course. Even ethnic groups that are considered ultra-conservative on matters of marriage are shaving around the edges in favor of the FI at a feverish rate.

  110. When I read propositions like this, one’s that are presented in a serious light, it contrasts the completely Pollyanna concept of marriage most idealistic Beta men hold for themselves.

    JBP talks about the shackles of marriage and how the institution is socially beneficial between men and women who are “just as messed up as the other”. Sorry, but this will always be an idealistic false equivalency until men and women have equal benefits and equal risks prospects in marriage. This only furthers my impression that JBP’s concept of marriage is colored by his own Blue Pill experiences. We are not ‘equally messed up’ when it is exclusively husbands who are held liable for the preconditions of their wives being ‘messed up’.

    When women want an escape clause like the one Lebowitz suggest here it only makes it that much clearer that it is in women’s best interests that men become indentured servants to women in marriage.

  111. Gunner Q says:

    Biblically speaking, marriage is not intended to fix people in any way. It’s intended to be sex. Fixing people is God’s work, not spouse’s work. This is, as you suspect, merely a sneaky way to keep “marriage civilizes men and provides for women” thinking as the purpose of marriage.

    Anybody who is “messed up” should probably not make life-changing vows in the first place. God knows there’s plenty of not-messed-up men who can’t buy themselves a date. If only priests knew that, too, we’d have patriarchy.

  112. honeycomb says:

    hmmmm ..

  113. earlthomas786 says:

    Biblically speaking, marriage is not intended to fix people in any way. It’s intended to be sex.

    Well if you want to go full bore Biblical when it comes to marriage…it’s supposed to represent the relationship between Christ and His church. In the OT it was God and Israel.

    Sex in a marriage is one way to keep that relationship together…and most likely one of the most important ones because of the unitive and procreative properties.

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