Vetting, risk of divorce, and the myth of change

One of the interesting phenomena I am repeatedly encountering is the fact that some women believe that people change so much over marriage that it’s impossible to predict what happens. Let me put this myth to rest.

When I talked extensively about vetting last time there was a large amount of comments on what I look for in evaluating a potential wife part 2. Specifically, this spawned understanding statistical models and using them to vet correctly.

Now, let’s move onto the comments and analyze them.

First, lgrobins and I went back and forth in the comments about how much “vetting” helps starting from here. This quote is near the end:

What women values can change through time as well. We are fickle creatures. Liberal one decade, conservative the next, back to liberal again, as it suits our needs for what we want at any given time.

[…]

Yes, there can be many good indicators and vetting is a reasonable thing to do, but my point is it still doesn’t necessarily guarantee anything

I agree it doesn’t guarantee anything, but I do think it raises the chances from 50/50 to well above 90%. Maybe 95-98% if done correctly.

I bring up the case again of Josh Duggar. I am sure Anna thought he was a sure thing. I mean how can you wrong with a man from that family, yet still.

“Family” does mean a decent amount, but it is simply one indicator in a very long list of things.

I recommend vetting for past sexual history and past indiscretions. Of course, he *could* have lied about it, but usually people lying under pressure like that exhibit some sort of cracking under pressure unless they are truly psychopathic.

This is why I have discussed with my girl my past of pornography usage and how far I went with some women. Although it may be a hard thing to do, to fully trust someone you have to be open to them knowing if they want even if it is difficult to talk about.

Most men and women for that matter don’t get to the mature stage of Christianity to where they can talk about their past and how they were changed. It’s not an embarrassment to have viewed pornography and had God change your life. It’s a blessing. It shows how the Spirit has worked in your life.

Unfortunately, those who are unwilling to admit the extent to which God has changed their lives are living a lie of sorts. This hidden life can give rise to the things Josh Duggar did. As Eph 5 says.. expose the things that are hidden to the light If you don’t then it’s likely someone else eventually will.

Then TPC chimes in to respond to my comment:

Anna Duggar is married. Deep Strength is not, nor even engaged based on his admittedly oblique references to his relationship status. Vetting is not a “99%” near-guarantee of anything. Humans gonna human. I cannot take seriously any arguments regarding spouse-vetting from unmarried men who aren’t priests or pastors.

Anna Duggar made the kind of choice a lot of women have made historically, which is to pick what they thought they could live with from a very short list of their real marriage options. As an actual married woman, I know that my persepective on female choices in marriage will be disregarded by the never-married men claiming to have better information in the abstract, as are the perspectives of other married women. But the reality is that most women have few choices for marriage and “vetting” in the form of long talks about abstract stuff doesn’t really give a bigger or better pool. Most men have few choices for marriage as well, but there is extensive discussion of that in many other places.

Basically, the manosphere complains at length about women putting on a front before marriage. Well, men do that too. This brings us back to the women asking for sex and being rejected. Living in a porn-saturated society, men are permitted a level of incontinence that would have been considered excessive among dissolute aristocrats in the past. And the manosphere, even the Christian part, is ready with a bunch of excuses about how none of it is really porn and anyway it’s not like it’s cheating or something.

No, it just cripples a man’s ability to be a continent man and makes him a slave to passions his wife cannot possibly fulfill even if she wants to try. The real elephant in the room is massive, rampant porn exposure and use, not a few fat Christian women hoping for marriage despite being fat.

I’m going to ignore how disjointed this particular comment is. For example, I specifically said that you can vet to raise the percentage well above 90% to about 95-98% if performed correctly. Yet, TPC pulls out a 99% from nowhere. This alone is enough to make me not take the comment seriously. Only pastors and priests can spouse vet. Yet TPC gives her opinion which by her own statement makes her opinions here worthless. I’ll chalk it up to a team women rant.

However, I’m going to address these comments in regard to statistical modeling which is indeed extremely accurate in predicting divorce rates. I stand by the statements that I made.

Statistical probabilities of divorce

Let’s look at one example we are all familiar with: virginity.

Sampling virginity across a wide spectrum of the population including the Teachman study on Social Pathologist gives us very important information about behavior in marriage based on the virginity of the wife. In particular, we see correlative trends on:

  • Virgins are significantly less likely to be infected by STDs
  • Virgins are significantly less likely to divorce and are more likely to have stable marriages.
  • Virgins are more likely to be happy in their marriages.
  • Virgins are less likely to be depressed.

Now, these are not all of the stats you can pull out on virgins. However, the are simply some. And, as the next chart indicates, the findings for the population regarding virginity and stable marriages are replicated across various studies.

This alone shows the female virginity is important for marriages. God knew what He was talking about in Deuteronomy 22.

Other indicators based on statistical modeling

Aside from virginity, are other indicators of stable marriages based on statistical modeling. I’m not going to pull out charts for all of these, but you can check out some of the others for yourself through google. For example, stable marriages are more likely to be formed across:

  • Ethnicity: Asian > hispanic > white > black

  • Age: Reverse bell curve around 25-30 years old

  • Religion: Catholics > Active Protestants > Non practicing > Non-practicing Protestants > Other
  • Importance of religion: active > non-practicing

Those committed to their faith or no faith are stronger in marriages than those who are lukewarm.

  • College education: Graduate > College educated > Part college > HS diploma > Part High School

Education is a predictor of stable marriages. Cane and the commenters discussed potential reasons why.

  • Family background: Two parents > one parent > no parents

A father and a mother provide the most stable marriage, which is also a predictor of divorce. Single mothers being a big offender.

  • Children out of wedlock: Children in wedlock > children within first 9 months of marriage > children out of wedlock

Yes, shotgun marriages are worse than wedlock marriages but better than having children out of wedlock then getting married.

All of the relative risk ratios for the following are discussed in Free Northerner’s post on Sexonomics: odds of divorce. I took out the ones already discussed.

  • Age of first sexual experience: 18 > 17-18 > 15-16 > 13-14 > 12
  • Cohabitation: No cohabitation > cohabitation
  • Income: husband earns more > equal income > wife earns more
  • Income total: Middle > higher > lowest (speculation: more cash and prizes for divorcing the highest income earners)

Some other indicators from divorce probability.

  • Prior marriage: no prior marriage is better than a prior marriage
  • Employment status: employed > part time > not employed
  • Interracial marriages: Some have more likelyhood of staying together (e.g. White man, black woman) and some have less likelihood (e.g. black man, white woman, asian man, white woman, etc.).
  • Country: US is pretty divorce happy compared to many other countries. For example, 50% of all Catholic annulments worldwide are in the US.
  • Ability to resolve conflict: Never argue > rarely argue > regularly argue > heated arguments
  • Alcohol use: None > some > regularly
  • Drug use: None > some > regularly
  • Mental illness: None > having one (depression, schizophrenia, BPD, etc.)
  • Age difference: reverse bell curve centered with least risk of men being 0-2 years older.
  • Forced premarital sex: None > forced sex (e.g. rape)
  • Length of marriage: the longer your marriage lasts the less risk of divorce

Social attitudes:

  • Divorce is usually the best solution when a couple can’t seem to work out their marriage problems
  • A young couple should not live together unless they are married
  • It is okay for an unmarried female to have a child
  • It is important for a man to spend a lot of time with his famil than to be successful at his career

All of these are different indicators of increase probability for separation or divorce.

Calculating the odds

There are some calculators aside from Free Northerner’s post. FN mentions divorce probability. Just 4 Guys had one up a while ago.

J4G calculates the relative risk ratio of separation at 10 years. If the woman is:

  • Over 25
  • Has a 4 year degree
  • Catholic
  • Had an intact 2 parent family
  • Lost her virginity to you in marriage
  • Was not a single mother
  • Does not believe divorce is an option
  • Does not believe in cohabitation
  • Does not believe that it’s okay for an unmarried woman to have a child out of wedlock
  • Believes family time is more important than career advancement

Then the relative risk of separation at 10 years is 2%.

Obviously, J4G does not take into account many of the other myriad of risk factors above including ethnicity, importance of religion, income, income total, employment status, interracial marriages, country, conflict solving, alcohol use, drug use, mental illness, age difference, forced premarital sex, and some of the other factors.

It is likely that the relative risk can be reduced even further if other factors are applied.

Conclusions

I stand by my statements that vetting will reduce the risk of divorce from 50/50 to at least 90% if not 95-98%. Perhaps even 99%+ like TPC denies if you can factor in all of the ones that J4G and DP missed including attitudes about the importance of God and family in relation to life. In fact, virginity does most of the leg work reducing the risk of divorce already up to 80-85% depending on the study. This is why chastity is so important and why it made my list.

One of the quotes I’ve heard from Andy Stanley on why statistics matter is excellent (although, unfortunately, he believes heretical “submit to one another in Christ” for marriages). Paraphrased:

It is foolish to ignore statistics. […] You are unique. God created you to be unique. But your experiences are not unique.

Experiences are not unique. We are all humans and engage in relationships. This gives statistics power as exemplary warning signs that can be used to analyze what a stable marriage looks like compared to an unstable one based on current and past behavior. They are accurate predictors that those unmarried can use to look for a potential spouse including the direct vetting like I have talked about.

Obviously, people change during marriage. This doesn’t mean that there is a sudden massive increase in divorce probability as people change and get older. I admit that you can’t vet to 0% probability of divorce. Even in the list above in the last section there is a 2% chance that there will be separation at 10 years. Maybe you fell into the 2% risk of separation or divorce. You one of the 2 out of 100. That sucks. But that doesn’t discount that 98/100 of the other men still have stable marriages. Women may be fickle, but certain types of women are not that fickle that they would end up divorcing in droves after strong vetting.

Therefore, it should be abundantly clear that vetting, especially statistically, does have a very strong impact on finding a quality prospect for marriage. Reduction in relative risk of divorce from about 50/50 to < 5% maybe even to < 1- 2% is a very strong indicator that it works. It is such a strong reduction such that most informed men would never take a 50/50 willingly but would take the a < 2-5% chance. See: Jesus’ analogy of discipleship about counting the cost.

Now the question for my readers:

  • Why do women think vetting doesn’t have much of an impact when it clearly does?
  • Assuming it’s not malicious (“men shouldn’t be choosy about women”) then why do women think that women change in a marriage enough to make vetting irrelevant? Past behavior, current behavior, and attitudes are good proxies for future behavior.

The two that I would immediately think of are special snowflake syndrome and team women. In particular, special snowflake syndrome and team women don’t like that their behavior can be generalized in predictable patterns by statistical analysis. However, even if those are true they might not be the only or main reason(s). Not all women are like that (NAWALT) not withstanding.

If you have any thoughts on that question I want to hear them. Also, commentary on the post is appreciated if you agree or disagree.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Masculinity and women, Mission Framework and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

58 Responses to Vetting, risk of divorce, and the myth of change

  1. “Assuming it’s not malicious ”

    Never attribute to ignorance that which can be explained by malice. It is malice. Why does hypergamy get such a clean bill of health? Why is it always defended? It is a “Feature not a bug” the cuckservatives scream!

    No, it is evil, perhaps incarnate. Why was Eve fooled by the snake, why was she deceived? He was powerful, wise, dynamic, sexy, an ALPHA above all others. Perhaps Hypergamy is what damned the entire human race to this life, and most to an eternity in hell.

    Adam’s sin? Being a beta bitch.

  2. Pingback: Vetting, risk of divorce, and the myth of change | Manosphere.com

  3. Psalm1Wife says:

    This:

    “Why do women think vetting doesn’t have much of an impact when it clearly does?”

    is not the same as this:

    “I cannot take seriously any arguments regarding spouse-vetting from unmarried men”.

    On another note and assuming that this post is on the same topic as your last several because the links are the same, I did not interpret the argument on Laura’s side to be anti-vetting, nor did I see TPC dismiss it altogether, but what I did notice was that two groups interpreted Child of Ra’s intentions in entirely separate ways and if she was a woman being vetted, only one of you (50%) would have been right.

    I did not vet my husband (lol, it seems more like a man’s task to me, either the suitor or the woman’s father) but I honestly do not know if he vetted me or not and we know that most Christians and likely all non-Christians do not vet for spouses and many people are forever married from both groups. So although it may increase odds, I personally and humbly do not think it is an end all because of the exact situation with Child of Ra; it is much too easy to over look well intentioned people (and I am not convinced that Child of Ra’s wasn’t) when the method is so rigid.

  4. @ entropyismygod

    Well, TPC’s comment could probably be considered malicious. But none of the others.

    Disagreed with hypergamy. It’s a feature of women’s biology just like polygamy is a feature of men. However, these facets need to be taught to [self] controlled otherwise they rapidly lead to sinful behavior.

    Hypergamy manifested into serial monogamy is evil like player-dom and cads.

  5. 1: Why do women think vetting doesn’t have much of an impact when it clearly does?
    Because vetting means disqualification. A woman needs to feel theoretically desired by every man out there, regardless of her traits. It’s not a rational thing, but a security thing. So if even one man doesn’t desire her, it could mean the difference between the best mate and not the best mate. If men discuss her desirability from a rational perspective, they may conclude she is replaceable and common. Women hate it when men discuss our desirability because we do not want to be disqualified by anyone.

    2: Assuming it’s not malicious (“men shouldn’t be choosy about women”) then why do women think that women change in a marriage enough to make vetting irrelevant? Past behavior, current behavior, and attitudes are good proxies for future behavior.
    Because everyone is an exception in some way, shape or form. Also, see above. Because she is fond of shopping, but she is a shopper who strives to be thrifty, she believes that saying “my hobby is shopping” shouldn’t disqualify her. Because she is a tomboy, but also cooks and cleans and dresses neat (if not girly), she believes that being a tomboy shouldn’t disqualify her. NAWALT, NAWALT, NAWALT.

  6. @ Psalm1Wife

    The two different topics are:

    1. Child of Ra: being off topic versus addressing it. I set the rules for my blog more than a year ago, so that’s why I made the decision I did. I stand by that.

    2. The topic I’m talking about here is the effectiveness of vetting.

    You’re mixing up these two.

    —————–

    Re: Maybe it is a husband’s duty and not a wife’s. Maybe the father is supposed to help her daughter.

    If it’s not a woman’s job then why would women complain about cases such as Josh Duggar? If you get what you get and can’t affect the outcome then why are you complaining? Just deal with it.

    However, if you have the responsibility to find out about who your husband is then you should do it. Otherwise, you’re walking into a potentially dangerous situation unaware. Hence, there’s no good reason not to vet in my opinion.

    This is why I am adamant about talking about past sexual history. If you don’t talk about it then you’re essentially brushing it under the rug and hoping it works out.

  7. Psalm1Wife says:

    DS,
    My point in bringing up Child of Ra was because the stark differences in the way she was perceived is a perfect example for how ineffective vetting could be because each individual will perceive someone’s intentions so differently. Child of Ra was perceived as a troll to some and an honest learner to some. I did not bring her up because of a misunderstanding (with all due respect). You and Laura could have hypothetically both been vetting Child of Ra and based on her less than 100 words, you to came to entirely different conclusion, that is why I suggested that vetting would still keep the odds at 50%. Although in your defense you do suggest a long vetting period (one year?).

    “Hence, there’s no good reason not to vet in my opinion.”

    I completely, utterly agree and I would also say that Laura did too, but I venture to guess that her point was not taken because it had nothing to do with a pro or anti vetting stance, but everything to do with it’s effectiveness. Laura suggested that people change over time and I suggested that the overall perception of a person can be all over the radar.

    Lastly, the Anna Duggar example still stands either way because we can presume that her father helped her vet Josh.

  8. Psalm1Wife says:

    *you two came to two entirely different conclusions.* pardon me

  9. Disagree on Hypergamy.

    “Disagreed with hypergamy. It’s a feature of women’s biology just like polygamy is a feature of men. However, these facets need to be taught to [self] controlled otherwise they rapidly lead to sinful behavior.”

    Hypergamy finds only the top 20% of men attractive. What this means is that for an even population of 100 people 50 men 50 women all 500 women are attracted to the same 10 men. They might settle for the next 10 below the top but anything less than that is met with pure disgust. Women hate the bottom 60% of men (this means they want them to be slaves and or die) and the sex with the middle 10% is begrudging. Of course what they don’t realize is that if the bottom 60% do die off then the attractive pool cuts down to just 4 men out of 20. Do you see where this leads?

    Do you not see the issue with this?

  10. @ Psalm1Wife

    My point in bringing up Child of Ra was because the stark differences in the way she was perceived is a perfect example for how ineffective vetting could be because each individual will perceive someone’s intentions so differently. Child of Ra was perceived as a troll to some and an honest learner to some. I did not bring her up because of a misunderstanding (with all due respect). You and Laura could have hypothetically both been vetting Child of Ra and based on her less than 100 words, you to came to entirely different conclusion, that is why I suggested that vetting would still keep the odds at 50%.

    Child of Ra has nothing to do with vetting though. It’s enforcing the rules I laid out on my blog.

    Let’s suppose you are correct that it has to do with vetting. She is also not a Christian so that disqualifies her anyway. Even supposing she is a 24 year old virgin woman I would not be willing to engage a woman that is unwilling to respect the rules prior laid down and then throw a pity party when called out on it. This shows to me that she is willing to paint herself as a victim and unwilling to take responsibility for her actions. That’s not something I’m looking for in a relationship.

    Her being a curious 24 year old virgin is merely peripheral to the entire issue. I am vetting for character.

    Although in your defense you do suggest a long vetting period (one year?).

    6-12 months dating or whatever you want to call it and 3-6 months engagement.

    “Hence, there’s no good reason not to vet in my opinion.”

    I completely, utterly agree and I would also say that Laura did too, but I venture to guess that her point was not taken because it had nothing to do with a pro or anti vetting stance, but everything to do with it’s effectiveness. Laura suggested that people change over time and I suggested that the overall perception of a person can be all over the radar.

    While this is again not the case I will address it anyway.

    Perception can be cleared up with honest and direct communication. This is why I apologized for my impatience and unkindness directly. I didn’t blame anyone for my actions. I didn’t mention that other people did anything wrong. I took responsibility for what I did specifically because that is what was right. No matter how I’m influenced or affected by others I need to walk in the Spirit.

    Past behavior and current behavior are good proxies of how a wife will act simply because it takes into account how they respond to your actions especially if/when you wrong them.

    My girl readily admits when she is wrong when I call her on it. She doesn’t throw a pity party or paint herself as a victim. If she did then she wouldn’t be my girl. This is vetting for character traits such as humility, kindness, patience, and understanding of personal responsibility.

    Character is developed over time much like trust, and it rarely changes due to circumstances.

    Lastly, the Anna Duggar example still stands either way because we can presume that her father helped her vet Josh.

    If they did vet him then they did a poor job.

    “Coming from a good family” is not a good reason to not ask about testimony, past sexual history, and current behavior.

  11. @ entropyismygod

    Hypergamy finds only the top 20% of men attractive. What this means is that for an even population of 100 people 50 men 50 women all 500 women are attracted to the same 10 men. They might settle for the next 10 below the top but anything less than that is met with pure disgust. Women hate the bottom 60% of men (this means they want them to be slaves and or die) and the sex with the middle 10% is begrudging. Of course what they don’t realize is that if the bottom 60% do die off then the attractive pool cuts down to just 4 men out of 20. Do you see where this leads?
    Do you not see the issue with this?

    What you are missing is that both in the Scripture and older cultural structures set all men up to be respected.

    1. Men were overall respected as a whole prior to the 1960s.
    2. Women cannot have teaching positions in the Church.
    3. Men today are significantly less masculine than previously (as also evidenced by declining testosterone levels). etc.

    While all women were not about to get a “top alpha” they were able to get “their alpha” which left their hypergamy satisfied.

    This is what happened with assortive mating. A 6 women looked up to a 6 man because men were respected as a whole, and the man was masculine, and other facets.

    The arise of feminism destroyed Scripture mores and the cultural traditions where men were respect and hence hypergamy was unchained which leads to the destructive impact that you are talking about in your comment. This is not how it always was.

    Hence, hypergamy is a natural biological facet of women that needs to be controlled whether by [self] and/or authority structures. Likewise, this is the same for men’s natural instinct to spread his seed to as many women as possible.

  12. @ entropyismygod

    It should also be noted that many cultures, although not ours, skip a significant part of the false notion of “romance” that our culture abides now. This short circuits both hypergamy and playerdom.

    This is arranged marriages or semi-arranged marriages.

  13. @DS

    “What you are missing is that both in the Scripture and older cultural structures set all men up to be respected.”

    No, I understand that. It does not matter what they did or didn’t do to control for it. The fact that it needed to be controlled in the first place shows that it was “out of control”.

    Are you saying that women who “got their alpha” did not engage in the same exact sex control and rationing that goes on today? There are several links that showcase many news articles from the past and stories and books about even lowly peasant girls choosing not to marry while a Barron or prince was single and searching for a wife. How about Bathsheba? How alpha does Uriah have to be? How many men does he have to kill to satiate his wife’s hypergamy, so she would choose not to shower naked in front of the King?

  14. @ entropyismygod

    No, I understand that. It does not matter what they did or didn’t do to control for it. The fact that it needed to be controlled in the first place shows that it was “out of control”.
    Are you saying that women who “got their alpha” did not engage in the same exact sex control and rationing that goes on today? There are several links that showcase many news articles from the past and stories and books about even lowly peasant girls choosing not to marry while a Barron or prince was single and searching for a wife. How about Bathsheba? How alpha does Uriah have to be? How many men does he have to kill to satiate his wife’s hypergamy, so she would choose not to shower naked in front of the King?

    The problem is you’re not separating out what is the created nature or “good” and what is the sinful nature or “bad.”

    Most of us are born with a sexual nature and sexual desire. Does the fact that men and women have a strong sexual desire that can go “out of control” make it bad? No.

    Sin (hamartia) is the fullness of desire (epithumia — epi- fullness and -thumia desire) meeting temptation. James 1 states that desire meets temptation and gives birth to sin which gives birth to death. A biological urge or desire is not a sin in and of itself. It must meet temptation and give in to become sin.

    Biological desires: thirst, hunger, sex, hypergamy, and all of the rest are not sinful in and of themselves. However, they can lead to sinful things without structure or if we are incontinent or lack self control about them:

    ~ Hunger and thrist -> Gluttony, Greed
    ~ Hypergamy -> serial monogamy
    ~ Sexual desire -> fornication

    However, all of these things given self control have a godly outlet for them. Sexual desire and hypergamy can be satisfied with marriage.

    Hunger and thirst with contentment. Hence, why I tell those who are trying to lose weight to eat to content or satisfied not until they are full.

    Anyway, I gotta go for the night but that’s the gist of it.

  15. @DS

    “The problem is you’re not separating out what is the created nature or “good” and what is the sinful nature or “bad.”

    I do understand it though. I am saying that there is nothing good about hypergamy, ever. It cannot be satisfied, it is a black hole, un-fillable. A bottomless pit, ever hungering, an addiction. There is no such thing as a good amount of heroin addiction, you can’t use “enough” heroin to be satisfied. You can’t recreationally use Heroin.

    Thank you for your time and we can continue this later, but there are endless examples of women being unable to be fulfilled.

  16. Psalm1Wife says:

    DS,

    “(paint herself as a victim… unwilling to take responsibility…)That’s not something I’m looking for in a relationship.” and “I am vetting for character.”

    These statements give me a better understanding of your process because you are right: I was using her virginity and youth as reasons you (or any man) might consider her but you have shown reasons where she disqualifies and by doing so, giving us a real life example, which is appreciated.

    “Perception can be cleared up with honest and direct communication.” and “Character is developed over time much like trust, and it rarely changes due to circumstances.”

    These statements are so clearly true and I am not opposed to admitting that I am wrong here, but something apart from these facts still seems to red flag the validity of vetting at a 90% or more success rate. Like I said, I could be wrong but also, I think that TPC brought up one half of a legitimate point in a roundabout way. With women growing up in a feminist saturated society, it is hard for them (us) to separate that from our character and with boys growing up with porn addictions that started from a pre teen age, it just seems like these heavy, burdensome sin issues might resurface years down the road in a way that vetting absolutely could not weed out because they aren’t character issues at all, they are sin issues.

  17. an observer says:

    Truth is relative to women, so personal history can always be ‘reinterpreted’ in her favour. Hence vetting is less valuable because her recounting of it favours improving her position and herd status.

    A woman projects this on men, expecting them to be duplicitous, and they mostly aren’t. Men value truth and de-emphasis jockeying for status.

    Either way, past behaviour is an accurate predictor of future behaviour.

    And note that Josh Duggars use of porn is commonly censured, but women’s use of emoporn or failure to try meeting a husbands needs gets a free pass. Irritating as always.

  18. stickdude90 says:

    What women values can change through time as well. We are fickle creatures. Liberal one decade, conservative the next, back to liberal again, as it suits our needs for what we want at any given time.

    As if men didn’t have enough reasons to completely avoid marriage in this day and age – and she wants to give us even more?!?

  19. Looking Glass says:

    “superslaviswife” gets most of it. Women who aren’t under authority (and respect it) flail about. Women who are under authority mold themselves to that authority, but their inner character doesn’t change quickly. This is part of the reason there is such an attack on Husband Headship within the church: being outside of authority lets a Woman’s Sin do as it pleases.

    This leads to another topic that even bringing up should cause a massive response: A Man that is in control of himself can easily manipulate Women. It doesn’t matter what his character is, but he is capable of doing it. So if it’s done for God’s Glory, then it is heavenly influence; if it is done for personal gain, then it is to Satan’s Purposes. That is it fairly easily doable is not in question. It’s just a matter of to what purpose it is used by a Man. This is part of the nature of the curse the Lord placed upon Women in Genesis.

    @entropyismygod:

    First, I’d change your name. There is no other gods before the Lord.

    Second, you’re attempting to make hypergamy into some Uber Sin that’s utterly uncontrollable. It is controllable. But only in the Redemption of the Spirit. A society can enforce its rules, but if the Heart is corrupt, the society will have to enact punishment. And many Women will damn themselves with their Corrupt Heart rather than turn to the Lord. But that is their choice and the consequences are on their head.

    Also, the Lord kind of beat you to the point about the nasty effects by 3000 years. Proverbs 30:20 KJV: “Such is the way of an adulterous woman; she eateth, and wipeth her mouth, and saith, I have done no wickedness.”

    On the topic in general, everyone is unique, but very few are “special”. And here’s a quote I’ve used for a while. “If you know the System, you know 90% of the outcomes.” It’s the nature of the natural world, of which we are a part of. Most propaganda functions off this understanding, and that works really well.

    Also, one other note. There’s no guarantee of a spouse. Heck, the Lord points out there is no guarantee you’ll have genitals.

    Matthew 19:10-12 (ESV):

    10 The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” 11 But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.”

    Those at the lower rungs of the SMV/MMV chart do have my sympathy. But your first priority is always to the Lord. Everything else follows from that.

  20. lgrobins says:

    stickdude,

    DS failed to link to my post that prompted what I said (and that I linked to at same time).
    https://unmaskingfeminism.wordpress.com/2011/06/26/for-women-politics-is-about-their-needs/

    I covered an article where my criticism is that women seem to be involved in politics only when it suits their needs, like when it affects their actual children (not necessarily all children). The majority of women are going to be like this, and yes I agree– don’t marry.

    DS, there is too much to respond to here that I may do it in parts. One advantage single people have with no kids, is a lot of time to defend themselves.

    You said some good stuff and Psalmwife is right that I am not against vetting, but I still don’t agree with your high numbers (maybe I am unteachable too). TPC is saying until you yourself are married, have run all your questions and tests and are married for a good long time, can you say beyond a doubt it works. That is why I think she doesn’t put much weight in single men talking about marriage. I use to talk about being a mom before I was a mom, thinking I had all the answers, and then I was seriously humbled.

  21. Maea says:

    It is worth noting while vetting is an effective method for screening potential marriage partners, it has a limitation.

    Something I’ve noticed missing from marriage discussions is talk about how marriage has to navigate the uncertainty of life. This differs from the uncertainty of a person. It’s possible to vet a person’s character and gain a very accurate view of it in a few months; what isn’t predictable is how the same person will handle the trials of life in marriage. People are complicated and a lot of the methods don’t account for it.

  22. stickdude90 says:

    Here’s my question for those pointing out the limitations of vetting, or that vetting isn’t valid because the person doing the vetting isn’t married and doesn’t really know how marriage works –

    If reducing the odds of divorce is the goal, what’s the alternative to vetting potential spouses as carefully as you can given your knowledge and life experience so far? Is there a different system that will better reduce the odds?

    @lgrobins – I was just going from the snippet DS posted in this post – I’ll go read the linked article and your full comments when I get a chance.

  23. lgrobins says:

    If past behavior is weighted so heavily, what hope does the porn user or alcoholic have of ever changing? If past behavior dictates future behavior.

    Stickdude,
    Vetting reduces the odds for sure, just like an employer should vet an employee for drugs, etc. But it doesn’t guarantee the person won’t do drugs once employed. We all have to do our due diligence. There is no better method. All you can do is the best you can do and hope for the best. No guarantees in life on anything.

    BTW, DS posted my full comment just not the link I included. And if you do it read it the formatting is all bad cause it was transferred from my old blogspot and didn’t go through well.

  24. Maea says:

    We all have to do our due diligence. There is no better method. All you can do is the best you can do and hope for the best. No guarantees in life on anything.

    What LGR said is the driving principle behind marriage is in the vows: For better or worse. It’s not until my wife said she’s unhaappy, or my husband is unemployed and is drinking too much.

    People behaving badly doesn’t nullify the promises in wedding vows. People who don’t respect the gravity of marriage vows should not get married, period.

  25. @ entropyismygod

    LG covered it will. But I’ll comment too.

    I do understand it though. I am saying that there is nothing good about hypergamy, ever. It cannot be satisfied, it is a black hole, un-fillable. A bottomless pit, ever hungering, an addiction. There is no such thing as a good amount of heroin addiction, you can’t use “enough” heroin to be satisfied. You can’t recreationally use Heroin.

    The same could be stated about any other sins, especially the 7 deadly ones:

    Pride, lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, and envy… these are all sins that cannot be quenched such is their thirst for more and more and more.

    My point being that that as men (or husbands) as have to understand that women (or wives) are a weaker vessel of sorts (1 peter 3) and to not become embittered with them (Col 3).

    That is something that is very difficult, and I am fortunate to have made it past that stage without letting their particular weaknesses and struggles get to me.

  26. @ superslaviswife

    I didn’t comment earlier but thanks for replying.

    That’s mostly what I figure when I briefly touched on:

    1. Special snowflake syndrome
    2. Team women

    Women really hate being “judged” by any manner at all.

  27. @ Psalm1Wife

    In general, a vetting process to me has 3 things going on simultaneously:

    1. See if she is attractive enough

    2. See if she displays fruits from her Christian walk

    3. Look for areas of disqualification: look at her character, look how she trusts, look how she follows, look who she respects, etc.

    Most women once they pass the attractive enough test it all becomes about seeing if she is walking the walk and not just talking the talking.

    As I’ve said before on a couple of posts is that real leadership is shown in the midst of conflict.

    This also applies to women in how they react to conflict whether it be a rebuke, admonishment, trust issue, lack of communication, or whatever else. Do they withdraw? Do they pain themselves a victim? Do they take responsibility?

    You learn a lot about someone’s character by what they do or don’t do when they are stressed or put under the pressure of conflict.

    Like I said, I could be wrong but also, I think that TPC brought up one half of a legitimate point in a roundabout way. With women growing up in a feminist saturated society, it is hard for them (us) to separate that from our character and with boys growing up with porn addictions that started from a pre teen age, it just seems like these heavy, burdensome sin issues might resurface years down the road in a way that vetting absolutely could not weed out because they aren’t character issues at all, they are sin issues.

    https://deepstrength.wordpress.com/2015/08/25/communication-in-relationships-part-1/

    Building off that last point, you can see that my girl did not initially act well towards conflict. She tends to have a personality that avoids it.

    However, when I corrected her on her behavior she was willing to admit that she (1) had a problem, (2) would work on fixing it, (3) didn’t try to paint herself as a victim, and (4) wanted to follow my lead.

    If she had handled it poorly multiple times then I probably would have broken up with her as she would not be able to engage in healthy communication.

    The problem is not so much as having character issues or sin issues. Everyone has them. However, when brought under the microscope how do people respond:

    ~ Do they double down on their sin?
    ~ Do they give into pride and never admit they’re wrong?
    ~ Or do they humbly admit they have issues that they need to work out?

    These are things that I look for when I vet because it is important to suss out if their character and trust are worthy of commitment.

  28. @ lgrobins

    DS, there is too much to respond to here that I may do it in parts. One advantage single people have with no kids, is a lot of time to defend themselves.

    A blessing and a curse.

    You said some good stuff and Psalmwife is right that I am not against vetting, but I still don’t agree with your high numbers (maybe I am unteachable too).

    I’m curious as to the highest number you think is the case.

    Given the evidence I think that 90-95% is the floor. Maybe you can reach up into the 99%+ range if you get involved with a very traditional community.

    However, for most men I think that the 95% interval is something to aim for. That’s the point of 2 standard deviations and what most scientific evidence is built on in establishing if a hypothesis is true or false. I would take a 1 in 20 chance that I will never be divorced.

    TPC is saying until you yourself are married, have run all your questions and tests and are married for a good long time, can you say beyond a doubt it works. That is why I think she doesn’t put much weight in single men talking about marriage. I use to talk about being a mom before I was a mom, thinking I had all the answers, and then I was seriously humbled.

    While that is true in that you can’t count your chickens before they hatch in a singular case, the stats readily prove this false.Like the Andy Stanley quote says… people are unique… but experiences are not.

    Selected categories such as virginity, active faith, age, education, attitudes, and all of the ones I listed above are strong predictors of stable marriages. They show that vetting for such a woman can be extremely effective.

  29. @ Maea

    partners, it has a limitation.
    Something I’ve noticed missing from marriage discussions is talk about how marriage has to navigate the uncertainty of life. This differs from the uncertainty of a person. It’s possible to vet a person’s character and gain a very accurate view of it in a few months; what isn’t predictable is how the same person will handle the trials of life in marriage. People are complicated and a lot of the methods don’t account for it.

    You’re not understanding the applicability of statistics correctly. The statistics do take into account the uncertainty of life. Basically, all of the stats come from people of vastly different backgrounds and careers: it’s representative of the population as a whole and the diversity it contains.

    We’re looking at one specific trait over the whole population and how those people responded to it. For example, some people who married virgin women… Lost their jobs. Some were 10 years older. Some were probably 10 years younger.Some were different religions. Some were uneducated. Some were educated. Some are unhappy. Some are happy.

    The 80-85% statistic tells us that a virgin regardless of their personality or their life situations has an 80-85% chance of a stable marriage. That is why this virginity is so important.

  30. Of course. One woman is far more dependent on society than one man. We have no choice but to try and fit in and to complain when we don’t fit.

  31. anonymous_ng says:

    I would agree with TPC on this little piece:

    “Anna Duggar made the kind of choice a lot of women have made historically, which is to pick what they thought they could live with from a very short list of their real marriage options.”

    Men and women place far too high a value on a coffee date. I think someone posted it at Dalrock’s blog that most people never date more than X number of people with X being some very small number like 12 or something.

    Some folks are waiting for “The One”. Others are trying to make the one they’re with into someone acceptable. Still others are deathly afraid of being alone and are latching onto whomever comes along.

    Well, if you’re only going to date a handful of people and choose from them, then you’ve got to vet them pretty hard ahead of time. If you’re getting coffee with someone else every other week, maybe you don’t have to force it.

    Just a thought.

  32. jeff says:

    women complain plenty when they do fit!

  33. Maea says:

    DS, I wasn’t responding to the virginity topic. I was responding to vetting.

    Yes, statistics are useful but they are an inference. They are not a 100% fool-proof method, just as vetting isn’t 100% fool-proof either and that was the problem TPC was pointing out. I think unmarried people need to accept marriage is a leap of faith no matter what.

  34. Feminine But Not Feminist says:

    @ Superslaviswife

    Of course. One woman is far more dependent on society than one man. We have no choice but to try and fit in and to complain when we don’t fit.

    This is mostly true, except for one part: we always have a choice. It surely isn’t an easy choice, but we can choose. We choose whether to complain or not about our station in life, and about whether or not to seek to fit in to society, particularly when following God means that it’s impossible for you to fit in.

  35. Looking Glass says:

    Vetting + Prayer. God isn’t stupid and he does answer if you ask (though you need to be willing to listen, which tends to be a larger problem for Christians).

    Also, I love how the Women are focused on Vetting not being fool-proof. This is actually a classic Male/Female cognition & rhetoric differential. If I can limit my downside exposure risk of divorce to 98%, you better be believe most every Man is going to take that.

    There is never an excuse, as a Christian, for lack of Wisdom in decision making when you have time to think & pray about it. You are responsible for your choices. When it comes to Marriage, the default is to start from the assumption that you shouldn’t. That most Christians can be bothered to start there is a large sickness within modern Christianity.

  36. Maea says:

    An observation…I can’t say I’m surprised by the stark differences between the married people’s views, and the unmarried. I think LGR is on to something when she said experience is humbling.

  37. Maea says:

    @ Looking Glass:

    Also, I love how the Women are focused on Vetting not being fool-proof.

    It’s not just vetting, it’s everything. The manosphere is unduly preoccupied with pursuing the fool-proof life from every theoretical angle possible. God did not intend life to be that way. There comes a time where practice and critical thinking are to be considered, along with the experience of those who’ve been married and work at it.

  38. jack says:

    I would take advice from an unmarried man far, far more than I would a divorced beta husband who got steamrolled in divorce court.
    And marriage advice from a woman? Ummm, no.

  39. jack says:

    Maea-

    Do you actually think men need to be told it isn’t foolproof? Do you actually think you are contributing new information or adding to the conversation?

    Your comment is classic female straw man logical fallacy. We don’t expect anything to be foolproof. So sorry you just don’t understand male logic. Nice try at diversionary nonsense though.

  40. jack says:

    @entropy:
    Are you saying that women who “got their alpha” did not engage in the same exact sex control and rationing that goes on today? There are several links that showcase many news articles from the past and stories and books about even lowly peasant girls choosing not to marry while a Barron or prince was single and searching for a wife. How about Bathsheba? How alpha does Uriah have to be? How many men does he have to kill to satiate his wife’s hypergamy, so she would choose not to shower naked in front of the King?

    And then women like to get all indignant and repeat the old myth that they were once treated like cattle. Lolzlzolz.

    If I only got my peasant girl wife after she was done waiting to see if she could win the prince/baron lottery, I don think I would treat her like the delicate flower of beauty and grace she might feel entitled to be thought of.

    Make me a sandwich, M’Lady…

    Feminists often like to repeat the myth that women were once treated like livestock. But this is classic projection. All it takes is a bit of honesty with oneself to see which sex truly treats the other like a prized draft animal.

    Women draw attention away from their own cold, utilitarian use of men by accusing men of the very thing the women are doing. Very wily.

  41. Psalm1Wife says:

    DS,
    The more I read through these comments and yours in particular I do see that you are right. It is wise. Your method is credible even though you are unmarried- perhaps that actually shows how credible your vetting process is. I thought your process was roo rigid that you would be weeding out beautiful fully bloomed flowers right along with the weeds, but the more I contemplate what you’ve said here, the more I see that your process is a good one that doesn’t skim over potentials at all. Especially when you indicated that your girl woyld have to exhibit x-behaviour a few times before you would break up with her. That is merciful and shows your willingness to forgive as well, not ruthless and rigid. Good luck with your lady.

  42. Psalm1Wife says:

    Over at lena’s blog there is a convo about attraction and it is similar to this one in some of the ways that you’ve commented and jack has. I answered over there but am still in moderation at the moment. But regarding a woman’s perspective- I humbly do believe from experience that women are not fully capable of vetting in this wise manner, especially at a younger age. I know that they could- nawalt or whatnot, but I cannot endorse a father’s full involvement enough. Looking back on my pre-marriage years, I would offer that an overly strict society where women cannot rebel against their fathers (not disregarding freewill here, but generally speaking), would allow young women the best opportunities for marriage selection. Here was my comment:

    The closest I can get to agreeing with IB is this: women can “choose” their attraction in the sense that they choose to stay in certain settings or better yet- avoid certain settings to find a man to desire to begin with. Otherwise, it’s more about other women really.

    The only reason that women who are in rebellion tend to date “bad boys” is because they change their environment. I have said before that if a woman were to rebel against her father and somehow end up in a church, then the new youth pastor with a cute wife would be her new crush. The only reason that “bad boys” or whichever category you wish is attractive, is because that is where the woman is in her life. The rebellion has A LOT to do with why women might end up with a specific type of guy (i.e. white trash guy, no job guy, etc.) because a woman’s setting changes along with rebellion so an entire new pool of guys is in her consideration.

    Add into that the fact that: as soon as women start noticing that other women are noticing a certain male, they will notice that male. I truly do not believe hardly any women will consider their personal attraction level to the male, they will base their determination on other women’s attraction level to him. Women will find attractive what other women find attractive. Which explains how the white trash guy gets a shot to begin with: a certain group of women have found him attractive all along but when the girl is the newest person to the setting, these women are new to her too so she instantly gauges their attraction levels to the various guys in the group. So when she sees that this man is desired by all the women in the setting, she automatically starts desiring him too.

    Women are full of competition and jealousy. It drives them to look prettier than their friends. It drives them to lie about how much money their husband earns. It just also drives them to want to be desired by the man getting desired. Simple. Embarrassing, but simple.

    Put succinctly: female attraction has two equal parts; setting and vetting*.

    *LOL I had to do this! It just sounds too awesome but I also purposely used this hot button word to make a point: the only “vetting” a woman does is feel out how her potential man bounces off of other women, like a bat does with sonar.

    https://notequalbutdifferent.wordpress.com/2015/09/10/the-best-christian-wives-are-not-attracted-to-their-godly-husbands/

  43. jack says:

    Off topic-

    Look at how the times are changing – Office Depot is now calling abortion opponents “persecutors”.

    http://www.theamericanmirror.com/report-office-depot-refuses-to-print-anti-abortion-flyer/

    I can no longer shop there. Ever again.

  44. Maea says:

    @jack

    We don’t expect anything to be foolproof. So sorry you just don’t understand male logic.

    “Male logic”? Since when did part of the trivium start ascribing gender to itself?

    I never said vetting was fruitless, only it’s not foolproof. It means it has no guarantees and with the best vetting comes risk. It’s possible to significantly reduce it, but you’re still dealing with another person– not numbers.

  45. jack says:

    Ummm, yeah, we know that. That is why we always say we want to reduce risk, or reduce likelihood, not “remove risk”.

  46. Robin Munn says:

    Re: Office Depot –

    I was going to say “Sue ’em”, and I’m glad the Thomas More Society threatened to do so. One of two things could happen if such a suit went to court:

    1) It would be established that (under the current legal climate) printers can’t refuse to print anything based on viewpoint, just as bakers can’t refuse to bake cakes for any customers based on viewpoint. This, I think, would be the wrong result from a legal perspective, but since the wrong principle has already been established, make them hold to it to get the right result in this case.

    2) It would be established that whether or not you can refuse to serve a customer is entirely based on whether your viewpoint is the “acceptable” one in society. This would produce the wrong result in this case, but would make the hypocrisy of the ruling even more obvious.

    Either way, something good could be brought out of it. Though since Office Depot’s management have, “upon a more detailed review,” decided to print the flyers after all, the lawsuit won’t happen now. (Translation: “now that we’ve seen the potential for truly atrocious PR from our actions.”)

  47. Mighty Pen says:

    “I would take advice from an unmarried man far, far more than I would a divorced beta husband who got steamrolled in divorce court.
    And marriage advice from a woman? Ummm, no.”

    HA! A sentiment could not be more veritable. I myself am nodding heartily in agreement at your words, my bro. As a man who has been single for over thirty years, I am coming to see resilience for what it really is: alpha behavior. I used to be heartbroken over women when I was a soft youth, but I have picked myself up by the boot straps, if I may, and have hardened myself to become resolute. I am a self-made man in an era of moral decay.

    There were many opportunities that I could have had, based on body language and conversations with the opposite sex. However, looking back I can see how unwise it would have been to reciprocate interest. When I think back and really focus, these interests of mine were likely lying, filthy whores. Yes, I said the “w” word (where it belonged). Although these women are married now, and often to my friends, I pity my bruhs on the day their honeymoon period ends.

    Now, I’m at the point in the game where I can tell a woman with character flaws within the first few minutes of talking to her or even by sight. A woman who interrupts or babbles on and on? Does not respect my boundaries. A woman who wears too much jewelry and make up or high heels? She is sexually promiscuous. She wants alpha male attention, which I refuse her.

    I’m glad to have found a Christian side of the manosphere. It’s a place where I can metaphorically undo my belt and relax. I would like to buy a round of drinks and cigars for these good men. (Sorry, girls, you’re not invited). Cheers!

  48. Feminine But Not Feminist says:

    A woman who wears too much jewelry and make up or high heels? She is sexually promiscuous.

    Since when does dressing in a feminine way mean that a woman must be sexually promiscuous? Good grief. If the jewelry, makeup, and heels are accompanied by a mini skirt, a top showing cleavage, or some other such very revealing clothing, then you’re probably right. But if jewelry, (light) makeup, and heels are accompanied by a tasteful (aka modest but still pretty) dress, THAT certainly doesn’t scream sexual promiscuity; it screams that she is comfortable with her femininity, which is a GOOD thing.

  49. Robin Munn says:

    FBNF – You may have missed the words “too much” in Mighty Pen’s statement. Depending on what amount he considers to be too much, you may be largely in agreement with him and not realizing it yet.

  50. Looking Glass says:

    @FBNF:

    Haha. For us that know how Men & Women communicate differently, your response is pretty funny. (And generally expected.) You missed what he was saying (and meaning) and went right to the emotional response. Love ya. 🙂

    But what he was talking about, which was pretty clear, is Women who attire themselves beyond what is proper for the situation. Sometimes even a just a little, as its a sign of what they are after. And that is dominant Male attention & sex. Once you get “eyes” to see it, it’s really quite easy.

    For a lot of Men, when something in this vein happens, they shake their head and go “jeez, Women, I tell ya!”. These days, it’s really just worth a laugh. I guess that’s a personal improvement.

    @Mighty Pen:

    For health reasons, I can neither drink nor smoke. At some level, I do feel like I missed out on something. At the same time, I kind of hate smelling like smoke as well.

  51. Pingback: Her father | Christianity and the manosphere

  52. Pingback: Some Scattered Thoughts | Donal Graeme

  53. Pingback: Doing your homework, studying, and the exam | Christianity and the manosphere

  54. Pingback: Bisschoppensynode omtrent het gezin | Bijbelvorser = Bible Researcher

  55. Pingback: The free will to marry | Christianity and the manosphere

  56. Pingback: Doom and gloom and the amount of attractive Christian virgins Part 2 | Christianity and masculinity

  57. Pingback: A man’s take on potentially dating or marrying a woman with a past | Christianity and masculinity

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s