70 years of wedded bliss

(h/t Lena S.)

As unto the bow the cord is,
So unto the man is woman;
Though she bonds him she obeys him,
Though she draws him, yet she follows,
Useless each without the other!”

Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

In our modern times it is easy to get swept away in all the cynicism and gloom of the ever growing insanity of life. For that reason it is good to remind ourselves of positive stories and, more importantly, that such positive stories are still possible. While the Supreme Court yesterday paved the way for the legalization of gay marriage here in the US, there is a good story coming out of Canada. It is about a couple, Doug and Helen Hatton, who celebrated their 70th wedding anniversary yesterday, June 26th, at a time when many cannot last even 7.

One thing I noticed about them was their playfulness. These two enjoyed teasing each other a bit. My favorite line from the article is when Doug says (highlighted),

Helen lives at Rapelje Lodge on Plymouth Rd. and Doug travels from his Denistoun St. apartment twice a day every day to see his wife.

“I do it just to see her, to be with her for a bit,” he says modestly of the dedicated trek.

“Where else would I go? Must mean I kind of like you.”

This is something too many people do not understand, the importance of simple joking and teasing. My grandparents were great with that and their marriage lasted just a few months short of fifty years when my grandmother passed. It is strange but with the elderly couples you can more clearly see the dynamics of a successful marriage. When two people can sit silently together yet know the other’s heart and mind, that is when you have truly become one.

Instead of teasing, I see and read about guys always complimenting and essentially appeasing the woman. An occasional compliment is constructive, constantly doing so is not. The men who do this are the same ones that place her as their center. It is not meant to be this way. Men are not the relation beings, women are. Women exist in relation to men; their fathers then their husbands. Those women who lack such relation are adrift in a chaotic existence. Men are, instead, the rock upon which women find refuge from their emotional whirlwind.

I believe those with the long, healthy, happy marriages are the people who best understand this and apply it to their lives. It is not misogynistic to say this about women because that would imply it is a bad thing for women to be this way. But it is not a bad thing. Eve was made that way before the fall, meaning it is an inherently good aspect of female nature. A man should neither cater to a woman’s erratic emotions nor allow himself to be controlled by them. He is meant to lift her above them, not be dragged down with her. Happiness for both comes from stabilizing the woman by first strengthening yourself.

How does a man strengthen himself? He places God as his center. It is possible to be a good man without believing in God, but you are not whole and your marriage will never be whole. I must note that he does not place the God of liberal, effeminate Christianity as his center, but rather the biblical God that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, struck down Uzzah, punished the Egyptians, saved an adulteress from a mob, healed the sick, and preached turning the other cheek.

The more people realize what makes a marriage such as the one Doug and Helen Hatton have, the more likely it is they may have a similar marriage. Although the chances of finding a respectable wife, or husband, today is rather slim it is still possible. At the end of the day, for those that are married, it all comes down to this, really,

They still hold hands.

Still look into each other’s eyes.

And still whisper “I love you.”

There is no equality

(h/t Hipster Racist)

The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal.“*

Aristotle

Simply put there is no such thing as equality. The worst tragedies of our age stem from the insidious notion that all people are equal. We can be equal before the law but not anything more. One particularly damaging result of this idea is that men and women must be equal. Feminism is supposedly (although I certainly do not believe it) about achieving equality between the sexes. Such a goal is untenable because to make such an attempt is the equivalent of trying to make apples equal to oranges. How can it be done? The answer is basically: it cannot.

Men and women have complementary natures and, thus, different roles to play. This is not about oppression; it is about acknowledging the laws of nature. Consider the story of Adam and Eve. God first made Adam (man). But God saw that Adam needed a partner, he was not fulfilled by his lonesome. Therefore God created Eve (woman) from the body of Adam. Woman was created from man, for man. Her body was created to receive his. Eve was the comforter of Adam, in body and soul. In her Adam finally found wholeness, and in making him whole Eve was fulfilled.

This is not about whether Adam was equal to Eve. It was about completion of the human person which could only be found in the unity of the sexes. Homosexuality is wrong and polygamy is wrong because they both reject this union. Man cannot be whole with another man and he cannot be whole with more than one woman. Those in rebellion against this eternal truth are denying the complementary natures of the sexes. One must believe that sex is interchangeable, that we are all essentially the same. But it is not true; common sense should dismiss that as lunacy.

A common mischaracterization of scripture would have us believe that men and women, in marriage, are called to “mutual submission”. This is simply not true. Only one person can be the leader in a marriage just as only one can be the captain of a ship. A woman is called to submit to her husband and a husband is to love and give himself up for his wife. This is not something radical, it is fairly simple. It amounts to deference of leadership and most decision making to the husband where he makes choices while honestly considering his wife’s interests.

The idea that men are to submit to their wives was created so as to prevent the Bible from appearing sexist. To require only women submit is to reject equality. However, this overlooks the fact that a man is then tasked with the difficulty of decision making and self-sacrifice for his wife. All feminism has done in terms of liberating women is removing them from submission to their husbands and instead making them submit to indifferent bosses/employers. Add to that the burden of difficult decision making which had once been removed from their shoulders has now been placed back on.

In the end, men want a refuge from the harshness of this world and women want to be that refuge. Why deny what we really want? The feminine is attracted to, and attracts, the masculine because the one wants what it does not have. This is how life works, how humans are made. Our physical bodies are even demonstrative of this complementary nature, of who is to give and who is to receive, who is to submit and who is to dominate. I have to wonder how this is not obvious.

*This first appears in 1974 in an explanation of Aristotle’s politics in Time magazine, before being condensed to an epigram as “Aristotle’s Axiom” in Peter’s People (1979) by Laurence J. Peter

Why marry?

I was curious about why people should even marry. It was not due to me necessarily supporting or opposing marriage, just curiosity. So I looked in the Bible and it is pretty clear about why you should marry,

“But for fear of fornication, let every man have his own wife: and let every woman have her own husband.”

–          1 Corinthians 7:2

“But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt.”

–          1 Corinthians 7:9

In these two passages, the Apostle Paul suggests marriage only to those who cannot contain their passions. He states that his life path, that of celibacy, is preferable to that of marriage. The reason being, I presume, that the celibate is called to a life focused upon God where the married person is called to a life focused upon the flesh; their own, that of their spouse, and the creation of a new generation. This is not to say choosing the path of marriage is bad, of course, how else would we “go forth and multiply” without sinning? That a married man is generally not accepted as a (Catholic) Priest is also for this reason; he cannot as intensely focus upon God if he is married.

So then marriage is only recommended for the person who has an intense want to have sex. There are no other clearly stated reasons. But for those who yearn for sex, there is an expectation to rear a new generation. To remain without sexual sin one must also remain abstinent in marriage, which means in no way intentionally preventing the creation of new life. This means no use of artificial contraception or certain acts. For the man or woman unconcerned about living in perpetual sin, they may do as they wish. However, for those who actually believe, it is necessary to abstain from sin.

Men and women are left with two well defined choices. One is a life of perpetual celibacy, free from marriage, fornication, and masturbation, while focusing entirely upon service to God; or a life of marriage with sex, children, and love, while focusing upon the flesh and God. Most people would obviously choose the life of marriage. How many would opt to forgo a husband or wife, children, and sex? Those who would are the select few and they have a particular role to play in this life, one which is just as, if not more, important than those who opted to marry.

If you want to be scriptural, when someone says “sex is not a legitimate reason to marry”, you can tell them it is the only reason we are to marry. Should you not want sex, then you should not marry. It is better to dedicate your life to another vocation which better fits you. Admitting, “Yes, I must marry because I must have sex” is not wrong, it is just honest. If you do not feel that way, then why are you marrying? Why would you marry a person you do not have an intense want to have sex with? Remember that within marriage your body is now owned by your husband or wife as you own theirs and sex is never to be rejected except upon mutual consent to dedicate time towards prayer.

“The wife hath not power of her own body: but the husband. And in like manner the husband also hath not power of his own body: but the wife. Defraud not one another, except, perhaps, by consent, for a time, that you may give yourselves to prayer: and return together again, lest Satan tempt you for your incontinency.”

–          1 Corinthians 7:4, 5

De puellis intactis et matrimonio

You should be her first, last, and only.

Alright it is time for a controversial post. I expect most women to be offended by this, but who cares. The question men should be asking their future wives today is this: “are you a virgin?” It is an important question and let no feminist, man or woman, tell you otherwise. A man has a right to a virgin bride, if that is what he wants. If you do not care less whether she is a virgin or not, that is fine, it is your life, not mine.

Why does it matter though? For that, I shall quote Julian O’Dea,

“As a girl once said to me, no-one misses a slice from a cut loaf. Even if she has only had one man before you, he may have ruined her for you. And once she has had one, how many others has she had? The fact is, you just don’t know.

I have read credible reports in the Manosphere of men who found their wives had been sexually penetrated by 11, 15, 21 … previous men.

Not a very happy thought to while away the dark early hours of some morning, is it?

The greatest, the very greatest, achievement of Western feminism has been to convince the average man that he is not entitled to a virgin bride.”

Loose women who get offended by men putting high value on virginity do so mostly because they know; deep down, that they gave away something very important.  They would like to think a female’s virginity means as much as a man’s virginity, but it does not. There is a reason women who were not virgins upon their wedding night could be punished in days of old. Virginity was prized because women bond strongly through sex; ideally the only man she should ever bond with, in that way, is her husband.

This has never stopped many women from having sex with more than one man nor has it ever stopped men from marrying non-virgins. And it is perfectly fine for a man to marry a woman who lost her virginity to him before marriage; that should change nothing. She still only ever bonded with him. A couple wherein the woman only ever slept with her husband are by-far the least likely to divorce. To quote The Social Pathologist,

“The above analysis was calculated for 5 year and 10 year divorce risk respectively:

5 year divorce risk for virgins. -0.60. In other words, there was a 60% less risk of divorce.
10 year divorce risk for virgins. -0.402, less than 40% risk of divorce.”

So virgin brides are least likely to divorce you and will bond strongly with you but there is another reason for choosing a virgin bride. Consider how a man, if he has not been shamed into thinking otherwise or simply does not care, views a woman who has had sex with other men. For that I shall quote Dannyfrom504,

“marrying or committing to a slut is like finding a piece of chewed bubble gum on a park bench and deciding that it’d be a good idea to put it in your mouth.”

How many men would want to chew on used bubble gum? Would you pick it off a park bench and toss it in your mouth? I highly doubt it. But that is what you do when marrying a woman who has slept around. Everyone knows (or at least should) that at the top of the marriage pyramid sit the attractive virgin women.

Today it is believed these virgin women no longer exist, which is false. By age 19 about 30% of women are still virgins in America. If you consider that about 70% of women are at least somewhat attractive you have 1 in 5 attractive women turning 19 who are still virgins. Perhaps you should consider not looking for wives in bars, college dorms, or even churches, where the slut factor is through the roof.

This is why women should marry young and not wait until their late 20s or even 30s. Delayed marriage simply means a woman will have more time to spend sleeping around with other guys. Those women who spent their prime years of 17 – 24 sleeping around suddenly wake up at 25 finding they are less attractive then begin considering marriage. What do they have left to bargain with? A degree? Tales of travel? Who gives a damn about that? You may find some nice supplicating guy who pretends to find your stories riveting but after a couple years with him it will likely end with divorce and you living alone with your cats.

Do not misinterpret what I am saying as hating on promiscuous women. I hold no animosity towards them. But they are consumable items in a man’s mind. “How can a man sleep with a woman but not care about her?” Simple, she is a slut. We feel no sense of emotional attachment to her. Even a “hot chick” who is or is not a slut invokes this same response in a man’s brain, as opposed to a cute or beautiful girl. The cute girl invokes the desire of not just sex but protection. Free Northerner wrote an excellent piece on this subject, I shall quote an excerpt here,

“My triggered sexual response to the hot picture is primarily consumptive. There is no emotional elicited by the picture, just primal lust. I desire to fuck her; to use her like a piece of meat for my pleasure. The desired sex would be rough, bestial, and uncaring. When finished with her she would be kicked out. The desire is one of violation.

That is what hot elicits, the desire to consume sexual pleasure without regard for sexual object being consumed.

My triggered sexual response to the cute picture is different; there is an emotional component to the attraction. The desire is not just for sex, but for companionship as well. The desire is not just make love to her, but hold her close and caress her. The desired sex would be gentle and loving, finishing with drifting asleep, arms around her. The desire is one of protectiveness.

This is what cute elicits, the desire hold, to protect, and to love.”

The point here is this: virgin and cute girls are viewed entirely different from slutty and hot girls. You use a slutty/hot girl because she holds no higher value than to satiate your base desires. On the other hand, the cute/virgin girl wins a man’s protection, affection, and invokes a form of desire which is not simply for consumption but for mutual pleasure and unity. The average man notices this distinction but does not fully understand it. Think of it this way, ladies, you see two bunny rabbits. One has to be killed. Which would you feel less bad about being killed, the hideously ugly one or the fluffy cute one? We both know the answer.

I can speak only for myself on this but I would never marry a non-virgin girl. It is non-negotiable. Does that narrow down the number of women greatly? Yes. But I will not settle for some girl who has already had another man inside of her. Not going to happen.  “How do you know she is not lying?” Unfortunately, people lie. Women lie, especially. That does not mean you cannot trust her in general, only that she is human and a woman so lying is not to be unexpected. Julian O’Dea and CL suggested physically checking yourself, to ensure she is not lying, since,

“Well, people wouldn’t tell you it’s a good idea to buy a car without looking under the hood first, especially off a lot where you can’t tell which are used and which are new.”

Previous Post: Rosarium

Next Post: Obsequium est non infirmitate