He point outs as I have that sex, which in the past was a main incentive for men to marry, is now readily and freely available to men without even being in a relationship, and that changes in our laws and culture in recent decades have made licensed marriage more risky for men.
I am now involuntarily divorced.Many women and men have found themselves in this situation, unfortunately. Men more often than women. While I'm one of the first to say that if you choose wisely and treat kindly, you won't be in this situation, I know that it can be very easy to choose wrong, and in some cases, it is very hard to do discover that before the wedding.
I do not agree with the default we currently have that one spouse can unilaterally end a marriage, especially without demonstrating that the other spouse has broken the marital vows. If two people agree to this condition ahead of time, then fine – and I guess that is what they do when they get married now. But it shouldn’t be that way.
Sex with my wife was not good, it was basically non-existent especially at the end.This is the 64-Trillion Dollar Question (adjusted for hyperinflation) that I have been mulling over recently. I may do one long separate blog entry about it. The right thing to do is to save sex for marriage. I believe that. But what if, upon marrying, he finds out that the sex is nonexistent or lousy? For just about all healthy husbands, sex is extremely important. It isn't just about needing (and we do need) to ejaculate. It is a way we bond with our wives, communicate with them, and express our love for them. What is a guy supposed to if he marries her and finds out that, for whatever reason (past trauma or low libido on her part, latent hatred for men), it is lousy or way too rare? Is he supposed to divorce her? Take on a mistress? Hire a hooker? Or be happy the rest of his life fulfilling his end of the bargain (financially providing, etc.) while he is denied? While the law will compel him to financially provide for her, it will not - nor can not - compel her to provide consort. She is unlikely to face significant peer pressure to change.
Even when the couple does not save sex for marriage, some (mostly men) have found that sex changes for the worst after the wedding as the frequency, enthusiasm, and physical repertoire diminish.
I have 3 children I am legally forbidden to see, a huge monthly payment I can't meet, and I face jail because the false charges my ex levied and her constant harassment got me fired. I can't ever return home.Unfortunately, some our laws and those to practice and administer it have created a situation where some women find it to their financial advantage to divorce and fight for sole custody, and they are encouraged to make false allegations to aid in their desired outcome.
Meanwhile the woman I started dating after the divorce I couldn't marry (but wanted too and still do) because of course they would figure in her salary to the child support and alimony and she'd be the one to have to pay my "purge" to get me out of prison if I lose my job, get injured, etc.If a man can't see his minor children, I don't see the point of delaying remarriage for their sake. However, as Craig points out, remarriage is discouraged because his would-be wife would have to pay some of her earnings to "support" children she has never event met and had no part in bringing into this world; children her would-be husband isn't even allowed to see. Likewise, a custodial mother is discouraged from remarrying (but not shacking up!) unless she can find a man who is much better off financially, because she risks losing the "child support" payments if she does.
The "solutions" proposed by the church are always "marry a believer" and be careful.Few churches hold spouses to their vows, unfortunately. They can't do anything with any legal weight, but they can certainly apply social pressure. As for marrying a believer - of course we should try to make sure our intended is truly a believer. But how many times have we heard that "only God knows a person's heart"?
Craig concludes:
Fact is marriage as it is now practiced IS NOT BIBLICAL MARRIAGE.I tend to agree. Studies tend to show that state-licensed marriage benefits children, so it can still be useful, though I wonder if those stats have been compared against couples who underwent a marriage ceremony in a church and live as married but did not obtain a state license? I would like to see the state encourage (and enforce) customized pre-nups to make state-licensed marriage more like Biblical marriage for those who want it.
As it is now, a couple can agree to each other - and before their church and witnesses - to enter into a Biblical marriage when they get legally married, but it is entirely voluntary. The moment one or both decides to get a divorce or otherwise violate the vows, there's nothing (except perhaps church pressure – nonexistent in most churches) holding either one to Biblical standards.
I know there are women who can, like Craig, provide a tale of a marital nightmare – they married a brute, a closet case, an addict, or some other person who turned out to be a horrible husband. But the fact is, if he beats you (even if you started the punching), one call will get him hauled off to jail, and there are shelters for women and almost none for men. If he rapes you, he can be prosecuted. If you assault him, you can claim a hormonal defense more easily than he can. You can obligate him to pay child support for another man's offspring via paternity fraud. You are more likely to be able to get custody of the children. You are more likely to get child support. You are more likely to get alimony. You are more likely to get sympathy and support at church. It doesn't work the other way.
If you have an unmarried brother or son, consider what he is facing today.
Choose wisely and with extreme caution.
It is stories like Craig's that make me so thankful to wake up next to the woman that I do.
But what if, upon marrying, he finds out that the sex is nonexistent or lousy?
ReplyDeleteChristians usually have a standard answer to that question:
"You're not treating your wife right".
That could very well be true in some cases. In other cases, he chose wrong - she may not be wife material for him, maybe not for anyone. Like I said, it can be easy to choose wrong.
ReplyDeleteIt isn't a husband's doing if she has a hormonal imbalance and refuses to get it treated, or if she was traumatized before he met her, if she holds to an attitude that she doesn't want to please him, or let him please her in that way.
This man's issue is a perfect example of why Chrisitianity is a waste of time. This religion refuses to acknowledge the importance sex in a relationship and sets unpractical standards that fly in the face of human biology.
ReplyDeleteI have a friend with a couple of kids where is wife cut him off after the second kid. He is not very happy but is religious and works hard at a job he does not like to provide. The children give him happiness but he gets little emotional support from the wife. He goes to church and other men tell him the same thing.
After hearing that, no incentive to waste time with Christianity or state santioned marriage.
sth_txs, it depends on what you mean by "Christianity" and "religion". Certainly some churches, ministers, and Christian writers are messed up on this issue, but that is not because of the Bible.
ReplyDeleteBiblical teaching is that sex is important - and for marriage.
Your friend's wife is wrong to be a "refuser". Heck, even in Puritan society, if word got around, the other women would have read her the riot act.
There are online communties, like The Marriage Bed, that reveal that Bible-believing Christians can be good Christians and have passionate, satisfying love lives.
I HEAR your point Ken between Christianity and the Bible, but the word that women should 'keep him happy' has simply not reached most Christian denominations. I would say the majority want to pretend it is not important.
ReplyDeleteI asked this person whether the church denomination he attends addresses this issue and he tells me that it does not. So, it looks to me there are thousands of religious men in unhappy relationships.
The Christian church has completely and totally dropped the ball and is now an organ of the state rather than anything useful for GOD. The problem with marriage isn't the issues that EMG points out (and glosses over with a stunning level of understatement), it is the fact that the church has allowed the state to take over marriage.
ReplyDeleteAs practiced by the state marriage is a contract that transfers wealth to women from ordinary in exchange for political advantage to powerful men. Single women who vote naturally vote security and this means someone (never them) must pay for it. It is political suicide to rail against child support no matter how evil it is as practiced. No voting woman would ever tolerate such. Stop votes for women, eliminate 99% of the government, and remove the state completely from marriage. Everything the state has done has made things worse and eventually society will respond by tearing itself apart. You can't run a society based on single mothers and jailed/enslaved men which is what is happening. Eventually it will break down and will do so very violently. May this come to pass soon. Good riddance USA.