Tag Archives: Marriage

Building a Life Together

Donal wrote a couple posts on men’s SMV and marriage conundrums and women’s complimentary conundrum.

I’m going to focus on the second, in particular. Not wanting to add to Sigyn’s compassion fatigue, I’m not going to talk of how its easier for women to find a marriage partner at this age than men, but rather I’m going to give advice to the young ladies who want to marry young but can’t find a worthy young man to marry.

****

First, the reality: you won’t be able to.

For you, young woman of average beauty in your late-teens or early-20s, it will be almost impossible to find a worthy young man who wants to marry you. The vast majority of men your age are of naturally low value, they are unworthy. Most of those few that aren’t unworthy will either not desire marriage or would be a poor marriage partner.

To be worthy, a man must be a good man; he must also have experience,  be able to lead, have a mission, have resources, be skilled, be confident, have positive status, and having a little charm would help as well.

Notice what these all of these but being good have in common:

They all take a long time to develop.

A young man in his early-to-mid-20s will not have had that time. At best, most men will develop this in their late-20s or early-30s. Many men will never develop these.

A good young man near your age will not have discovered his mission yet, he will lack confidence, he will be inexperienced, he will be poor, he will lack status, he will be unskilled, and he probably won’t have developed charm yet. He has likely never been in a position of leadership in his life.

Those that do have status, charm, or confidence at this age will usually have it for the wrong reasons. These will be the petty drug dealers, the college sports stars, the rebel musicians, the budding Casanovas, the frat boys, etc. Most will not be desiring marriage because they will be drowning in easy sex from many fresh, young co-eds (you’re not the only girl trying to find a confident, charming young man) and they would likely make poor marriage partners even if they did.

Now, there will be a very few good young men looking for marriage who have all this. Whether from inheritance, genetic blessing, exceptional parenting, and/or plain dumb luck some good young men will have many or all of these measures of worth, but these men will be very rare indeed. The young Christian sports star (the Tim Tebows of the world) or the grungy-looking worship leader would be the most likely bet.

If you want to have your own Tim Tebow, go back in time and be born a blonde bombshell with a beautiful face and measurements near 36-24-36C.

Don’t have a time machine? You’re not getting a Tim Tebow.

Unless you were born an 8 or a 9 and managed to keep your figure looking smashing, you won’t be getting the worthy young man. These young men are exceedingly rare and will have their pick of the church. Are you the prettiest in your church, your college and career group, and your Christian campus group?

Probably not, otherwise you’d already have one of these men and you wouldn’t be reading this.

Exception: A high-school sweetheart deal. An average young women in high school can snag a higher value man simply by being his first girlfriend and making it so pleasant for him that he marries her right out of high school before he even begins to understand his worth. If you’re reading this, you’ve probably missed that chance, but if you’re still in high school, give it a go; you never know.

****

So, now that you, young woman who is not exceptionally beautiful, know that you will not be able to get a worthy, marriage-minded man near your age, what can you do to get a worthy husband?

There are two options: date older or build one.

Option 1: Date Older

There won’t be a worthy young man your own age, but there will be a few worthy, marriage-minded men in the 28-35 age range.

If you do this, you will essentially be joining the life he will have built up. He will likely be loathe to give up what he has already built, so it will be less a melding of lives together and more you inserting yourself into his pre-built life.

There is nothing wrong with this, but it is what it is.

Also, an age difference to 5-15 years may be looked at askance by society in this fallen age. Be prepared for that.

If you’re fine with both of those go for it. It should be fairly easy; most of these men will be very happy to have a young girl in her late-teens/early-20s interested in them. What man wouldn’t feel proud to have a cute wife 10 years his junior?

Find out where good young men in their late-20s, early-30s hang-out. Then go there, look pretty, be nice, and make yourself available. Or go on a dating site and express an interest in this age group in your profile; a few of the dozens/hundreds of men e-mailing you will be these kinds of man, it’s simply a matter of sorting the wheat from the chaff.

But if marrying a man 5-10 years older than you sounds unappealing, there is a second option: build a worthy man.

****

Option 2: Build a Worthy Man

You won’t be able to find a worthy young man, but you can build one from an unworthy man. This is a 3-step process.

Step One: The Building Clay

Find an honest, good-hearted, marriage-minded young man who displays potential.

Potential is hard to define, but, essentially, is he a decent young man?

Remember, you are looking for a man who has a certain amount of natural virtue; focus on that and ignore the superficial things; you can work on that later.

Some things to look for:

  • Is he building for the future? ie.: Is he going to college, working on his own business, or taking trades training?
  • Does he have a good relationship with his parents?
  • Is he responsible with his money, his time, his gifts?
  • Does he express an interest in marriage and children?
  • Could he be handsome if he stood up straighter, had a better haircut, and lost those dorky-looking glasses?
  • Does he have plans for the future?
  • If you’re Christian, does he go to church regularly?
  • Do other adults who know him (his boss, church elders, his professors, etc.) respect him and speak well of him?
  • Does he have a group of friends who are decent people?

If the answer is yes to most or all of these, he has potential.

Now potential is just that, potential, it is not actuality. He is not going to have everything you want, now. But, if you choose the right base material, you can build the rest into him. So here’s some things to overlook because they will either develop with time, or you will help him develop it:

  • He dresses poorly.
  • He’s not a leader.
  • He’s socially awkward.
  • He’s currently poor.
  • He plays video games.

Choose the right base material and you can fix all these superficial deficits over time.

If you’re in doubt if the man you’re interested in is good base material, bring him to your parent’s home for a night of dinner and board games. Ask your parents about him afterwards (and demand they be honest). If they like him, you’ve got a decent candidate; if they don’t, dump him.

Step 2: Test Him

So, now you’ve found a decent young man, but he hasn’t proven himself yet, so you’re taking a risk.

Here’s a few simple tests of worthiness for a guy you’ve been dating for a few months or for one of those guys who’s been your close friend with for a while and there’s some mutual interest:

1) Tell him you want to spend a special day together and ask him to plan it. Don’t help him plan, don’t criticize, and go along with whatever he plans. His attitude is more important than what you actually end up doing. If he puts in some planning, pulls off something half-decent, and tries to lead while doing so that’s good. If he sloughs it off and phones you at the last minute asking what you feel like doing and you end up hanging out together as normal, that’s not.

2) Say you’d like to go on a day-long road trip to ???? (some park or attraction within an hour’s drive) and ask him to plan it. Look for the same things as #1.

3) Invite him to help you paint your room; tell him you don’t know what you’re doing. Does he show up prepared to work? Does he take the lead? Does he try to show you how? Is he patient? Does he avoid complaining? Look for his attitude.

4) If you’re planning to move, tell him you don’t have any men to help you (make sure to tell your dad, brothers, and male friends to be busy that day) and don’t know how you’re going to move all this big, heavy furniture by yourself. Ask if he can organize some of his friends to help. If he shows up with a couple friends in tow and takes the lead, you’ve got a keeper on your hands.

5) Have your dad invite him over to work on a project together; tell your dad why and let your dad arrange it. Listen to what your dad says about him afterward.

If he passes a few of these or similar tests, you’ve probably got good base material. It will not eliminate the risk of a dud entirely, but it will minimize the risks.

Onto the next step.

****

Step Three: Build Him

He’s probably a bit dorky, awkward, or weird, but don’t worry, you’re going to change that.

Is he a poor engineering student now? Don’t worry; that means 10 years from now he will be a highly-paid engineer. Just let time take its course.

Does he dress like a dork? No problem. He doesn’t realize he looks like a dork, and he likely really doesn’t care how he dresses (as long as it’s not fruity). He’ll be happy to change for you, if you do it right.

Next time he goes clothes shopping, go with him. Recommend a few things you like; when he tries something on and it looks good in it, make it known. Compliment him on how handsome he is, smile coyly, lick your lips, make a big deal of how handsome, sexy, and manly he looks while rubbing your hand casually but enticingly up his arm. I know it sounds kind of stupid, but it will be almost impossible to go overboard. Most young men very rarely get complimented by cute, young girls, so the rush he’ll get from from your effusive praise will make him ignore such petty things as logic and reality. If possible, convince another female cashier to comment on how handsome he looks in those clothes. He will buy that outfit; if not this time, the next. He might not wear it for a while, but when he does, do it all over again; gush over how handsome he looks in it and get your other female friends to do so as well. Do this for one item a shopping trip; in a few years you’ll have replaced his whole wardrobe, he’ll be looking good, and he’ll think it was all his idea.

One important rule: Do not nag; do not ask or demand he buy or wear the new clothes. That will backfire and create resistance. Simply stay positive and compliment and encourage him; it will work wonders.

Does he have a dorky haircut, stupid-looking glasses, a nerdy watch? Do exactly what you did with the clothes and soon he’ll have contacts, a great haircut, and a stylish watch.

Does he lack confidence? No problem. With a cute, young girl like you telling him what a great man he is every day and supporting him in everything he does, he’ll gain some pretty fast. Nothing boosts a man’s confidence like a pretty young lady’s compliments. Make sure not to criticize him; remain positive.

Does he lack leadership? Don’t worry about it. He may not be a leader now, but when you submit to him, he’ll be forced to lead and, in being forced, will learn to do so. With a cute, young girl, like you, looking to him for guidance, submitting to his decisions, and regularly praising his decisiveness, great decisions, and excellent leadership, he’ll quickly become the dominant leader you’re looking for.  Whatever you do, don’t criticize his decisions when he does lead; that will backfire and he will be less likely to lead in the future.

Is he socially awkward? No problem. Get him to read this and this. Talk with him and make him comfortable talking with you. Bring him to hang out in large groups. With you at his side, supporting him in social situations, he’ll slowly gain the social skills you want him to have. A few years from now, you’ll look back and wonder whatever happened to the socially awkward man you once knew.

Does he have less ambition than you like? That’s a bit of a problem, but easily remedied as long as it’s not a complete lack. Encourage him to be proactive (again, no criticism).

Does he idly come up with a decent business idea? “That’s an amazing idea, honey, I’m sure you could make it work.” Then, when out socially with him, mention to your friends/family this great idea he had. Eventually, he’ll try simply because you’ve built so much positive expectation that he would feel horrible about not doing so. Then support him fully as he tries.

Is there a job or schooling opportunity you think he should go for? “Did you hear about this dear. It looks like an amazing opportunity and I think you’re so good at this that you’d be a shoe-in.” Then, when he does try, support him fully and unreservedly. When he gets the job, praise him and tell him how you knew he’d do it.

Again, do not nag. Remain positive.

Another important rule: If he tries and fails, do not complain about his failure or criticize him. A simple “some things are not meant to be” or “circumstances just weren’t right” is okay. Follow that up with a “You’re so amazing, I’m sure next time you’ll do it. Have you seen this? I’m sure you’d be great at it.”

Does he play too many video games? Understand an hour or two a day is not that big a deal. If he plays a lot more than that: find out what he likes doing otherwise, then sign you both up for it, or get him and one of his friends to sign up for it if it’s a male activity. Be supportive and positive, don’t nag. “You know how you’ve always wanted to ????, well I’ve signed us up. It will be so much fun doing this with you.”

Is he in poorer shape than you’d like? Cook him some good meals. Then join a gym, go a couple times, and mention how you wish you had someone to go with. If guys hit on you at the gym, be sure to let slip how you wish “there was someone to go to the gym with as guys are always hitting on me.” At other times mention how much more handsome he would look with a little less weight or a little more muscle.

Eventually, he’ll come with you. After the workout, mention how hot he looks when he’s lifting or dripping with sweat or something related to working out. After he’s been coming to the gym with you for a while, take care to notice that new muscle (“it feels so big and hard“, said admiringly while putting your hand over it) or the lost weight. After that, he’ll keep going with you.

You’ll notice a them through all of this: positivity and support.

For most decent men, they will rise up to what is expected of them. If you go into a relationship expecting the best out of a good man and encouraging him to reach his full potential, he will rise to the challenge. There is nothing in life that will drive a man to self-improvement like having a cute, young woman support and compliment him in doing so.

Young lady of average looks, if you want to marry a man your own age who will be worthy:

Choose a good man with potential, test him, then build him up.

Do all this and in a few years you’ll be married to worthy man of whom you’ll be proud and he will love more than you could possibly understand for helping make him so.

****

One other thing: make sure to improve yourself so that good men are attracted to you.

  • Keep fit; little will drive men off more than being fat.
  • Be happy and pleasant. Most men like a girl who’s positive and enjoyable to be around.
  • Be of good character. A man of good character wants a wife of good character.

See here and here for other things a good young man might be looking for in a wife.

****

Finally some theory.

Today, marriage is treated as a capstone. People think getting married is something they do once they’ve completed all the others bricks in the wall.

“Once I finish college, get a good job, and buy a house, then I’ll be ready for marriage.”

This is not how marriage is supposed to be. Marriage is supposed to be a cornerstone.

Marriage is about building the wall together. The proper attitude is:

“We’ll get married, we’ll support each other through college, we’ll support each other in starting our careers, and then we’ll buy a house together and make a family. We’ll build a life together.”

When I recommend  building a man, this is what I am talking about.

You don’t have to try to go after the fully formed man who has it all together; you can marry the solid, young guy who has unrealized potential.

He may not be much now, but if you join to him while young and build a life together as he becomes a fully realized man, he will love you more than you can imagine, for he will not be able to imagine a life apart from you, because you will have been there with him building the wall together.

That is my advice to both young men and young women. Find a good person while young, if you can, and build a life together.

“The List” and My List

Donal makes a list of what he requires in and offers to his future spouse, and suggested others do the same. I will, but first I’ll talk a bit on lists.

Unlike many in the ‘sphere, I do not have a negative reaction to a list; in fact, I support “the list”. I think it is a positive if a woman rationally plans ahead and has a strong list of non-negotiables she would require of a spouse before marriage and even a list of negotiable preferences. I think every single person, both men and women, should have a list.

A woman should have high standards; in fact, I think women should demand more from men than what they currently do. Women should not settle and should refuse to settle. Many of our modern difficulties come not from women with “lists” or high demands, but rather from women lacking either.

Men should have high standards and a list as well. In fact, I encourage any man reading this who is considering marriage to go and make a list of non-negotiables once they’ve finished reading this post.

****

The purpose of the list is something that should be kept in mind when making the list. The list exists, or should exist, for two main reasons:

1) To clarify what you are looking for in a relationship so you can focus your romantic efforts where they would be most valuable and avoid wasting time on people who are not what you need in a relationship.

2) To create a hard standard to prevent you from making a bad choice while being swept away in lust and emotion.

A list exists to protect you and your time from those who would use and waste both.

Leap stated:

The underlying subtext of this is all wrong. It’s a beta list for Beta’s and women who feel guilty about not dating them. She actively admits dating men that contradict these values.

He understands the proper subtext but misses the point of the list; the list, for women, is and should be to keep her from dating the alphas who would ruin her. It exists to protect her from her emotions so she doesn’t go through “alpha now -> beta later“.

A man’s list should exist to keep him from marrying the blonde bombshell with BPD. It serves as a firm anchor point when the tidal wave of lust overwhelms his good sense.

Every list should have this, not just as the subtext, but as the main point. Remember one of the main points of Proverbs, protect yourself from the adulteress.

Keep your heart with all vigilance, for from it flow the springs of life. Proverbs 4:23 (ESV)

****

The problem is not the concept of the list itself, the problem is with some women’s poor and irrational attempts at creating a list. They go about it the wrong, resulting in the incorrect use of the list. Here are some of the errors people make:

1) Creating a list that is unmeetable, but still expecting to get married. Too many women make a large list that no man can possibly live up to, than wonder why no man lives up to it. You must accept the reality that the higher your standards and the longer your list, the less likely anybody will meet it and the less likely marriage will be. If your standards are too high, you might remain single for the rest of your life.

My list of standards is fairly high (at least for our modern world) and I’d be surprised if even 10% of the single female population met them. In fact, my original list had more points (13) than the list Donal criticizes (12) and my new list below has the same number. But I recognize that my standards are high and accept the reality that I might remain single for the rest of my life. I simply know that I would prefer singleness to marriage to a woman that did not meet these basic standards.

Rule of thumb: Something should not be on your list unless you would rather remain single for the rest of your life than compromise on it.

2) Focusing on frivolities, ignoring the important – What matters for a marriage is underlying character, behaviours, and values related to a successful marriage. A list should focus on these. A list should avoid things unrelated this.

Too many times, when people speak of standards, of demanding more, they think of the superficial standards (absurdly high income,  a height requirement,  unrealistic standards of attractiveness). You should demand more and have high standards, but of character, not the superficial.

3) Making a list, then ignoring it – It is my impression many women make a list, sometimes reasonable, sometimes not, then, if they don’t meet a man who meets that list, rather then reconsider some parts of the list or simply go without a relationship, they completely ignore the list out of desperation. Usually when they ignore the list, it is the more important parts (character, values) they ignore in favour of the more superficial parts that shouldn’t be on the list anyways.

The list exists for a reason; if you make a list, stick to it. A non- negotiable list should be just that, non-negotiable; if you can’t meet anybody who meets the list’s requirements, either modify the list to something more reasonable or accept that you may be single for life.

4) Vague emotional standards, rather than concrete rules – I know romantic love can not be reduced to a formula, but a list should primarily be of concrete attributes, not vague emotions. A list which focuses too much on how someone makes you feel is counterproductive. It violates the purpose of a list, which is protecting you from your own emotions and lust. One or two points about emotions and attraction may be fine, but the bulk of the list should be observable traits independent of your emotional state.

****

Donal criticizes a particular list, but I don’t see much trouble with the actual points of the list in themselves. My only real problem with any of the particular point as written is #11 because it is theologically inaccurate, even though I have no problem with women expecting a certain, reasonable level of romance.

The problem is, as Donal mentions, the attitude behind this list and the way certain things on the list, particularly those related to emotions, may be (mis)construed could be problematic, but the list itself, as written, is not really offensive.

Also, the lack of concreteness is a problem: #7,10, and 11 can all be summed up as gives me good feelings. Good feelings should be one point on the list, if that, because good feelings are what the list should be protecting someone from; not a quarter of the list itself.

Irrelevant side note on the comments debate on attractiveness: The lady who wrote this is extremely attractive, both subjectively and objectively; a solid 9 at least (but I’m partial to blondes). On the other hand, I find Angelina Jolie unattractive, while I recognize she’s probably objectively attractive. There’s something I can’t quite identify about the fat lips that I find off-putting and her eyes always seem to look either cold, hard, or dead, none of which is attractive in a woman.

****

I’ve created a list of indicators of a good wife and mother on here before and in rel life I made a list of my minimum requirements for a wife. I’m not sure where I left the RL list, so I’ll try to recreate it here.

1) Christian – I am not too particularly worried about denomination, as long as it is non-heretical and non-liberal (but I repeat myself). I would even be willing to seriously consider converting to Catholicism and Orthodoxy if that was important to her, given that I’ve been leaning more in that direction over time.

2) Virgin, or has a low count but is genuinely repentant – My wife has to have a right view of sex. A virgin would be ideal, but I would not absolutely rule out a low count non-virgin if I knew she was honest about it and genuinely repentant and had enough positive traits to make up for the deficit.

As I’ve said before, I find the problem with marrying a genuinely repentant ex-slut is how accepting the church is of female fornication. When even “Christian” women accept the slut culture, how much can you trust a woman’s repentance?

3) Sufficiently attractive and healthy – Essentially, is she attractive enough to arouse me to the degree sufficient to desire and enact the procreative act and will she be so 20 years down the road? Is she healthy? Healthiness and attractiveness are strongly interrelated, hence why they do together here. It’s not a particularly high bar; most white or Asian women who take care of themselves would probably meet it.

(Note: #3 effectively rules out marrying outside of the white or Asian races, as I am generally not attracted to any but the most unattainably attractive women from non-Asian minorities).

4) Pleasant – Is she a joy to be around or is she a pain?

5) Not stupid – My wife needs to be someone I can genuinely converse with. She doesn’t have to be super-intelligent, I phrased this point as I did on purpose, but I don’t want to spend the rest of my life exasperated with and rolling my eyes at everything she says. Also, included under this would be sufficiently low time preference that she would not take drastic, unthinking actions that could destroy.

6) Not emotionally volatile – I am a calm, non-emotional INTJ. I simply can’t handle emotional outbursts all that well.

7) Prioritizes motherhood, family, and children – My wife who primary earthly goal will be motherhood and the family and she will need to be willing to have many children (I don’t have a non-negotiable number of children, but she’d have to be one amazing prize for it to be fewer than four).

8) Good mother – This is kind of vague, but does she demonstrate traits that indicate she would make a good mother?

9) Believes in traditional Biblical marriage – She needs to accept the model of marriage provided in the Bible. I am willing to date a Christian without this, given the sad reality of modern thought on marriage, but she must convert to this model before we marry. She also must be willing and eager to take my last name, no hyphens.

10) Willingness to homeschool – My children are not going to public school. Out of all of these this is the weakest on the list; it’s on the border between non-negotiables and strong preferences; I considered moving it to the top of my preferences list. I would be willing to accept alternatives such as Catholic private school or possibly Montessori education.

11) Responsible/Reliable/Loyal/Disciplined – Essentially, can she be relied upon. Marriage is essentially a business partnership based around running a household with the added bonus of sex; so, would I be willing to run a business with her? Does she wastefully spend and get into debt? Can she be counted on to keep her word? Can I depend on her to be responsible for those areas under her care? Etc.

12) Under 30 – I’ve written about this before, so I won’t say much more here. Under 30 is required, under 25 is a high priority, but negotiable.

My original list had 13 requirements, so this is not exactly the same, but I can’t think of anything that’s missing. The difference is probably because I mixed a few requirements together in this list that were discrete in the original.

Now, I don’t think I’ve made a list that is unreasonable. In fact, I’d be willing to bet that 100 years ago 90% of the single, white, Christian female population would have met this list. Even 50-60 years ago, I’m sure more women than not would have met this list (excepting some of the religious requirements).

In this fallen age, most women would not meet my list, but I think that says more about the decline of our civilization than any unreasonableness on my part.

****

Lastly, what do I bring to marriage. I’ll start with Donal’s LAMPS:

1) Looks – I’m tall and broad-shouldered, with a decent jawline. I have some muscle mass but I also have a bit of a gut. I’ve been told I’m handsome by a number of older women from church and my family’s social circles; I’ve never really inquired about it from women my own age. I’d guess I’m above average in this regard (but one must always remember the Dunning-Kruger effect).

2) Athleticism – I participate in a few sports, but they are less intense ones, and a martial art. I started lifting recently, but my lifts so far are not all that spectacular. I have a strong handshake and have decent burst capabilities but I’ve always had low endurance; but it’s been improving these last few years. Again, above average.

3) Money – I have a respectable, but not particularly exciting, middle class government job. I’m not yet 30, but I have a salary significantly above my province’s average. My salary is about average, maybe small amount above, for my peer group. I own my own home, have a decent amount of savings, and have a gold-plated government pension. There is a good chance my current career path could lead to six figures by retirement.  Above average here.

4) Power – I am extremely confident, dipping into arrogant at times, but I am not particularly dominant and rarely take the lead due to my introverted nature and my natural apathy to the social hierarchy. I’m working on becoming more dominant though. Probably below average here.

5) Status – I have no idea. I have a respectable but unexciting job. I generally have the respect of my elders; among my peers, I’m thought of as a bit of a right-wing nutball. I’m Probably average to below average here.

Overall, I’m probably average to somewhat above average (hopefully, Dunning-Kruger isn’t rearing its head).

I scored a 4 on Roissy’s Dating Market Value Test, lumping me in the Classic Beta category.

As for the counterpart to my list above:

I am a conservative Christian who believes in traditional marriage Biblical marriage, a virgin (but I do have struggles with pornogrphy), moderately attractive and rather healthy. I am intelligent and emotionally controlled (perhaps too emotionally controlled, according to some). I earn enough to be an excellent provider.I’m also responsible, loyal, disciplined, etc.

I’m probably not very pleasant, but I am fairly easy-going. My major deficits are my social skills are sub-par, I am devoid of charisma, and many women find my views of marriage, society, politics, religion, etc. off-putting.

****

So, am I worthy and capable of achieving the marriage partner I desire?

I’m not sure, but for now I’ll keep trying and improving myself and we’ll see.

Sex – A Response to Scott Alexander

Scott over at Slate Star Codex has created the Anti-Reactionary FAQ, probably the first rational, comprehensive critique of neoreaction. (It also turns out he like Turisas. Huzzah!) Much respect goes to Scott for this; it was a comprehensive and fair work (unlike some pieces of drek), which, over time, (neo)reactionaries will have to respond to. Michael has already done a short, preliminary response, while Jim has critiqued one particular aspect of the FAQ.

My humble blog was mentioned a couple of times. He mentioned my analysis of how the communists won, and quickly analyzes a Republican platform in response. I’ll provide a greater response to this in the future, when I have the time for a decent one.

For this post, I’ll concentrate on his section “5: Are modern ideas about race and gender wrongheaded and dangerous?” where my post, One More Condom in the Landfill, was referenced. I will be working on the gender aspect for this post and will respond by section number. So, my focus will be on 5.1-5.3, as 5.4 gets into stuff on social justice rather than sex itself. I should note Bryce has already made a post concerning this, but his is more theoretical in nature, so I will make my own.

****

5.1

Sexual surveys on lifetime partners are usually not fully reliable, as the number can vary significantly depending on estimation strategies. Women underestimate, men overestimate.

The data on lifetime partners is, as he points out, minimal. 6 for men in 1970 and 2006, 2 for women in 1970 and 4 in 2006. He ends up using French data instead, but the French are not English and have a different culture, so I’m not sure if this would hold.

Instead, let’s look at bastardy rates, a more easily measured proxy for promiscuity. As we can see on this graph of CDC data from the Heritage Foundation, bastardy has been on a steady increase since some time around 1960.

This steady increase has occurred despite the increasing availability of both the pill and abortion. It is obvious that sluttiness and promiscuity has increased.

If we look back to one of Scott’s sources we find this gem:

American illegitimacy ratios in the eighteenth century and after the Civil War seem to have been about one or two percent, well below the five or six percent found in England and Wales at the time(s) (Smith, 1980, p. 372; Wells, 1980, pp. 354-55; Laslett et al., 1980, p. 18) and very far below the 30-plus-percent ratios found in the U.S. in the 1990’s.

Imagine a bastardry rate of only 2%.

It is obvious sluttiness has increased drastically.

****

5.1.1

In this section, Scott ignores the religious argument, and I will too, for one argues with one’s (reasonable) opponents on grounds both can accept.

The decline of marriage would be the major argument, as he acknowledges. He posts this graph but misses the commentary on the graph.

The commentary states:

My own hypothesis is that a higher partner count (up to 5-9 or so partners) is correlated with age and maturity in dating experience. Older women, and women with more dating experience, are more likely to have learned which personal qualities will work best for them in a marriage partner. As a result, such women choose more wisely and tend to experience lower divorce rates. Now, it also happens to be the case that older women have had more time and occasion for pre-marital sex! Specifically, I suspect it’s not the 5-9 pre-marital sex partner count per se that drives the relative drop in the divorce rates, but rather it’s the maturity and experience that women have acquired while they’ve dated more men.

Scott does not take this confounding variable into effect in this piece.

This one chart comes from unpublished data from anonymous source. Sadly, it is the only source I know of where divorce risk is measured by number of premarital partners.

Most data either looks at either whether a person had premarital sex or not, or lifetime partners, which can be confounded by additional sex partners post-divorce.

If we look at data posted by the Social Pathologist elsewhere:

Only four nationally representative studies have examined whether premarital sexual experiences are linked to divorce (Heaton, 2002; Kahn & London, 1991; Laumann et al., 1994; Teachman, 2003). Nevertheless, the core finding—the association between premarital sex and increased risks of divorce—is robust[Ed]. Teachman (2003) found that women who had sex only with their future husbands did not have higher risks of marital dissolution, which suggests that the premarital-sex effect on divorce is related primarily to having sex with multiple partners

Each additional sexual partner increased the odds of infidelity by 7% while increasing years of education seem to decrease the risk by 10%.

The most salient finding from this analysis is that women whose intimate premarital relationships are limited to their husbands—either premarital sex alone or premarital cohabitation—do not experience an increased risk of divorce. It is only women who have more than one intimate premarital relationship who have an elevated risk of marital disruption. This effect is strongest for women who have multiple premarital coresidental unions.

Here’s some data showing adultery risk is higher for promiscuous women.

Here’s another chart showing that delaying sexual activity reduces divorce risk:

Here’s a chart, it counts all partners not just premarital ones:


Even beside divorce, there’s a large array of social and personal ills that come from promiscuity and higher numbers of sexual partners.

There is other information, but it all points to the same conclusion; the more sexual partners and the younger the woman is when first having sex, the more likely the risk of divorce.

By focusing only on that single chart, Scott misses a wide array of data which all tell the same story: a slutty women is a divorce risk and an adultery risk.

Even if we accept that one chart alone, Scott’s argument falls apart.

Being a virgin leads to a greatly lowered chance of divorce, a fact Scott just shrugs and dismisses it, accepting that premarital sex is an inescapable norm among the non-religious .

The whole point is that premarital sex should not be the norm. People (at least those intending to marry) should not be having premarital sex.

A doubling  (or tripling) of the divorce rate is not something we should just accept. It is damaging to the very fabric of society as parents’ divorce is associated with an increase in almost every socially non-desirable trait we measure (from poverty to crime to poor educational achievement).

[Edit: Removed two charts that did not fit with the main point and simply confused things. Moved a few things around, added a bit, and generally improved section 5.1.1. Thanks Ozymandias. 25/10/2013]

****

5.1.2

In a broad perspective the point is correct – empirically, men with more psychopathic traits, less agreeableness, and greater narcissism have more sexual partners.

He agrees on this point, but goes on to equivocate between men and women, then essentially shrug his shoulders (“I have no idea how to solve the object-level problems”).

The reactionary project (at least those that aren’t PUAs) is attempting to do more; we have a model we know works from history and we are trying to reimplement it.

Simply allowing the cads to run amuk and having the good men go without is a recipe for social disaster, I’ve outlined here, here, and here.

*****

5.2

He accepts that divorces have elevated, but doesn’t acknowledge there is a steady, long-term trend of increase since 1860 and divorce rates per married couple still remain almost double what they were at 1960.

Also, he says that progressivism has created a natural memetic “immunity” meme to divorce.

I would suggest instead the decline of divorce is instead linked to the decline in marriage rates; ie. those who are less committed to marriage and more likely to divorce are moving in together rather than marrying then divorcing, driving the divorce rate down.

You can see this easily in the chart Scott provided:

Divorces spike, then as marriage rates decline so to do divorce rates per married couple, but this rate remains almost double what it was in 1960. The decline in divorce rates per population is decreasing, simply because the family is disintegrating by not getting married.

He asks why progressives are less likely to divorce:

College-educated women have about half the divorce rate of the non-college-educated (source). More conservative states have higher divorce rates than more liberal states (source). Atheists have divorce rates below the national average (source). Some of these factors seem to remain even when controlling for wealth and the other usual confounders (source, source).

The education and atheist arguments are mistaking IQ and/or a low time preference for progressivism (atheists tend to be smarter on average than religious folks because most unintelligent people stick with their default philosophy, which, in the US, is religious). Conservative (ie. Southern) states would likely have high divorce rates due to high levels of blacks which have a much higher levels of divorce. (Nevada, likely has the highest divorce rate for what seems like a self-evident reason; Vegas).

Essentially what Scott has shown here but not noticed is a long-argued contention of reactionaries: smart upper-class folks can have progressive values and still function because they are smart upper-class folks, but when applied to the less intelligent lower classes these values are socially destructive, because poor, stupid people do not have the time-preferences to function despite the harm from these values.

****

5.3/5.3.1

Here he essentially argues that the depopulation of the US doesn’t matter because foreigners with foreign values are immigrating here and replacing native Americans. Also, you’re a racist if you think this is a problem.

I will just say that this is exactly the problem that reactionaries have with depopulation; he’s not actually refuting anything, he’s simply confirming our arguments. (Also, every reactionary is used to being called racist, so, that won’t really work).

If Scott can’t see the problem with foreign populations with different cultures and values replacing the current population, I don’t think I’m going to be able to convince him here.

I just hope he doesn’t mind losing his progressive values when non-progressive minorities start voting against progressive laws.

****

5.3.2

He’s probably right here on the effects of low-IQ fertility on intelligence, which is why I don’t (or at least try not to) espouse the idiocracy line. The effects of dysgenics through fertility are something that will not substantially effect us, in and of themselves, for a very long time, too long a timeline to worry about overmuch now.

Instead our focus would be on the mass importation of low-IQ immigrants, which will have a more immediate effect on society.

I would also focus on the effects of single-parent, low-IQ homes with many children on the national treasury through government welfare, education, and health programs. This problem will rear its ugly head far sooner than dysgenics due to fertility rates will.

****

So, there we have my first kick at the FAQ. I’m sure there will be others down the road.

One More Condom in the Landfill

I was reading through some advice columns again and came across this nugget. It’s your typical story, a decent, young guy likes a girl and gets in a relationship. She’s not feeling it, so he piles on the beta-provider behaviours, so she ends it. The guy is such a great bloke that the ex’s mom loves him enough to invite him to a family day at Six Flags as a friend (probably with the ulterior motive that her daughter will date the guy again). The kid asks whether he should go and if he can get her back. The story’s not particularly interesting, but the columnist’s response is.

You are right not to go to Six Flags with your ex and her family. You are right to give her space. And though I wish I could tell you that time and absence will make her heart grow fonder, the truth is it probably won’t. Because the thing with 20-year-old girls is that 80% of the time, they don’t go for the guy who takes a bus six hours so they don’t have to drive home alone and they don’t go for the guy who sends them rice pilaf in the mail or the guy whom their moms are crazy about. They go for the guys who ignore them and cheat on them and break their hearts. Not always, of course, but a lot of the time.

And for a while, it seems like no one is happy because guys like you are pining away for girls like your ex and those kinds of girls are pining away for someone else and everyone is sad and a little lonely and wishing they could just love the people who already love them back. The good news is that eventually the 20-year-old girls turn into 25-, 30-, 35-year-old women and they’re tired of longing for the guys who don’t treat them well. And they long for the kind of guy who will go on a family vacation with them and help them move and bring them their favorite food. And you’re going to be in luck when that happens because you’re going to have your pick of the litter. In about 5 years or so, the kind of girl you like is going to be looking for someone exactly like YOU. And then it’s all just going to be a matter of timing to find the right match.

I know that doesn’t help you much now. It doesn’t do much to soothe your broken heart and make you feel less alone. And the only thing I can say to that is that it WILL get better. As long as you remain the sweet, thoughtful guy you are — the kind of guy moms love and girls want as their “friend,” it won’t be too long before they’re going to want so much more than that. And who knows, maybe you’ll get lucky and you’ll find the rare breed of young woman who has no interest in dumb games and already understands the value of a guy who wants nothing more than to be a great boyfriend.

This has been said a thousand times around these parts, but I’m pointing it out again:

If you are decent guy, most everybody expects you to get shit on romantically and just take the lumps for a decade, then get the used-up, washed-out, emotionally-wrecked left-overs of the assholes’ pillaging.

Wendy just dismisses this, like it’s just the way it is. There’s no condemnation of the attitude, no real thought as to how thoroughly poisonous this is.

Does nobody else think there’s something disastrously wrong with this attitude?

Does nobody realize what a destructive message this sends to young men?

Does anybody even care?

How can we just casually accept that anti-social assholes get the prize, while the decent, honest builders and maintainers of civilization get the dregs, if they’re lucky?

This is how civilization dies, tiny cut, by tiny cut.

****

A commenter illustrates this perfectly:

this reminds me a lot of my own relationship as i left for college. my boyfriend was a wonderful person, and i just… didnt want to do it anymore.
…
above all, dont do what my exboyfriend did: he became a total douche. i dont know what happened, if his heart was broken so much, or if he would have turned that way regardless, but when he went off to college the year after me, he could give a shit about studying and almost failed out his first year after being top in his class, he started dating my good friend and then cheated on her all the time (and continues to, i think? yikes), after never wavering with me ever… i mean, at my joint birthday dinner, he was talking about how this random girl just started having sex with him on the lawn in front of some house at a college party. he was not that person when i knew him. so, just be you. dont get jaded, dont intentionally change just to become something you believe that girls want or whatever- just be you, and you will find someone who genuinely wants to be with you.

He’s the douche?!?

He’s just a normal guy who realized the score, being a good guy gets you rejected and your heart destroyed for no real reason at all.

Being a “douche” gets you you easy sex with strangers at a party; it gets you a loyal woman who sticks with you while you jam your cock into all varieties of foreign vagina.

She’s the one who torched a perfectly good relationship with a wonderful man so she could get her holes plugged by assholes in college. Yet, somehow he’s the douche for wanting to be one of the assholes doing the plugging rather than the loser on the outside watching the girl he loved get plugged?

You get what you incentivize.

If you learn nothing else of economics, of politics, of sociology, of psychology but this one fact, you have more understanding than most of the fools with doctorates and fancy titles. If you never get anything else from this blog, remember that phrase:

You get what you incentivize.

If you incentivize douchebaggery, you get douches. If you incentivize decency, you get decency. If being a decent fellow gets you a broken heart and being a douche gets you blown by young co-eds, any rational man is going to be douche.

So, we have more douches who fail to do do anything useful for civilization because who cares? when being an ass is enough to get you sex. We have fewer decent guys willing to pick up the burden of civilization because all it gets you is heartache and loneliness.

Thus, civilization dies as parasitism becomes the norm.

****

What’s especially, ironically funny is that a good portion of the letters at Wendy’s site are some variation of “how do I get my boyfriend to commit to me?”

These short-sighted women don’t even realize they’re destroying their own chances of commitment by rejecting the commitment-minded types in their youth and chasing the douches.

So, to men here’s the warning: if you’re a decent, commitment-minded man, don’t ever commit to a woman over 30, and be wary of committing to a woman over 25. She had her chance when she was young; she chose some asshole over you (or some other decent fellow like you) to give her youth to, why should you waste yourself on her now that its gone and she’s desperate.

No matter how much your girlfriend begs for commitment, no matter how much your mother pesters you for grandchildren, no matter how much shaming older women heap upon you, no matter how much your pastor demands you man-up, do not marry an older woman. They are simply not worth it.

If you want commitment go for those young women who are decent enough, smart enough, and love civilization enough to find a decent guy and marry young.

Demand more for yourself; demand better for yourself than the leftovers of assholes.

Demand better of the girl you want than someone who will let herself be the leftovers of the assholes.

To women, here’s the warning: if you love civilization, if you want to marry a decent, commitment-minded man, find him while you are young and don’t waste your youth on assholes. If you do, you could be one of those women in her mid-30s scheming over how to get their confirmed bachelor boyfriend to commit.

Demand better for yourselves than drunkenly blowing some cheating jackass on the lawn or being the cheated-on girlfriend.

****

I know this post and this story are not particularly insightful or novel.

It’s just another brick in the wall, just another condom in the landfill.

Just another decent young man whose heart was broken being told to suck it for a decade so he might have a shot at the leftovers.

Just another overlooked story of a once-great civilization dying, tiny, unnoticed piece by tiny, unnoticed piece.

When the last, violent, death throes of whatever is left of our civilization come, I’m going to revel in their suffering, for it will be well-deserved.

Let it burn.

Christian Marriage

Man was created to be fruitful and multiply and subdue the earth. It is not good for Man to be alone, so Woman was created from Man as Man’s helper. Once united in marriage the two become one flesh, indivisible. This union is as the union of Christ and the Church. The sex act, by itself, is enough to create this union. Any sexual relation outside of this union of this is a sin against God and against one’s own body, the temple of the Holy Spirit, and is taken very seriously by God. Marriage is to be held in honour by all and the marriage bed is not to be defiled by sin.

The fall led to Man’s work being unyielding and ultimately fruitless and Woman’s submission being to a fallen Man who can never fully be what she needs. Yet, in Christ and His kingdom, Man can build a home eternal where his treasures never rust or decay. In Christ, Woman can submit to Man as to Christ.

Marriage is not eternal; it is made for this world. The dead and the resurrected do not marry for they cannot die. Marriage does not carry from this world to the next; marriage ends with death, and with death alone.

Some men are meant to be alone; they are made eunuchs by birth, by men, and for the sake of the kingdom. It is good for a man not to have sex and not to marry, for he can devote himself fully to the Lord. But not every man is given the gift to remain chaste, remember, Man was not meant to be alone. It is better to marry than burn with passion; if a man cannot exercise sexual self-control, he should marry. Each man unable to do so should each take his own wife. Both marriage and celibacy are good, neither is a sin, but neither Man nor Woman should primarily be focusing on either marriage or being free from marriage. Young women, particularly widows, are given extra encouragement to marry. One should not be burdened or restrained whatever one’s choice, as the choice of whether to marry is for a person’s own benefit, to best promote order and devotion to the Lord. Those who forbid marriage are deceitful; each man should live as he is called. The unmarried should be devoted to the Lord, while the married will necessarily split their devotion.

Marriage has two biblical purposes: to sate passion to avoid sin and for man to have a helper in his mission (to be fruitful and multiply and subdue the earth). In addition to the commandment to be fruitful, Women will be saved from responsibility for the fall through child-bearing. Any marriage taken should be for one, but optimally both, of these purposes.

To marry a divorced man or woman is to commit adultery. For a man to marry a prostitute or non-virgin or marry more than one woman is less sanctified and may prevent a man from having a position of leadership, but is not necessarily sin.

Christ is the head of man and the husband is the head of his wife for Woman was created for Man.  A wife is to submit in everything to her husband, as the Church to Christ, for the Church is Christ’s bride. No woman should have spiritual authority over a man, yet a wife has authority over her husband’s body, while the husband has the same over hers.  Likewise husbands should love their wives as Christ does the church and as they love their own bodies. A Christian’s submission to Christ and God is to be total and absolute, so should a wife’s submission to her husband. As well, Christ’s love for the church was absolute and self-sacrificing, so should a husband’s love for his wife. Neither man nor women are independent.

To divorce and remarry is sin. A woman is bound to her husband until he dies and a husband should not  divorce his wife, for it is to commit violence. There are only two acceptable justifications for divorce and remarriage: adultery and abandonment by a unbelieving spouse. Separation without remarriage and with attempts to reconcile is acceptable, but not recommended.

****

With all the discussion of marriage around these parts I decided to create a summary for myself of what I could find in the Bible on the issue.

Marriage is both a less important and more important than much of modern Christianity makes of it. It is less important In that being married is not necessary to the faith, as some seem to advocate.

But it’s more in that if you do become married, it is a major dedication for both men and women. Men are to be as Christ, women are to fully submit; there are no outs and there is Biblically no such thing as asking too much in a marriage, for either men or women. Also, Simon is right, Woman was created for Man, and a married woman does not submit to God and is not accountable to God, but to her husband.

The common manosphere meme of divorcing if your wife doesn’t provide sex does not seem to have any support, unless adultery is defined far more broadly than would seem prudent. You have to love her anyway.

So, before you marry, count your costs and be prepared to carry your cross. Biblically, it is a huge, irreversible step with very limited escape clauses.

Marketing Marriage

f you follow Dalrock you’ve seen is recent posts on this little advertisement on Mark Driscoll’s new man-up and marry series:

Dalrock has already pointed out the moral problems with the ad, I’m going to focus the advertisement aspects. Dalrock argues that the ad is aimed at churchian feminist woman, and I agree because otherwise, the proponents of marriage suck at advertising.

Instead of making marriage look like something men would want to pursue and would be willing to sacrifice for, they make it look horrible.

In the little skit in the middle, the man is the thoroughly henpecked, seemingly unhappy husband of a fat, dumpy, controlling wife. He’s so thoroughly beaten down that he’s afraid to have a little masculine bonding time with his son, with the video implying that there’s something wrong with him wanting to do so.

Watching this, my main thought was”is this really how they want to advertise marriage to men?”

I’m lean more towards the more pro-marriage part of the manosphere, but this would drive me away from marriage more than any other possible effect it could have. What kind of man would desire to become that husband?

What young man could possibly watch that and say, “yeah, I want to man-up and marry so I too can be a the ball-less husband of an ugly, dominating shrew who’s afraid to play pool with his son.”

C’mon guys. If you want men to man-up and marry how about making marriage look good? How about making marriage seem like a rewarding experience?

In fact, I’ll give you guys an awesome marketing campaign. A marketing idea this good would generally cost thousands of dollars from a slick New York agency, but I’ll give it to you for free because I love western civilization and we need working marriages to keep the remnant chugging.

Here’s my ad campaign for a man-up series:

It starts with an average-looking man in a suit, someone most guys could identify with, coming home from a day at the office. He looks kind of worn-out and stressed. He parks his car, sighs a bit, then walks up to his house. He opens the door.

The first thing seen when the door opens is his non-offensively pretty wife dressed femininely. She looks up from working in the kitchen and sees he’s stressed, so she comes up to him with a smile on her face and gives him a hug and quick kiss on the lips. She takes his bag and says, “Dinner is almost ready, why don’t you sit down?” He gets into his recliner and leans back, his stress visibly fading away. She joyfully brings him a small plate of freshly made cookies and some milk. He thanks her with an expression of mingled gratitude and relief and takes the cookie. While he snacks she says, “How about later…” and bends over and whispers something in his ear while brushing her hand up his leg. The man responds with a large, expectant smile.

Cut to her calling out that dinner is ready. The man goes to the table to find a delicious home-cooked meal of steak and potatoes, his cute, happy children run up to the table. His wife wipes the dirt smudges off of one of the rascals as they sit down. The man looks on proudly as he sits at the head of the table. His wife sits to his right. She looks at him with an expectant smile, her hand on his arm, and he proudly says grace for the family.

During the prayer fade to black and end with the tagline: Worth being a man for.

Boom. I’d want buy that product. I don’t know a man who wouldn’t.

I’d happily man-up to come home to that; I’d happily work 70 hour weeks to come home to that; I would happily sacrifice quite a bit to come home to that. So, would most men. Most men would willingly sacrifice their left nut for that.

So, some marketing advice to Mr. Driscoll. If you want men to man-up and marry, make marriage seem like something rewarding for men.

McDonald’s doesn’t sell cheeseburgers by having a fat, ugly man eat them in his dingy basement while playing WoW and sobbing to himself. They sell cheeseburgers by showing groups of realistically attractive people having fun together while eating cheeseburgers.

Likewise, you don’t make men desire to man-up and marry by showing marriage as a demasculating process of having your pride, virility, and freedom slowly drained from you by an ugly, domineering shrew. You make men want to get married by showing marriage as a refuge from the cares of the world occupied by a pretty, loving, nurturing woman.

Then again, my campaign might be false advertising for most men. Driscoll might get sued.

Addressing Your N-Count

There was a strong reaction to a link I posted concerning some red pill women advising other women to lie about their N-count.The Ringmistress stated in the comments:

What I keep running up against is that while I can do a pretty good job arguing for remaining a virgin until marriage, I have no clue what a person who isn’t should say if they repent of their past and want to make a go at a chaste courtship.

So, as a young Christian man looking to find a wife, I’ll answer.

For any woman considering lying about how many men she slept with, the answer is always don’t (at least if you plan to have the relationship be long-term; if it’s a simple fling, it probably doesn’t matter).

I can not stress how important it is for women not to lie, dissemble, avoid answering, or otherwise conceal the truth about how many men they slept with prior to a partner they hope to be in a long-term relationship or marriage with.

A relationship built on a lie is not healthy. The truth will eventually come out (one of your friends will eventually accidentally mention Steve) and when it does, the consequences for lying will be what the consequences for lying usually are.

As for avoidant answers: any man with any self-respect and options who hears “it’s in the past”, “it’s none of your business”, “it doesn’t matter, I’m with you now”, etc. will consign you to the short-term, pump n’ dump, or just plain dump categories.

So, the question then becomes how should a woman inform a man she’s considering a long-term relationship with that she’s slept with many other men?

First, realize that he likes you. If he’s dating you and a long-term relationship is a realistic possibility, he is very favourably disposed towards you (or exceedingly desperate, but we’ll ignore that). A man in love with a women will look on anything she tells him in the best possible light; the haze of infatuation can cover many more sins than you possibly realize. If you address the issue properly, odds are it will cause some troubles (as sins do) but won’t end the relationship. If it would end the relationship, it is far better for it to occur now than during the engagement or after five years of marriage.

Don’t be afraid of telling him.

Second, don’t bring it up first. There’s no need to. If he asks, tell him, but some men honestly don’t care. If he doesn’t bring it up, there’s no need for you to go out of your way to volunteer the information apropos of nothing. If he doesn’t bring it up, and only if he doesn’t bring it up, he might simply prefer not to know or not care. If he doesn’t, don’t worry about it. If he does ask or even mention its, he definitely cares, so definitely tell him.

Third, be honest. Honesty is by far the most important thing. Do not lie, do not be evasive, don’t “be cute”, don’t underestimate, don’t exclude those times that ‘don’t count’, don’t conceal anything, etc. Tell the full and honest truth. Also, yes, oral sex and anal sex do count, as does sex that ‘didn’t mean anything’, one night stands, sex in foreign countries, and ‘just that one time in high school’. If it comes to mind, it counts.

Fourth, the exact number probably doesn’t matter, but do not lie about the number or give a false impression. Whether it was 6 or 8 likely won’t matter, whether if was 14 or 18 won’t matter. Unless he asks for a specific number, once it’s over five or so, the specific number if not really of importance, the range is. If it’s under five, just tell him the straight number. ‘Many’ is a legitimate answer for anything over 5 (‘a few’ is not; a few means less than five), but will likely prompt calls for clarification. ‘High single digits’ or the exact number works for anything under 10.  ‘About a dozen’ is a legitimate answer for anything from 10-15. ‘About 20’ will work for any number from 15-23. ‘A few dozen’ will work for anything over 24, but under 50. ‘Over 50’ or ‘over 100’ (really?) is sufficient for anything beyond that. You do not have to be specific, unless he asks for specifics, but you have to be truthful. If you would honestly use the descriptor in everyday life for the accurate measurement of the quantity of mundane things, then it’s fine to use as a descriptor here.

Fifth, realize exactly how important this issue is. You may try to delude yourself that it doesn’t matter, that it’s a small thing, etc. Many crooked souls and diseased minds will tell you the same. Do not listen to them. It matters.

If you’re a Christian, reading Deuteronomy 22 should be more than enough information on how important God views this issue as. Fornication is a sin against God, against yourself, and against your future spouse. Do not belittle exactly how sinful it is. All sin has worldly consequences; fornication is not an exception. There will be earthly consequences for violating God’s law.

If you are a non-Christian, know that the single biggest risk factor a woman has for divorce is the number of sexual partners she had prior to marriage. Having one premarital partner doubles the risk of divorce, two partners triples it. Sex has immensely strong neuro-chemical effects that bond you with sexual partners; the more you have bonded with, the less bonding will occur with further partners.

Whatever hedonists and libertines may tell you, having numerous sexual partners seriously hurts people’s abilities to bond with intimate partners. Your numbers prior to your current partner do matter. Do not take it less seriously than it deserves.

The amount of men you’ve had sex with does matter to your partner, it is his business, and he’s not being a judgmental asshole by asking. (The same goes for vice versa; men, if your long-term girl asks, answer truthfully). Trying to shame him into not inquiring as a short-sighted thing to do.

Sixth, be genuinely repentant. This matters a lot. Once you realize the gravity of your previous sinful actions, repentance should be your desire. You should be genuinely repentant and sorrowful that you have harmed your marriage through your actions prior to marriage and it should show through in both word and deed. There should be no pride, no excuses, no indignation that he would ask, no accusations of judgmentalism, no “born-again virgin” nonsense, etc. Simply ask his forgiveness. You should display be nothing but authentic remorse and humility for misguided actions. If you don’t feel genuine remorse and aren’t truly repentant, than you don’t understand the gravity of your prior actions. Read your Bible, particularly those sections on sexual sin, more and/or truly try to understand the statistics linked above until you do; you are not ready for marriage until you truly understand this.

Seventh, do not bring up prior partners with him outside of this specific discussion. Never compare him in bed to anyone else. Never talk wistfully about past partners. Never idly wonder out-loud about past partners. Don’t have any keepsakes. Etcetera, etcetera. It’s simple, never bring up anything that has to do with previous sex partners.

(The widow is an obvious exception. It is fine to keep some momentos of a dead spouse and to occasionally mention him, but still avoid comparisons. The other exception is in a serious, humble talk with other women, to show them the error of licentious living.)

Eighth, have no expectations or demands. You do not ‘deserve’ to have him marry you (and he does not ‘deserve’ you). Just because he forgives you, because God’s forgives you, does not mean that there are no consequences. He is completely justified in breaking it off for your past actions. Do not guilt him for his reaction, do not demand he remain yours, do not pressure him, do not question his manhood, etc. Simply be humble, ask his forgiveness, await his answer, and accept his decision.

That’s it. In a nutshell, be honest, be repentant, be discreet, and recognize your actions for what they truly are.

Realize that there will be earthly consequences. He might break-up with you, you will hurt him, you will be hurt yourself, there may be long-term distrust or other long-term issues. The earthly consequences of sin do not disappear simply because you are forgiven by God, or even if you are forgiven by man.

Of course, all this can be avoided by being chaste, that’s by far the better option if you ever want to marry.

Repost: An Economic Analysis of Divorce

I don’t have time this week, so this is a repost of an early post of mine that didn’t get much play. I did a little editing. It’s part of the Sexonomics series and is on divorce, so it fits what has been discussed here recently.

The Cost of the Risk of Material Loss in Divorce

Marriage is often discouraged in the Manopshere, and a single male, choosing whether I want to marry or stay an eternal bachelor is something important. Now, there’re a lot of reasons provided for why to avoid marriage, but the risk and consequences of divorce are easily the most convincing argument. So, I’m going to create a series on the economics of marriage.

This first post will be the economic cost of the risk of divorce for the average bachelor considering marriage.

At another time, I will attempt an economic analysis of the immaterial losses of divorce and the benefits of marriage. Then I will combine it all together in a cost benefit analysis.

What are the odds of divorce?

The “50% of marriages end in divorce” statistic is thrown out a lot, but this number includes those with multiple marriages and divorces, which skews the number higher than for people considering their first marriage, among other problems.

So, according to the US Census Bureau, for men, only about 60% of men reach their 25th anniversary for their first marriage (p. 11), which means about 40% of men did not.

Now, the data is by age cohort, and those married earlier had a greater chance of reaching any particular marriage anniversary milestone. For example, those married in 1975-79 had a 54.4% chance of reaching 25th anniversary, while those in the married in 1960-65 had a 66.9% of reaching this milestone. But, those married in 1975-79 had the worst chances of attaining any particular marriage milestone; they were peak divorce you might say. Since then, younger marriage cohorts have been more likely to reach milestones.

Meanwhile, in Canada, Statistics Canada has it that about 40% of first marriages will end in divorce.

So, we will estimate there is a 40% chance that a male entering their first marriage will divorce.

(Remember, the chances of marriage ending in divorce can vary depending on a wide range of variables, which I am not going to calculate at this time, but I might go into them in-depth in the future.)

How much does the divorce process cost?

The cost of the actual divorce process varies considerably, depending on a wide range of variables. A simple divorce will run about $1000, while a contested divorce can run from about $8,000-$133,000.

According to this, the median cost for mediation is $5,000, while the average contested divorce costs about $20,000.

So, we’ll say your divorce process will be about $20,000.

(Here’s a calculator if you’d like to play around).

What about Spousal/Child Support?

Your chances of paying spousal support depend on the amount of child support already paid and your income. There’s a ton of laws on this, so I’ll just use this calculator to calculate this.

The average Canadian household income is: $74,700
Two-earners without children: $79,700
Two-earners with children: $85,600
One-earner without children: $58,100
One-earner with children: $60,900

The average length of marriage is 14.5 years, with the average age of divorce for men being 44 and for women, 41.

So, putting the average divorce and income in the calculator we can get the average cost of support (both child and spousal) payments come divorce (in Ontario), assuming children live with spouse:

Two-earners without children (Equal): $0
Two-earner without children (Primary – 2/3): $327/month for 7-14 years (10.5)
Two-earners with children (Equal): $0 + $619/month child support
Two-earners with children (2 – Primary – 2/3): No spousal support, $758/month
One-earner without children: $1,186/month for 7-14 years (10.5)
One-earner with children: $838/month for 7-14 years (10.5) + $905/month child support (10.5)

For your own income and planned family situation input the number in the calculator.

So, the average male will have to pay about $149,436 in support if sole provider, $73,458 in support if primary provider, and $0 in support if equal provider. (The cost of child support is there for illustrative purposes, but that would be the cost of having a child, not marriage and divorce and is not calculated here.)

One interesting thing to notice: if you’re the sole breadwinner, your likely monthly payments can actually decrease as mandated child support payments replace spousal support payments. I would not bank too much on this, as it’s likely just a quirk in Canadian law or the calculator and may not apply broadly.

US law does not seem radically different overall from Canadian law.

What about a Settlement?

In Canada, “the spouse with the higher net family property is required by law to pay his” spouse “half of the difference between the two spouses’ net family properties.” Net family properties being current assets minus both liabilities and assets at marriage.

In the US, there are two systems, community property and equitable distribution, depending on the state with variations in how they are distributed. The former divides assets gained during the marriage equally, but leaves property attained before marriage alone. Equitable distribution distributes property equitably (not necessarily equally).

In general, we can say that the property you acquired during the marriage will be split more or less in half. If the wife was the primary housekeeper, while the husband was the primary breadwinner, then the difference will be the wife’s payments for continued support of the house. If they both shared provider status roughly equally, then an equal distribution of marital resources should occur.

There does not seem to be much economic cost to the average husband at the point of settlement in Canada, unless he sunk significant sums into the marital home prior to marriage and the wife did not match these sums after entering the marriage.

In the US, one could economically lose if the equitable distribution was not necessarily equal, or by quirks of local law, but for the average divorce, these would not present much of a cost. There might be extreme cases in both systems where quirks or abuses of the law could lead to unequal distribution either way, but

Other Cost Considerations

This is not to say that this will not increase economic hardship. Having to pay the expenses for two dwellings will, by itself, greatly increase economic hardship on both ex-spouses. For the ex-husband specifically though, the extra cost of two dwellings would be accounted for in the spousal/child support payments taken from his income.

It is possible a divorce could affect a male’s job performance, and thus his earnings, creating additional economic cost, but this would be outside my ability to remotely calculate.

The Total Material Cost of Divorce Risk for the Man Considering Marriage

Our formula:
Costs of Divorce Risk = Risk of Divorce * (Cost of divorce process + cost of support)

Average Male Single Earner
40%*(20,000 + 149,436 ) = $67774.40

Average Male Primary Provider
40%*(20,000 + 73,458) = $37383.2

Equal Male and Female Provision
40%*(20,000 ) = $8,000

For the average male who’s considering marriage and planning to be the sole breadwinner of the family, the material cost of the risk of divorce would be just over a full year’s worth of pay. For the average male who plans to be the primary but not sole breadwinner, it would be somewhat less than a full year’s pay. For the average male who plans a marriage where both partners earn equally, it would be a few months’ worth of pay.

So, if you plan on marrying and being the sole or primary breadwinner, you would have to ask yourself if you would pay roughly a year’s salary to be married.

* This analysis will be done for Canada. Canada’s divorce laws are generally nationally coherent, with federal laws and. The US’ divorce laws differ widely between states, so I can’t really calculate for the US. On the other hand, for the majority of men, the analysis shouldn’t vary too significantly; this should be roughly applicable to most and sufficient for analytical purposes. Check your own jurisdiction’s laws for personal information.

Sexonomics: Odds of Divorce

I was accused of understating the risk of divorce, to which I gave an off-the-cuff calculation that by controlling a few factors in your spousal selection you could probably lower the statistical probability of divorce to less than 10%, but I said I’d look into it more, to give a more accurate response. So, here I’m going to find a bunch of statistics concerning factors of divorce, so you can learn how to lessen your odds of divorce.

Here’s the characteristics of a woman and the odds of her ending up divorced:

Age of first sexual experience (p.10):

>18: ~32-38%
17-18: 47%
15-16: 59%
13-14: 72%
<12: 82%

Number of prior sexual partners (p.18):

0: 20%
1: 46%
2-4: 56-60%
5-15: ~70%
16+: ~80%

Age of First Marriage:

<18: 48%
18-19: 40%
20-24: 29%
25+: 24%

Time of first birth (p. 16):

Before marriage: 67%
0-7 months after: 59%
8 months after: 32%

Education (IQ correlate) (p. 16):

Bachelor’s: 22%
Some College: 51%
High School: 59%
< High School: 61%

Race/Ethnicity (p. 16):

Asian: 31%
White: 46%
Hispanic: 47%
Black: 63%

Parents (p. 16):

Two parents: 42%
Non-intact family: 62%

Religion Raised (p. 16):

Catholic: 47%
Protestant: 50%
Other: 35%
None: 57%

Religion (GSS):

All Christians:41%

Active Evangelicals: 34%
Non-active Evangelicals: 54%

Active Mainline Protestants: 32%
Non-active Mainline Protestants:42%

Active Catholics: 23%
Non-active Catholics: 41%

All non-Christians:48%
No religious beliefs: 51%

All non-Christian religions:42%
Non-active other religions: 48%
Active other religions: 38%
Jewish: 39%

Cohabitation (p. 18):

Did not cohabitate: 43%
Cohabitated with husband before marriage: ~55%

Effects of Wife’s share of total income on divorce risk (p. 9):

0-20%: 1x
20-40%: 1.39x
40-60%: 1.62x
60-80%: 2.12x
80-100%: 2.19x

Income Quartile (p. 10):

Lowest: 1x
2nd: 0.87x
3rd: 0.86x
Highest: 0.92x

Looking at all this, it’s easy to see the two best determinates of her divorcing you are her education and whether she has had sex prior to marriage.

A bachelor’s degree is a 40-point decrease in the odds of divorce over a high school graduate.

A women having sex with one other partner is an instant 25-point increase in the odds of divorce, with another 10-point drop for a second partner, and another for a fifth. Related to this, her having sex before age 18 is another major risk factor. Marrying her before she’s 20 is also a risk factor, but not as great a one as her having had sex with someone else; if the choice is between a virgin under 20 and older non-virgin, the young virgin is less risky. Do not marry a slut.

Religion is important, but the most important part is less what religion, but rather how devout she is. An actively religious couple is generally a 20-point decrease in the chance of divorce than a non-active couple.

Marrying an Asian is a 15-point decrease in the odds of divorce. Marrying a black was the opposite.

If she had an intact family, that’s a 20-point decrease in the risk of divorce.

If you marry a virgin bride who’s over the age of 20, has an intact family, a college degree, and is a devout Christian, the chances of divorce are very low. If she’s also Asian, they’re even lower.

Also, make sure you earn a lot more than her, don’t be poor, don’t cohabitate before marriage, and don’t knock her up until marriage.

I can’t calculate the exact numbers by calculating all these odds together because a lot of these positive qualities overlap, but I consider myself justified in estimating, that the type of women I plan on marrying would have a statistical likelihood of divorcing me around 10%.

A 10% chance of divorce, even a 20% chance, while still higher than I’d like, is a risk I am willing to take.

****

Note: most of these probabilities are for not being divorced at the 20-year mark, some for the 10-year mark. So, some of the numbers may be higher over a lifetime, but I would estimate not overly much; likely not more than 5 points or so.

****

Here’s a divorce probability calculator to look at if you’re interested. According to the calculator, here’s the score on the test the kind of woman I want to marry, -56, and for myself, -76. Both had the same explanation:

Very Low Probability
Congratulations. You’re amongst a demographic of people that have the highest long term marriage success rate. What that means is that based on the factors that you indicated, and if there are no major changes in your lifestyle and that of your spouse, the chances that you will ever get divorced are far less than average. Does that mean you don’t need Divorce Insurance because you’ll NEVER, EVER get divorced? No, it simply means that based on the 20 factors we know have a significant impact on the outcome of marriage, you scored very well. However, people change over time and life has a way of creating unexpected turns in your path so insurance against the unexpected is always a wise choice if it’s in your budget. In any event, we wish you the best of luck!

That seems to be an acceptable risk.

Also, you can get divorce insurance? Might be something to look into for those considering marriage, but worried about divorce.

Gay Unions are Better

Here’s an article from Slate, Gay Couples Do It Better, in which feminist Hanna Rosen writes:

Without those assumptions, gay couples tend to make more logical choices. The one who is the better cook more often makes dinner, without worrying that this might violate some principles of either feminism or masculinity. The one who earns more money works more, etc. In economics this is called “specialization,” and it tends to make households —much like industries—run more efficiently. One great surprise: Gay dads, studies show, are slightly more likely to have a full time stay at home parent than straight couples. Why? Because much as we hate to hear it, that arrangement is probably more efficient and makes everyone less stressed. But the important lesson here is, the one who stays at home doesn’t need to be the mom.

We now know that feminists accept that traditional family roles are more logical and efficient as long as its gays doing it, not women in heterosexual relations.

It’s easy to see from this that feminism has never been about logic, reason, or the best for civilization or children. It has always been about the selfish desires of selfish women.

****

The blog post linked back to this Atlantic article. Because the discussion of this article is about how much better gay unions are than marriage, rather than a discussion of marriage between oppressed women and oppressive men, the article is willing to actually be more forthrite on ‘controversial’ topics than is typical for liberal rags. So there are a few delightful little tidbits if you ignore the propoganda.

The National Center for Family and Marriage Research has produced a startling analysis of data from the Census Bureau and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showing that women’s median age when they have their first child is lower than their median age at first marriage. In other words, having children before you marry has become normal. College graduates enjoy relatively stable unions, but for every other group, marriage is collapsing. Among “middle American” women (those with a high-school degree or some college), an astonishing 58 percent of first-time mothers are unmarried.

That’s kind of sad, don’t you think?

For instance: we know that heterosexual wives are more likely than husbands to initiate divorce. Social scientists have struggled to explain the discrepancy, variously attributing it to the sexual revolution; to women’s financial independence; to men’s failure to keep modern wives happy. Intriguingly, in Norway and Sweden, where registered partnerships for same-sex couples have been in place for about two decades (full-fledged marriage was introduced several years ago), research has found that lesbians are twice as likely as gay men to split up. If women become dissatisfied even when married to other women, maybe the problem with marriage isn’t men. Maybe women are too particular. Maybe even women don’t know what women want. These are the kinds of things that we will be able to tease out.

This is a good fact to pull out next time casual divorce is blamed on men.

On the contrary: the institution is far more flexible and forgiving than it used to be. In the wake of women’s large-scale entry into the workplace, men are less likely than they once were to be saddled with being a family’s sole breadwinner, and can carve out a life that includes the close companionship of their children. Meanwhile, women are less likely to be saddled with the sole responsibility for child care and housework, and can envision a life beyond the stove top and laundry basket.

Wow. ‘Not all is broken in marriage, it simply doesn’t mean anything anymore.’ I’ve written on this before. Simply put, marriage is about creating a division of labour for raising children and sexually monogamy. By destroying the division of labour and destroying per-marriage chastity, marriage itself has been rendered moot.

And yet for many couples, as Bianchi, the UCLA sociologist, has pointed out, the modern ideal of egalitarianism has proved “quite difficult to realize.” Though men are carrying more of a domestic workload than in the past, women still bear the brunt of the second shift. Among couples with children, when both spouses work full-time, women do 32 hours a week of housework, child care, shopping, and other family-related services, compared with the 21 hours men put in. Men do more paid work—45 hours, compared with 39 for women—but still have more free time: 31 hours, compared with 25 for women.

The good ol’ second shift. I’ve already written about the housework debate here and we already know the second shift is a myth based on poor methodology. So, I won’t go farther into that. This is just a reminder it’s all BS.

It’s not that people don’t want to marry. Most never-married Americans say they still aspire to marriage, but many of them see it as something grand and out of reach. Getting married is no longer something you do when you are young and foolish and starting out; prosperity is not something spouses build together. Rather, marriage has become a “marker of prestige,” as the sociologist Andrew Cherlin puts it—a capstone of a successful life, rather than its cornerstone. But while many couples have concluded that they are not ready for marriage, they have things backwards. It’s not that they aren’t ready for marriage; it’s that marriage isn’t ready for the realities of 21st-century life. Particularly for less affluent, less educated Americans, changing economic and gender realities have dismantled the old institution, without constructing any sort of replacement.

This here is one of the main problems with marriage. This pernicious attitude of marriage is destroying marriage and society with it.

Marriage works best when you build a life together. It is not a capstone to your life, it is a foundation. Marriage is stability, not decoration or status.

If you serious about having children at some point in your life, you are ready for marriage now. There is no “right” time, there is no reason to wait. It doesn’t matter if you’re 18 or 35; if children are something you plan for your future, be serious about marriage now, find a suitable spouse now, and get married, now.

It is a shame the church has bought into the notion that young people should build their lives, then get married. Getting married should be the beginning of a shared building and this attitude should return to the church.

What Schwartz and Blumstein found is that gay and lesbian couples were fairer in their dealings with one another than straight couples, both in intent and in practice. The lesbians in the study were almost painfully egalitarian—in some cases putting money in jars and splitting everything down to the penny in a way, Schwartz says, that “would have driven me crazy.” Many unmarried heterosexual cohabitators were also careful about divvying things up, but lesbian couples seemed to take the practice to extremes: “It was almost like ‘my kitty, your litter.’?” Gay men, like lesbians, were more likely than straight couples to share cooking and chores. Many had been in heterosexual marriages, and when asked whether they had helped their wives with the housework in those prior unions, they usually said they had not. “You can imagine,” Schwartz says, “how irritating I found this.”

Remember, earlier about how lesbian unions end much more frequently. Also, you know how cohabitationg couples break-up far more often than married couples. There’s a reason.

There were still some inequities: in all couples, the person with the higher income had more authority and decision-making power. This was least true for lesbians; truer for heterosexuals; and most true for gay men. Somehow, putting two men together seemed to intensify the sense that “money talks,” as Schwartz and Blumstein put it. They could not hope to determine whether this tendency was innate or social—were men naturally inclined to equate resources with power, or had our culture ingrained that idea in them?—but one way or another, the finding suggested that money was a way men competed with other men, and not just a way for husbands to compete with their wives. Among lesbians, the contested terrain lay elsewhere: for instance, interacting more with the children could be, Schwartz says, a “power move.”

You mean earning money is a form of competition for men? Am I ever surprised.

This is why having a female breadwinner is death on a marriage. The female working makes the money issue a competition for the man. If the man is not winning the competition (especially to his wife), he will not feel good about himself and the wife will not respect him.

Lesbians also tended to discuss things endlessly, achieving a degree of closeness unmatched by the other types of couples. Schwartz wondered whether this might account for another finding: over time, sex in lesbian relationships dwindled—a state of affairs she has described as “lesbian bed death.” (The coinage ended up on Schwartz’s Wikipedia page, to her exasperation: “There are other things that I wish I were famous around.”) She posits that lesbians may have had so much intimacy already that they didn’t need sex to get it; by contrast, heterosexual women, whose spouses were less likely to be chatty, found that “sex is a highway to intimacy.” As for men, she eventually concluded that whether they were straight or gay, they approached sex as they might a sandwich: good, bad, or mediocre, they were likely to grab it.

You mean men and women have different views of intimacy? Am I ever shocked.

When the opposite-sex couples did parent simultaneously, they were more likely to undermine each other by talking at cross-purposes or suggesting different toys. The lesbian mothers tended to be egalitarian and warm in their dealings with one another, and showed greater pleasure in parenting than the other groups did. Same-sex dads were also more egalitarian in their division of labor than straight couples, though not as warm or interactive as lesbian moms. (Patterson says she and her colleagues may need to refine their analysis to take into account male ways of expressing warmth.)

Men and women are different in their relation to children? Shocking.

Even as they are more egalitarian in their parenting styles, same-sex parents resemble their heterosexual counterparts in one somewhat old-fashioned way: a surprising number establish a division of labor whereby one spouse becomes the primary earner and the other stays home. Lee Badgett, an economist at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, told me that, “in terms of economics,” same-sex couples with children resemble heterosexual couples with children much more than they resemble childless same-sex couples. You might say that gay parents are simultaneously departing from traditional family structures and leading the way back toward them.

In his seminal book A Treatise on the Family, published in 1981, the Nobel Prize–winning economist Gary Becker argued that “specialization,” whereby one parent stays home and the other does the earning, is the most efficient way of running a household, because the at-home spouse enables the at-work spouse to earn more. Feminists, who had been fighting for domestic parity, not specialization, deplored this theory, rightly fearing that it could be harnessed to keep women at home. Now the example of gay and lesbian parents might give us all permission to relax a little: maybe sometimes it really is easier when one parent works and the other is the supplementary or nonearning partner, either because this is the natural order of things or because the American workplace is so greedy and unforgiving that something or somebody has to give. As Martha Ertman, a University of Maryland law professor, put it to me, many families just function better when the same person is consistently “in charge of making vaccinations happen, making sure the model of the World War II monument gets done, getting the Christmas tree home or the challah bought by 6 o’clock on Friday.” The good news is that the decision about which parent plays this role need not have anything to do with gender.

More on how the traditional division of labour is awesome, as long as it is not applied traditionally.

More surprising still, guess who is most likely to specialize. Gay dads. Using the most recent Census Bureau data, Gary Gates found that 32 percent of married heterosexual couples with children have only one parent in the labor force, compared with 33 percent of gay-male couples with children. (Lesbians also specialize, but not at such high rates, perhaps because they are so devoted to equality, or perhaps because their earnings are lower—women’s median wage is 81 percent that of men—and not working is an unaffordable luxury.) While the percentage point dividing gay men from straight couples is not statistically significant, it’s intriguing that gay dads are as likely as straight women to be stay-at-home parents.

Gay men’s decisions about breadwinning can nonetheless be fraught, as many associate employment with power. A study published in the Journal of GLBT Family Studies in 2005 by Stephanie Jill Schacher and two colleagues found that when gay men do specialize, they don’t have an easy time deciding who will do what: some stay-at-home dads perceived that their choice carried with it a loss in prestige and stature. As a result, gay men tended to fight not over who got to stay home, but over who didn’t have to. “It’s probably the biggest problem in our relationship,” said one man interviewed for that study. Perhaps what Betty Friedan called “the problem that has no name” is inherent in child-rearing, and will always be with us.

Not intriguing at all. Men are more logically rational and more given to thinking in cold economic terms, such as specialization.

RULE 3: Don’t want a divorce? Don’t marry a woman.

Hehe. Self-explanatory that.

Which perhaps boils down to something like this: straight women see themselves as being less powerful than men, and this breeds hostility.

The curse of Eve.

Anyway, the piece goes on about how awesome gay unions are and how horrible traditional marriage is, but this was the interesting stuff.