The Marriage Strike - Why are men reluctant to marry?

Radiofree West Hartford ^ | August 13, 2003 | Wendy McElroy

[snowstorm12]

The problem isn't that snowstorm is an anomaly; no, she's everywhere you look.

I'm glad. Women are finally waking up and standing up for themselves and not allowing men to walk all over them. Men walk all over women everywhere you look and treat them like $hit. My motto is if you can't beat em join em! I'm not really even that bad. You people are blowing this out of proportion.

[xrp]

Women are finally waking up and standing up for themselves and not allowing men to walk all over them.

Then why do they keep dating the jerks, then marrying them and creating a bad name for all women by being absolutely vicious in the divorce proceedings?

Men walk all over women everywhere you look and treat them like $hit.

See previous statement. Do unto others, huh...Women like you are scaring the truly good men away from you.

My motto is if you can't beat em join em!

Nice group-identity liberalism there. In other words "F morals! Be a slutty ho!"

but I also want a man who is rich good looking and sexy

With a growing majority of American adults being overweight/obese, good luck. Now, start removing the % of non overweight that are not rich. Now, remove the % of non overweight that are not rich and not Brad Pitt looks. Now, remove the % of non overweight that are not rich and not Brad Pitt looks and not Adonis-sexy and you've reducing your choice pool to probably less than 1% of the available single American male market. Of that 1%, probably 90% will be put off by your "GIMME, GIMME, I WANT, I WANT" attitude leaving you with 0.1% of the available single American male market as your prospects. Or -- if you're a Monica Lewinsky-type, you will stand to increase your pool of targets drastically.

[FreedomAvatar]

I appreciate the kind words. My oldest daughter is 11 - we are soulmates. She is, legally, old enough to talk to a judge and say "I want to live with dad". My lawyer has advised me that I could go down that path. But neither she nor I want that. She needs her mom, too. Children feel a terrible sense of being pulled in both directions - they are very sensitive to "betraying" either parent. No child should have to feel that way - but with a 50% divorce rate, many do.

Regardless of how awful stbxw has been to me, I would never deprive my daughter of equal time with her mother - that would be vindictive and hypocritical.

I wish I were a wonderful father. But I can't shake the feeling that I've failed them. I couldn't do what a man is supposed to do: protect the family. God knows, I tried. Don't get me wrong, I'm not ashamed the marriage failed. I wasn't the one that broke the vows and walked away. But I was willing to do anything to keep the family together. And I failed.

So now I focus on trying to be "just dad". I don't see myself as a divorced man. I'm a dad and I'm damned proud of that.

[Gorjus]

The exception for adultery was not extended to nor included in the requirements for Church leadership roles.

So you say, but those words are not in the Bible. I am not ignoring Scripture. You are ignoring Scripture. And worse, you are claiming for your own additions and interpretations the sanctity of Scripture itself.

There, have I convinced you? I have claimed grandly to know what is right, by accusing you of whatever error it takes to make my position right.

You entire argument is circular. By your claim I am ignoring Scripture that explictly says my position is incorrect, when in fact the whole point is that isolated passages do not provide complete guidance and therefore the Bible does not explictly say what you claim, except when isolated passages are taken out of context with the rest of Scripture. In essence, you are ignoring all Scripture except that which (in isolation) supports your point. And yet, even in that you are inconsistent. There are many requirements for members of the Church other than those which are explictly tied to the leadership qualifications themselves. Are you claiming only those qualifications that are 'explicitly' identified with leadership positions apply to leaders? So that it is not necessary for a Church leader to forsake idolatry just because it's not mentioned in 1 Tim 3? Or, in fact, that it's not necessary for a Church leader to be baptized, since that's not mentioned there either?

Or are you claiming that Jesus taught us that we should sin? Since Jesus said divorce when a woman has been an adulteress is an exemption to the faults that follow other divorces, I would maintain that He has explicitly made an exception that applies to Christians - all Christians, whether leaders or members. Your position is not logically sound, ignores critical Scriptural passages, and ultimately is not convincing.

Let me make it 'explicitly' clear how these passages can be integrated together. A Church leader should be the 'husband of but one wife' except that (as Jesus 'explicitly' said) adultery of the woman is a valid basis for divorce and therefore a marriage to an adulterous woman becomes irrelevant. Just as a marriage to a woman who has died becomes irrelevant.

That is how they can be integrated together. Perhaps they are not supposed to be integrated. But I'm not the one to make that call, and unless you've got qualifications no human has had since The Revelation was written, I don't think you do either.

You're welcome to cherry pick the parts of Scripture you find satisfying - and to declare that therefore your views on disputable matters are explicit and written down by God Himself.

I choose a more modest claim to authority. I believe I'll let God tell us what is right at Judgment, and in the meantime trust in his mercy if I - in good faith and honest scholarship of the Bible - am wrong.

[FreedomAvatar]

Men walking all over women? How so? Like taking your kids, and leaving you an indentured servant? Or do you mean that some ultra-vain muscle-bound d_ck head with an IQ of 6 never called you back?

Do you take your talking points from Oprah?

I've got news for you. You have the power to absolutely obliterate any man you marry. Emotionally. Financially. You hold all the cards and the legal system is there to back you up all the way to the bank.

You've come a long way, baby.

[Quilla]

I know I'm 30x more attractive then them so I will have no problems getting a man's attention or to do for me.

You could very well be thirty times more attractive. But to say it aloud (or write it down) sounds more like conceit - an rather unattractive trait. It ranks right up there with selfishness, oftentimes illustrated in archaic references as follows:

I do want a man that is faithful, considerate, committed, responsible, dependable etc., but I also want a man who is rich good looking and sexy. I want it all. Men want it all from women as well, so I demand the same.

With that reasoning, I sincerely hope you are faithful, considerate, committed, resonsible dependable, rich, good looking and sexy too.

[Technogeeb]

So you say, but those words are not in the Bible

Yes, they are, in Timothy chapter 3, specifically a candidate "must be blameless, the husband of one wife..."

I am not ignoring Scripture

Yes, you are.

You are ignoring Scripture.

No, I am not. Instead, you are ignoring specific requirements for church leadership given in scripture by quoting other scripture that has nothing to do with the requirements for church leadership roles.

And worse, you are claiming for your own additions and interpretations the sanctity of Scripture itself

I am merely stating the word of God as it has been written by the Apostles and interpreted by the Church for nearly 2000 years. It is you who are trying to create your own personal interpretation of scripture, and you can only do that by ignoring Church tradition, historical teachings, and the literal words of the Bible itself.

There, have I convinced you? I have claimed grandly to know what is right, by accusing you of whatever error it takes to make my position right

Your claims are as irrelevant as those of the modern Episcopals; neither of you have any standing when you ignore the clear meaning of scripture.

You entire argument is circular. By your claim I am ignoring Scripture that explictly says my position is incorrect, when in fact the whole point is that isolated passages do not provide complete guidance and therefore the Bible does not explictly say what you claim, except when isolated passages are taken out of context with the rest of Scripture

The Bible does indeed explicitly say what I claim, and your attempts to ignore those parts of scripture in no way invalidate them. Your argument is essentially the same as that of the so-called homosexual priests in the various pseudo-churches; both of you believe that the Bible can be re-interpreted to make various rules meaningless when you decide those rules are no longer convenient. And you are both wrong to do so.

In essence, you are ignoring all Scripture except that which (in isolation) supports your point. And yet, even in that you are inconsistent. There are many requirements for members of the Church other than those which are explictly tied to the leadership qualifications themselves. Are you claiming only those qualifications that are 'explicitly' identified with leadership positions apply to leaders?

Once again, you are trying to create a strawman argument, and not a very good one at that. I do not claim that only those requirements listed are the only ones that should be taken into consideration when choosing Church leadership, but that certainly does not mean that I believe such explict requirements should be ignored. The latter is your argument, and is self-evidently un-biblical and illogical.

Or are you claiming that Jesus taught us that we should sin?

Yet another strawman, and a very poor one at that.

Since Jesus said divorce when a woman has been an adulteress is an exemption to the faults that follow other divorces, I would maintain that He has explicitly made an exception that applies to Christians - all Christians, whether leaders or members

And it is you who are adding to scripture at this point, except in this case your additions go against the specific requirements in Timothy 3. What you are trying to "maintain" is in contradiction to scripture, and is as nonsensical as suggesting that Jesus's forgiveness of the woman who committed adultery means that adultery isn't relevant to church leadership roles either.

Your position is not logically sound, ignores critical Scriptural passages, and ultimately is not convincing.

It is not convincing to you only because you refuse to accept scripture as having any absolute meaning other than what you read into it. Your so-called "logical" position is that explicit requirements for church leadership should be ignored, based only on the idea that Jesus talked about divorce and forgiveness when talking about issues that had absolutely nothing to do with church leadership.

Let me make it 'explicitly' clear how these passages can be integrated together. A Church leader should be the 'husband of but one wife' except that (as Jesus 'explicitly' said) adultery of the woman is a valid basis for divorce and therefore a marriage to an adulterous woman becomes irrelevant.

You are inventing passages that are not there. There is no exception. The passage does not say "the husband of one wife unless that wife committed adultery and then this verse should probably be ignored".

That is how they can be integrated together

You are perverting scripture. God will judge you for that particular sin.

You're welcome to cherry pick the parts of Scripture you find satisfying - and to declare that therefore your views on disputable matters are explicit and written down by God Himself

There could be dispute with the passage only if there were some other verse that actually provided such an exception for church leadership roles. It is a "disputable matter" only if specific scripture is deliberately ignored. That many churches ignore such scripture only proves that they are false churches; such actions do nothing to modify the clear meaning of the scripture itself.

I choose a more modest claim to authority. I believe I'll let God tell us what is right at Judgment, and in the meantime trust in his mercy if I - in good faith and honest scholarship of the Bible - am wrong

It will be more than just misjudgment of scripture to which you will have to answer. Methods like yours, of ignoring those verses where are inconvenient to you, are used to justify many of the terrible abominations afflicting the church today. By advocating the legitimacy of such selective interpretation, you add to that chaos.

[Gorjus]

This is pointless. You're not even reading your own words, let alone what I have written. Your words (emphasis on your) were . .

The exception for adultery was not extended to nor included in the requirements for Church leadership roles.

That is your conclusion. I happen to think it is at least possible that the words of Jesus do apply to Church leaders as well as members. All of the words, and all of the members.

If you can't tell the difference between your own words and those of the Bible, then you'll have to find someone else to yammer at. I'm not going down that path. Nor, for that matter, am I going to bother to respond to the rest of your silliness.

[JoeSchem]

Another reason seldom mentioned in these studies and articles is that women are a lot colder and meaner and more selfish and less considerate than they used to be. Just consider the attitude behind the notion that marriage is slavery for women. Who wants to be around someone with that big a chip on her shoulder?

[LibKill]

Who wants to be around someone with that big a chip on her shoulder?

Worse yet, If you so much as SAY anything about that chip, let alone knock it off, you will go to PRISON.

Good luck, Men of FR. You will need it.

BTW. Count all the posts that call me evil.

[Doc On The Bay]

...for Saturday Night....

So I Guess, (by Your Implication), that you expect your "Lothario" to Totally Support You & the "Issue" of Your "Dalliance" FOREVERMORE!!

Our Biology Dictates That BOTH a "Male & Female" are REQUIRED to produce a Child.

In a Consensual Event, BOTH "Parents" are EQUALY RESPONSIBLE for the "Outcome!!"

EXCEPT in the event of TRUE RAPE, BOTH "Parents" are EQUALLY RESPONSIBLE for the "Issue" of a Sexual Encounter!

"AFTER-THE-FACT" protestations should be viewed with a HIGH DEGREE of SKEPTICISM!!

In our Permissive Culture, TOO MANY Ladies (& I use the term, "Ladies" Loosely) Cry, "RAPE," to cover a momentary (often Drunken) Lapse in Judgement!!

IMHO!

Doc

[Technogeeb]

This is pointless.

No, it is not. Fidelity matters in church leadership roles. If it didn't, the requirement for it would not be there.

You're not even reading your own words, let alone what I have written. Your words (emphasis on your) were . .

The exception for adultery was not extended to nor included in the requirements for Church leadership roles.

That is your conclusion

No, it is not a "conclusion". It is a statement of fact. The FACT of scripture is that the so-called exception for adultery given by Jesus for divorce is irrelevant to the discussion of choosing church leaders. Jesus was not talking about Church leaders. When the requirements for Church leaders WERE listed, they did not include any exception for adultery of a wife. If anything, the text of qualifications would exclude any such candidate from such roles even if the requirement of being the husband of one wife were not there, because another one of the requirements is that a candidate rule his house well. The fact that the requirement (of a single wife) IS there makes the issue so obvious that the only way it could be mis-interpreted is by deliberatly ignoring scripture as well as being completely ignorant of church history.

If you can't tell the difference between your own words and those of the Bible,

You wouldn't know either way, since it is clear that you have either never actually read the bible, or that you deliberately ignore those passages that are inconvenient to your corrupt viewpoint.

You are as guilty as those who have allowed homosexuality to defile the priesthood, and you will surely be judged for your complicity in that role.

[nobdysfool]

So that's how all the men act these days. I follow their lead, like them because they know what they're doing. They don't let any woman walk all over them.

Hardly! Nowadays men are scared to death of a "sexual harrassment" charge. That's what Feminism did. Define "walk all over".

I do want a man that is faithful, considerate, committed, responsible, dependable etc., but I also want a man who is rich good looking and sexy. I want it all. Men want it all from women as well, so I demand the same.

Sorry, but "rich, good-looking and sexy" means that he probably isn't really up on the rest. He doesn't have to be. His looks and his money are all the stupid bimbos can see.

I guarantee you this. If you want faithful, considerate, committed, responsible, dependable etc., you're going to have to be able to deliver the same. No real man will suffer a woman who's not. If that's what you mean by men walking all over women (because he won't commit to a woman who is not those things, and leaves her), then you've got the key to changing that situation. The road you're going now will leave you old, ugly, used, and alone.

[Mark17]

It's going to be tough to reverse without a second American Revolution.

Tough is not the word I was thinking of. Impossible is more like it.

[Mark17]

Now I know what to watch out for.

Good post.

[null and void]

Bump

[He Rides A White Horse]

I'm not really even that bad.

No, you're not that bad. You're plain awful.

.....and judging from your posts, you don't want a man; you want a Labrador Retriever.

Listening to the things you say, it's plain to me that that the perfect man for you is some emasculated fembot being cranked out of our universities. Maybe you can hang together at Planned Parenthood rallies, or go see the 'Vagina Monologues' together.

I'm going to practice what I preach; I'm not wasting two more seconds of my time arguing with you and your ilk. You aren't worth the time of day.

[cjshapi]

I would agree with your use of awful in this case. I've been reading the threads on this post and I find her attitude insufferable. Even though I'm woman, I just plain don't understand women like this.

[Mark17]

I just plain don't understand women like this.

LOL, you sound like a gem.

[BobS]

"try introducing legislation to force somebody to marry you."

Hitmen will have the market all to them!