I'm a married father, and I earn my family's income. I wanted to get married, I was careful about who I sought as a spouse[1], and, statistically, we married at the right ages and were on track to have a successful marriage[2]. We both wanted to have children, and we did. Prior to having the children or even getting married, we agreed on how they'd be raised.
I've been gainfully employed since I was in high school, and even spent several years before I married working over seventy hours per week. I moved out of my parents' home for college shortly after graduating from high school and never moved back.
I haven't played video games since early adolescence. I have never abused alcohol or any mind-altering substances. I've read through the Bible multiple times and have studied it for decades. I have been a regular participant in adult fellowships at church that centered on marrieds and married parents, and I was steeped in the "Focus on the Family" outlook on family life. I have voted for conservative Republicans whenever I could since as soon as I could vote. I'm a longtime regular listener to your show (a P1, for sure), a reader of your columns, and have purchased and read through at least one of your books.
I've watched the Prager U videos dealing with marriage and male-female relations multiple times.
I say all of that to let you know where I'm coming from. I'm a supporter, not a hater.
Now, my point.
It's irresponsible and unfair for you to say men aren't real men unless they marry.
It is my position that most men shouldn't marry, and those who don't are still real men.
There are many men who marry because they are too weak, passive, desperate, or unwilling to be responsible for themselves. Almost all men who legally marry these days are ignorant, delusional, or masochists.[3]
A man who marries is a husband. Men can be real men without being a husband. That's why "man" can mean any man and "husband" refers to a married man.
It would make for compelling radio if you had an articulate man (or woman, as there are some in this category) on your show to discuss this with you and to take the position that most men are better off living on their own, or perhaps, sharing a place with male friends, than to be married.
Unfortunately, I can't be that person, so this isn't about me trying to get myself on your show.
Marriage rates are down. Having an eloquent "marriage striker" on your show would be your chance to address the issues and challenges that usually go unspoken on your show. Maybe you could persuade more to marry? It's not very persuasive when these challenges are not addressed on your show; the happily married and marriage-minded people in your audience might nod their heads when you advocate marriage, but what about people with the concerns I express in this letter, concerns that more and more men have?
If you're not going to have a "marriage striker" on your show, maybe you can address on your show the points I'm presenting here?
Absent a religious mandate, there is no compelling reason for a man who has his act together to marry. If he doesn't have his act together, he'll make a poor husband.
The arguments for a man to marry generally fall into two categories that aren't necessarily mutually exclusive:
A) There is an obligation (or duty) for him to marry.
B) It will be to his benefit to marry.
"There is an obligation for a man to marry" doesn't sound very sexy and isn't going to convince men who aren't indoctrinated into a whole subculture in which marrying is presented as a necessary rite, so you try to get men to marry by appealing to their self-interest. But let's address the "obligation" argument first.
Where could an obligation come from? Nature, law, religion, society, family?
Does nature give us an obligation to marry? Nature is either ultimately a proxy for the Lord or not. We will get to religion last. Consider the secular view of nature. One could argue that nature encourages us to reproduce. But reproduction is not the same thing as marriage, and reproduction is now possible without sex. Obligations are foreign to philosophical naturalism.
Law? There is no legal obligation to marry whatsoever.
Society? There are many in society who want us to marry, mostly because they personally profit from us doing do. Society is currently misandrist, however, and men should feel no obligation to marry based on society. Some will attempt to make the argument that it is beneficial for society if people marry. At best, this assertion is based on supposed correlations. Hard evidence of causation is scant. An example I've heard you reference is that wives are more likely to vote Republican than unmarried women. Even if agreeing that voting for Republicans is good, for all we know women who are more likely to vote Republican are more likely to marry. The supposed societal benefits of marriage can be achieved other ways.
Family? This has to mean your parents and maybe your siblings. I can assure you neither of my parents and none of my siblings would say I had an obligation to marry. Aside from any religious command, I'd think most parents would not feel like their child is obligated to marry.
That takes us to religion. Now, religion is a tricky one. I don't see an obligation stated in the Bible you use, Dennis Prager. I also don't see one in the Bible I use. According to you, if I understand correctly, there is something like an obligation in Judaism, which I can't argue, and I'm aware of what Catholicism teaches, what Mormonism teaches, and what a few Protestant denominations teach. But I don't see an obligation for anyone who abides by sola scriptura. "Be fruitful and multiply," you might cite. This has been done. Humanity was fruitful and multiplied. Furthermore, if someone doesn't maintain those early chapters of Genesis are historical events, how can that be seen as an extant Divine command? Same with "It is not good for man to be alone." We're not alone. There are billions of us. I can't argue with you about your Jewish principles or values, as I'm not Jewish. If you want to say a man isn't a real Jewish man unless he marries, have at it.[4]
It appears to me, that, in addition to women, you're trying to please religious leaders who are dead. But what is now legal marriage has little to do with Biblical marriage. If you still choose to subject yourself to it that should be your choice. While your particular religious tradition might tell you you're obligated to marry, there isn't a general obligation for men to marry, and most shouldn't.
Marriage or wanting to marry makes men strive for achievement. This is a nicer way of saying women are gold-diggers. Plenty of intentionally unmarried men strive to achieve because they will get to enjoy the fruits of their achievement, rather than be forced to share it with someone else, often someone who did nothing to contribute or even hindered him in his pursuit of that achievement. Achieving makes it easier for a man to attract more attractive women and more of them, even if he never marries any of them. We no longer live in a rural agrarian society, where there were only a handful of available women and being the best farmer meant you got the most attractive one.
Let's get to whether men benefit from marriage. It's easy to see how marriage benefitted men in the past. Again, if a man survived by farming, marrying meant he could (usually) make his own farm hands, which he needed to do because he was living in an isolated rural area out of which he might never travel.
We have moved on from that.
Now, outside of a religious consideration, a man can get everything he wants without marrying. There is no benefit to him in legally marrying.
You and others have claimed or implied there are benefits. Let's consider them.
You don't have to deal with the singles scene or bad dates. Some people enjoy the singles scene. Some people enjoy dating new people. Also, by sticking to some basic tactics, men can greatly increase their enjoyment of these things and minimize negative experiences. And dating or dealing with the singles scenes isn't mandatory if you're not married.
Love. However you define it, one need not be married to share love.
Friendship. Same.
Companionship. Same.
Affection. Same.
Sex. Same. It is now easy for men to get all of the sex they want without being married and without spending a lot of time, money, and energy. Some people find that hard to believe, but it's true as long as the men employ certain tactics, because of female nature. I know some people have a moral qualm with unmarried sex, and you say the ideal is for intercourse to be within marriage. If a man doesn't have a qualm with unmarried sex, this can't be counted as a benefit. "Ah," some will say, "But married people have more and better sex." Such claims are dubious and also get into "correlation is not causation" territory. Studies about this never separate out intentionally unmarried men who actively pursue sex. Even so, is it still enough for a man to trade his autonomy, freedom and other benefits of staying unmarried? No. Also, technology is getting to the point that masturbation aids are going to keep men physically satisfied better than most women can. Indeed, if one doesn't believe masturbation to be immoral, there is continually decreasing motivation to marry to gain physical release, even more so if one doesn't see unmarried sex as immoral.
Someone to look after you. Again, you don't need to be married to have this, and if you can't find someone you can trust to do it, you can pay a professional to do it for much less than a wife costs.
Division of labor. Ha!!! This is a constant source of contention for so many married couples. It has never been easier to take care of everything while living alone, and to hire professionals to handle things, for much less than a wife costs. Most women don't want to, or can't, take care of kids, cook, clean, and all of those domestic chores.
Your wife will be your partner. She might be your critic. Again, men don't have to legally marry to have a partner, if they even want one.
Joint finances. This is usually not a benefit for men. Most women, especially attractive women, marry men who earn more than they do. There is no guarantee she will continue to work and increase her earnings; it's often quite the opposite. Legal marriage is a wealth transfer mechanism, meaning it usually moves the wealth from the husband to the wife. The husband's earnings will go to buying goods and services he doesn't want and, often, won't use. Often the wife will demand a more expensive residence. The husband loses control over his own earnings and/or there will be frequent contention and hostility about earnings and spending. This doesn't even take into account divorce, which is very expensive for men who have made something of themselves.
Your wife will be your partner. She might be your critic. Again, men don't have to legally marry to have a partner, if they even want one.
Joint finances. This is usually not a benefit for men. Most women, especially attractive women, marry men who earn more than they do. There is no guarantee she will continue to work and increase her earnings; it's often quite the opposite. Legal marriage is a wealth transfer mechanism, meaning it usually moves the wealth from the husband to the wife. The husband's earnings will go to buying goods and services he doesn't want and, often, won't use. Often the wife will demand a more expensive residence. The husband loses control over his own earnings and/or there will be frequent contention and hostility about earnings and spending. This doesn't even take into account divorce, which is very expensive for men who have made something of themselves.
You won't die alone. Let me get this straight. Men should give up their freedom for 50-70 years in the hopes that their wife outlives them and is still there when he dies? And how many men who married died alone during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns?
She will raise the kids. First of all, we could have a whole different letter on whether most men should have children. Many men don't really want to have kids. Secondly, most women want to do other things now, whether work, or hobbies, or whatever, and want to stick kids in a form of daycare as soon as they can, or let screens raise the kids. Also, marriage isn't required to raise children. Are you now going to tell me that it is ideal that they are raised in marriage? Most of the people who say that say divorce is bad for children. You claim it isn't really the divorce, but how the parents handle the divorce and life after the divorce. Likewise, a state contract saying their parents are married doesn't really benefit the children so much as how the parents act.
Married men are happier, wealthier, healthier, and live longer. Again, studies never separate out intentionally unmarried men, and usually count divorced men as "unmarried," which means negative effects from marriage and divorce are attributed to the "unmarried" side. Quite deceptive. Also, again, "correlation is not causation" - we know that women are going to prefer to marry and stay with happier, wealthier, and healthier men. If we allow for a wife's nagging and advocacy as contributing to longevity, why not simply encourage men to see doctors and hire an advocate? Telling him he should marry because it might prolong his life is like telling him to buy a yacht he doesn't want because he might want to eat fish someday. Wealth is a funny reason, given the fact that my unmarried, childfree counterpart who earns 51% of what I do is better off and has more financial freedom than I do. As far as happiness, you've said it's a moral obligation and we know from listening to you that people can choose to be happy in different circumstances. Unmarried man can simply choose to be happy.
You'll have a support network. Unmarried men have more freedom and time to cultivate a support network of their choosing, one that won't disappear when a woman decides she's not happy and blames him. With a higher percentage of the population than ever before being unmarried, there are more unmarried people with whom to network, and no spouse to veto the connection. There's certainly no guarantee that in-laws will be supportive rather than a net drain and hindrance, and even hostile to the marriage.
Marriage matures and civilizes men. I'm not sure what this means, other than married men are forced to give up things they want to do and to instead do things more to the liking of Dennis Prager. I was mature and civilized when I married. Plenty of unmarried men are mature and civilized. Secretary James Mattis has never been married. Would you call him immature and uncivilized? Probably not to his face. Marriage does change men. So does being held hostage by ISIS. Marriage has definitely changed me, alright. It has sent my stress levels through the roof, ensured I have less time to exercise, has made me less financially secure, has made it harder for me to be happy, has made it much harder to maintain friendships and spend time with friends, has strained my relationships with family members, has reduced my professional performance, has sent me to therapy, and has brought me multiple encounters with police and social workers. I'm not attending church at all these days (before the lockdown) and studying the Bible a lot less, because I'm married. I wouldn't call these good changes. I'm sure most men would mature without marrying, especially with the right pursuits. If you know immature older men who aren't married, are you really sure the lack of marriage has left them immature, or might it be that women didn't marry him because of his immaturity? And do your unmarried female fans realize you're wishing the difficulty of dealing with immature men onto them? I know you can find men who say marriage changed them for the better, but in many cases it reminds me of the Stockholm Syndrome, and these men have no idea how they might have changed if they hadn't married, especially if they had involved themselves in certain pursuits.
You learn about women. I'm going to invoke one of your favorite phrases: "So what?" Of what benefit is that to a man, really? In marriage, a man is likely to learn more about one woman. He'll learn all about the things he can't talk about, or do, lest he put her into a bad mood. But yet again, a man can do this without legally marrying. Also, a man can actually learn far more about women, if he wants to, if he's unmarried.
If you want to fully experience life, you should marry. Why not get bitten by shark or a rattlesnake, or run over by a bus, too? Yes, life has risks and pain, but why hurt yourself needlessly? There are people who find that being unmarried allows them to experience life more fully. For one example, let's consider travel. Most men who marry, especially if they have children, can do much less traveling than if they only have to pay their own way and consider their own needs. We're not all syndicated radio show hosts who can get others to pay for some of our trips. You often say life is, or involves, risk and pain, but marriage is risk and pain that is entirely voluntary and not worth it. A man must do certain things, like work, to survive. He doesn't have to marry.
Let's get to why most men shouldn't marry.
Men aren't born with a wife and have to seek marriage if they want one, and work to attempt to stay married, so being unmarried is the default state of a man. Marriage is voluntary. There is no compelling reason most men should marry. A man doesn't need a wife. That's enough. You have failed to prove your case, and like a prosecutor or a plaintiff, failing to make the case as to why men should marry means your point fails. However, I'll provide an affirmative case for my position anyway.
Most marriages fail. This is a fact. And failure is often extremely costly, destructive, and painful. By "fail", I mean most marriages are not both lasting and happy. They will either end in divorce, or experience significant misery, including, among other things, legal separation, physical separation, emotional separation, cheating, abuse, contempt, indifference, neglect, anger, serious disagreement and contention, hostility, humiliation, betrayal, suicide, murder, and murder-suicide. You know this from personal experience. You may not think of your first two marriages as failures, but your children from them would probably differ with you. People should pause and consider the glut of divorce lawyers, marriage counselors and therapists, seminars, ministries, and retreats, and media claiming to save marriages. You even have an hour of your show each week trying to deal with the differences between men and women. This is gamble that isn't worth it. Marriage sellers are really insidious about this because when someone's marriage fails, the marriage sellers will usually say, "You did something wrong," as if most marriages work out if you simply do the right things and work hard enough. But most marriages fail. Nobody's perfect, so the marriage seller will always be able to point to something. It's terrible, as is the person who had been selling marriage as smiles and joy and just the best thing ever who, when approached by the despondent spouse or divorced person says, "Oh, well, of course it is very hard work and there are ups and downs in every marriage."
Marriage burdens women. This is based on their own statements and responses to surveys.
Most marriages make a woman settle. You know most women want the top ten percent of men. While men evaluate a majority of women more favorably in terms of attraction, women think most men are undesirable. So when most men marry, they are getting a woman who is settling. Why do this to her? Why do this to him?
Marrying takes away a man's autonomy. The unmarried man has much more freedom to do what he wants, when he wants, how wants.
Marrying invites the government further into your life. You value liberty, but legally marrying puts men under the control of the state even more. You acknowledge the family courts are awful.
A man loses power when he marries. The laws and our culture are not friendly to breadwinning husbands. If you're sexually exclusive, she will control if, when, and how you'll have sex. She can physically attack you and have you arrested. You can be kicked out of your own home while still being compelled to pay for it. She can spend you into debt, divorce you, compel you to pay for two legal teams. She can even compel you to pay decades of child support for another man's child. Just about all power shifts to her. A husband will only will have power she willingly delegates, which she can rescind at any time. Women tend to find this a turn off when they actually live it out, but many will misuse that power anyway.
Marriage kills the dreams of men. This is especially true the younger a man is when he marries. If his only dream is to hand his balls to a woman and change baby diapers, fine. But many man have other dreams, and marrying will hinder their pursuit of the dreams. His wife will want his time, energy, and money. She won't want his things taking up space in the residence. She won't want to move or travel when his dreams will require that. She won't want him taking the necessary risks. Even if a woman seemed to, or claimed to, support a man's dream before they married, that often changes after he's signed that marriage license or once they've had a child. If you can honestly say your wife, either by outright demand or by your consideration of her, hasn't prevented you from pursuing a personal or professional desire, then you're very fortunate. If you're truly happy in your third marriage, one reason is likely because you already had money and some fame. You certainly couldn't have married a woman that much younger than you when you were 25.
A man loses power when he marries. The laws and our culture are not friendly to breadwinning husbands. If you're sexually exclusive, she will control if, when, and how you'll have sex. She can physically attack you and have you arrested. You can be kicked out of your own home while still being compelled to pay for it. She can spend you into debt, divorce you, compel you to pay for two legal teams. She can even compel you to pay decades of child support for another man's child. Just about all power shifts to her. A husband will only will have power she willingly delegates, which she can rescind at any time. Women tend to find this a turn off when they actually live it out, but many will misuse that power anyway.
Marriage kills the dreams of men. This is especially true the younger a man is when he marries. If his only dream is to hand his balls to a woman and change baby diapers, fine. But many man have other dreams, and marrying will hinder their pursuit of the dreams. His wife will want his time, energy, and money. She won't want his things taking up space in the residence. She won't want to move or travel when his dreams will require that. She won't want him taking the necessary risks. Even if a woman seemed to, or claimed to, support a man's dream before they married, that often changes after he's signed that marriage license or once they've had a child. If you can honestly say your wife, either by outright demand or by your consideration of her, hasn't prevented you from pursuing a personal or professional desire, then you're very fortunate. If you're truly happy in your third marriage, one reason is likely because you already had money and some fame. You certainly couldn't have married a woman that much younger than you when you were 25.
Marriage is a bad financial deal for most men. Yes it is. Especially if an unmarried man is smart enough to spend as little on women as possible, marriage is a bad financial move.
Marriage is a bad deal in general for most men. Marriage brings guaranteed restrictions and obligations to men with no guaranteed benefits.
For men who do not want to be monogamous, marriage is usually a hindrance. Even if a woman agrees that sexual exclusivity will not be required nor expected (at least of her husband), women have been known to change their minds. Why bother marrying anyway? The apparent exception to this is that there are women who will intentionally have sex with men those women think are married. But if men want those women, all they have to do is wear a wedding band. The unmarried man is fully free to play the field. Men shouldn't promise monogamy when they're probably not going live by it.
Most men who say they want to marry don't really want to be married. They want things they can get without being married. Or they want what they've seen on marriage-selling websites or in romantic comedies, but those are illusions. Even some of the "great marriages" they might see around them are, behind closed doors, not so great. Some men think marrying will make their relationship better, or they want to please their parents or peers or boss or religious leader.
Women are a depreciating asset. I know that sounds awful, but when it comes to these relationships, it's what we observe if we're being honest. There's a reason your wife is younger. For most of adult life, a man can attract more women and more desirable women the older he gets, if he is careful with his experience, money, power, fame, and tactics. It's far more common to see older rich, powerful, famous men (even physically unattractive ones) with younger, very attractive women than it is to see older women with younger men. There are very few famous men with wives who are less than highly attractive. A woman's peak value in this area is up until the age of 25. After 30, the decline is sharp. Most men, if they marry at 25 or 30, are going to have a woman much less attractive than he could get at 40, 45, or 50. Yeah, some guys marry their hot high school sweetheart at 19 because she didn't pick up the clues about her market value. Such marriages are rarely intact in 15 years. For men who at least appear to have money, power, or fame, there is a never ending stream of young, hot women. There are also older women who are constantly coming back on the market.
Living alone guarantees peace at home. A married man might have peace at home. He might also dread coming home and want to get out so badly he'll take up golfing. The man who lives alone will have peace at home, and it will be easier for him to be happy.
Good wife material is rare and might not last. Unfortunately, there really is no way to be sure a woman will be a good wife until life is over. Even a woman who is being a good wife can turn around and ruin a man's life because of hormones or some trauma or brain sickness or injury. But when you filter out women who might be bad wives or a bad match or have red flags, there's nobody or almost nobody left. I understand the women who call your show, and many of the women in your personal circle, (at least the ones who don't hire maids, nannies, etc, to do it all), claim to do things that make them good wives. More of your audience probably does strive to be a better wife than the general population. But some are lying or lacking in self-awareness. Most are overweight or obese. And I know you're well aware that there are a lot of people who think your columns on "when a wife is not in the mood" advocate marital rape. Even after reading them, a lot of people agree. A lot. Those are often the available women.
Most men shouldn’t marry or have children because 1) they aren’t suited to it, 2) aren’t positioned to do it, 3) aren’t living in a culture that supports it, and 4) won’t find a suitable woman with whom they could.
You still want men to act like feminism hasn't changed anything. He's supposed to fulfill all of the "traditional" husband and father obligations, but he doesn't have the power and he's not going to get the benefits, in many cases. Women can earn their own living now. They don't need men to take care of them. Men eventually adapt. They are often slow to do it, but eventually enough do. This is one reason why marriage rates are down. If marriage today benefitted men, you wouldn't need to prod them or encourage them or pressure them to marry. More would be eager to marry. Their girlfriends wouldn't need to give them the ultimatum. Most men can't give a coherent, rational, logical explanation as to why they want to marry. They are pressured into it, marketed into it, and you shouldn't contribute to that.
So Now What?
I'm not calling for the abolition of marriage. If an informed man of sound mind wants to marry, he should be free to do so. It would be nice to hear more balance in your presentation of marriage, and for you to allow a fair airing of the "opposing" view on your show. I think it would be good for your audience and good for the show.
I think you need some balance so men are warned. Everything (media, their religious organization, family) tells them to marry but few voices are giving them honesty.
A large percentage of your audience consists of people who can't be honest about male sexual nature, think porn turns men into serial killers or is at least the equivalent of adultery, as is glancing at another woman (or even, I kid you not, thinking about your spouse when they were younger), and think marriage is until death. You call it a contract, but they think it is a covenant. Many, even most of them, are not operating by the same understanding you are, and I think discussing the issues raised in this letter would be refreshing.
"What is everybody followed your advice?" you might ask me. It doesn't matter, because not everybody will. People will still marry, or engage in what our laws call marriage. Ideally, marriage rates would drop even lower, and more of the men marrying would do so fully aware and accepting that they are making an enormous sacrifice that has a high chance of blowing up in their face. These would be men who really, truly want to marry. That would be better off for all involved. No, society won't collapse if we have more people living on their own, or with platonic roommates. More people might try to make the government a spouse, but we can oppose that.
Even if you still believe men have an obligation to marry, wouldn't you agree a man shouldn't marry unless he has found a wife suitable for him? Whether or not this requires further change or development on his part? A reasonable person should see this. Waving this away with "He'll rise to the occasion" is how we get more domestic violence or people with young kids in nasty divorces.
Can we agree a man shouldn't marry unless he wants to?
I understand your parents were happily married until death.
I understand marriage suits you. (Apparently).
I understand marriage suits you. (Apparently).
I understand you wanted to be a father.
If you're truly happy in your current marriage, I'm sincerely happy for you.
If you're truly happy in your current marriage, I'm sincerely happy for you.
This isn't the case for all men.
And you grew up in a different time.
So some of the thinking I have expressed here might seem foreign to you, but there are a lot of men who see things the same way, and more and more are coming to see things the same way. This includes men who are Republicans, religious, or conservative.
These issues can't be ignored forever.
Please, discuss these on your show.
So some of the thinking I have expressed here might seem foreign to you, but there are a lot of men who see things the same way, and more and more are coming to see things the same way. This includes men who are Republicans, religious, or conservative.
These issues can't be ignored forever.
Please, discuss these on your show.
Sincerely,
-"Everything Must Go"
PS: For another perspective, see the dormant Biblical Manhood blog.
From one entry there:
Evangelicals have a reached point in their embrace of marriage and family that some of them have slid into theological error. I refer, in particular, to the Marriage Mandate Movement, a school of thought that presupposes that marriage is required by God for most men. The Bible, on the other hand, clearly teaches that while marriage is blessing in principle (Gen. 1:27-28; Prov. 18:22), it is not always expedient (1 Cor. 7:28). Marriage is optional for a believer--it is neither required nor forbidden (1 Cor. 7:36-38). Concomitant with this observation is the truth that men are not required to be fathers. Like marriage, children are a blessing in principle (Gen. 1:28; Psalm 127:3), but they are not always expedient (Luke 21:23). Their presence in a life of a man is neither required nor forbidden (Isa. 56:3-5).
Notes:
[1] Or so I thought. She married me under false pretenses, lying about or hiding very important information.
[2] We were, statistically speaking, aligned for a successful marriage. We were the "right" ages, both college graduates, no prior marriages or cohabitation, we did not cohabitate, we had no children, we shared a common faith and similar practice of that faith, including regular church attendance, we had similar political views, we had both been raised in married homes, on and on it goes.
[3] I was mostly delusional, but somewhat ignorant, too.
[4] What our laws and culture now call marriage has little resemblance to Biblical marriage. I see no Biblical reason why it isn't valid for a man who wants to marry for religious reasons to only agree to do so if a state marriage license is avoided, customized paperwork is adopted instead, financials are kept separate, and even separate residences are kept. What would be the benefit of this? Sex would be within marriage and the spouses could spend as much or as little time together as they wish, and still have a shared interest and look out for each other. If you say that's not really marriage, then please define marriage, and cite the Biblical support for your definition, if you have one.
*****
To my readers:
As I said, I'm not going to go on his show or write to him at his website. Please feel free to bring these things up when writing to him on his website, or calling into his show, or when he does a live video chat. Feel free to steal shamelessly from this for such purposes or anywhere else you need to warn men.
The problem for anyone calling in is he controls the microphone, he can hang up on you, and there's not a lot of time. So if you ask, "What can a man get from marrying that he can't get otherwise?" he might bring up personal growth or some crap like that. It might be better to get mentions of the marriage strike, the book Men on Strike, and MGTOW (say "Men Going Their Own Way" or "M-G-T-O-W") in. But if someone is his guest for an hour, especially in-studio but a phone guest also works, that will be much more effective.
A worthwhile tactic might be saying that you were thinking about it, and you decided marriage isn't for you. And if he asks why, say you have no good reason to marry. He will probably then end your call and talk about how it is living a full life or whatever. It would be great to point out that you realized that most marriage fail, when you consider the divorce rate an everything else. Again, feel free to steal shamelessly from what I wrote above.
But Prager is not the only one doing it unfortunately Ken. Jordan Peterson is now telling young men to go and marry so they can have more "responsibility". I feel like (with good intentions or not), he is feeding the machine with fresh meat. Any comment on this from your part would be much appreciated (YouTube is full of such videos).
ReplyDelete