Patriarchal Thinking

lenin-statue

Over on Sigma Frame, we read a somewhat sharp but well-written riposte to my contention in The Good Woman, specifically, that when one individual marries another, s/he needs to keep those promises. Our brother replies:

Marriage to an ex-rider is like sweetened lard icing on a cake of poop. It looks appetizing, until you cut into it and take a bite, suddenly realizing the main ingredients are not eggs and flower. The batter has been deflorested, and the eggs have developed chromosomal abnormalities.

And what if you “promised” to eat the whole thing… and it’s the only cake you’ll ever eat for the rest of your life? Worse, you find that after you swallow, you only get a haughty snicker, with not even a bit of remorse or gratitude?

This is what marital fraud feels like. This is why the RP advice says to avoid it.

Boxer argues that in a situation like this, it comes down to commitment. But the reality is more nuanced.

What my brother does not do is to spell out the clause, in those marriage vows, that allows for easy divorce if one party discovers something s/he doesn’t like in the history of the other. The omission is understandable, since there is no such addendum. The vows are un-esoteric, carnal, and easily understood by everyone. They were meant to be so.

If you are a female, your promise is to respect, honor and obey. If you are a male, your promise is to love, keep and cherish.

From this day forward… until death do us part

Our patriarchal fathers wrote those vows carefully, and handed them down to us for a reason.

Now, if one party breaks the contract after consummation, that’s one thing.

Otherwise, you’re expected to keep those promises… until when? Well, the brothers just told you.

Consider an analogy: If you invest in some project, and the members of the board steal your investment and run away, then you can have those scumbags thrown in jail. A court would award you some compensation, and in the ideal world, you’ll be made whole.

If, on the other hand, you invest in some project, and the project goes according to plan, but the project doesn’t return what you originally hoped, you are out the difference.

Is this difficult to understand? I don’t think it is.

If my readers want to go over to Sigma Frame blog, and start innovating un-patriarchal concepts like “marital fraud,” in an attempt to get out of the promises they make, then those men need to quit pretending to care about patriarchy. Those men are male feminists. You can’t fight frivolous divorce while excusing it, and you can’t object to the degenerate culture of frivolous divorce while promoting it.

Down below, Derek sez:

Virginity should be held in honor. His wife was not a virgin, but she’s still his wife and he has a duty to love her. He didn’t have to marry her, but he did anyway. He has to live with his choice.

Then Sharkly sez:

You were saying that her emotional state means she should get a pussy-pass out of the public naming and shaming for her sin that the Bible prescribes, as you pointed out. That is white knighting, as is your excuse making for her, and always insisting on assuming only the best about her, past the point of foolishness.

I didn’t read Derek’s comments that way. Maybe I missed his white knighting.

The reality is that Driscoll made an investment. If his partner is breaking the contract, then there are remedies available, which don’t include impotent whining and bitching in public. If his partner is not breaking the contract, then he needs to shut the fuck up and quit whining and bitching in public.

Public bitching and whining is unmanly. The time for reading the prospectus is before one invests.

If you marry someone with a past, then that past is independent of your promise. The purpose of this blog is to encourage young people to be good consumers. My work is not meant to make those people a bunch of whiny legalists, who condemn frivolous divorce in others while looking for loopholes to justify their own.

It’s A Wimminz’ World

Screen Shot 2018-11-12 at 11.41.11

Down Below, Jew613 reports:

In America, at least in New York state if you go to family court and you had an Orthodox Jewish wedding the judge will send you to the Jewish courts. I personally know of one case where this happened.

While this didn’t seem immediately plausible to me, I wanted to check with an actual attorney. So, I called Anna, a divorce lawyer that I was banging in the summer of 2014. Anna has a steady boyfriend at this point, but we collaborated on a paper last year and remain cordial.

Anna actually backed up a scenario in which Brother Jew613 is correct. She told me that in the state where she practices, if both parties can agree to accept the ruling of a religious court, it will be rubber-stamped by a secular judge. The divorce courts treat religious tribunals as binding mediation sessions. There are some limitations. The law doesn’t ever allow for child support to be set at zero. Apparently, though, if your religious wife is silly enough to agree, she can allow the rabbi to rubber stamp the waiver of alimony.

While Anna isn’t admitted to the NY bar, it would surprise me if that wasn’t the status quo there too. So, I learned something new.

As to whether Jewish communities are better, Jewish families are healthier, or Jewish children less likely to grow up with skank single mothers than the average, I don’t know. Jew613 seems to often speak with the perspective of an Israeli, and if that’s his home, then he has a wealth of experience that I am not privy to.

What I can say is that I’ve met a fair share of North American Jews. I think my experience is based on the fact that religious outliers tend to gather together as kids, and several of my childhood friends were Hebrews. It seems to me that their mothers were just as likely to be raging bitches, and their families were equally likely to be broken, as anyone else’s. Again, though, that may have had something to do with the fact that divorce bastards tend to congregate together, in the same way that non-protestant kids do.

And now, to the point of all this. Being the curious bastard that I am, I went to courts dot state dot ny dot us, and typed in “orthodox jewish divorce” into a search field. The first case I came up with is quite entertaining. Let’s take a moment and read the depressing saga of…

Weisberger v Weisberger

The opinion opens with the following lovely declaration:

Per Curiam.

The parties were married on March 5, 2002. In 2005, the mother told the father that she could not tolerate having sexual relations with men, and that she was sexually attracted to women.

A disgusting bulldyke larps as a nice religious girl and good potential wife, succeeding in finding a sucker to marry her. Three years after the wedding date, bitch finally cops to the fact that she didn’t want to have sex with her husband any longer. Sounds like a real prize catch of a wimminz, this one.

The parties were divorced by a judgment of divorce dated March 6, 2009. They have three children together, a son and two daughters.

It took the victim of this pathetic fraud four years to finally break free. In the mean time, three divorce bastards were born. Lucky kids, for sure.

In a stipulation of settlement dated November 3, 2008, which was incorporated but not merged into the judgment of divorce,

This “stipulation of settlement” sounds like the ruling of the religious court. Did the rabbinical courts do the right thing, and admonish this lying dyke whore for defrauding her poor husband? Did they declare the marriage null and void, and award this man some pittance to compensate him for nine long years, living with a deranged lesbo? Let’s see…

the parties agreed to joint legal custody of the children with the mother having primary residential custody. The parties agreed that the father’s visitation with the children would consist of a two-hour period once per week after school (to be increased to twice per week with respect to their son when he turned eight years old, for the purpose of religious study); overnight visitation every other Friday after school until Saturday evening for the observance of Shabbos (the Sabbath); for two consecutive weeks every summer; and an alternating schedule for holidays.

How wonderful for her! She gets everything, despite running a colossal scam on an innocent man, and embarrassing her entire community.

Of course, it’s in “the best interests” of the children to keep living with their perverted mother, rather than to be removed to the safety of their father’s house. Let’s take a look at the results…

The father learned that in fall 2012 a transgender man (hereinafter O.) moved into the mother’s home, and that a curtain was installed to separate the adult bedrooms from the children’s bedrooms. According to the father, his children informed him that O. assisted in bathing them and told them about sexual parts of the human body.

That sounds like a fantastic addition to these children’s lives. I’m sure this weird tranny, who plays with the children’s genitals, is exactly what the religious courts had in mind.

And it must have been, given the fact that they engineered this lunacy. The father, a deeply religious man, was first betrayed by his wife, and has now been betrayed by his own elders, who sent his children to live with a gang of depraved perverts.

The father, having no recourse in his own ethno-religious group, appealed to the state courts in New York, and was immediately granted primary custody of his children. In an unusually wise decision, a divorce court judge forbade the degenerate mother from having contact with the children, beyond supervised and therapeutic visits. (By “therapeutic,” I assume this means some sort of court-enforced psychoanalysis, designed to heal the trauma of being raped and molested by the mother and her weird tranny friends.)

His wife then appealed to the New York supreme court, which recognized that a grave injustice was being done, by keeping these children from the “enrichment” that their mother was providing.

The Supreme Court granted that branch of the father’s motion which was to modify the stipulation of settlement so as to award him sole legal and residential custody of the children, as well as final decision-making authority over medical and dental issues, and issues of mental health, with supervised therapeutic visitation to the mother. The court stayed the provision of the order limiting the mother’s visitation to supervised therapeutic visits, conditioned upon, inter alia, her compliance with the religious upbringing clause contained in the stipulation of settlement. The court directed that, while the stay was in effect, the mother was entitled to unsupervised visitation every Monday after school or camp until Thursday morning.{**154 AD3d at 50}

In addition, the Supreme Court granted that branch of the father’s motion which was to enforce the religious upbringing clause so as to require the mother to direct the children to practice full religious observance in accordance with the Hasidic practices of ultra Orthodoxy at all times. Further, the court ordered that during any period of visitation or during any appearance at the childrens’ schools “the [mother] must practice full religious observance in accordance with the Hasidic practices of ultra Orthodoxy.” The court denied those branches of the mother’s motion which were to modify the religious upbringing clause and to modify the vacation and holiday schedule contained in the stipulation of settlement. The mother appeals.

“ ’Modification of an existing court-sanctioned custody or visitation arrangement is permissible only upon a showing that there has been a change in circumstances such that a modification is necessary to ensure the continued best interests and welfare of the child[ren]’ ” (Matter of Spencer v Killoran, 147 AD3d 862, 863 [2017], quoting Matter of O’Shea v Parker, 116 AD3d 1051, 1051 [2014]; see Matter of Bodre v Stimatz, 150 AD3d 1228, 1229 [2017]). “The best interests of the child[ren] must be determined by a review of the totality of the circumstances” (Matter of Preciado v Ireland, 125 AD3d 662, 662 [2015]; see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171-172 [1982]; Matter of Boggio v Boggio, 96 AD3d 834, 835 [2012]).

 
Not only does the Supreme Court of the State of New York affirm the right of lesbos to farm out their kids to trannies, they must make certain that the alienated father pays his fair share of the rent for such shenanigans.

The father testified that he had expected the mother to keep her religious beliefs and her sexuality a secret from the children and from the community, although the stipulation of settlement did not explicitly require her to do so. The father acknowledged that the stipulation of settlement required him to make child support payments to the mother in the total amount of $600 per month, which sum was to cover his total monthly obligations with respect to all three of the parties’ children.

So: What can we learn from the sad tale of Naftali H. Weisberger? The first lesson is that religion is not a refuge. Your kids belong to the feminist state. You are merely the ATM machine that funds their mother’s frivolities. She will never be questioned, no matter how destructive her behavior becomes.

If Brother Jew613 tells me that this sort of thing doesn’t happen in his own country, then I’m grateful. It’s actually difficult to fathom that this lunacy happens anywhere. If I were him, I’d be agitating to restrict American Jews from immigrating to Israel, lest this sort of insanity spread there.

Macron…

Screen Shot 2018-11-11 at 19.26.23

I realize that the French are cucks, but really, this guy is the most disgusting of them all.

Je sais que les français sont faibles. Cet homme est plus repoussant.

Macron has the Americans, the Canadians, and the Soviets to thank. Instead of doing the gracious thing, he takes a giant piss all over the people who gave him the country that elected him.

Il convient de remercier les peuples américain, canadien et soviétique pour la position de Macron. Au contraire, Macron les insulte tous.

Earlier, he revealed where his own loyalty lied (down)…

Il y a quelques semaines, Macron a révélé ses allégeances…

bq-5be89a5b33f54

This barely disguised homo, in a sham marriage with an old lady, has now come out of the closet.

Macron est « sorti du placard »

45993865_10218070492172769_8972920858758610944_n

Note: sorry for the poor Canadienne. I never was much good at our second language. Thanks also to TJ for the memes. Spread ’em around.

Chivalrous Men Deserve What They Get

Screen Shot 2018-11-11 at 17.23.43

Some anonymous bitch cops to a pseudojournalist, at the New York Compost, all about the scam she’s been running on various Tinder-simps. Let’s hear the ho’ tell it.

Being a student is financially tough, and I’m the first to admit I don’t handle money as well as I probably should.

What I do to get by could be seen as ethically murky, but I’m confident I’m not doing anything illegal.

Please. There’s no law against exploiting the desperate. The only gripe I have is the feigned innocence and compassion for her marks.

I’m studying science and law so my workload is pretty heavy,

The fuck does that mean? Law school is not the place for an MS in Chemistry, in case you were wondering.

but I have also had a series of dodgy jobs to try to support myself.

Dodgy like prostitute? Dodgy like pot dealer?

I still work casual shifts waiting tables in a seafood restaurant but honestly, it’s barely enough to cover my living expenses. Most nights I eat rice with soy sauce.

No doubt you’re digging a six-figure hole getting that useless J.D., too. With luck you’ll pass the bar in a couple of years, only to end up working as a no-benefit temp for Kelly Legal Services, making 30 dollars an hour in the cubicle farm.

If I want to leave my tiny apartment and actually have some fun, that’s totally out of my pay range.

God forbid the bitch consider ditching her go-nowhere career plans, quit playing the skank, and get married to a nice man. That sort of sensible option is just not on the table.

My solution to that problem started innocently enough

When someone says some shit like this, you know it’s going to get good.

I was on Tinder and would occasionally go on a date or two, but I was super careful because I never wanted to be caught short on a date not being able to pay my way. Most guys I went out with suggested dinner in an expensive restaurant or cocktails in some bar.

It wasn’t that I wasn’t interested, I was just embarrassed at how poor I was.

Add to that, if I was going to be spending the last of my grocery money on a night out, the guy had to be pretty spectacular to warrant me starving for the rest of the week. If you’ve been on Tinder, you’ll know most guys aren’t.

Sounds like you’re nothing special, yourself… so why all the fronting?

It was all leaving me overwhelmed and just about ready to give up on the whole thing.

Like I said, God forbid you laser off the gang’s “property of” tattoo, put on a dress, and make eyes at Jimmy in the mail room. A normal life just isn’t nearly exciting enough for your used up ho’ ass.

That’s when I went on a date with Dan

Sounds like Dan rocked your pussy. Let’s hear the details.

Dan and I had been talking for a couple of weeks when he suggested we head out to a tapas bar. He seemed great and I was interested, so I checked my bank account and headed out, determined to share a couple of plates and maybe have one glass of wine.

When I got there, Dan looked about 10 years older than his pictures. And he was shorter than he said he was — and shorter than me.

No doubt you looked to dan about 50 pounds lighter in your photos, and at least six dozen cocks have pounded your holes since that profile pic was taken, too. I wonder what he thought?

He was a nice enough guy but that kind of false advertising bums me out, so I ended up having five glasses of rosè and heaps of food. I even ordered dessert. When the bill came, Dan insisted on paying, and for the first time, I thought, “F–k it, let him.”

I didn’t even feel the tiniest bit of guilt about letting Dan pay when I had no intention of seeing him again. He had a good job, he could afford it, and we had had a great chat and a few laughs.

Congratulations. You ripped Dan off.

And guess what? Dan deserves it.

Remember, brothers, if you spring for a fancy meal before you sample those holes, you deserve what you get.

It was then that the light bulb went on in my head

I could get used to hanging out with strangers for a decent meal. I’m hardly the first person to think of this — it even has its own dating term, “sneating,” which means sneakily chatting someone up solely for the purposes of a free meal — but I’m committed.

Are you brothers getting the picture, yet?

If not, recall ya boy’s advice about meeting meat. First you pre-screen to weed out the parasites, and then you spend as little as possible. From paragraphs 39-41:

39. Meet either at a coffee house or at a cheap restaurant. Your goal in meeting is twofold: to see if their actual appearance meets your standards (it will differ from the posted photos, every single time, but some of them will still be bangable,) and to smoke out if they have behavior or psychological problems.

40. When meeting the slut you may spend no more than ten American dollars, and you should only spend that much if more time is needed to screen the potential client. Buying them a coffee or a taco will accomplish this.

41. The moment a bitch pulls an attitude, the moment she is rude to the wait staff, the moment she trash-talks any family member or her ex-boyfriend, the moment she displays an attitude of entitlement, the moment she confesses to an STD or a prescription for psychiatric medication, you get up and tell the slut you have to go to the men’s room, then scoot on out the door. Leave her with the bill if possible.

Let’s let the bitch continue to educate us. Take it away, slut…

I started being more strategic about the guys whom I matched with on Tinder. Guys who said they were old-fashioned or knew how to treat a lady were in. They were the ones who were likely to pay on a first date. Guys who said they were modern or into equality were out — they were clearly Dutch daters all the way.

Do you boys now realize why “gentlemen” are yesterday’s dogshit? If not, read the last paragraph again.

When you meet a slut on internet dating, this is exactly what she thinks of your generosity and your manners. All your kind gestures mark you as a sucker. You out yourself with such displays not as a good catch, but merely as a chump, to be exploited for as much as the bitch can get from you.

Long ago, when I used to read and comment on Dalrock, I’d inevitably get a laugh out of reading idiots like ASDGamer, Innocent Bystander Boston, Jeff Strand, and similar white-knight fathers of skank-ho adult daughters. These fags can go for days about how their little precious doesn’t deserve any but the best possible suitors.

It is almost a certainty that these men’s skank-ho slut daughters are regularly riding the dick of the most loathsome cretins imaginable. Those top-notch “gentlemen” who are dumb enough to show up are merely there to pay the bill. It’s Chad who is getting that ass.

Never feel any pity for the chivalrous “gentlemen” who Jeff Strand recruits to take his princess out on the town. That idiot serves a beneficial purpose. Your job is to fuck the shit out of Jeff Strand’s daughter, and let the “gentlemen” pick up the tab for it.

Read the rest of this skank’s confessions here.

Our Uncle Sig

sigmund-freud

Given that I’ve referred to him, here, there and elsewhere for years, I thought I’d finally backtrack into a brief introduction to our long-departed brother, one of the foremost modern advocates of patriarchy, Sigmund Freud. Freud and his groundbreaking work remain relevant today, and many of the techniques he pioneered retain the potential to treat our favorite contemporary malcontents: wimminz and male-feminists.

I love talking about Freud for many reasons, mostly because the mention of his name affects feminists like none other. Bringing him up to a bluehaired pseudointellectual fatty is akin to deholstering a crucifix and waving it in Dracula’s face. He has been dead for eighty years, yet he lives on, as the boogeyman who terrorizes our enemies from the grave.

Our brother was, first and foremost, a determinist. This is a ten-dollar word which alludes to one’s inability to make free choices. When you decide to do something, you may think that you are making a choice. Freud reminds you that you are being directed by forces you don’t understand, and usually don’t even recognize. In Freudian terms, human beings do not have complete control over what they do. Human behavior is shaped and directed by forces which queue up for expression, deep in the individual unconscious. Primal instincts, anxieties and aspirations exert unseen pressure on the personality, affecting the way we all interact with our world.

Sigismund Schlomo Freud began his career with a conventional medical degree in Vienna, awarded in 1880. In his first years of practice, he became interested in gynecology, focusing on hysteria (for which hysterectomy was often prescribed) and noted that female hormonal problems were often comorbid with antisocial behavior (refusal to speak, feigned paralysis, shoplifting, family violence, etc.).

Freud completed his habilitation under Josef Breuer, who advocated treating hysterical women with “the talking cure.” This would eventually become known as psychoanalysis.

Refining Breuer’s method, Freud began experimenting with free association: allowing his patients to ramble on about whatever came to mind, from one moment to the next. After amassing a body of work over the course of several years, Freud posited the existence of repressed unconscious forces which broke loose in dreams, in selective memory-loss, and in “slips of the tongue.” This parapraxis is the unconscious mind’s attempt at wish fulfillment or avoidance.

In the latter stages of exploring the unconscious, Freud began developing a theory of psychosexual development which expresses itself in stages. Libido (i.e. feelings of love and/or sexual directedness) are, until maturity, largely undifferentiated. This polymorphous perversity is, in infancy, completely random. Early on, feelings of love and attachment come through feeding at one’s mother’s breast. This is the oral stage of psychosexual development. Later, toilet training begins, and the anal stage marks a human being’s sense of accomplishment as s/he masters the ability to control his excretion.

After the anal stage, the sexes become differentiated. This is, in Freudian terminology, the phallic stage of psychosexual development.

During the phallic stage, a human being undergoes the beginnings of individuation, that is, he recognizes himself as distinct from others. He subsequently compares himself with others, and in so doing, he notices a couple of things. Whatever sex the human subject is, he recognizes that either he possesses a penis, or that she lacks one, and the subject compares his own genitals to those displayed by his father and mother. The fact that some people lack a penis suggests to the boy that his penis may be removed. This castration anxiety shapes his subsequent behavior. The fact that she lacks a penis suggests to the little girl that she has been robbed, at some point in the past, by design or circumstance, of one. This penis envy shapes her subsequent behavior.

If mentioning penis envy is not the easiest way to trigger a kooky feminist, then I will eat my undershorts. It ought to be the first tool in the box, and is especially effective for those overeducated dykes who have graduate degrees in wimminz studies. Penis envy is the reason for a wimminz’ permanent sense of inferiority, her annoying tryhardism, and her whiny passivity.

For the boy, castration anxiety is centered upon the father. The boy may find himself fearing the possibility that his father will castrate him, and reduce him to womanhood. There is the theory of the Oedipal complex, which drives the boy to fear his father and cling to his mother. Natural and normal (i.e. patriarchal) development makes this a temporary scenario. Eventually, the boy realizes that he can achieve safety by becoming a disciplined, dutiful son, taking his place as a temporarily lesser man, who learns from the more powerful male how to wield authority with temperance and decisiveness.

This is civilization at the level of the family, according to our Uncle Sig.

For the girl, penis envy does not resolve. Where a boy is forced to let go of his total reliance on his mother, the girl has the ability to retain her libidinal interest in the father. This leaves her personality relatively underdeveloped, and she generally does not develop a conscience, a sense of morality, or, in Freudian terms, a superego.

This is anti-civilization: wimminz feral behavior, at the level of the family.

Our Uncle Sig was the counter-enlightment intellectual who revitalized the obvious notion that biology was destiny, that anatomy was as important as culture, and who, at least in terms of sexuality, broke the tabula rasa over the heads of the feminists. Every man who is interested in resurrecting a patriarchal society should read him. I’ve given you the basics. Now go and study.

How Dare You?

mark-driscoll

When everyone’s favorite feminist Christian priest, Marc Driscoll, decided to start screaming at the men in his congregation, he probably imagined he’d get the wives and daughters in the audience wet for him. He likely anticipated an increase in donations, as the Christian whores in the chapel would see him as more manly than their own fathers and husbands.

He probably didn’t know that he’d become a fun manosphere meme.

While I can’t imagine that there’s anyone who hasn’t been entertained by this clown, here’s five minutes of Driscoll, kooking out in the most laughable fashion, in case you’ve missed it.

The first group of men that Driscoll castigates are the men who “have been coming here for years, with [their] hands all over their girlfriend[s]…” These men, who have been donating to Driscoll’s Christian church, for years, are subsequently screamed at for not marrying their Christian girlfriends.

Driscoll was not indulging in empty rhetoric. There were certainly many men in the audience who were faithful Christians. These men donated time and money, so that this useless parasite could continue to live large, without working. These men obeyed all the rules of their religious texts. They had what early Christian church fathers called a “natural marriage,” by taking a woman and faithfully living with her and loving her. Driscoll, of course, knows better than Augustine and St. Anselm. He knows better than a thousand years of patriarchal wisdom, which mirrors common sense. He calls these men and their marriages “cowardice” and “neglect,” and asks these faithful men who they think they are, for not manning up, and giving their slutty Christian wimminz a chance at being divorced.

To fuck a Christian slut without putting the noose of the divorce court around one’s neck is “dishonorable,” and “unmanly.” Those in the audience who didn’t realize it were in for a treat, as Pastor Driscoll was there to set them straight.

I fucked two wimminz in the last couple of weeks. Both were religious. One was a Protestant, and the other was Jewish. Neither seemed to mind the fact that I wasn’t much for religion myself. Both pretended to be patriarchal. Both expressed interest in being married. What I must assume is that neither would really be interested in marrying me, unless I were to magically convert to their own respective religions.

It might be that I constantly meet and fuck outliers, but I don’t think there are that many outliers in the world.

What I find more likely is that I meet and fuck random, everyday wimminz. These are the Christian and Jewish (and Muslim) sluts that you brothers meet, when you go to church. They find me amusing to play with. They also find me safe, as they know there is no chance that I will interact with the pool of men they plan to pretend to commit to.

Brother Boxer is a walking dildo and ATM machine, who these wimminz can goof off with on the side, while they are seeking out a good earning sucker, in their own community. Boxer will be discarded, but you will be the mark. It is you who they plan to marry, with the help of their faggot priest or rabbi, who will browbeat you, their victim, into signing on that dotted line.

Don’t think that you can have a “natural marriage,” in this society. Your priest is an agent of the feminist state, and he will be there, to derail your plans.

Thus it is you who will be robbed, the minute that princess decides that she’s not happy. This magic moment, which will (just coincidentally) arrive when the law tells her she can maximize her alimony payout, (in many states, that’s on your seventh or tenth anniversary,) will take you by surprise. Remember me, when it comes to pass. I tried to warn you.

By then you’ll have some sweet little Christian or Jewish (or Muslim) kids, who she will use as hostages to keep you in line. These children will grow up without a stable father-figure in the home, and will likely see a long procession of unscrupulous men, in and out of mom’s bedroom, throughout their tender years. You will pay for this, and I will too, and the only people who will profit are your skank-ho wife, the divorce lawyers, and faggot priests like Marc Driscoll.

So, really, there is someone who is childish, who is a “boy, and not a man,” and who deserves to be publicly humiliated. It isn’t you. It is the man who lives at your expense, without working. It is the man who AMOGs you, when you should be praying and enjoying the serenity of family time. It is the man who interferes in your marriage, during the hours that ought to be devoted to worshipping your God. Marc Driscoll is an example, but he’s hardly the only one.

How dare you? Indeed!