I would add one carrot to the stick: allow wronged spouses to sue for adultery. Both the other half and especially the Third Party. Make it easy to check online who is married and who isn’t. No excuses.
We used to, and it actually conserved the union. It’s a legal contract re fidelity. ENFORCE IT.
I’d also ban an atheist from getting married. Get a partnership but marriage is a religious ceremony requiring a belief in God/s.
Men have sex for the pleasure, women for the ego trip.
Stay with me, it’s worth it. I’m giving away Woman Inc. trade secrets here. Don’t use them for evil.
It’s erroneously claimed women fantasise about rape. Hell no. No woman has ever done that. It’s a fear worse than death for women, just ask us. Although rape can be a cause of death in women, like the stadium girl during Katrina, who was gang-raped to death (heart attack). It isn’t that… thing, by definition, as one cannot fantasise about a thing we do not want (paradox) and we see the life outcomes on actual rape victims, as bad in adulthood as if it happened as a child. Women do not fantasise about the act or the supposed sex, then. There’s something symbolic in being wanted, taken is a visual proof. We desire to BE irresistible. Look at Aphrodite, goddess of love and pleasure but not her pleasure, that of men. Men gain pleasure (now called male gaze, it’s real) even by looking at her (imagine the howling if bikinis were banned and reconcile the popularity of porn voyeurism versus imagination) and yet the Bible condemns this as the act of lechery, further, as a crime of adultery. …Why? …. Anyone?
Re Venus/Aphrodite and why cults of Satan worship her/Divine Feminine and worship with orgies as their ritual (nb. any fornication counts):
She is not an object, she is a deified subject who draws pleasure to her like a whirlpool of power. She is called vain, for being honest about her allure, she loves to be irresistible. That is what women want, not men. All witches are also enchantresses of men. Men are the source of their power, even Biblical kings. Men are made weak only by desire. the Bible warns men to forswear fornication (to retain spiritual power) and avoid seductive women entirely. Sexual desire flowed to women empowers the earth and its creatures (women) as well as its ruler (Satan). Women are not servants of the devil, though, since it’s men, who are serving their energy up, gladly. They are told they need to, they have to, that it’s good for them physically and socially. Father of Lies is whom? Look at all the lust over Hollywood celebrities and porn, two faces of the same location. Films intended for minors now have sex scenes and it’s considered normal. Men are the weak point in the species because earthliness (worldliness) is not a part of their natural energy, the lure is greater. Women already have a connection to nature via her menstrual cycles. So all major Satanist figures are men. Women have no seed to sacrifice (Onan’s sin) and no energy (active) to give.
Masculine women have sex for the pleasure, effeminate men for the ego trip. This is why slutty men and women have a cultural stigma as inferior quality in personal character, or whorish (or the rake, the cad etc), women as animal (base material nature) and men as trying to prove something about themselves by ‘notch counting’, objectifying the women out of personal insecurity (weakness, from degenerating the originally pure Jesus-like soul of the man, making soul ties that bind and curse the man’s life/witch women ‘cursing’ their prey, the Witch seducing the pure boy in the Wardrobe film, objectifying effete/weak men as animals to serve their pleasure – Circe to Pinocchio). Worldliness destroys men and nothing less. In Pinocchio, they were turned into donkeys/asses, related to horses. What does the Bible, Song of Solomon for example, say about such things? Other parts about anatomy? … I’ll let you draw your own conclusions, how they were using those boys once they became worldly… what were centaurs known for? https://www.boundless.org/relationships/solomons-line-on-premarital-sex/
That is the modern era, where male virginity is shamed. Male purity and power over any women mocked.
Meanwhile, the alpha woman is desired irresistibly (read: LOYALLY) by the alpha male, and the alpha man like a king desires only his alpha woman like a queen. His possession technically (so he has more duties) but both powerful, each body belonging to the other as the Bible decrees. Aragorn and Arwen. K-selection. Prosperous order, God’s path. Two energies made one flesh in union. The two made whole, or HOLY. Good tree producing good fruit. All myths and scriptures describe the same things.
The mistake of degenerate ancient pagans was to make the fertility goddess a man, because they liked men. Man are not fertile. Women are fertile. Mother Earth is fertile. Material things are fertile physically e.g. Lady Luck for cash gambling. The goddess of the mint, where gold coins were made. Men are immaterial, the cerebral sex. A male fertility goddess is not worshipped for his sex (or in Zeus’ case, rape) but his virility. As mentioned before ‘the embrace of a god is always fertile’. But look what happened to the Greeks and Romans, compared to the Empires of Christian societies, where the man is pure (free of sin, free of corruption, clear-THINKING) before marriage like Jesus then devoted to the family by clear cerebral choice and oath. Patriarchies are made by controlled masculine energy (self-control > self-mastery > The Master – of the house/womb) and from this, lineages are produced, great houses and legacies, by working with the woman’s inherent materalism (taming the dragon of Medusa-like rage) or I guess woman’s prima materia, her womb. The womb is an oven in alchemy, called furnace, pregnancy is a ‘bun in the oven’. The woman (womb of man) has generative power as wet (yes – lunar cycles prove it) and earthbound by the male’s seed of heat (primal fire, desire) and air (his cerebral, immaterial nature from God, Lord of the Sky/Heavens). Earth+Water+Fire+Air = Life, through the vesica pisces portal of the vulva. …I guess I also just explained the reality of alchemy. This would be referenced in weddings, right? It’s in the Bible like ‘my cup runneth over’ as material prosperity, blessed by the grace of God, especially when one is kind to women (like Jesus!) as we see in stories* but what about the words spoken? What was chosen? Why?
SO what are the vows? Let’s test this. To husband: honour and OBEY. To wife: love and to CHERISH. If either party neglects these gender roles, the marriage and its union is doomed. The man agrees to desire her and be loyal to her. What is the most common cause of divorce? Adultery. Most common cheat? Husband. Not ‘having and HOLDING’ was he? Opposite of cherishing: rejection and humiliation. Why is Medusa angry? Rejection, broadly. Rage caused by men (here rape) kills men. It all fits. Hera, also angry. Why? Only when he cheats. Again, it all fits. The woman agrees to respect him, honour his place above her (equal yoke of protection) because that in turn protects their fruit (children) in devoted sanctity and to provide this fully, she must obey his wishes because her vantage point is material, lower -but not inferior- than his pure (before marriage, chaste, Christ-like) spiritual origin in energy terms. Woman made of rib (material) and man made of God’s ‘dust’, (air) of pure spiritual will. I AM – is God’s name, God is his Will. His Will be done. Yada yada. Aside: It’s impossible for a woman to be corrupted by the physical nor fully understand the spiritual (no female disciples). Made complementary in energies, as a couple, to produce both sexes of progeny. The success or failure of any marriage thus falls squarely on the husband’s shoulders, as it is his duty and responsibility to lead the union. The vows aren’t just words, but an oath.A commitment of the very soul of man itself. No time for careerism or time with the boys, family comes first. Prov 31, study the husband, his qualities.
And if God had a sex himself, as the creator and birther of the birthers, God would technically be a woman, by his own choice (will) of role allocation. The linguistic has caused confusion since Babel.
God concept = male if in Heavens. Creating souls. God physically = female if on Earth, creating bodies (so sent a son as progeny, a child not conceived by the materialism of sex, spiritually pure masculinity, a lamb). If Christianity’s God has you worship a total virgin, what would Satan? Satanism tries to turn Earth into Revelation’s Whore of Babylon, stealing power from God.
So if Satan had a body, Satan would also be a woman (watch Ninth Gate). Anything materialised is feminine. Naturally, God’s place is in Heaven, ‘He’ would never materialise to become a She, so it’s purely theoretical. But the Anti-Christ would likely claim to be, and hence be female.
Looks like Amber Heard. The sheer irony. Somebody tell Johnny.
Husbands are the maintaining energy between two planes of creation, with religion.
Two planes intersecting, forming a cross….
Religion gives the cross meaning.
Don’t take my word:
“What shall I say, O my son?
What, O son of my womb?“
from Prov 31, included that wording in the Bible, not really a metaphor as often claimed, it’s God speaking to you as the maker of your maker (mother, Holy ‘Father’ to, Lording over-), also Prov 31:
“Do not spend your strength on women
or your vigor on those who ruin kings.”
spend their spiritual energy materially, thereby also old slang for ejaculation much later, we had ‘spend a penny’, to urinate – the cost of public toilets. pre-dec.
“The heart of her husband trusts in her,
and he lacks nothing of value.”
AND he gains AND
A husband’s devotion to his wife is his material expression of his love of God.
It’s all right there. You don’t see epic love stories of a woman’s devotion, do you?
re holy dynamic
“Many daughters have done noble things,
but you surpass them all!”
Charm is deceptive and beauty is fleeting,
but a woman who fears the LORD is to be praised.” God’s creative power being a higher thing.
Main cause of marital arguments? Money. Section of life? Career. Careerism of either party kills marriages and their sanctity but especially male careerism, it’s abandonment of the primary spiritual commitment. Now you know why the 20th century pushed it on men as desirable to abuse one’s wife and children. How so? Why the Mad Men ideal (and why make that show?)… well, neglect is a form of abuse. The children get neglected. No paternal role model, marriage has no head. A headless body flailing about. Mindless, aimless, but bodily – easily tempted and tainted by worldly things. No wits to resist, no guidance or moral authority. Household has no direction, home empties. No active, masculine energy. Employer rapes it, so Fight Club references the distinct impression that modern bosses rape their male employees of their direction, purpose and life’s energy. Wife is abandoned. Feels undesirable. Her righteous anger at this incorrectly makes him think more retreat will fix it. Man is now effete seeming, passive energy. Emasculating himself. Children sense it, act out, no moral authority will punish them effectively. Children go astray morally. Viscious cycle. Marital failure spirals. Man may leave entirely, the deadbeat or remain absent spiritually as guiding marital force. In either case, union dissolves without his steady stream of energy placed on it. Man’s energy must go somewhere, hence secretary cliche. The reason behind argument, a vow made to place energy. Woman placed in home, energy present. Void of husband? Unloved, uncherished. Nothing to give to children without personal loss (as women = passive). Feels helpless without her man, turns to spiritual intoxicants to blot out misery through the physical, her realm (alcohol, food, sex, smoking, sloth). Life outcomes of absentee parent, kids: not good. The spiritual and the material are not separate. You’re just not looking. Husband/father corrupts his wife and their union’s fruit, children, by omission – neglect and spiritual abandonment. His resentment is self-directed but acted-out in a passive way – like a woman, flees. His leading duties are neglected, so the union erodes. Like Medea, women are rageful out of revenge for being wronged. Cannot be active, becomes more passive out of spite. May be parasitic. Crazed/feared woman always made that way by men in every story e.g. bunny boiler, former mistress or wife.
It applies to a great deal of pop culture. Most people don’t see it.
ONE MORE TEST
Example? Name another cliche trope re women. Love triangle. Symbol: irresistible plus masculine, evolved competition. She gets the best mate, the one who desires her most and, here’s the purpose, would sacrifice the most for his family with her (i.e. God’s spiritual purpose of devotion and loyalty in men). So loyalty in men is praised, cowardice disgraced but there’s no female equivalent of cowardice. If you look at Hera’s rage in myth at a body-changer admitting women enjoy sex more, that’s why fertility gods are correctly women – never heard of a man have multiple orgasms. Meanwhile, a man’s pleasure in life and with wife is in the CHILDREN, his lineage and legacy. Male depression and suicide dovetails nicely with the lowest marriage (and reproduction) rates ever. BOOM.
I do wonder how many male suicides have no (surviving) children. Women simply caretake pre-existing family.
*Fact: Men unkind to women suffer materially their whole lives, self-cursed by the material and their rejection of its God-designed representatives. The material is not wrong, sick or evil per se – only perceived so by the weakness of effeminate men who cannot control/influence it and thusly, feel impotent. If you get the dragon, you did something to deserve it. If Lady Luck hates you, start being a gentleman to woo her. Civilized cultures raise men as gents and the ladies arrange themselves, reflecting like the moon to their sun, the quality and calibre of their society’s men. That’s all a society is. The quality of its procreating men, the fathers and husbands. THEREFORE, EVERY SOCIETY IS A PATRIARCHY. A strong (healthy) or weak (dysfunctional) one. Their control of that role. Is it too much, too little? Is there proper energy exchange? Chivalry isn’t historic, it describes a sophisticated power dynamic of holy energies. It was a Christian series of metaphors. Only the West nailed this, for a while. Look what we achieved with it. Then we let it slip, for domineering over the feminine to ‘prove something’ (egocentric stupidity, selfish, too desperate, ultimately impotent) or degeneracy (self-weakening of men via desires rather than morally weakening women, the soft watery mirrors of solar, fiery light). Weakened men (clue: mutilated manhood, less pleasing to women in studies) prefer to push degeneracy to entice their fellow man competition into destroying themselves.
The biographies of 280 scientists indicate that the distribution of their age at the time of their greatest scientific contributions in their careers (age–genius curve) is similar to the age distribution of criminals (age–crime curve). The age–genius curves among jazz musicians, painters and authors are also similar to the age–crime curve. Further, marriage has a strong desistance effect on both crime and genius. I argue that this is because both crime and genius stem from men’s evolved psychological mechanism which compels them to be highly competitive in early adulthood but “turns off” when they get married and have children. Fluctuating levels of testosterone, which decreases when men get married and have children, can provide the biochemical microfoundation for this psychological mechanism. If crime and genius have the same underlying cause, then it is unlikely that social control theory (or any other theory specific to criminal behavior) can explain why men commit crimes and why they desist.
Here are the statistics from the U.S. Census Bureau of the median age at first marriage and a graph of the data going back to 1890.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the figures reported for 1947 to 1999 are based on Current Population Survey data. The figures for years prior to 1947 are based on decennial censuses. A standard error of 0.1 years is appropriate to measure sampling variability for any of the above estimated median ages at first marriage based on Current Population Survey data.
The further you go back, THE OLDER THE BRIDE AND GROOM ARE.
Either you never looked it up (stupid) or you’re lying.
“A new study published in the journal PLOS One has provided evidence that having a spouse by your side can be a real stress reliever in a moment of crisis.”
“Interestingly enough, a 2018 study found that when romantic partners hold hands, their breathing, heart rate, and even brain wave patterns actually sync up, which enables them to relieve both emotional and physical pain. But this new BYU study is unique in that it used a more biological means of measuring stress, as opposed to relying on surveys.”
“The study also builds upon previous research that being married can help lower your blood pressure, body mass index, and cholesterol levels, reduce your risk of heart disease and dementia, and even boost your overall longevity. For more on this, find out why Science Says a Happy Spouse Means a Longer Life.”
happy wife, happy life
women don’t need to be told the reverse
If there were a supplement that provided all these benefits, the MGTOW lot would be jumping for it.
I think people would respect them more if they just admitted they haven’t found the right one, no shame in that.
“A new study that was published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that when romantic partners hold hands, their breathing, heart rate, and even brain wave patterns actually sync up. According to pain researchers, the more those brain waves synchronize, the more the pain that either of them feel subsides.”
“The mechanisms that underlie social touch analgesia are largely unknown.* Here, we apply a hyperscanning approach with real-life interaction of dyads to examine the association between brain-to-brain coupling and pain relief. Our findings indicate that hand-holding during pain increases the brain-to-brain coupling network that correlates with the magnitude of the analgesia and the observer’s empathic accuracy. These findings make a unique contribution to our understanding of physiological mechanisms of touch-related analgesia.”
Look at the studies. Seems pretty biological to me. It had to pass Ethics.
The male pain is reduced more, it’s just difficult to tell since female results cluster.
Right end of the red line, compare to left legend. Male reduces to zero.
In real terms, the superior improvement of men should be reported.
*Unknown = pair bonding, idiots.
An important nb:
Why is all the religious stuff healthy?
Prayer, fasting, marriage, fidelity, community.
Activates the almonds.
Social evolution et al.
So it’s especially unhealthy that marriage rates have dropped among the working-class.
Why aren’t there rent controls on the cost of weddings? Just a basic wedding.
Not those poncy ice sculptures of a swan, screw those.
Ah, he finally included men!
And look at that, virgin men at marriage (1 sexual partner, the marital spouse) are the happiest group of all!
Looks to be 73%! In the current year!
Logically, if you want your fellow men to be happy, you’d ask them to be chaste.
Is that in the Bible anywhere?
What would Jesus do?
Next he needs to do a divorce study and control for the other spouse e.g. yes 6% of virgin brides divorced but were their husbands virgins too? Otherwise it’s like studying half a swimming pool for depth measurements.
It is interesting he misreports this data in part, you don’t look purely at the self-reports like single data points, you compare the group by sections – i.e. all the men to men and all the women to women.
The drop for both sexes is comparable, implying the cause of both is the same (and it is, weakened pair bonding).
Men begin with more monogamous satisfaction and women a lot less, significantly less as a sex, so to compare their promiscuous ratings without controlling for that is intellectually dishonest. The drops are comparable.
WAS THAT SO HARD???
Basic descriptives, so simple a 5yo could see it.
There is little difference within women to push the female-centric finding he clearly wants to.
I’m going to be skeptical on this “study” as any other.
“In this latest study, women who have had one partner instead of two are about 5 percentage points happier in their marriages, about on a par, Wolfinger says, with the boost that possessing a four-year degree, attending religious services, or having an income over $78,000 a year has for a happy marriage. (In his analysis, he controlled for education, income, and age at marriage.)”
Five percent, I hate to say it, is well within chance. It’s barely significant, almost suspiciously close enough to make me suspect p-hacking… and “about”? Science, guys. Education, class (income) and religiosity would have more of an effect, especially combined. This is important information that shouldn’t be swept under the rug. It suggests breeding is a huge factor in the choice to be pure or the resultant satisfaction.
Men, by valid comparison, have a sheer drop of satisfaction far greater than women, look at that gradient!
Dat gradient, easier to see for normies with boxes I am too lazy to go back and colour-code.
Which box is bigger? None of the inter-female drops rival than initial male gradient of 1 sexual partner to 2, I checked.
If this is glaringly obvious to anyone with the slightest semblance of mathematical training (IE I am not a sperg) on first sight, why miss it out?
Men experience a VAST drop in happiness that seems to be almost double (about TEN percent! huge!) the female 1-2 drop and he just ignores that? He goes on about the half-drop instead? Are you kidding me?
This is why sociology isn’t a real science, kids. This bullshit.
Going back, you can see why his legends aren’t labelled properly.
Yes, that is Papyrus because people who don’t labels their legends must be punished.
It doesn’t even start at zero to exaggerate sizes, get your life in order.
So why the narrative focus on female sluts? Why nary a mention of manwhores? What bias, right?
Do you care about the science of your own marital happiness or the badfeels of shame for bad choices?
“In an earlier analysis, Wolfinger found that women with zero or one previous sex partners before marriage were also least likely to divorce”
Why hasn’t he published the data I KNOW he collected on the men? That isn’t scientific, they’re divorced FROM men, aren’t they? Or were all the divorced women he counted lesbians?
Are Americans really stupid enough to think male virgins don’t exist?! They try to suggest the virgin grooms were actually lying based on the survey writing but it doesn’t wash.
It suggests something important, however triggered broflakes might get that opening one hobbit-hole closes another.
Men happier under Patriarchy? Who’d have thunk it, right?
“And Wolfinger acknowledges that, because of a quirk in how the survey was worded, some of the people reporting one partner might have meant “one partner besides my spouse.”
Weaseling out of results you dislike?
Who wrote the survey? The spirit of Imhotep?
“The median American woman born in the 1980s, Wolfinger writes, has had only three sexual partners in her lifetime, and the median man six.”
So as science keeps telling us, men are the sluts. It’s simple mathematics.
Well, logically, how likely are chaste women to marry the slutty men in the first place? Isn’t that rather important than randomly assuming they’re all shacking up eventually to Have it all?
“They have never been interested in sex without commitment, and once married, they may be more committed to their spouses, and therefore happier.”
Study the pair bonding in their brains, I dare you.
Ah, but sociologist, useless!
Scientists should be studying virgin brides and grooms as role models of pair bonding glue to help out the other lot with specialized marital therapies but noooooooo. Heaven for-fend they admit Christians might be superior! Moral authority, with a biological basis? The sluts might have their feelings hurt!
It could be that, Wilcox told me, “having more partners prior to marriage makes you critically evaluate your spouse in light of previous partners, both sexually and otherwise.”
Yes, promiscuous men have low marital satisfaction whoever they marry, because they were sexually spoiled.
as the University of Maryland sociologist Philip Cohen puts it, “you could have a lot of sexual partners not because you’re good at sex, but because you’re bad at relationships.”
Obviously promiscuous people are bad in bed, why run from a good thing? It can’t always be the other party’s fault, can it? Just survey promiscuous women, (they have) and you’ll find they don’t even orgasm once. There is a notable deficiency in sexual skill (prowess) compared to those same women with other, less slutty men.
If only we had a parental unit investment formula…
“Moreover, this analysis is not peer-reviewed; it’s just a blog post.”
Yeah, submit it to any journal and they’ll insist on seeing your data, like how I want to.
Something doesn’t add up. One man ‘researches’ how women keep being the problem despite ignoring male data on contributions to the by default mixed sex problem….. hmmm….. and also ignoring other much bigger causes of divorce such as adultery and domestic violence…. where’s the red pill data on those? Why doesn’t it exist?
If you really want a controversial study, cross-cultural study of marital and sexual satisfaction versus castration status (circumcised or unmutilated) includes measures of sexual and bodily insecurity and mental proclivity to adultery.
Picture a boulder in a pond if you reported the truth on that one.
Madonna/Whore comes from the male inability to reconcile the woman he loves with the woman he fucks. They view the wife like a replacement mother and feel disgust or rejection of their desire projected onto the wife, especially if she’s dutiful – they see her fussing over the business of the home and childcare. They disgracefully think lust and love are meant to be separate and always kept separate (this stupid false belief literally causes men health problems inc. impotence and it’s also why they marry sluts). It’s like they think they’re corrupting her with their conjugal rights. It becomes a serious turn-off, like she’s tainted or impure for desiring him (repulsed by her lust) or it isn’t “safe” to sexually express – with their SPOUSE. Husbands CANNOT repress their sexuality and basically rob their wives of that cherishing experience. It ruins marriages, sex is the glue that holds marriage together and while ebbs and flows are normal, either depriving the other, while bad, isn’t as bad as seeking it outside the union (always adultery). That’s a divorce category because it ruins the union, spoils the trust, the connection itself is divorced between the parties. No splitting or the woman senses this and retreats, in passive femininity and trust (how women solve problems), assuming he needs his own space, he’ll come back soon and then he feels abandoned when actually, she’s waiting for him to be the Man first. Because he is. A wife is the most sexual woman. It’s the total experience including fertility, modern men fear the completion of the cycle is the “wrong” thing but actually it’s postmodern sterile sex that’s incomplete* sexuality (and likely causes most of the psychiatric issues associated with promiscuity). Men experience the fulfillment of their sexuality when they become a father, this is why their hormones change for about a year after the wife gives birth!**
Husbands also stop flirting with their wife in modern times, a fact I am certain is a divorce risk… like, no? Why would you think that’s a good idea? The Bible says if you don’t get everything at home you’ll be tempted outside it. Flirt with your damn wife, women are verbal creatures! Women need that verbal affirmation, or society will replace it. Missionary work, crash dieting, various passive-aggressive unconscious punishments that take her energy outside the union and onto worldly things (so not cheating but damn close and it seriously raises the odds she’d escalate to that).
Women get (passive) the verbal (flirting) then men get the physical (sex).
It’s a very simple process and I have to keep explaining this to people. This is old common knowledge. Usually there’s nothing actually “wrong” in the initial stages of marital “problems”, they just don’t flirt! It doesn’t occur to them!!
It isn’t something you do for courting or that kids do.
It’s verbal glue.
You have fewer arguments. Seriously. This is so simple so a therapist (if they know) will NEVER EVER tell you because it’s FREE. Free puts them out of a job.
A husband who wants his wife to be less sexual shouldn’t have married her, frankly. And he can’t expect her to degrade herself, (stares at America) sexuality isn’t doing everything, that’s a sign of a problem where the lust is covering it. There isn’t any shame in marital sex, American Christians need this hammered into their skulls. It isn’t dirty if you’re married. Sex is marriage glue. Repeat this until you know it in your bones.
*Imagine you kept eating and eating and eating food but were never satisfied and actually got more frustrated. Congratulations, sexually, that’s hook-up culture. Nobody says this because they don’t want to offend the single or infertile but sorry, that’s evolution. It’s like saying we need air to breathe, it could offend people with breathing problems but so what? Doesn’t change the fact.
Ancient times measured sexual encounters as satisfactory based on whether or not they were “fruitful”. They knew. Those were incredibly patriarchal societies, well, this is the kernel of truth behind all patriarchy.
You don’t see the father of five wishing he had two.
It’s also why broody men in our culture are shamed as patriarchal.
**And miscarriage or infertility can provoke divorce. In biological terms, you fall in love for two years to conceive and then the parental bond is the heightened connection, the sight of proven fertility, parental oxytocin from interactions. I wonder if childless marriages (by choice) are also a divorce risk, I’d assume so since it replicates infertility.
Random but I wonder if a Roe v Wade repeal would include the Pill abortifacient? Biologically, it must. It’s a chronic Morning After pill, another chemical abortion. Both are given to minors, more grounds.
Specifically (and atheists shouldn’t marry, that’s repeated* throughout the Bible) on Marriage:
” I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7 I wish that all of you were as I am. ”
“8 Now to the unmarried[a] and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do.”
“17 Nevertheless, each person should live as a believer in whatever situation the Lord has assigned to them, just as God has called them. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches. 18 Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts. 20 Each person should remain in the situation they were in when God called them.”
“But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.”
“38 So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does better.”
I don’t criticize MGTOW for being unmarried…. as long as they’re moral.
I do criticize larpers who insist everyone must marry (like vain them) as if that were 1. possible or 2. desirable.
They think they have a right to “give away” these people’s bodies!
*There’s an interesting point in a commentary, since it’s against marrying diversity:
“The Greek word for “unequally yoked together” is not found elsewhere, and was probably coined by St. Paul to give expression to his thoughts. Its meaning is, however, determined by the use of the cognate noun in Leviticus 19:19 (“Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind“).”
However, a man can only love as a husband sacrificially