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.