A rare paradigm of marriage that cherishes the splendor of God.
Readership: Christians
Theme: A Mini-Series on Church Policy and Sacramental Marriage
Length: 1,100 words
Reading Time: 5.5 minutes
Conflict Precedes Progress
Derek L. Ramsey is a well-respected husband, father, blogger, computer whiz, and philosopher who made his debut in the Classic Christian Manosphere many years ago. Over the past couple years, he has written much on the topics of patriarchy, headship, authority, and submission. For the most part, his essays are long, theologically complex, and difficult to wade through. It requires some dedication, prayer, and moderate intelligence to fully understand all that he has written.
Our exchange is usually amiable and sometimes jovial, but at times, real contention has erupted. He has made reference to the Σ Frame blog in many of his essays, usually in the form of a criticism or a rebuttal. One recent skirmish occurred under Thedeti’s post, An open letter to Christian Wives (2023/5/27), in which Derek was offended by deti’s claim that men should have authority over their wives, even when asking them to sin.* (For those readers who are intensely interested in the scuttlebutt, Derek’s response begins here.)
* RPA pointed out that this is basically what Abraham did with his wife Sarah in the situation with Pharaoh.
An Epiphany as an Answered Prayer
At first, I had the notion that Derek was using the “Wives should not submit to sin” argument to undermine deti’s “Wives, submit to your husbands in all things” argument and thereby affirm an egalitarian concept of marriage — which is exactly the same tactic that feminized churchians take when interpreting wifely submission.
In response to this heated disagreement, I started to pray about this. After praying about this for a time, I came to understand Derek’s viewpoint and I realized I was wrong in my assessment of his argument. I no longer think he is rooting for egalitarian marriage as I thought before. In the next section, I will describe what I envisioned and then it should be obvious to readers why I changed my opinion.
The Living Entity of Marital Harmony
Derek’s conceptual paradigm of marriage originates from his own experience in marriage and is completely different from the Headship Authority dynamics that we often discuss on Σ Frame. Instead of him and his wife interacting as distinct individuals, as most might think of a marital relationship, he is conscious of his marital relationship as being a Living Entity* in and of itself, which is not the same thing. I could only believe that this Living Entity is God’s presence dwelling in his marriage. This is why he’s always stressing “unity”** in marriage. What he means by “unity” is that he needs to always nurture and protect, not only his wife (and children), but also that Living Entity between the two of them. Consequently, his entire family experiences that Living Entity as the splendor of God in their marriage and family life. This ambience is also what creates Godly children.
* The presence of a Living Entity in a marriage is an unstated assumption that appears in many of Derek’s comments, such as here, there, and elsewhere. He does ascribe this to God, but this identification is lost on readers who have no such personal knowledge of God’s presence in a marriage and therefore cannot understand nor relate. Readers who care to peruse his other posts and comments with this assumption in mind will see the same pattern.
** Unity is a recurring theme that appears abundantly in Derek’s writings. This word is used in nearly every single one of his posts. We would be daft to miss it.
DeepStrength’s Description of the Peaceful Unity Marriage Model
Another way to comprehend the Peaceful Unity Marriage Model is by regarding the marital relationship as DeepStrength outlined in Structures of Authority Summarized (2014/5/16). Here, DS describes how the husband’s perspective is to view his wife as a co-heir, companion, and friend, while the wife’s perspective is to respect and submit to her husband as her authoritative Head.
Derek’s view of marriage lines up with DS’s model to a tee.
Based on how Derek describes this from his own personal perspective, yes, it does sound like what we would call egalitarian, but that’s not it at all, and he doesn’t seem to be able to articulate this difference very well. Also, we cannot observe the graceful faith of his wife’s submission, which makes all the difference in the world, so this absence of information further obscures the truth of the matter.
Conclusions
If readers can understand what I’ve described above about the Peaceful Unity model, then it becomes apparent why Derek is so upset over all the discussion of power dynamics in marriage, as that implies that the marital relationship is immature or dysfunctional and is not (yet) a Living Entity in and of itself. He is right in saying that a husband taking The deti Route (which is effective and maybe necessary for hypoagentic, immature, rebellious wives), would destroy bonding and trust in a relationship between more spiritually mature individuals. GBFM has also expressed this truth in saying that “A TRUE Christian woman submits and needs NOT to be gamed!”, although he doesn’t explain the specific context in which this is true, nor why.
The thing is, there are so few men or women who experience a marital relationship as a Living Entity, that others can hardly relate to Derek’s viewpoint. There is a great need for this model to be further developed so that others may find marital sanctification in this manner, should this happen to be God’s will for them as an individual couple.
Since I am not very familiar with the Peaceful Unity marriage model, I am hoping that Derek will take these insights and run with it to independently develop his own descriptions and theories of this model, and thereby cease writing negative comparisons to the Authoritative Headship model.
Of note, Derek is a proponent of the Sex = Marriage argument, although he differs with Artisanal Toad on certain points. It would be insightful to readers if he could include this angle in his explications of this model, namely, why sexual purity is a necessary element of Peaceful Unity, and how it contributes to sanctification.
Meanwhile, it appears that the vast majority of men married to spiritually immature and obstinately unsubmissive wives who grew up under the inspirations of Feminism would fare better with the Authoritative Headship model.
Best wishes~!
Related
- Σ Frame: Models of Courtship and Marital Structure (2018/10/3)
- Σ Frame: Placing the Marriage Structures within the Archetypical Models (2020/9/28)
- Σ Frame: More on Relational Archetypes (2020/11/28)
- Σ Frame: The Relinquished Life (2021/3/8)
- Σ Frame: Commonalities of Successful Marriages (2021/4/14)
- Christianity and Masculinity: Trust, attraction, and the Biblical female marital roles of helper, submission, and respect Part 1 (2022/11/17)
- Christianity and Masculinity: Trust, attraction, and the Biblical female marital roles of helper, submission, and respect Part 2 (2022/11/21)
ArchAngel
caterpillar345
Soup Sandwich
Lexet Blog
Novaseeker
Oscar
Red Pill Apostle
Jack
thedeti
Σ Frame 
He’s twisting language. It’s undeniable. Sign of the times. I guess nothing good come from this man. I said nothing, it means not even one thing. I am clear like that.
LikeLike
I think you are right, Jack. Derek can’t ‘see’ what we are talking about with rebellious wives because he hasn’t been exposed to them, just as we can’t ‘see’ what a faithful and submissive wife looks like because in our world we aren’t ever exposed to them.
I will say, it brings me joy to see that Derek has a strong stable marriage and it is a goal we all should strive for. I think the issue that arises is when ‘we’ all forget (even Derek) that it takes two sinners to make this work, so no matter how we men are to work towards this goal, the women in our life have to do the same.
Good thoughts though, Jack. When I think about the strong marriages I see and read about, even the secular ones, they all seem to have this foundation in their relationship. The man knows his place as leader, doesn’t lord it over her, and treats her as a sinful creature just like himself. She submits to him because her place is to follow, trusts that he has ‘their’ best interests at heart, and knows she’s sinful too.
LikeLiked by 3 people
From my experience with my wife, and some of the Christian women I’ve known over the years that I’d consider submissive, they grew into being faithful, submissive wives. In other words, they were “relatively submissive” compared to their peers, but it still took a few years to get to what Ramsey is talking about.
When these Christian girls I’m thinking about turned adult, not a one of them seemed to come “pre-packaged” that way, i.e., 18–22-year old’s ready to be “Living Entities.” I’m not saying there weren’t any Christian girls who showed up on the adult scene completely submissive like Ramsey describes, but I can’t think of one from my experience.
My wife did it, matured into it, but it took her about 20 years or so till she “got there.” By that I mean, matured into what I think Ramsey is talking about with his “Living Entity” model. I’d say, first ten years of our marriage were contentious, not as contentious as some of our divorcing peers, but still contentious. Next ten years, she slowly grew out of it. Last ten plus years, she’s been a terrific wife.
She came into the marriage with some of the necessary “ingredients” to be one (Faith, Love of God, etc.); however, my wife, like some of the other Christian women I’m thinking about, didn’t start out that way. They weren’t “classically rebellious” like we talk about a lot on here, but they were not quite “there yet” either. It took some growth and development in Christ before they “got there,” got to the point they really “got” what submission is all about, AND just as importantly, recognized the benefits to it.
Eve needs sanctification just like Adam. A “Living Entity” marriage is possible, but it is not some automatic thing Christian women, and I mean Godly ones, not Churchian CC riders, just naturally fall into. I think the effects of the enemy’s feministic message has gotten to just about every last one of them to one degree or another. As for an 18-year-old Proverbs 31 woman, aka the proverbial unicorn, I’ve never seen one.
LikeLike
RPB, I need to clarify some things.
The husband and/or wife in a marriage are not the living entities I am referring to. I used the term “Living Entity” to refer to a mutual subjective consciousness of an energy or life force that is present and manifested in the relationship dynamics. (This is an entirely metaphysical phenomenon, so I’m scrounging for words to describe this.)
The Peaceful Unity model is my own construction intended to describe Derek’s concept of marriage which also corresponds to DeepStrength’s model (which DS didn’t name). “Living Entity” is my own description of how I imagine Ramsey experiences his marriage. I presume this Living Entity is the Holy Spirit. I believe that the presence of this Living Entity / Holy Spirit is the central element of what I have called the Peaceful Unity model. These are not his own words, but I’m hoping it resonates with him. If it does, then I’ll know my epiphany is correct.
After pondering this some more, I think the man and woman don’t even need to be married (by either definition) to experience this, so I think this might be something singles could use to identify a potential spouse “in the Lord” (c.f. 1 Corinthians 7:39).
LikeLike
Jack,
I don’t know if everything you’ve said is right or wrong, but I can say that it is precisely what I needed to hear. Thank you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ramman,
I’ll take that as a confirmation.
As a final word, I believe the Peaceful Unity model is the most ideal model for Christian Marriages. We might say the long term goal of the Authoritative Headship model is to eventually arrive at a state of Peaceful Unity. Well, now we have a roadmap with a final destination.
Thank you for contributing your detailed explanations of your views, complete with Biblical references.
Thank you to all the commenters who have made this mini-theme an extraordinary journey.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is a huge problem with pastors and counselors. When they haven’t experienced a rebellious wife, they can’t comprehend the damage she causes. Thus, they lay blame at the husbands feet. “You need to be more like Christ . . .”
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes. They’ll especially say, “You need to lead her better” and “You need to work on being her servant leader.”
Nowhere does it say in scripture that husbands are required to lead their wives. Men are called to love. Women are called to submit.
Women are called to submit to the men they chose as husbands, regardless of how adept a leader he is. They’re called to submit even when he loves poorly or is unloving. They’re called to submit even when he sins, when he is a sinner, when he’s fallen away or “backslidden” as they call it in the fundie world, and even when he’s an unbeliever.
Look, you people — I didn’t make this rule. I didn’t write this rule. God did. The Holy Spirit did, speaking through St. Paul. Don’t like it? Take it up with God. Take it up with the Holy Spirit.
If men are required to love their mean, nasty, mentally ill, emotionally unstable, rebellious, b!tchy wives; then women have to submit to their unloving, aloof, selfish, uncaring, sinful, unbeliever husbands. Again, if you don’t like that rule, take it up with God and let me know what He says.
LikeLiked by 7 people
You can’t say that the husband is the head of the wife, then claim that husbands are not required to lead, without stripping headship of its authority.
What is true is that nowhere does the Bible claim that if a husband leads skillfully enough, then the wife will follow. Or that the wife isn’t required to submit if the husband doesn’t lead skillfully enough.
Those are lies.
Husbands are required to love and lead even if their wives are rebellious. Wives are required to submit even if their husbands are crappy leaders.
After all, as you said, you chose him/her.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Doesn’t have to be just the “classically rebellious” wife; you know, the loud, obnoxious, temper tantrum throwing type. I’ve also seen it in the more subtle form of the egalitarian type wives. You know, the ones who really wear the pants in the family but pretends that she and hubby share the trousers together.
When push comes to shove, you know who’s really in charge calling the shots in the family, and hubby better not buck her or he’s going to get really get it behind the scenes. I don’t mean the cookie, but a real verbal dressing down; beat down if she’s pissed off enough. Kind of a behind the scenes version of a Karen.
LikeLiked by 3 people
When wives automatically submit to her Husband as Head. And the Husband is sinless.
It very much looks like Peaceful Unity.
But that is Edenic. Not our current fallen world.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Exactly. The problem is women refusing to submit. Period. End of.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The “Peaceful Unity” model sounds like “two people who hit the compatibility jackpot and are perfectly in sync on the things that really matter to them.”
It’s not really a “model” because it is mostly blind luck.
LikeLiked by 5 people
That’s a good take.
LikeLike
Or so it seems to us now.
In WW2, a bomber hitting a targeted factory building from 10,000 feet was blind luck. So they dropped lots of bombs to get the job done, often at the cost of inflicting civilian casualties. Now, advanced militaries can strike a dime underneath a sofa on the 3rd floor of a 10 story apartment building — using only one laser guided GPS missile — and do it from halfway around the world.
My point is, what we would consider blind luck at present may very well be a science 80 years from now. Our discussions here are at the frontier of that science.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Advancing military tech is not a good example Jack because human nature has been wildly consistent since Eve flushed the peaceful unity model down the latrine (even when sin didn’t friggin exist!). Genesis 3:16 is the real deal and EoS hit the nail on the head.
To say the peaceful unity model is a viable option is to say that hitting the Powerball jackpot is a viable retirement option. Sure, that option exists for an handful of people, but for 99.9999999999999% of people the hard work, systematic saving, low to no debt model is what works.
LikeLiked by 4 people
RPA,
Yes, it is not a selectable option at present, but seems to happen only by chance, as EoS said. However, I believe the Peaceful Unity model is God’s will for every marriage (whether or not they have actually found it), so I will stick to this point.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Just a quick reminder that everything works in theory.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Jack,
Thought exercise …. if you are right in your assessment and Derek’s need is to nurture and protect his wife, family and marriage, what happens if/when Derek’s wife is who he needs to protect his wife, family and marriage from? Is he to seek unity for unity’s sake, or is he to protect the marriage from her? If he is to protect the marriage, and in protecting the marriage protecting his wife from herself, then what we have is a very simple case of good ol’ patriarchal husbandry (being the caretaker God designed him to be). If he sacrifices the marriage and family for unity with his wife, he has gone the egalitarian, churchian, feminist route. It’s is really that simple and additional details offered in pedantic arguments are just noise that detract from the truth.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Posted too early.
What it sounds like in Derek’s case is that his wife naturally shares his vision of marriage, or at least the vast majority of it, and works with him on that vision. He does not have to put his foot down ever because she agrees with him in general and is mature enough to not put herself, marriage, or family in jeopardy. This common purpose is why they can come together in unity with minimal conflict. Headship still exists, but he has little need to ever flex headship’s authority because they are on the same page due to her naturally being in submission to his views.
EoS is probably right that God chose to pair 2 people in near lock step with each other on the vast majority of issues in life, marriage, and parenting. Hence, Derek has never had his wife obstinately dig in her heels in opposition to him on decisions such as: where to go to church, spending money / budgeting, withholding sex as punishment for not doing what she wants him to do, parenting, her utilizing Duluth Model abuse tactics on him with regularity, etc.
Basically, the “peaceful unity” model only works when both people genuinely want peaceful unity. When the wife wants her own way and is unyielding in her fight to have it, even to the detriment of the marriage and family, the peaceful unity model is not only untenable, it is Adam remaining sinfully silent in the face of Eve’s disobedience of God.
LikeLiked by 3 people
RPA,
…and they are spiritually mature enough to maintain it.
Exactly. Female solipsism + rebellion is the monkey wrench in the machine of marriage.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RPA, by my experience, you are 100% spot on. I can say that I am seeing both sides of this. My late wife was as rebellious as can be -no peace. I’ve remarried and have a woman who is aligned. She is grateful for me and expresses it in every way imaginable. I am grateful for her and want to please her in every way imaginable. It is amazing how easy and peaceful a marriage can be when a woman is self-aware, grateful, etc. Submission isn’t an issue when there is unity. The antithesis of becoming one is contentiousness. Unity = Peace
LikeLiked by 2 people
lastholdout,
Your experience is evidence that Peaceful Unity really is a marriage where the wife has little to no issues living in submission to her husband, meaning headship is just easy for you.
You don’t have to answer this, but I am curious about the following. If you asked your wife to do something that was outside of her comfort zone, do you believe she would do the best she could for you or would she fight you on the request? Have you experienced this with your second wife?
I think your answer(s) might shed more light on the underlying nature of “Peaceful Unity”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
My second wife tells me that she wants to make me happy and her actions support that. She does her best whenever I make a request, regardless of the context. She has yielded on many occasions. In the year we’ve been married, she has not fought me on any issue or request.
Our peace comes from the day-to-day where we both enjoy the relationship. She tells me that she thanks God daily for me. We both know that we have the other’s best interest at heart, so there is trust. It is comforting. That said, I still have to be careful and aware of my influence on the relationship as the head. I really can’t let my guard down. I am aware that she is always looking at me in that capacity and that I must live up to it; not for her, but to preserve my role in the relationship. It is my responsibility, regardless of who is my wife. It is not a burden or a threat. It is part of Christian masculinity.
LikeLike
RPA,
I cannot answer all of your questions because I am too unfamiliar with this model. Perhaps Derek could answer them. However, I will point out that you are assuming the wife is immature or rebellious, in which case there is little to no possibility for Peaceful Unity. In this case, it then falls to the next best relationship model — Authoritative Headship. This stresses how wives have the majority of power in creating a blessed home environment. If she is submissive, then peace and prosperity ensues. If she is selfish and manipulative, then it all goes to hell and it’s up to the man to turn things around.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jack,
My questions were more rhetorical in nature, but they do get to the point that there is either patriarchal headship or egalitarian feminism in marriage. Those are the options. The way to see that this is true to is ask what a husband does with a wife who would act in a manner detrimental to the marriage and family. If he does nothing and lets her lead down this bad path, then it’s egalitarian feminism in which she’s really in control. If he tries to stop her then we have headship where he assumes the authority to get her to change and do what is right which is headship.
These options lead me to conclude that the peaceful unity really appears to be headship, but where the husband does not have to do much, if any, work to apply it because the wife is naturally aligned with him. Hence, EoS’ take that Derek’s marriage is not a model that men generally can follow but a blessing from God that he should be forever grateful for.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Women really do hold the keys. I can tell you from my experience that a man can try everything under the sun but if the wife refuses to obey God’s word, it just doesn’t matter.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Trey Magnus,
Both thedeti and Jack have mentioned before that the responsibility for making a peaceful household rests with the wife and her submission to her chosen husband. If she chooses to be difficult then he’s stuck making distinctions between bad options. He can either submit himself to the miserable reality of his situation and try to appease her for the sake of the marriage (this is the worst option) or he can take steps to fix her knowing that it might mean she leaves (this is the least worst option).
The least worst option is one of force and authority that is endowed on him as head. It’s not fun and most men who opt for this route have been so beaten down by their wives’ contentiousness that they they get to the point of not being able to accept the status quo any longer. He’s fine if she stays or if she goes, but if she stays it will be on his terms. There are a few men here who opted for this route with varying degrees of success.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Too many men get sucked into the wife’s drama, stoke the argument, and raise the stakes. What they need to do is kick back and take the role of an amused observer. In a word, detachment. When men do this, then women get the message that there’s very little a man can do about her internal turmoil and they have to deal with their own doubts, fears, and insecurities themselves. It may take a while, a few months to a few years, but they’ll eventually “get it”. She’ll get angry and say all kinds of sh!t to try to lure you into her argument (e.g. “You’re careless / heartless / unloving / irresponsive / etc.”), but DO NOT believe it. Stay stoic and let her blow all the steam she wants until she’s out of gas. The storm will pass.
I think Mrs. deti had very little emotional bonding to Mr. deti, so in this case, the above approach falls flat because there is no impetus for her to introspect.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You still can’t have a marriage like this unless the wife submits to the husband.
It’s much harder to have a marriage like this when in every respect except the spiritual, women are men’s equals. Women are treated as men’s equals legally, professionally, culturally, economically, and politically — in every way that matters in the natural and temporal. So when you have that situation, it’s very easy for women to say, “I don’t have to submit.” And easy for men to throw up their hands and refuse to lead or do anything else.
BtM has the right of it — it’s all good theory; but much, much different when put into practice. Even Christian women view things this way: “I’m your equal in every way. Why should I submit? Why don’t we both compromise (which is euphemism for “husband needs to submit” and for “mutual submission in marriage”)?” It’s just topping from the bottom; it’s just LARPing at submission. And it’s men LARPing at “leading”.
In fact, men aren’t called on to “lead”. We’re called to love. Women are called on to submit and to follow.
Women: You need to submit. If you can’t submit to the guy you picked, you picked the wrong guy. Or the problem is with you, not him.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Just to clarify something … Speaking in generalities and assuming we’re not talking about a woman asked to murder her baby sort of scenario:
If a wife “can’t” submit, that is entirely her own fault. She is being stupid, evil, and serving Satan while defying God. In all likelihood a woman who often behaves stupidly and wickedly may also pick a “wrong” husband. But whether he is the right guy or the wrong guy, either way, once she has become his wife, she needs to submit to him or else she is foolishly tearing down her own home.
A good woman might be forced into an arranged marriage to “Mr. Wrong”, but in that case a good woman would choose to submit and make the best of the situation regardless of whether she married “Mr. Right” or “Mr. Wrong”. So, the fact that the woman doesn’t submit ultimately has little to do with who she picked and more to do with who she is.
Sure, it may be easier for her to submit most of the time if she is highly sexually attracted to him, but a lack of sexual attraction does not force her to be evil. She chooses to be evil. And while a disfigured man may not be objectively attractive, his wife can still choose to set her affection on him. I once knew a hot former model who had married a burn victim. You can choose to love and respect people who aren’t objectively attractive to you.
So, while it is entirely possible that many women may pick poorly and wind up with a husband whom they are not well suited to, or strongly attracted to, it is still entirely possible for them to choose to either build their house or to tear it down. Marrying the wrong guy doesn’t make it to where a woman can’t submit. Women choose rebellion.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Men really do need to present this as a clear choice to the women they deal with:
“Either submit to me as you’re called on to do; or be alone and do it all yourself.”
More and more women are choosing “be alone”. They’re just not having to “do it all themselves” in large part because of the OASIS (see posts here in January 2021).
I think we should hold women to that choice, good and hard. But men won’t, because the OASIS is better than nothing.
Make it clear: No submission? No marriage, no commitment, no resources, no attention, no nothing. No sex? No marriage, no commitment, no resources, no attention, no nothing. You’re on your own, totally and completely.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This quote is what being a SIW should look like, being on their own. An actual strong woman has the faith and resulting strength to both keep her desire for control over her husband in check and follow an imperfect man. Weak faith = SIW. Strong faith = actual strong woman.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree, Deti. But is there not an element of peace and obedience in your wife now? Do you have to relive the Main Event every single time you ask her to do something?
Thedeti: “We are going to the lake on Saturday. Make some sandwiches to bring.”
Mrs. Thedeti: “No, I am a strong independent wahmen. Make your own sandwich.”
Thedeti: “Make me a sandwich or I will put you out of my house with nothing. Then I will go to the gym and bring home one of the younger-hotter-tighters that are always checking me out.”
Mrs. Thedeti: [Makes sandwiches.]
You’ve studied the crimson arts for how long? 15 years going on 20? If that still sums up your day-to-day interactions then the disciples were right. It is better to not get married.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, there is (mostly) peace and obedience; and no, I don’t have to have a Main Event every time I ask or issue directives. And, yes, sometimes I issue directives. Sometimes I say, “no”. Sometimes I say, “We are doing it this way, not that way, and that’s final.”
I had to do some work. But Mrs deti had to do a lot of work too. At the end of the day, it came down to an ultimatum: “This stops now, or you and I will no longer be married. If you continue to treat me this way, I will not stay married to you.” But it would not have worked if she had not changed.
Red Pill and being the manliest man ever to be manly in manhood do not work unless the woman responds positively to it. Make no mistake here: we are still together mostly because she changed, not because I did. The fact that I essentially had to threaten to divorce her and show clear signs of being fully prepared to carry out that threat should tell you just how “effective” red pill would have been otherwise. It “worked” only because I said “no” and “not one more minute of this BS” and “I’m leaving if this does not reverse course today.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
For me, I got the opposite reaction than thedeti’s wife.
I got my sh!t together and then told her, “No more. I will not tolerate your BS. This stops now.” And instead of working on herself, she chose to eject, and blow up the marriage.
Life is SOOOOOO much better without a contentious wife fighting you every waking moment (and even when your sleeping).
LikeLiked by 5 people
Here is where I have a problem with the deti’s model of “No submission? No marriage.”
As a Christian, once we are married, (however we actually enter into it and whatever that mystical relationship actually is), the Bible (Jesus) tells us that there are only two allowable reasons to end that marriage.
1.) Abandonment by an unbeliever (1 Corinthians 7:15).
2.) Porneia (Matthew 5:32; 19:9).
Now I understand “porneia” to mean ANY sexual sin, including denying a spouse sex, but if a husband is married to a women, who has not left him, and does not deny him sex, what does he do with a rebellious wife and remain true to the vows that he made to God?
Some of you might think that is a very unlikely situation but I can assure you that it does exist!
LikeLike
The best I can tell you is this: If you have a rebellious wife who’s willing to stay peacefully, you can’t divorce her. “Peacefully” meaning “not abusive”, in my opinion. (That’s the “But God has called us to peace” part, there.) I know men who have done this — stayed with rebellious, b!tchy, mentally ill wives. I know men who have separated from, but not divorced, rebellious, b!tchy, mentally ill wives.
This is marriage on hard mode. This is Married Red Pill on expert mode. For such a wife, I personally would put down the hardest boundaries and rules I could. I would have the firmest hand I could and still be loving. Keep in mind that “loving” husbands still impose rules, still impose discipline, still say “no”, and still treat those in their charge with love. She’d be on a short leash. I would micromanage much more than I currently do. I would have a zero-tolerance policy for any disrespect. Any and all disrespect would be called out immediately and corrected. You cannot let up for one minute. Every instance of disrespect and rebellion has to be responded to immediately and firmly.
As a practical matter, this is exhausting. Most men just won’t do it and most wives just won’t put up with it. Under current Western thought and even in most Churches, what I just described up there is “abuse”. A man “keeping a wife on short leash”, micromanaging the household, looking over the wife’s shoulder on her activities, monitoring her spending, and calling out every instance of disrespectful speech and conduct, is considered per se abuse by any church, therapist, or counselor. But that course of conduct is really the only way a man in such a marriage can manage that marriage and still stay married. It’s a very hard place to be — and as a practical matter it will almost always lead to the end of the marriage.
LikeLike
thedeti,
Regarding your approach:
Doesn’t the Apostle Paul tell us that husbands are supposed to love their wives “as Christ loves the church” (Ephesians 5:25) and “wash her in the water of the word” to work on her sanctification (Ephesians 5:26-27)? Is this not a process that can take some time?
Does he not also tell us that marriage is supposed to be a living picture of the relationship between Christ and the church where the husband represents Christ and the wife represents the church? (Ephesians 5:32)? Is the “short leash”, “zero-tolerance”, “micromanaging”, way of doing things the way that Christ has responded to you in life?
Does the Bible not also tell us that “love covers a multitude of sins” (1 Peter 4:8)? How can love cover anything that it is not willing to tolerate (at least up to some point)?
I agree that love also includes discipline and have written about it on other sites in years past but it’s not only that, it’s also this:
Where does the patience, bearing, believing, hoping, and enduring come into your method of doing things?
I will admit, I do not have the total answer. I have been married for almost 34 years and my marriage is far from what it should be but I have become convinced that I am married to a lost woman so… I don’t even know what to say about that and am still struggling with how (the Godly way) to deal with it. Again, my wedding vows were to God, not man.
It’s just that your way (at least seems) to lack the grace and mercy that I know Christ has surely shown to me in my life. It also seems to lack many of the other attributes of what the Bible tells us that love is. I am not going so far as to say that it’s not right, it’s just that I have a hard time reconciling it with the standard we husbands have been given… to “love your wives as Christ loves the church”.
LikeLike
thedeti, that was me. Red Pill Married on “Insane mode”, I kept it together for 2.5 years longer than I should have (so says family and friends). Being married to a ‘churchian’ , former CC rider, BPD girl was too much even for the likes of me. It was a complete drain on me mentally, physically, emotionally and spiritually.
And I honestly tried to keep it going all the way up to the day she filed (and actually for about a week afterward, until I understood she was serious).
And exactly right, she HATED it, so she ejected.
LikeLiked by 1 person
whiteguy
Yes. Exactly. A rebellious b!tchy wife has two choices: either (1) stop being a rebellious b!tch, or (2) double down.
Mrs deti chose the former. The ex Mrs whiteguy chose the latter.
It really is just that simple.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Whiteguy
I forgot to say: If Mrs deti had chosen the latter, I was going to see a lawyer and file as soon as I could. We had a specific discussion about it. I told her plainly: “This changes now, or we need to end this marriage. Your choice. If this does not stop, right now, we are done, and we can go see lawyers.” (The rest was implied, because I am a lawyer, I know all the lawyers in our region, and she knew exactly what I was talking about.)
Unfortunately, I have to run that low-level implied ‘threat’ all the time. I say explicitly, and have many times, “I’m not ever going back to the way it was. I will not ever live that way ever again.” (Implied: “…and if it does go back to the way it was, and if you ever regress backwards, I’ll go see a lawyer and divorce you, because I won’t ever live that way ever again.”)
“I will have peace in my life, and I will remove from my life anyone who threatens that peace.” (Implied: “…including you, if it comes to that. I will remove you from my life if that’s what it takes to have peace and tranquility here.”)
It’s exhausting.
LikeLike
Trey,
Re: deti’s model of “No submission? No marriage.”
To be technical, this should read, “No submission? No Christian marriage.” The wife’s submission is pretty much the only distinction that separates a Christian marriage from a non-Christian one. Thedeti’s approach is basically brinkmanship done in order to get out of the non-Christian marriage ruts and move towards a Christian marital structure.
He’s still a Christian, and he still married, it’s just not a Christian marriage. IMO, this is an unresolved situation and only time will tell how things play out. In this case, daily prayer is required, and not just from the husband but from many other people too.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Trey Magnus,
In short, yes. It is a Hebrews 12:6 approach to a woman rebelling in unrepentant sinfulness. This is not a woman with an “I made a mistake. Please forgive me. I’m trying.” mindset. This is a woman with an “I’ll do whatever it is I want and act any which way I want towards you and anyone else!” mindset. It is a rebelliousness that is obstinate and proud of its sin, the likes of which got God’s chosen people put away from God sent to exile.
It is behavior and attitude, much like a bully imposing his will, that almost solely responds to opposing strength and force. Loving her like the Christ loves the church means the use of that authority and power to bring her to repentance and is used right up until her behavior changes at which point there is forgiveness and mercy.
Here is an important point that is a very easy to see trend with such rebellious women. Sexual defrauding or adultery is highly common with them. A contentious woman is about not letting God, nor her husband, have power and authority over her as this is what she is rebelling against in the first place. The easiest and most time tested means of usurping power for a woman is the power of the ‘P’. It is withheld to give it meaning as a reward when it is doled out. This is biblical grounds for divorce.
My experience is that the hard line with a hard push to conform to biblical roles works, even in very difficult cases. Is protecting the marriage from a wife’s behavior loving, I tend to see it that way because as a caretaker of what God has given a husband, the family on the whole is more important than tolerance of a wife’s bad behavior.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Which sins does Jesus Christ want thedeti to keep doing? I think God has Zero tolerance for sin.
It would appear that until the husband has the wife free from any faults and unholiness, that his job of cleansing her from all offending behaviors is not over, if he is trying to be like Jesus Christ. Is it really loving to let problems fester, to let sin abide?
I somewhat understand your predicament, but I tried being “merciful” towards open rebellion and it didn’t work. In hindsight it just prolonged the evil status quo for many years. She can continue being willfully wicked without requiring my shepherding.
Like you, I determined my wife’s religion was false. And I don’t actually believe that there are many Christ following women. They’re exceptionally rare even in the church today. But only you know what kind of a woman you’re dealing with, and whether she can be brought to repentance by your longsuffering. While you may hope all things and pray without ceasing, it doesn’t hurt to bring things to a decision point. Even God’s day of grace has a sunset.
LikeLiked by 2 people
A general rule of thumb with a family member in conflict is “If he’s looking for a way back into the fold, show them the way back in. But if they want to stay outside the fold, keep them outside.”
The first woman is looking for the way back, the way home. When that happens, show her the way, and help her get there. The second woman wants to stay outside. When that happens, keep her there, unless and until such time as she starts looking for the way back. She knows how to get back home. The issue is whether she is looking for it and wants to take it.
This is what God does for us: We know the Way Home. The issue is whether we want to take it. When we look for the way home, He shows it to us and helps us get there. But if we don’t want it, He keeps us outside.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yeah. That’s true. I’m sorry about that.
This is also true and it not going to change. If I either confirmed or denied any of it, it would leak true information and violate trust. I won’t do it. This is very important to me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The “choice” aspect is a purely modern phenomenon. In the days when Paul wrote his epistles, most wives, if not all, were part of arranged marriages. In other words, most women were married to men they didn’t choose for themselves. Yet they were still expected to submit to them in all things.
Christian women in the western world today who chose their husbands don’t face this handicap. By making their choices of a husband they implicitly choose to submit to and obey him in all things. (No doubt many will plead ignorance of Paul’s instruction to submit, blaming their pastors for not preaching this portion of the NT, although their dislike of the message is most likely the real reason.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jack,
Egalitarians would be shocked—SHOCKED, I tell you—by some of the things I say privately.
You are right that unity is very important. So are trust and honesty. Back in September you wrote:
In response, I have a draft tentatively entitled, of all things, “Unity and Submission.” The outline alone is 10,000 characters long.
I can make no promises. Perhaps rather than refuting it, I will conclude that the “Authoritative Headship Model” is merely made obsolete or irrelevant by the “Peaceful Unity Model”. For now I do not see the authoritative headship model as biblical, let alone constructive towards unity.
That might be an understatement.
LikeLike
Our (Church’s) relationship with God involves power dynamics. Power is neutral. It is good or evil depending on the person.
Christ has Authority over the Church as Head. And I doubt the peaceful unity dynamic is how the Church relates to Christ absent the inevitable power dynamics.
LikeLike
Most men cannot have marriages under a Peaceful Unity model. The PU model cannot coexist in a culture in which women are “equals” for all intents and purposes. Why should a woman submit to a man in this culture? She does not have to; so why should she?
Most women lack the sufficient character to exist with a man under this model.
Most men lack the sufficient sexual attractiveness to incentivize a woman to exist with a man under this model.
It’s hopeless.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I won’t say it’s totally hopeless brother.
There is always hope.
I realized my worth and found a girl worth my time, but like you said it takes two.
For all the men in the USA, use this website and figure out how ‘rare’ you are. It will help you ‘see’ how rare and ‘the prize’ you are.
https://igotstandardsbro.com/
I put in my age range as me + 10 yrs (48-58), at my height, single, not obese, and my salary… I am 0.27% of all white men in my age range.
LikeLike
0.050% here. (That’s the “if I was single” mode where you check the box “exclude married”.)
I like doing that website once in a while too.
However, the problem isn’t the statistical probability angle on assortive mating.
Even if you meet a girl who is a 7.5/10 (cute, fit, not gross) and she happens to have a Ph.D. in statistics, if she is alive in the early 21st century it doesn’t matter.
If she is not turned on by the sight of you or the mention of your name, you are toast. You might be able to get a date with her, maybe even turn it into a long-term sexual relationship that turns into marriage. But her hindbrain will put you on warning that even the slightest slip-up will cause her to jump across the always greener grass other side of the fence when she runs into a 0.040% guy.
The current situation is most suitable for guys who are in the 7-9 range to have a string of monogamous relationships until they die.
When you do it this way you get the benefit of “falling in love” ( the meet-cute scenario followed by the euphoria of what follows over the subsequent 3 months to 2 years on the long end)
Then, weaponize the rules that THEY MADE (Boomers mostly) and say, “Hey baby. It was great while it lasted but we’re [just not right for each other / fallen out of love / whatever]…” and move on.
If you luck out and find one using that strategy who never loses her crazy animal in heat feelings for you — score!
Is this strategy a moral choice for Christian single men? No.
It is a rational one in the face of everything else we have learned here in the last 15 years.
The absolute legion of self-described “bottom 80%” men who have come in droves to the internet-based spaces of the former “Manosphere”and have never experienced the above scenario will point and sneer at those of who used this strategy exclaiming, “You evil Chads have plowed through all the virgins before we could get our hands on them!”
As if…
— They ever had a chance with those girls.
— Their shaming creates a moral imperative for Chads to repent and flog themselves for being a product of the weird, blue-pill, woman worshipping culture around us and using whatever [____]-maxing they had available to make themselves desirable.
— We weren’t (as our esteemed colleague Deti points out) legitimately trying to find a wife within that context. (As evidenced by the fact that I was married by N = 6 after the first 5 puréed my heart in a blender and handed it back to me with a note attached. “Sorry… :(“
LikeLike
Ha! Funny you say that, my girl has got a master’s in public health and took lots of statistics, so her brain “knows” that, BUT hypergamy doesn’t care. Other women see me as a catch, so I am a catch.
I’ll never bother to show her that website to prove that I’m a catch. I know it, and she knows it. We’ve got a ‘meet-cute’ and she is one of those crawl through broken glass to get to me kind of ‘feelings’. Can’t see straight, she’s like our ladies auxiliary around here.
Rian Stone says that marriage is a luxury good for girls in this present day and age. The “I don’t need a man” … We all know that’s a lie from the devil, but if that’s how it’s perceived then I recommend that all should work within that framework.
My girl doesn’t ‘need’ me, next year she will be in the top 1% of wage earners in the county, but in the cut-throat world of women’s social dynamics, she would trade all of that to be with me, because hypergamy doesn’t care. It’s been almost 3 years and she’s still getting that cross-eyed look around me. It’s annoying at times if I’m being honest. But I do recognize it’s rare.
I’m trying to ‘leverage’ that to ‘our’ advantage. I’m leading her, praying with her, and teaching her what is really important — Christ and Him crucified. So I guess in the back of my mind, I’m trying to go from that Authoritative Headship to a Peaceful Unity one.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Whiteguy1
I have been thinking ALOT over the last couple of days about this Peaceful Unity thing (mostly during my runs and workouts), and I am starting to gel up some ideas about how to foster or encourage it. And of course, my ideas are over-psychologized because, well, you know.
Keep an eye out for it. I may have a bright flash of genius to share about it after a few more days of thinking.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I am not saying this to puff myself up or to justify anything I’ve done or not done; but instead to demonstrate my way has been consistent with Christian love.
I’ve stayed with Mrs. deti. That right there is ‘love’. “I will not leave you nor forsake you.” I have not left her nor forsaken her.
I’ve been patient with her and shown much grace and mercy. The world will never know how much grace and mercy I’ve shown.
Discipline and correction are consistent with God’s loving attitude toward us. “The Lord disciplines those whom He loves.” God also expects obedience. “If ye love Me, keep My commandments.”
I have given myself up for her, as commanded. “Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself for her.”
I have washed her in the Word by praying over her and reading scripture to her.
That said, I am still human and I don’t do these things perfectly. Though I’m expected to love, that does not mean I’m required to be a verbal punching bag. I’m not required to tolerate abuse or disrespect. I’m not required to give and give and give and give and give and get nothing back. I’m not required to tolerate her continued breach of her promise “to have and to hold” me while I faithfully execute my promises to her.
“The Lord will not tarry forever.” At some point, God’s patience with a rebellious child runs out, and He will give that child over to rebellion, disobedience, and defiance. He will allow that child to suffer the natural consequences of disobediance and defiance. Only God decides what that point is. So must a husband do the same with a continually rebellious and contentious woman: He will give that woman over to her own devices and, as I said, make her “do it all herself”.
Christ allowed Himself to be nailed to a cross to die for His church’s sins. In return, his church is required to submit to Him, to obey Him, to trust Him, to keep His commandments, and otherwise to do what He says. Christ was VERY clear about this. “I die for your sins and you get eternal life. In return, you do what I taught you to do. Obey My commandments: Love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength; and love your neighbor as yourself. Those who reject Me are outside My protection. They have to do it all themselves and will pay the price of eternal separation from Me.”
Thus, if I’m required to love to the extent that I am required to toil and earn and protect and provide (i.e. let the world nail me to a cross every day; pick up my cross); then I can rightfully expect Mrs. deti to submit to me, obey me, trust me, and do what I ask. If she fails to do that, she does not get the benefits of my self-sacrifice. She is outside my protection and she must do it all herself.
LikeLiked by 5 people
To shorten it up: As I’ve said many times, if I have to go out there and die for a wife; then wife has to do what I say.
LikeLiked by 3 people
That’s the deal Jesus made with us.
LikeLike
If wife doesn’t want to do what I say, that’s her right.
Then she can go out there and die for herself.
LikeLiked by 3 people
This, by the way…
…always makes a particular concept suspect to me because the dumbest, dimwitted Christian couple should be able to obey the basic tenets of marriage and be happy without having to do that.
LikeLiked by 8 people
Yeah, clarity of expression flows from clarity of thought. Chances are if you have to do a bunch of intellectual gymnastics with confusing terms to make a point, your point is poor.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There is a concept in politics that if your position requires a long, drawn out explanation you are losing.
LikeLike
@ Jack
Maybe.
Agree — On the surface, this appears to potentially be what Derek is saying, based on his agreement with your take here.
Disagree — Derek’s wording is still suspicious because he does not believe husbands have any authority in marriage when it is clear that they should.
However, what may clear up a potential disconnect is that Jesus makes it clear that authority is present, but it is not “Gentile” authority but “genuine” authority.
and
Jesus makes it clear that His authority is to be used to love and serve the disciples and by extension the Church, which makes this a clear analogy for husbands and wives with Christ : Church :: Husbands : Wives.
If Derek agrees that (1) a husband has authority in marriage, and (2) a husband’s authority in marriage is to be used to love and serve, then I agree with him.
If he denies the husband has any authority, then I still cannot agree as that does not fit the model represented in Scripture at least according to my knowledge.
He may also disagree that a husband has authority to discipline and reprove his wife though, and that much is clear in our relationship with God in Hebrews 12 and Revelation 2-3. If so, it seems like there is still a clear distinction from what he believes and how headship can be applied to a rebellious wife.
As other commenters make clear, he doesn’t have any solutions for the husbands with rebellious wives, even though we know that a husband acting as the leader / authority is a step on the way to the model I made on my blog.
LikeLiked by 1 person
DS,
I too remain uncertain as to what exactly Derek believes and how closely his marriage actually matches my vision of the Peaceful Unity model.
I like your comparison of Gentile vs Genuine authority. It’s clear that the genuine authority you described fits the Peaceful Unity model. I understand Derek rejects the Headship model because he believes that it employs Gentile authority and is therefore wrong.
There’s a lot more to be done to develop the details of the Peaceful Unity model.
LikeLike
This is probably true, but I’d add the caveat that my suggestions — when I’ve made them — were almost universally unpopular and thus remain untried. I wouldn’t suggest relating to one’s wife the way many here promote, nor would my dating advice go down well. In short, the commentators here do not think my solutions are solutions. I’ve mostly stopped trying to suggest anything.
Here is what I hear (using the definitions of ‘authority’ from Google):
(1) “A husband’s [right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience] in marriage is to be used to love and serve.”
(2) “A husband’s [having power in the marital sphere] in marriage is to be used to love and serve.”
(3) “A husband’s [power to influence his wife by his commanding manner or knowledge] in marriage is to be used to love and serve.”
Of these candidate paraphrases of Ephesians 5, I do not see how you get any of them from Matthew 20:25 and John 13:12. A servant or slave does not have authority of the types above: they take orders from another. When Jesus washed of feet of his disciples, he was socially debasing himself. None of these definitions seem to capture the essence.
I can agree that a husband has the authority to love, serve, and sacrifice as Christ did, but I’m not sure this is what you mean when you say a husband has authority. Unless the definition of the English word is getting in the way, you are implying much more from authority than I am reading in the words of Jesus.
LikeLike
When I was dating and early in my marriage I had the view that husband and wife would serve each other. It was this willingness of each spouse to put the other first that would make the marriage work as each person was looking out for the other. This concept was largely based on the current societal idea that it was my job to make her happy, making her happiness the ultimate barometer of morality in marriage.
My view and approach to marriage was completely inadequate in dealing with what is a typical woman with modern ideas. It would only work in the rare instance of finding a “unicorn” whose views and ideas completely lined up with mine or if she was naturally a submissive woman. The adage that, if she thinks she’s your equal she really thinks she is in charge, is true.
By my wife’s own admission, this is the synopsis of her attitude towards me. I had a different approach to guiding my family than what she thought was right. She thought if I was left in control, things would go wrong, so she fought for control to save us from my incompetence. Because she thought I was not fit to lead, she justified just about any action on her part to keep control for herself. This is how you get a woman who refuses her husband sex, tells my young children how horrible I am right in front of them in order to hurt me enough that I’d stop fighting her for control, threatens to use the divorce courts to keep me from my children in order to hurt me enough that I’d stop fighting her for control, and I could go on as she hit most of the actions considered abuse by the Duluth Model.
How do you serve a woman into her biblical role when she is bent on control and willing to do anything to get it due to her wanting things her way? The answer is not the appeasement route. (Adam’s folly in the Garden.) The answer is to use the authority of headship that God bestows on husbands to serve her by forcing her to stop sinning.
The unity approach has been tried. It only works in very, very limited circumstances and even then it requires the wife to naturally go along with her husband, which is more of her having a less confrontational nature and going along with the flow of working things out when there are differences. This is much more aligned with biblical wifely submission than not.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Why does it have to be one or the other? I don’t see the any of what you wrote above as being mutually exclusive to the rest. I can love, serve, and sacrifice for my wife as well as lead, make decisions, and discipline all at the same time.
I can, literally wash her feet while calling her out on her sin and calling her to repentance. I would contest that it is part of the way men SERVE their wives by applying loving discipline to them when they refuse to repent from sin. Not all service is the same. It’s is different depending on the parties involved. I thank military people for their service all the time — not one of them have ever come over to my house and washed my car or cut my grass.
In fact, the Bible tells us that part of how we love (both our children in Proverbs and) our wives in Hebrews 12 and Revelation 3, is by chastening and disciplining them.
Does not Jesus instruct us by giving us rules that we have to follow? Does He not tell us what we can do and what we can’t do? Does He not discipline us when we refuse to repent from our sin? He says He does (Rev. 3:19).
Ephesians 5:23 tells us specifically that the husband is the head of the wife. What is the function of the head? It leads, it makes decisions and instructs the rest of the body in…. everything. The rest of the body would be unable to do anything without a functioning head. Why would Paul make this analogy at all if it was not the way is was supposed to be?
In the same way Jesus loves us, we are instructed to love our wives.
Regarding your citation of Matthew 20:25. I would suggest that context is key. Jesus is speaking to men about their relationship to other men. Not the marriage relationship of a man to a woman. Ephesians 5:21 tells us to submit one to another but that is not talking about the marriage relationship. Paul makes it very clear when he singles out wives and husbands in verses 22 and following that the marriage relationship is different and is to be conducted under a different set of rules than the body of Christ in general.
I don’t think a husband’s, love, service, and sacrifice is mutually exclusive to him having power, giving instructions, making decisions, and enforcing obedience through chastening and discipline. I think it’s all part of the same thing. I believe that leaving out any part of it is missing the mark.
You might (be forced to) see things differently if your wife was living in perpetual sin as many of the rest of us have had to deal with. I know I would certainly like to have a marriage the way you describe yours but I tried that for a few decades and it did not work. I had to try something else and only in that, has my marriage gotten better. I believe there is benefit in obeying (the full) instructions of Christ, even applied to a (potentially) lost woman.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Trey,
Peaceful unity in marriage only exists when one person is the recognized authority. In fact, one person in authority is the means of achieving peaceful unity. What you describe here is much like parenting, and if we think about husbandry for any amount of time, we’ll see much of being a good husband requires the same qualities, approach, and skills as being a good parent.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: Choosing one or the other - Derek L. Ramsey
Pingback: Headship with Gentile and Genuine authority discernment | Christianity and masculinity
Pingback: Gentile Authority vs. Genuine Authority | Σ Frame
On topic (sort of):
In yet another episode of “Don’t marry a non-virtuous woman”, Megan Fox is dressing Brian Austin Green’s boys like girls.
Here’s the once-happy, beautiful couple.
Off-the-charts attraction, as usual. They started dating when she was 18, and he was 30. They married when she was 24 and he was 36. Just as many manospherians prescribe.
Ten years of marriage, and three kids later, she dumped his @ss. And now she’s dressing his boys like girls.
So, if attraction was there, what was missing?
Virtue, obviously.
Green’s career declined while Fox’s career flourished. So, she did what any non-virtuous woman would do. She obeyed hypergamy and dumped him. It takes a lot of virtue to override hypergamy.
Men have an obligation to their children to only marry virtuous women (and vice versa), because if they don’t, their children will pay the price.
LikeLiked by 1 person
He also ignored the warnings of the hot/crazy curve. Had he paid attention the curve would have indicated that she was not wife material.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: Authority or Unity in Marriage? - Derek L. Ramsey
Pingback: What Changes after Marriage? | Σ Frame
Pingback: Sacramental Soteriology | Σ Frame
Pingback: Synopsis of Sacramental Marriage | Σ Frame
Pingback: Men’s Altruistic Idealism in an Age of Apostasy | Σ Frame
Pingback: Good Relationships are Chosen and Developed, NOT “Found” by Chance | Σ Frame
Pingback: Summary of IOIs and Vetting | Σ Frame
Pingback: Invisible Magic Authority | Σ Frame
Pingback: Marry for Love? | Σ Frame
Pingback: 2023 Sigma Frame Performance Report | Σ Frame
Pingback: What is Grace? - Derek L. Ramsey
Pingback: Misunderstood Models | Σ Frame
Pingback: Esoteric Masculinity | Σ Frame