Must a Traditional Man Accept Modern Marriage?

A guest post by Dalrock.

.

Alan Roebuck recently asked Can Man Live Traditionally?

Alan answered yes, and went so far as to argue that a man has an obligation to marry even though this means marrying in a legal and social regime which has done all it can to eradicate traditional marriage, and even if this means marrying a woman who wouldn’t have been considered appropriate to marry by tradition minded men of past generations.

As a member of what I have dubbed the traditional marriage group within the manosphere, I asked Alan if he would be interested in me providing a response as a guest post. Alan very graciously accepted. I suggested this because while I differ in some important aspects with Alan’s position on the topic, I was impressed with his willingness to go against the grain of our thoroughly feminised culture and acknowledge the unpopular truths regarding what our society has transformed marriage into. While I think it is unlikely that opinions will be changed on either side, my hope with this exchange is that each of us will better understand the positions of the other.

My own answer to the question Can Man Live Traditionally? is: Perhaps, although not entirely, and either way there is great challenge and risk. This is a grave matter, and ultimately each man must seriously and thoughtfully weigh the risks and rewards and make his own decision.

I believe Alan and I are not that far apart in acknowledging that there are limits as to how much a man can mitigate our society’s decision to destroy traditional marriage (for that is precisely what our society has decided to do). I also believe we are in agreement that:

  • As a result of overwhelming feminist success in redefining marriage, there are serious obstacles and risks involved with trying to reshape modern marriage into something which even somewhat resembles traditional marriage.
  • Traditional marriage is so important, and something of such profound benefit both for the family it creates and for society at large that it is worth taking great risks and making great sacrifices in order to achieve something which approaches traditional marriage.
  • For a moral minded man, opting not to marry means opting never to have sex or children; electing not to marry comes at an extremely high price.
  • A marriage strike, or a boycott of marriage is not a wise path.

On the topic of a strike or boycott, I should clarify that I’m referring to the idea of collectively forgoing something of value in an effort to force a change to the social order. A strike or boycott is at best a noble collective temper tantrum; it is an attempt to collectively spite something desired as a form of protest. A man who engaged in a marriage strike or boycott would be deciding that while he would prefer marriage to remaining unmarried, he will go against his own best interests in an attempt to reform society as a whole. This is something entirely different than a man who wishes to have a traditional marriage* but decides not to accept a shored up form of modern marriage as a good enough substitute. This kind of decision by men is where I believe Alan and I disagree.

To understand why a tradition minded man might decide that it isn’t feasible to fashion modern marriage into something sufficiently like traditional marriage, we must first consider how different modern marriage is from traditional (real, biblical) marriage. The two are so incredibly different that traditional marriage is now quite a radical concept, even to the vast majority of those who would consider themselves traditional conservatives. Since we are focusing on whether men should marry, consider what a man would rightly expect as a husband in traditional marriage:

  1. The role of head of household.
  2. Marriage for life.
  3. Not to be denied sex by his wife.
  4. A bride who gives him her youth, virginity, and submission.

No doubt in times past many husbands found themselves having to make some compromises in one or more of the above, but if we are talking about traditional marriage these are all key aspects of what a husband should expect. Even when the law, culture, and the Church backed traditional marriage a man always had to weigh his expectations of receiving the benefits of traditional marriage verses the risk of ending up with something less. After all, not all prospective brides are equally likely to honor traditional marriage.

The problem for a tradition minded man today is greatly compounded by the fact that the law, culture, and nearly all of our churches are outright hostile to the idea of traditional marriage. To our modern ears most of what the Bible has to say about the roles of husbands and wives is outright shocking. Pastors and other religious leaders live in fear of angering the feminist sensibilities of both women and men, and as a result find ways to either avoid the offending passages altogether or go through ridiculous contortions in order to explain that the passages don’t really mean what they used to mean. With the churches in full submission feminists have been able to change both the family laws and social values to perfect their evisceration of traditional marriage.

While all four items listed above are offensive to feminists, the concept of headship (#1) is arguably the most despised. Fortunately for feminists destroying 2-4 has the benefit of also attacking headship. Feminists know that young, virgin brides are more likely to accept their husband as head of household. As a result it is now axiomatic that a woman must attain a sufficient amount of “life experience” and education/career prior to marriage, lest she suffer the fate of submitting to her husband. Likewise, denial of sex is a potent weapon for a rebellious wife to bring her husband into submission. The same is even true when it comes to no fault divorce. No fault divorce and the biased family courts don’t just break up families and rip children from their fathers. The constant threat of no fault divorce is a powerful way to overturn headship by redistributing power from the husband to the wife within marriages, even where divorce never occurs. This is well established by the academics who study marriage, as economists Stevenson and Wolfers explain in their paper Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law: Divorce Laws and Family Distress (emphasis mine):

In the literature on the economics of the family there has been growing consensus on the need to take bargaining and distribution within marriage seriously. Such models of the family rely on a threat point to determine distribution within the household. The switch to a unilateral divorce regime redistributes power in a marriage, giving power to the person who wants out, and reducing the power previously held by the partner interested in preserving the marriage.

But it isn’t just academics who understand this. Instead of leading his family, a modern husband now knows his responsibility is to focus on keeping his wife from becoming unhappy so she won’t destroy the family. This new view is the final nail in the coffin of headship, and yet it is unquestioningly accepted to an astonishing degree. In the most celebrated Christian movie on marriage the threat of divorce is the tool a rebellious wife uses to cause her husband to submit to her and become the man God wanted him to become. While not as severe, this frame of mind is even present in Alan’s argument:

We must also point out an uncomfortable truth: You may bear some of legitimate responsibility for your wife’s unhappiness. Not all female complaints are frivolous. Although it is wrong for the woman to allow these complaints to drive her to divorce, the man should not goad her into doing evil. If you can change those of your behaviors that ought to be changed, to prevent the great evil of divorce, more the better. Do whatever it takes, short of sin or dishonor, to prevent divorce.

Alan tempers this instruction with limits on how far a husband should go in this modern view of marital submission, but even tempered this frame of mind is wholly inconsistent with the traditional concept of headship. Husbands are instructed to lead with agape, but a husband cannot take on the moral burden this thoroughly modern view would place upon him and remain traditional in any meaningful sense of the term. Accepting this moral burden, even with the limits Alan proposes, places the wife’s emotional state as the fundamental authority of the household and turns the husband into a hostage negotiator. This is the disaster of modern marriage, and it robs a wife of a traditional husband who can shelter her from the storms of her own emotions. This leaves the modern wife untethered and craving the leadership her husband can no longer provide.

I’ve only scratched the surface in describing the ways modern marriage diverges from traditional marriage. While I agree with Alan that with proper selection of a wife and by taking proactive steps like learning Game some or even much of this can be remediated, I can see where a tradition minded man could decide that the profound benefits of traditional marriage are outweighed by the enormous difficulty and risks involved with trying to reshape modern marriage into something resembling traditional marriage. This isn’t the path I have chosen, and I have been incredibly blessed as a husband and a father. But I respect another man’s decision not to accept even a modified version of modern marriage as “good enough”.

G. K. Chesterson famously wrote:

The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.

While this is sadly true of conservatism at its worst, I would offer a more charitable description of the response of conservatives to each new successful assault on the institution of marriage:

What?

That is insane!

Ok, I think I can still make it work if I…

Conservatives are at a disadvantage to feminists because making things work is part of who we are. We don’t walk away from difficult problems, we find a way to fix them. This can be something very noble, especially when a man is clear headed in what he is doing. However, just like a family member constantly covering for an alcoholic, continuously finding ever more creative ways to allow feminists to torture marriage without observing the natural outcomes ultimately risks amounting to enabling destructive behavior. This is especially problematic if we declare what other men must do to keep the appearance that feminists haven’t gutted traditional marriage. While conservatism at its best has been a noble effort to shield our society from as much of the negative effects of feminism as possible, at its worst it has acted as the anvil against which feminists hammer tradition minded men.

There is no functional support for a traditional married man. The law, the culture and even the churches are now outright hostile to the traditional view of marriage. I don’t see a man who carefully weighs his true options and elects not to accept modern marriage as a coward. Nor do I see my own marriage and children as a terrible burden, something which causes me to be offended that another man would refuse to suffer a similar fate alongside of me. The man who doesn’t accept modern marriage as a suitable substitute for the real thing isn’t failing me, and he isn’t failing traditional marriage. The heart of the damage to our culture has been done by modern churches in their abandonment of biblical marriage. Surprisingly it has taken over 40 years for us to start to see a decline in marriage rates due to the evisceration of traditional marriage, and this delay is what has allowed Christian leaders to lie to themselves that abandoning biblical marriage is something other than killing marriage. Even so, the decline we are starting to see in marriage rates is driven by women postponing marriage past their most fertile years and then finding it extremely difficult to find men who want to start a family with a woman in her 30s. We won’t save traditional marriage by finding a way to ensure that large numbers of women can safely focus their most fertile years on empowerment and find a husband at the last minute.

*I’ve focused on men who desire traditional marriage because the topic is how traditional men should live, and also because there is no moral meaning to modern marriage; it is merely a state and church sanctioned version of boyfriend and girlfriend. A man who desires modern marriage does not desire marriage at all, and therefore isn’t the focus of my attention here.

About these ads

403 thoughts on “Must a Traditional Man Accept Modern Marriage?

  1. I thank Dalrock for his interest in my post and the important topics it raises and for his agreement with many of my points raised by the post.

    For now, I just have a couple of specific points in response.

    We are agreed on the general nature of the problem: law and culture that encourage the more selfish spouse (generally the wife) to hold the marriage hostage, and enable her to destroy it on whim.

    We disagree somewhat on the proper response of men of good will. While acknowledging the general soundness of Dalrock’s advice, I must reiterate a meta-point: marriage, even bad marriage, is foundational to the life of our nation, and therefore more must be said than that marriage has become dangerous and the man must protect himself.

    If something is necessary, then it must be something like an imperative. There must therefore be something like a general imperative to marry (which individuals can override if necessary, for man is not a slave to his nation). How this is best to be expressed, I cannot now say. Is a topic for further discussion.

    Dalrock said

    Alan … went so far as to argue that a man has an obligation to marry

    I didn’t exactly say every man has an obligation to marry, although I can see how one might get that impression. For the record, though, I do not say that all men ought to marry. There are always individuals who because of their circumstances are justified in not marrying.

    Dalrock quoted me saying

    We must also point out an uncomfortable truth: You may bear some of legitimate
    responsibility for your wife’s unhappiness. Not all female complaints are frivolous.
    Although it is wrong for the woman to allow these complaints to drive her to divorce,
    the man should not goad her into doing evil. If you can change those of your behaviors
    that ought to be changed, to prevent the great evil of divorce, more the better. Do
    whatever it takes, short of sin or dishonor, to prevent divorce.

    This was the statement of mine that drew the most flack. But my general point was that if a man can save his marriage by making some concessions, then he ought to do so, provided that they are not immoral or humiliating. I do not advocate a general attitude of appeasement, for that is deadly to one’s self and to one’s marriage. And I acknowledge the profound corruption of proper marriage that is entailed by arming the wife with the right to divorce frivolously. (Whether divorce ought to be granted at all is a matter for another discussion.) But given the evil constraints imposed by the Masters of Society, and the importance for all involved of avoiding divorce, occasional concession for a greater good can be a noble act.

    Dalrock also said

    I don’t see a man who carefully weighs his true options and elects not to accept modern marriage as a coward.

    I also wouldn’t call him a coward, and yet if there are enough of him then the nation is in danger.

    I would say that the best that an honorable man can do nowadays is to refuse to consort with women who appear not to be traditionally-minded, find a properly conservative church to attend, marry as young a woman as is feasible, and work on developing his character and his relationship with God through repentance and faith in Christ so that he can be a leader, not just a male companion.

    • Dear Alan,

      On behalf of all the Good Men out there, I would like to say that we Traditional Men are quite ready to Accept Modern Marriage, just as soon as Modern Women are ready to Accept Traditional Marriage.

      Until then, we would be compromising our ideals, which is something neither Jesus nor Moses ever did.

      And nor shall we, as that would be dishonoring the exalted FAITH of our FATHERS.

      • If that means you are single men who will not even consider marrying a woman who appears to have been infected with feminism and to lack proper womanly virtue, good.

        But men already married may not be able to put their feet down and become patriarchs overnight. There will be some work to do, in concert with their wives.

      • Alan, FYI, GBFM is a performance artist that perhaps cannot properly be understood by anyone who has not had an extensive bout with highly intellectual nihilism in a thoroughly post modernist setting, such as the modern ivy league academy, or Starbucks. His performance is at first nothing but post modern irony and stupidity but at second glance has some content that has caused me to go lolzlzlzlz for a long long time. I believe he is Roissy/Heartiste, the other famously genius nihilst on the internet going lolzlzlz all day long on shots of espresso. When responding to GBFM it is best to stick to ironic humor so as to ward off the onset of crushing existential anxiety associated with a close brush of the abyss from an authentic post-modern soul.

      • GBFM has bestowed a rare gift upon us by breaking character and writing plainly. It is an honor, although the few times I’ve seen it always left me a bit unnerved.

      • Dear Alan,

        You write, “Alan Roebuck | May 20, 2013 at 9:31 pm
        If that means you are single men who will not even consider marrying a woman who appears to have been infected with feminism and to lack proper womanly virtue, good.

        But men already married may not be able to put their feet down and become patriarchs overnight. There will be some work to do, in concert with their wives.”

        Yes Alan,

        The solution is quite easy, especially for Christians. Have women read Genesis instead of “Eat, Pray, Love.”

        Have women read Moses and Jesus.

        And all the men should read all these things, as well as the GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN.

        Dear Alan–you should be addressing the current ministers and preachers who refrain from teaching these exalted entities. Not the innocent men who were drugged up in school and denied their classical heritage which teaches men and women how to act Nobly.

        Dear Alan, will you write a blog calling upon preachers and ministers to teach the Bible?

      • …will you write a blog calling upon preachers and ministers to teach the Bible?

        It isn’t up to me to address all aspects of the problem. But yes, it would be good if putatively Christian teachers actually taught Christianity…

      • Dear Alan,

        You write,

        “Alan Roebuck | May 21, 2013 at 4:24 pm
        …will you write a blog calling upon preachers and ministers to teach the Bible?

        It isn’t up to me to address all aspects of the problem. But yes, it would be good if putatively Christian teachers actually taught Christianity…”

        What are the criterion by which you determine which aspects of the problem you can address, and which aspects you will not address?

        Also, why are you investing so much time in demanding that men accept a debased form of marriage, rather than suggesting that women offer a less-debased form of marriage, such as that depicted in the Bible?

    • Alan,

      “Dalrock also said

      I don’t see a man who carefully weighs his true options and elects not to accept modern marriage as a coward.”

      Alan: “I also wouldn’t call him a coward, and yet if there are enough of him then the nation is in danger. ”

      Alan this is simply wrong. a nation is in trouble when enough men can rationally come to this conclusion, regardless of them doing so or not. You still seem to be putting too much pressure on the individual and not enough on the system.

      Next,

      Alan: “For the record, though, I do not say that all men ought to marry. There are always individuals who because of their circumstances are justified in not marrying.”

      Could you spell out what those circumstances are. It seems that your view is the number of people with those circumstances is quite small. If you spell out those circumstances, then we can evaluate together how big or how small the number of people in this situation is.

      • It would be presumptuous of me to spell out the conditions under which a man is absolved from a general obligation to marry. I could list some of them, but this is not intended to be anywhere near comprehensive:

        If his work requires him to be away from home for long durations, so that he cannot fulfill his duties to wife and children.

        If he feels no sexual desire for women.

        If he can find no suitable women (“suitable”= “significantly anti-traditional”) despite making a significant effort.

        I would say if you are in doubt (where real doubt means that it is genuinely possible that the woman could make a good wife) it is probably better to marry, because marriage does bring benefits as well as hardship. The wife does respond to her husband.

    • Approaching six years of marriage and only a few years of having my eyes opened to just how corrupted our society and the image I was brought up with is, I’d have to differ with some of your points. I went into marriage with the modern view that it is a partnership. As a result we are struggling to reach the level of finances I was at years before marriage (no credit card debt) despite having several years earning the most I have in my life and the same for my wife’s earnings. This fiasco was the source of my awakening to the fact there can be only one captain in a relationship. My wife had decided it was her and continues to insists it is her, but the truth is I have reduced her input to the decision making process. I also insist I am the one in charge whenever it comes up.

      I am also in favor of home schooling for a plethora of reasons. My wife was adamantly against the idea when we married. Now she agrees, but it took a few years of bringing up news stories about the many ills of the public system and the successes of home schooling.

      Where am I in disagreement? In order to bring my wife closer to where she should stand I have had to use the manipulation you disagree with. She still holds a number of modern feminist views (“boys should never hit girls, but girls can hit boys with impunity” for instance) but instead of making any compromises or “apparent” compromises, I stand my ground and tell her no. Every single time. There can be no compromise in this kind of struggle. Compromise is exactly how we got to this point. Despite being a supposedly God fearing woman, biblical arguments always fell flat with her when she was more than willing to throw in the towel on our relationship because of finances. Using Game type manipulation was the only recourse.

  2. @Alan

    While acknowledging the general soundness of Dalrock’s advice, I must reiterate a meta-point: marriage, even bad marriage, is foundational to the life of our nation, and therefore more must be said than that marriage has become dangerous and the man must protect himself.

    My argument isn’t about “bad” marriage, but that modern marriage isn’t marriage at all. It is possible to find modern marriages where the husband is happy with the results. It is also possible to find traditional marriages where the husband is unhappy. This isn’t about happiness, but about what marriage really is. Just because the state now confers the title “marriage” to boyfriend and girlfriend relationships doesn’t make them marriages, at least not in any meaningful sense. Real marriage is for life, and it includes defined roles for husband and wife. Take those (and more) away and we aren’t talking about marriage any-more.

    But this still leaves the entirely separate question of whether we should encourage men (or women) to enter into marriages they don’t feel have a strong likelyhood to be happy. I am against this for two important reasons. The first is that a very common excuse for divorce is to argue that society forced the divorcing spouse into marriage. We need to make it clear that marrying is the morally optional choice, but staying married isn’t. The other issue is more subtle, but it is that those who claim they are getting a raw deal in their marriage options need to carefully consider the alternative. The way to do this is to make it clear that getting married is purely voluntary. Both of these issues primarily impact women, but men are starting to pick up on the sense of victim-hood that feminism promotes in our culture and do the same.

    Just to clarify, I agree that even “unhappy” marriages have much value to the family the marriage created and the nation as a whole. I don’t hope to steer anyone into an unhappy marriage, but destroying a family is far worse than remaining in an “unhappy marriage”. Interestingly while many (most?) modern Christians are ashamed of what they see as a lack of instruction on having a happy marriage in the Bible, scientists have been finding that deciding to stay married no matter what is the key to marital happiness. This study and
    this study both are in favor of the Bible and opposed to the Book of Oprah. Deciding to stay married has a powerful way of making even unhappy marriages happy over time.

    • …modern marriage isn’t marriage at all.

      That is true in a manner of speaking, but strictly speaking, it’s false. To have a marriage, you need, inwardly, intent to live together as man and wife. And outwardly, you need a ceremony, recognition by the people or at least by an official, and sexual intercourse. When all these are present, you have a marriage, even if a bad one.

      We need to be able to speak to the men in what we would call bad marriages. We can’t just say “Sorry pal, you aint got a real marriage.” Instead, we need to say “Repent of your participation in the wicked system of liberalism [or whatever you want to call the System] and aspire to live better.” We have to encourage the man to do what he actually can do to make his marriage better. And that may include doing something that looks to an outsider as “appeasement.”

      And of course, we need to aspire to changing the laws and customs of society that have made proper marriage so rare.

      ..destroying a family is far worse than remaining in an “unhappy marriage.”

      Amen to that! Which is why I encourage husbands to do what it takes to prevent divorce, if only to stall for time.

      • @Alan

        We can’t just say “Sorry pal, you aint got a real marriage.”

        Just to clarify, this isn’t what I am getting at. Once you are in, you are in. My point is about the decision a man makes to marry or not.

      • Dear Allen, you write, “To have a marriage, you need, inwardly, intent to live together as man and wife.”

        Should you not be preaching this to the women, instead of the choir?

        After all, women initiate 75% to 80% of divorce, at which point the family is destroyed independent of the man’s desire.

        This is simply unprecedented.

        The larger question is, why do you invest so much time in blaming men, who are helpless, while refraining from addressing the vast and vile sins of modern women? Please do share your reasons. Thanks!

      • I am not blaming men. I am speaking to men, because I am one of them and because they are the natural leaders of family and society.

        I agree with you, though, that the problem is caused by women more than by men. But if the rules of society were more sane, then most divorce would cease.

      • Alan, you said: ” marriage, even bad marriage, is foundational to the life of our nation,” And in your original article, you commented that an ‘adequate’ marriage can be obtained. Adequate for whom ?I already have a better than adequate life, resources, income, education etc and so forth. Why would I willingly lower my position and accept adequate? Bread and water might be adequate and in the case of divorce, are all I would be left with.Why would I, or any man willingly do that? Why should I, who eats steak whenever he desires, willingly sacrifice everything that I have worked for on the altar of the religion of man hate and perpetual victim hood so that I can settle for bread and water? That’s noble ? The problem lies with the women, not the men. Yet you continue with the shaming and blaming that this nation and society engages in. I do counsel younger men to avoid marriage by showing them the one sided nature of the courts, laws and society. Because ‘his’ life matters to me. Concerning the life of ‘our’ nation: You might feel an allegiance to this nation and society. In it’s present form, I do not feel any such, nor obligation towards it. This nation hates, blames and does everything in it’s power to rob and subjugate me based solely on my sex. I owe nothing to it, nor is it my concern. My only concern is trying to make sure that it does not fall on me when it finally crashes to the ground. As you are well aware by now, I am far from alone. You will not convince, cajole, shame or blame very many men into playing the sadist game called marriage, where there are 2 sets of rules, he is always wrong, to blame and must yield to her or face utter destruction. You can keep your chain and collar. As for what passes for Christianity today, Yeah I’m not big on the cult of estrogen, thanks though. If you want to save this nation the solutions are clear: Change the laws, lose VAWA, change child support, no fault divorce, affirmative action and so on. Actively petition and pursue these issues because only when the discrimination against males is ended will there ever be hope for America. Minus that, I’ll simply keep enjoying the decline along with millions of other men.

      • Alan wrote “Amen to that! Which is why I encourage husbands to do what it takes to prevent divorce, if only to stall for time.” Stalling for time might be useful if reinforcements were on their way to change the course of the battle. As it is, I do not see anyone working to change the courts, laws and societal misandry. Why are you trying to convince young men to run into the machine guns when there are absolutely no ‘reinforcements’ or expectation of victory? You will shame, blame, cajole or convince very few men to offer up their lives when there is no honor or hope for eventual victory.

    • Dear Alan,

      You write, “Alan Roebuck | May 21, 2013 at 4:22 pm
      I am not blaming men. I am speaking to men, because I am one of them and because they are the natural leaders of family and society.

      I agree with you, though, that the problem is caused by women more than by men. But if the rules of society were more sane, then most divorce would cease.”

      If, as you say, men are the natural leaders of family and society, why are you not speaking to women and leading them towards God by telling them that they cannot fornicate, nor have sex before marriage, and that they must submit to their husbands? Again, why are you speaking to men and castigating them, telling them to man up and marry sluts, rather than telling woman they cannot slut it up, as Moses and Jesus state?

      Also, if, as you say, the rules of society are not sane, why are you not seeking to change and exalt the rules of society, so as to make them sane? Why, again, are you speaking to men and castigating them, instead of speaking to the false ministers, judges, preachers, and teachers who enforce the “not sane” rules of society?

      • …why are you speaking to men and castigating them, telling them to man up and marry sluts?

        I’m not, as is clear from my writing.

        Why, again, are you speaking to men and castigating them, instead of speaking to the false ministers, judges, preachers, and teachers who enforce the “not sane” rules of society?

        I’m not castigating men. And I do speak to other leaders of society in other posts. Stop trying to see the worst in my words.

  3. if a man can save his marriage by making some concessions, then he ought to do so, provided that they are not immoral or humiliating.

    A man cannot save his marriage by making concessions to his wife’s demands. A woman who demands concessions from her husband is not properly submitted to him, and if he gives in to her when she is attempting to lead rather than follow, she will actually become more discontented and unhappy. That’s because she is sinning by her refusal to submit. He won’t make her happy by aiding her in her rebellion; she will be so much happier if he lovingly but firmly guides her into following his leadership and holds the line.

    • A man cannot save his marriage by making concessions to his wife.

      As a blanket statement, that’s false. A man can save his marriage, sometimes, by doing something. It depends.

      …she will actually become more discontented and unhappy.

      Not necessarily. It depends on how the husband handles it, and on her character.

      There are some people, for example, who have something called “narcissistic personality disorder,” which basically means they become mentally unhinged unless they get their own way, at least on certain things. If a man is married to such a woman he may have no choice but to pacify her on a few key items if he is to remain married. At least until such time as she experiences psychological healing.

      On the other hand, maybe she’s just a spoiled brat who needs to learn a lesson.

      As I said, it depends.

      • Sir, you did not stipulate in your comment that your advice was in reference to men married to women with psychological disorders. Rather, what you said was:

        But my general point was that if a man can save his marriage by making some concessions, then he ought to do so, provided that they are not immoral or humiliating.

        I know that you are a Christian, as am I, so I will assume you are very familiar with the Scriptures on headship and submission. If a man allows his wife to demand that he submit to her leadership, he is going against what God directs the man to do in His word, which is lead. How can he expect God to bless him when he is sinning by going against God’s word? It may seem hard to obey God and watch his wife blow up their marriage, but is it better for him to disobey God out of fear of his wife’s possible reaction?

        Also, submitting to his wife’s demands is not loving his wife as Christ loved the Church. Christ sacrificed for the Church but did not submit to her. His wife needs him to take the harder path of leading her even when she doesn’t seem to be following. If he refuses to submit to her, one of two things will usually happen. She will either calm down because she will realize that she can trust his leadership, or she will escalate the conflict in an increasing display of rebellion. But even if she escalates, he really hasn’t lost anything, because the alternative of living in submission to her is likely to lead to escalating demands on her part anyway.

        Furthermore, a husband living in submission to his wife robs her of the opportunity to experience the profound joy that comes from living in a truly biblical marriage, one in which the marital hierarchy is functioning properly. Even though she may still occasionally test him to see if he is really firm in his resolve to lead, if he demonstrates that he truly intends to be a bulwark against her rebelliousness, he will give her a sense of safety and security. That is a lovely place for a woman to be.

        Perhaps husbands give in to their wives’ demands in order to keep the peace, but true peace cannot be gotten this way.

      • There is a great difference between the husband “submitting” as a general practice and him “submitting” as an occasional practical expediency. If his goal is to retake control of the marriage, and if he understands the situation reasonably well, there is no necessary sin in granting the wife’s desire.

        As I have said, it depends on the man and the wife. Behavior that you might find unacceptable in your husband might be just what another man needs to better his marriage. You need to accept this truth.

      • Well said Sunshine Mary.

        Alan, your statement about making concessions, followed by your mention of Narcissism…

        I would suggest that the form of narcissism that you are concerned with is quite rare, and generally a western man knows he will need to accommodate his woman. Especially a man who loves Jesus.

        The point must also be made that in a traditional setting, where the wife is fully submitted to her husband, that this is likely to defeat and narcissism because this behavior tends to inspire generosity from the man, much as a well-behaved child inspires generosity from a parent. It’s quite natural.

        I would say that you would only need to mention at all something like ‘he might need to make some concessions’ to a man who doesn’t make any. But we know that in the true traditional marriage from days of yore, that while the wife is in submission, the man is to love his wife, live with her in an understanding way as the weaker vessel, and that he who loves his wife loves his own flesh, and that being good to her equates to being good to himself, which I regard as common sense, as well as basic doctrine from scripture.

        Ultimately, my point is that your statement of a man needing to also make concessions is superfluous, and points to the possibility that you interpret a man requiring submission as a man who is narcissistic and wants everything his way, which would be an errant conclusion to come to, in my opinion.

        cheers

      • Behavior that you might find unacceptable in your husband might be just what another man needs to better his marriage. You need to accept this truth.

        Of course, I would never presume to advise any particular man on what he needs to do in his own marriage. But I understood that we were speaking in general, and in general it has been my experience as a woman that a woman who gets away with commanding her husband once will be inclined to do it again and will paradoxically become more miserable every time she gets away with it. It seems like it would be loving to give in to her sometimes, but I have found that I feel safer and more loved when my husband doesn’t ever let me play boss lady.

        I am at a disadvantage because as a woman I cannot argue Scripture with you, but maybe I can just ask questions. I read in 1 Corinthians 11:3:

        3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.

        Is Christ always the head of man, or does man sometimes get to be the head of Christ? Likewise, is the head of the wife always the husband, or is she the head sometimes?

        And in Ephesians 5:22, is the woman always to submit to her husband, or is she only supposed to submit sometimes? Is he commanded to submit to his wife sometimes?

      • Sometimes giving “concessions,” or gifts, whatever they may be called, is not inconsistent with being the head. This is not the army.

      • @Alan

        Sometimes giving “concessions,” or gifts, whatever they may be called, is not inconsistent with being the head.

        But this isn’t what you wrote. You suggested quite strongly that husbands bear responsibility for their wives becoming “unhappy”, and even their sin of rebellion and divorce. You even went so far as to frame it as her becoming unhappy as him goading her to divorce. It is from this frame that you instruct a husband to look for whatever he can do to appease his wife, because not doing so would make him guilty of causing her to divorce. This may not be what you had in mind, but it is what you framed. More importantly, it is what the culture (including as I have shown Christian culture) is screaming, and it is the very lie she is most eager to accept. This is a widespread problem, with nearly everyone in Christian leadership taking every opportunity to cut husbands off at the knees in front of the wives and children they are then supposed to lead. It has become a habit of Christian leaders that is so common no one notices it.

        We must also point out an uncomfortable truth: You may bear some of legitimate responsibility for your wife’s unhappiness. Not all female complaints are frivolous. Although it is wrong for the woman to allow these complaints to drive her to divorce, the man should not goad her into doing evil.

        What makes this all the worse is it isn’t just husbands who will be tripped up by this. As I understand it the Orthosphere is a place where women, especially traditional Christian wives, are welcome (not unlike the manosphere, but I would argue even moreso). How many wives read what you wrote and subconsciously took that as just one more piece in a mountain of evidence that when she blames her husband for her own unhappiness she is in the right? This is cruel not only because it is very likely to cause (hopefully only temporary) strife in marriages, and in some cases perhaps ultimately encourage divorce, but because it also is a stumbling block to rebellious wives by making it harder for them to repent. The choice for wives isn’t between happy rebellion and miserable submission. It is in fact exactly the opposite.

      • You suggested quite strongly that husbands bear responsibility for their wives becoming “unhappy”, and even their sin of rebellion and divorce. You even went so far as to frame it as her becoming unhappy as him goading her to divorce.

        There is something to your complaint. I suppose a person could interpret my words that way, especially if he was inclined to think that way, as our culture generally does.

        A man can, in a manner of speaking, bear some responsibility for his wife’s unhappiness, for the two are in close relationship to one another. But I agree with you that her “unhaaappiness” is not the slightest grounds for divorce. At the same time, the husband should not do something that will tempt the wife to the sin of divorce.

        Part of what’s happening here is that my words touch the raw wound that is an accurate understanding of perverted modern marriage, and the natural response of some is emotional outburst. I’m not accusing you of that, Dalrock, but some of the commenters have responded emotionally. There is truth in most of their comments, but emotion is also clouding their understanding.

      • Typo: “You even went so far as to frame it as her becoming unhappy as him goading her to divorce. ”
        should be: “You even went so far as to frame her becoming unhappy as him goading her to divorce. “

      • You may bear some of legitimate responsibility for your wife’s unhappiness.

        One failure is not made better by another failure.

        May I use a parenting example in lieu of a marital example?

        Last night I talked to my sister in Oklahoma on the phone for a long time. By the time I got off, it was late and my husband had put the other children to bed, but the four-year-old was playing on the floor by me and yawning mightily. It was way past her bed time, and she had that cranky hyperactive thing going on. I told her, “Bedtime!” and she started running around the living room sobbing, “But I’m not tiiiiiired!”

        So what should I have done? What was the loving thing to do? After all, I bore legitimate responsibility for her unhappiness by allowing her to stay up way past her bedtime. Should I have given in to her demand to stay up because it was my fault she was so tired in the first place? After all, that would have kept the peace…for a little while anyway, before an even bigger tantrum.

        But instead, I firmly scooped her up and carried her into her room while she hollered and kicked. One I got her settled in bed, she fell asleep quickly and is cheerfully making playdough pies as I type this. In a few minutes, I’ll tell her to put away her playdough because it will be lunch time, and she will obey me because she knows that her obedience is both expected and is the thing that keeps her little world safe, happy, and orderly.

        If a man has legitimately made his wife unhappy because of some sin on his part, he should correct the sin, not add to it by aiding her in testing rebellious waters. It can be more painful in the short term to do the right thing, but it’s ultimately the more loving thing to do for his wife.

      • If a man has legitimately made his wife unhappy because of some sin on his part, he should correct the sin…

        Yes. That’s one of the main things I meant by “concessions.” The other main thing is allowing her to do (perhaps with you) something innocuous that you find distasteful.

      • @SSM

        May I use a parenting example in lieu of a marital example?

        Your metaphor is good, and it made me think of a military one. Imagine an unpopular war where discipline is at its breaking point and front line officers find themselves at risk of being “fragged” while leading men in the field. A senior officer learns about this problem and calls together all of the troops in the base (from the lowest private on up) for a speech to boost morale. He then proceeds to lecture the front line officers in front of the men they lead:

        Men, we are at war, and we must be pragmatic! It hasn’t escaped me that large numbers of officers are being fragged by disgruntled troops.

        This must stop!

        Officers: While it isn’t right that your own troops may at any time decide to frag you, you need to look to see what you are doing to make them want to kill you. They shouldn’t kill you, but you have a military duty to avoid goading them into it. We have a strong tradition in this army of officers taking care of their men and leading from the front. I call upon you to draw from this noble tradition when leading your men.

        When on patrol, instead of telling one of your men to take point, why not do so yourself? When something dangerous needs to be done, find a way to avoid ordering one of your men to do it. If no one volunteers, and you are too busy to do it yourself, does it really need to be done? If your soldiers are unhappy, isn’t this a sign that you aren’t fit to lead them, that you are liable to get them killed for no reason?

        Carry on men, and do me proud!

        This is what is also known as the “Fathers Day” sermon at nearly every church in the land.

      • Whoa, hold on there, Mr. Roebuck. Sunshinemary stated a correct principle of repentence:

        If a man has legitimately made his wife unhappy because of some sin on his part, he should correct the sin, not add to it…

        This is a correct (scriptural) thought. His repentence is one matter; her obedience is quite another. One does not preclude the other. You then casually blurred headship with tyrany:

        The other main thing is allowing her to do (perhaps with you) something innocuous that you find distasteful.

        If something is innocuous, why would a man forbid it in the first place? You are supposing a tyrannical attitude that is not at all scriptural. Furthermore, a man does not cede his headship due to a mistake. Even in error, he should be respected. We can reference the verses in 1 Corinthians if necessary.

        Please, do not blur the lines in this fashion. One sin should not open the door to countless others. Hold steady, be washed by the Word, lest traditions of men get a foothold in your mind.

      • @Anonymous Reader: I have no issue at all with Alan’s or anyone’s response or non-response to my personal situation, as such. Alan did send me a very kind e-mail, which I appreciated, and I told him so. My purpose in providing the details of my situation was simply to put a “case study” out there if that would facilitate the discussion of the wisdom of making concessions or not. It doesn’t seem to have generated much of that kind of discussion; perhaps folks on both sides were reluctant to criticize or advise in accord with their alignment with Alan or Dalrock, but they need not have been. What happened is what happened; it can’t be changed; it was the best I could think to do at the time; and I will not be offended by any dissection of what was done, especially if the dissection would help others who are still facing similar situations and still have time to make any wiser moves than I did.

        @Deep Strength: I would definitely have done some things differently, in both directions. With the benefit of hindsight, I think I managed simultaneously to be too accommodating and yet not responsive enough, depending on the subject.

        On the “Game” side, or perhaps more accurately the “head of the household” side, one thing is that I should have asserted more control over our church choices. We agreed on the church we chose shortly after moving to the Atlanta area in 1988, and we remained members of that church until 2003. In 2003, we moved to Idaho, at my insistence, where my family lives. She did not want to move and nearly divorced me then (thought I did not find that out until later). Though she did eventually “agree” to go, she exacted her price for the move in the many ways you could predict. Among the various concessions I made in conjunction with the move, in an effort to minimize the amount of “leadership capital” that I expended in securing her quasi-agreement to go, I essentially ceded the choice of a church in Idaho to her. That turned into a long, drawn-out, miserable process, but we did eventually settle into and join a church that everyone in the family was satisfied with. Unfortunately, I had set the pattern for the future. When we moved back to Atlanta in 2006 (in equal parts for financial reasons and because I was tired of the whining about having moved), we defaulted to a church-hunting process in which she had too much say. (We both agreed that we could not return to our former church, which had lost its long-time pastor and fractured while we were gone.) Not only did this lead to another long, drawn-out, miserable process with multiple stops and starts, it left us as merely attenders and not members at one church when she filed for divorce the first time and at another church when she filed for divorce the second time. To my everlasting regret, this meant that there was no church authority to which she had submitted herself that could step in and discipline her publicly for the divorce (assuming they would have, which is a pretty safe bet with the first church at least). It’s a long-shot, but perhaps having to face that would have changed her mind. More likely it would not have, but at a minimum it would have given me, my children, and everyone who knew us a clear declaration that she was in the wrong. As it stands, it’s not much more than “he said/she said” as to whether the divorce was biblically justified. (It’s true that the pastor of the church we were attending the first time she filed for divorce and later the Christian marriage counselor both told her that she did not have biblical grounds for divorce, but no one she talks to will ever know that unless they also talk to me.)

        On the other hand, there were problem areas as to which I was inexplicably tone-deaf until it was too late. The leading example would be finances. We were essentially bankrupt from 2000 on due to the failure of a small law firm I started with two partners in 1998. (We did not actually take a bankruptcy until 2004.) For whatever reason, my wife was consumed with fear about our finances and completely unable to trust that God would take care of us, even if not in the way we would choose. She was also deaf and blind to what I thought were heroic juggling efforts on my part to keep us going at all. Our fortunes remained bad in Idaho; they improved for a short while after we moved back to Atlanta; but they eventually worsened again, chiefly because we bought too much house on our return (another area in which I placated her). Her panic, and her contempt for me in that area, returned. In late 2007, she returned to work for the first time since 1989, primarily to pay for our oldest child’s college tuition that began that year. She announced that she would be opening separate bank accounts for her earnings, to which I would not have access, because I could not be trusted with “her” money. I did not take this lying down — I protested; I retaliated; and we ended up in a tit-for-tat escalation that went on for 9 months until she filed for divorce the first time. In retrospect, what I think I should have done immediately upon her announcement about separate accounts was: (1) Somehow make it impossible or extremely difficult for her to work at all; (2) insist that we go to our then pastor for him to tell her that this was wrong; and (3) offer/insist that we go to a financial counselor (as we ended up doing a year later at her insistence) to help us get out of the hole we were in and to demonstrate my commitment to doing so, giving her reason to “trust” her earnings to our joint accounts.

        I could also have done a much better job communicating truth and love to her. I should have been explicitly saying, frequently, that I loved her and wanted our marriage to be a success, and FOR THAT REASON I was insisting that she could not behave as she was behaving. Instead, I communicated mostly or exclusively anger, hurt, outrage, that she was in the wrong, etc.

        It would not surprise me at all for God to tell me when I meet Him that even if I had done all of the above differently, it would not have made a difference. Short of the perfection that comes with hindsight and/or perfect wisdom, I’m confident that I did everything that was reasonably possible for me to do to prevent the divorce, and I will have no hesitation in telling my children that. But it would still be nice to feel that I had done everything perfectly and still could not prevent it.

        Does that help? Or is it just an exercise in purging?

      • I for one find this helpful, especially where you say

        I should have been explicitly saying, frequently, that I loved her and wanted our marriage to be a success, and FOR THAT REASON I was insisting that she could not behave as she was behaving. Instead, I communicated mostly or exclusively anger, hurt, outrage, that she was in the wrong, etc.

        Women have a deep desire to feel safe, and your words are a necessary reminder of the importance of reassuring them even when you are in the middle of a fight.

    • @SSM and Cail: Here is a case study for everyone to analyze. It may prove that concessions don’t work; it may prove that holding the line doesn’t work; it may prove only that I couldn’t do either one correctly.

      In 2008, the 27th year of our marriage, my wife filed an ambush divorce, catching me and our four children by surprise. I was fully aware that she and I were both miserable and were almost literally at war on many fronts (finances, sex, parenting), but I never expected my fundamentalist Christian wife to file for divorce in the absence of a biblical ground. My response was the concession approach described by Alan: I told her I would do anything she wanted (short of sin) if she would drop the divorce. At first, she insisted her mind was made up and there was no “list” of things I could do to change it. After additional pleading, she began to challenge me with certain items, expecting me to refuse. As I surprised her by agreeing to each one, the list grew. Eventually, she agreed to make an actual written list. When I indicated substantial agreement, she said she would discuss it with her attorney. The attorney advised her to require a “post-nuptial” agreement — a contract spelling out my commitments in exchange for her withdrawal of the divorce petition. Among other things, I agreed to the following, major and minor:

      1. We would not share a bedroom for at least a year, and for longer at her discretion;
      2. She would continue to keep her earnings in separate accounts to which I would not have access;
      3. If she dropped the divorce and did not re-file for at least a year, I agreed in advance that in any subsequent divorce I would assume 100% responsibility for all credit card, mortgage, student loan, and tax debts;
      4. I would make and keep appointments with a physician, psychiatrist, and audiologist;
      5. We would begin meeting with a financial counselor and I would abide by his recommendations;
      6. We would begin individual counseling with separate counselors (mine to be approved by her) and, when her counselor approved, would resume marriage counseling (with a counselor approved by her).

      You get the idea. She also wanted me to agree in advance that she would have primary custody of our two under-18 children in the event of a subsequent divorce, but I would not agree to that. Our disagreement was mooted (fortunately) when her attorney advised her that such an agreement would be unenforceable anyway.

      For about a year, this approach bore some fruit. We remained married, our relationship and interactions improved markedly, our children saw us making repairs, our finances improved (we really should have gone to a financial counselor sooner; my bad). She asked me to move back into the bedroom early, at about the 5-month mark (but sex was still off the table indefinitely). Several times, our hugging and kissing seemed headed for sex, but each time she would say that she wasn’t comfortable taking that next step until the post-nup was finalized and signed. Her attorney (not very bright) had prepared a draft. With input from my counselor and my attorney, I had proposed some revisions. Her attorney made some of my revisions but balked at others; the ball was in my wife’s court to decide whether the remaining changes were deal breakers. After a few months of limbo, as a spiritual exercise (relying on God’s provision for me and to demonstrate loving vulnerability to my wife) I signed the agreement without the additional revisions I had sought. Expecting (naively?) that this would be a positive breakthrough (and would lead shortly to resumption of sex!), I was surprised that her response was to take the agreement as signed by me to her attorney for further review. Together, they came up with two additional changes (to their own draft), to which I quickly agreed. To my further surprise, my wife left the agreement unsigned, and sex did not resume. This was the beginning of the end. A few months later, out of the blue, my wife announced at a joint counseling session that she had decided she would not file a joint tax return with me for 2009 (we had never filed anything other than a joint return). My protest that filing separately would cost us more money (at a time when a shortage of money was one of our problems) fell on deaf ears. This was the last straw, causing me to switch to the “hold the line” approach.

      On the advice of my counselor, I boiled down my dissatisfaction with the state of our marriage and the lack of a two-way street in our respective efforts to repair it to three non-negotiable items. Our house was already on the market because it was clear we could no longer afford it. My “ultimatum,” delivered in the presence of the marriage counselor in December 2009, was that unless she agreed to my three demands, we would separate (not divorce!) when the house sold and we had to move anyway, to see if a physical separation had any effect on her. The three demands were:

      1. We would resume sex and would work together with the marriage counselor (who had expertise in sexual issues) to improve our sex life (she had been described by previous counselors as “asexual” and “blocked”);
      2. She would agree to file a joint tax return for 2009; and
      3. While she could continue to keep her separate accounts inaccessible to me, she would agree to make her earnings available for the family budget.

      I summarized all three demands as respect issues, so that I was essentially asking for the respect that I understand the New Testament to require from a wife toward her husband, manifested in at least these three ways. The counselor endorsed my approach and challenged her to either agree outright or at least agree to work toward all three. In the counseling session, she simply refused across the board. It was my impression at that point that the marriage was over. I was completely bewildered, therefore, when she initiated sex the next morning — the first time in more than two years. She said that she had been planning to do that as a Christmas present even before my ultimatum. I asked her why she didn’t just say that to the counselor in response to my ultimatum. She said something to the effect that she didn’t think it would matter.

      A few days later, she asked for my help with evaluating some work-related financial choice she had to make — health insurance or 401(k) or something. I agreed to help but pointed out that it was inconsistent for her to continue to treat me as unreliable to use her earnings toward the family budget while asking me for my help and advice on this decision regarding her earnings. She blew a gasket — she thought having initiated sex earlier had mooted my ultimatum. I reiterated that there were three, boiled down points to the ultimatum and that I hadn’t given three points as a negotiating tactic in order to get one or two. I really did mean that I required all three to avoid a separation. She made it clear that she would not agree to the 2nd and 3rd points. A few days later, she marched into my home office and spit out that she would agree to the other two points, but under protest and only because she did not want a divorce. She said she thought my demands were unfair and that I was forcing her to comply, but she would do it. I told her that was not acceptable. I pointed out to her that if I had come to her with that attitude when she filed for divorce, she would never have agreed to attempt to work things out. At a subsequent session with the counselor (which would turn out to be our last joint session), the counselor helped us both to calm down to the point that I thought her attitude had softened and we were going to move forward. In the course of that session, the counselor very frankly told her that, having counseled us for a full year at that point, he believed that she did not have grounds for divorce but that I did.

      Unfortunately, over the next several months, nothing changed. She never did make her earnings available for the family budget. We did have sex two more times over a 2-3 month period. She delayed letting me know whether she would agree to file taxes jointly until April 13, so that I had to file for an extension. Our house remained on the market; I made tentative arrangements for an apartment large enough for myself and our 3 boys. When I told her that I had done so, she exploded. I explained to her that she had not genuinely met any of the three demands and this was what I had said I would do if that happened. She complained that we had not had another session with the marriage counselor. I made an appointment for us; she declined to go. It turned out that the reason was that she had already instructed her attorney (a different attorney) to file for divorce again. It was another ambush filing. This time I made no effort to talk her out of it.

      We are now 19 months out from the final decree. She was awarded $300/month alimony for 4 years, $950/month child support for 2.5 years (until our special needs daughter is 20), 75% custody of our daughter, and 25% custody of our 16-year old son (from whom she became estranged during the divorce litigation). Unknown to me, she began internet dating immediately after the divorce was final. She “met” her now second husband within 3 weeks (1 year after his second divorce was final), met him in person 3 months later, dated him every other weekend (he lives 400 miles away), was engaged 3 months after that, and married him 13 months after our divorce was final. A month later, at Christmas 2012, she moved to his home, taking our daughter with her. Our daughter reluctantly agreed to the move (for her, the only thing worse than moving away from her familiar school, friends, and activities was to have mom move away without her), but she has struggled with the step-dad and the new school and is reconsidering. My alimony obligation ended with the remarriage. Now that she has remarried and moved away, because our daughter is 18 and is not under a guardianship, I will pay the remaining child support directly into an account for my daughter rather than to my ex-wife. Unsurprisingly, this enrages her.

      I hope this gives everyone here something concrete to debate regarding appropriate or inappropriate concessions or the absence thereof.

      • @ David J

        This is a moot point, but I would suppose you would go back and game your wife and not capitulate anything if you could, yes?

      • I hate to say this, but I have heard this story multiple times, from multiple men. The meme aboud divorce being accepted is far too prevelant in our churches.
        In my work, I have found the way to destroy a man is not to withold sex: men know how to deal with that need. It is to remove access to their children.
        And, FWIW, her first list was crazy.

      • Wow, thanks for writing that story.

        The thing that surprises me the most is what a coolheaded tone you wrote it with.

      • Isn’t it interesting that when a man provides concrete examples from his own experience regarding unilateral concessions to wives, and what modern divorce looks like, the traditionalists have nothing to say? No advice, no reply, no expression of concern, not even a gesture of solace, just nothing? It’s as if a robbery victim were lying in a ditch, and the traditionalists just crossed the road to avoid him, rather than offer any comfort or assistance…

      • This is a juvenile comment. I have expressed sympathy to David in a private email, and there is not much that we can do to help him.

        You seem to be animated primarily by hostility for “traditionalists” more than a concern for truth.

      • Well, AR, the traditionalists who run this blog have allowed David J. to post his story here, without which you wouldn’t have the grounds to complain about their doing nothing.

      • buckyinky |

        Well, AR, the traditionalists who run this blog have allowed David J. to post his story here, without which you wouldn’t have the grounds to complain about their doing nothing.

        Non sequitur.

        Could you try answering any of the points I actually made?

      • @ Anonymous: That we have not responded explicitly in this combox to the sad tales here recounted does not mean either that we do not take these horrific situations seriously or that we have in fact done nothing. I am personally acquainted with two men who are in the throes of frivolous divorces. I am giving what support I can to them.

        I’m sure you are doing the same.

      • Alan Roebuck, Kristor:

        With due respect, Anonymous Reader’s comment is not juvenile. On the contrary, you completely missed his point.

        David J. told a story of having made the “concessions” to his now-ex-wife that Mr. Roebuck advocated. He did what you told him to do. It didn’t work. In fact, it failed in rather spectacular and tragic fashion. Now, David is without a wife and his children lack an intact home.

        The point is that Mr. Roebuck’s suggested concession strategy is unworkable. It only emboldened and entrenched David’s ex-wife.

        A second point I’m able to glean here is that oftentimes, the problem is not a husband failing to do what he reasonably can to preserve a floundering marriage. Rather, the problem is a wife doing all she can to undermine and sabotage her husband, disrespect him, belittle and berate him, and generally make his life hell until he just cannot take it anymore. In such a situation, I’d respectfully suggest that an end to the marriage through permanent legal separation or legal divorce is the only viable solution.

      • The point is that Mr. Roebuck’s suggested concession strategy is unworkable.

        Someone else may advocate a “strategy of concession.” I did not. I mentioned possible tactics.

        Also, one anecdote does not prove a general rule.

        Rather, the problem is a wife doing all she can to undermine and sabotage her husband, disrespect him, belittle and berate him, and generally make his life hell until he just cannot take it anymore.

        I agree. If the wife is Hell-bent on divorce, only drastic action has even a chance of stopping her.

      • Alan Roebuck
        This is a juvenile comment.

        I’m sure it seems that way to you. However, your opinion does not change the factual accuracy of my statement.

        I have expressed sympathy to David in a private email, and there is not much that we can do to help him.

        Good for you for expressing sympathy. That is unusual, in my experience. There may not be much that can be done for him with regard to past events, but a man in his situation can always use assistance with regard to the future – for example, with regard to care for his daughter – and an assessment of what mistakes he made can serve as a guide to others who may be in similar straits.

        So surely you can easily point out where he went wrong? For example, certainly you can explain why it is that his many concessions to his wife strangely failed lead to a positive change of her behavior, but actually led to worse behavior? These sorts of discussions are common in the androsphere, so of course it is reasonable to expect that traditionalists can do an even better job.
        You seem to be animated primarily by hostility for “traditionalists” more than a concern for truth.

        It is a concern for truth that leads me to critique traditionalists, feminists, and other groups.

      • @ Deti: OK; but Anonymous Reader didn’t actually *say* any of those things in the comment Alan characterized as juvenile. All he did was wrongly accuse us of doing nothing, of scurrying past the man lying wounded at the side of the road. The accusation was simply unjustified. It added nothing to the discussion but useless snark: all heat, no light.

        Now he has responded to the news that Alan had indeed reached out to our wounded brother David with two contradictory statements. On the one hand, he says to Alan, “Good for you for expressing sympathy.” On the other, he says that the factual accuracy of his first comment stands unchallenged by the very same fact for which he has congratulated Alan, and which demolishes the factual accuracy of his first comment. Which is it?

        I don’t mean to single out Anonymous Reader. I’m sure he is arguing in good faith, and seeking the truth so far as he understands it. It’s just that he’s being careless, or hasty, or has surrendered to his passions. Or something.

        There is a grievous dearth of careful, dispassionate reading on this thread – charitable reading, that endeavors to understand what interlocutors intend to say, rather than find a chink in their rhetorical armor that is vulnerable to attack – and a surfeit of careless inference. Lots and lots of sweeping generalizations and denunciations, very few careful distinctions. I understand that the subject is painful, and that it therefore raises strong emotions. Such subjects are the sort that call for the very greatest care, discretion, and deliberation, if the discourse is to get anywhere, rather than just thrashing about chaotically.

      • Good point, Kristor. I have been trying to administer “tough love,” but perhaps a little less toughness is called for in so painful a subject.

      • Kristor:

        With due respect, I want to continue jumping into this breach with you and Mr. Roebuck.

        It’s been posited in Mr. Roebuck’s thread, and in his comments here, that a married man must make “concessions” to a wife to prevent her from divorcing him. The assertion is that the husband must do whatever he can short of sin or dishonor or humiliation to save the marriage.

        We have here an example from David J., describing doing pretty much exactly what Mr. Roebuck advocated — making concessions, essentially telling his wife he’d do what he could to save the marriage. He was eminently reasonable. He did everything but grovel at her feet.

        I presume you and Mr. Roebuck are arguing in good faith and that you have reasons for advancing the arguments you do. I suspect it is with this in mind that the questions are being asked. And, respectfully, direct and forceful challenges using rhetorical devices are not chaotic flailing. The fact that you don’t agree with Anon Reader or me or others does not mean the arguments being advanced are nonsensical or hysterical or inflammatory.

        So I, like others, must ask: What concessions should such a husband make? What biblical authority is there for him to do so? What would constitute dishonor or humiliation to a husband such as to establish the limit of the concessions he can/should make?

      • I think this gets to the heart of the disagreement between me and the manosphereans.

        In my initial post, I basically said “Do whatever it takes.” I did not say “It will take making a lot of concessions,” although I can understand how a non-sympathetic reader could allow himself to think that may have been what I was saying.

        But what I meant was “do whatever it takes.” IF making some “concessions” can help, make them. If they don’t, don’t. And another name for “concessions” is “normal life,” which is always a matter of give and take, of not getting all that you want.

        But many of the manosphereans have not acknowledged this. Apparently they think I am demanding that men make lots of concessions to their wives. They are apparently determined to interpret my counsel in the worst way.

        But those who think so are mistaken.

        Some of my detractors could have said something like the following:

        OK, now I’m getting a better picture. You’re not saying “concessions” are necessary, you just think that a man ought to try them, if it seems a good idea. That’s a reasonable position. I happen to think that concession are always a bad idea, but I can respect a man for trying to do what it takes to save his marriage, and for not ruling anything out a priori.

        Now here are my reasons for thinking that concessions are always a bad idea…

        But so far as I can see here, none of my detractors has said something like this. (Dalrock, to his credit, has basically taken this approach. I’m not sure he would be called a “detractor” of mine.) Their position is something like that that I’m foolish and wicked: foolish for thinking that “concessions” can help, and wicked for pushing them on mankind.

        What can I say? I’ve laid out my general case in my initial post and these comments. If I’m misunderstood, I’m misunderstood.

        To reply to your questions: Although one can always identify extreme cases, there is no precise dividing line that I, or any man, could identify. Either you grasp the general principle, or you do not.

      • @ Deti: OK, happy to reply to a straightforward question, although I think it won’t really enlighten too much, because the honest answer is: heck, I don’t know; it depends. I can think of a thousand sorts of concessions that I make for the sake of my love for my wife, that involve no jot or tittle of self-abasement. She wants to watch a chick-flick together, then unless I don’t really feel like watching at all, I say yes, even though I would never elect to watch it on my own. She wants Italian, I want Chinese, no big deal. She feels better with my having a bit more life insurance than I feel is quite needed, no problem. She wants me home for dinner with the kids, I can see the point, and agree.

        Either I simply don’t care about such things, or – often – end up finding out that I enjoy what she would like more than what I had wanted. And my wife reciprocates in this sort of thing all the time, without in any way running some sort of accounting of favors exchanged. She likes a good action flick as much as the next man.

        Amplifying a bit, say that I had a habit – as I actually do – of saying, e.g., “I’ll be home at 5:30,” and then showing up at 6:30, having lost track of time while working. Or say that I got involved in blogging and stayed up far too late, several nights in a row, feverishly writing the Most Important Stuff Ever. These are minor problems, but they are true defects of my behavior, and my wife is in the right when she asks me to amend such peccant ways.

        Now, amplifying again, let’s say I was addicted to alcohol or sugar – same thing, really – or gambling, or something, and it was damaging the family. Or say that I had a habit of driving too fast or recklessly. If my wife were unhappy with me about that sort of thing, *she’d be totally right.* It would then, indeed, be her wifely duty to call me to repentance, not only for the sake of the family, but for the sake of my everlasting life. And it would be my duty to respond.

        When I hear Alan saying that a man ought to make concessions for the sake of a marriage, these are the sorts of things I understand him to mean. I do not understand him to mean that a man ought to agree to anything that contravenes his principles, or derogates his dignity, or is imprudent.

        Thus if my wife were to come to me with a proposal that she travel to Borneo alone, or buy something I thought we couldn’t afford, or something like that, i would say, “no, bad idea; here’s why.” If she were addicted to tobacco or were slothful or something, I’d not let that lie. I have a responsibility to care for her, after all.

        Now, I’m fortunate, in that my wife is extremely virtuous, foresightful, totally level-headed and terribly cautious, so she is never likely to suggest anything I think is seriously ill-advised, or behave in seriously immoral ways. The mere fact that I have misgivings about a proposal generally suffices to prompt her to discard it, unless she knows my misgivings are inapposite (because, e.g., I am not acquainted with pertinent fact x). Plus we tend to come to the same conclusions about things, quite independently – even when it comes to such things as colors to paint the house (we get a huge kick out of that). I am lucky, because I have not been tested in that way.

        Hope that helps.

      • I have an example to add which supports the view that there are no concessions for a man to make in a divorce threat scenario. The story goes like this:

        A promising young college man with a large trust and a bad secular father/deceased Christian mother, and a personal history of trouble with crime and drugs, recently met a virgin young Christian lady with a Christian mother, but no father in her life worth mentioning. They date for a few months and then get married in secret, all of this occuring in their first year at college. After the wedding the wife begins acting up, getting mad about the husbands AR15 purchase for example, and moves out and threatens divorce/annulment. My wife begins couseling both wife (only once or twice, she’s being elusive and deceitful) and husband. With the wife she tries to tell her to stick to her Christian values and submit to her husband, to do what is right in the sight of the LORD. (Wife is already and currently being brainwashed by feminists in college, which is making things much harder. Who knows who’s whispering what in her other ear?) With the husband, my wife tells him to ONLY DO WHAT IS RIGHT and not to compromise in any way. She tells him to tell her exactly what she needs to do, and my wife tells him to only do what he says hes going to do, and if she will abide, then he is not to play games with her, and he will be able walk away without having done any wrong. My wife tells him that women are moody because of their hormones and that women will never respect a man who bends to her will and shows weakness.

        So far, they are hanging on. She’s moved back in with him! We are hoping to see them soon so that we can put more pressure on them to do the right thing. As a 3rd party, it is so hard for me to balance my desire for them to have a good marriage despite how stupidly it has begun with the desire to see him NOT entrapped with children and property in a dying marriage.

        I guess I honestly don’t see anywhere for the husband to compromise with her in the matter. What he needs to do is compromise with HIMSELF so that his anger, crabbiness, disgust with her bad behavior would be set aside and replaced with the LORD’S will. He is a Christian in name only, but he is a Christianized man to some degree.

        So do I meet with him and give him the red pill? Do I ask him about his assets and tip him off to the national frivorce script? Should his assets be more of a concern than his marriage? Is this girl salvagable? Is there anything my wife and I can even do in this situation? We might see them this month. I wish we could move by them.

        Marriage in America really is messed up.

      • Amen. Good grief. Moving out over an AR?

        Key phrase in your whole message: “but no father in her life worth mentioning.” Ay, there’s the real root of her problem, I think. Your protege, even as young as he is, must be the solid, imperturbable, immovable patriarch. Loving, yes, compassionate, yes; but like a Rock. Tell him to just imitate a mountain beset by storms. Let Justice roll down off him, let the thunder speak from his summit. Let his rains water the parched plain below.

        Just a gut reaction.

      • Earl,

        If that young man has a cimrinal record, then it is illegal for him to own that AR15. He is a prohibited person under the law and needs to sell it or get rid of it. If he is found in possession of it, he will be guilty of a felony and subject to federal prison.

        You must confont him about this and convince him to relinquish it to you, temporarily, until he finds someone who will buy it from him. And do not tell his wife or she’ll just freak out and get more worried.

    • Mr. Solomon:

      The point must also be made that in a traditional setting, where the wife is fully submitted to her husband, that this is likely to defeat and narcissism because this behavior tends to inspire generosity from the man, much as a well-behaved child inspires generosity from a parent. It’s quite natural.

      Yes, sir, I do agree with you. Nevertheless, the original context of my comment was a response to this point by Mr. Roebuck:

      But my general point was that if a man can save his marriage by making some concessions, then he ought to do so, provided that they are not immoral or humiliating.

      So we are not speaking of a properly submissive wife, but rather a woman who at least on occasion is a demanding shrew. Wouldn’t giving in to her under such circumstances simply be a man choosing to placate his wife out of fear for what she may do? Ought he not instead to do what is right and trust in the Lord?

      • Most certainly, SSM. It must be the man’s discretion where he will show generosity, and where he will not, lest her whims befuddle his responsibility to manage well.

        My point was that Alan seemed to be advocating stopping short of wielding authority. This is common from those who do not subscribe to such an absolute- It is often hard for them to make the distinction between supplication and reward… and that just as God sometimes says “no”, so must a man to his wife, sometimes. Also commonly lost from those who don’t get it: the fact that her being told no is likely good for her, as well as the fact that it tends to inspire love from the wife who finds contentedness in knowing her boundaries are happily still in place.

        Alan clarified above that his “concessions” equates to “loving your wife”

        Let us not forget, friends, that a part of love is rebuke, and that wise people know how to accept it. If a marriage is being carried out with proper headship, this issue of “concessions” is an utterly moot point, and the only husbands you would have to ask to take their wives into consideration are the really crappy ones. The men who demanded a TRUE traditional marriage would have no problem with the generosity element, and the women would find a certain satisfaction in the occasional rebuke she receives, just as well as she would delight in his generosity- just as a child who is disciplined knows they are loved, even if it stings.

        Unfortunately, these crappy husbands do exist- the overbearing ones who do not wield authority well, and abuse it, and then smash their wife over the head with scripture. I believe these were the sorts of men Alan may have been referring to, although in my experience, they are rather rare.

        I must also make the point that these sorts of uber-controlling husbands are operating out of fear and insecurity, which is, of course, unattractive and unbecoming a proper leader. Ironically, these fears and insecurities exist because of the modern sword of Damocles, that she can betray him at any time with no consequence, and ruin and steal everything in his life at any time, including his children.

        Women who don’t want to submit, therefore, because they don’t want the uber-controlling husband… don’t understand that it is their lack of submission that creates the fear, as well as their association-by-gender to the feminists who do whatever they damn well please, and have the laws set up to accommodate that. He fears the ruin, and understandably so.

        The occasional husband might really need to be taken aside occasionally by his elders (men) and counseled as to how to be more understanding towards his wife, but not the group of all Christian husbands as a whole. Additionally, if we have that happen today, those elders are telling him to kiss her butt and supplicate until she is happy. Abdicate the headship, is what the church teaches now.

        Since so many of us were betrayed by our beloved church in this manner, I think this is why we rail so hard against the slightest whiff of a guy saying to make “concessions”. At least, it could be said differently, to make the point without sounding like a fem-dude churchian.

      • Mr. Solomon:

        Women who don’t want to submit, therefore, because they don’t want the uber-controlling husband… don’t understand that it is their lack of submission that creates the fear, as well as their association-by-gender to the feminists who do whatever they damn well please, and have the laws set up to accommodate that. He fears the ruin, and understandably so.

        Thank you for that explanation. I wish every woman I know could read it and understand how damaging in every possible way their disrespect and rebellion is.

      • ar10308 | May 22, 2013 at 7:14 pm

        Earl,

        If that young man has a cimrinal record, then it is illegal for him to own that AR15. He is a prohibited person under the law and needs to sell it or get rid of it. If he is found in possession of it, he will be guilty of a felony and subject to federal prison.

        You must confont him about this and convince him to relinquish it to you, temporarily, until he finds someone who will buy it from him. And do not tell his wife or she’ll just freak out and get more worried.

        ar10308, you are incorrect. Simply having a criminal record – which could be anything from jaywalking to petty juvenile larceny to youthful possession of a little dope – is NOT grounds for a man losing his RIGHT to keep and bear arms for the rest of his life. Unless the man is a CONVICTED FELON or is otherwise prohibited by something like the Lautenberg Amendment, he has every legal right to own an AR15. There is nothing in Earl’s description of the young man’s past that would lead me to suppose that he is – in any way – prohibited from owning a firearm.

        You are right about not alarming the silly little girl he foolishly married, though: his decision to purchase of an AR15 is not subject to her veto.

      • Lyn87,

        I took the phrase “with crime and drugs,” to mean that he likely had a felony on his record. There are also drug restrictions on the Form 4473, if he filled one out.

        Obviously, not all crime precludes you from owning a weapon, but the crime that was implied made it seem, to me anyway, that he could have easily fallen into that category.

  4. The battle comes down to this: can a man keep his wife from becoming Jezebel, all the while our society is trying to turn her into Jezebel?

    Mrs Op was describing a time when she was at the store with our two little Ops, and they saw a woman yelling at her husband that “that is too expensive!!!” I guess he wanted to buy something. The children were alarmed. I was getting angry just hearing it. I asked Mrs Op what she thought I would do if she yelled at me like that. While she was processing I told her, “It would never occur to you even to think of doing such a thing.”

    I think letting your wife know that you have a bit of a MAD (crazy) streak might help. That if she were to go all Jezebel on you, you might go all Samson on her. (You’ll roll the cars into a river, you’ll burn the house down, empty the bank account, quit your job, and go ride the rails or just go homeless bum.) She pushes the D button and it’s Mutual Assured Destruction. That is how you deter nuclear attacks.

  5. Pingback: Guest post at the Orthosphere | Dalrock

  6. > marriage, even bad marriage, is foundational to the life of our nation

    Yes, but is it still “our” nation? And are we supporting good or evil here?

    Should men sacrifice their life for a degenerate society that marginalizes and hates everything about them? Or should we walk away from it, and rebuild from its ashes?

    • This was my other concern, from the host.

      This statement presupposes an assumed concern for the well-being of our nation, and some sort of duty to it.

      Well, Jesus didn’t tell me I had to support the (mangled) constitution of the USA by getting married. This place is perverted, disgusting, and a great blight on the world in many ways. The nation that I would defend, or sacrifice for, has not existed for 100 years. So, an appeal that we really should try to get married to prop up this Jezebel warlord Orwellian state just isn’t going to stick, for me.

      • So, an appeal that we really should try to get married to prop up this Jezebel warlord Orwellian state just isn’t going to stick, for me.

        It isn’t the state. The nation is the people, who exist independently of, and more fundamentally than, the state.

        The nation is the people and their lives. Do not confuse the poison with the food in which it has been injected. Do not confuse the disfigurement with the one who is disfigured.

        And your good marriage benefits you.

  7. What is Dalrock’s solution, then?

    It seems Dalrock’s solution is: instead of encouraging men to marry and equipping them for the obstacle course of modern feminist marriage, it would be more beneficial for people like Alan Roebuck to replace his original post “Can Man Live Traditionally” with messages like, “How Man Can Destroy Modern Civilization and Rebuild A Traditional Civilization?”

    I guess I can see the logic in that. People like Alan are saying what Alan said on every page of the national narrative every day. People like Dalrock and his readers are getting sick of hearing it. I suppose, despite Alan’s desire for a peaceful transition to traditional living, it would be more useful for Alan to instead be a little more manipulative with his audience and encourage them to overthrow the whole damn system in order to get what he wants. Can you imagine if the more intellectual, legitimate, sectors of the population stop shouting different forms of “man up” and started shouting “let it burn!” It seems Dalrock’s logical advice would be for Alan to focus on total rebellion because it would help tip the scales in Dalrock’s direction for rebellion.

    Except it doesn’t seem that rebellion is what Dalrock advocates on his website. Dalrock seems to simply provide the facts and leave the decisions on policy up to his readers and those sharp enough to draw the logical conclusions from the data he provides. Hmmm. So what is Dalrock’s solution?

    • I am not Dalrock and I hope he answers you. But the solution is to separate marriage from the state. So a couple can marry in a Church (and before God) without being married before the State. The parts can sign private contracts to get to legal agreements in the spirit of true marriage.

      Odds of Churches enforcing biblical marriage: 0.00000000000000000000001%

      So there are no solutions. We are living in wicked times.

      • I too am a supporter of Ecclesiastical Marriage. I am considering divorcing my wife in front of my church and getting ecclesiatically remarried if gay marriage is forced on America. My wife is HORRIFIED when I mention this. We have 5 kids. I guess that state marriage certificate is important to her.

    • That’s easy, and since you didn’t address your question specifically to Dalrock, I’ll answer. The solution is that if you think traditional marriage is important, you work on having a traditional marriage. A non-traditional, fake, or what Alan calls a “bad” marriage is probably a step in the opposite direction, though if you’re already in a fake marriage there are steps you can take. In a traditional marriage the man is the responsible head of household, whether law, society, or his wife agree, and he is responsible for acting like it. This requires men to do a lot of work and to take on a lot of responsibility.

      Of course this might not work, that’s not guaranteed. The difference is that some of us see marriage, human society, and life itself as spiritual endeavors in which we don’t expect to be successful without saving grace; the purpose of endeavor is not to succeed on your own but to try. The idea of “rebuilding” traditional civilization or “destroying” modern civilization is moot; what we want to do is live our lives as best we can in keeping with certain spiritual teachings and moral teleologies. The material outcome in the weave of “civilization” is a side-effect; what really matters is each individual soul. We’re not “rebelling” because we want to change society; we’re trying to act morally and responsible to God and if this is labeled “rebellion” then so be it.

      This is why a “marriage strike” is not a wise idea: it turns marriage into a material tool rather than an aspirational spiritual promise. Refusing to get married with the intent to (socially, spiritually) harm others is definitely a sin; choosing not to get married but to instead pursue spiritual grace through responsible celibacy (as opposed to through traditional spiritual marriage) is not a sin.

      Using other people as things is sinful, as is letting yourself be used as a thing.

      • Kind of a catch twenty two. Modern marriage allows women to use men, which you say is sinful but then you say it’s is sinful for men to go on a marriage strike for the very valid fear that they will be used by their wives and the state.

    • “Never yield to the Feminist Frame,” I would say. As soon as a man makes a concession, he is beaten and the marriage is crippled – barely functional in the Biblical sense. As SSM noted above, it will spiral into ever-worsening results. We refuse to play the (rigged) game according to societal/governmental rules. If moral marriage is counter to prevailing culture, then we are bound to opt out.

      • As soon as a man makes a concession, he is beaten and the marriage is crippled…

        It depends on the frame of his mind. A “concession” could be an immoral surrender of principles, or a tactic to gain a greater good.

      • Precisely. I can cave on principle, resulting in sin. Or I can encourage her in grace to follow a righteous path, producing fruit.

        But notice that Genesis 3 states that the husband should rule over his wife according to God’s judgment. Redrafting that to mean anything else is potentially dangerous, and easily leads right back to Adam’s sin. Best to be careful about that slippery slope.

      • A “concession” could be an immoral surrender of principles, or a tactic to gain a greater good.

        Perhaps it would help if you could give an example of conceding as a tactic without surrendering on principle.

      • Alan Roebuck, it is your assertion that unilateral concessions by a man to his wife are a good thing a priori.
        It is up to you to provide examples to support your assertion, not the job of Cail Corishev or anyone else.
        You don’t get to make an assertion and then demand that others prove it for you, if you are serious about reasoning.

        That’s how elementary logic has worked since the ancient Greeks. Consider it the traditional way to reason…

      • I did not say, or imply, “…unilateral concessions by a man to his wife are a good thing a priori.” Some persons in this discussion are projecting it onto me.

    • @Earl

      What is Dalrock’s solution, then?

      It seems Dalrock’s solution is: instead of encouraging men to marry and equipping them for the obstacle course of modern feminist marriage, it would be more beneficial for people like Alan Roebuck to replace his original post “Can Man Live Traditionally” with messages like, “How Man Can Destroy Modern Civilization and Rebuild A Traditional Civilization?”

      Can you imagine if the more intellectual, legitimate, sectors of the population stop shouting different forms of “man up” and started shouting “let it burn!” It seems Dalrock’s logical advice would be for Alan to focus on total rebellion because it would help tip the scales in Dalrock’s direction for rebellion.

      Except it doesn’t seem that rebellion is what Dalrock advocates on his website. Dalrock seems to simply provide the facts and leave the decisions on policy up to his readers and those sharp enough to draw the logical conclusions from the data he provides. Hmmm. So what is Dalrock’s solution?

      I don’t have easy answers. You are asking for quite a bit here, but I’ll try to cover the high points. I’m not in the “let it burn” camp, but I think we need to be very careful not to enable feminism and/or hide the true costs it is creating. There are moral ways to go about this, and my advice is to find a way to live morally without enabling feminism. Part of what we need to do is stop giving the appearance of morality to that which isn’t moral. I believe you are familiar with my rejection of the widely held belief that serial monogamy (with or without marriage licenses) is more moral than other forms of promiscuity. Likewise we need to destroy the pretty lie that romantic love in any way confers morality to sex. To do all of this we need to first think clearly in an age where thinking has become incredibly muddled. This is the focus of my blog.

      If we think clearly and act according to true sexual morality, feminists both inside and outside the churches will start to see the true costs of destroying marriage. Right now there is a very strong push to make sure feminists never experience negative feedback from their insane choices. We need to stop doing this. You can’t twist marriage into something absurd without ultimately witnessing a decline in marriage rates. Allowing this feedback to happen naturally isn’t letting society burn, it is allowing it to learn and measure the true cost of bad ideas and hopefully self correct. This could take some time, but in the meantime the advice to not accept modern marriage as the real thing remains both moral and wise.

      • ” I believe you are familiar with my rejection…”

        There is another Earl out here in the Manosphere, sorry if you thought you were talking with him, I do not mean to decieve. Thanks for your answer.

        My answer is to defund the whole leftist project. It will include feminism. Defund the whole project and then you can abolish abortion. Heck, pass a human rights from conception bill and you ban abortion, abortiofacient contraceptive, in vitro fertilization, and so forth. Defund the left and they will eventually sequester the EEO and Diversity B.S. in the workplace and schools. I know that Civil Rights will be harder to turn back, but it can be done by showing that dispirate impact is racist. All these things can be done be defunding the left and taking control of the narrative in America, but it has to be done before the demographic shift makes it impossible. Just my opinion on solutions. I voted for Ron Paul.

  8. Alan needs to define what he means by the term “bad marriage”. Many of us think of marriage as binary: you are or you aren’t. Like Dalrock I would say marriage has some specific defining characteristics, which if not present mean it’s not a marriage. (These characteristics are all aspirational; achieving perfection isn’t necessary, just intent.)

    The argument I see Alan making, which I think is illogical, is that a man ought to participate in upholding a fake, sham “marriage” because (real) marriage is so socially necessary. It doesn’t logically follow that supporting fake marriage will have a transitive property with real marriage, and some of us think the effect is detrimental.

    It seems to me the alternative Alan pursues is to say that anything called “marriage” is “marriage”. But if that is the case how can it possibly be important? In which case men should just go along and do whatever they’re told or that makes other people (or them) happy without any responsibility for the consequences. I don’t believe Alan is intentionally arguing such progressive modern feminist talking points…but I don’t see how his argument ends up anywhere else.

    • The argument I see Alan making, which I think is illogical, is that a man ought to participate in upholding a fake, sham “marriage” because (real) marriage is so socially necessary.

      As I said above in my response of 6:36 pm, most marriages are real marriages, because a real marriage is produced by intent, a ceremony, recognition, and intercourse.

      Given that, we cannot just write off the suboptimal marriages. While single traditionalists must enter cautiously into marriage, marriage is necessary for civilization, even a debased one such as ours. Therefore we need to urge those living in any form of liberalism, including modern marriage, to repent and to live to the best of their abilities more traditionally.

      • I think what many of us here just don’t get is why you are so determined to keep the status quo going. You say it’s a ‘debased civilisation’ that we live in, that for some obscure reason still needs marriage to continue. You don’t stop, sit back and think; and then really see that it’s a debased culture that doesn’t respect the institution of marriage. Can you not see? Modern marriage is an scam, it’s not real, it’s as debased as the culture it exists in.

        Traditional Marriage is not respected anymore, it is trampled on, and trying to keep marriage afloat in a debased and debauched culture is akin to sticking your finger in the leaking wall of a dike.

        Modern Marriage is like an empty egg shell, that was punctured by feminism, and all the yoke that was truly good has already run out.

      • I think that you and Alan have a bit of a wager going. It goes like this: the whole thing will collapse and the pain and suffering will be widespread and beneficial to teach people the lessons they need to learn VERSUS If we push the right buttons in the right order we can avoid total failure and turn things around so that people who are mostly fence sitters anyways will listen to the narative coming from the new autorities on social matter.

        The orthosphere has mentioned the fact that most people are followers, and will value and chase whatever society tells them to value and chase. Orthosphere authors have often discussed the road that takes right minded people into the positions where the values can be changed. My guess is that this can be done (I am a partial preterist post millenial in eschatology) and that one day there will be a “market correction” and people will go back to customarily discriminating (http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/2009/07/why-we-must-discriminate/) without much fuss.

        I know that upsets some manosphereans because there won’t be widespread weeping and gnashing of teeth from feminists, during the apocalypse their ex-wives will not be dragging themselves back to the men they divorce raped just to beg for his forgiveness and rejoin his family (harem now) and get something to eat from him. Orthosphereans have wagered that they can use political tools to shift the game, and the leftist project will hopefully go back without protest or even much confusion;

        “Oceana was always been at war with equalitiarianism.”

      • “a real marriage is produced by intent, a ceremony, recognition, and intercourse”

        In the Catholic definition, a real marriage requires that the parties consent to its being lifelong and fertile (in principle, i.e. not infertile by intention). The same expectation is vowed in the classic (Anglican) Book of Common Prayer marriage rite. Any lack of those additional elements renders the union mere serial monogamy, a sort of DMZ between real marriage and long-term “friends with benefits”. So I don’t think most marriages now are real, not according to a traditional understanding. That’s why people don’t see the impossibility anymore that a same-sex union can being a real marriage — they’ve forgotten what marriage is.

        The problem with modern marriage is that, regardless of sacramental vows exchanged, the woman can change her mind at any time and turn eat-pray-love while enjoying the rewards of modern divorce law. So there are limits to the confidence with which a man can marry even a traditionally-minded woman. By analogy to a theatrical saying, the gun is placed on the table during the first act; it will not necessarily be used by the third act, but it remains always present.

  9. Marriage does not exist anymore. Any useful discussion of this topic has to acknowledge that.

    If the apostle Paul were living in our times, the thing we call “marriage” would be called “fornication” by him.

    The liberals invented another institution. We can call it “legal fornication” which is completely different to marriage and they called it “marriage”. So what? You can call “cat” to a dog but it is still a dog.

    Imagine the liberals gave the title of “Bible” to “Das Kapital” by Karl Marx and then conservatives insisted that, since we are to read the Bible, we have to read “Das Kapital” every day.

    Churches have been supportive of this scam. Instead of enforcing marriage, they have encouraged “legal fornication”. Some closed communities still preserve marriage but the vast majority of Churches are acting as the holy wing of the feminist movement. They are useful idiots of liberalism.

  10. My argument isn’t about “bad” marriage, but that modern marriage isn’t marriage at all.

    This is at best an exaggeration and it undermines Dalrock’s position.

    Marriage does not exist anymore. Any useful discussion of this topic has to acknowledge that.

    Uh, no.

    • My marriage before my God my Creator, involving both our families, multiple churches, our 5 homeschooled children on a single income, and a fire safe full of guns and ammo, does certainly exist. It is in fact thriving.

      • If your wife and you are committed to this marriage in a biblical sense, of course it is a marriage. This does not mean that your wife has the ability to divorce you at any time without no reason and take your assets and your kids. This ability did not exist when the Bible was written. When Paul wrote about marriage, it is not this kind of marriage he was writing about.

    • Marriage does not exist anymore. Any useful discussion of this topic has to acknowledge that.

      Uh, no.

      I admire your arguments. You have convinced me :-)

      What part of “what god has joined together let no man put asunder” is difficult to understand? Not to mention submission of wife by apostle Paul, etc.

      • The Man Who Was is notorious for these flippant unsubstantive dismissals. I say this because I wish he would stop.

      • The Man Who Was is notorious for these flippant unsubstantive dismissals.

        This is true, and I said elsewhere I’ve come to find it charming. In any event he’s right in this instance.

      • This is true, and I said elsewhere I’ve come to find it charming

        Thanks. Actually stooping to argue with idiotic statements means lowering oneself to the level of the one making such a statement. Sometimes pure dismissal is the appropriate response.

      • Oh, you’re so noble. Wouldn’t it be more noble to not cast your pearls before swine at all, to turn away without saying anything then? I’ve found that it is often better to completely ignore an idiot than to even give them flippant dismissive unsubstantive remarks.

      • “I ceased in the year 1764 to believe that one can convince one’s opponents with arguments printed in books. It is not to do that, therefore, that I have taken up my pen, but merely so as to annoy them, and to bestow strength and courage on those on our own side, and to make it known to the others that they have not convinced us.” – Lichtenberg

  11. When the Church decided to uphold feminism and not Biblical commands for husbands and wives, it ceased to be of value. Let it burn.

  12. Marriage, as defined by Homer, Moses, Jesus, and Genesis does not exist.

    This is because the Great Books for Men are no longer taught in our schools, but for when they are deconstructed and debauched.

    The modern form of marriage place all the risks on men while offering them none of the rewards, as such a system benefits the elite at the expense of the many.

    I hope that Alan supports returning the Great Books and Classics to the center and circumference of our schools, universities, colleges, and courts.

    Best,

    GBFM

  13. If you can change those of your behaviors that ought to be changed, to prevent the great evil of divorce, more the better.

    (My emphasis). The words in bold would seem to be the crux of the problem. What “ought to be changed” according to Christianity is very different from what ought to be changed according to Oprah, most marriage counselors, or a divorce court. Saying that he shouldn’t do anything immoral just begs the question: immoral according to whom? In the context of marriage, what’s immoral according to Christian belief often is moral in the eyes of society, and vice versa. The man who tries to be moral in the eyes of one is asking for punishment from the other.

    An example: a man’s wife is running up their credit cards and complaining that there isn’t enough money. She’s not spending more than a typical person today — nothing he could convince a judge is outrageous — but she shows no regard for traditional virtues of frugality and temperance.

    Society says he should work longer hours or get a second job, to keep his wife “happy.” Scripture and Tradition say he should stop abdicating his headship role, cut up the credit cards, and create a sensible family budget. But this may gain him a charge of abuse today. If he makes a “concession” to keep temporary peace in the home, he commits a sin of omission by failing in his duty as a husband.

    If, as Dalrock suggests, traditional and modern marriage are so far apart as to be nearly opposites, it may be true that any concession to the demands of modern marriage is immoral. On top of that, such concessions are likely to fail, so as a practical matter they don’t work to save the marriage for long anyway.

    • If he makes a “concession” to keep temporary peace in the home, he commits a sin of omission by failing in his duty as a husband.

      THIS.

      The reality here is that the husband, however devoutly Christian (i.e., non-churchian) he might be, has two choices and two choices only:

      1. He obeys GOD’s law, cuts his wife off from spending money, retakes full control of the family budget (which, in a misguided moment of trust, he may have delegated managerial responsibility for to her), cuts up her credit cards, puts his foot down, and says NO MORE. THAT’S IT. NO MORE FRIVOLOUS SPENDING and counsels her on biblical principles of thrift and responsibility.

      Because biblical principles aren’t very popular anywhere in this day and age and in society, this will almost always (99.99999999 percent of the time, even in an ostensibly Christian household) result in the wife telling him, verbally or with a gesture, to go fornicate with himself, at which point she will at a minimum continue to spend, probably even more feverishly and recklessly than she did previously. In addition, odds are that she will either move out of the house and start consulting a divorce lawyer, or will call the police on him and charge him with abuse, have him removed from the home and arrested, and then go consult a divorce lawyer. Because she can.

      2. He goes with the societal flow, whines to his wife about her excessive spending (often he’s the sole provider), and tries to explain to her what it all of her debt means for their financial future. She essentially responds with either the verbal or gestural auto-fornication command or puts her fingers into her ears and chants “LA-LA-LA-LA, I CAN’T HEAR YOU!” Ultimately he concedes (oh, there’s THAT word again), knowing full damned well that there is less than no-thing that he can do to stop her without precipitating the events described at the end of option number 1 above. Because she can.

      Needless to say, nearly ALL husbands today reflexively pick option 2 without even seriously considering option 1. When weighing the possibility of God’s wrath versus Family Court rape wrath, they’ll opt to risk the former in order to avoid the latter, which is much closer in proximity. God might be all powerful and the husband might tell himself that God will protect, provide, and defend the righteous in all things on earth, but better not tempt fate.

      My point: By all means, if you are a God-fearing Christian husband who considers the Bible of God’s word to be THE ULTIMATE AND UNASSAILABLE RULE OF LAW, then go right ahead and stand your ground. Choose option 1 above. Just be ready to put not just your money, but EVERYTHING ELSE where your mouth (and prayer) is. Get ready to undergo the trials of Job. Be ready, like Job, to LOSE IT ALL. Because you will. But if you really trust in the Lord, it won’t matter, will it?

  14. imnobody00:

    Churches have been supportive of this scam. Instead of enforcing marriage, they have encouraged “legal fornication”. Some closed communities still preserve marriage but the vast majority of Churches are acting as the holy wing of the feminist movement. They are useful idiots of liberalism.

    I could not agree more. And we are helping the cause of feminism when we encourage men to marry women who have not/do not adhere to biblical standards of morality and who do not intend to submit to their husbands in both word and deed.

    • @sunshinemary

      I think the only way they will submit in both word and deed if they are unregenerate, Is for the men to go Genghis Khan on them.

      The invading horde will be a quick way of getting women submitted.

  15. Modern marriage today goes against biblical marriage

    A man Marrying today is literally in sin & deliberately going against everything the bible & christianity stands for

    Thats how corrupt & destructive marriage is for men

    Modern marriage is pure feminist evil

    • Modern marriage is pure feminist evil.

      To be sure, the prevailing conception of the nature of marriage–basically a temporary contract–is arguably evil. But men and women have to continue living with the domestic arrangements which they created. Therefore it is more useful for us men to try to strengthen marriages by helping to strengthen husbands.

      An aphorism about candles and cursing darkness comes to mind…

  16. I have long wondered if it’s possible to restore through private contract (i.e., through a properly worded prenup) what has been taken away by the modern courts.

    For example, let’s say the prenup states that the person who instigates a divorce (except, perhaps, in certain special circumstances) loses all property in the marriage: i.e., all rights to the children as well as all financial rights.

    Could such a prenup be enforced?

    • No, because the courts interpret it, and the times we live in. God will judge them, and they won’t be able to subvert his justice. Amen.

      • Spot.On.

        As I’ve already said, The State WILL be a party to ANY marriage that exists within its territorial domain, willingness of either of the other two parties to be part of such an arrangement (or lack thereof) be damned. The State’s courts WILL interpret/enforce/nullify any prenuptial agreement concluded between the two parties in accordance with The State’s interpretation (or corruption) of the law. Period. Just as they have made a regular practice of routinely interfering with private contracts for the last one hundred-plus years ([SARCASM]thank you, “progressive”(TM) jurists[/SARCASM]).

        God will judge them, and they won’t be able to subvert his justice. Amen.

        Again, exactly. Meaning that anyone in this temporal sphere anticipating actual justice from The State’s courts is going to be waiting for a while. A LONG while. As in not-in-this-lifetime awhile. The only justice you’ll get is from God in the next life. But then again, that’s the only justice that really matters, isn’t it?

    • In the US, no. Pre-nups are generally enforced when they relate to significant pre-marital property that is disclosed to the other spouse prior to the marriage in its full extent, and the pre-nup is signed well, well in advance of the marriage. Stipulations about children in pre-nups are ignored because the court decides that based on the best interests of the child standard, and will not enforce a pre-marital agreement if it disagrees with the result. It’s similar with respect to marital property (i.e., property acquired during the marriage), although there are grey areas (e.g., you have a business that existed prior to the marriage, yet made a lot of money of it during the marriage — if the business really exploded and bloomed during the marriage, then there’s a good risk a court would refuse to enforce a pre-nup relating to it and would treat a good portion of the business as a marital asset and distribute it among the spouses).

    • Good question. Speaking as a total legal layman, I suppose it is possible, as long as the case does not draw the attention of the leftist legal gangs such as the ACLU.

      • Alan Roebuck, you clearly do not know anything about pre-nuptual agreements or the family court system. The ACLU has nothing whatsoever to do with enforcement or overturning of pre-nups. You might want to consider learning something about the family courts in general, and how pre-nuptual agreements are treated in particuarl before offering further comment on pre-nups.

      • Alan Roebuck, you clearly do not know anything about pre-nuptual agreements or the family court system. The ACLU has nothing whatsoever to do with enforcement or overturning of pre-nups.

        @Anonymous Reader

        If a prenuptial agreement becomes the subject of a judicial appeal, the ACLU or any other partisan advocacy group can request permission to file an amicus brief and argue for the court to make a decision in accordance with their ideological preferences. ACLU, NOW, GLAAD, LAMBDA LEGAL and all the rest have been filing amicus briefs in family law related cases for years.

      • I wrote:
        Alan Roebuck, you clearly do not know anything about pre-nuptual agreements or the family court system. The ACLU has nothing whatsoever to do with enforcement or overturning of pre-nups.

        Durasim | May 21, 2013 at 7:03 pm
        @Anonymous Reader
        If a prenuptial agreement becomes the subject of a judicial appeal, the ACLU or any other partisan advocacy group can request permission to file an amicus brief and argue for the court to make a decision in accordance with their ideological preferences. ACLU, NOW, GLAAD, LAMBDA LEGAL and all the rest have been filing amicus briefs in family law related cases for years.

        There are several points that need to be made. First, let me state that I Am Not A Lawyer and this is not legal advice.

        1. You may not be aware that Family Court is not a court of law, it is a “court of fact”. I did not know this myself until last year, and the implications of this difference are many. For a start, it affects how much freedom judges have (it also affects Constitutional rights such as the right to confront an accuser, prohibition on self incrimination, and so forth). The courts of law do not like to intervene in cases from the courts of fact, if for no other reason than to avoid adding to the torrent of court cases that are already on the docket. Therefore, it is quite, quite rare for an appeal from the Family Court “court of fact” to actually be heard in a court of law. Judges that set prenups aside are almost never going to face a legal challenge.

        2. Given the rareness of successful challenges to a court of law, I must ask for pointers to these cases you refer to. While docket number and jurisdiction would be best, I will settle for URL’s that point to detailed news reports (not advocacy websites). I suspect that the cases you are referring to are extraordinary situations that likely stemmed from contested divorces involving spouses who “discovered” their new found sexual orientation – and of those, it is very likely the court appeals had more to do with child custody than with pre-nuptual agreements. Therefore, it is quite likely there is less to this claim than you are asserting.

        3. The context of this thread seems obvious to me: a normal man married to a normal woman, with one or more normal children, and a pre-nup that was signed prior to marriage being torn up by a Family Court judge. Bringing homosexual advocacy organizations filing amicus briefs in is simply moving the goalposts; you are trying to equate a tiny fraction of a fraction of divorce cases with routine Family Court judges setting aside pre-nups, which happens routinely.

        The fact remains that for the average man, a pre-nup is an illusion of protection and nothing more.

      • And as an addendum, the notion of using contracts such as pre-nuptual agreements to attempt some sort of end run around the problem of Marriage 2.0 / men’s -fault divorce has been discussed in various parts of the manosphere. Those men who are actually attornies have been pessimistic about the chances of success, because the state is jealous of its power – if such a system actually began to work, that would draw the attention of the state in such a way as to either shut it down, or convert it to yet another variation of the current “marriage” system. Attempting to evade the anti-Family Court system would be considered evidence that clearly, you need to be enmeshed in the anti-Family Court system.

        In short, a version of Catch-22.

        Unfortunately, I do not see any reason to doubt this opinion.

        I have read a tiny bit of some Covenant marriage options in various states, but have no clue how they interface with the anti-Family court system, or if such are even still extant.

      • @Anonymous Reader

        You may not be aware that Family Court is not a court of law, it is a “court of fact”. I did not know this myself until last year, and the implications of this difference are many.

        You like to repeat this on blogs without much explanation. Where did you hear that family courts are not courts of law? Do you have a citation for this? And where did you hear the term “court of fact”? The attorneys I asked have never heard that specific term. I suppose that family courts are “courts of fact” in that the court receives evidence and testimony and makes factual determinations and decisions based upon that. However, almost all trial courts receive evidence and testimony and make factual determinations. This applies to criminal trial courts, civil trial courts, probate trial courts, juvenile delinquency trial courts, etc. All of those trial courts are “courts of fact.” Depending on the forum, the trier of fact may be a jury or a judge. However, the fact that these courts hear and determine factual matters does not mean that they are not also “courts of law” because these courts usually make legal decisions and rulings in addition their factual rulings. In courts that use juries, usually juries are supposed to make factual determinations and the judge makes legal ones. In divorce courts or probate courts, judges usually determine both factual and legal matters. Anyway, most modern jurisdictions do not maintain the division between “courts of law” and other courts (like “courts of equity”). Most trial courts, whether they are civil or family or probate, accept and determine legal causes of action, equitable causes of action, and they routinely make factual determinations as well. And their rulings are subject to appeal at varying levels of scrutiny.

        The courts of law do not like to intervene in cases from the courts of fact, if for no other reason than to avoid adding to the torrent of court cases that are already on the docket. Therefore, it is quite, quite rare for an appeal from the Family Court “court of fact” to actually be heard in a court of law.

        What do you mean by “courts of law” in this context? Appellate courts? Are you saying that people cannot appeal and challenge rulings from family court? Judgments, decrees and orders from family courts are generally appealable and litigants can usually challenge those rulings in an appellate court. Factual determinations are harder to overturn in an appellate court because the trial court is given a more deferential standard in its factual rulings, but that does not mean that litigants are prohibited by rule from appealing them, which is what you seem to suggest when you say that appeals will not even be “heard in a court of law.” It is just a harder burden to fulfill. And even if the factual determinations are left unchallenged, litigants can still challenge the family court’s legal and equitable rulings. If a family court finds that a prenuptial agreement was “unconscionable” or such, that is usually subject to de novo review by an appellate court.

        Thus, the general rule is that issues concerning the validity and construction of premarital agreements are equitable matters subject to our de novo review.

        http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ia-supreme-court/1452619.html

        Our resolution of the issues raised in this appeal involves the trial court’s
        interpretation of the Prenuptial Agreement. The interpretation of written agreements is a
        matter of law, which this court reviews de novo without a presumption of correctness. See
        Guiliano v. Cleo, Inc., 995 S.W.2d 88, 95 (Tenn. 1999). When interpreting prenuptial
        agreements, we employ the same principles of construction that are applicable to other
        written contracts. Wilson v. Moore, 929 S.W.2d 367, 373 (Tenn. 1 Ct. App. 1996).

        http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/weingart_041111.pdf

        Given the rareness of successful challenges to a court of law, I must ask for pointers to these cases you refer to. While docket number and jurisdiction would be best, I will settle for URL’s that point to detailed news reports (not advocacy websites)

        I already cited two cases above, but here are more. The links contain the case numbers and jurisdictions.

        http://www.4dca.org/Oct2004/10-27-04/4D02-4828.pdf

        http://www.4dca.org/Nov%202007/11-21-07/4D06-2128.op.pdf

        http://www.3dca.flcourts.org/Opinions/3d02-2364.pdf#xml=http://search.flcourts.org/texis/search/pdfhi.txt?query=prenuptial&pr=3DCA&prox=page&rorder=1000&rprox=1000&rdfreq=500&rwfreq=500&rlead=1000&rdepth=0&sufs=2&order=r&cq=&id=4f47fb2ce2

        http://www.3dca.flcourts.org/Opinions/3D12-1714.pdf#xml=http://search.flcourts.org/texis/search/pdfhi.txt?query=prenuptial&pr=3DCA&prox=page&rorder=1000&rprox=1000&rdfreq=500&rwfreq=500&rlead=1000&rdepth=0&sufs=2&order=r&cq=&id=513773bfed

        http://law.justia.com/cases/california/calapp3d/76/357.html

        http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ct-court-of-appeals/1588203.html

        http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11883342953111248137&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

        http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/ny_appeals_court_voids_prenup_due_to_millionaires_alleged_oral_promises_to_

        And here are two cases in which an outside organization, The American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, filed amicus briefs in appeals regarding prenuptial agreements.

        http://wps.prenhall.com/wps/media/objects/6950/7117692/volume_medialib/cases/Simeone_v_Simeone.pdf

        http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/SupremeCourt/2008/March/104002.pdf

        I suspect that the cases you are referring to are extraordinary situations that likely stemmed from contested divorces involving spouses who “discovered” their new found sexual orientation – and of those, it is very likely the court appeals had more to do with child custody than with pre-nuptual agreements. Therefore, it is quite likely there is less to this claim than you are asserting.

        I specifically chose appellate cases that dealt primarily with prenuptial agreement issues just to accommodate your stipulation. However, I do not agree that homosexual parent custody disputes and appeals are inapplicable to the larger issue, which is how family courts undermine traditional parenthood and how partisan organizations participate in the appellate process for their ideological ends. And also, since you concede that there are appeals involving custody decisions from family court, then that would seem to undermine your suggestion that “family court” decisions cannot be appealed or heard in “courts of law.”

        The context of this thread seems obvious to me: a normal man married to a normal woman, with one or more normal children, and a pre-nup that was signed prior to marriage being torn up by a Family Court judge. Bringing homosexual advocacy organizations filing amicus briefs in is simply moving the goalposts

        Alan Roebuck commented that organizations like the ACLU and other “leftist legal gangs” might try to get involved in legal cases involving prenuptial agreements so as to make sure that these agreements do not benefit men or undermine the female-favored bias in family court. You rebuked him and said organizations like the ACLU would have “nothing whatsoever to do with enforcement or overturning of pre-nups” and suggested he knew nothing about “family courts in general.” I pointed out that partisan organizations can and do participate in appellate cases of family court matters, including matters of custody, adoption and even prenuptial agreements. It is not “moving the goalposts.” Homosexual advocacy organizations filing amicus briefs is another example of outside parties becoming involved in family court litigation to further political and ideological purposes. Discounting that example from the outset just seems like you trying to preemptively dismiss something without reason because you know it undermines your argument.

        you are trying to equate a tiny fraction of a fraction of divorce cases with routine Family Court judges setting aside pre-nups, which happens routinely.

        Most divorce cases do not have prenups, because most people who get married do not have prenups. And most divorces do not get appealed or even litigated much because most husbands just roll over and play dead because they know the deck is stacked against them. If you know of a study of how many people use prenups and what percentage of them are set aside or upheld in court, then let us know.

        The fact remains that for the average man, a pre-nup is an illusion of protection and nothing more.

        And I mostly agree with you. Even when prenuptial agreements are upheld, they do not amount to much protection or benefit for the average man when the whole tide of the law is against him. I do not understand why you are so dismissive of Roebuck’s suggestion. You are saying how prenuptial agreements are a pitiful and inadequate defense for men in marriage. Roebuck was merely suggesting another avenue by which feminist and leftist forces might further try to intervene and fight the interests of men in family court should one of them ever score a rare advantage through a prenuptial agreement. I do not think his suggestion contradicts your general opinion.

    • No. The rights and the interests of the State in the marriage (and it has them to the point that they are a third participant) are defined as paramount above all else and it will act unilaterally to uphold those interests (as Novaseeker states, as far as the bounds of the marriage go) despite what the other two participants have to say. The general targets that most of the prenups are invested in are defined as State interests, so the prenup ultimately becomes useless.

      • The problem with modern marriage is the number of people and institutions that now have the ability to determine its projected path. It’s no longer just the husband, wife and God who hold sway, but now wife, state, feminists, bosses, judges, lawyers, pastors and maybe, just maybe, a husband…

        It’s like King Henry watching his prized ship sailing out of the dock… dear, oh dear, poor Mary Rose…

    • Could such a prenup be enforced?

      Crowhill, so far as “rights to the children” go, no, such a prenup could not be enforced. Legal decisions about child custody and their upbringing are made by the court under the “best interests of the child” doctrine. No prenup or private contract can trump that. But of course, we know that “best interests of the child” usually means “whatever the woman wants.”

      Prenups can be valid and enforceable for property and financial matters. However, even here, they are not reliable. Courts are much more deferential and generous in setting aside prenuptial agreements than they are with other contracts. Courts do not treat prenups like credit card agreements or mortgage contracts (which are usually impossible to get out of in court).

      Women often raise a litany of excuses to get out of prenups. They often say “I was under duress when I signed it” or “I didn’t read the prenup carefully before I signed it” or “I didn’t have enough time to think about it before I signed it” or “I didn’t have my own lawyer” and so forth. Some courts have actually agreed that if a man refuses to marry a woman unless she signs a prenup, then that can count as duress or coercion which invalidates the prenup.

      So while prenups may serve some good for some men in certain situations, they are a proverbial shot glass that one uses to bail out the Titanic. Especially given the fact that state recognized modern marriage is increasingly not necessary for men to suffer the same kind of “divorce” liabilities. Feminist lobbies have been changing laws so that any kind of sexual association between a man and woman carries the same kind of liabilities for a man as if it were a marriage. In that case, it is called “palimony” instead of alimony.

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

      Clearly, the feminists do not want any woman to have a disadvantage just because the man never put a ring on it.

  17. Modern marriage is anything but traditional.

    Given that premise, it is unreasonable to expect a traditional man to “marry” based on the argument that marriage is traditional. The term marriage today has an entirely different meaning than it did 100 years ago.

  18. Alan Roebuck:

    Given that, we cannot just write off the suboptimal marriages.

    What’s a “suboptimal marriage”? Are you talking about same-sex marriages? Common-law marriages? Green Card marriages? “Shotgun” Marriages? Marriages which are staged so as to provide a woman her wedding, or to suggest “respectability”? Marriages in which the partners vow NOT to have children?

    I realize I’m being obtuse here, but you’ve thrown out the concept seemingly expecting that everyone else will be on the same page as you WRT understanding what you’ve meant.

    While single traditionalists must enter cautiously into marriage, marriage is necessary for civilization, even a debased one such as ours.

    Here again, you seem to just expect that everyone else thinks the same way you do. I happen to agree that intact traditionally styles marriages are the best of all possible circumstances (thusly happily married 28 years, myself) for raising children and encouraging men to put their efforts towards productive ends; but, seriously, is the modern marriage (Marriage 2.0) really necessary at all?

    I know plenty of married couples who will (by design) never have any children, and while they do love one-another, their primary shared efforts are focused towards personal material gain. I also know/know of many never married couples who are better parents and more productive citizens than many married couples. I witnessed any number of wholly dysfunctional families with intact marriages.

    Seems to me that there are quite a few marriages which tend to produce more cost to society that they provide benefit.

    You seem to hold a ceremonially-declared, witnessed, and sexually-sealed marriage as a Talisman for the positive societal benefits you seek. I don’t believe that marriage alone can guarantee that people will achieve the outcomes you hope for.

    And, given the realities on the ground regarding the sort of young people entering adulthood (especially the young women), it might well be that only some minority of them are now, or ever will be, fit to be married to another person.

    Oh, wait…you’ve already observed this tremendous obstacle to the furtherance of marriage, and have formulated a solution – to ask them nicely to reform themselves:

    Therefore we need to urge those living in any form of liberalism, including modern marriage, to repent and to live to the best of their abilities more traditionally.

    Again, I’m not arguing that traditionally-styles marriage isn’t far-and-away the best of all possibilities; I’m just not sure that there are enough traditionally-mind young people to make a significant difference.

    • What’s a “suboptimal marriage”? Are you talking about same-sex marriages? Common-law marriages? Green Card marriages? “Shotgun” Marriages? Marriages which are staged so as to provide a woman her wedding, or to suggest “respectability”? Marriages in which the partners vow NOT to have children?

      The existence of perversions of a thing does not mean we can’t identify the real McCoy.

      …you seem to just expect that everyone else thinks the same way you do.

      I expect people to apply common sense in understanding what I mean, even if they disagree with my conclusions.

      …is the modern marriage (Marriage 2.0) really necessary at all?

      Man and woman have a natural desire to come together, but current conditions generally fail to teach or require them to come together properly. Nevertheless, the generation of the next generation requires men and women to get together, even if only briefly, and therefore we all have a vested interest in bettering the conditions under which man and woman are together. Do not let anger at the current state of affairs blind you to this truth.

      You seem to hold a ceremonially-declared, witnessed, and sexually-sealed marriage as a Talisman for the positive societal benefits you seek. I don’t believe that marriage alone can guarantee that people will achieve the outcomes you hope for.

      It’s not a talisman, it’s a definition. And the occurrence of marriage is necessary, although not sufficient, for the health of society.

      And, given the realities on the ground regarding the sort of young people entering adulthood (especially the young women), it might well be that only some minority of them are now, or ever will be, fit to be married to another person.

      The proper response to which is not to declare marriage null and void, but rather to do what one can, modest though it be, to point out how marriage ought to be and to try to help prepare men and women for marriage.

      Oh, wait…you’ve already observed this tremendous obstacle to the furtherance of marriage, and have formulated a solution – to ask them nicely to reform themselves:

      Traditionalists have limited power. We cannot force the necessary changes. And never underestimate the power of hearing truth and a call to repentance. That’s how the church started.

  19. Alan is having his essence challenged. Everything he believes in is wrong with a place to go. Red pill is a tough swallow and once down it takes more doses over time to have the curing effect.

  20. Alan Roebuck – ”Given that, we cannot just write off the suboptimal marriages.”

    What’s a “suboptimal marriage”? Are you talking about same-sex marriages? Common-law marriages? Green Card marriages? “Shotgun” Marriages? Marriages which are staged so as to provide a woman her wedding, or to suggest “respectability”? Marriages in which the partners vow NOT to have children?

    I realize I’m being obtuse here, but you’ve thrown out the concept seemingly expecting that everyone else will be on the same page as you WRT understanding what you’ve meant.

    ”While single traditionalists must enter cautiously into marriage, marriage is necessary for civilization, even a debased one such as ours.

    Here again, you seem to just expect that everyone else thinks the same way you do. I happen to agree that intact traditionally styles marriages are the best of all possible circumstances (thusly happily married 28 years, myself) for raising children and encouraging men to put their efforts towards productive ends; but, seriously, is the modern marriage (Marriage 2.0) really necessary at all?

    I know plenty of married couples who will (by design) never have any children, and while they do love one-another, their primary shared efforts are focused towards personal material gain. I also know/know of many never married couples who are better parents and more productive citizens than many married couples. I witnessed any number of wholly dysfunctional families with intact marriages.

    Seems to me that there are quite a few marriages which tend to produce more cost to society that they provide benefit.

    You seem to hold a ceremonially-declared, witnessed, and sexually-sealed marriage as a Talisman for the positive societal benefits you seek. I don’t believe that marriage alone can guarantee that people will achieve the outcomes you hope for.

    And, given the realities on the ground regarding the sort of young people entering adulthood (especially the young women), it might well be that only some minority of them are now, or ever will be, fit to be married to another person.

    Oh, wait…you’ve already observed this tremendous obstacle to the furtherance of marriage, and have formulated a solution – to ask them nicely to reform themselves:
    ” Therefore we need to urge those living in any form of liberalism, including modern marriage, to repent and to live to the best of their abilities more traditionally.”

    Again, I’m not arguing that traditionally-styles marriage isn’t far-and-away the best of all possibilities; I’m just not sure that there are enough traditionally-mind young people to make a significant difference.

  21. Pingback: This DAY in Reaction… | The Reactivity Place

  22. Modern marriage is neither traditional nor Biblical, and our ancestors would regard modern marriage as sinful. Enabling a corrupt system is a bigger danger to the nation than not getting married.

    It simply does not follow that a man must marry to live an upstanding life based on tradition. There are many examples of unmarried men (both in the Bible and in American history) who conduct themselves honorably and do many noteworthy things in accordance with traditional values. Secondly, it is not the case that bachelorhood always leads to lust, licentiousness or fornication, just as it is not the case that being married precludes the same.

    • Most men need a good marriage in order to flourish. A system in which only the heroic have a place is not workable.

      • It isn’t the woman. It is the responsibility of being a husband and father.

        “Some are born to greatness, some aspire to it, and some have it thrust upon them…”

      • His worth is not whether he is a husband and father. A man flourishes because that is him pleasing God. He takes a worthy woman as his wife. He was handling his business anyway.

      • You are aware of the qualification of an elder, right? He must be the husband of one wife, with his chidren and home under Godly obedience, beyond reproach. Having his own household does in fact build and test his character as a leader.

  23. My ex-wife failed the terms of a marriage contract in every possible way. For this the courts rewarded her with a portion of my income for life. Sadly my story is dirt common. I know men who have been through worse. How can I be a man of good consciences and recommend my son marry? Or the young men I mentor?

    The churches preached appeasement, I listened, her behavior got worse. What stung the most about my divorce was not the money, the verbal abuse, the emotional abuse, the lack of sex, the huge debt or her infidelity. What was worse was debasing myself as the preachers said and the loss of my pride during those years

    Never again.

    Why should I strive to up hold a civilization that goes out of its way to put me and my son at every possible legal disadvantage?

    These things the traditionalist argue for have been tried and found wanting. Millions of men have done what was suggested and failed. It seems logical to conclude it’s a failed operating system vs millions of failed men (not to imply men don’t fail)

    If you want traditional Biblical marriage, then women (& children) must have the same traditional Biblical legal standing. I.e., property of fathers and husbands.

    • If you want traditional Biblical marriage, then women (& children) must have the same traditional Biblical legal standing. Ie property of fathers and husbands.

      This is why I think tradcons who defend this idea are part of the problem.

      If marriage (I refuse telling it “biblical marriage” because there is no other kind in Western culture) is the base of a civilization and the thing God demand from us (which I couldn’t agree more), the answer is to have marriage reestablished in our culture. So every energy of traditional Christians must be put into:

      - Claiming for a return to true marriage instead of legal fornication (aka Marriage 2.0).
      - Creating associations for this return of marriage.
      - Creating blog posts about how laws have to be changed to enable this return of marriage.
      - Shaming people who do frivorce (men and women).
      - Shaming single moms who have not married.
      - Shaming people who use the divorce courts in an unethical way.
      - Enforcing true marriages in their own churches and families.
      - And so on and so forth.

      Instead of devoting energy to do something of this, these guys do nothing of it and devote all their efforts to:

      - Encouraging, shaming or asking men to participate in legal fornication instead of marriage, no matter what the consequences are for these guys.

      They are focused on getting the victims of the current system to risk everything to continue the system instead of denouncing the ones who profit from the current system, instead of doing anything to change the current system.

      Men have the same duties as if we lived in a traditional culture and they will say it once and again. About women having the same duties as if they lived in a traditional culture: complete silence.

      Let me put a comparison. It’s as if they were Orthodox Jews who encouraged other Jews to move to Germany during WWII to spread Judaism. All of this despite knowing that the Jews that entered Germany could be sent to the concentration camps. They don’t care about the people that could die there.

      If you end up like Ton, tough luck. It’s incredible the utter contempt they have about men that they encourage to “marry” who could have their lives destroyed. They couldn’t care less.

      It seems very sad to me and it seems that these people have been so surrounded by female supremacism in the Church that they are unable to know what is traditional Christianity. The thing they think it’s traditional Christianity is, in reality, the female-centric Churchianity that has dominated American Churches for the last hundred years or mor (read “The Church Impotent”).

      Traditional Christianity is not legal fornication disguised as a marriage. It is not shaming men while turning the blind eye on women. Traditional Christianity is patriarchal and it is definitely not this:

      if a man can save his marriage by making some concessions, then he ought to do so, provided that they are not immoral or humiliating.

      • Traditional Christianity is patriarchal and it is definitely not this:…

        I am trying to show you something important, but if you cannot (or will not) see it, then there is nothing further I can do. You can lead a horse to water…

      • I am trying to show you something important, but if you cannot (or will not) see it, then there is nothing further I can do. You can lead a horse to water…

        Sorry, Alan. I am seeing it but I don’t buy it. It is a lousy idea, that’s all.

  24. marriage, even bad marriage, is foundational to the life of our nation

    Respectfully disagree. A nation is an artificial construct of the modern state, which defines marriage through legislative coercion.

    The state is the monopolist provider of force and aggression in a geographical area. It is the state that is the basis of any nation, and the force it uses to manipulate ideologies. Competing alternative ideologies are not tolerated. Goebbels understood this.

    • The “nation” is the people. It has an existence independent of, and more fundamental than, the state, although the state in modern times is trying to take complete control of all aspects of the nation.

      • As long as the socialist-modernist progressives. Hold the sword. It is their worldview of marriage 2.0 being promoted. Traditionalist marriages will be crushed by the sword of the state wielded by the wife.

      • The nation is the people.

        A statement which has precisely ZE-RO bearing on the question of whether a Christian has any scriptural obligation whatsoever to perpetuate it.

        Did the first-century Christians of the early church (whom I routinely resist the temptation to label the ONLY true Christians who ever existed) concern themselves with breeding in order to sustain/perpetuate the Kingdom of Israel (or the greater Roman Empire under which they lived in hopes of revitalizing the former)? Did Jesus ever say to his followers “Go forth and multiply, for the future of the Empire dependeth upon the fecundity of thy seed?”

        If he did, please point to the verse(s) that I’ve obviously overlooked. It seems to me that neither Jesus, any of the disciples, or the later apostles were particularly concerned about the fate of any temporal nation for its own sake, a point that I frequently bring up when in the company of Amerikan warvangelical nation-worshipers (admittedly it doesn’t go over well).

        The Bible guides us in marriage for the purpose of perpetuating the Kingdom of God, NOT the kingdom of man. If you’re going to pontificate on the importance of marriage, THAT should be your overriding concern, not whether or not the United (Socialist/Fascist) State of Amerika (or any other earthly oligarchy) survives or dies.

      • feeriker,

        In this and your other recent comments, you are speaking like a fanatic.

        Now, fanatics can often say valid and even important things. But they are still fanatics.

        That is, they are only interested in pushing One Big Thing, and those who disagree are brushed aside.

        Until you start speaking like a relatively normal human being, I have nothing to say to you.

  25. Most men need a good marriage in order to flourish.

    Exactly backwards. It is the high n count, strong independent woman, the poor marriage candidate that will file divorce, that needs an ex husbands assets to support her poor lifestyle choices, in order to ‘flourish’ in her heroic single mommie status, and live out her idealised epl fantasy.

    A system in which only the heroic have a place is not workable.

    Its called rotating polyandry, and young women have strongly embraced it.

  26. The “nation” is the people. It has an existence independent of, and more fundamental than, the state

    Only when those people are culturally homogenous. The modern state encourages diversity via immigration. And in some cases, forced changes to historical tribal borders.

    Such will not end well.

  27. A couple of serious questions for Alan: since the vast majority of unmarried women of marriageable age are not virgins, and only virgins are marriageable (except in the rare cases of FORCIBLE rape), and civilization requires that the vast majority of men marry, what hope is there of saving civilization at all? And how do your suggestions amount to anything other than trying to buy time by sending another generation of men “over the top” into the killing fields of Marriage 2.0?

    I understand your soldier analogy better than most. I am a retired Army officer with combat experience and an advanced degree in Military History. As such, I submit to you that your soldier analogy is fundamentally flawed. For example, you wrote, “Do whatever it takes, short of sin or dishonor, to prevent divorce.” Sticking with your soldier analogy, this is what is usually known as a tactical retreat. A tactical retreat like the one you describe is sometimes a military necessity, but only as a means to conserve your strength in order to regroup and retake the ground from a position of advantage. Giving in to your wife’s sinful rebellion (and threatening divorce IS rebellion – and “rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft”), would only be acceptable as a tactic if the goal was to maneuver her into a position of weakness that would put you in position to crush it later. I am a bona-fide expert on tactics, and what you are advocating are tactics. But take it from an expert, tactics are merely a means to an end, and the end is to break your enemy’s will to resist. Tactics are merely the means by which a soldier brings superior firepower to bear. Firepower requires weapons – and a wife committing the sin of rebellion has all the weapons by law. So you can do all the tactical maneuvering you like, but you have no means of forcing the decision – because as soon as a husband attempts to regain that ground, the law says that she gets to do it again. Then the husband must retreat again (“Do whatever it takes, short of sin or dishonor, to prevent divorce.“), but each time from a progressively weaker position than the time before.

    Some hills are worth dying on – and if you’re going to lose anyway you might as well die with your boots on and your face to the enemy. Dalrock’s excellent essay “Threatpoint” lays it out better than I can here. For a husband in today’s legal climate – giving in to his wife’s demands to avoid divorce is to surrender headship to her – no matter how anyone tries to dress it up in pseudo-military language. It used to be that a woman who flaked out on her vows got a nuclear response from society and the church. Those days are gone. Unless her family or the people she cares about will destroy her for doing so, the only weapon a husband has is the counter-threat of Mutually Assured Destruction. He must be willing to go nuclear on her “Eat, Pray, Love” fantasy: destroy the house, empty the accounts, and disappear – and she has to know it. Being a soldier isn’t just about making sacrifices – it is also about bringing a hurricane of fire on steel on the enemy – and a woman who obeys Satan by issuing a serious divorce threat declares herself to be an enemy to be brought to heel.

    Until women lose the satanic right to initiate no-fault divorce AS A MATTER OF LAW, advocating that the majority of men marry in the current climate (which would require that most men marry non-virgins as a mathematical necessity) is to recreate the Somme – 1916.

    • I made the same argument, only not nearly so well, in the original post by Mr. Roebuck. I do feel his response to me was not quite satisfactory. The Bible says that women who are guilty of fornication are to be dragged to the city gates and stoned to death, not married. Jesus forgave the adulterous woman, so we know that a truly repentant woman will not be condemned to hell as she deserves, but that does not mean she is entitled to a husband either.

      In particular, I do not understand this comment by Mr. Roebuck:

      And looking at the big picture, if most women are not virgins then many men will have no choice but to marry non-virgins. We cannot just call off marriage until things have been fixed.

      I cannot see where in the Bible men are commanded to take as wives women who have behaved as whores. Giving one’s virginity away to another man is a very serious sin, yet modern Christians treat it as if it were of minor importance. Yet God says we are to purge this evil from our midst. And with good reason, given that the number of premarital sexual partners a woman has significantly increases her risk of divorce. Once she’s given away her virginity, how would you ever know how many more partners she’s had? As Julian O’Dea noted, no one misses a slice from a cut loaf of bread.

      Until women experience consequences for their actions – in this case, finding that no one wants to marry them because they were sexually active before marriage – there is unlikely to be any improvement in the situation. Yet telling men that they will just have to marry non-virgins because that’s all there is only allows women to escape the earthly consequences of their sin.

      • You are right Sunhine she may find her way into heaven but she damn sure will never have a husband, as it should be. For these “christian men to rationalise so much to simulate tradition with the thought that it is sustaining society is a total lack of real faith and confidence in the lord.

      • And this is the real point – it is a simulation.

        Uncanny Valley for matrimony? So close it’s kind of creepy?

      • Book of Hosea, Old Testament, NIV translation:
        “2 When the Lord began to speak through Hosea, the Lord said to him, “Go, marry a promiscuous woman and have children with her, for like an adulterous wife this land is guilty of unfaithfulness to the Lord.” 3 So he married Gomer daughter of Diblaim, and she conceived and bore him a son.”

      • Hosea 3, after the wife left her family and returned to prostitution:

        1 The Lord said to me, “Go, show your love to your wife again, though she is loved by another man and is an adulteress. Love her as the Lord loves the Israelites, though they turn to other gods and love the sacred raisin cakes.”

        2 So I bought her for fifteen shekels[a] of silver and about a homer and a lethek[b] of barley. 3 Then I told her, “You are to live with me many days; you must not be a prostitute or be intimate with any man, and I will behave the same way toward you.”

        4 For the Israelites will live many days without king or prince, without sacrifice or sacred stones, without ephod or household gods. 5 Afterward the Israelites will return and seek the Lord their God and David their king. They will come trembling to the Lord and to his blessings in the last days.

        (Take it for what it’s worth.)

      • Earl,
        Did you seriously just imply that Hosea 3 should be remotely considered as marital advice for Christian men?
        As with many instances in Scripture, that was a one-time thing meant to illustrate a greater point. In no way, shape or form should it be used to tell men to “Man Up and Marry Those Sluts”.

        I suppose we should all go attack the Midianites now and leave no woman, child or animal alive.

      • “I cannot see where in the Bible men are commanded to take as wives women who have behaved as whores.”

        “When the Lord began to speak through Hosea, the Lord said to him, “Go, marry a promiscuous woman and have children with her…”

        That’s all I was saying.

        I’m not Catholic, but perhaps St. Hosea can be the patron saint of mariage 2.0?

      • @ Earl
        Yes, I know about Hosea. I don’t think that is advice for all men though. I’m trying to be mindful of 1 Timothy 2:12, but here is how I have explained this to women:

        Some of the Bible relates what God has said to specific people. For example, God told Abraham to kill Isaac, but that doesn’t mean He intended for us all to take our children and bind them on an altar and then kill them unless the Lord provided an alternative sacrifice.

        Some of the Bible relates general principles for living that God gives to all people. The list of verses about sexual immorality is long, but here is a sampling:

        For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality; that each one of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honor (1 Thessalonians 4:3-4)

        Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous. (Hebrews 13:4)

        But if the thing is true, that evidence of virginity was not found in the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has done an outrageous thing in Israel by whoring in her father’s house. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. (Deut. 22:20-21)

        What did Christ do with the adulterous woman? He did not condemn her to hell; instead, He exhorted her to repent and leave behind her life of sin. He also protected her from the death penalty she deserved.

        What did Christ not do with the adulterous woman? Marry her.

        And are men not commanded in 1 Corinthians 11:1 to imitate Christ?

      • And that is the problem, Op. My long dissertation on tactics was deleted by accident by one of the mods, so I’ll have to start from scratch on this bit – but there are differences between strategy and tactics that few laymen understand. By and large, if your enemy is superior at the strategic level (as women are to men in the legal sense), good tactics are not going to save you. You can delay the inevitable, and save some people who would not otherwise be saved, but the general outcome will be the same. What Alan is discussing and advocating is fighting at the tactical level, which is really all that a man can do. Until we stand our ground and make some roll-backs at the strategic level, the best we can do is fight a rear-guard action. The thing about rear-guard actions is that you trade space (and blood) for time. The stiffer your resistance the slower the enemy advances – and the more casualties you will take.

        This, in a nutshell, is the difference between Alan and Dalrock. In military terms (since Alan used the soldier analogy), he wants tactical-level units (individual unmarried men) to hold the line where they are (by marrying under the current system) in order to slow the strategic advance of the enemy. Dalrock sees that the enemy’s advance is unstoppable with our current weapons and advocates essentially ceding the field to the enemy – although if some men wish to go behind enemy lines (think: commandos) and marry, they should do so with eyes open, proper training, and the best equipment possible – but knowing that to be captured by the enemy behind the lines is a very, very bad thing. i don’t wish to put words in anyone’s mouth, but I think the analogy is fairly solid.

        I am willing to entertain the idea that Alan may have a point, but I am highly dubious. The strategist and tactician in me needs to see him to put forward his “Concept of the Operation” that explains how a bloody rear-guard action will create a strategic advantage, and, just as importantly, the “CASEVAC” plan: in other words, how will we evacuate and care for our wounded? Right now there is no plan for strategic victory short of letting them pull society down around their ears and starting over… and our CASEVAC plan seems to consist of “shoot the wounded” (in both the courtroom and the church). I think we can all agree that THAT has to change.

      • Why is it that Christians can not win, but Muslims making up a much smaller % of the population in the U.K are getting Sharia law in place. If every Christian would homeschool/christian/catholic school the kids, cancel the cable, marrying a chaste girl and not get a marriage cert, this would stop i a second. But it won’t because people need there cable and iphone and second job to support the mcmansion.

      • Why? Because the western church is lukewarm; while first generation Muslim immigrants tend to be zealots, and that is fed by the tendency of new immigrants to form ghettos which hinder assimilation. I’m not convinced that the grandchildren of today’s flag-waving Muslims will be nearly as keen about living according to the demonic teachings of a megalomaniacal 7th Century pedophile as their grandparents are today. Europe will look different – but it won’t look like the Middle East.

        But you hit on the larger problem several have mentioned when you wrote, “If every Christian would homeschool/christian/catholic school the kids, cancel the cable, marrying a chaste girl and not get a marriage cert, this would stop in a second.

        It depends on how you define “Christian.” I submit that actual Christians make up a small minority of the population, even in the U.S., (and possibly even among church-goers), so there aren’t enough of us to change the culture by interbreeding and going “common law.” Because of that, there aren’t nearly enough chaste girls to go around. Average churchian girls are nearly as slutty as non-churchian girls, and with neo-pagans like Marc Driscoll thundering the virtues of single mothers from the pulpits of their mega-churches, that isn’t likely to change any time soon.

        We’ve lost for now – we are in retreat at the operational level (the level between tactical and strategic). The focus now is on doing the right things in our individual lives so that we can be part of the “righteous remnant” – because God always preserves a remnant.

      • Why is it…?

        Short answer: because Moslems are commanded by their god to be militant in spreading not only their religion but also their culture, and Christians are commanded not to be militant in spreading the faith.

      • Lyn87
        …our CASEVAC plan seems to consist of “shoot the wounded” (in both the courtroom and the church).

        Given the fact that men who are being divorced, or who are divorced, have a higher suicide rate than other men of the same age / income bracket cohort (4 times higher, to 6 times higher, depending on the source), it would appear that the CASEVAC plan is to have the wounded shoot themselves. I find this totally unacceptable. I also find it inexplicable that every person who self-labels as a “traditionalist” that I have ever attempted to discuss the male suicide problem with essentially had no interest in the topic. None. Oh, a bit of polite listening sometimes, maybe a few mumurs of concern, but always followed by just walking away, virtually or physically.

        I cannot but suspect if there were some legal aspect of the modern world that caused women to suicide, the traditionalists would be all up in arms and alarm over it. But men? Meh…mere expendables…

      • @The One

        Not only are they zealous.Their young men enforce sharia law with violence and the threat of violence. Their collectivist mindset and strong patriarchal family makes it possible.

    • …what hope is there of saving civilization at all?

      That’s not a question that can adequately be answered in a brief response. Basically we have to buy time until such time as the cultural conditions allow us to begin restoring a properly-ordered society.

      And how do your suggestions amount to anything other than trying to buy time by sending another generation of men “over the top” into the killing fields of Marriage 2.0?

      I think you are focusing on the letter, and missing the spirit. I am advocating a pragmatic approach, and if the tactics you and people like you advocate are the best, that will be revealed eventually.

      A tactical retreat like the one you describe is sometimes a military necessity, but only as a means to conserve your strength in order to regroup and retake the ground from a position of advantage.

      Exactly. Make a “concession,” or whatever you want to call it, to buy time, in order to make an opening to retake control.

      Until women lose the satanic right to initiate no-fault divorce AS A MATTER OF LAW, advocating that the majority of men marry in the current climate (which would require that most men marry non-virgins as a mathematical necessity) is to recreate the Somme – 1916.

      You are being carried away by your metaphor. There is always some room to maneuver.

      • “Exactly. Make a “concession,” or whatever you want to call it, to buy time, in order to make an opening to retake control.”

        A tactical retreat is what you do when you need to trade something valuable (territory and blood) in exchange for time to acquire a better position. It is not something you do willingly, because real people are going to die. That is literally true in today’s woman-centric divorce culture that rules both in the courtroom and in the sanctuary.

        Don’t take this wrong: you’re neither a strategist nor a tactician and it seems I gave you too much credit. Here’s the deal: if you don’t have a plan for using that time (paid for in blood and territory) to create a concrete advantage, you really don’t have a tactical retreat after all – we call that a rout.

        Which is it? What’s your PLAN for retaking control that will be brought to fruition by the time gained from the blood of the men who throw themselves and their children into the teeth of the enemy? Because if you don’t have one your advice to men amounts to encouraging them to sacrifice themselves to cover the rout.

        As for being “carried away,” by my comparison with the Somme in 1916, I actually understated the case. The number of casualties in the Somme (one of the bloodiest battles in human history), is lower than the cost paid by giving in to women’s demands. And, no, there is NOT always room to maneuver. Ask the Poles in 1939 (one example among thousands), or ask some of the guys up-thread.

      • @Lyn87

        I am sure you are familiar with the “Art of war” written by Sun Tzu. Do you think any of his methods are applicable to our situation?

        Also what about prayer and spiritual warfare?

    • “Unless her family or the people she cares about will destroy her for doing so, the only weapon a husband has is the counter-threat of Mutually Assured Destruction. He must be willing to go nuclear on her “Eat, Pray, Love” fantasy: destroy the house, empty the accounts, and disappear – and she has to know it.”

      Yes. Unfortunately, yes. I don’t like the conclusion, Lyn, but I’ve reluctantly reached the same one you have after thinking and reading about it.

      A woman making a serious divorce threat or continuing in rebellion and disrespect to her husband is nothing less than her declaration of total war.

      Force must be met with force, not concessions. The response to disrespect must be withdrawal of love. The response to withholding sex mut be withholding of resources and money. The response to nagging must be ignoring. The response to “Husband, I want a divorce” must be “let me know where you’ll be staying and who your lawyer will be”.

      Wife, I love you. But I will not live under your thumb. I will not live with you holding the sword over my head. If you are hell bent on destroying it all, then you’ll take the kids and me with you.

      • Yes. Once the wife says “I’m getting a divorce,” or something similar, she must be met with force.

        First, tell her “Do not commit such a great evil! You will be destroying the family, your own happiness, and our children, your own flesh and blood. Repent, and turn from your wicked ways!”

      • infowarrior1 | May 22, 2013 at 9:54 am

        @Lyn87

        I am sure you are familiar with the “Art of war” written by Sun Tzu. Do you think any of his methods are applicable to our situation?

        Also what about prayer and spiritual warfare?

        As you may have guessed, I have studied Sun Tzu, as well as Tai’ Kung, Ssu-Ma, Wu-Tzu, Wei Liao-Tzu, Huang Shih-Kung, T’and T’ai-tsung, Li Wei-kung, Genghis Khan, Ieyasu Tokugawa and Toyotomi Hideyoshi, among other Oriental thinkers; and Carl von Clausewitz, Julius Gaius Caesar, Erich von Manstein, Guilio Douhet, Sir Basil Henry Liddel Hart, Scipio Africanus, Hannibal Barca, Gustavus II Adolphus, Xenophon, Themistocles, Thucydides, and Niccolò Machiavelli, among many others, of the Occidental persuasion, and even the tactics and strategies of Chaka (King of the Zulus). There are very few types of conflict that some smart guy hasn’t thought about and written about. I was serious at the top of this thread when I said that I’m a bona-fide expert on tactics and strategy. It would be hard for me to explain in a short space like this what I did in the military. Non-geeks would find most of it terribly dull and/or incomprehensible, but let it suffice to say that I am not the sort of person one would want to have as a serious enemy.

        (I do not wish to give the impression that I’m some tough guy or door-kicker – I am not. In fact I’m a smallish, brainy guy (although I am no stranger to modern weapons) – and I am fortunate in that I have never had cause to fire my weapon anywhere other than on a range, even during my combat tour.)

        The short answer to your first question is, “Yes: and the same applies to many theorists.” But in the end this IS part of a much larger spiritual war. As 1 Samuel 17:47 says, “for the battle is the Lord’s.” Ephesians Chapter 6 lays out the “Armor of God” that we should all wear. I do not think that it is God’s will for us to be passive, though, and just figure, “Hey, God has this covered so I don’t have to do anything.” Which brings me to your second question, “Do you think any of his methods are applicable to our situation?

        I think they are, and an explanation into what I mean would take up quite a lot of space and, sadly, I have to go to work now. I’m considering writing a lengthy article (likely in two or three parts) about the application of tactics and strategies in the context of spiritual warfare. I do not have my own blog, but I suspect Laura Grace Robins would permit me to guest post on hers as she has done before.

      • @Alan Roebuck

        Yes. Once the wife says “I’m getting a divorce,” or something similar, she must be met with force.

        This actually makes your position worse from my perspective. You are saying husbands need to look for the most subtle hints of unhappiness and act on those, because once the wife is making threats it needs to be handled differently. Or are you making a distinction of not credible (low grade grumbling?) threats of divorce vs credible threats of divorce? Either way, your direction here seems to either way be towards reinforcing my specific objection, which is that headship is demolished in any meaningful sense. Basically, if I understand your position with the above in mind, the husband only really becomes head of household once the wife credibly threatens divorce. Before that his job is to keep her from becoming unhappy and threatening divorce.

      • Or are you making a distinction of not credible (low grade grumbling?) threats of divorce vs credible threats of divorce?

        I’m referring to a credible threat of divorce. If the wife openly threatens to do something wicked, the usual give-and-take that is married life is no longer valid.

        My detractors have said that I advocate “giving her what she demands,” but I take it as self-evident (and therefore not previously needing to be said) that if a spouse starts acting like a victorious general dictating terms of surrender then the normal rules are suspended. Everybody knows one should not negotiate with terrorists.

        Basically, if I understand your position with the above in mind, the husband only really becomes head of household once the wife credibly threatens divorce. Before that his job is to keep her from becoming unhappy and threatening divorce.

        It’s not the husband’s job to prevent the wife’s unhappiness, for her unhappiness ultimately originates within her in all but the extreme cases. Nevertheless, the husband should not tempt the wife to the sin of contemplating divorce, just the father should not provoke his children to anger (Ephesians 6:4.)

        My detractors have said that one ought never make “concessions.” When I attempted to give examples of legitimate concessions, they said, in effect, that my examples were irrelevant because they were valid actions and therefore not really concessions. But if “concession” is defined to mean something illegitimate, then the rule “never make concessions” becomes a tautology rather than a useful guide.

        In the ordinary give-and-take of married life, we make “concessions” all the time. It seems to me that the difference between legitimate and illegitimate concessions is mainly in the attitude of the one making the concession: If he makes it out of fear of what his wife might do rather than out of a confident belief that he can make for a better home environment; if he makes it out of a feeling of weakness rather than one of strength; if he makes it under duress rather than in a spontaneous act of magnanimity, then it’s not legitimate.

        Note also that some wives will respond positively if you give them some slack (while at the same time, and all things considered, you are strong and self-reliant), while others will see you as weak and try to exploit you. Many women secretly (or openly) long for their man to take charge, but some want to feel as if they can do what they want, at least until they get in trouble. Then they generally want their man to step in and set things right.

  28. Man and woman have a natural desire to come together

    Do they?

    Women are the gatekeepers of sex, and desire commitment from high value men. They spend their youth pursuing education, careers, and riding the relationship carousel. They pursue the alphas, the playas and the jerks. Only when they can no longer ride the carousel do they declar themselves ready for a serious relationship.

    Men are the gatekeepers of commitment, and desire sexual and emotional submission from a woman. They spend their youth being passed over for a small subset of dark triad players. Those who achieve according to marriage 1.0 mytify their elders. “But you’re such a good catch!” These betas risk their assets and future income belieiving that attention being paid to them from used up sluts is genuine.

    Premise one results in hypergamy, serial monogamy, rotating polyandry and the inevitable: “There’s no good men left!”

    Premise two results in older women settling for a beta provider, followed later by a hisfault divorce and alimony payments.

    Neither of these seem terribly natural.

    • You are overanalyzing. Of course the natural desire can be confounded and perverted by cultural conditions. But my basic point holds: they want to get together, whatever “get together” currently means. And, given the right conditions, this natural desire can be channeled in the right direction.

  29. Therefore it is more useful for us men to try to strengthen marriages by helping to strengthen husbands.

    Meanwhile, keeping the woman happy by giving her a frivorce.

  30. Traditional Marriage is not respected anymore, it is trampled on, and trying to keep marriage afloat in a debased and debauched culture is akin to sticking your finger in the leaking wall of a dike.

    Modern marriage is just a wealth redistibution device, from men as producers to women as consumers. Nofault divorce and child custody to the woman is ahistorical.

    The modern woman overrates her smv and mmv. Assortative mating is anathema to her. She detests the idea of a like value husband as ‘settling’. She’s had a lifetime of being told she’s a special snowflake, a princess, and prince charmings horse must just be running late.

  31. Earl,

    it has to be done before the demographic shift makes it impossible. 

    With twenty million plus illegal aliens, the US is well down that path already.

    California could be given back to Mexico. And might as well allow the secessions to begin. A culturally diverse empire that tries to remain unified has a rather predictable future.

  32. Alan, you keep trying to make a distinction between the nation and the state, but it doesn’t work.

    The state IS the nation, and the nation IS the state. The politicians are in charge because they were voted in by the people. The police are in charge because we have made it so. We *want* police. The politicians who gave us VAWA and Title 9 and no-fault divorce were elected by us to do so, and re-elected again and again for doing so. Conservatives revere Ronald Reagan, the biggest arms dealer in human history.

    “we have met the enemy, and he is us.”

    Your distinction seems to be some kind of dodge. Embrace the horror, man. We really are that bad. Don’t believe me?

    Take a look at what folks in your community watch on TV, the music they listen to, the words that come out of their mouth, their sexual behavior, the violence, the inequities and abuse

    Its not just DC that is corrupt. It is ALL OF US

    “For the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it?”

    Jeremiah 17:9

    • The nation and the state are related, but they are not the same thing. Families, clans and tribes existed before the apparatus of the state were created. They are currently weakened, but they still exist. If you cannot acknowledge that, there is nothing more I can say.

  33. But my general point was that if a man can save his marriage by making some concessions, then he ought to do so, provided that they are not immoral or humiliating.

    The woman is less rational, less physically capable, and prone to being swayed by emotions. She is still accountable, still has moral agency and is still responsible for busting up most marriages.

    Thanks to the hand of the state, she gets cash and prizes and the church exalts her newly heroic status. Exhibit one: mothers day messages.

    Additional credit granted for comparing and contrasting fathers day man up messages…

  34. Solomon,

    There is a pattern that whenever truth becomes distasteful, like hisfault divorce, no marriage for sluts or the abomination of the state, there is an appeal made to higher values.

    Lol.

  35. only weapon a husband has is the counter-threat of Mutually Assured Destruction

    Exactly. And be prepared to carry out the actions. Including having a go bag, a stash of cash, ready to go.

    It might mean ripping up the carpet or lino before you leave, making the house unsaleable, or unlivable. Perhaps turn the taps on. Or post party invites on facebook.

    It might mean an expensive, lengthy legal battle to exhaust the assets.

    It might mean working cash in hand.

    It might mean leaving the country to avoid jail for nonpayment of alimony.

    The woman had the full force of the law behind her. The man does not.

  36. It depends on the frame of his mind. A “concession” could be an immoral surrender of principles, or a tactic to gain a greater good.

    It only takes one phone call to remove the man from the house.

    A dominant frame is no match for guns, handcuffs and authorised force.

      • When I got on a plane to Afghanistan early in the war I had more than courage and training – I also had weapons that were deadly to the enemy, and a whole lot of dudes who were similarly armed who had my back. Earlier you said I went too far in my military analogy – although you are the one who continues to compare men facing marriage to soldiers facing battle: like you did here again. Seriously, Alan, I want to be sympathetic to your arguments, but you do not understand soldiering (and spiritual warfare) like you think you do. I am perfectly willing to go down that metaphorical road with you, and I understand that all analogies break down at some point, but you keep returning to a “soldiers die in battle” meme. That is true as far as it goes, but soldiers also KILL in battle. And they do not enter battle without deadly weapons, plans, and comrades who will kill or die beside them. When those conditions are not met the prudent commander avoids battle. Until the church gets on board with the fact that spiritual warfare means more than “you men need to run out there and face a 50% chance of getting slaughtered in the hope that some of you can seize an objective that has no strategic value,” your argument consists of little more than coaxing men onto a killing field.

        Your soldier analogy works, but it is not that I took it too far, but that you don’t take it far enough. This IS spiritual warfare.

        What weapons do the soldiers you refer to have in your estimation? By that I mean, “What can a husband do that can force a rebellious wife to submit to his leadership or pay dearly for not doing so?” In what jurisdiction will any such attempt not be met with ACTUAL superior firepower if the woman merely decides to pick up the telephone? Who has a married man’s back in his battle? By that I mean, “Who else will take a rebellious wife to task in a way that causes her to feel enough pain to surrender?” Who will give a damn when he gets wounded? The law? No, they will be among those shooting at him. The modern CHURCH? Not in my lifetime – that is thoroughly infiltrated by agents of the enemy.

        Perhaps your analogy would work better if you referred to such men as gladiators rather than soldiers. Gladiators often fought alone, often with dissimilar weapons that give one an extreme disadvantage relative to the other. Some gladiators were not slaves – they were freemen who fought for personal reasons such as fame, glory, money, and women. If men are to marry because it is good for them, then they are gladiators: risking horrible death and mutilation against a better-armed foe for a chance at something they want. If they are to marry for the good of civilization then they have the RIGHT to be treated as soldiers: which means real weapons, comrades-in-arms, and care for the wounded in accordance with a workable plan for victory. In other words we ought to fight like soldiers on a battlefield rather than gladiators in an arena.

        Personally, I am a soldier, as our enemies are soldiers for their cause. Even in large groups gladiators don’t win wars against real soldiers – ask Spartacus… you’ll find his corpse nailed to a Roman cross along with those of his followers.

    • Framing this debate as just traditional marriage v modern marriage is misleading.

      Marriage has been so corrupted over the last sixty years, that it hardly deserves to share its name with that once sacred, institution.

      A more accurate question would be; Must an honest man accept a dishonest marriage?

      My answer would be:

      Only if he is aware that what’s being offered to a young man wishing to start a family today is a grotesque parody of the true marriages his forefathers enjoyed.

      And understand that all of the benefits, rights and guarantees which used to come with marriage no longer apply. For they can all be stripped from him without a moment’s notice, justification or means of redress.

      Worse still, because this places him in such an obviously weak position from the start and women are biologically predisposed to find weakness in a man repulsive, today’s marriages come with an inbuilt fault line.

      This, together with the total feminization of family law, which is effectively incentivising women towards divorce, means most marriages today are doomed to fail.

      In short, any man considering entering today’s matrimonial lottery, should be aware that the game has been rigged against him.

      If he is aware of all this and still wishes to take the gamble, so be it.

      But the old adage “marry in haste, repent at leisure” has never been more relevant.

  37. Pingback: What Kills Love? | The Karamazov Idea

  38. And looking at the big picture, if most women are not virgins then many men will have no choice but to marry non-virgins. We cannot just call off marriage until things have been fixed.

    I call it grace abuse. All sins are forgiven, so a girl better get best value for it.

    Completely discounts Pauls instructions, of course. Romans six and all that.

  39. Alan, I have to ask why my rather-lengthy post disappeared after having been up for several hours (curiously, the responses to it are still up). Since it was my first post here it went directly to moderation, which means somebody must have passed on it before it went up for general viewing.

    I am VERY sure I did not violate either the letter or the spirit of your posting policy. I did not use any inappropriate language. I did not insult anyone. I did not advocate violence. I even quoted scripture (in context!). Technical glitch or too-compelling-to-let-stand? I sincerely hope it is the former.

    • Lyn, I think it was a technical glitch, and my fault. I was scrolling through comments and accidentally hit a ‘trash’ button. I was going to undo that but then I saw the comment still there, so I figured I had been wrong about that.

      I’ll see if I can undo. Might take me a while. I’m a klutz at that side of things. I’m not even sure it was your comment that I did this to, but I fear it was. Sorry.

      • Fair enough. I did not want to assume this site deleted comments without a reason – technical glitches, on the other hand, happen to the best of us. My boss can attest to that – he’s lost stuff I sent him… and vice versa.

  40. As a woman in absolute favor of traditional marriage, I would like to make a comment on the concept of a man making concessions to save a marriage. I think a woman has an obligation to find a man worthy of headship and capable of leadership and verifying those qualities before marrying him. If a woman decides that a man is good enough for marriage when he hasn’t yet matured into his identity and responsibility as a man, then she can’t very well accuse that he isn’t good enough to remain in the marriage later on. She had her chance to hold up the checklist before she accepted the ring, when she did that she accepted the man as he is and his leadership such as it is. At that point, she is fully responsible for not only her situation, but her reaction to it. (No one is driving her to divorce) If her husband decides that he will make changes it should be of his own conviction, to his own ends and goals.
    Besides, if a woman is more ready to threaten divorce over bad habits and flaws than to work on inspiring you to live a life with conviction in your masculine role always looking for challenge and achievement— The chances of her being long term happy with any concessions you make are slim. You can always do what you can, but in my observation too much bitterness and resentment has rooted itself in her heart for you to undo simply by making a modification in concession to the emotions that she inevitably sees herself as the victim of rather than the producer and responsible party. The concessions she asks for now may be reasonable, but they won’t always be and there will be more when she sees how effective it is to threaten you. In my personal observation, at best you are creating a band aid fix to calm her down until you can somehow get her to rewire her priorities, and at worst you are creating a monster that whose temper tantrums will only increase in severity and frequency.

  41. Why are we having this conversation? This isn’t the one person whose plane went down saying that it is therefore unsafe to travel by air. I was having a recent conversation with a Christian red pill manosphere member and we agreed that it sadly takes having the innards dragged out by hand to get men to understand what marriage and divorce mean for those of us who are believers.

    It flies in our face. It is pounded from the pulpit, and it is proliferated in large and small forums such as marriage retreats and counseling, bible studies and men’s groups.

    As a vague general statement I agree, marriage is THE central organizing set up for a decent culture. As a Christian I agree even more. But the culture and the Christians seem to want none of it, all because they seek simply female approval, because empathy is the experience they chase more than long-suffering and real commitment.

    These are basic things among the war wounded as seen in comments above. Sad that only the legless veteran fully understands that war is hell, isn’t it? Few come to the realization that this crap is real lacking figurative vivisection.

  42. SSM a bit of disagreement. I do not sense that in his general suggestion is that a given man marry ANY reformed carousel rider. I know this is cold comfort. So be it. It is however a reasonable charge that men do marry. Men know men as far as sex drive goes. men know that to follow God’s design most of us must marry. I assign this to the majority of Christian male writers/readers and to those men to whom we wish to reach. We/they choose to marry to fulfill sexual needs and for a man that should necessarily mean having a real marriage.

    This is alans position, but men cannot easily do so in the cesspool of laws, of church, of counseling, of white knights seeking “the cyber lift”…that we live in.

    I liked this exchange because its back to basics.

    • You bring up an interesting point, Empath. What about guys who are older and eligible for remarriage? If a woman frivorces her husband and remarries she is an adulteress according to Matthew 5:32, and thus the (ex)husband can legitimately marry if he wishes. In fact, since marriage is the only acceptable place for sex, he either has to marry or remain celibate for life. A middle-aged guy in that position is not going to find a virgin (unless she’s young enough to be his daughter and has serious daddy issues or is one of the very rare virginal spinsters – most of whom are that way for very good reasons). That leaves divorced women who are mostly ineligible for marriage, and chaste widows (the only real option although they are few in number).

      It seems those guys have even worse odds than younger guys. They say that sex drive wanes with age, and I’m sure it does. But I’m in the fifth decade of life and I’m not really seeing it at all – and most divorces happen to guys in their 30′s and 40′s: younger than I am. The idea of spending 40-50 years without sex would be maddening – but what’s the solution?

      I think the church is largely to blame for not toeing the line on this. By accepting second (and third… and…) marriages as legitimate rather than calling them the adulterous relationships that they are, they encourage people to commit the sin of divorce and then to LIVE in adultery as a permanent state, while the innocent party is often sentenced to a life of grinding celibacy. Living in a permanent state if adultery puts one’s eternal soul in jeopardy – one would think that pastors would care about that… By and large, though, one would be wrong.

  43. I think one of the roots of our present crisis is the death of the idea of love as a duty and an obligation rather than as a romantic feelings of “happiness”, etc. Thus the seemingly self-evident truth in Western culture that we can’t possibly have an obligation or duty to have sex but it must be “wanted” or only when I feel like it, etc.

    But as Kierkegaard pointed out in his “Works of Love”, there is something strange and almost contradictory in the Christian idea of love, which is essentially, if we think about it carefully, a duty and an obligation. “Thou SHALT love”, etc, whether you feel like it or not. He points out that the pagans and the poets will cry out against this idea saying, how can love be a command and a duty, something which I can be obliged to perform and do whether I feel like it or not? Isn’t love something which simply “happens” to one and not something one does?

    From this root we can also see how the concept of marriage itself has been profoundly transformed, from an obligation to a mere expression of something “I feel like”. As this blogger has brilliantly pointed out from a legal point of view what “no-fault” divorce means,

    Even if you’re the straightest, whitest, most Christian couple in the entire state of Louisiana, you don’t have the legal right to marry. Not really.

    It’s not that you lack the right to conduct a government-approved ceremony and obtain the legal status of a married couple; you can do that. You can even file your federal tax returns as a married couple, as long as you don’t have matching genitals. But nowhere in the United States do you have the right to credibly contract for a lifetime marital partnership.

    Every state currently allows some form of “no fault” divorce – divorce not based on any wrongdoing of a party, but simply because the parties claim they don’t want to be married anymore. Even though the couple may “vow” to remain together until one of them dies, everyone knows these vows have no legal or real-world effect. The marital “contract” is not a contract at all.

    Imagine a regular legal contract in which either party could end the agreement by saying he didn’t like it anymore. Could the purposes of contract law be served by such a contract? From a law and economics point of view, such an “if-I-feel-like-it” contract would not support the reliability of contracts, and would require an inefficient level of hedging. The legal term for such a contract is an illusory contract – one that doesn’t have any legal effect, of which the legal system will take no notice.

    Marriage once did have a legal effect – once married, parties could not divorce without a really good reason (physical cruelty, desertion, or adultery). Not coincidentally, marriages were much more likely to be reliable lifetime partnerships. In addition to the legal strictures surrounding marriage, social groups essentially forced couples to stay together or risk social death.

    With the nationwide adoption of no-fault divorce and the elimination of the social stigma of divorce, the nature of marriage changed from a genuine contract to an illusory contract. Marriage stopped being the reliable, socially enforced lifetime partnership it had been for generations…

    …an important right has been lost: the right to reliably, credibly commit oneself for life… in allowing anyone the right to divorce at will, we have deprived everyone of the right to truly marry.

    Thus, in effect with the advent of no-fault divorce, marriage has effectively ceased to exist, one’s marital contract is simply an illusionary contract, not a real contract at all. Thus when marital obligations gets subverted by “feelings” or “wants”, etc, it ceases to be an obligation, and thereby ceases to be a marriage in the first place. A promise to do something with the clause that, “provided I feel like it”, is not a promise at all, it is an illusionary promise.

  44. The only remaining way to have some semblance of a traditional marriage.

    1) Alpha up, as best as you can manage.
    2) Find the most chaste girl you can find.
    3) Make sure she is VERY committed to the faith.
    4) Get her pregnant.
    5) Support her and the child with all your energy.
    6) Never earn enough money in the modern Babylonian system to tempt her into divorce.
    7) Never hand the keys to this arrangement over to the state via a marriage certificate.

    Never leave her, nor forsake her.

  45. “I am considering divorcing my wife in front of my church and getting ecclesiatically remarried if gay marriage is forced on America.”

    -Not if. When.

  46. New and curious. First time on this website.

    What is Mr. Alan Roebuck’s opinion on women who have parceled their youth and fertility away in sexual promiscuity, carousing, serial monogamy and modern self indulgences who then decide (premeditated or otherwise) at the last minute they want to settle down with a good Husband?

    • We’re Christians over here. That should answer your question. What would you want Alan to think of a sinner like yourself, who had been sinning egregiously ever since you attained consciousness, and only in the last few minutes went to confession and repented in sackcloth and ashes? You’d want him to give you the benefit of the doubt, right?

      I bet he would, too. That would not however mean that he would, or could, or should, get you out of the purgatory of suffering the wages of all your former sins. It would mean only that he would support your repentance as he could, nurse you through the purgation, and condemn your backsliding ways when your courage failed you, meanwhile urging you to turn again back to the Lord.

      One can’t, of course, expect Alan to be perfectly Christlike. He’s fallen, after all. But he should – and does – expect it of himself.

      What do *you* think you should do with respect to the repentant sinners of your acquaintance?

      • Repentance grants sinners the forgiveness of God, so spiritual consequences are spared. But earthly consequences still apply, for women and men.

        The women who spent their youth in sexual promiscuity and they are TRULY repentant are granted God’s forgiveness. They are not granted a husband.

        In my experience, it’s not even that. Promiscuous women that suddenly appear at the Church – and I have known some of them – are not there because the have repented. They are there because they have run out of options in the secular mating market and they want to land a traditional man before it’s too late. Their commitment to Christianity follows self-interest. For example, they are not willing to submit.

      • To be sure. Repentance does not blot out the sin from history, or therefore forestall its historical consequences. But while we are adjured to be wise as serpents, we are also to be gentle as doves. That’s tricky. Tough.

      • @Kristor

        What is Mr. Alan Roebuck’s opinion on women who have parceled their youth and fertility away in sexual promiscuity, carousing, serial monogamy and modern self indulgences who then decide (premeditated or otherwise) at the last minute they want to settle down with a good Husband?

        We’re Christians over here. That should answer your question. What would you want Alan to think of a sinner like yourself, who had been sinning egregiously ever since you attained consciousness, and only in the last few minutes went to confession and repented in sackcloth and ashes? You’d want him to give you the benefit of the doubt, right?

        There is no correlation between forgiving a repentant harlot and deciding to marry one. Likewise we can forgive the repentant pedophile and still not make him a Sunday school teacher. Just as we can forgive the repentant alcoholic and not make him the driver of the church bus. And of course we should forgive the repentant embezzler but it would be unwise to make him the church treasurer.

      • I wasn’t answering the question whether Alan would or should *marry* the harlot, but the question *what would he think of her.*

      • The old “forgiveness” trick.

        Listen:

        Repentance does not spare someone from going to prison for a crime.

        Repentance does not mean that the casino hands back all the money you lost.

        Repentance does not undo the damage from a lifetime of drug use.

        The temporal consequences are not automatically erased just because a person repents.

        Promiscuity is a lot like drug use, because women seek thrills that get harder and harder to achieve, ultimately burning out their ability to function normally with a man who would have had them.

        Should good Christian men marry sexual burnouts? I’m sure you would not want your good Christian daughter to marry a male sexual burnout, or former drug addict.

        Would you want your princess to marry a man who was a major porn addict? Probably not.
        So why should good Christian men marry former c–k addicts?

      • @ The Scold’s Bridle:

        You are not reading carefully enough. Quoting that very comment of mine to which you here respond:

        [His forgiveness] would not however mean that [Alan] would, or could, or should, get you out of the purgatory of suffering the wages of all your former sins.

        It is not in Alan’s power to eliminate the wages of sin. That this is so does not of course relieve Alan of his Christian duty to forgive.

      • Kristor, I know Michael asked what Alan’s opinion is on a woman who has sinned sexually for many years, but I bet what he was really asking is if Alan would encourage her to marry, or another man to marry her.

        If this is what he truly meant, I would throw a question to Michael: What if a woman came into your church after many years of legitimate sexual abuse- abuse so bad that it had to be worked in order to get her functioning at a minimal level in society again. And then that still-healing woman met a good single man you know in your church who is considering marrying her despite all her psychological scar tissue, and she is considering marrying him despite her only recent healing in matters of personal sexuality and trust?

      • Further, is it really out of the question to see the abused woman much different than the promiscuous MBA grad? In one case, the woman was abused by men she trusted, in the latter case she’s been abused by Ben Bernanke who desoulzx her holez with fiat money shotz and perl neckleses and paperz proving education grooming and lineage like a prima noctes AKC folder.

        This hits home whem you find out one day that your beloved little sister got an abortion. And your mother took her to get it. How do you look at your sister then?! And how would you look at your mother then, and what if your sister became a mother who took her daughter to get an abortion too?

        My hatred of evil has to be tempered. I would support the death penalty for abortion, and even sentencing for women who’ve merely supported abortion in public. But I cannot bring myself to hate all women and dismiss their humanity all together in one sentence.

      • Yes. Hate the sin, love the sinner. NB, this does *not* equate to “hate the sin, marry the sinner.” Nor does it mean “hate the sin, exonerate the sinner.” Again, we are to be wise as serpents.

    • The expectations to ” settle down with a good Husband” is hypocritical and places a women in a untenable position.
      No moral man wants to marry a woman to has experienced “multiple sexual partners”.
      The collateral emotional, spiritual, mental, and physical damage is done and most cases is irreversible. She will have to lie or come clean and tell the truth (which will take years to overcome the guilt). Most American evangelicals are lukewarm and self serving at best.
      It may just be just my personal experience, but I think it is very bad deal to marry a someone who has different morals for many reason.
      - It is hypocritical to have higher expectations for your partner than you have for yourself
      - It is unequal yoking of which there are real consequences that will surface in the relationship.
      The Apostle Paul in 1 Cor 7 presents a very solid case for remaining single (both men & women).

    • What is Mr. Alan Roebuck’s opinion…

      Only true repentance and faith in Jesus Christ can save such a one. As for her marrying, it will take a serious work of the Holy Spirit to make her a suitable bride, and not for most men.

      • In that case, the Church needs to get about the business of telling the truth about such harlotry so that repentance can then be made.

        The current practice of sweeping it under the rug is not sustainable.

  47. Pingback: “No-one misses a slice from a cut loaf” | Julian O'Dea

  48. Biblical Marriage doesn’t exist, full stop.

    Men enter marriage with binding obligations to the wife while women enter with discretionary obligations to the husband. In addition the fruits of the marriage (children) are almost exclusively under the control of the wife.

    Under the guise of liberal autonomy, human rights laws and tender years doctrine the man is effectively placed under the ‘manus’ (authority) of the wife.

    Modern marriage is matriarchal marriage, the question is should Christians enter a matriarchal marriage?

  49. While I have much more to say about has been written by Mr. Roebuck and Dalrock, perhaps the biggest issue is the violent shove that Mr. Roebuck and his compatriots give men towards what marriage is today, regardless of whether it is of God or honors God. One could say the situation was much like sacrifices in Malachi’s time:

    Ye offer polluted bread upon mine altar; and ye say, Wherein have we polluted thee? In that ye say, The table of the Lord is contemptible. And if ye offer the blind for sacrifice, is it not evil? and if ye offer the lame and sick, is it not evil? offer it now unto thy governor; will he be pleased with thee, or accept thy person? saith the Lord of hosts. (Malachi 1:7-8)

    Who is there even among you that would shut the doors for nought? neither do ye kindle fire on mine altar for nought. I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord of hosts, neither will I accept an offering at your hand. (Malachi 1:10)

    In saying something like “marriage, even bad marriage, is foundational to the life of our nation, and therefore more must be said than that marriage has become dangerous and the man must protect himself.” and “There must therefore be something like a general imperative to marry” misses the issue entirely.

    As one picks up very quickly that the sacrifice was written into the Law and foundational to the Hebrew system of worship, it is nonsensical to say that the answer is not to cease the sacrifice but to correct the sacrifice as Malachi is indicating. The proper answer is to correct the sacrifice to follow it as God handed down. This is also pertinent, because those of us who know how Christ is shadowed know that the sacrifice was to be perfect and without blemish. The admonition is given to the priests TO NOT DO IT, and even upbraids the priests at the gates for going along with the sick and lame sacrifices for nought.

    We can compare this situation to marriage, because it meets the same conditions. It’s a God-given expression and testimony of a future reality. Marriage fits the same category of being an offering that is different than what God has stated. Offering the polluted sick and lame version of marriage (which is also idolatry against God) is evil. Period. Condoning the attendant vile acts performed in the name of marriage is evil as well. Period. But Mr. Roebuck and his ilk would be the kind to accuse Malachi of being anti-sacrifice for daring upbraid the priests that they are accepting and promoting such wicked and vile practices. They would recoil in horror at Malachi’s attempts to “destroy the holy sacrifices in Judah before the Lord”.

    This is the place that I stand in when it comes to marriage. Why should I offer a vile and wicked sacrifice before the Lord to spite Him and incur His anger? There is a holy institution of marriage as handed down by the Lord, but what passes for marriage hasn’t been that for a whole lot of years. I would go further to offer that modern marriage is traditional marriage simply because of the tacit acceptance given by those who identify themselves as “traditionalist Christians” such as Mr. Roebuck, who advocate what passes for marriage despite the attendant evils of it before the Lord. While I commend Mr. Roebuck in not going right to “man-up and marry the sluts”, It mystifies me that there are people who claim to be Christian and yet can agree with the kinds of things that were written in the original post Dalrock responds to. Is the call not made by Peter to follow the pattern of God and “be holy as I am holy”?

    Instead of resigning oneself to offering the evil sacrifice before the Lord (and ultimately supporting it), why not take the path of Malachi and avoid the evil entirely and advocate for its destruction instead? I should remind the readers that there is something called marriage that God handed down, which is good and holy and right, and should not be confused with the vile trash that’s being called marriage today. Destroy the evil and replace it with that.

    Malachi has given the answer to all of this. While it is easy to surmise that it was *possible* to offer the perfect and holy sacrifice as dictated by God, it can be debatable on whether that is possible today. Can one be married outside of State dictates and influence in the full pattern laid out by God, and have it supported by Christian communities? That may or may not be possible. But the answer is clear. Don’t offer the lame and sick sacrifice and offer the one without blemish instead.

    • ballista74 | May 21, 2013 at 7:19 am

      Dude – that’s awesome. Being a Christian for more than 45 years and a serious student of theology, I can count my theological epiphanies so far this year on the fingers of one hand – your post just gave me another.

    • “Offering the polluted sick and lame version of marriage (which is also idolatry against God) is evil. Period. Condoning the attendant vile acts performed in the name of marriage is evil as well. Period. But Mr. Roebuck and his ilk would be the kind to accuse Malachi of being anti-sacrifice for daring upbraid the priests that they are accepting and promoting such wicked and vile practices… Instead of resigning oneself to offering the evil sacrifice before the Lord (and ultimately supporting it), why not take the path of Malachi and avoid the evil entirely and advocate for its destruction instead?”

      This is getting a little like a debate between atheists and Christians. The atheist (marriage is evil vis-a-vis religion is evil) goes on long tirades against what the Christian (most cannot live without marriage vis-a-vis man cannot but be religious) believes. But at the end of the atheist tirade the audience is wondering what the atheist believes is the practical solution to the problem he points out? And at the end of the atheist tirade the Christian is wondering why the atheist does not take his atheist logic ALL THE WAY and turn that logic around on his atheism itself? If marriage in America is all together is a foul polluted sacrifice, then what is taxation? What is education? What is our foreign policy? What about all the other defiled things our worldly institutions enable and partake in? What about our own DVD collection?

      It is not what we put into ourselves that defiles us. Putting ourselves into a marriage does not defile us. It is what comes out of the heart that defiles us. It is what comes out of the marriage that defiles us. The sacrifices on the altar did not pollute themselves, the priests chose to offer polluted things. It was not the unclean things that were the problem- it was the unclean things being offered as clean things that pissed off the thy governor.

      No matter how many atheists tell me there is no God (or MGTOWs tell me there is no marriage) they cannot eradicate the experiences logged in my mind where God has shown and manifested himself to me (nor can MGTOWs tell me that my wife is “like all women” and that my marriage is “polluted”.) It turns out my wife is in fact, “not like that” and my marriage does in fact exist and flourish, despite the world’s attempts to overthrow it. It turns out that I am willing to die for this, because I HAVE TO DIE FOR SOMETHING anyway I look at it.

      Replace the government; marriage, taxes, education, courts, corporations, and you will NOT find utopia. It will always all be polluted.

      “Don’t offer the lame and sick sacrifice [;] offer the one without blemish instead.”

      The atheist tirade often ends with the familiar backpedaling and peace making, the feint to express his moderate views after his partisan tirade and his several condemnations for the faithful. Looks like you could have just skipped to this sentence without all the stuff in the middle.

      • This is getting a little like a debate between atheists and Christians.

        No matter how many atheists tell me there is no God (or MGTOWs tell me there is no marriage) they cannot eradicate the experiences logged in my mind where God has shown and manifested himself to me (nor can MGTOWs tell me that my wife is “like all women” and that my marriage is “polluted”.) It turns out my wife is in fact, “not like that” and my marriage does in fact exist and flourish, despite the world’s attempts to overthrow it. It turns out that I am willing to die for this, because I HAVE TO DIE FOR SOMETHING anyway I look at it.

        What an exceptional comment! Congratulations, Earl; you and Alan have been offering some wonderful perspective here.

        When I read complaints that “marriage is too dangerous” or “marriage doesn’t really exist” or “women worth marrying are hardly to be found”, etc., I can’t help thinking of Puddleglum’s passionate outburst from The Silver Chair:

        But there’s one thing more to be said, even so. Suppose we have only dreamed, or made up, all those things – trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself. Suppose we have. Then all I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones. Suppose this black pit of a kingdom of yours is the only world. Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one. And that’s a funny thing, when you come to think of it. We’re just babies making up a game, if you’re right. But four babies playing a game can make a playworld which licks your real world hollow. That’s why I’m going to stand by the play-world. I’m on Aslan’s side even if there isn’t any Aslan to lead it. I’m going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn’t any Narnia.

        The key to this passage is that there really is a Narnia. Although Puddleglum says that perhaps he would choose to believe in a pretty lie over the unvarnished truth, he doesn’t have to make that choice, because Narnia wasn’t made up after all. In the same way, there really is a marriage that is worthwhile. It’s not a fairytale, and it’s not that difficult to attain if only one is willing to let go of the cynicism and despair.

  50. It seems to me that there is a general failing by many to grasp that leftist political action has permanently changed what the word “marriage” now means. Others here have pointed this out, but yet the reply goes back to using the same term over and over. This word “marriage” is now a Trojan Horse that seeks to destroy those stupid enough to enter into it, reducing millions of men into indentured servants and lifetime slaves. This is not an exaggeration, ask any of the millions of men paying lifetime alimony under threat of being taken to prison at the point of a gun.

    This “marriage” word now in use is not the thing described in the bible. Failure to recognize this basic linguistic and political issue is what is stalemating any hope of useful progress in this discussion. A new and honest translation of the Bible to English would have to use a different word to describe the thing. “Marriage” as a word would no longer have the meaning needed for a correct translation. The powers that be have done this on purpose so of course a new term to describe the biblical concept has not been agreed upon and published. Luckily English is a very fluid language and we can just make up one of our own words to hold this biblical definition. A few suggestions impulsively off the top of my head:

    holyunion
    christianunion
    biblicalunion

    I don’t particularly like any of them and am certain others could do better, lacking a certain elegance as they are, but they would serve the need.The precise word doesn’t really matter except that it must be a new word that can be given a definition in line with that described in the Bible. Then we can have a more precise discussion about how to proceed and what advice to give to the faithful.

    We could usefully promote the understanding that this state constructed and sanctioned thing called “marriage” is to be avoided at all costs. Instead couples should avoid involving the State in forming a bible based relationship and keep such things private. They could join in holyunion (or whatever the term ends up being) and live their lives according to their own beliefs. Such a couple would never file any paperwork with the State to recognize said holyunion, and recognizing the corrupting influence of the larger culture would take care to maintain the “legal status” as cohabitating but “unmarried” people. This would include things like filing taxes separately, having separate bank accounts etc, and a legal contract signed by both at the beginning stating explicitly that they both in NO WAY wish to be or form a “marriage”. Whatever is legally required according to current legal doctrine to make clear that the state defined thing “marriage” is not in effect. This would not stop “divorce” as no such legal thing would be required since the holyunion would not be recognized by the state.

    What it would do is remove some of the legal incentives to divorce, depending on the exact legal situation in each State (common law marriage being abolished in the name of feminism in many). The only thing one could get out of the state would be child support payments. No assets, no alimony. Vastly fewer cash and prizes to those looking to frivorce. Churches that are serious about the faith could recognize holyunions among its members, and ignore this thing now called “marriage”. Members could then be instructed that they can do whatever they want “legally speaking”, but that such is irrelevant as the only true judge is our Lord Almighty.

    The holy requirements of the bible are not in any way linked to politics, or the state. We can go our own way in accordance with the wishes of our Lord and give to Caesar only that which is minimally due. It is time to take back our own religion from the State.

    • I am an advocate for ecclesiastical marriage. But I admit that it will not go over well with secular society. When Christians try to around the law and live by their own collective moral standards it will be viewed “Christian Sharia” by the secular culture. Yet I still think it is the way to go.

  51. I was talking with a fellow at work, his company is doing a job for mine. He is going through a divorce, and he was the one who filed, against the guidance of his pastor. This was the third time (that he knew of) that his wife was having an affair, and he simply could no longer live with it. The pastor and elders of his church have counseled him to take her back, as they did each time before.

    This blue-pill conservative man now gets to pay alimony and child support for two children (at least one of which is NOT his) because he obeyed his pastor. His life is in ruins, he no longer goes to his church, as they are supporting her and not him. His high school sweetheart, the woman he married, now lives with her lover in his house, while he lives in a studio apartment in the bad part of town. If he had divorced her the first time she committed adultery, he would not have had to pay child support, and would have been much better off.

    This was obviously letting the woman go too far, but her behavior was still condoned by her church – for the sake of their marriage. So, as others have asked, so do I. Where is that line? What behavior should be acquiesced to, for the sake of the marriage?

    How many men must be sacrificed so that this nation can stumble on a bit further?

    • But, according tradcons, this blue-pill conservative guy must be happy and proud. He was a soldier! He fought the good fight! He is contributing to this amazing institution (“legal fornication”) which is the base of our society! You know: this Western society that is so Christian and so traditional.

      While he is paying child support for a child who is not his and giving his house for her wife to fornicate with another man, he knows he is saving Christianity and Western civilization. Good dog!!!

      Of course, those tradcons (including his pastor) who encouraged him to follow this crazy strategy won’t be there to help him. They are like: “Be a good soldier and die for my ideas while I won’t give a damn about you and your luck”

      Tradcons want everybody to follow his steps and be good soldiers as him. I can’t wait to do the same.

      • Tradcons want everybody to follow his steps and be good soldiers as him.

        Perhaps I shouldn’t mistake a wisecrack for a substantial comment, but Mr. Nobody’s statement here is particularly vapid. No “tradcon” would be happy with this outcome, and to say that they would is nothing but ignorant hostility.

      • Perhaps I shouldn’t mistake a wisecrack for a substantial comment, but Mr. Nobody’s statement here is particularly vapid. No “tradcon” would be happy with this outcome, and to say that they would is nothing but ignorant hostility.

        Now we are getting somewhere. Imnobody00 is right the out come is just as described. It is saddening that the conservative traditions are enabling evil and providing safety and comfort for the destruction of civil society. But what is worse yet are men that follow tradition blindly without the slightest clue or willful ignorance as to why it is a tradition. Women are easily supplicated by such men but reality is not. And more and more men are turning away.

        Men today don’t have the soft luxury of following tradition. Men today make restore sustainable society and remake tradition. This doesn’t fit in the comfort of following the feminine imperative pointing out all of the “bad’ men not following tradition. In the eyes of man you will be seen as bad. Faith will allow you to be seen as praise worthy by the lord.

      • Tradcons want everybody to follow his steps and be good soldiers as him.

        Perhaps I shouldn’t mistake a wisecrack for a substantial comment, but Mr. Nobody’s statement here is particularly vapid. No “tradcon” would be happy with this outcome, and to say that they would is nothing but ignorant hostility.

        Sorry Mr. Alan, but my words are clear and your attempt of putting words in my mouth is disingenuous. I guess you are not able to address my arguments so you distort them to try to get a cheap win (straw man fallacy).

        I never said tradcons are happy with this outcome. I said that tradcons want (almost) everybody to follow these guy’s steps (that is, committing “legal fornication” aka Marriage 2.0) and TAKE THE RISK.

        They know that the chance of having your life destroyed is REAL but they want men to take the risk anyway. If they got burned, they won’t help these guys at all. The problem is for the guy who listened to tradcons.

        About words like “ignorant” and “vapid”, I won’t be debasing myself to reach your level. I will try to focus on arguments not on insults. And I won’t try to put words in your mouth that you haven’t said.

      • Stories like this (and other ones up-thread) are what I was referring to when I asked Alan what the CASEVAC plan looks like. CASEVAC is short for casualty evacuation – it’s how you get the wounded to safety and take care of them. That guy went FAR beyond what he should have done in his attempt to save his “marriage” at the insistence of his church’s pastor and elders. Since he did so, it is the DUTY of the pastor and the elders to care for him. They ought to excommunicate the woman rather than support her. They are also duty-bound to reimburse him – out of the church’s coffers and/or their personal finances – for whatever he loses in alimony plus child support for the bastard child. They OWE him that for telling him that it is God’s will that he take back his whorish wife. They also need to set him up in a house comparable to the one he lost: and if that means turning the sanctuary into a bachelor pad and having services in a crappy downtown apartment – so be it. THEY did this to him, and THEY are obligated to make it right no matter the cost to themselves. That is what responsibility means.

        CASEVAC matters. Let us hear no more about “obligations to take her back” until the church starts excommunicating whores (adulterous wives) and whore-mongers (their new boyfriends and husbands)… and starts supporting the men and their children who get crushed by following their mandates. And by supporting I mean both spiritually and financially.

    • He is going through a divorce, and he was the one who filed, against the guidance of his pastor. This was the third time (that he knew of) that his wife was having an affair, and he simply could no longer live with it. The pastor and elders of his church have counseled him to take her back, as they did each time before.

      This is a perfect illustration of the churchian rot that is so all-pervasive.

      This man’s wife was committing adultery – one of the few biblical grounds for divorce. That she committed it THREE TIMES (if the husband’s version of events is to be believed) makes it even more egregious. The fact that his pastor and his church elders, supposedly men of God would counsel him against the words of the Bible itself, is disgraceful and speaks volumes. This should have sent up bright red flags and told this man that maybe, just maybe, he wasn’t attending a Christian church after all.

      I’m all for forgiveness, most certainly, and if this man was gracious and loving enough to forgive his wife her sins against the marriage, then bless him. But THREE TIMES? That should have proved to him that she was anything but repentant. That his church[TM] led him so far astray and into such a wilderness of hurt and pain is a travesty. Sadly, this the NORM, today, not the exception of a body lost.

  52. I.

    The reason for the husband to be the head of the household is something that puzzled me for 30 years, ever since I read C. S. Lewis’ unconvincing attempts to justify it.

    In fact, the justification is quite simple, and is biological. Biologically, a woman is capable of having far fewer children than a man. Her emotional investment in each child is much greater than the father’s. Therefore, she has a much stronger bond with her children than their father does.

    If a man is head of the household, he will decide that number two in the status ranking will be his wife, with the other positions assigned to the children.

    If a woman is head of the household, she will decide that number two is one of the children, followed by the other children, with her husband on the bottom rung.

    It is obvious which arrangement is better suited to domestic harmony.

    II.

    The reality is that 50% of marriages end in divorce, and in many US states the husband is reduced to penury.

    To say that “there is great challenge and risk” is an understatement. A man who marries might as well gamble his future on the toss of a coin.

  53. The traditional conservatives have turned into a kind of Dr. Frankenstein. They are distraught over the death of what they once held dear, and are desperately trying to mask the pain by re-animating the corpses of their loved ones. Sadly, the lurching zombie of biblical marriage is turning out to be a far larger problem than simply letting it lie.

    What did the Lord do when his people were unhaaaapppy? Did he make concessions? Did he feel responsible for their happiness?

    What about Christ? Did he soft-pedal his speech in order to gently guide people back? Nope.

    Mr. Roebuck seems to think that he can train men to gently coax their rebellious women back onto the plantation. Well, what would he say to the man in the example above, after telling him to remain with an adulterous wife, only to have his life completely ruined?

    The argument is largely academic, however, because the trend is clearly the other way. Christian conservatives are losing on almost every front, as they should be. Yes, I said it. They should be, because they are making a mockery of what their principles supposedly are.

    I get the feeling Mr. Roebuck would rather admonish a man to “grin and bear it” than he would be to tell a woman that she is a rebellious sinner.

    That is not an indicator of Biblical masculinity.

    • I get the feeling Mr. Roebuck would rather admonish a man to “grin and bear it” than he would be to tell a woman that she is a rebellious sinner.

      That’s because you are isolating one part of what I said from its context. And you are mistaking a pragmatic approach that looks to occasional “concessions” as one possible tactic with a general counsel to appeasement, which I clearly did not make. You are attacking a straw man.

      For the record, yes, the one who divorces is committing a great evil. That is a given.

      • Would you accept a man divorcing a serial adulteress, then? Try to talk him out of it? Tell him to get on with the rest of his life and leave her?

        Understanding that one cannot issue a blanket rule, offer an hypothetical example of a case where you would advise divorce. For the man, of course.

        I still think tradcons are propping up the corpse of marriage, not realizing that it is essentially dead. The only way to get close to it is to get a girl pregnant, then never leave her. The state’s involvement is the toxic ingredient.

        Since when is the state an arbiter of whether a marriage is holy or not? Marriage is God’s domain, not the state government. All of that is pure legality and economics. A desire on the part of women to have a means of enforcing a man’s biblical responsibilities. Is that wifely submission? Is that having faith in God.

        “Yes God, I know that I should trust in you, but i still need family court, VAWA, and a litany of other laws to make sure my husband submits to the state before I submit to him.”

        It’s over for the tradcons. They may be able to make some small adjustments to the attitude of the ship as it slips beneath the waves, but that is all that they can change at this point. I am a perfect example of the kind of man you would most vigorously be lobbying to marry. But I won’t. I know too much and have seen too much. Marry for the sake of the nation? A bunch of ungrateful Obama-worshiping entitled children? Marry a reformed harlot and support the offspring of her unholy union with some thug? Submit to having the state and the woman in collaboration against my interests, treating my life goals as subordinate to everything else?

        It’s over, man, and it is too bad, because I’d like to have it the old way too. But the way forward is not the way back. Into Egypt we go, my friend. It will not be this generation that returns.

      • It’s over, man, and it is too bad, because I’d like to have it the old way too. But the way forward is not the way back. Into Egypt we go, my friend. It will not be this generation that returns.

        Internalizing this statement is rather depressing. However, once one accepts it he can move forward with the audacity of no-hope. You can be far more audacious in action when you leave with the expectation of never returning.

        Although an alternative to this is “Into Southeast Asia/Eastern Europe we go” for men who still want to get married.

      • @ar10308: With faith, it doesn’t have to be depressing. Remember that the remaining people of Israel(Juda) were told to submit to the Lord’s correction and go into captivity without fighting their captors. If they obeyed, their lives would be spared, they would have provision, and they would even have some joy.

        I can’t recall the exact verse, but they were told to plant vineyards (in captivity) meaning that they were going for the long haul (70yrs.) AND that they were to have the fruit of the vine (sustenance, joy) DURING their captivity. It’s a remarkably beautiful truth buried within a dismall scene of ruin and judgment. I’ll have to track down the passage…

        Anyhow, He is ALWAYS faithful, even if we are under judgment, which we deserve. He will preserve a faithful remnant somehow, often at the fringes of “normal” society. So, off to captivy we go, but not alone, not helpless, not hopeless. But trusting.

      • @Alan K,
        There won’t be much joy to be found in the judgement that is coming to the USA in the coming years.
        This won’t be the captivity of Judah, but rather the Fall of Rome…

      • @ar10308: No, it’s not going to be a picnic, far from it. The nation/people will be laid low. Judgment is real funny that way; not a bed of roses for some reason. Just hang on to individual faith, whatever comes.

        In a related thought, the US doesn’t figure in prophecy at all, so I expect a lot of deslation in the coming years. There is a lose connection with Rome, like the whole of western society, but the nation is scripturally irrelevant. Scary thought that we could achieve such great things and come to nought in a short time frame. The ravages of sin.

      • Who is the Eagle who supports the Lion during the end-times?
        Sounds like it could be the US considering that we have given the current state of Israel nearly the entire technological basis upon which it defends itself…

      • Perhaps so, my memory isn’t good enough without a “refresher course.” I don’t want to be too specific about the types/metaphors without scriptural support. Sorry.

        Anyhow, maybe a different post to chat about it later. It’s probably beyond the scope of this topic. Cheers.

      • Thanks, Earl. I skimmed through it and didn’t find a specific reference, but a more careful reading might turn it up.

        ar10308, your thought seems familiar, but I haven’t located the origin. What scripture are you referencing? Daniel 7:4?
        Let me know, and then I’ll drop this, until we can pursue it elsewhere. It’s interesting what scripture says about the Western nations. It ties into these conversations — seeing what will come to pass shortly.

      • Alan, I have to admit that I slipped in a link to a non-apocalypse obsessing theology. The link was to what’s known as the preterist view, which says that Daniels 4th kingdom as Rome, and Daniel’s Little Horn was probably a Roman, and that the Abomination of Desolation occurred shortly after Christ (like he said it would happen to the generation he was addressing), and that the Great Tribulation was the Jewish Wars as described by Josephus, and that the millenium is now; we’re living in it. It’s known as the preterist view.

      • Yeah, I noticed the curious timeline, but just looked past it while hunting for applicable bits. Your comment about the 4 kingdoms is relevant, because the historical events foreshadow the future events. The Abomination of Desolation is still to come, along with the Great Tribulation (Jacob’s Trouble) and the Millennium to follow. All of these events occur after the Church is caught up to be with Christ.

        Of course, these events in Daniel, Ezekiel, Matthew, Revelation are highly significant to the Jews, who are looking for Messiah and the restored kingdom, etc., etc. They are simply instructive in a contextual sense for Christians.

        Now, I’ve gone and done it. When the subject of pre/post millennial teaching comes up, it often ignites a firestorm. I’ll just say that I see scriptural evidence that we are still in the church age (day of grace), and yet, we can see some details of the end-times taking shape.

        Regarding our conversation about the future of the US, I’ll just mention this: The United States (and similarly all of the Americas, the UK, and most of Europe) are loosely connected with Rome. In fact, the English asked similar questions (about 75 years ago) about their relationship with Israel and prophecy; and others probably did so before them. Point being, empires come and go, without necessarily playing a key role in prophecy. It’s hubris in man to think that we are more pivotal than we are. We are followers, at best. The King has absolute authority – and that’s enough. We don’t need to know the exact day when He will return. We see the times and seasons and know that it’s close. The lukewarm condition of Laodicea is everywhere.

        Maybe we can pursue this on another occasion. At any rate, I’ll keep searching the scriptures.

  54. As I look back upon my life, it becomes apparent that when I acquiesced, when I submitted to my wife while not agreeing or believing that it was correct, that I failed myself, her and our family.

    My beloved became an alcoholic while I was away on active duty, serving in the military. I was slow to realize this, being a non-drinker with no experience and little knowledge about the problem. When I did realize the issue, I demanded that she stop, and was going to take the children and leave her. I was talked out of this by our priest, who stated that she would respond to counseling and needed my support.

    As a result, our youngest daughter was born with fetal alcohol syndrome. She is sweet, innocent and lives with me still, as she is poorly suited for dealing with our world. Every day I see the result of my failure to lead.

    When I finally did act, my wife went to AA and got sober. She also got hooked on tobacco. Again I was unhappy, but acquiesced to the word of counselors (as I wasn’t listening to that priest any more) instead of ‘going nuclear’. Another daughter’s early cancer may or may not have been due to that; my wife’s premature death from lung cancer certainly was due to her smoking. Again, I live with my failure to lead; I acquiesced for marital harmony and now have a gravesite instead of a wife.

    By and large, I had a good marriage. My wife wanted me to lead. She said otherwise, and would continually test me, but she was happiest when I did my duty as a Christian husband. Marital submission by me always led to more (and more unreasonable) demands, along with her dissatisfaction and unhappiness. It’s a slippery slope, and becomes hard to climb back up with just a ‘minor’ submission or two.

    • This is a tough line to walk. My wife screams when we are outside with the little ones and a vehicle drives on the road. When she hears road noise she panics. Nobody’s ever been hit by a car in her life, other than pets. She did grow up on a dangerous street and almost got hit once while she was stoned. But whatever her reasons they are mostly irrational, and they also affect the way our children develop and experience the world. A perfectly safe life is not living at all. I try to get her to lighten up and relax when it comes to safety issues because I feel she goes too far, and I can’t imagine what it would be like if my laxity got one of the kids killed, but hopefully I would not blame myself.

      • Glad your on the job. Perfect judgment or not, keep at it.

        Try to figure out why she has those issues and see if you can root them out. I keep finding odd “paranoia triggers” in my wife and we’re gradually neutralizing them. Women are plagued by guilt, worry and fright, especially concerning the little ones. Their instincts can push them to extreme behaviour. You are likely her best earthly resource in this fight.

    • tweell, I hope that you tell many, many people what you have learned. I also took too long figuring it out, but my consequences are more subtle than yours. Now, I’m much older, hopefully a little wiser, with several scars to mark the journey.

      Keep talking. Others need to hear these things, repeatedly, until the lies dissipate. Thanks for your honesty. Best to you.

  55. I think the main faultline here is illustrated by this passage of Alan Roebuck’s original post:

    Know that you are a warrior participating in a noble cause. We all desire peace, but ours is not a peaceful time. Every man faces only two choices: contributing to the leftist destruction of our nation by going along with the status quo, or emulating your ancestors in building up our nation and fighting leftist barbarians in whatever way you can.

    The question is, is marrying in the modern world, as it stands, “contributing to the leftist destruction of our nation” OR “building up the nation”? Roebuck thinks it obvious that it’s the second choice, but most of the commenters here, best exemplified by Max above, argue that it’s the first. I also agree with Max that we should choose different terms to mean what “marriage” used to mean in sane societies, as it would make the argument clearer.

    I also don’t understand how this comment of Roebuck’s in the thread above is compatible with the rest of his positions:

    Most men need a good marriage in order to flourish. A system in which only the heroic have a place is not workable.

    As far as I can see, “a system in which only the heroic have a place” is exactly what he proposes. First, because he’s the one who originally came up with the “soldier charging the enemy” analogy. Second, because, also in this thread, he also said that one good reason not to marry would be

    If he can find no suitable women . . . despite making a significant effort.

    This remark would show that most men CANNOT and WILL NOT get a good marriage, no matter how much they need it in order to flourish. In today’s world, the supply of suitable women is much smaller than the demand. (Maybe the truth or falsity of this assertion is another faultline of this conversation, but I’m not sure). So, many men will not be able to marry, and will, if moral, have to endure a lifetime of celibacy. Of those who do marry, a sizeable portion, let’s say half, will have to endure a lifetime of indentured servitude, estrangement from their children AND celibacy after divorced of their unhaaaaapy wives. If this prospect does not demand heroic fortitude, then nothing does.

      • That’s my sense of things too. But they are often hidden, or at least not the first woman one notices…

      • OK, so that’s another area of disagreement. Fortunately, at least this one is an empirical question amenable to data, no matter how hard it may be to get it.

        And let me thank both Roebuck and Dalrock for this series of posts.

      • Yes, I agree with The Man Who Was and with Mr. Roebuck.

        The assumption of many of those opposing Mr. Roebuck seems to be that there are all these great men out there who deserve good wives. But my experience has been that most men are every bit as wicked as most women and therefore are in no position to demand, e.g. a virgin bride. The number of good men who actually do deserve good wives is probably comparable to the number of good women who are actually out there. But like Mr. Roebuck says, they are often hidden or not the first woman one notices.

        So when Mr. Oakes says that [T]he supply of suitable women is much smaller than the demand, I say, yes, that’s true, but so what? Of course men will want suitable women, but if most of these men have lived dissolute lives, why should they have any expectation of marrying suitable women?

      • The number of good men who actually do deserve good wives is probably comparable to the number of good women who are actually out there.

        It is entirely possible that there are more suitable men than suitable women out there right now, but I don’t see any evidence of a radical difference out there.

      • The assumption of many of those opposing Mr. Roebuck seems to be that there are all these great men out there who deserve good wives.

        The case for a more just sex/marriage regime doesn’t depend on men being virtuous, but it is possible to overstate the innocence of men in general in creating what we now have.

      • The case for a more just sex/marriage regime doesn’t depend on men being virtuous

        Good point, I agree.

      • But my experience has been that most men are every bit as wicked as most women and therefore are in no position to demand, e.g. a virgin bride.

        True but irrelevant to the discussion.

        True. I don’t think women are more wicked than men. Everybody is a sinner. The fact that women are behaving this way is because the law enables them. If the law favored men, I don’t have any doubt that men will commit abuses, the way women do now.

        (By the way, most religious people I know don’t demand a virgin bride. They demand a bride who honors her vows and they are sure she is not going to destroy their life by divorcing them. Given to the laws of modern world, this is really difficult. If you see the comment by tweell (May 21, 2013 at 1:15 pm), you will see that that man married his high school sweetheart (probably a virgin) and she was a devoted Christian. This did not keep him from seeing his life destroyed by a divorce)

        Irrelevant to the discussion, because the discussion was not about if they are virgin brides, but if you have the duty to commit “legal fornication” (aka Marriage 2.0).

        The fact that the men and women who marry are equally wicked is no reason to commit to a wicked institution, which is more different to biblical marriage than Islamic marriage is.

        If you are wicked, you are forced to repent and seek God. You are not forced to commit “legal fornication” with a woman which is as wicked as you.

      • I don’t disagree with most of what you say.

        My comment was specifically in response to Mr. Oakes when he said that the supply of suitable women is much smaller than the demand.

        The virgin bride thing was just an example, perhaps not the best one. You could replace it with other examples.

      • For the rest of us without the powers of clairvoyant wisdom, would you mind sharing the source(s) of the basis of your assertion of such optimism?

    • Let me just clarify my position re: supply and demand, in case anyone is still reading this. It’s not so much that there are more good men than good women in general, much less any supposed moral superiority of the Y chromosome. The issue is the differing life-history trajectories of men and women.

      More women are corrupted at an earlier age then men (speaking in generalities, of course), simply because they have the upper hand from adolescence until mid-adulthood (say 30, to keep with the usual manosphere number) and the surrounding culture does not give any restraint to most of them. They can, and they fall. Certainly many young men (in absolute numbers) are also corrupted, but not as many young men as young women have the ability to succeed in it. Many can’t, and so don’t fall – which doesn’t mean they wouldn’t if they had the chance – but in practice they still are marriageable. Men’s temptation, again speaking in generalities, becomes strong when they have the upper hand, say from 30 to 50 (or whatever numbers you prefer).

      So, I’d submit there are many more eligible men than women among young adults, say 20-year-olds, which in a sane society are the prime marriageable years. When men become able to sin more, they do so – but the women have already been corrupted by then…

      Best

  56. Pingback: Can a wife respect a husband who is an idiot? | Sunshine Mary

  57. Pingback: The Foundational Sin of ALAN ROEBUCK @ http://orthosphere.org/ : Bearing False Witness Against Men | Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM(TM) GB4M(TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN(TM) GREATBOOKS4MEN(TM) lzozlzlzlzlzomglzozzl

  58. Alan and Dalrock,

    I am glad that y’all have done this and for the comments conversation that has followed.

    It is good to see more interaction between these areas of the neoreactionary dark enlightenment blog world.

    • Thanks for your appreciation.

      It is good to see more interaction between these areas of the neoreactionary dark enlightenment blog world.

      A little rough in places, but beneficial in the long run.

  59. The kind of insanity that passes for popular Christian thought on marriage:
    http://www.christianpost.com/news/greg-laurie-4-words-that-can-change-your-marriage-96207/

    Lots of words for the husbands.
    Almost nothing for the wives.

    Notice this popular pastor skips over Ephesians 5:22-24 after citing 5:17-21 and before citing 5:25-33. Can’t imagine much more blatant omissions of a wife’s obligation to submit to her husband.

    That is the popular Christian culture that is pandered to by thoughts of “concessions to her” to save the marriage.

    • Random Angeleno

      http://www.christianpost.com/news/greg-laurie-4-words-that-can-change-your-marriage-96207/

      This sort of preaching is common in far too many churches, I have heard it myself in more than once place, and not just the main stream Protestant dying ones, either.
      I have known in person at least ten men from various Protestant denominations and at least two Catholics,
      who would both agree with this, and strongly assert they are traditionalist Christian men.
      Note that Greg Laurie is part of multiple organizations, not just his own Harvest Crusade but also the Billy Graham group, and Iit is very, very likely that if one were to ask him, “Are you a BIble-believing, traditional Christian pastor?” he would answer in the strong affirmative.

      The orthosphere might disagree with him on that last point. I honestly can’t say, because different people have different definitions for such words as “traditional” and even “Christian”, leading all too often to a round of “No True Scotsman” that doesn’t serve any useful purpose.

    • For thousands of years, divorce was rare and almost always initiated by the husband. This “meme” has been deeply imprinted on the human race, or at least on Americans, so it is natural for the authorities to conceptualize the situation in this way.

      • Instead of divorce they cuckolded the guy. The old joke about the second child is the mail man’s etc.

  60. Pingback: Can a wife respect a husband who is an idiot? |Viva La Manosphere

  61. Moslems are winning because they are willing to use violence and weak men fear them

    Christian men no longer have the balls to be violent and are being crushed. Apparently the Lord is not interested

      • Well we use to be men

        When my ass was on the line, the army dumped all the firepower it could muster to save it. I mattered to the army, even if it was only as a valuable tool. When my marriage was on the line then when I was ground down from divorce, living on $200 a week, there was no spiritual fire support. Only a church telling me to suck up to the ex and win her back

        Compare and contrast the two

    • The Lord is never interested in those that aren’t walking with Him in the light. The answer is to return to Him. Otherwise, the crushing will happen and will continue.

    • @Ton
      Ephesian 6:10-20
      10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. 11 Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. 12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. 13 Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm. 14 Stand therefore, having fastened on the belt of truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, 15 and, as shoes for your feet, having put on the readiness given by the gospel of peace. 16 In all circumstances take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming darts of the evil one; 17 and take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, 18 praying at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication. To that end keep alert with all perseverance, making supplication for all the saints, 19 and also for me, that words may be given to me in opening my mouth boldly to proclaim the mystery of the gospel, 20 for which I am an ambassador in chains, that I may declare it boldly, as I ought to speak.

    • I found a wife, was not much good in it, outside the children that is. Did not see much favor from it either

      I know what the Good Book says, but I also know how things workout in the fallen world

    • Understand though Solomon, that a wife in that context is not the same wife most men would end up with in the present context.

      To end up with a true wife, the kind Solomon describes at the end of Proverbs, is definitely a blessing from the Lord. To be married to contentious woman, you know what Solomon wrote on that too… don’t you?

    • “Whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing, and obtaineth favour of the LORD”
      Who says that rebellious slut you married is a wife and not a rebellious slut.

      • My ex wife was a virgin when we began dating. Church twice a week, three times if you count choir practice. Point being, it’s not out of control sluts who make for bad wives. It women who make for bad wives

      • That is where the herd thing comes in. The slut routine of unchecked hypergamy is now the way of the women. in general. Any legal or social check is considered abuse or oppression. Your post there Ton is another reason and most important why I’m an MRA type. A woman with that as a behavior should not be able to by law take a child and future wealth from any one.

      • Ton | May 23, 2013 at 4:34 am

        My ex wife was a virgin when we began dating.

        That is a very interesting (and telling) choice of words: “My ex wife was a virgin when we began dating.” Since you did not write, “My ex wife was a virgin when we got married,” I am forced to assume that she was not.

        Not that I excuse anything she did (I know nothing about it), but it is a common theme among red-pill men that it is unreasonable to expect men to be virgin grooms: as if the sin of fornication only applies to women – and as if unmarried women could lose their virginity if men did not fornicate with them. A less obtuse way to make that statement would be something like this, “I was a cad and I fornicated with a virgin, and then I married her. It didn’t work out.

        Nothing against you personally, but committing fornication indicates that neither of you were committed to a Christian marriage from the start. How did you expect that to turn out?

  62. Pingback: Imperfect contrition and marriage, or, why positivists don’t have to go to Hell | Zippy Catholic

  63. Perhaps already asked and answered, this is in response to your first comment. A man can make concessions.

    When I was a young man I was certain that all it would take is making concessions. In my late twenties I discovered though, after making this concession, and that concession, and then having the women affair an end to the relationship (she was obvious in it), made the discovery that a broken woman is a broken woman is a broken woman is a broken woman.

    That experience definitely woke me up to reality. No matter how noble a man may be, a noble man is a pearl in a pig’s snout if he spends that nobility on a pig. The pig too (not just the dogs)will turn to bite him for being noble.

    A good man can make concessions to a good woman, and find that he’s benefited even occasionally. Concessions to a broken woman though, is a wasted effort. It won’t fix her.

    Marriage is still something I hold as an ideal. But I can only have a society-benefitting marriage if I find a good woman to marry. To marry otherwise, is more detrimental to society than if never married.

  64. @ Earl,

    “I would throw a question to Michael: What if a woman came into your church after many years of legitimate sexual abuse- abuse so bad that it had to be worked in order to get her functioning at a minimal level in society again.”

    -SHE DID NOTHING WRONG. What does abuse have to do with willful acts? You cannot hold a women (nor ANYONE ELSE) accountable for events forced on them outside of there control. I think that’s just common sense. Being abused is diametrically opposite to a women willfully deciding to ride a ferris wheel of men and worship at the alter of clubs, bars, and spring break, then hopping off at the last second (or not) for marriage.

    “Further, is it really out of the question to see the abused woman much different than the promiscuous MBA grad?”

    - YOU HAVE GOT OT BE KIDDING ME. ABSOLUTELY IT IS.

    “This hits home when you find out one day that your beloved little sister got an abortion. And your mother took her to get it. How do you look at your sister then?! And how would you look at your mother then, and what if your sister became a mother who took her daughter to get an abortion too?”

    -Abortion is a separate topic. In the hypothetical situation you bring up I would have to look at this painful situation on it’s own merits. A one-off rare event is different than an event which causes it, occurring over and over again. As if the case with so many women today.

    “My hatred of evil has to be tempered. I would support the death penalty for abortion, and even sentencing for women who’ve merely supported abortion in public. But I cannot bring myself to hate all women and dismiss their humanity all together in one sentence.”

    -Understand however I’m not talking about abortion I’m talking about sexual promiscuity. Most modern modern have become more intelligent using birth control than in years past. Teen pregnancy is down not because morality is up – but because birth control “technology” and use usage is up. A women doesn’t have to remember to take a pill anymore. There are shots and implants which last for months and even years. In my opinion the use of birth control further suggests their desires to be sexually active outside of marriage with multiple partners throughout their 20′s and/or as they work on their career. Just my opinion.

    • Earl:

      “My hatred of evil has to be tempered. I would support the death penalty for abortion, and even sentencing for women who’ve merely supported abortion in public. But I cannot bring myself to hate all women and dismiss their humanity all together in one sentence.”

      In addition to michael’s statement, let me add that it is neither hatred nor dismissing women’s humanity to call women out on their sin.

      It is neither hate nor dismissal of humanity to call their sexual promiscuity what it is: SIN, and to hold them to account for it.

      It is neither hate nor dismissal of humanity to suggest strongly that a good number of such women have rendered themselves unfit for marriage. No one did it to them BUT THEMSELVES. They are not hated; nor is their humanity dismissed. They are, however, properly judged as not fit for earthly marriage.

      Forgiveness, spiritual healing and salvation are quite separate and apart from suitability for earthly marriage, ability to bond to one and only one man, and the effect of incurable STDs.

  65. @ Alan Roebuck

    “Only true repentance and faith in Jesus Christ can save such a one. As for her marrying, it will take a serious work of the Holy Spirit to make her a suitable bride, and not for most men.”

    -I understand that. However you’ve avoided answering my question by sidestepping it.

    • …you’ve avoided answering my question…

      Because it’s too vague. Obviously women like that generally won’t make good wives, so single men should generally avoid them.

      • So what does the typical woman, look like today? If a large number of women are similar to such, then the prospects of marriage for a number of men is not looking very good.

  66. I supplied no-fee counseling to more than an estimated 1,600 divorced men from 1984 to 1993.

    I encountered men who when the woman filed for divorce, told her they would do anything to get back together. The smartest women would start making demands, and state perhaps they might change their minds if he was cooperative.

    The list would grow and grow as he capitulated. Eventually, the list would include signing over almost all assets, and agree to maternal custody, all in the name of proving he was cooperative.

    And, of course, once he had signed everything over without resistance, she would laugh and walk away.

    SSM is correct.

    ***
    The heresy which has pretty much destroyed Christianity as a force in society can be simply stated. “Effective male leadership initiates female submission.”

    The Bible says no such thing. In fact, it says the exact opposite. That female submission initiates effective male leadership.

    Alan essentially just twists things around, and in a very clever way. The end result is still man-fault.

    • The heresy which has pretty much destroyed Christianity as a force in society can be simply stated. “Effective male leadership initiates female submission.”

      The Bible says no such thing. In fact, it says the exact opposite. That female submission initiates effective male leadership.

      Alan essentially just twists things around, and in a very clever way. The end result is still man-fault.

      This thread is getting long, and it’s getting difficult to keep track of everything that has been said, but I’m at least familiar with most of it, and don’t recall Mr. Roebuck saying anything like this. In fact, he clarified misrepresentations of what he has said in several places. Could you give a little more direction as to where Mr. Roebuck asserts the position you attribute to him – i.e., that as a rule, “effective male leadership initiates female submission?”

    • The list would grow and grow as he capitulated.

      Of course. I took it as self-evident, not needing to be stated, that one does not negotiate with a terrorist.

      The Bible says no such thing. In fact, it says the exact opposite. That female submission initiates effective male leadership.

      A leader cannot lead unless his authority is acknowledged by those he would lead. Therefore you mean, I presume, that if the wife is not in submission, then the husband must do something (e.g., “Game”) to induce the wife to submit. OK. Fair enough.

  67. Pingback: Lightning Round – 2013/05/22 | Free Northerner

  68. The comments thread here is so long now that I’m not even sure it is worth the effort to add anyting to it. Also I may be raising a question that someone else has already addressed, but I don’t have time to read an additional 130-140 comments at the moment so I’ll just go ahead and ask:

    Why do you gentlemen (some of you, at least) allow your women to use sex as a weapon against you? Women may well be the guardians of sex, as several of you have noted, but acknowledging that fact does not mean you should permit your woman to use it to get her way with you. Indeed, the solution to that tactic is simple: if she denies you sex as a ploy to manipulate you into getting her way (you youngsters pay close attention here because the earlier in your marriage you initiate this counter attack, the better off you’ll be all around), and you realize that this is what she is doing, the answer, or response, is to turn the tables on her. That is to say, restrain yourself. A several-months long commitment to celibacy goes a long way in correcting that situation, by my experience. In other words say to her (without actually saying it) “You wanna go to war with me using sex as a weapon? Fine. But you’re going to lose.” And then … win.

    • Terry Morris:
      I would respectfully disagree with you that a husband’s withholding sex is an effective tactic against a wife who is withholding sex.

      Her refusal is in direct contravention of the command in I Cor 7. Her refusal is nothing less than a declaration of total all-out war — not only against her husband, but against God.

      The proper response in my view is for the husband to withhold resources. Move all liquid marital assets to an account in his name only. Give her a tight allowance. Make her account for every penny spent and control it tightly. Give her some or all household bills and tell her to pay them from her own money. Cut up her department store credit cards.

      If it continues, force her to move out. (The husband does not move out, SHE moves out.) No sex, no marriage. Tell her in no uncertain terms that without sex there is no marriage. Tell her parents that she is refusing sex and therefore, you consider that their daughter has abandoned her marriage. Tell her you consider yourself free from any marital obligations to her, including monetary support and sexual fidelity.

      At the very least, this will force the issue to a head and force her to make a clear choice: return to the marriage and the marital bed; or identify your lawyer and let’s get it on. Wife: Bedroom or courtroom. YOUR CHOICE.

      • I’m not sure this is a good idea. I definitely sets the frame that the husband is buying, and has to buy, access to her sexual favours. A very bad precedent to set. Remember, she’s going to have a million little ways to undermine you informally, so it’s best to make her actually want to have sex with you. I wouldn’t hesitate to point out to her the wrongness of what she is doing, but Terry is basically right about the most effective way of doing this.

      • @The Man Who Was,

        The point is the marriage is a contract/covenant based on the exchange of resources and services. The man gets sex and passes on his genes, the woman gets resources she couldn’t attain on her own.

        Marriage IS sex. If sex is not being exchanged at a satisfactory frequency for both individuals, then one party is defrauding the other and cheating them out of something they are owed based on the contract/covenant.

      • Deti is correct, of course. The situation he is describing is one that is already pretty dysfunctional if the wife is declaring a sex boycott in word and deed. We probably also ought to differentiate between a “work slowdown” and a “strike.” I suspect that wives do the former more often than the latter, and it may be difficult to know when a “slowdown” is in place.

        But if a wife flatly declares that she will not have sex, then she has effectively abandoned the marriage. Even if it is a tactical move on her part to gain concessions the husband has the right – even duty – to come down hard on her (no pun intended). The threat of a sex boycott is an existential challenge to a marriage – if she actually goes through with it then she has effectively abandoned the marriage – and her rights within it. There is no nice way to say that – and it is probably not the time to go “tit-for-tat” with her. She is attempting to use her natural asymmetrical advantage (better ability to withhold sex): the husband who refuses to crush that with his asymmetrical advantage (better ability to withhold resources) is asking for trouble later.

        The bottom line is as Deti wrote, “No sex, no marriage.” I’ve been married for 25 years and we have never fought, so this isn’t some disguised complaint from my personal life, but the ONLY thing I get from my wife that I cannot legitimately get elsewhere is sex. I would certainly not like to be single again, but in practical terms I can do or hire out everything she does except that.

        A woman who threatens a sexual boycott is telling her husband that she is literally willing to end the marriage if he does not submit to her headship. So in addition to violating 1 Cor 7, she is threatening actual divorce (“No sex, no marriage”), or, if she actually denies her husband his conjugal rights then she has actually initiated divorce by abandoning the marriage. In such a case (which is extreme), a husband would be well within his rights to exercise discipline in his home by withholding resources from his wife as Deti suggested and, if she continues to the point where he determines that her rebellion has reached the level of abandonment, he then has every right to call her father and tell him to pick her up at the curb.

      • Well, there’s right and then there’s prudence. Setting the frame that you’re paying for sex is imprudent.

      • The point is the marriage is a contract/covenant based on the exchange of resources and services. The man gets sex and passes on his genes, the woman gets resources she couldn’t attain on her own.

        I’m not sure that thinking of marriage in this purely contractual way is actually Christian.

      • Refusing to have sex with your spouse is not the kind of abandonment spoken of in the Bible that causes the other spouse to be free. You cannot legitimately divorce your spouse for withholding sex. Of course, according to worldly logic, you certainly can, but it’s no different for a man to do this than it is for a woman to divorce her husband because he is failing to support them financially. It’s completely unbiblical to say otherwise. First Corinthians 7:12-16 should not be read as one sentence but as the whole passage:

        If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13 And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

        15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. 16 How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?

        Of course, if you don’t care about obeying God, by all means, consider divorce for whatever reason strikes your fancy. But if we are all Christians here and are concerned with understanding and obeying God’s perfect will, then we will not make such decisions based on worldly logic, and if you are going to make that suggestion to others, you might at least acknowledge that it goes against the expressly stated will of God.

    • @ Mr. Morris
      I have a question of a practical nature. How does one withhold sex from someone who is already withholding sex from you? I mean, how do they know you have begun withholding it too? Do you just say to them, “Ah ha! You think that you are withhold sex from me but it is really I who am withhold it from you! Consider yourself properly chastised!” One wonders about the efficacy of such an approach.

      • No. As I said paranthetically, you say it without uttering a word once you realize what she is up to. She’ll figure it out eventually. In the meantime she’ll begin to worry about, oh, say, how it is you’re satisfying your sexual urges when all you’re doing is, as I said, restraining them with the higher goal in mind.

        It takes a lot of determination, admittedly, but men have it in them as men, and in the interest of restoring a proper marital relationship, to achieve it if they will. Besides, the last thing I want to do with an unrepentent, rebellious wife is to have sex with her. But I guess that’s just me. And I’m glad that’s all long behind me now.

  69. … if she denies you sex as a ploy to manipulate you into getting her way (you youngsters pay close attention here because the earlier in your marriage you initiate this counter attack, the better off you’ll be all around), and you realize that this is what she is doing, the answer, or response, is to turn the tables on her. That is to say, restrain yourself. A several-months long commitment to celibacy goes a long way in correcting that situation, by my experience.

    Exactly, Terry! Turning the tables WILL work. The woman is stymied when this happens, because deep down she believes that her man cannot do without sex .

    We all know that what men most complain about is not enough sex in marriage. (Rarely do women complain about this) So, she thinks she has him over a barrel.

    Irrespective of whether the woman has a high sex drive or not, she will want to be desired. All women want to be desired. If her man suddenly stops “desiring” her body this will throw her for a loop. She will start to think all kinds of things.. Maybe he is getting “it” elsewhere? Maybe he does not love me anymore? Maybe he no longer finds me attractive?

    Don’t worry, women have huge ego’s.. Not to be wanted and desired by her husband is anathema to a woman. Women are vain and crave attention. That’s just how it is.

    Turn off THAT tap and she will come a running. If only to prove to herself that she is a desirable woman. For others who genuinely love their husbands, it will make them cut out the manipulative crap!

    This tactic will give the husband the upper hand.

    I have never used sex as a weapon, with my husband. That would be cutting off my nose to spite my face. ;) However, when we have the odd argument, he maintains a strong frame. Ignores me. Sometimes for days. In the end I am beside myself, and am ready to drag him off to the bedroom. He knows this! Sometimes I resolve to wait it out, but it never ever works.

    Even though he is a good Christian man and I know he would never cheat, does not stop me from wondering and worrying if some other woman may try and get her claws into him. Hey , if he is not getting it at home he may just be tempted… Maybe? After all he IS a man with a high sex drive..

    So, I always crack first. He’s got my number. :D

    • Actually, I think what would be more effective on a wife than denying sex, would be to deny emotional support.

      You wanna use sex as a weapon? Ok, what if your husband decided to avoid eye contact or talking with you for the entire duration of your withholding?

  70. If I may respond. This article leaves out for the most part, God, a healthy Church and a Godly perspective on marriage by the man and the woman.

    Let’s start with God. God instituted marriage and, if you will, the first marriage was an arranged marriage. Unfortunately, most couples today do not believe in arranged marriages. No , I am not speaking of our parents forcing us to marry someone we do not know. I am speaking of a mighty God, who loves us and is concerned with who we marry, and to let Him arrange our marriage.

    If you don’t believe God can and wants to do this, stop reading now. You won’t like the rest either.

    How did God do it? He said here is Eve, she is for you. When Rebecca and Issac were married, here is how it haappened:

    Gen 24:67 And Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah’s tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her: and Isaac was comforted after his mother’s death.

    I like to use scripture so you know it’s not my idea but God’s.

    The prelude to this was Abraaham sent his servant and depended on God to find just the right gal for his son.

    There was no priest, minister, or civil servant witnessing or marrying. It was the simple act of coming together that declared their being united.

    In court if you testify that the “marriage” was never consummated, you are entitled to an annulment. That is why Homosexuals can not marry. They can not consummate in a Biblical sense.

    Nowhere in the laws of the land (which we are to obey) does it say, we have to be married by the state or by the Church. There are no laws. Now, if you want to be recognized for insurance purposes or other legal matters, it might behoove you to get married also by the State but that is up to you.

    By the way, the Bible says: Mat 19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

    I would dare to say that God does not join everyone together but only those who seek His direction. (My thoughts on that subject but not in concrete)

    I saw a joke on FB. There were two old people holding hands and were married for many years. They were asked how did they make it last? The reply was, “We come from a time when things breaak, you fixed them.”

    What a great illustration. We live in an instant and throw away society. If your fan breaks you toss it and get a new one. Don’t like your wife anymore? Get a new one. Sheeesh!

    I remember when I was married for a short time and we had some cultural differences. (I am American, my wife a filipina) My wife wanted to leave me and go to her girlfriends house. I put her in a (soft) bear hug. She asked what I was doing. I said I am not letting you go. You are my wife. She said I will call the police. I said how, I have you in a bear hug. She looked at me and kissed me. She realized that I was the man and I was taking charge anyway I saw fit to keep our marriage together. Today, I challenge anyone to have a better marriage than mine.

    Don’t depend on a liberal Church to give you counseling and to examine your feminine side. Don’t depend on the State to absolve you from your oath to love honor and cherish. “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

    Before a couple enters into a Christian marriage it should be clear. The man is in charge of the household. He will protect you, feed you, clothe you and house you and especially love you. You in return will submit to him. His decicisions are final. (That’s a period at the end) That is not to say you can not discuss things. I have had my mind changed by my intelligent, God fearing wife. It’s not impossible. Yet, my duty before God is my responsibility for my family. If something goes wrong, the buck stops here.

    Let me not belabor the point. The bible has all the instructions. Take it or leave it but I have helped many couples by observing the will of God in all matters.

  71. Men don’t magically have less sin then women. Men are not less selfish. If you have that impression, please come work in social services for a while. You can volunteer, if that’s more convenient to your lifestyle. I am not remotely denying the existence of some very selfish and/or immature women, I’m just saying they are balanced by an equal number of men. (I won’t even go into the domestic violence statistics, which, yes, includes women abusing men.)

    Dealing with a manipulative person of either sex is awful and unfair. I think sometimes it is up to God to get justice (if going to your Pastor et all does not work) there is a limit to what one can actual make another human being doing without an illegal amount of force.. It isn’t right or fair, it just is. Force tends to result in arrests and/or dead spouses.

    I grew up in a home where my mom was allowed to run a bit wild and as much as I hate to admit it here, where I think people go a bit overboard the other way, I wish my dad had been strong. HOWEVER, love is a far better and healthier motivator than fear. I, for example, have had some trauma. If a husband scared me or was aggressive, I’d get defiant so fast his head would spin. I do -not- want imaginary husband to debase himself at all, but lead needs to be done with love and respect. It’s far, far too often that I see misogynistic undertones creep in. Jesus said to love me as Christ loved the Church. I expect a husband a to be attempting that, if I am to be expected to honor -him- accordingly.

    • Those men you speak of are defective men. They are also considered criminal. Women that have that behavior are normal women. And that behavior is written into the law. (See family court)

      • Women that violent or abusive are also defective. I’m not giving women a free pass here. Let’s just say abusive people are defective people. Sin nature is inherent in people at -birth-. If you really want to argue that selfishness is more ‘normal’ for women, do we want to argue that violence is apparent normal for men, given crimes statistics re: offenders, wars, and so on?

        I’d prefer to think that sin nature is inherent before God acts in us, and that culture, families, and society allows people to get away more readily with certain types of sin. I’m less encouraged to be angry as a woman (at least certain types of anger). I may be able to get away with being more manipulative or whatnot, depending. I -can- see that.

        Re: Divorce- I’ve see both sexes behave horribly and damage their children. I don’t have believe that men or women -overall- have some moral high ground in the arena. Individual men may be awesome, individual women may be saintly, but there’s not some magical sex sainthood. You can consult your Bible if you think sex confers moral superiority. It shows a sin in both sexes. Frequently.

        I’m not here to bash men. I like men. I’m even somewhat traditional. I just don’t think that liking and building men up has to involving bashing women.

      • Those women are by law not defective they are by law normal and good. If fact feral behavior is celebrated and cheered on in all levels of society including the church. Men know this and so do you.

      • Yes, and girls and boys end up in in the Juvenile Mental Health and/or Justice systems for feral behavior. It’s the state of the world, and not unique to a sex. How it’s treated -can- be unique to a sex or shaped by sex. I’d encourage you to go volunteer to with teenagers or children and get a better idea of what’s going on with our systems at the beginning, since you seem a bit stuck about what’s going with adults. All these adults you see? They were children once.

        I’m also not sure why you want to go there, as men are far more prominently featured in the rape/murder/violence statistics. -Sin is not unique to a particular sex-, however much you’d like to spin it. Culture may encourage selfishness or somethings more for women, but we have our counterparts in men.

    • Amanda:

      Sorry, but it’s really not a very effective argument to point a finger and shriek “But you men do it too!” and “There’s bad men too!” That’s a strawman.

      Moreover, this: “Jesus said to love me as Christ loved the Church. I expect a husband to be attempting that, if I am to be expected to honor -him- accordingly.”

      is really just a rehash of the claim that the man has to go first and love, before the wife has an obligation to submit.

      No. If this is the obligation, it’s clear that he will NEVER be able to “love” you well enough to be “worthy” of your submission. This exalts you into God’s position as judge of whether he is “loving” you well enough. “He is not loving me the way I expect/want/need. Therefore I do not have to submit to him!” or “Now, he is loving me or I feel sufficiently loved, so I’ll submit. But tomorrow, if I don’t feel loved, I am NOT going to submit!”

      That is the wrong way to approach wifely submission, Amanda. Rethink it.

      • First off, I’m not shrieking. That’s demeaning, honestly, to have that tossed at me in a debate. Telling me I’m wrong is fine. Denying women having some magically special evil sin by pointing out that, yes, men do sin to and it’s a -common experience to the human race- is just that.

        It is not bashing men. Many men are awesome. I have awesome men in my life. They don’t tell me that I’m specially sinful or judge me based on the fact that some women are horrible. Some men are rapists. This does not mean I should judge you or the men in my life because -it has nothing to do with you-. It not your nature. It is sin, in the world, and I need to keep that in mind. If you can’t do the same for me, well, I’m sorry. I’m sorry for what you’ve gone through, and sorry for your anger. It’s still your thing, not men.

        You didn’t understand my point, so let me try again. I have fear, due to things in my life unrelated to imaginary husband. I’m not going into them hear. As part of giving ANYONE power, I need to feel safe. I mentioned this to show that other things may go into having issues than pure selfishness.

        What loving me isn’t: kissing my ass, buying me stuff, fawning over me, not being a man, and/or giving into my every whim. Frankly, I wouldn’t want someone would never say no to me.

        What that is: walking away if he is really angry and needs a moment, caring about my feelings, even if he still disagrees or says no, checking in if I’ve had a bad day or need a moment and vice versa, compromise on small stuff, discussion on large, with default to him on certain things, and having reasonable expectations about what I can do if I’m working.

        This list might change, but apparently I needed to spell it out. Basically: Don’t be abusive or scary, if you want me to submit. Not being perfect? Sure. Someone mentioned withholding sex for manipulation. I’m all for taking time to calm down, but not for using it to play games.

        So, I may have gotten rather detailed, but I wanted to be clear. I’m not hear to support playing games with men or defend crap. I’m just saying that misogyny should not be part of the response. Human beings are innately selfish, you don’t have to be a woman to manage it. Christ is the only cure.

  72. Pingback: Continuing the discussion. | Dalrock

  73. It isn’t the state. The nation is the people, who exist independently of, and more fundamentally than, the state.

    Much as you (and so many other Pollyannas) might want to believe that statement, it simply does not square with what most of us would call Life In The Real World. To say that The People[TM] exist independently of The State[TM] is transparent nonsense.

    The State, whether one likes it or not (and for the record, I most assuredly DO NOT) is the immutable center of temporal power. It makes and enforces the (fiat) laws under which We The People[TM] are forced to live, laws most often enacted and enforced without any natural law/constitutional basis and without our consent (not that the abstract “we” can consent or not consent, but that’s fodder for another rant elsewhere).

    Unfortunately, said state is the other jealous god. It does not like having its authority over its subjects challenged. One of the most long-standing and insurmountably powerful challenges to said temporal authority and power is the traditional family – which is headed by men. (Admittedly, one would be rather hard-pressed at times to believe that families represent a “challenge” to the State’s authoritah, given the “Der-Staat-Ueber-Alles” idolatry of so many family men, even –especially– among churchian warvangelicals). The State knows that in order that to undermine the power of the traditional family, it must marginalize and disempower men. It has done so, most successfully, using feminism and all of its associated poisonous ills as its front-line battle weapon, along with legions of willing, clueless, gullible non-feminists, including “Christians” (read: churchians).

    Today any man, Christian or not, who attempts to assert his rightful, biblical status as head of his household by insisting that his wife submit to him in the manner prescribed by the Bible will discover, IF HIS WIFE CHOOSES NOT TO SO SUBMIT (and she almost always WILL NOT, even if she is supposedly “Christian”), one thing very quickly and painfully, if he hasn’t already (and it takes a pretty acerebral and perception-challenged/dimwitted man not to). He will discover that The State is the third party in his marriage – and that this third party, which has all the firepower it will ever need at its disposal, will align itself with his wife AGAINST HIM. It does not matter that he attempted to bar The State from interfering in his marriage by shunning the state’s civil union/marriage license registration racket and holding a covenant marriage within his “church.” Even there, The State reigns supreme, platitudinous denials of that de facto reality by churchian CEOs to the contrary notwithstanding. What The Earthly Sovereign says goes – unless the husband chooses to martyr himself by defying that sovereign.

    What this Earthly Sovereign says “goes” is that biblical marriage as a dominant institution is a thing of the past. It has no legal standing whatsoever within the temporal realm. It has been replaced by a modern substitute, one in which The State SHALL be a third party, an equal partner in the marriage in all regards, whether the husband (or wife, for that matter) wants it or not. Furthermore, it makes it clear that any man who thinks that he is going to exercise headship over his marriage in accordance with biblical principles 1) had better quickly forget about even thinking that The State will submit to his biblically –prescribed headship (ain’t he a barrela laughs?) and 2) understand that his wife will submit to him only IF SHE WANTS TO. Even if she does “want to” submit at first and declares such an intention verbally (or in writing, to keep The State happy), she may revoke her consent to do so AT ANY TIME over the course of the marriage, without the husband having ANY recourse whatsoever. She may also, at any time, unilaterally end the marriage, steal as much of the common property from the marriage as she wants, steal the children from the marriage and alienate them from the husband/father (often corrupting them and severing them from the Christian moral and spiritual underpinnings of the marriage in the process), find another man with whom to commit adultery (and force the first husband, the Christian head of the family, to PAY FOR/SUBSIDIZE HER SIN), and generally ruin the husband’s life and the lives of her children.

    Alan Roebuck, you say that “marriage, even bad marriage, is foundational to the life of our nation.” Well, ya know what? I know I really needn’t mention this, because only someone who has been in a coma and on life support wouldn’t be aware of it, but “our” nation –you know, the supposedly “most Christian nation on Earth”– is willfully, eagerly, enthusiastically committing suicide by enabling “bad”(i,e, unbiblical) marriage. And do you know what else? Some of the biggest cheerleaders for this, as Dalrock has pointed out frequently, are (so-called) “Christians” (really churchians).

    And now, to paraphrase Dennis Hopper’s character in the move Speed:

    “Pop quiz (I’ll make it an easy boolean “yes/no” question): Would any sane, God-fearing, Christ-centered, self-respecting man who loves anything holy and decent even THINK ABOUT marrying, procreating, and preserving/perpetuating a nation so corrupt, so decadent, so hypocritical, so misandric, so ungodly, so violent, and on the verge of such well-deserved implosion?”

    Alright, if you chose the Y binary option to the above question, here are another pair of questions that will allow you to expand on your answer:

    1. WHY would any self-respecting, sane man want to marry and procreate in order to preserve a nation in such irreversible and well-earned decline – a nation that show by its actions that it hates him and everything he stands for?

    or

    2. If you believe that he has an obligation from a Christian perspective to marry and procreate for the sake of the nation (key conditions to the question in italics), WHY do you think so (i.e., what is your scriptural basis for asserting that a man has an obligation to posterity to perpetuate a corrupt and ungodly nation)?

    Finally, in closing, to address two of your other related points:

    The nation is the people and their lives.

    That’s true, but since the State rules the nation with an iron and decidedly ungodly fist, your point is moot.

    Do not confuse the poison with the food in which it has been injected. Do not confuse the disfigurement with the one who is disfigured.

    This prompts two final questions:

    1. What makes you think that we have to eat the poisoned food? Are there no alternative sources of nourishment?

    2. Is the one who is disfigured in such a condition through no fault of his own, or did he get that way by doing something careless and foolish or by not taking precautions to protect himself from some obvious or perfectly avoidable harm?

    One can readily sympathize with the former, but at some point one has to admit that the latter’s condition is his mostly his own fault.

    • Feeriker,

      This dispute has more to do with temperament and worldview than with facts.

      If the state passes out of existence, either by being changed into something radically different such as happens after a revolution or because it collapses internally, then the (former) state is no more, but the people remain. That is the most basic sense in which the people have an existence independent of the state.

      Obviously the state has great influence over the lives of the people. But it is not the people. It cannot exist without them, but they can exist without it.

      If your view of the world is that it is hopelessly corrupt, then you will not marry. But marriage is still important.

      The “obligation” to marry is not formal, in the sense of being a law. Nor is it moral, in the sense that those who do not marry are sinning. It has another sort of existence, in the sense that if all or even most men had your beliefs and acted on them, then the human race would come to a quick end. If human beings are not being begotten and then raised in at least a halfway decent way, then our race will come to a quick end. I think we should try to avoid this.

      In all times and places people have undertaken great risk simply by being alive. Life in the Western nations was unusually secure (except when World Wars were being fought!) between roughly 1900 and 1960, but that time of relative prosperity and security is coming to an end, thanks to the Left’s determined effort to destroy us. During the coming New Dark Ages, people will have to do the dangerous work of keeping our descendants alive. Thus the need for marriage.

      I for one am grateful to anyone who contributes to the continuation of my people.

      • The first problem with that line of argument is that it suggests the responsibility lies entirely with men. Yes men must lie down with wives to perpetuate humanity. But its also true that women must lie down with husbands. If women to not make good wives of themselves, men have no obligation to play make believe that women have.

        Which are men to give glory to? God or the average narcissistic self-absorbed woman? Which of those two masters is a man to serve? Because the latter will in no way allow their potential husband to serve the former.

        I know and have met many other women who are not narcissists. They’re married. Those women who are not married? They still haven’t gotten to a place where they can let someone have equal existence in a relationship, never mind the humility needed to make a marriage work. I don’t see how a man marrying them does anything to cure their narcissism.

      • p.s. when the coming dark ages arrive, the good women will be perpetuated and protected. The vain women will not.

    • feeriker: There is one benefit to modernity that you didn’t mention. The church has historically failed women when it came to the small percentage of men who are genuinely abusive. I’m talking beating, and -clear cut things- here. Before feminism happened, society would say idiotic things like ‘she (or he) must of have provoked him/her’ ignored the fact that a decent man or women couldn’t be provoked into nearly killing someone, let alone beating someone nearly to death in front of their children.

      These change -needed- to happen and the Church -did- fail to protect women. That sin in part led to some of the world changes you’re not enjoying, because worldliness shaped it. Does it favor women? Sometimes. Property often, custody can go either way. It was really leaning toward women, it seems to be evening out some, going by statistics. Just bear in mind this -can work either way-, even if it certainly can and does screw many men over.

      What I don’t get: Why on earth is marriage as a power struggle the only option in the first place? Our Lord mentions living in peace, turning the other cheek, and plenty of things that suggest He’s not going for a General ordering his men feel to marriage. There -can- be leadership and authority without it being a dictatorship. That may not be what you meant, it just sounded very much like authority was iron clad and the removal meant everything would unravel. What about someone loving their husband/wife enough to do what you asked because you asked? Or because it made sense? Or because it was an agreed up compromise?

      It seems like if authority is the only thing keeping a marriage together, the issues go far beyond the woman’s rebelliousness.

      • Sorry, but you have been absorbing the lies of feminism. Christian local communities were the ones to keep men from abusing women. There’s extensive historical documentation about this in the XVIII and XIX century America, for example. The application of feminism destroyed these communities (I am talking about real Christian communities not about the bunch of people who attend a Churchian service today).

        Does it favor women? Sometimes. Property often, custody can go either way.

        Only 95% of times. Disingenuous of you. Everybody knows that custody goes to the mother

        It was really leaning toward women, it seems to be evening out some, going by statistics.

        When women stop marrying up and hell freezes, it would be equal.

        It seems like if authority is the only thing keeping a marriage together, the issues go far beyond the woman’s rebelliousness.

        Yes, it’s called unfair family law, which enables and foments this rebelliousness.

      • If you have something that shows me where in the time America was settled and up til the present where Christian men led the church against domestic violence? 1) I’d be thrilled. 2) I’d be thrilled again, as it’s a much more positive view of my faith and I’d rather have it. 3) I’d haven’t found the evidence, but I’d love to see it. So, please, feel free to link me to the research, the books or whatever it is you have. I -like- positive men in action, especially when it comes to things like domestic violence, child abuse, and so on. You saying you have evidence of this is not upsetting to me.

        Re: family court: Overall might have been a strong word. In some states, it’s improving and equalizing. In some cases, it’s going horribly far the other way, with documented child abusers getting custody which is what was coming to mind. However, that doesn’t minimize your point. This document notes some of the past concerns you mentioned re: child custody: http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/frames/254/mcnefram.html They definitely exist, and I should have given it more acknowledgement.

        Family Court isn’t the only authority. God, faith in God, and love (in that order) would be a pretty good start.

      • This is the straw man. No one endorsed this as heroic and noble with a call to church women to buck up to the whip. And she knows this. She is just reframing the argument. I wouldn’t waste to much effort trying to change her mind or anything there are other women to see if they are worthy as wives. Strike this one off and move on.

      • greywolf: Please. If I wanted to troll, I would have done a far superior job. :)

        In any case, I meant it. I would -far- prefer to think that Christian men, regardless of whether I agree with them on all things, were acting to protect women when others were not. Especially when the alternative is to think that Christian men were standing by when women were (at times getting beaten) or badly hurt within some churches/ It is -scary- to think I live in a world where people will often stand by if I get beaten or raped or at least to try blame me for it. That fear, is NOT worth any ego boost I may get from feminism. Not remotely.

        So please, by all means, tell me awesome things. If my world view shifts? That’s far preferable to the above, to the things I see in the secular news, that are happening in India, and so on.

  74. Pingback: Links and Comments #10 | The Society of Phineas

  75. In this and your other recent comments, you are speaking like a fanatic.

    I ordinarily translate this as “I have no substantive refutations for the arguments you make, therefore I’m walking away.”

    Noted.

  76. I admit to being a little baffled by the vitriol here, and I wonder how much of that is my own Catholicism. The young Catholic women I have met since my conversion have been overwhelmingly a sweet, good-natured, holy, and chaste lot. I’ve courted a few and none of them were good fits for me in terms of marriage but I couldn’t honestly say that none of them are good fits for marriage, full-stop.

    Of course none of them believe in divorce for any reason, even adultery. They know that screwing up marriage means a life of loneliness, sexlessness, and isolation, so they take it seriously. I wonder if there’s a lesson to be learned in that.

    • I’d like to second this. I think that men and women believing in divorce is a huge, huge part of what we see on the part of both sexes. If you treat marriage that casually, I think you marry more carelessly, have much less invested in really making it work, and it goes downhill from there.

      I haven’t ended up in the places a lot of my friends or acquaintances of my friends, because those options have been off the table from the beginning.

    • @Proph,

      As much as I would like to draw some good feeling from that, you are almost certainly wrong about these young women. No offense – but if you never encounter young Catholic women who are not “marriage material” then either your church is VERY abnormal in that regard or, (more likely) you have incredibly low standards for women, or (most likely) you are not very good at predicting what these women will be like once they have rings on their fingers and can summon armed men with badges with a phone call.

      Many comparisons have been made with regard to divorce among various religious groups using various sampling methods. The conclusions vary based on which method was used to calculate them, but it is generally accepted that the overall divorce rate is around 50%, while the divorce rate for first marriages is around 33% (the very high divorce rate for marriages that occur after a previous divorce skews the overall average upward). Roughly 28% of Catholic first marriages end in divorce using the same method of calculation – a mere 5% difference. On average that means that if 20 secular couples marry and 20 Catholic couples marry, the Catholic group will only have one fewer divorce than the secular group. Since the vast majority of divorces are initiated by women that is not exactly a ringing endorsement of Catholic womanhood. Protestants aren’t much different, but it varies by denomination.

      Most of those “Nice Catholic Girls”[TM] will lose their virginity before their wedding, and many of them will fornicate with multiple partners. The “Slutty Catholic School Girl” stereotype didn’t come from nowhere. Personally, I dated three Catholic women when I was single (two of them were sisters, in fact), and both of the sisters turned out to be sluts (I turned them both down, by the way). CatholicCulture.org published an article in March 2010 titled, “Catholic college coeds found more promiscuous.” Here’s the salient quote, “Catholic-school coeds were more than four times as likely to have a casual sexual encounter as those at secular schools, researchers at Mississippi State University found.”

      Yikes.

      So while I hope things work out for you – I would not put very much faith in the way these young women present themselves to you today. If they are typical of their peers they have already slept around (or soon will), and nearly a third of them will divorce their first husbands.

      Caveat emptor.

      • Well, I should qualify. When I say “the young Catholic women I’ve met,” I mean, of course, specifically the young women I’ve met with an eye toward courtship and marriage, i.e., the women I’ve met while frequenting the kinds of places where you’d expect to find marriageable young Catholic women. So, yes, probably over 90% of Catholic women (and men, for that matter) my age are unsuitable for marriage, but I’ve been deliberately excluding their company, anyway.

        Now the reason I bring this up is because, again, among these women I’ve met, divorce is utterly unthinkable. “Unthinkable” as in “impossible,” not “unlikely.” They just wouldn’t do it. Their married friends have averaged a child every 2 years, starting approximately one week after the wedding. They pray the rosary daily and have tens of thousands of dollars socked away in savings in anticipation of helping their husband buy a home, etc. In short, they really genuinely want to go to Heaven and they believe divorce-and-remarriage will void their ticket there.

        And I say all this because the advice “Don’t marry a slut,” while sound, doesn’t seem to go near far enough in my mind. The advice ought to be “Don’t marry anyone who thinks divorce is a thing.” Problematically, though, this sounds a lot like “Don’t marry a Protestant,” which is, perhaps, why no one has said it.

      • Problematically, though, this sounds a lot like “Don’t marry a Protestant,” which is, perhaps, why no one has said it.

        Exactly. It seems that a proportion of Anglo Catholic women are as unbelieving, as slutty, as no-fault divorce, as unpleasant, as unkempt as their Protestant counterparts, because Anglo Protestantism rules pretty much all of the Anglospherian hot spots (e.g. USA, UK), it has infected other nearing religions that reside between and inside its borders, and most American Christians who aren’t Protestant have absorbed its culture and ethos without realizing it.

        I’d say the good thing about Latin America (e.g. Central-South America) and Portuguese speaking African countries is that the heretical Word of Faith heresy (more like a virus) being spread is mostly among the Protestants and pretty much the Protestants who had contact with the Anglos.

        Young (teens to mid 20s) Spanish/Portuguese speaking ex-Protestants (their parents still being Protestants in some cases, and I wonder how many of them had their mothers/women convert to this Word of Faith heretical cult? Because at least mine did) will try to attack and weaken this heresy and protect the language and good Bible translations. Since certain versions of the Bible are hideous and broken (from English-to-Portuguese), and so translations such as NIV, shouldn’t be seen in good light.

        Children shouldn’t grow up in a heretical cult. It makes one batty and a bit insane.

  77. It is interesting that no single religious pundit who supposedly is “Christian” and knows his/her Bible never ever talks about single hood in a good way. The Apostle Paul- who wrote half the New Testament- who was single by the way. Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 7:7-8: “I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that. Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am.”

    Notice that he says some have the gift of singleness and some the gift of marriage. Although it seems that nearly everyone marries, it is not necessarily God’s will for everyone. Paul, for example, did not have to worry about the extra problems and stresses that come with marriage and/or family. He devoted his entire life to spreading the Word of God. He would not have been such a useful messenger if he had been married.

    Also you did mention there are certain other reason men should stay single- some are disabled- some also suffer from SSA- (Same sex attraction). That is that they have no sexual desire for women. Perhaps they have sexual problems or have had cancer and can’t have sex-etc. There are also some men- though it is a small group- who are asexual. That is they have no desire for sex at all. They may have hormonal problems that keep them for having such desires. These are all legitimate reasons.

    I have run across other people- So called “Christian” writers who twist scripture and say that men must be married or they are not in God’s will. Where is that in the Bible? I can’t find the Thou shalt be married verse- have you? LOL I understand the fear many evangelicals have that marriage is about to become as defunct as the Do do- I really don’t think so. This is an irrational fear by petty ignorant biblically illiterates. The homophobic fears of evangelicals is also quite irrational and damming. Jesus tells us to love all people. They are ignorant of sexual orientation and human sexuality period. The Bible and Jesus never condemns a persons sexual orientation- the Bible condemns behavior. That is two persons of the same sex having sexual relations.

    We still don’t really understand the in and out of sexual orientation. There is a lot of scientific research going on that seems to point to a genetic or biological aspect to determining one’s orientation. Our world and our bodies are breaking down because of sin. Sin is the main culprits of all bad actions. All abnormalities of the bodies occur because of the body is damaged because of man’s original sin. Again I am not justifying homosexual relationships but trying to give an explanation for homosexual orientation. And yes one can be homosexuality orientated and be a Christian. I should know because I am one such individual.

    I have never married nor had sex with a female because I have no desires for women. I have had sexual encounters with men many years ago, but I made a decision as a mature Christian that I would honor the Lord with my body to live according to his word. That is I will stay single and celibate. I can marry if I choose too- but I don’t see the point. What woman would marry a man knowing he has no sexual desire for her? It would be like living with your sister.

    I am saying all this to make a point that there are very good reasons for men to stay single. To brow beat men into marrying or to shame them- which seems to be the common tactic today- is disgraceful, unkind and un-Christ like. Would Christ shame men into marriage? NO! He would not. Stick with telling men to keep their temples (bodies) clean, but if they don’t want to marry that is their business and it is none of your concern. If you stay single you should live up to biblical standards- if you don’t it’s between you and God. As for me I will live as the Bible and my conscience dictates and not what some religious pundit has to say about marriage or singleness.

    • I made a decision as a mature Christian that I would honor the Lord with my body to live according to his word.

      Deep respect and admiration for you, my friend. And prayers as well.

    • Sarot,

      Your general comments are basically valid.

      But there is no mistaking a generalized scorn for marriage (as it is usually practiced these days) emanating from the manosphere. I see this as unseemly, because the survival of our nation–our people–requires most men and women to marry, and to raise the next generation. The proper response to the catastrophe of modernism is not scorn for our brothers and sisters, but a genuine desire to do what we can to help them marry better. And it is also true that since our nation is our people, we ought to have some concern for the health of our nation, and not just say “good riddance,” as the openly misanthropic manosphereans have done here.

      • Alan- I really don’t see a marriage strike in my area. Yes I hear men complain about the unjust laws and the general ungodly attitudes of females- but I seriously don’t hear men saying to throw marriage under the bus- so to speak. (Because I live in the Southern US)

        But seriously this continued reaction-ism and fear mongering is getting quite tiresome. If you truly are a man of faith you would be praying as well as encouraging other men to witness to people and pray for this nation. Only Jesus Christ can change the hearts of people and get us out of this mess we are in. You are showing a lack of faith. Your heavy handed writing about talking about blaming men for the mess we are in as just as repulsive and ungodly as the feminists view point. Men and women are equal in many ways- not all. Women share just as much as a responsibility for their behavior as we men- otherwise you are turning women into children with no consequences for the behavior. Do you truly believe Jesus felt women should be treated like little children? I don’t think so.

        I also don’t’ believe you are really listening to the comments of men on this site. I believe many are hurting because they can’t find godly relationship to fulfill them. It is no wonder they despise modern marriage. Most come here to vent their anger, hurt, and frustrations and they can’t even do that without a Pharisaical hypocrite like you putting them down constantly. Look at the ridiculous mess modern marriage is. When our forefathers got married they were married by a preacher in front of God and witnesses and the “marriage certificate” was their writing their names in the family bible. This was a bond or covenant between a man and wife and their God and not the state. But now a “marriage certificate” is a legal document sanctioned by the state- not the church- that forces men to be in total obligation and submission to the whims of the state and women. That is not biblical marriage- it is slavery. I would love to see biblical marriage re-instated instead of this sham we call “marriage” today. If this is what you call marriage then I truly hope it dies and goes the way of the DO Do bird.

        And another thing- as a student of history and the Bible I know for a fact that in the first century and even into the Middle Ages many people believed it was God’s will to be single and lived in communes we now call monasteries and nunneries in Europe and in other areas of the world. There were still plenty of married people procreating to keep the population going. I think they took God’s word out of context just as some are doing so today by saying all men should be married and have a family. One extreme is just as bad as the other- and both are unbiblical. Like I pointed out in my last post about what the Apostle Paul had to say about single hood versus marriage is the best way to view marriage and single hood. It is an individual choice to be made by an individual not by the church or the state and nobody has any right to question and belittle single people or to try to brow beat them into marriage. As long as a person is living a godly biblical lifestyle then that is all that needs to be preached about- otherwise your just meddling and sticking your nose where it doesn’t belong.

    • To be specific, I am not homosexual, but I have two afflictions which hurt me, one not of my doing and the other of my doing. The latter is not sexual but similar to sodomy in damage of my body, mind, and maybe even my soul (I am not sure about the last one.). That is why men who abstain are inspirations to me because they give me hope that one day I will not be a slave to my passions and appetites. Thank you.

      • Thanks for your kind words Svar. I will pray for you. It sounds like you have sexual fetishes. Just like any single man who doesn’t have a wife to fulfill his sexual drives you are finding a way to release your penned up sexual desires. You need to take this to the Lord and pray about it if you are harming yourself with your fetish. Only Jesus can heal dysfunctions. If you can afford to see a Christian counselor who deals with sexual issues it would also be beneficial. I went to a Christian counselor years ago myself- but ultimately your healing comes from God and your deepening relationship with him.

        I remember asking God to make me straight on many occasions in prayer. I read all the books on the subject and was very depressed. I sat on my bed and a voice spoke to my mind saying, . Let me love you. I never felt such love and release. I knew it was God- God will only uplift you- Satan condemns you and pulls you down when he speaks to you. If God corrects you he does it in a kind way. Satan will laugh at you. God was letting me know that no matter what I face he loves me and he loves you. Let Jesus love you and work in your life. Jesus didn’t make me straight but he gave me his grace like he gave the Apostle Paul when Paul asked him to remove his “thorn in the flesh.” Let God love you and work in your heart Svar. God bless!

  78. Pingback: Should a Christian husband withhold sex to punish a misbehaving wife? | Sunshine Mary

  79. Sunshinemary | May 25, 2013 at 2:35 pm

    “Refusing to have sex with your spouse is not the kind of abandonment spoken of in the Bible that causes the other spouse to be free. You cannot legitimately divorce your spouse for withholding sex.”

    Incorrect. A “wife” that persists in refusing sex with a husband is even worse than a husband that longterm voluntarily refuses to work in any way to support, protect, or guide a loyal wife and minor children. Such a woman is comparable to an employee who wishes to still be paid by an employer, while not ever again showing up to the workplace (except to periodically pick up her salaried-position’s paychecks and drink copiously of the employer-provided free coffee in the employee breakroom). If she no longer is willing to act as a wife, he is no longer obligated to act as a husband in any way. This is much of why I oppose alimony/chilamony payments by ex-husbands in all woman-caused divorces. (If she can’t support the kids herself, they shouldn’t be with her, but with the father.)

  80. What do you gentleman think of a prenup as far as addressing some of the concerns around modern marriage and family court? (I am honestly asking, there will be no sarcastic follow up.) To me, it seems reasonable if there are concerns about property and/or the other party has seen divorces that have gone horribly. Obviously no one expects their marriage to implode, but I can understand a man or woman being gun shy with the state of things.

    • @Amanda Lynn Larson
      Prenups are ineffectual, as the usual conditions of concern are ones of the State. All marriage today is entered into with three parties (State, husband, wife) as an adhesion contract (one where the State dictates all the terms unilaterally). The State will fight for and unilaterally force its interests onto the marriage against the will of the husband and wife. Usually, though, the husband will be the one that will be unilaterally acted against because the marriage in truth will be between the State (as husband) and the wife, and the only role of the husband is left to be non-consenting walking ATM and sperm donor.

      I say again as I said up above, it’s amazing how these traditionalists accept such vile adultery and wickedness.

  81. It is so hard being a man in today’s marriage market. I am trying to find a dutiful wife that has yet to be corrupted by the feminists. However they are getting them young these days, so I must look younger. However this is frowned upon by police. How do I get around this so that I can have a true traditional marriage where I am all powerful?

    • How do I get around this so that I can have a true traditional marriage where I am all powerful?

      There’s only one thing you can do, and it’s far from fail-safe. If you live in the Anglosphere (US, UK, Canada, or Oceania), learn Spanish, French, or an Asian language (Chinese, Japanese, Korean, or Tagalog) and move to Latin America, Asia, or even Africa and find a wife there. It’s really your only reasonable shot at a stable marriage.

      • It’s really your only reasonable shot at a stable marriage.

        I disagree with this entirely.

        While some of the places where the languages you mention are spoken are more traditional than the West, that is certainly no guarantee of a stable marriage. In fact, the enormous cultural differences between us and them engender their own difficulties, and cross-cultural marriages have more than their fair share of failures, including divorce. (Also, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Tagalog are very different from English and require significant time and effort to learn—far, far more than Spanish or French.)

        There is also the issue of miscegenation.

        No, I think the place to look for a traditional marriage partner is in a traditional church. I’m not sure where to go if you’re Catholic or Orthodox, and the farther you stay away from Mormonism the better, but among Protestant denominations, the Confessional/Reformed ones are, on the whole, healthy and traditionalist. Look for the phrase “Bible-believing” or something similar, then see if they follow through on that. Give a wide berth to any place that has a “social gospel.”

        You might have to shop around for a good church, and there might not be one near your community. Still, I think that’s a far better choice than looking abroad.

      • Agreed.

        If you want a marriage where you are “all-powerful,” you don’t want a marriage at all. Indeed, you want something that cannot, by definition, ever be attained. No creature is ever all powerful, and the attempt to be all-powerful leads directly to Hell.

  82. Pingback: Dr. Helen is disturbing the mound. | Dalrock

  83. Pingback: Liberals Succeed in Destroying Marriage | The Bold Truth

    • Here is a response that I wrote to someone who posted your article/blog post on facebook

      It has some good points but I think it runs aground because it is overly libertarian (meaning all that matters are the actions of individuals – institutions, societal expectations, etc don’t matter), and it sees all problems as a simple failure to man up etc. Here is one blog post that gets at my point – http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/02/18/what-we-need-is-more-chivalry/

      Next, how would you counsel the man here – http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/04/30/divorce-made-lorraine-berry-sexy/#comment-7587

      • Wow. Not often I get accused of being a libertarian. I am a theonomist :) Would be interested to know where you see that in my post.

        I don’t see all problems as a failure to man up, by any means. But I do see needing to ‘man up’ as always required. In this case one of the big people that needs to ‘man up’ is the church, and start teaching Godly doctrine on this issue.

        As for the man in the story, these things are tragic. I disagree, on its face, with any story that begins ‘it wasn’t my fault’. We are all sinners. Who know what he might have, should have, done to ‘prevent’ this divorce. (I don’t believe, Biblically, that a woman can divorce a man). But I don’t deny he is in a hard spot. He should make every effort to reconcile, of course, and should repudiate his ‘divorce’. Other than that he is free to remarry, and who knows what a turn to true Biblical Chrisianity would do.

        Certainly many men in Scripture were faced with harder situations.

      • Truth. But not a traditional libertarian by a long chalk.
        But my question was what in my article led him to analyze me in that way. I believe firmly in strong jurisdictions. I believe in almost nothing ‘individualistic’. So what did I write wrong?

      • Rushdoony considered himself to be a Christian Libertarian, so I am unsure why you think being a theonomist would somehow refute being called a Libertarian.

        Now what exactly does the church need to teach in order to man up?

        Next, do you disagree with Job when he spoke the same way to his comforters? Would you disagree with Joseph if he said such when he was thrown in jail after Potiphar’s wife lied about him? When someone claims to be without fault, they are not asserting sinless perfection on the order of Jesus, but instead that the outcome was in no way warranted.

        As far as obligation to marry goes, unless one can make a claim that a certain individual is obligated to marry a particular person, the claim is basically vacuous. The most that one can say is that it is immoral to live in a married state (sex etc.) without being married.

      • >>Truth. But not a traditional libertarian by a long chalk.
        But my question was what in my article led him to analyze me in that way. I believe firmly in strong jurisdictions. I believe in almost nothing ‘individualistic’. So what did I write wrong?

        If one believes something along the lines of “If one is a good husband, then one should expect a good outcome in marriage regardless of unjust laws regarding marriage and divorce, bad societal expectations for marriage, bad church teachings, etc.” then one is viewing the situation in a libertarian fashion.

      • >>If one believes something along the lines of “If one is a good husband, then one should expect a good outcome in marriage regardless of unjust laws regarding marriage and divorce, bad societal expectations for marriage, bad church teachings, etc.” then one is viewing the situation in a libertarian fashion.

        Well, I might disagree that this is ‘libertarian’ (I would tend to call it naive and stupid) but if you think I meant to say anything of the sort then let me attempt to fix the impression.

        I rail, daily, against all of those things you mention. I am, like, infamous for railing against bad societal and church expectations of marriage.

        That said, the flip side is still there. when Joseph was thrown in prison, unjustly (and prison is an unGodly institution anyway) he didn’t just sit and mope and whine (and, no, I’m not accusing you of these things). He, to use your words, ‘manned up’. He did his best in the situation, despite all of the injustice. And, on our topic, he married. He married the daughter of the high priest of a heathen God.

        Real men, as my articles says, marry :)

      • >>That said, the flip side is still there. when Joseph was thrown in prison, unjustly (and prison is an unGodly institution anyway) he didn’t just sit and mope and whine (and, no, I’m not accusing you of these things). He, to use your words, ‘manned up’. He did his best in the situation, despite all of the injustice. And, on our topic, he married. He married the daughter of the high priest of a heathen God.

        Real men, as my articles says, marry :)

        The societal expectations of that marriage would be what exactly in comparison to marriage today between regular folks?

        She would be a virgin. Children would be expected and wanted. Divorce would be unthinkable….I probably could go on for a while in the differences.

      • >>The societal expectations of that marriage would be what exactly in comparison to marriage today between regular folks?

        >>She would be a virgin. Children would be expected and wanted. Divorce would be unthinkable….I probably could go on for a while in the differences

        It is possible that I have managed to miscommunicate with you. On the subject of what the ideas are in marriage we probably agree much more than we disagree. Virginity, children, divorce… I write on all those things. I would add things like ”they didn’t date or court’, she expected him to be her Lord, and a host of other expectations.

        What I thought were talking about was teh priority on marriage in light of those things. Does the real man say, “all I can find is a non-virgin, but I will marry anyway”? Or does he refrain? Does he marry, as Hoseah, the prostitute? As David teh widow? As Joseph the daughter of a heathen priest? As Boaz the widow that comes from a heathen people?

        We agree on a lot of what would be ideal. But what do we do with the non-ideal? Do we give our daughter to the man unjustly divorced by his wife?

  84. >>As far as obligation to marry goes, unless one can make a claim that a certain individual is obligated to marry a particular person, the claim is basically vacuous..

    Not at all, this is a profound distortion of moral claims. All moral claims are predicated on the ability to do so, and on doing so to ones ability. If I say a man is to have routine sex with his wife (I Cor 7:3-5) is my statement vacuous if, occasionally, men are prevented from doing so? Thrown in jail, kidnapped, called away to war?

    An obligation to marry is an obligation to perform those steps which lead to marriage. Our modern church has eliminated both the call and the steps from its teaching.

    I have written dozens of articles, and two books, on what the church should be teaching. And it is not all, indeed not even most, directed at the young man. I will post links if you wish, I don’t wish to spam.

    • If you wish to have your claim read as everyone should prepare themselves for marriage, then I would have no major issues. However, some are called to celibacy for the Kingdom’s sake, so I would still have some issues even with this reduced claim.

      I have no problem with helpful material so, and it seems in the spirit of this thread, so I would say post what you wish

      • No, my claim would be a lot stronger than that. How about: everyone should take all of the appropriate (Biblical) steps toward marriage.

        The ‘everyone’ I use here is meant to reflect the ‘every man’ of Paul’s I Cor 7:2. Paul had exceptions, and yet felt comfortable using the word ‘every’. I will follow his example.

      • OK, well then. The following are free resources on this subject:

        Books on the path to marriage:
        What are you Doing?
        The Covenant of Betrothal.

        Both free in e-version on Lulu.com

        The following articles cover aspects of our discussion:

        Exceptions to marriage:
        Jesus, Paul, Daniel and Real Men

        Young Fruitful Marriage:
        Real Men Marry
        True Love Marries
        Pornography III
        Pornography II
        Combating Pornography: To avoid fornication
        The Marriage Crisis
        Better to Marry than to Burn : The Reformers View
        Teen Pregnancy
        When you Find Yourself in a Ditch

        Issues of modern culture opposed to marriage:
        unFair Fatherhood
        The choices I’ve made
        Birth Control: How did we get here
        The Baby Wars
        Why the next Pope should be a married man: What the Scriptures say about marriage and church leadership.
        Patriarchy Rules
        Civil Jurisdiction and the Marriage License
        The Informal Marriage of Mr. and Mrs. Ryan Short
        The Authority of the Father: The Reformers View
        But if any provide not for his own
        Falling in Lust
        What is Love?

        all of which can be found on Persevero! News
        http://www.perseveronews.com/

  85. >>Next, do you disagree with Job when he spoke the same way to his comforters? Would you disagree with Joseph if he said such when he was thrown in jail after Potiphar’s wife lied about him?

    I am not sure what the ‘same way’ or the ‘such’ is in these stories, so I will have to await clarification.

    • I explicitly explained in the same paragraph what I meant by those claims. I am unsure what you need clarified.

      • >>I explicitly explained in the same paragraph what I meant by those claims. I am unsure what you need clarified.

        Oh, sorry, missed that.
        Job is not much of a comparison, as even Job’s friends, who were pretty wise and righteouss men, made a mistake on that point. (they aren’t usually described as such but, seriously, the most righteouss person on Earth, and these are his best buds.)

        As far as Joseph goes the text doesn’t tell us anything that he did to warrant being put in prison… no google eyes at Potiphars wife. But I think it is a little bit unfair to compare a story in the inspired text with a random post on some blog.

      • The issue for me is that you have the same natural suspicion, as Job’s comforters had. They basically came responded to him with, “Well you must have done something to deserve this.” You took the same position with the link that I posted. On what basis, did you do that?

  86. >>You took the same position with the link that I posted. On what basis, did you do that?

    On the general Scriptural rubrik. What man could truly say that he did everything he could, from the moment they were in covenant, to lead and love his bride as Christ loves the church. Yes, passages such as Jeremiah 3 do say that even the perfect husband can face rebellion and adultery from his wife. I don’t deny it.
    But Scripture also shows that incredibly Godly men make mistakes. And I, personally, have issues with anyone who says ‘I have no sin’ even when they only mean ‘in this area. “If we say we have no sin…”

    You can speak for yourself but, speaking for myself, if my wife left me tomorrow, while I would call her actions evil and unChristian, I would not be able to say that I had no sin, no fault, no blame.

    Didn’t even Job, at the end of the story, kind of say, “I should have kept my mouth shut.”?

    • Vaughn: If your wife left you tomorrow, I would expect that it was at least in part due to some sin by you. It would be a singular marriage where any significant estrangement were the fault of only one of the spouses. However, if your wife *divorced* you tomorrow, without biblical grounds and over your objection (because the law allows her to do so, no questions asked), I would *not* be entitled to assume that the divorce itself was both your fault and her fault. Under our legal system, it is entirely possible that a divorce is the unilateral sin of one of the spouses, regardless of the underlying strains in the marriage.

      • Oh, well, with the exception that both leaving (I Cor 7:3-5) and divorce fall into the same category for me, I agree. A wife who takes either of these actions needs to take full responsibility for her own sin. Both are clear violations of Scripture.
        But I wasn’t talking to the wife, but to a husband who said, “It wasn’t my fault.”
        If I raise my child poorly, and he ends up with anger issues, and ends up killing someone, he is completely responsible for his sin and crime, and should be executed.
        But I should still beat my breast and say, “It was all my fault.” I don’t think these two are contradictory.

      • Vaughn,
        One would be responsible for the child’s outcome if one had the opportunity to train him correctly but did not. If one’s wife divorces him and takes the child away, and he is not able to train the child who then goes along the wrong path, then he shouldn’t say that it is all his fault. If the state prevents him from disciplining his child etc and the same thing happens, then again, he should not say that it is all his fault.

      • I thought we were talking about the man at the verge of his divorce. The divorced man, well, that gets a bit complex. I think he should start by denying the jurisdiction of the state. As should his children,
        The church needs to help as well.

  87. Job 40:3 Then Job answered the LORD, and said,
    Job 40:4 Behold, I am vile; what shall I answer thee? I will lay mine hand upon my mouth.
    Job 40:5 Once have I spoken; but I will not answer: yea, twice; but I will proceed no further.

    • Such quote was in response to doubting the justice/providence of God or saying that he was without fault in response to his comforters?? It cannot be the latter because such was part of the discussion between Satan and God at the beginning of the book!

      As an aside, when we analyze your wording in your assertions, then you expect others to understand nuance, but when we move to someone saying that they are without fault, then they must only be understood as claiming to be Jesus incarnate.

      • >>As an aside, when we analyze your wording in your assertions, then you expect others to understand nuance, but when we move to someone saying that they are without fault, then they must only be understood as claiming to be Jesus incarnate.

        Actually no. On both counts. I try to be very willing to hear where my wording was wrong and fix it, making clear what is obscure.

        And I think that a man getting divorced shouldn’t actualy say those words. I think ‘it is all my fault’ would be better, if not accurate, words. As long as they are followed by, “but divorce is evil and I do not recognize the jurisdiction of my wife or the state to break our covenant.”

      • But saying that it was all one’s fault would not be accurate/less accurate and would play into the libertarian error. Jurisdiction is not the question before us. (As an aside, you said the wife couldnt divorce her husband, do you think a husband could divorce his wife?)

      • >>(As an aside, you said the wife couldn’t divorce her husband, do you think a husband could divorce his wife?)

        I am a theonomist, so, yes. Speaking as a matter of law, not sin.

  88. >>But saying that it was all one’s fault would not be accurate/less accurate and would play into the libertarian error.

    I didn’t say it was accurate. I said it would be better.

    And you seem to see libertarians behind every bush! The man, in Scripture, is the head of his home. There fore he needs to to take responsibility for everything that happens therein. So jurisdiciton is important here.

    • But the only reason to reject accuracy is if someone has some sort of agenda, which unfortunately seems to be the case here.

      The man in Scripture is the head of his home, but such is not the case today with no fault divorce etc. So to put responsibility on him without the associated power is nothing but a recipe for injustice. You are assuming that the institutions are functioning properly and attempting to hold folks accountable in light of such, without the institutions being functional. This is what i mean by the libertarian error.

      • >> This is what i mean by the libertarian error.

        Well, I still don’t understand what you mean by libertarian-ism. Seems to differ from anything I’ve read.

        The modern of God is just as responsible as men ever have been. Yes, our modern law code does a lot of evil things. But the man of God must still teach in his home, to his wife. She may not listen, she may not obey, but he must teach. He must lead with all of the resources that he does have.

  89. True, there are comedians that cuss a lot, but you got to earn that right before
    you do that. his comic roles in movies like Hungama,
    Waqt: The Race against Time, Malamaal. Brad Garret is
    a stand-up comedian but also well known for his acting career.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s