Two words that describe the modern woman (or traditional woman, as the case may be). They either demand respect, independence, equality, careers, the vote, etc., OR they demand respect, men to protect and provide, to be a housewife, a pedestal, etc. They demand all these things because of course they deserve it all. Deserve is synonymous with entitled. Modern women and traditional women share in common their sense of entitlement. They have opposite means to reach the end, but the end is the same–obtaining the life they deserve or are entitled to. Nothing tells them they deserve such and such a life but their own hamster-driven reasoning and having that reasoning inflated by sisterhood sheeple. These are DD women.
It is fascinating to watch both groups think they have it all figured out–that they can get the life they want by a swift move of “I deserve, therefore, I demand”. The truth is it is a “quiet and meek” spirit that win’s not only the heart of God, but the heart of men. Of course if God and/or men are not your objective, act however you want. I maintain though, if there is any hope in getting women back to their proper role (and I seriously doubt this at times), then they have to take on the “quiet and meek” spirit. A woman with this demeanor does not think she is entitled to anything and therefore does not demand anything. What she gets in life are gifts bestowed upon her by men and God for being worthy. The gifts of staying at home is one such example. And lets not forget, staying at home is just that–a gift. It is not a “right” or something women can demand and impose upon men. If women truly lived life as a “quiet and meek” spirit, I don’t doubt men will then want to reward her pleasantness however they can.
The truth is it is a “quiet and meek” spirit that win’s not only the heart of God, but the heart of men
yes it does, if authentically demure and obedient
not obedient bc she is afraid, or bc she’s after resources, but meek and obedient bc she wants to please God and men
if her behavior is pleasing to men (Godly men) then it will be pleasing to God
God being pleased then pours blessings on her, for behaving as she was created, and affirming his works
everybody wins
Christianity isn’t something that we can demand of others either. But that doesn’t mean that we can’t promote it or seek out like minded people. Or expect certain standards and principals. That can be said of many things in life, traditionalism being one of them.
We are asked to be meek, but not supplicating. Supplication is not submission. And it’s unable to support. It doesn’t have the strength to support. Man or woman.
Domineering people will attract and demand supplication. Dominance is not domineering. Submission is not supplication.
Healthy relationships give value for value. Unhealthy relationships give value with nothing in return . I wouldn’t enter into a relationship that didn’t have expectations discussed. And I wouldn’t trust a man or woman who didn’t have expectations for a marriage, because they’d be lying. Expectation does not equal entitled spoiled snot..
The flaw in your ‘hamster-driven reasoning’ is the central idea that it’s a man’s job to give ‘gifts’ and a woman’s job to be happy about it. Maybe if all men learned to be quiet and meek, women would deign to bestow upon them gifts such as the gift of staying at home! Maybe men should stop demanding (and acting as if they deserve) some ridiculous position of superiority over women. What’s the basis for this belief? “Doi! Because Magic Book and Pretend Sky Man say is true! And I want it be true!”
Al, if you want to be an irrational screamer, feel free to visit pretty much any atheist web site. You’ll fit right in.
Now run along, the big people are talking.
Respect has to be given to a man before he will give it back to you.
I have always maintained that a successful marriage was a 60/40 proposition: 40% picking the right person and 60% being the right person… for both parties.
I realize that data is not the plural for the word anecdote, but I’ve seen, heard, and read too many things from too many sources to conclude that my observations are not at least somewhat representative: although the number of unmarried women in churches is higher than the number of unmarried men – the number of serious Christian men is higher… maybe a lot higher.
So Churchian girls ride the same carousel as their secular counterparts, then when the inevitable train-wreck occurs, they complain that there aren’t enough suitable men to help them pick up the pieces. In fact, there was a surplus of such men when they were sowing their oats. Some of those guys have, by that point, paired off with the smaller number of suitable women, some go it alone, and most tragically, some of the less savvy ones end up with Churchian girls fresh off the carousel. We do a disservice when we don’t teach those guys about the nature of women – not that women are any more “fallen” than men are, but that they are different. After years of being overlooked in favor of players and thugs, the “nice guys” often have little knowledge about how to navigate those waters – and they end up being eaten alive. Too many churches preach (at least by implication) that forgiveness wipes away the temporal consequences of sin, including years of unrestrained hypergamy. Then, when the guys end up as roadkill, the church blames them for not being “man enough” to lead as spiritual heads of their households.
Of course the “wounded women” are embraced with fervor, since it would be “unloving” to hold their feet to the fire with regard to fulfilling their duties to:
1) Keep their legs together in the first place.
2) Honor their marriage vows, including their duty to respect and submit to their husbands.
3) Not initiate divorce except under the most extreme of circumstances.
The guys need to figure it out, and somebody needs to teach them which women to avoid and how to deal with women as men. That job falls to fathers, mostly, but other men can contribute by word and example. The “supplicating beta” thing isn’t going to help a nice, devout Christian guy to “get the girl” into a stable marriage before she ruins her ability to pair-bond (which will probably happen if she becomes untethered for any length of time).
JV makes an excellent point about expectations. I’d like to add my take on it in light of my last post. Real problems arise when young men who take their Christianity seriously wade into the mating-and-dating dance. A lot of them are truly nice guys – and being kind and deferential (especially to members of the fair sex) comes naturally. But kind and deferential doesn’t attract young women very well. The guys who DO attract young women are aloof and confident instead. Luke 16:8 (b) says, “…for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.”
The idea that girls mature two years faster than boys is nonsense on stilts, and young Churchian women are often easy pickings for guys who are “worldly wise,” especially when churches attach no stigma to wanton behavior among young women. Meanwhile the truly suitable young men they should be pairing off with are being browbeaten into equating Christ-like with kind-to-the-point-of-obsequiousness and deferential-to-the-emotions-of-women.
By the time the young women mature enough to realize that riding the carousel was a bad idea and want to settle down, they have years of experience that is worse than useless – they know a lot, but everything they know is wrong and all the habits they have formed work against the framework of the stable Christian marriages they say they want.
Young men need to demand that their wives respect them and submit to them as heads of the household, and young women need to expect that their husbands will love them “as Christ loves the Church” – not as Harley McBadboy* “loved” them behind the bleachers. Teaching young Christian men how to wield authority, and teaching young Christian women to not be sluts, would ameliorate many of the problems.
* Kudos to whoever coined that.
@ Lyn87
Wise words.
If you don’t want women to have careers, and they haven’t earned the gift of staying home, what do you want them to do all day?
If careers are bad, and staying home is a privilege they haven’t earned, what exactly should women be doing?
This post is incorrect. They aren’t “traditional women”.
They are Anglo speaking “traditional women”. Anglo feminism is also the most dangerous variant of feminism of them all.
Cultivate an attitude of pleasantness in order to go from parents home to a husband’s home. If she can’t find a husband early(say age 20 or so), then work on skills that will make her a good wife. Problem is though that it may not matter how pleasant she is cause without an economy busting with jobs, men aren’t going to feel stable enough to marry and support a family.
Also, I advise against careers, not necessarily jobs. Yes, they are different. Jobs are retail and clerical work and not something that is generally going to consume you with a passion over a family. My stance has varied from time to time, but ultimately, I think it comes down to how the husband thinks he can best utilize his wife’s talents….if in the home, she stay homes. If at work, she works.
I don’t understand (honestly). Can’t you have a career in retail work?
My take is a variation on lg’s. Ideally, a woman should go from her father’s house to her husband’s, and then go about being a wife, and, in most cases, a mother.
But we don’t live in an ideal world, and that arrangement is certainly not mandatory. If a woman wishes to have a career she is free to do so. The corollary is that she has to be prepared for all the trade-offs that entails.
A few things are immutable: 1) she’s going to hit puberty, and 2) she has about 15 ( maaaaaaaybe 20 prime childbearing years, after which her fertility will drop off considerably.
An unmarried woman who spends her 20′s chasing a career is very likely to be faced with serious consequences as her fertility window starts to close as she approaches her early 30′s. If she is a typical Western woman, by that point she will have had too many sexual encounters to be a good marriage risk. I don’t care if it sounds old-fashioned, but premarital sex damages (or actually destroys) a woman’s ability to pair-bond with one man. A man takes a HUGE risk by marrying a woman who alights from the carousel just as her baby-rabies kicks into high gear.
Or she can stay as a “single-and-sassy-career-girl” if she wants to. No skin off my nose.
But what she cannot do is spend her best years on her back while she pursues her career, then whine about the lack of good men when she suddenly decides to seek commitment when her biology starts screaming at her to “BREED NOW!”
By the time a woman reaches that age the balance-of-power in the SMP has shifted, and she’s going to have to take what’s left after the more family-oriented women have scooped up the most marriageable men in her age cohort. Her choices will be quite a bit more limited than they would have been earlier, so she’s probably going to consider the available men to be either “not good enough for me” if they are her age, or “too old for me” if they are not.
The fact is that by that time she only has about 5-7 years before her fertility goes off a cliff, and she has no choice but to turn her attentions to men she would not have given the time of day to five years earlier. THAT is when the hard choices come, and she has precious little time to adjust to her new reality before biology renders her decisions moot.
Like lg said,though. If she has a “job” instead of a “career,” she can support herself while actively looking for a suitable husband in her late-teens to early twenties, when she still has 15 years of good fertility ahead of her. Obviously she needs to stay off the carousel in the meantime.
The difference between a job and career is a matter of attitude. A job you are just there for the paycheck, nothing more. A career is something you devote all your energy to; it defines your identity. Your identity can be in a career or in family. Seeking identity in both is “having it all” and usually is a tall order to fill.
Actually, many people have “jobs” that they love. They are there for the check, but it makes them happy too. Certainly that’s not a bad thing?
Are you thinking that it’s OK for men to have a career that “defines their identity”? Because most men I know are defined, and focused on, their family, first and foremost. If men can do this, I suspect women can too.
Lyn, I just want to point out that with sperm donation and adoption, marriage is really not a necessity for the career women you describe. I know many women who have happily gone one of these routes. I guess that is a win-win situation for everyone, particularly since men don’t want to marry them anyway, as you say.
Also egg donation and surrogacy, too. Lots of ways to satisfy that baby-craving if traditional marriage doesn’t work out.
Christopher, I would heartily disagree that sperm donation and surrogacy are “a win-win situation for everyone.” For the child it is definitely “lose,” as he/she will be brought up by a single-mother-by-choice with no father in the household.
Adoption? Perhaps… in a few cases. Even then it is greatly to be preferred for a child to live in a home with a mother and father. But if a child’s ONLY chance at adoption is with a woman of significant financial means… perhaps. A “Career Woman” is generally a bad choice, though, because she will still have to spend the bulk of her energy on her career – with no father in the picture, the child is essentially growing up with no parents at all.
If a woman wants a career, let her choose that path – it’s nothing to me. But if a woman wants to be a mother, she ought to enter a marriage with a stable husband while she’s young – for the sake of her children.
“A “Career Woman” is generally a bad choice, though, because she will still have to spend the bulk of her energy on her career – with no father in the picture, the child is essentially growing up with no parents at all.”
Well, I”m not so sure about that. After all, traditional fathers put most of their energy in their careers, yet you couldn’t say their children have “no father.” The kids have a father on the weekends and evenings. Same here with the single mom.
Besides, the career women I know generally have reached the point in their careers that they can scale back when they adopt or give birth. Works for everyone–mother and child.
I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. “Single-mother-by-choice” involves deliberately placing the child at significantly elevated risk in multiple ways (drug use, drop-out rates, teenage pregnancy, etc.).
It’s not “heroic” – it’s incredibly selfish. A child should not be a fashion accessory for “empowered” perimenopausal spinsters.
I am happy to agree to disagree. Though I don’t understand why it matters if someone is perimenopausal or not. Plenty of men have kids at age 50 or so and are fine fathers, even when they are single fathers. And “spinsters”? Almost sounds like you are trying to be insulting just because you don’t approve of someone’s choices. I think that weakens your argument.
Kids need love, stability and attention. They can get this from 20-year olds or 50 year olds–just depends on the person. Just cause you don’t approve of their choice doesn’t make them a bad parent.
“I think that weakens your argument.”
Then you don’t understand how arguments work. Accurately describing a phenomenon can only strengthen an argument, whereas non sequiturs like, “Just cause you don’t approve of their choice doesn’t make them a bad parent,” does weaken yours. You act as if my assertion that, “Becoming a single mom by choice is a bad idea” is merely a matter of my opinion rather than the stone cold fact that it is. But facts are stubborn things. Even an article in the liberal “Slate” magazine admits the obvious: single motherhood is a terrible idea. After controlling for all other factors:
1) Children raised by single mothers after divorce are two-and-half times more likely to experience serious social, emotional, or psychological problems, and the odds are even worse if the parents were never married.
2) Male children of single mothers are twice as likely to end up in prison by the time they are 30.
3) Female children of single mothers are roughly three times as likely to end up as unwed pregnant teenagers.
Children raised by single mothers account for a hugely disproportionate share of juvenile murderers, drug abusers, school dropouts, suicides and runaways.
So… ummm… No. Things are not just fine. Seeing a few relatively well-off women with a cute “designer” kid in tow (on the way to the day-care center that will actually raise the child), means next to nothing. Their choice to prevent those children from growing up with fathers is damaging in-and-of-itself, and drastically increases the chances the kids will end up with serious issues in a few years.
As for my terminology: if you are offended by an accurate description of something you wish to defend (in this case “perimenopausal spinsters” who deliberately bear children out of wedlock) – that’s a clue that you may want to reconsider why you feel so compelled to defend it.
Well, for that matter, teenage mothers have children who are dramatically at risk for social problems, yet this blog recommends early marriage. Are you only concerned about the kids when you disapprove of the mothers?
Perimenopausal may certainly be accurate, but it was also a non sequitor, irrelevant. There are older fathers out there, too, but I don’t describe them as balding or paunchy or aging, no matter how accurate that might be.
Once again you insist on missing hte point, so I suppose you’re just trolling now. There is a fundamental difference between a 19-year-old woman marrying and having children and a high school girl getting knocked up and becoming a ward of the state, birthing the next generation of prisoners and wards of the state. The children of young married mothers are not at elevated risk, so your point is… well… not a point at all.
And “preimenopausal” is both accurate and important, while “balding” and “paunchy” may or may not be accurate and are certainly not important. A woman who pursued a career throughout her 20′s and early 30′s while putting off child-bearing is at the end of her fertility window, and has far fewer options than a younger woman who pursued marriage and motherhood during that time. She is at far greater risk of complications during pregnancy, and her child is at far greater risk of birth defects. Plus, by definition, the child she has will not have a father in the house.
If you can’t understand those differences, please go back and read for understanding rather than throwing more non sequitors at me.
Actually in many cases, it’s not either/or, it’s both. There are plenty of feminists who want the full buffet of options in the workplace and also the option to stay home and be cared for.
Good stuff. Great comments.
Christopher:
“I guess [single mother adoption and surrogacy] is a win-win situation for everyone, particularly since men don’t want to marry them anyway, as you say.”
Lyn has well in hand your argument about single moms adopting kids as a “win-win”. I want to address your argument that “men don’t want to marry them anyway”.
I disagree that men are driving the increased age at first marriage phenomenon. The “men are afraid of commitment” and “men don’t want to marry” memes are garbage and apex fallacy. No. It is young women, not men, who are driving the problem. Young women (including young Christian women and young Churchian women) are the ones engaging in serial monogamy, having flings and ONSs with men who are happy to have sex with them, but will never, ever marry them.
And the men they are showering their sexual favors on won’t marry them because, quite simply, these men don’t have to marry them to get sex. The men are two or three SMV points above these women. They are players and badboys and thugs, men deemed attractive, and they get most of the sex. If a woman can get sex with these hot men and a shot at turning one of them into her boyfriend or husband, why should she date some nice guy from Church?
So I suggest that it’s women in the aggregate and their aggregate sexual behaviors and predilections, not men, that are the problems here.
So, it is more accurate to say that “ATTRACTIVE men don’t want to get married because they don’t have to.”
“Men are afraid of commitment” is garbage. It’s more accurate to say that “ATTRACTIVE men do not commit to one woman because they do not have to.”
The lesser men, non-attractive men, are willing to commit to get sex, because it’s what they have to do in order to get sex.
People, understand this: Men as a gender are rational creatures. They figure out what they have to do to survive, and then do that. They figure out what to do to get what they want, and then do those things, but then they don’t do much more than that, either. And if they figure out something is not working, they stop doing it.
The only reason young Christian men continue with “niceguy” mentality is because Churchian pastors and parents (whom these young niceguys have been trained all their lives to submit to and listen to) specifically tell them that what they are doing is working, is going to work; and that the girls who are rejecting them are stupid sluts whom they don’t want anyway. Those pastors and parents specifically tell them that “niceguy” is the only thing that can work. They tell the “niceguys” that they will go to Hell if they become more assertive and refuse to tolerate the crap from girls. They tell the niceguys that if they are bolder, more assertive, and refuse to give girls everything they want, then they are not being nice, and they will ultimately lose.
The point of the OP is that there are a lot of women (feminists, tradcon women) claiming entitlement to whatever it is they want in their lives. They don’t care how it is given to them, or who gives it to them, just so long as they get it. And usually, men are at least some of the ones who need to give it to them. meaning some level of investment and commitment from those men.
And they are training these men to invest and commit, while women give them nothing in return. What’s more they tell and train these men to expect nothing in return and that they are sexist male chauvinist pig redneck a**holes for expecting anything.
“Why, it’s your DUTY to give me what I want! It’s your male OBLIGATION to take care of me and protect me and die for me! You are REQUIRED to marry me after I’ve had my fun with the alpha d*ckbags who I absolutely looooved screwing but who wouldn’t marry me!! You MUST give me my little consolation prize!”
Today’s men put up with way too much from women.
Men, it’s true that you’re not entitled to sex. You’re not entitled to a woman’s love and devotion. You have no right to a wife. Hell, today, even if you have a wife you have no right to expect her to stay with you. You can’t make her respect you, you can’t make her have sex with you, you can’t tell her what to do, you can’t forbid her from doing anything, you have no veto power. When it gets right down to it, if she wants to disobey you and ignore you and do what she wants, she can, and there’s not a damn thing you can do to stop her. She has the full force of the law and the State on her side. If you disagree, men with guns will be summoned to require your compliance or removal. Anytime she wants, she can snap her fingers and the police will arrive to overrule any edict you announce.
It’s time we learned self-respect. Women, we can accept that we’re not entitled to sex, love, respect or submission. We can accept that men with guns or law licenses will make sure you are relieved of those obligations anytime you wish to be free of them.
If that’s the case, then women are not entitled to investment or commitment from men. Women, you’re not entitled to my time. I don’t have to help you, tell you anything, or give you anything. I don’t have to help you find the interstate or the gas station. I don’t have to give you my coat when it’s cold. I don’t have to help you replace your windshield wiper blades or adjust the driver’s seat in your car.
If I’m dating you, I don’t have to spend time with you at your whim. I don’t have to spend money on you. I don’t owe you nice dinners or meals out. you aren’t entitled to weekends away in nice hotels or movies or shows. You have no right to my time, my money or my resources. I don’t have to account to you for my whereabouts. I also don’t have any duty to get you out of trouble, move things for you, reach things in high places for you, or rescue you when your car runs out of gas because of your negligence. I don’t owe you an explanation of what you are to me, nor do I have to tell you “where this relationship is going”. I don’t have to tell you my intentions. I am not required to put myself on a marriage timetable or submit to your marriage deadline.
If I am married to you, you can expect my provision and protection. But in return, I can expect regular, frequent sex at reasonable intervals. If I have a duty to provide and protect, then you have a duty to furnish regular, frequent sex. I am very, very sure you’d divorce me in a heartbeat if I shirked my duties. So you can be damn sure that if you are unreasonably withholding sex, I will consider that marital abandonment and grounds for divorce. There are no second chances for cheating. If you even take a step toward cheating on me, I will end this marriage in as public a manner as possible.
You do have a right to know generally where I am and what I do. You have a right to input on major decisions. You do not, however, have a right to lead anything nor do you have veto rights. I am the leader of our marriage and you must submit to that. It means that I break all ties on major decisions. If there is a major decision to make, and you think one way and my way is opposed; we will do it my way and you will submit to it.
Even though I am your husband, I am not required to give any weight at all to your emotional whims and fancies. I will stand by while you are feeling them. But we will not make decisions based on them. We will not change a course of action based on them. We (or at least I) will not be ruled or governed by them. If you decide on a course of action against my advice or based solely on your emotions or feelings, it is on you, and you alone. I will not alleviate the consequences nor accept any responsibility for them.
I will not tolerate any disrespect. I won’t give in to your shit testing, your pity ploys, your emotional outbursts, or your crying jags. Oh, you can engage in them. They just won’t change anything or have any appreciable effect on the course of our lives together.
Men, you put up with way too much shit from women.
Don’t put any woman on a pedestal. She doesn’t belong there. When you are single, your interests should be, in this order: God, self, career, self improvement, dating women. Don’t explain yourself or justify yourself to a woman. Don’t accept shit testing. Laugh it off or shut it down. Walk away from any woman who is not meeting your needs or enhancing your life. You fit her into your life; you do not spend your time figuring out ways to fit yourself or insinuate yourself into her life.
Figure out what your weaknesses are and improve them. If you’re poor and you want or need a better job, then work on that. If you’re fat or out of shape, lose the weight, eat better, and lift. If you are boring, go do some interesting things, alone or with others. If you have oneitis for some girl who dumped you, get out there and date more. If you need help with any of this, ask for it.
A woman does not define your life or complete it. You define and complete your life and then add a woman to it.
Stop kowtowing to women. Stop white knighting. Stop beta orbiting. Stop being her emotional tampon. If she is not adding any value to your life, cut her out of it. Don’t waste any time whatsoever on any women who does not want to be with you. Cut off and have no contact with any woman who tells you LJBF.
I said “men don’t want to marry them” because this is what Lyn had said was true. I personally have no idea whether men want to marry older, successful women or not. Some do, and some don’t, I imagine. Do older women want to marry *them* is another interesting question.
(I’ll betcha Deti is single, however).
I’m saying that if you are not interested in such women, what do you care what they do–have kids, not have kids, whatever. Please don’t try to convince me you are “worried about the kids.” There are many, many kids in far worst situations–homeless kids, abused kids.
I dont’ think marriage is a necessity for either sex. If it will improve your life, marry. If not, don’t. That’s true for boys and girls.
Okay, I’m stumped. I’ve gone over every post I’ve ever made on this website and I can’t find any place where I said that. It seems unlikely that I would have written that though because, stated as an absolute as you just did, I don’t even believe that myself, as it is only true in certain very limited contexts.
Here’s the money quote from an earlier post of mine (emphasis added),
Those two paragraphs contain multiple assertions that women in such circumstances have fewer choices, and will generally find those choice to be less attractive than they think they are worthy of, but I never said they would have not NO men who want to marry them. Those women can (and do) find men to marry, but often they have hugely inflated estimations of their SMV/MMV, and resent that they do not command the attention of “better men” like they did when they were young, hot, tight, and riding the carousel. So when they marry they can feel that they “settled” for the “best of what was left in the time I had left” – never realizing that the “low quality” men they marry are their equals in MMV.
I won’t speak for Deti, but I couldn’t care less if women want to play at “career girl.” And people can marry – or not marry – to their heart’s content: I’m a Libertarian and I just don’t care. As long as I don’t have to deal with Affirmative Action incompetence or listen to perimenopausal spinsters complain about the lack of “suitable” men, they can do whatever they want – it’s a free country. But if they want to be single-moms-by-choice I’m going to call them irresponsible and selfish – because that’s what they are, and their children and everybody’s society suffer when women do that.
I don’t care if a young woman wants to ride the carousel or play at a “career”. You want to ride the carousel? Fine. Don’t complain when the ride comes to an end. You’ll have to take what you can get when inevitability arrives. You want to play at a career? Fine. Don’t complain when your bio-clock starts roaring in your ears like a freight train.
What I care about is when the young woman tires of the carousel or (more often) gets kicked off; then tries to sell herself as a “born again virgin” or a family girl at heart, complaining that the alpha studs aren’t on bended knee with rings at the ready.
What I care about is the former carousel rider then loudly lamenting her having to “settle” and then getting unhaaaappy and divorcing the good man who wifed her up.
What I care about is the career girl chasing dollars and meetings in her 20s, then deciding that it’s the duty of some hapless beta to marry her to support her children who might or might not be his.
Well said, deti.
It’s not so much the choices individual women make – it’s the fact that bad outcomes are both extremely likely and easy to predict, yet they still refuse to accept personal responsibility for the crappy outcomes when they occur.
It’s also that so many of them do it that it has skewed the SMP/MMP for everybody – not just themselves and the d-bag “players” they waste their youth on.
It’s the fact that she can destroy a man and his children with a mere phone call when she tires of her life as a married woman, and the legal system will support her – to the point of making her husband a de facto slave to her for years or even decades.
It’s also that she often tries to (as you put it), “sell herself as a “born again virgin” or a family girl at heart,” when she is actually damaged goods who fv(k3d away her ability to pair-bond, which is perhaps the most important attribute a woman brings to the table in marriage.
I read a story a couple of months ago about an old guy in Italy who found some letters in a box or an attic from about 70 years ago. The letters were between his wife and some guy she had had sex with before they married. Her wife had claimed to be a virgin when they married, and she knew that was one of his conditions. He immediately started divorce proceedings, although they had been married all that time. I say, “Good for him.” She presented herself as something she was not, and he had every right to kick her to the curb – the fact that she got away with her scam for seven decades doesn’t make it any less of a scam. If anything, it’s even worse, since he’s far too old to get what he paid for at this point in his life. “Born again virgins” are in much the same territory as that old slut – unlike her, they may admit to their whorish past, but when they try to present themselves as “changed” it had better be both permanent and absolute. Anything else is simple fraud.
LGR:
And the really frustrating thing is that they demand the right to move back and forth between those two groups of demands. In other words, when she is young, she demands respect, independence, equality and a career AND THEN she demands protection and provisioning when she is older.
The protection and provisioning things is biblical – God commands husbands to do this for their wives (1 Timothy 5:8 – But if any provide not for his own, and especially for those of his own house, he has denied the faith, and is worse than an unbeliever). But it’s odd that the DD women aren’t demanding the concomitant submission and obedience which is to accompany that protection and provisioning, isn’t it?
“But it’s odd that the DD women aren’t demanding the concomitant submission and obedience which is to accompany that protection and provisioning, isn’t it?”
Isn’t it though! What a pickle. And you are right about the switch over as women age.
Deti,
Thanks for your comments. I know you are well respected in these parts and I welcome your thoughts anytime!
Lyn,
I like your writings. If you ever want to submit a guest post here, I would be thrilled.
lg,
Thanks. I’m back from being on the road now and I’m kicking around an idea for a guest post. I’ll send it to you whenever I finish it.