Apparently wealthy women are doomed to be miserable

From QZ — A sociologist explains why wealthy women are doomed to be miserable

My recent in-depth interview research on the lifestyles of affluent families in New York City highlights the ways in which wealthy wives are often cast as spoiled dilettantes—notions sometimes even held by their own husbands. The stay-at-home mothers I interviewed were eager to distance themselves from the “ladies who lunch.” These women were mostly in their late 30s or 40s, with children at home. Nearly all were married to men working in finance who brought home $400,000 to $2 million or more in annual income. They had worked in, among other fields, finance, law, fashion, and medicine. And many felt deeply anxious, and guilty, about their socioeconomic status.

 Affluent stay-at-home mothers are a cultural lightning rod for anxieties about wealth and privilege. The point is not that we should feel sorry for women with a personal chef and a house in the Hamptons. Rather, my goal is to illuminate who gets to be both wealthy and morally worthy in our society. In the modern-day US, our concept of meritocracy is inherently gendered. This means that women bear the brunt of negative judgments about wealth—and raises questions about what women “deserve,” and on what basis, that cut across social class.

Affluent stay-at-home mothers are a cultural lightning rod for anxieties about wealth and privilege for two reasons. First, paid work is an increasingly important moral yardstick for wealthy people, including women. With the decline of the quasi-aristocracy of the WASP elite in the latter half of the 20th century, and the rise of finance, tech, and other highly compensated occupations, the upper class is now dominated by the “working wealthy.” Wealth is accepted as legitimate largely by virtue of work—and so figures like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are not begrudged their billions.

Must be so hard to be wealthy as a woman. Gasp.

But “hard work” turns out to mean “paid work”—work that men are more likely than women to keep once they have children. Sociologist Pamela Stone and others have shown that “opting out” is often not really a choice, as high-powered professional jobs are rarely flexible enough to combine with being the primary parent—as women nearly always are across all classes. The women I spoke with also tend to be married to men who earn more, as men often do, given the gender pay gap in high-paying professions. So the woman’s job is the first to go.

Not bringing in money left some of these women feeling vulnerable. A parenting expert told me, of the wealthy stay-at-home moms she worked with, “They feel so guilty that they’re wasting their degrees… They feel so ‘less than.’”

Helen (a pseudonym, like all other names in this piece), who had been an investment banker and had left her career reluctantly, told me, “[I’m] well-educated. I had a career. You know, where is all that now?” She said she sometimes felt like she was “working for” her husband. She added, “There are power dynamics, where he’s the breadwinner now, and I’m really not. And yet, I do so many things for the family that you can’t put a number on it.” Her unpaid labor is hard to measure, and therefore hard to appreciate.

A product of feminism as it drives women to be like men, and it strives to make men and women competitors. Of course, we can’t blame feminism for those woes, but even so women are left feeling unhappy if they’re working or if they’re raising kids.

The point here is not the wealthy stay-at-home mothers are particularly deserving of praise. Instead, what I want to highlight is that the American idea of “meritocracy” both perpetuates and relies on traditional gender roles.

So long as women are expected to serve as the primary caregivers for children, and so long as the gender pay gap persists, women in high-income brackets will continue to be more likely to give up their jobs and stay home. In so doing, the women become targets for cultural disdain—as does the time they spend renovating, shopping, and doing other tasks that are necessary to maintain their families’ lifestyles.

The upshot is that our culture directs doubts about what it means to be a “good” rich person toward women, while making it easy for men with lucrative jobs to feel morally worthy of their wealth. In this way, women carry our cultural, ethical, and psychological baggage around money. Men, on the other hand, travel light.

And of course, at the end, we have the usual potshot at “traditional roles” including the “gender pay gap” as the cause for wealthy womens’ woes while they try to bear the burden of “our cultural, ethical, and psychological baggage around money.”

You can’t make this stuff up.

The article is written in the typical woman’s style of the sin of pride: “bragplaining”

  1. Brag about your wealth, nannies, lifestyle, and perks but simultaneously…
  2. Complain about how you’re so unhappy because you’re not valued the way you think you should be and how the reader/listener should sympathize with your woes.

Key takeaways:

  • Feminism is bad.
  • Hypergamy is never satisfied, no matter how “well” a woman marries
  • Money doesn’t solve problems
  • Caring and comparing what others think about you leads to unhappiness
  • Getting your worth and/or value from money leads to unhappiness
  • 1 Timothy 6:10 The love of money is the root of all evil

Interestingly, the “morals” that are referred to specifically in this article are all about money. To be “morally worthy” or be valued, you have to make the big bucks. What a sad life to live.

Posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle | Tagged | 4 Comments

Open rebellion

Some excellent discussion over at Scott’s on the impasse.

Snapper writes about the problem of “open rebellion,” reinforced by the Church:

A woman will use the “settled” tactic if it will gain her points for control or sympathy. Within the church it’s regarded as disrespectful for a woman to say such a thing, but that doesn’t mean she doesn’t feel that way. In the privacy of their own home a woman who feels she settled will absolutely make sure her husband knows this because it gives them the power of control over their husbands through guilt and shame. In private she may let one or more of her friends know her feelings because it will gain her sympathy and affirmation (“We understand you settled, you are worth SO much more than what he is giving you.”).

I recall a conversation between two of my aunts. I was young and overheard my parents talking about it. One of my aunts, married but a few years, complained to the other about how she “settled” for my uncle (my dads brother). She came from an affluent family and my dads family was anything but. My uncle was a good man, Christian, a hard worker, but didn’t make the kind of money she was used to, so she was considering divorce. Unfortunately for her she aired her complaints to the wrong lady, as my other aunt was a strong Christian woman. She called her out and let her have it, reminding her that SHE made the choice to marry her husband, and how, as a Christian woman, she shouldn’t even be entertaining the idea of divorce. She was a feisty woman, and I have no doubt the conversation was probably a lot less cordial than it was made out to be, but to this day the couple in peril remain married, and happy.

A woman who married her beta comfort doesn’t want to see him change into a confident alpha. Not with her, anyway. Sure if he becomes more confident in the workplace or more confident with the waiter at the restaurant, that’s all fine and good: But to stand up against his wife! Let it never be! Sure he can “lead”, so long as his “leading” doesn’t require her to actually submit to him. So long as he doesn’t ask her to do something she really doesn’t want to do, he can lead all he wants! As long as he doesn’t put his foot down everything is a-ok, but, boy-howdy, he’d better not dare tell me “because I said so” or try to make a direct order of something. Once this happens it becomes a problem because it requires her to let go of her power over him, and he cannot be alpha enough for her to allow that to happen.

Again I use my life as a perfect example of this. I had to lay down the law in a situation last week. I had to tell my wife “no” on something and it had to escalate to “because I said your not going to”. I don’t typically have to do this, but in this situation I had to assert my authority to avoid future problems and because she was devoid of all the facts of a situation. That didn’t matter. Suddenly all her Godly obedience and submission goes out the window and it might not be much longer until she is, again, reminding me that OUR marriage was a mistake. That she “settled”. That maybe “God intended for her to marry someone else, but she was young and stupid and maybe she married before she was supposed to”.

I was not her alpha, I was her beta comfort, and she wants me to remain that way, even if it means insulting me and belittling me by telling me that I was a mistake, or reminding me that I am the leftovers. The only defense I have now is to stop caring.

ys also comments:

Your situation puts reality to what I have seen from some I know, that is, one can’t simply “apply” the magic of the manosphere to one’s marriage. Your problem is not that you are “gaming” her wrong, it’s that you started your marriage off on the wrong foot. You have acknowledged this, but it’s a good reminder for men in their 30s or 40s just discovering the manosphere, who were beta comfort: They might change their marriage. They might not. Prayer and wisdom are needed. Totally different than starting off in your 20s. I hope it goes well for you, and I thank you for your real-world example.

To be quite frank this is not strictly true.

There is truth to the notion that starting out on the right foot is much better, although we do not necessarily know that is the case here. Women/wives will often “rewrite history” to fit whatever emotions they are feeling at the moment. She doesn’t love you now? Oh, she never loved you in the first place. In any case, however a husband got into this position is somewhat irrelevant. It is simply the case that he’s facing an open rebellion now, history rewritten or not.

The case of “open rebellion” is almost exactly like the “friend zone.”

It’s all well and good when you agree on things and you get along fine, but God forbid you do something she doesn’t like. Then she’ll start to claim that “you’re not my boss” (when you are) or “stop trying to control me” or “I’ll do what I want” and things like that. She’ll gladly accept your friendship, but if you’re not affirming her actions that are separate from you then you’re going to get an earful.

It is worth noting that sex tends to be wane as a wife loses attraction for her husband for various reasons.

The “friend zone” is something that is quite difficult to escape from. I’ve written on it before though, and it is possible to escape from it. Understanding the friend zone and escaping it. If you are single, there are four different ways that a man escapes the friend zone, but some of them don’t apply if you’re married. Let’s go through them.

First, the girl likes you all along: You’re already attractive enough for her, and she was waiting for you to pull the trigger. This jives with Scott’s experiences. Over the course of said relationship, the woman will often hint that you “finally asked her out” or “it was about time” or “I’m so happy that you eventually asked me out” which means that she was interested in you for a while before you asked her out. The keywords that show you that she was attracted prior are “finally” and “about time” and “eventually” signifying a period of time where she was attracted before you pulled the trigger.

The other way you can figure this by straight up asking her when she was first attracted to you. If she’s in a relationship with you sometimes she tells you straight up: “When I first laid eyes on you I liked you.” Well, for most men that doesn’t usually happen. The vast majority of women are not attracted at first sight as we know from the OKCupid studies women rate 80% of men as below average.

Obviously, this does not apply to married men.

Second, you have to change significantly  (e.g. raise your SMV/sexual attractiveness or become more masculine) in a time gap. This scenario manifests if you don’t see the woman for a while, and you make significant changes to your life such as the example that FBNF discusses. For example, if a woman is a female “6” and you’re a male “5”. However, you start lifting, get your stuff together, have a growth spurt, and whatnot and then you come back as a male “7” or “8” she’ll reevaluate you as a potential interest whereas before you were “just a friend.”

A real world example of this aside from FBNF’s example is that most of the men approaching 30 and into their mid 30s will see women who were formerly not interested in their 20s start to become more interested in them because they become more attractive. Part of this is their own declining attractiveness tied in with men’s increasing attractiveness into their 30s. The woman may have gone from a 7->6 whereas the man goes from a 6->8. Since the man is now a “8” and she is a “6” (or may perceive herself as still a “7”), she is then interested in him.

There are a couple of other scenarios which are much less common. I’ll describe them now.

Third, it is possible to where you’re with her the whole time and she gradually notices you. This is the same thing that happens to wives when a fat husband starts working out, getting his crap together, and whatnot. She sees him becoming more attractive — although she’ll only admit that it makes her “uncomfortable” or “unhappy” that you’re doing it — and makes her mind go at 100 miles per hour trying to figure it out. However, this discomfort makes the man more sexually attractive to her, so the bedroom antics will heat up. This is part of what is encompassed under “dread game” although I would disagree specifically of making it seem like you’re going to leave or cheat.

Alternatively, usually some random event in a woman’s life wakes her up to the fact that you‘re now attractive. For example, a woman’s girlfriends could make a passing comment that “she’s single and how you’re looking like a good catch nowadays.” The woman would then laugh and dismiss what her friend says: “nah, he’s just a friend” or “haha, he’s not really my type.” But it will pique her curiosity, and when she reexamines you and you’re now more attractive than you were in the past. She then comes around and agree with her friend’s assessment that you’re now a catch.

Both 2 and 3 are essentially the same for married men.

It tends to be a long(er) term fix because men’s attraction does not necessarily raise just like that.

  • Becoming significantly more fit and finding a solid style all take time.
  • Grooming and hairstyle are more short term.
  • Becoming increasingly masculine via confidence, independence, and other traits take time as well.
  • Acting more like a leader takes time as well.
  • Learning to be cool under conflict and other pressure situations takes time and discipline.

Overall, typically you have to become at least significantly more attractive and/or manly such that other women will start to notice you and give you attention and/or mentioning it to your wife what a good catch you are.

This does not necessarily solve the problem(s) either. You can be the “best” leader in the world like God and/or Jesus and someone who claims they are a Christian can still choose to go off the reservation and rebel against them. Becoming a strong masculine leader only makes submission easier, but a wife can still choose to rebel regardless. A husband must accept that he does it because he wants to obey God, not because it will make his wife change.

Fourth, it is possible that a girl has put you in the “friend zone” or “undecided” where being undecided on you is not enough information for her to make a decision. Typically, this happens if you’re a strong silent type. Then a major incident wakes her up to the fact that you’re a man.

For example, usually some powerful act of bravery or leadership wakes her up. One such instance would be if someone starts choking and everyone is panicking. But you know what to do. You calmly run over to the situation, and do the heimlich maneuver and the person is fine. Then you take control of the situation and calm everyone down from panicking. You saved a life and exhibited leadership under pressure. A woman is now attracted to you.

Alternatively, a different such situation is a man displaying social dominance. If a girl is giving you crap or gossiping and then you tell her to stop. You two get in an “argument” and then you ream her out until she apologizes. This type of social dominance over other women (or potentially men as well) will make women take interest and be attracted to you. The power of your personality and your status rises to where she is attracted.

Another such example would be you’re in the same church. You’re mere acquaintances. However, a Bible study is being started up soon and you’re picked as a leader. You facilitate an awesome discussion while being charismatic and funny. She becomes interested in you after this. You were merely “meh” before, but you’ve displayed a significant aspect of social charisma that she didn’t know you had before.

These situations tend to be more rare for married men simply because they know you very well.

In general, a male friend to a woman is a friend because he is not attractive. If he were attractive, then she has a stronger compulsion to be more submissive to him. However, she still must choose whether to submit or not to him. If wives are constantly being bombarded to be rebellious, it is also potentially likely that they would continue being rebellious.

1 Corinthians 15:33 Do not be deceived: “Bad company corrupts good morals.”

In Snapper’s case, the “Church” “friends” who keep poisoning his wife to be rebellious are a large part of the problem that are literally destroying his marriage.

Oscar comments:

I used to believe the “if you’re attractive to her, she’ll want to submit to you” line, but I’ve observed too many cases of attractive men who take care of themselves physically – who are good providers and good fathers – who are shackled to ungrateful, disrespectful, contentious, rebellious wives who look like beach balls stuffed with lard.

There’s very little a man can do to get his wife to submit to him. Either she obeys God and submits to her husband, or she doesn’t. The best a Christian man can do is avoid marrying a contentious, rebellious woman, because once he’s married to her, he’s stuck dealing with her rebelliousness and contentiousness.

Part of being a good leader via Ephesians 5 is to constantly sanctify the wife with the washing of the water of the word — this is the sacrificial love that Jesus did for us. This is not “capitulating to your wife’s demands” to “make her happy” like a lot of modern Christian preachers claim. It’s actually holding her accountable to her bad behavior, just like Adam did not tell Eve that she shouldn’t have eaten the fruit in the garden (and ate it himself).

A lot of husbands avoid calling out bad behavior because it creates conflict, but this is where leadership is born. Holding both yourself and her to a higher standard when it is difficult is the epitome of good leadership, even when it consistently brings whining and emotional reactions from her. Reigning in your own emotions and reactions is easier said than done, but it is critical for demonstrating that tantrums don’t get results.

For the husband that is in this particular situation, it is often better to lead by example than try to explain and/or argue about why you should take a particular action. This means just doing what you think is best in the situation, especially if she doesn’t want to “be the role of helpmeet.” This will help to start to set the standard subtly that you are a man of action rather than words, which will help to reverse her impression of you as her “friend” and may eventually lead to her to reconsider her open rebellion. Or succinctly: Do rather than say, most of the time.

Anyway, a chunk of similar analysis was in the other thread, but not everyone reads Scott so it’s worth compiling over all. There are other components of leadership that are important as well, but those can be discussed more in other topics.

Posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle | Tagged | 8 Comments

The bad about Christian radio

Still here, just writing.

In the meantime, “What’s so bad about Christian radio.” Some good excerpts:

His blog was titled Christian Music Radio Is More Theological Than You Think. I don’t have any doubt that it’s theological. If you’re opening your mouth and talking about God, you are being theological. The problem is, if it’s not grounded in biblical historical orthodoxy, it’s probably pretty bad. I agree with Wax that it’s not fair to say Christian radio has nothing theologically substantive to offer. But I disagree that it’s more than “little.”

Still, I will concede that listening to K-Love is much better for a person’s brain than listening to secular Top 40 or even a country music station. That doesn’t excuse the fact that K-Love would flunk out of any theology course higher than a flannel-board level Sunday school class and needs a major overhaul. More specifically, Christian radio needs reformation. It’s dipped in Osteen, Warren, and Meyer’s theology and savors nothing anywhere as lasting or as flavorful as Piper, MacArthur, or Sproul’s.

Basically, it’s watered down gospel.

Like most radio and television programming, Christian radio caters to a specific demographic, and that demographic is women between the ages of 20 and 50 (give or take). Whether or not Christian radio is doing it on purpose, that demographic is also mostly white.

It gets way more specific than that: this target woman lives in suburbia in a house with a mortgage, drives a mini-van, has three kids, a dog and a cat, a husband who works full-time, she also works but it’s probably part-time, has a household income between $55 and $70K, vacations in July, doesn’t have enough time to read her Bible but she has enough time to journal, loves Beth Moore and Joyce Meyer, and goes to church about 3 times a month. This woman even has a name — Becky.

Some radio stations will put up a mock picture of this woman in the studio, and the DJs are told to look at it and know that’s who they’re talking to. I’ve attended seminars where this was the whole focus of each session: Becky, Becky, Becky. The entire radio station is programmed for her — not her husband and not her kids. Giving glory to God is incidental, or it’s presented like this: “By reaching Becky, you’re giving glory to God.” Becky’s name is mentioned more often at these conferences than God’s name is.

The key is to reach the wife of a family, probably since she’s more likely to turn on the radio to something ‘Christian.’

Why do so many of the songs sound alike?

Because radio is about producing the least number of negatives. Technically a radio station is not actually trying to give you something that you like. They’re trying to give you something you don’t dislike. As long as they can remain as even as possible without too much variation or fluctuation, they’re more likely to keep you on their radio station and not flipping to something else.

When the radio station maintains a continuous blend of sound, it just kind of melts into the background and you become oblivious that you’re still listening to it. You know how when you drive the same route to work every day, sometimes entire stretches of the trip will go by, and you’ll wonder where those miles went? Listening to the radio is kind of like that.

If your listening experience were to change drastically — like a loud up-tempo song were to be followed by a soft, slow song, for example — you come out of your trance, realize that something has changed, and so cognitively you’re more likely to want to change as well and will turn the radio station to something else.

The key is for you to keep it on in the background. Because they’re listener supported.

Why do certain aspects of Christian theology get overlooked?

Again, lyrics aren’t as important as how catchy the song is. Another reason deep songs get hardly any airplay is that they make a person think. Remember, we don’t want a listener to think too much or they might change the station. A thought-provoking song also runs a higher risk of making a person disagree with what the artist is saying. That means, oohh, it might offend someone, and we just can’t have that. The more widely appealing the song lyrics are, the better.

K-Love’s sugar slogan is “Positive, encouraging,” and they try as hard as they can to fulfill that mission statement. My dad started a Christian radio station in the 70s whose slogan was “Making Him Known.” That’s not K-Love’s primary objective. It’s not to preach Christ and share the gospel; it’s just to be positive and encouraging. Their version of God is always positive and encouraging — hence why their DJs avoid references to hell, and would rather talk about the Loch Ness Monster than sin and repentance and how Christ saves us from the wrath of God (John 3:36).

Contemporary Christian radio does not exist to teach. It exists to entertain with Christian-themed content. I’m sure there are people who work at K-Love or the Fish or Way-FM who care about people. But if they were truly genuine, they would know the gospel well and they would share it. They have the perfect opportunity to do it. But they don’t.

I’ve said for years Christian radio doesn’t care about teaching. The response I often heard was, “It’s not the job of Christian radio to teach people. That’s the job of the church!” You’re right, it is the job of the church. It’s also the job of Christian radio. Very plainly, Colossians 3:16 instructs, “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God.”

When it comes down to it, the problems in Christian radio are the result of the problems in the church. Why is it that Christian radio eschews sound doctrine and is driven by demographics and marketing strategies? Because many churches are that way. Until the church abandons this approach to ministry and becomes committed to sound doctrine, eating and serving the meat of God’s word, Christian radio will continue to be Little Debbie (Little Becky?) and glass-of-milk theology.

When Rick Warren started Saddleback Church, he said he went door-to-door and asked everyone what they wanted in a church. He didn’t share the gospel with them — he asked them what they wanted their church to be like. Many other churches have followed that course, eating up the strategies of the “Purpose Driven Church.”

This approach to ministry is not “gospel driven,” which focuses entirely on Christ; it’s “Purpose Driven” which focuses entirely on the consumer. Likewise, Christian radio is full of consumer-focused slogans like “Positive, Encouraging” or “Safe for the Whole Family” or “Uplifting, Upbeat, Real.”

Consumer and marketing strategies > gospel.

Anyway, the rest of it is a great analysis of why Christian radio is the way it is. Check it out.

Posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle | 25 Comments

The Peter, Titus 2, and marriage connection

Since this was being discussed in Dalrock’s comments.

Peter says he won’t deny Jesus, but Jesus prophesies that he will:

John 13:36 Simon Peter *said to Him, “Lord, where are You going?” Jesus answered, “Where I go, you cannot follow Me now; but you will follow later.” 37 Peter *said to Him, “Lord, why can I not follow You right now? I will lay down my life for You.” 38 Jesus *answered, “Will you lay down your life for Me? Truly, truly, I say to you, a rooster will not crow until you deny Me three times.

Peter denies Jesus 3 times:

John 18:25 Now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. So they said to him, “You are not also one of His disciples, are you?” He denied it, and said, “I am not.” 26 One of the slaves of the high priest, being a relative of the one whose ear Peter cut off, *said, “Did I not see you in the garden with Him?” 27 Peter then denied it again, and immediately a rooster crowed.

Post-resurrection Jesus gives the opportunity for Peter to redeem himself from the denials:

John 21:15 So when they had finished breakfast, Jesus *said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you [f]love (agapao) Me more than these?” He *said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I [g]love (phileo) You.” He *said to him, “Tend My lambs.”

16 He *said to him again a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you [h]love (agapao) Me?” He *said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I [i]love (phileo) You.” He *said to him, “Shepherd My sheep.”

17 He *said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you [j]love (phileo) Me?” Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, “Do you [k]love (phileo) Me?” And he said to Him, “Lord, You know all things; You know that I [l]love (phileo) You.” Jesus *said to him, “Tend My sheep.

If you’re familiar with the Greek in the passage, you’ll note that Jesus asks Peter if he loves (agapao) him twice, but Peter can only muster up a phileo or brotherly love/affection response. Jesus, probably with compassion for Peter, finally asks him if he loves (phileo) him.

Although the Scriptures say Peter was grieved because Jesus asked him a third time, I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that Peter was also grieved because Jesus didn’t expect him to aspire to the higher standard, only knowing what he could do in the moment. Peter wasn’t ready to to have the faith to be crucified for Jesus, even after he saw that Jesus was resurrected from the dead.

Next, we find out that Jesus loves the Church as husbands should love their wives. Thus, Christ:Church::husbands:wives.

Ephesians 5:25 Husbands, love (agapao) your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, 26 so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that He might present to Himself the church [q]in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless. 28 So husbands ought also to love (agapao) their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; 29 for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, 30 because we are members of His body.

Finally, we come to Titus 2 which commands wives to love their husbands.

Titus 2:3 Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good, 4 so that they may [b]encourage the young women to love (phileo) their husbands, to love (phileo) their children, 5 to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored.

However, why aren’t women called to agape love their husbands in marriage while their husbands are to their wives? Why are they only told to have affectionate love, to respect, and to submit?

We’ve gone over the discussion before about if women have the capacity to agape love. In the context of general Christians I think yes. In marriage? Questionable. Although wives say they love their husbands, it’s not the same love as a husband gives a wife.

We can see this as the Scriptures giving some grace to wives, just like Jesus did to Peter in the moment. Holding them to the highest standard, when knowing the nature of women may be too great a burden.

There may also be something special about the headship-submission relationship that requires love to go top-down instead of bottom-up. Obedience, respect, and affection are all attitudes and actions that build off of each other to keep a self reinforcing positive cycle.

In general, I am of the opinion that the “agapao love” that wives show their husbands is respect, submission, and affection. How agapao love looks is different per different relationships. In the marriage relationship, it is the roles and responsibilities that the Scriptures state.

Of course, I could be missing something. Maybe my readers may have some other speculations as to why this is the case.

Posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle | Tagged | 39 Comments

All I’ll say about the Las Vegas shooter

While the media and other people bemoan the gun laws or the senseless violence, we know better.


While Stephen Paddock appeared to have no criminal history, his father was a notorious bank robber, Eric Paddock said. Benjamin Hoskins Paddock tried to run down an FBI agent with his car in Las Vegas in 1960 and wound up on the agency’s most wanted list after escaping from a federal prison in Texas in 1968, when Stephen Paddock was a teen.

The oldest of four children, Paddock was 7 when his father was arrested for the robberies. A neighbor, Eva Price, took him swimming while FBI agents searched the family home.

She told the Tucson Citizen at the time: “We’re trying to keep Steve from knowing his father is held as a bank robber. I hardly know the family, but Steve is a nice boy. It’s a terrible thing.”

An FBI poster issued after the escape said Benjamin Hoskins Paddock had been “diagnosed as psychopathic” and should be considered “armed and very dangerous.” He’d been serving a 20-year sentence for a string of bank robberies in Phoenix.

The elder Paddock remained on the lam for nearly a decade, living under an assumed name in Oregon. Investigators found him in 1978 after he attracted publicity for opening the state’s first licensed bingo parlor. He died in 1998.

Imagine a 7 year old boy finding out that his father is a top 10 FBI wanted criminal, then growing up without a father role model (and even if his father hadn’t been arrested what type of influence would that be?).

I suppose we don’t need to go through all of the various statistics again, but here some samples.

  • 63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (US Dept. Of Health/Census) – 5 times the average.
  • 90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes – 32 times the average.
  • 85% of all children who show behavior disorders come from fatherless homes – 20 times the average.  (Center for Disease Control)
  • 80% of rapists with anger problems come from fatherless homes –14 times the average.  (Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26)
  • 71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes – 9 times the average.  (National Principals Association Report)

Just as the black boys and teenagers get sucked into violence and criminal activity without fathers, so too those in white middle and upper class upbringings get sucked into gun violence. It just looks like mass shootings instead of gang violence. Others are suicidal. Still others are rapists. Still others abuse alcohol and drugs.

Lack of identity, lack of role models, lack of community. Just another manifestation of a crumbling system.

It does not bode well that the out of wedlock birth rates have skyrocketed as marriages have imploded over the past few decades. Expect more of the same. The crumbling of the black families only shows us how bad it’s going to get.

Posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle | Tagged | 10 Comments

80/20 rule followup, masculine attractiveness analysis, and how to fix a dysfunctional marriage

There’s been some good discussion in Tinder reaffirmed the 80/20 rule and Donal’s follow up on that post in Just how universal is the 80/20 rule.

Going back to the very first post on my blog Practical ways to improve your attractiveness and desirability for a Christian spouse, which was deleted off of Boundless, there is the general case that for men and women that:

[Women] conclusion: Women your physical beauty will get you in the door, and your personality and spirituality will make him want to keep you. While the latter is the most important, you cannot neglect the former if you want to get married.

[Men] conclusion: Men your masculine personality and confidence will get you in the door, and your ability to lead her spiritually will make her want to keep you. While the latter is the most important, you cannot neglect the former if you want to get married.

Obviously, I didn’t include appearance in the conclusion which does play a significant role as it forms a distinct first impression. First impressions are big. Women generally like tall men, with muscles, with clean style and hair, and good fashion. There are some exceptions based on amount of musculature, hair style and fashion depending on which crowds she runs with, but these are generally the core of an attractive appearance.

If we were to break it down further, it would generally be along the lines like this:

  1. First impression — how tall you are, musculature, hair and style. Your body language and how you act from a distance.
  2. First communication — your body language while you communicate, your charisma, your ability to exude masculine traits (confidence, boldness, strength, manliness, independence, etc.) through your words, and overall create a fun but stimulating aura.
  3. Pre-date — Your consistency in exuding attractiveness in terms of masculinity. May be able to avoid this if you ask her out on a date right away.
  4. Dating and later Relationship — Learning about your other qualities on whether you are a good mate choice or not. For Christians this tends to be faith, good morals and character, how you treat your family, friends, and others, what you’re like as time goes on (if you’re trying to hide anything or just put your best foot forward all of the time), etc.
  5. Engagement and then marriage — If you’re at this point, you’re already a good choice from her perspective. If you’re not, then she’s desperate which means you may be in trouble in the long run.

In general, Christian men fail these steps at all levels.

Christian men have terrible first impressions. They don’t have any sense of style. They don’t work out. They’re afraid to go talk to women (don’t even make the communication). If they do, they definitely do NOT exude masculinity around women in any sense of the word. They’re timid. They don’t know how to flirt or tease a woman. And so on. I don’t really need to go over all of these to show you that most of the men in the Church today do not exhibit any of these traits.

Now to switch gears, I’ll add in Snapper’s questions on the Curse of the romantic Beta here to comment on them. This is important for men to understand.

It is my experience that women love for alpha guys to treat them poorly. This feeds their need for drama and excitement. For some ladies life is ALL drama and ALL excitement, and these types of ladies are screwed up. Think almost any celebrity woman who is around alpha male celebrities.

Why do women want to have fun and be stimulated? Emotions. Generally, women both in the Scripture and society are a protected and provided for class. They don’t have to deal with all of the crap that men slog through to make themselves something in the world. Women HATE dealing with responsibility and bad situations because it brings them down emotionally (likely one of the reasons why God created man to be the head in marriage). On the flip side, women LOVE being emotionally stimulated and having fun. Her worst nightmare is a man who is *gasp* boring. A secular woman and even some Christian women will take the bad boy over the boring, to her detriment.

A man does not have to treat women like trash or create insane drama to be attractive to women. Such things are stimulating to be sure, but they are definitely inclined toward evil because they are destructive. The general thing is that you should be having fun yourself but in a way that builds up the relationship. For example, these are ways you can do it:

  • Have a good sense of humor
  • Tease her about her opinions or style or other things. Avoid sensitive topics (e.g. teasing her about her weight, especially if you know she’s trying to lose weight).
  • Assume that you’re always right when assert make an opinion and make up crazy answers about why she is wrong
  • Fake bully her with your strength. One of the fun things I’ve been doing with my wife is we got on the topic of the “floor is lava” but in the context of “off the sidewalk is lava.” Of course, I started pushing her off the sidewalk for fun, and she’s tried to push me off but can’t since I’m stronger. She’s since gotten me once though.. ugh!
  • Misinterpret things she says. Can also play into humor. “That’s what she said.”
  • Don’t take her seriously when she’s serious and take her seriously when she’s playing. Although you have to be mindful on this as it can turn into real anger.
  • Playful sexism. “You just sit there and look pretty.” I’ve also told one of my friend’s wife to “run along because the men were talking” to good effect. She laughed and faked outrage.

There’s other sources who would say to treat an attractive woman like she’s a bratty little sister, and there is some merit to that. In general, the common thread among all of these is this: (1) they don’t put a woman on the pedestal, and (2) they treat a woman like a woman, not just like a man with boobs.

The reason why most people think that “jerks” are attractive to women is because there are not many Christian men who are attractive. The reason for this is like I’ve said for a long time: bad boys retain their masculinity because they don’t give a crap about what society says about how “toxic” masculinity is whereas the Christian nice guys become feminized because they buy into cultural standards of masculinity (which are evil and the churchians peddle). Who is a woman going to choose? The masculine man or the feminized man? A feminized man is basically just like one of her girl friends. An emotional sponge to pour out her feelings with zero attraction and romantic interest. (And this is where the false notion of the ladder theory comes from).

Now it is my understanding that a guy should be a proper mix of both alpha (drama) and beta (romance) to keep a relationship healthy, though the “proper mix” of yesteryear is much different from modern times. I refer a lot to the movie “In the Heart of the Sea” in which the main character leaves his pregnant wife behind to go to work, on the sea, for two years hunting whale oil. For the time period he seems to be exhibiting a good balance of alpha/beta traits in that he is very well built physically (from his work), he works a dangerous “alpha” job, yet he cares for and loves his wife when he is with her. This gives her a good balance of both drama and romance. While he is away she can worry about what he is doing, who he is with and whether or not he is still alive, and while he is home he spends time with her and likely brings her back various gifts and trinkets from different ports-of-call.

It is also not so much “alpha” and “beta” but “roles” and “responsibilities.” They are not mutually exclusive and do not need to be balanced.

Women are sexually attracted to masculine leaders, protectors and providers. The role of a man in marriage is a masculine leader and protectors and these also display the quintessential masculine traits: independence, boldness, decisiveness, strength, courage, competitiveness, and so on. The responsibilities of a man in marriage is to be a provider, nourish and care for his wife, with sound Christian faith, moral, and character.

The question is how does the beta husband/boyfriend break free from the curse of romance? For the boyfriend its not so difficult. Change. That’s it. If your lady doesn’t like it, let her walk. Its probably better that way anyway because she has already cemented you in her mind as her beta romance fix. Better to find a clean slate and make a new first impression as the alpha jerk who sometimes has a heart of gold.

For husbands its a much more difficult endeavor. Your wife has already cemented you as her beta romance fix, and simply walking away is not a pleasant option. If your a Christian then walking away is sin, as we are commanded not to part from our wives, and to continue to provide for them (1 Timothy 5:8). Christian or not, husbands also have the pleasant fun of looking down the barrel of the modern divorce court system that almost guarantees your wife walks away with half or more of your stuff, your money and possibly your livelihood if she decides to leave because she doesn’t like the “new you”. Like the unmarried, a married man can simply “change”, but he must live with the fallout. His wife may take a liking to his new attitude, but it is more likely that she will not. She wants her alpha drama fix, but not from you. You are her romance fix, and she will not want to give that up. It gives her power to have an expectation of romance from you. The power to administer guilt, which gives her the power to make demands.

As we know, if an attractive man brought a woman roses she would love it, but if an unattractive or creepy man brought her roses she would go “ewww.” This is where the SNL skit about be attractive, don’t be unattractive rings true.

The best way to think about romance in Scriptural terms is the “nourish and cherish” command to husbands from Ephesian 5. Romance doesn’t need to be some elaborate weekend getaway. It doesn’t need to be a love letter or poem. It doesn’t even have to be about getting chocolates or flowers. It does not necessarily have to be about doing anything or saying anything in particular. It’s about showing you’re thinking about her and that you care.

Now, Christian husbands who are stuck need mainly focus on being a better masculine leader and protector. Work out, dress well, clean shaven, be ambitious at work, take the lead at home in the relationship, make decisive decisions, don’t waffle. By being a better masculine leader and protector you are ACTUALLY showing her romance.

Why is this? To understand this, we need to go back further to some old(er) material on this blog.

Generally, if a husband has become complacent into letting his wife run the marriage or not being a proactive masculine leader in the marriage, the wife becomes discontent and unhappy. This is usually accompanied with decreasing physical fitness, getting fat, and overall sloppiness or laziness.

What occurs most of the time is that the wife sees the vacuum of the leadership position and has taken up the position. This happens because the husband has voluntarily abdicated and/or the wife has willingly or unknowingly tried usurp the position. In essence, the wife steps into the authority position and has become your mother instead of your wife. Ever notice how “nagging” sounds exactly like when your mother told you to go clean up your room or do your chores? Yup, same thing. Your mother had authority to go make you do it, but if this happens in the marriage relationship your wife is stepping into the head of the relationship in the vacuum that you created either by abdicating and/or letting her usurp it.

A husband, by taking up his proper roles and responsibilities in the relationship, is actually removing his wife from those positions that she may have unwillingly and/or unwittingly taken. This will cause the stress level of the wife to go down drastically, and it will make her feel more loved. Why is this the case?

If we look at the Scriptures, it is the husbands role and responsibility to love his wife. A wife feels loved by her husband in his proper role. If the wife is in the headship position, she will feel like she is mothering her husband. She is going to feel unloved because her husband is not her husband but in effect her child. Once you reverse the roles to their proper Scriptural place, she will feel loved again because the husband in his proper role carrying out his responsibility. No need for the go out of your way to do housework stuff that is purported as “romance” by the churchians.

It’s really quite simple when you analyze it in the context of the Scriptures, but modern Christians who have been deceived by culture like to do things that do not align with the Word of God.

Posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle | Tagged | 16 Comments

Adam had headship prior to the fall

I’ve discussed authority quite a few times over the course of this blog a few years ago, especially in the context of the the fall. These are Scriptural reasons from Genesis 1-3 and beyond why I believe that to be the case. I posted this on Donal’s but thought it deserved its own post here for posterity.

Adam had headship over Eve prior to the fall based on these Scriptural textual clues:

1. Eve is created as a helpmeet for Adam. Also, she is created second rather than at the same time. (Gen 2, 1 Cor 11)

2. Adam names Eve. Adam also names the animals over which he has dominion. (Gen 1, 2)

3. Eve comes from a part of Adam. Also, man is created in the “image and glory of God,” while woman is created in the “glory of man.” (Gen 2, 1 Cor 11)

4. The case can be made based on the comparison of the creation accounts in Gen 1-3, that it was only Adam that received the commands from God being that much happened between the creation of Adam and Eve and Adam’s responsibility.

We learn that Eve was deceived but Adam chose to sin (Gen 3, 1 Tim 2), and we can see this in how she was deceived: “The Lord God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not [n]eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.” — “The woman said to the serpent, “From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; 3 but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.’”

5. Gen 2 indicates that it the man who separates from his parents to create the family unit: “For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh”

6. Text of Gen indicates man(kind) is created in the image of God (distinction in 1 Cor 11). Eph 5 shows us that marriage is a reflection of Christ and the Church. Marriage was present prior to the fall. If there was no headship, then there is no reflection of Christ and the Church. Given that the Trinity is present at creation and that man is created in God’s image, it’s likely that there was headship prior to the fall because it reflection the image of God and the future Christ-Church.

7. When God comes to the garden to talk to them after they sinned, He calls for Adam.

8. The pattern of punishment due to sin is to increase the punishment. God told Adam he would surely die if he ate of the fruit. The other punishments were punishments of increase. The ground was cursed and Adam needed to work harder, as he was already commanded to tend to the garden. Eve’s pain was greatly multiplied in childbirth, as there was already pain prior to the fall. This likely indicates the second half of the punishment — “Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you.” — is about the desire and choice of Eve to rebel or submit to her husband while emphasizing the prior relationship (headship). Hebrew word “desire” is used in Gen 4 for Cain’s desire to cause him to sin, and in Song of Songs for sexual desire.

9. Adam is punished for listening to the voice of his wife [and] eating of the fruit. While not definitive, if Eve was of the same position as Adam it’s likely he would have just been punished for eating the fruit. Not for listening to his wife and eating of the fruit.

I think that 4-8 are the most convincing of the points, but all of the arguments together present a solid case. There are no textual clues that indicate that there was similar positioning in the roles of marriage prior to the fall either.

All of these textual clues indicate why there there is probably around a 99% probability of headship prior to the fall.

Why is this important? Egalitarians and/or “christo-feminists” like to argue that since prior to the fall everything was “perfect” that man and woman had equal positions, and that it was only a result of man and woman being cursed that man has authority over woman in marriage.

The textual clues point to otherwise that it was God’s design and creation that man has headship in the marriage in all four distinct states of marriage in the Scriptures: prior to the fall (e.g. Adam and Eve), post-fall pre-law (e.g. Abraham and Patriarchs), during the Law of Moses (rest of OT), and after Christ’s redemption (NT).

Posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle | Tagged | 10 Comments

How to communicate sexual desire in a relationship

A reader writes in:

Biblically, is communicating your sexual desire to someone you are dating to marry wrong? From the sermon on the mount, I understand the qualifications on what lust is. And premarital sex is wrong I believe, but how do we handle ourselves in communication. I suppose I’m having trouble discerning things. Are we too prude as a culture? Or do we avoid all appearances of sex for a reason? Can I tell my girlfriend the ways she turns me on, etc. Thanks!

I’ve mentioned before how male and female sexual desire is not sinful and why it’s important to talk about sex with your girlfriend and/or fiancee. So to answer the first question, no, communicating the desire is indeed not sinful.

One thing about “lust” in Matthew 5 is that it’s by nature coveting.

Matthew 5:27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’; 28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Jesus is speaking to the men — notice how when preaching to the crowds, only the number of men is counted. In particular, He’s also speaking about ‘adultery’ in v27 rather than ‘fornication.’ So the ‘lust’ or ‘passion’ here is about coveting a woman that is not yours — which is unmarried or married women for a married men (e.g. any woman not their wife) OR married women for single men (e.g. not single women).

Why not single women for unmarried men? Remember, Paul speaks this to the unmarried about their ‘lust’:

1 Cor 7:8 But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. 9 But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

If you ‘sexually desire’ a member of the opposite sex who is single, you should take the steps to marry. This makes logical sense and does not conflict any of the statements of Jesus and Paul on sexual desire.

The gross overstatement of ‘lust’ in “purity culture” in the modern Church for a single man to a single woman or vice versa is definitely damaging to getting people to marry. It causes a lot of single men and women to shy away from their sexuality, which is one factor in delaying marriage (along with life scripts). This often leads toward illicit ways to express sexuality like porn, romance novels, and so on.

Now, what it looks like in practice can be difficult for many men to do. When I was going out on dates with Christian girls I would ask them a few dates in (read: not the first few dates) about more serious topics. Alternatively, if you’re texting or messaging back and forth a lot and the conversation is leading that way you can ask about topics like that too.

There’s a couple different ways you can do this:

  • Ask her what she finds attractive about you, and be ready to answer what you find attractive about her.
  • Ask her what she thinks about particular responsibilities of marriage, and move slowly toward 1 Cor 7 about either spouse not denying sex to each other
  • Ask her what her parents taught her about husbands and wives, and be prepared to answer the same things about your experiences.
  • There are potentially other prospective questions that relate to sexuality as well like abortion. Huge list of prospective questions here.

Like anything you’ll probably usually be uncomfortable talking about these things right away and it could be awkward. If it turns out awkward, you can just say even though it’s awkward it’s good to discuss relationships more in depth. It will get less awkward over time the more you practice.

Overall, there needs to be some discernment, as you mentioned. Things you would say to a 3 date girl would be different than you would say to a 3 month ‘dating’ or ‘courtship’ relationship which would be different than something you would say to a fiancee.

For example, I wouldn’t and didn’t shy away from “that’s what she said” jokes with my now wife for any ‘stages’ in along the aforementioned timeline. However, I did not go up to her right away and say how she looked was turning me on. That was more toward the engagement period. In the earlier to mid part I would say something like “you looked great in that dress or skirt and it makes me want to wrap my arms around her and kiss her” and then actually do it. When we were engaged, I’d say “I want to ravish her.”

I’m also not afraid of hugging and non-sexual contact, and I think that is one of the big things that a lot of Christian men are generally uncomfortable with. Non-sexual contact is socially acceptable contact usually with the back, hands, forearms, or shoulders. Men do it all the time with a slap on the back or fist bump. You can also do this with women, albeit depends on the social customs.

There definitely is some variability and different boundaries. I know some married couples who did not kiss until they were married, so the latter example would not work for them. I think when in doubt you should shy on the less side of things though.

Ostensibly in the relationship you are both there because you find each other attractive. Most cultures tend to find blatant sexual statements too forward and unbecoming and in general the Scripture is like that too on fornication and giving the appearance of evil. However, there is a natural progression from single to engaged to marriage where expression of sexuality grows.

Comments from other married or single commenters to flesh this out for our reader(s) are also good.

Posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle | Tagged | 10 Comments

45 tall nude [woman] statue coming to the national mall

You can’t make this stuff up. Relevant tidbits.

If you walk along the National Mall this November, you’ll see the Smithsonian Museums, the Washington Monument, Capitol Hill, and, possibly, something else: a 45-foot tall nude sculpture of a woman.

The Amazonian figure would tower over the National Mall next to the Washington Monument, directly facing the White House until March 7 to promote women’s equality.

Organizers are trying to raise funds to transport the R-Evolution sculpture from San Francisco to Washington. They’ve gotten conditional approval from the National Park Service to have the structure on the grounds of the National Mall.
The sculpture was created by artist Marco Cochrane as part of The Bliss Project. He said the sculpture was meant to combat a culture that increasingly dehumanizes women and sexualizes the female form.

R-Evolution is just one of three giant nude female sculptures Cochrane created with his model and collaborator Deja Solis.

He said the series spawned from an idea of feminine safety that he says he’s been wrestling with since the age of seven, when he learned that a friend had been sexually assaulted.

“These sculptures are about expressing what it would be like if women were safe,” Cochrane said. “To me this sculpture answers that question . . . She’s absolutely fearless and accepting and being able to do that is a really powerful thing.”

Julia Whitelaw, Cochrane’s creative partner, said his early sculptures were often so life-like that people felt uncomfortable looking at them, until he scaled them up — way up.

“There was such this taboo that was happening,” she said. “Men would walk in, look at the sculpture, and they would have to avert their eyes.”

Cochrane was inspired to take his art to new heights by the burning effigies at Burning Man. Instead of working in bronze or clay, he created massive sculptures out of steel rods, tubing, mesh and LED lights.

“It made it okay to look at them,” Whitelaw said. “People feel emotionally connected to these sculptures, they don’t focus on the physical.”
The four-month long vigil is also intended to raise awareness of the Equal Rights Amendment. The constitutional amendment, proposed in 1972, would outlaw discrimination based on sex, but it has yet to be ratified.

The sculptures will inevitably produce some controversy wherever they go, but Whitelaw said she’s confident that there are plenty of people excited to have art “supporting the end of violence against women and equal rights for women right there in the heart of the nation.”

Not even really sure what to say about this.

The sculpture was created by artist Marco Cochrane as part of The Bliss Project. He said the sculpture was meant to combat a culture that increasingly dehumanizes women and sexualizes the female form.

You would think that putting a nude figure out there is actually the epitome of dehumanization and sexualization of the female form… but apparently not.

The ideal that women are not considered already ‘equal’ in the US is laughable. They do ‘better’ at education with higher grades and graduation rates in high school, college, and graduate programs. They are paid the same. Women have the opportunity to do any job they want. They can choose to blow up marriages, have children, and do what they want with less consequences than men.

Now they’re basically putting pornography on the national mall to “promote equality.” Right on.

Posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle | Tagged | 15 Comments

Contraception’s under the radar effect on divorce

Now that we’re on the topic of marriages and not marriages, that led me to thinking more about the reasons for divorce. I’ve written on contraception before, but I didn’t really think about it in terms of divorce.

We know that hormonal contraception alters womens’ mate preference attraction. Some articles on how that works here in Time and Scientific American. The general conclusion is that women prefer more masculine features and/or personality in men when off of the pill. Hence, they’re more likely to marry more feminine looking men and/or with less masculine personalities when on the pill, and when they go off of it find them less attractive.

We know that about 50% of marriages implode, and about ~70% of divorces are initiated by women, which means about 35% of all marriages are imploded by women. Many of these which are due to unhaaaapyness and “I love you but I’m not in love with you.”

To connect the dots, it would be interesting to look up the how much of the actual female population was on oral hormonal contraception given that we know the average age of marriage is currently sitting at 27 for women and 29 for men.

CDC data on contraception use for 2006-2012.

A whopping 50% of the population 15-24 of women in the US are using oral hormonal contraception, and it only declines to about 33% in the age at which 50% of women get married.

The use of a hormonal method by nulliparous women, either the pill or another hormonal method, to delay a first pregnancy increased 20% between 1995 to 2006–2010, from slightly more than one-half of women with no births (52%) in 1995 to approximately 63% in 2006–2010.

Almost twice as many women who intend more children used other hormonal methods in 2006–2010 (11%) than in 1995 (6.0%). IUD usage increased by about the same amount among women who intend more children (from 0.6% to 5.5%) as among those who intend no more children (0.8% compared with 5.3%)

Among women who intended to have children, married or not, the rate of oral hormonal contraceptive use increased over the general female population use to 63% and up to 74% for other contraceptive use total.There’s like ~10 points on religious use and contraception, but here are two of the more important ones.

Baptist and Fundamentalist Protestant women used the pill to a lesser degree (21%) compared with Catholic (28%) or other Protestant (29%) women, or women with no religious affiliation (31%).

Catholic women (18%) and women with no religious affiliation (16%) more frequently rely on their partner’s use of condoms as their most effective contraceptive method compared with Baptist or Fundamentalist Protestant women (12%). Women for whom religion is not important (22%) rely on partner’s use of condoms more frequently than women for whom religion is very important (15%).

Lots of nominal Catholics given the Catholic Church forbids contraception. Also shows that the Church is almost no different from the secular on these points, much like other various Life Script(tm) of go to college, get a job, and so on before marriage. Again, not surprising the Church divorce rate is quite similar to the secular when you have marriages that mimic them.

Overall, I am extremely surprised that contraception is as ubiquitous as it is among 15-24 year old women (~50% of all women) and among those who are planning to have a child (~63% for hormonal, ~74% total). Given that 35% of all marriages are imploded by wives, I do not think it would be a stretch to say that contraception plays a significant role in the implosion of marriages due to its effects on wives’ attraction toward their husbands.

Posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle | Tagged | 10 Comments