Things I learned from feminism I wish I'd learned from Christianity

[DarkLight]

I’ve already mentioned several people on social media. Are you even going to listen them?

Because if you are not, respectfully, don’t waste my time.

Possibly, but I’m not terribly inclined to dig through a 29-page thread for them.

 

[ThePCWife]

The people SuperLuigi mentioned are not Red Pill (all caps) types, they’re just people who use the redpill (lowercase, more generic) terminology.

He hasn’t mentioned the actual Red PIll subreddits (plural), or Rollo Tomassi, or Dalrock, or any of the other Red Pill figures who do in fact match up solidly with Xantippe’s list.

A non-blog example is F. Roger Devlin, who was a prototype for the aforementioned folks.

 

[Xantippe]

Yes, but I can’t help but notice how a lot of accounts on here are only interested in those that pose a more remote threat that operates in more right-leaning political spheres and are PERCEIVED to involve straight, white men.

In all of my interactions and identification of the red pill, I have never known anyone within that sphere to act like that.

The list exists and may even qualify as being scandalous to a degree, but I’m not seeing the behavioral trends in large numbers.

I would point out is that most of the red-pill atheists and skeptics I know will debate some of the above religious merits, like going to Church, but are not insidiously trying to destroy and undermine the Church like radical feminists and Islamists are behind closed doors that are now being jarred open.

The skeptical community is pretty open about how the feel about the religious dimension. Of course, their argument in this regard is flawed.

But the problem I have, Xantippe, is that you are stuck on repeat. You keep on referencing this list and don’t seem interested in anyone or any source I’ve brought up. It is quite easier to criticize men’s rights activists and red-pill people in general than say to criticize feminists or Islam, even here on CAF.

So if you really are so terribly concerned with women being treated as slaves and all of the things you just mentioned, your time would be better spent on the major threats. Not on a few people who come up with a list that basically no one I’ve seen is following or trying to follow.

I get it’s risking social capital and being called names like racist and all that, but if you stand for anything remotely Catholic, that’s all coming down the pike anyways.

Some thoughts:

–As TPCWife pointed out, your list of Red Pill people is pretty idiosyncratic, and is missing a number of high profile people.
–If you don’t agree with the brand name Red Pill stuff (which is a very distinct ideology), maybe you should use different terminology? It’s kind of like saying “Coca Cola” when you mean iced tea.
–You and I both know that only a small percentage of even white, straight, right-wing men are “Red Pill” in the RP world. That’s why there is so much whining from Red Pill guys about blue pill guys, betas, manginas, white knights, cucks, etc, and why Dalrock has a seemingly endless supply of conservative male figures to criticize for being too easy on women.
–Guys who are Red Pill are noticeably less contented than non-Red Pill guys.
–Red Pill CAFers/visitors to CAF are pretty notorious for wanting to screw around until they get their virgin bride or (best case scenario), they feel entitled to a virgin bride no matter what they themselves have been doing up until 10 minutes ago. Bonus points for combining this with no legal marriage for the lucky lady!
–We’re not talking about a “remote” threat, if CAF Red Pill guys are trying to agitate for their preferred treatment of women and preferred form of marriage. It’s also not a “remote” threat if young Catholic men are being made miserable (and perhaps unmarriageable) by Red Pill ideology.
–Radical Islam is really, really bad. But I don’t see a lot of radical Islamists hanging out in the Family Life forum telling young men to expect 100% obedience from wives and sex every time they ask.

 

[SuperLuigi]

[Xantippe;14738861]As I believe later posters have mentioned, selfishness isn’t exactly a rare and precious jewel.

A typical error of Red Pill thinking (which it looks like you have fallen into) is believing that the only two options are:

a) the Blue Pill (men have no boundaries, women get everything they want)

or

b) the Red Pill (women have no boundaries, men get everything they want).

I’d point out that a) and b) are both unrealistic long term (as the “victim” sex will eventually run out of the resources that allow them to fulfill the demands of the “predator” sex) and that those two options do not exhaust the logical possibilities.

There’s also a third option:

c) men and women both get to have boundaries and get their needs met with some attempt at fairness.

This is the option that I would recommend, as being both fairer and more sustainable than either a) or b).

I’ll comment more later, but I’d like to note that while you believe that you have seen lots of failed Blue Pill relationships in real life, I notice that you don’t say that you know lots of successful Red Pill relationships in real life. I suspect the reason for that is that (as I explained above) Red Pill relationships are not sustainable long term. I occasionally see a guy online bragging about his success at his Red Pill marriage, but the description always makes it sound like the relationship between a lion tamer and a lion–the Red Pill husband is always battling the Red Pill wife with a whip in one hand and a chair in the other.

Or so feminists would have you believe. Too bad they won’t give you any credit in the end not in the least because you are Catholic.

Really, do you even talk to any of these people?

No wonder the married Red Pill guys are so down on marriage–the way they do it, it sounds exhausting.

Marriage, well, a VALID marriage, is never so easy. But a lot of red pillers (both men and women) are married or in fairly steady relationships.

Because red pill means a wide-range of people----I really hear almost no one identifying as or being called blue pill----it depends who you ask.

Red pillers like Laci Green and Chris Maldonado or Greg Fluhrer and his girlfriend probably aren’t going to be interested in a Catholic marriage (sadly) since they are all atheists and skeptics.

And if you think red pill is bad, you should what the anti-red pillers said about Laci Green when she crossed over and started dating Chris. Harassing her family, revealing her personal information, even threatening to sabotage her new relationship with Chris.

As far as people bragging about their marriage these days, it basically means one of two things:

1. They need third-party attention for a relationship. Never a good sign in any relationship.
2. They are using it to describe an experience for some kind of social media gig.

 

[SuperLuigi]

–As TPCWife pointed out, your list of Red Pill people is pretty idiosyncratic, and is missing a number of high profile people.

1. Who is it missing, why is it implied as peculiar and
2. Tommy Sotomayor, Laci Green and TJ Kirk have hundreds of thousands of followers on social media each. Laci had her own TV show, Tommy does numerous youtube live shows and TJ does podcasts. It’s not likely I’ve not heard of someone bigger than them, but I’m willing to listen to specific names as to who you and PCwife are talking about.

–If you don’t agree with the brand name Red Pill stuff (which is a very distinct ideology), maybe you should use different terminology? It’s kind of like saying “Coca Cola” when you mean iced tea.

Glad to see you understand the central issue here is an inconsistent definition. I use red pill because it just means to me and others quite honestly that people are open to free speech and avoid toxic measures like relationship sabotaging. That occurs on the blue pill side.

–You and I both know that only a small percentage of even white, straight, right-wing men are “Red Pill” in the RP world. That’s why there is so much whining from Red Pill guys about blue pill guys, betas, manginas, white knights, cucks, etc, and why Dalrock has a seemingly endless supply of conservative male figures to criticize for being too easy on women.

I agree the people you are discussing are small in number, because the people I see are pretty happy with their lives and include both men and women, and as I keep saying, none of us point the finger at the other side and call names or say they are blue pills. All I hear from my side is how we support their right to free speech--------while they try and shut us down for being too “dangerous”.

–Red Pill CAFee pretty notorious for wanting to screw around until they get their virgin bride or (best case scenario), they feel entitled to a virgin bride no matter what they themselves have been doing up until 10 minutes ago.rs/visitors to CAF ar Bonus points for combining this with no legal marriage for the lucky lady!

Frankly, I 'll take these claims more seriously when people as willing to engage feminists, which we all know deep down is less fun since red-pillers don’t call people racist or sexist when they disagree.

–We’re not talking about a “remote” threat, if CAF Red Pill guys are trying to agitate for their preferred treatment of women and preferred form of marriage. It’s also not a “remote” threat if young Catholic men are being made miserable (and perhaps unmarriageable) by Red Pill ideology.

Not that you’d have the time to, but if you read through all 20K of my posts, you’ll note that I defend the value of Catholic marriage. I don’t see red pill men on here trying to spread lies and misguide our kids under false pretenses, I just seem them advocating their views on a public forum. If I disagree, I let them know.

The biggest force making Catholics unmarriable is post-modern liberalism and the 3rd wave feminism embedded in it. Try false accusations of rape on college campuses for starters and women who get angry every time a guy opens a door for them. Then, note that feminists and not MRAs or MGTOW’s have been appointed to key positions at said campuses for decades and have a much bigger voice in the media and Hollywood.

The red pillers you are talking about are possibly just men who were screwed over by women and received no legal relief.

So, as you can and should see, Xantippe, the odds are not even. Red pill MRAs and the like are actually quite powerless compared to their blue pill and feminist counterparts.

–Radical Islam is really, really bad. But I don’t see a lot of radical Islamists hanging out in the Family Life forum telling young men to expect 100% obedience from wives and sex every time they ask.

I also don’t see anyone else doing that. Funny how every time someone complains about CAF, I can never seem to find not one lousy example of what they are talking about.

Also, Xantippe, your statement is a cop-out. Just because radical Islamists or radical feminists (don’t forget about them) aren’t on here doesn’t mean they aren’t the bigger problem.

 

[SuperLuigi]

The people SuperLuigi mentioned are not Red Pill (all caps) types, they’re just people who use the redpill (lowercase, more generic) terminology.

He hasn’t mentioned the actual Red PIll subreddits (plural), or Rollo Tomassi, or Dalrock, or any of the other Red Pill figures who do in fact match up solidly with Xantippe’s list.

A non-blog example is F. Roger Devlin, who was a prototype for the aforementioned folks.

Most people don’t match with the red pill list that is referenced over and over like beating a dead horse.

The term **red-pill is long past those confines **and from what I can tell was never in those confines anyways. So if someone says they are red pilled, it doesn’t mean they follow that list.

I would say the same for blue pills, but no one outside of here really uses that term

 

[SuperLuigi]

=ThePCWife;14750270]Based Mom is not “Red Pill”, lol. Also, I love the “no true red pillman” fallacy.

Certainly not the definition of red pill you put forth. :nope:. CHS is a registered Democrat and does consider herself feminist, just not 3rd wave.

It’s not a fallacy. It’s just that the culture has taken off and this just means to most people, I suspect “I don’t like 3rd wave feminists”.

And claiming any historical figure is red pill is, as I’ve already said, queering them (attributing modern ideological stuff to historical people with less than zero evidence).

If you mean Joseph, I just mean he isn’t a post-modern feminist. I was specifically for my take and I gave it.

 

[SuperLuigi]

ThePCWife;14753816]The people SuperLuigi mentioned are not Red Pill (all caps) types, they’re just people who use the redpill (lowercase, more generic) terminology.

Hopefully, this clears it all up from here on out.

 

[starshiptrooper]

–believing that a version of marriage without any civil dimension is going to work or be respected, rather than just being seen as a shack-up

That remains to be seen. It is not the fault of some men for noticing that the laws are getting worse and worse for men.

–having harsh and un-Catholic ideas of total wifely obedience
–having a hyper-Protestant ideal family structure in which the husband is God Emperor/Pope of his family, rather than the domestic church being part of the Universal Church

Apparently discussing St Paul’s writing on this subject is a sure way to get the thread locked, unless of course we are talking about St Paul’s directive towards men. This is rather exemplifies modern feminism. Women have rights while men have responsibilities.

–being negative and entitled toward women
–rarely being happy in their church communities/parishes
–not valuing celibacy

Plenty of babble from feminists about “toxic masculinity” as well. Why would I be happy with a community full of people who have more or less effectively accepted all the premises of 2nd and 3rd wave feminism? Another question comes to mind. Is celibacy really all that valuable coming from an incel? That is rather like an anorexic person priding themselves on not being obese.

–worshiping “alphas”/denigrating “betas”/wanting to be alphas while believing themselves to be betas

This is about being a better and more successful man. I look to a more successful man and I find out what worked for him.

–not valuing domestic work
–feeling entitled about refusing to contribute at home

Weird, the men I hear from who approach marriage from a Red Pill mindset usually do masculine forms of housework. Of course that is not acceptable to you.

–not valuing the education of girls
–wanting women to marry young (VERY young) while discouraging young men from marrying (which as you can see creates certain mathematical difficulties)

Meh, when it comes to female education, the only topic that really gets discussed is why modern social studies are full of 2nd and 3rd wave feminism and why avoiding it is essential.

As for marriage age, we are going to have to discuss quite a few other concepts before getting to that point.

–having a very obvious double sexual double standard for men and women

Is it also a double standard that women get pregnant and men impregnate?

–wanting to marry virgins (if they ever marry), but to screw around until then

This is not necessarily a good thing, rather it is a sign of how messed up society is when this is a logical choice.

–feeling entitled to porn

Now you are just making stuff up.

returnofkings.com/20166/stop-watching-porn
returnofkings.com/43189/how-to-quit-your-porn-addiction-and-improve-your-game-at-the-same-time
returnofkings.com/75882/5-things-you-should-be-doing-if-you-consume-porn

 

[Xantippe]

I also don’t see anyone else doing that. Funny how every time someone complains about CAF, I can never seem to find not one lousy example of what they are talking about.

Also, Xantippe, your statement is a cop-out. Just because radical Islamists or radical feminists (don’t forget about them) aren’t on here doesn’t mean they aren’t the bigger problem.

You’ve really never seen an example of hyper-submission or sex-on-demand on CAF? Really?

I’m not sure why feminists get to be in the same category as people who literally hack off heads and take sex slaves. Say what you will about Andrea Dworkin, she never did any of that…

I also don’t really want to hear about the evils of radical Islam from people who want basically that kind of setup with regard to women’s rights. As far as I’m concerned, Red Pill guys have an awful lot in common with radical Islam (including deluded female groupies).

I think one of the biggest problems with your posting in this thread is not defining your terms. The rest of us are still completely in the dark as to what you mean by:

–red pill (free speech? really?)
–feminism
–third wave feminism

 

[Xantippe]

That remains to be seen. It is not the fault of some men for noticing that the laws are getting worse and worse for men.

Apparently discussing St Paul’s writing on this subject is a sure way to get the thread locked, unless of course we are talking about St Paul’s directive towards men. This is rather exemplifies modern feminism. Women have rights while men have responsibilities.

Plenty of babble from feminists about “toxic masculinity” as well. Why would I be happy with a community full of people who have more or less effectively accepted all the premises of 2nd and 3rd wave feminism? Another question comes to mind. Is celibacy really all that valuable coming from an incel? That is rather like an anorexic person priding themselves on not being obese.

This is about being a better and more successful man. I look to a more successful man and I find out what worked for him.

Weird, the men I hear from who approach marriage from a Red Pill mindset usually do masculine forms of housework. Of course that is not acceptable to you.

Meh, when it comes to female education, the only topic that really gets discussed is why modern social studies are full of 2nd and 3rd wave feminism and why avoiding it is essential.

As for marriage age, we are going to have to discuss quite a few other concepts before getting to that point.

Is it also a double standard that women get pregnant and men impregnate?

This is not necessarily a good thing, rather it is a sign of how messed up society is when this is a logical choice.

Now you are just making stuff up.

returnofkings.com/20166/stop-watching-porn
returnofkings.com/43189/how-to-quit-your-porn-addiction-and-improve-your-game-at-the-same-time
returnofkings.com/75882/5-things-you-should-be-doing-if-you-consume-porn

–We’ve already had a lot of experimentation with out-of-wedlock parenting and cohabitating parents over the last 50 years. I can’t find the stat right now, but as I recall, 39% of cohabitating parents break up within five years. The fragility of cohabitating parenting is a well-known fact of American life:
live.washingtonpost.com/onlove-pitfalls-of-cohabitation.html
“A recent study from Drs. Sheela Kennedy (Minnesota) and Larry Bumpass (Wisconsin) found that 65% of children born to cohabiting parents saw their parents break up by age 12, compared to just 24% of children born to married families.”
–In case SuperLuigi is following, it looks like Starshiptrooper is obliquely espousing the views on 100% wifely obedience that SuperLuigi said were nonexistent on CAF. Those views are not that hard to find in the “Christian” Red Pill world.
–If Red Pill guys are so negative about porn, why do I keep hearing Red Pill guys pining for sexbots and virtual reality porn?

 

[Xantippe]

If Chevalier is still around, I just came across this, which is by a woman who was sexually abused by an adult man in her early teen (he was convicted but did a very brief sentence and their Protestant church community ostracized her and her family):

natalierose-livewithpassion.blogspot.com/2017/02/intimacy-after-abuse-my-childhood-abuse.html

“When you’re a survivor of sexual abuse, navigating sex and intimacy can be awfully tricky territory. **There are unexpected pitfalls and triggers seemingly everywhere. Something you think will be okay turns out to really not be. Something that felt safe for years suddenly feels unsafe. **The footing never feels very sure.”

“One aspect of intimacy after abuse that I’d like to give a voice to in this post is the idea that abuse doesn’t just hurt the victim, it hurts everyone the victim will ever be close to. My abuse didn’t just hurt me, it hurt my husband, too.”

“1.) My husband finds himself accidentally re-creating my abuse. Gosh. Could it be any worse? Nope, not really. On occasion, during intimacy, something will happen that reminds me of some aspect of the sexual abuse I experienced. Or to put it more bluntly, my husband will do something that reminds me of something my abuser once did to me (please note, my husband is very kind and respectful to me, there are just some things within sex that unavoidably remind me of my abuse.)”

 

[starshiptrooper]

–We’ve already had a lot of experimentation with out-of-wedlock parenting and cohabitating parents over the last 50 years. I can’t find the stat right now, but as I recall, 39% of cohabitating parents break up within five years. The fragility of cohabitating parenting is a well-known fact of American life:
live.washingtonpost.com/onlove-pitfalls-of-cohabitation.html
“A recent study from Drs. Sheela Kennedy (Minnesota) and Larry Bumpass (Wisconsin) found that 65% of children born to cohabiting parents saw their parents break up by age 12, compared to just 24% of children born to married families.”

Of course this is due to getting a piece of paper with a fancy government logo on it and not due to the fact that you have some sort of agreement in the first place combined with the possibility of grace from the sacrament of Matrimony.

–If Red Pill guys are so negative about porn, why do I keep hearing Red Pill guys pining for sexbots and virtual reality porn?

You forgot to mention the artificial uterus as well.

We are looking forward to those innovations for similar reasons to feminists that fight for big government, publically funded birth control and abortion. Complete and total independence from women, which will give us a more equal bargaining position overall.

 

[AdamP88]

This is about being a better and more successful man. I look to a more successful man and I find out what worked for him.

Being normal and not treating women like the enemy usually help.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

I’m confused. SST, do you want a sacramental marriage and an agreement of “until death do us part” to have a stable home for children (just minus the paperwork), or do you want to show a woman the door if she’s ever unhappy with your behavior?

Only one of those setups is conducive to children. And only a very foolish woman would take you at your word and have kids with you if you were dead set against paperwork.

 

[Xantippe]

Of course this is due to getting a piece of paper with a fancy government logo on it and not due to the fact that you have some sort of agreement in the first place combined with the possibility of grace from the sacrament of Matrimony.

I’d flip it around the other way–people who don’t bother to get the “piece of paper with a fancy government logo on it” and/or who don’t understand how important it is in producing a financially stable, functioning middle class family tend to have families that blow up–hence the 65% failure rate.

I know you’re concerned about divorce and losing “your stuff”–but here’s a list (culled from a page on gay marriage) that may explain what the shack-up couple is missing out on

fidelity.com/viewpoints/personal-finance/same-sex-financial-implications

–“Some couples marry because some employers have ended domestic partner benefits.” Good employer-provided health insurance is still very important. In fact, I’d say (anecdotally speaking) that health insurance benefits are one of the leading reasons that modern secular couples marry when they do. It’s not uncommon for the wife to have the well-insured job and for the husband to be the entrepreneur/freelancer/irregularly employed guy who doesn’t. (I often hear women say they can’t quite working because they carry their family’s insurance.)
–“Legally married spouses can now claim Social Security benefits on their spouse’s work record.” That’s a big deal. It would be very hard to re-create that sort of income flow out of savings.
–" U.S. citizens who are legally married can also leave an unlimited amount of assets to each other without triggering federal estate taxes." That is also a VERY big deal, especially for people with large (seven figure) assets.
–There’s a tax benefit especially for married couples with unequal incomes–it allows the higher earner to spread their income around and miss a lot of taxes. ““Filing jointly tends to be beneficial if one spouse earns most of the income,” says Mark Luscombe, principal federal tax analyst for CCH Incorporated, a Wolters Kluwer business. “But it may be detrimental if both spouses have roughly equal income.”” Also, eligibility for a lot of things tends to have a much higher (and more advantageous) number for a married person than for a single person.
–“The expenses of an employee, his or her spouse, or the spouse’s children are eligible for reimbursement from a health savings account (HSA) or flexible spending account (FSA) tax free, provided they are used to pay for qualified medical expenses.”
–“Same-sex spouses of military members may be some of the greatest beneficiaries of marriage equality, because a legal spouse is eligible for a wide range of military benefits, from pension survivor benefits to health care to housing.” It would be very, very hard (almost financially and logistically impossible) to be a non-legally married military spouse.
– "A married person can leave any amount of assets to a legally recognized spouse without triggering any federal estate taxes. In comparison, unmarried couples do not have the same advantage of tax-free transfers to one another, because assets passed to anyone other than a spouse can trigger an estate tax if the value of the assets exceeds the federal lifetime gift and estate tax exclusion amount of $5.49 million for 2017.
Additionally, the tax liabilities can be even higher in states that have a separate state gift, estate, or inheritance tax.
“A surviving spouse may also be able to take advantage of portability—the ability to make use of a deceased spouse’s remaining unified exemption.”
–“Gift tax: Gifts of more than $14,000 annually to nonspouses eat into the giver’s lifetime federal gift and estate tax exclusion. Therefore, gifts between partners in an unmarried couple require careful tracking, as they must be netted against the giver’s lifetime exclusion. For example, for unmarried couples, adding a partner (nonspouse) as joint owner to the deed of a million-dollar house will reduce the donor’s exclusion by $486,000 (the $500,000 gift less a $14,000 annual exclusion). Legally married spouses may also take advantage of “gift splitting,” which allows a married couple to split the total value of a gift to a third party and have it treated as though each spouse contributed one-half of the amount to the recipient.”
–“Retirement plan rollovers: An inheriting spouse can roll over inherited assets to his or her own IRA and defer minimum required distributions until he or she is 70½ years old. Generally, a nonspouse inheriting an IRA has to either start taking required minimum distributions no later than December 31 of the year after the IRA owner died or withdraw the entire balance within five years of the IRA owner’s death.”
–“Same-sex couples who have not legally married will not be afforded “next-of-kin” status over each other, and in the instance of a medical emergency may even be treated as legal strangers.”

Adding up all of those issues, being a legally unmarried long-term couple is (potentially) every bit as expensive as divorce, if not more so, especially for the more affluent.

Additionally, I have to ask, what kind of family would accept non-civilly married status for their daughter and hypothetical future grandbabies? I would personally be very suspicious, would not want that for my daughter, and would be very clear that (should she ever wish to get out), my financial help is always available.

I know that there are small Protestant groups in the US that avoid civil marriage (for various reasons), but anecdotally speaking, people who do that are a) living in near 3rd world poverty even in the US and/or b) split up fairly often. I’ve never heard of anybody doing it for religious reasons who had something resembling a middle class life.

 

[Xantippe]

I**'m confused. SST, do you want a sacramental marriage and an agreement of “until death do us part” to have a stable home for children (just minus the paperwork), or do you want to show a woman the door if she’s ever unhappy with your behavior?**

Only one of those setups is conducive to children. And only a very foolish woman would take you at your word and have kids with you if you were dead set against paperwork.

Yeah.

Edited to add: You’re right that the refusal of legal marriage would immediately eliminate a lot of prudent, future-oriented women from the available pool. I’m also pretty sure that it would eliminate a lot of tradition-minded women, as well as a lot of women who are close to their families and value their families’ approval. Basically, it eliminates almost all of the women who would actually be good marriage prospects.

 

[starshiptrooper]

I’m confused. SST, do you want a sacramental marriage and an agreement of “until death do us part” to have a stable home for children (just minus the paperwork), or do you want to show a woman the door if she’s ever unhappy with your behavior?

Those things are not mutually exclusive.

Only one of those setups is conducive to children. And only a very foolish woman would take you at your word and have kids with you if you were dead set against paperwork.

I would have no problem signing a private contract.

Adding up all of those issues, being a legally unmarried long-term couple is (potentially) every bit as expensive as divorce, if not more so, especially for the more affluent.

“No price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.” (Friedrich Nietzsche)

 

[UbiCaritas]

Those things are not mutually exclusive.I would have no problem signing a private contract.
“No price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.” (Friedrich Nietzsche)

Here’s the thing, though. Back in my single days, I was looking to marry someone and have a long, stable marriage with him in which we could raise kids to become solid, productive citizens. If I hear that as soon as I or the kids get sick or hurt or become disfigured in any way or, in the case of the kids, have some sort of genetic/physical/mental issue of the many which are impossible to predict, we’ll be kicked out with no support at all…why would I want to try to create a stable home with such a person, when so much as the not-uncommon phenomenom of, say, bed rest during pregnancy means that our child’s father will refuse to be involved in my or perhaps the kid’s life from then on?

When the marriage vows say better/worse/richer/poorer/sickness/health, they don’t mean “until you don’t look like a 19-year-old supermodel anymore,” “unless you don’t look like a combination of George Clooney and Sean Connery as you age,” or even “until the doctor says not to have sex for the next few months of pregnancy in order to avoid killing your baby, in which case there’s the door, honey, my needs aren’t being met.”

 

[Xantippe]

Here’s the thing, though. Back in my single days, I was looking to marry someone and have a long, stable marriage with him in which we could raise kids to become solid, productive citizens. If I hear that as soon as I or the kids get sick or hurt or become disfigured in any way or, in the case of the kids, have some sort of genetic/physical/mental issue of the many which are impossible to predict, we’ll be kicked out with no support at all…why would I want to try to create a stable home with such a person, when so much as the not-uncommon phenomenom of, say, bed rest during pregnancy means that our child’s father will refuse to be involved in my or perhaps the kid’s life from then on?

When the marriage vows say better/worse/richer/poorer/sickness/health, they don’t mean “until you don’t look like a 19-year-old supermodel anymore,” “unless you don’t look like a combination of George Clooney and Sean Connery as you age,” or even “until the doctor says not to have sex for the next few months of pregnancy in order to avoid killing your baby, in which case there’s the door, honey, my needs aren’t being met.”

Indeed.

I don’t really see the point of a) being super afraid of divorce but b) dealing with that by raising children in cohabitation instead. (Children of divorce are typically more functional than children raised by cohabitating parents–there are a lot of stats on this.)

SST, how many prosperous, religiously observant middle class people can you point to who are raising or who have raised children outside of civil marriage?

I realize that unmarried couplehood and parenthood is a thing among ultra-rich Hollywood types and also among poor people and people from weird Protestant groups, but those are also very poor people. It’s virtually unknown for comfortably middle class practicing Christians to raise children outside civil marriage. Do you have any real life examples to point to of people doing this successfully, because I don’t.