I started thinking about writing this commentary on marriage after yet another phone conversation with a male friend who is suffering through a devastating divorce and the destruction of his family. The pattern is all too familiar. Good guy, hard worker, successful businessman, devoted husband, and father. His first wife died tragically, leaving him with two young sons. He was in his early forties, lonely, struggling to manage his home and businesses. He admitted to remarrying too soon.
He shared that their marriage always seemed to struggle, but he felt it would improve if he worked hard enough at the union. Men, by nature, are fixers. They bought a big home, an expensive RV, and a nice boat. He admits that he indulged her with lifestyle and gifts in that process, seeking her happiness. They had two more sons, and she became more difficult and demanding after that. She ran up the credit cards, started hanging out with feminist, divorced friends. She saw his success in business and, despite having no experience, soon became determined to own a business of her own. He tried to help and advise her, but she informed him that this was HER business and she would make all of the decisions. He gave her hundreds of thousands of dollars that she lost through foolishness. By that time, her friends convinced her that she needed to be divorced so she could join them on their girl trips to resorts that cater to women in that lifestyle. They recommended an infamous divorce attorney; you can imagine the details from there.
Another family destroyed, another angry, unhappy woman, a devastated husband who lost his identity as a family man. I wish I could tell you that this was an unusual story, but sadly, it is all too common.
If a man came to me for advice on the matter, I would counsel him not to get married, at least not in the term’s common use. I will describe what I believe to be a solution later, because society only survives based on the success of its family units. Unfortunately, we’re operating from a very poor model.
To most people, a marriage is an institution that involves a member of the clergy or a magistrate, a man and a woman, and a marriage license issued by the government. I believe that is a prescription for disaster because, along with that, comes mutual independence and the ability to divorce. Most people would be surprised to find that women initiate 70% of divorces against their husbands. That statistic rises to 90% if the woman has a college education.
The most consistent reason for them initiating divorce is that they are unhappy and feel that there is a lack of connection. It used to be the case that slightly more men cheated than did women; now the statistics are shifting strongly in the other direction. Most surveys seem to indicate that the underlying reason women cheat is because they desire an “emotional connection.” When asked for more specifics, they like being chased; they enjoyed the courtship of the dating scene, but once married, their husbands’ role shifted, as did theirs. He became focused on providing, she became focused on her career or the demands of motherhood (less and less the case). He was no longer paying her as much attention, she stopped being sexual after the marriage, and soon another man began paying her the kind of attention that women instinctively desire. Before long, she and her lover, most likely a married man seeking sex, are in a motel. If caught, she almost always says she doesn’t know why she did it and regrets the act. Hence, the statistic that 90% of divorces are initiated by college- and career-minded women.
Can you think of one reason why a man would want to enter into a marriage with an educated woman with a career? The cliché is deserved.
To be clear, I have six teenage daughters, and I want them to go to school. I also want them to get married young, preferably to an older man, and have lots of kids. The two messages of education and domestic life are often hard to align. I don’t want my girls to work in the corporate world. I want them to be home, with the babies, learning how to make money and support their husbands in one of the thousands of ways possible from home. I know that the education system is horribly destructive and promotes its interests as an industry more than it helps students. If you want evidence of that, all you have to do is look at the statistic that only 27% of college graduates have a job related to their degree, and only 62% have a job that requires a college education. Again, I repeat that studies have indicated a 90% correlation between an undergraduate degree and the likelihood of women filing for divorce.
How Did We Get Here?
Many of our cultural paradigms come from our Judeo-Christian heritage, and often, people refer to the Bible as a standard of behavior and morality. I believe one of the issues in discussing this subject is that people don’t know much about its history. Even the words we use today don’t mean the same thing they did in the past. In today’s culture, behaviors that used to be commonly admired are considered sinful and abhorrent. We read words in the Bible and draw conclusions that are inaccurate because the words don’t mean the same thing today. People take passages of scripture totally out of context and misappropriate their messages. This is aggravated by the fact that English is an imprecise language, whereas Greek and Hebrew are very precise. An example is that the English word “love” is the translation of at least six different words in Greek. Similarly, the cultural use of words can be very different, and sometimes events or concepts are referred to in the Bible that were understood by the people of that time because they were topics of conversation. Much of the New Testament is written in letters to the church in different cities. They talked about events and practices that they all understood, but we have largely forgotten them in the past 2,000 years.
My favorite example is the word “gay.” Less than one hundred years ago, if you said, “He’s gay,” it meant the man was happy and demonstrated enthusiasm for life. Today it means he has anal sex with other men. The average number of sex partners by homosexual men is fifty. That doesn’t sound very happy to me. I have male friends who love other men, but it doesn’t mean I endorse the practice as normal or healthy for society. It is not productive to society, and results in an increase in many diseases, so it is prohibited in the Bible. Sorry, that’s just the truth, and hundreds of thousands of years of culture knew that.
Similarly, the words Adultery, Fornication, Betrothed, and even Marriage are used in ways that vary greatly from their actual meanings. So, let’s start at the beginning and explain some concepts so that we can understand how our society went from being the dominant culture on earth to being on a path to extinction in the next two generations.
In older times, socially proper females could be classified into five categories. Older Widows, Married Women, Concubines, Slaves, and Pre-pubescent Daughters. Older widows either lived with their sons’ families or, if they had no family and were beyond the age of fertility, lived in the temples performing various acts of work like mending curtains, cleaning, and acts of charity. No woman would be allowed in the temple while menstruating, which was why Mary of Nazareth was sent to live with Joseph and his other wives as a betrothed girl. If you think that wasn’t the case, you haven’t studied the writings of the time and the culture. She had been living in the temple, and the rabbis chose Joseph because he was a prominent and righteous man. There is no possible way that she would have been allowed to live with him if no other wives were present.
Wives were women who were owned by a man in marriage. Women were considered chattel property. They didn’t vote, work jobs, have bank accounts, or possess property. Those marriages were usually demonstrated by a family contract negotiated by her father.
Young daughters lived with their families until they neared puberty, upon which time they were betrothed to another man to be married.
Then there were two other conditions in which a woman might commonly find herself: she could be a concubine or a slave. A concubine was a woman who was owned by a man outside of marriage but whose status afforded her the privilege of permanent ownership by contract, usually between the man and her father. The only real difference between being a wife and a concubine, other than status, was that they participated in legal inheritance in the case of a wife’s offspring. Generally speaking, the offspring of a concubine only participated in their father’s inheritance by a clause in her contract or by his grace, not by law.
The final classification of females in a proper society was slaves. In scripture, it is clearly described under which conditions a father could sell a daughter into slavery, and how those slaves could potentially be sold or released. Although I personally think that was rather rare to free a female slave in Jewish society, there are specific areas of scripture that describe what happened to a man who had sex with another man’s slave who hadn’t been purchased or freed. Again, property rights associated with fertility seem to be the issue.
A socially proper man could and would have sex with his wives, concubines, and slave women. This was not only acceptable but admired and in some cases commanded. For those who doubt the accuracy of this comment, I will refer you to Henry Alford, the Dean of Canterbury, who spent twenty years of his life writing the definitive four-volume work on the New Testament. His clear statement was that up through the second century, polygamy was the prevalent family structure. He made it clear that Justin Martyr (AD 100 – 165) confirmed that Rabbis allowed men to have four or five wives, plus concubines, and slaves. Again, for those of us who want to argue the subject, this was the practice for thousands of years in a culture that was extremely legalistic. There is no way that those clergy would allow a practice that was believed to be sinful. Remember, Jesus specifically stated that he did not come to do away with the Law or the Prophets. The idea that things became unlawful after Jesus arrived on the scene is simply a fabrication. In fact, it wasn’t until the pathologically errant ascetic influence over Christianity and, as a result, Judaism, that the idea of monogamy was invented to force women to marry gentile men who would struggle to provide for them and their children. The complaint was that some men had multiple wives and other men none. This was an attempt to appease the envy and gain the approval of less capable men.
Remember, during that time, there were no single, professional women other than temple prostitutes, and those were primarily Roman and Grecian pagans. If a woman wasn’t married, or a concubine or slave, there was no means for her survival. Unlike the fanciful television series that portrays groups of single women in their twenties hanging around Jesus and the Apostles, that simply could not have happened. Girls who were experiencing menstruation were betrothed, usually before they began their periods.
Betrothal of that time wasn’t like the concept of engagement we have today. In that society, a girl of twelve or thirteen, usually before she began her monthly cycles, was placed in another family’s home. That situation would either have been with the contractual prospect of marrying a son of that family, or more often, to marry the man of the house, who would have other wives. I won’t go into all of the discussion of how these arrangements were made. Still, girls were used to secure business relationships and strategic alliances for purposes other than the love they might feel for their intended husband. Romantic love really wasn’t a thing to be considered. Even as late as the fourteenth century, Christian girls as young as six were married. For example, an English King’s marriage to a six-year-old girl of French royalty. It is said that the marriage wasn’t consummated because he died before her twelfth birthday. It seems twelve was an acceptable age in the Christian church of the time. I am not certain. Given the traditions surrounding marriage and the proofs of them being consummated, it seems far-fetched that it wasn’t, but the story remains. I can tell you with absolute certainty that marriages of thirteen- and fourteen-year-old girls were not uncommon in the United States in the 1900s. I have met many people who have told me of grandmothers who were married at 13 and 14, and mine was. I recently met a 72-year-old woman who told me that in her grandmother’s American community (the 1930s and 40s), a girl of 15 who wasn’t engaged or married was rare.
So, the practice was that a girl’s marriage was negotiated, and she went to live with the family of her intended. This assured that her virginity could not be compromised, or, if it was, her parents could not be blamed. Then, when she was around 14, she would be married and the union consummated. It was expected that she would display blood on their sheets the morning after her husband’s first penetration of her.
Their marriage was mostly as we would imagine, although there was no expectation of being in a monogamous relationship. In fact, if you were, it was most likely a shameful situation where your husband could not afford more wives, slaves, or concubines. That probably meant a life of poverty and social stigma for you and your children. Families usually sold their daughters rather than subject them to that fate.
A concubine was a woman who didn’t qualify for marriage, but her family negotiated a situation for her. Compensation was expected, regardless of her relationship status. Girls were economically valuable, but less so to her birth family, as women provided labor and children, which meant more labor as well. Girls didn’t go to school (see the movie Yentl, set in 1904 Poland). Women rarely owned businesses, although they did conduct commerce. They grew and sold crops and raised animals as part of the family enterprise.
A female slave was usually sold by her father because there was some status issue, or perhaps because of her appearance. He would not have allowed her to be left unattended because if she had sex and became pregnant, it would reflect badly on him, and he would probably lose her to minimal compensation or a sentence of being stoned to death. The option was to sell her as an indentured servant when she was old enough to perform some simple work. Unlike male slaves, who were liberated during jubilee years, female slaves were not set free because they would have had children by their owners.
The word “Adultery” does not mean for a married person to have sex outside of marriage. Adultery means for a man to use his penis to have vaginal sex with another man’s wife. A married man cannot commit adultery with an unmarried woman, and two women can’t commit adultery by engaging in sexual activity. For that matter, technically, a married woman doesn’t commit adultery by engaging in oral sex or masturbation with a man other than her husband. However, that would not be assumed if she were found with another man. This was a matter of lineage and inheritance. It is the theft of the husband’s property, her fertility, that is the issue, not simply the act itself. If a man’s wife had sex with another man, it would have been unclear who her next child would be from. Even today, there are specific laws in some cultures surrounding how many months a widowed woman has to wait to remarry, more than four months. Many cultures are not very knowledgeable about biology.
The word Fornication does not mean sex between two unmarried people. First off, there are at least five different words that I have found in the original languages that were all translated into the word “Fornication”. All of those seem to imply consuming something in an unlawful manner, especially in idolatry. I believe some other elements of this conversation are lost in time, and I struggle to get clarity on them. The specific element of this is “unlawful sexual behavior,” but in many cases of the original texts, that meaning is not clear. In other words, the term “Unlawful sexual acts” is used, but the specifics of what those acts were are rarely clarified. I know what various commentators have said, but their arguments are inconsistent. How does it make sense that in one situation the word is used in the context of eating, then in another scripture it is implied to be sexual and associated with lawlessness? I can only assume that the translators made mistakes, or perhaps it is the consuming or theft of property in an unlawful manner. Therefore, the term applies to conditions other than those a legal, fertile woman would find herself in, betrothal/marriage, concubinage, and slavery.
The term “Fornication” has a broad application in modern culture, but seems to be far more restrictive in the original texts. I have some concerns that the interpretations and translations aren’t getting a clear picture here. For instance, no one can argue that “fornication” was considered to be biblically discouraged, although there are no specific punishments prescribed. In the case of sexual acts, this is not the case. Punishments are clear. This is NOT a matter of immorality when it comes to sex. The word “Immoral” does not even occur in the King James Bible. The word most often referred to is “Unlawful.” Many people today would say that sex is only allowed inside marriage, but that is clearly not scriptural. Even Paul specifically describes how Christians should treat their slaves, and sex with slaves was clearly allowed, and he didn’t forbid it.
The common element in all of those legitimized practices is that there was a provision for the children. Eating pagan temple food is fornication, and having sex with a temple harlot is fornication (almost always anal intercourse). Those two practices seem to be clearly described. Two kids messing around in the fields isn’t described as fornication. It might be other things, and in older times, it meant they would be quickly married, but it isn’t fornication because the concept of fornication seems to be the unlawfulness. If you have any questions on that, refer to Exodus 22. There are many interesting passages that relate to these subjects, such as the practice of a dowry or bride price. Leviticus 19: 20-22, for instance. The focus seems to be on the economic value of sex, NOT the lawful nature of it. I therefore think that there is something missing from this conversation about the term Fornication, since the word clearly describes something that is against the law.
As I researched this subject over the past fifty years, I have always found one passage of scripture particularly amusing. In 1 Samuel 18:25 – 27, King Saul wanted 100 Philistine foreskins as a dowry for his daughter’s hand in marriage. The story is that he wanted David to be killed while gathering his bride price. David gave him 200. I’m imagining what that pile of flesh looked like and the look on Michal’s face as her dowry was presented. No one can say the Bible isn’t funny.
By comparison, I got off easily; all my wife’s family wanted was money.
The term “asceticism” is another word that is important in this conversation. Before the second-century church, which started when John died, prosperity was considered a blessing. It was associated all through scripture as being something Godly men achieved by adhering to the wisdom of scripture. There are hundreds of verses in the Bible that link righteousness, wisdom, and prosperity. A commonly cited example is 3 John 2 that states: “Beloved, I pray that you may prosper in all things and be in health, just as your soul prospers.” Further, we are told in Proverbs 13:22 that: “A good man leaves an inheritance to his children’s children.”
Why Do I Disagree With Popular Christian Culture About Monogamy?
Let us take a moment to study a very specific passage of scripture, the Book of Job, where this is discussed in detail.
In Job 1:3, Job was described as “the greatest of all the men of the east.” In Job 1:1 he was described as “perfect,” and that he “eschewed evil.” His wealth and righteousness were clearly evident. That is the entire point of the Book of Job: he was wealthy, blessed by his wisdom, and righteous. In that passage, it says he had a “very great household”. Let’s explore that in the original language of the text.
In that passage, the word “very” (mᵊ’ōḏ) is a masculine word meaning exceedingly. The next word, translated as “great” (raḇ), is a masculine adjective meaning many, or abounding in. The word “household” (ʿăḇudâ, עֲבֻדָּה) is a feminine noun, meaning women in his household, including family and servants. I share this from the Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon:
So, Job, the most righteous man of his time, is being described as an alpha male with great wealth and many women in his family household. If you understand even the basics of Jewish culture, you know that he would have had many wives and probably concubines and slave girls (servants). It didn’t even need to be specifically described; it was just assumed, as it was with every other blessed, righteous man for thousands of years.
In the second century, there was a struggle for power in the Christian church. Influencers like Polycarp rose to prominence by preaching poverty, celibacy, denial, and even self-abuse as proofs of spiritual holiness. It was an appeal to envy and for the endorsement of men who were relatively unsuccessful. This became a theme throughout history. These twisted people believed that suffering was a way of purifying the human soul and overcoming sin. They often prescribed horrible self-inflicted abuse. In my opinion, they became sin-obsessed instead of God oriented. This paved the way for proofs of righteousness, celibacy, and falling into the same kind of self-righteous thinking that the Pharisees had practiced and Jesus denounced. That is a paper for another time, but if you follow that kind of philosophy upward through the ages, you find horrible harm. It resulted in Christian hatred of Jews, who were a prosperous people, and the slaughter of wealthy pagan gentiles as well. There was even an incident of a wealthy pagan woman being skinned alive and tortured to death on a Christian church altar in Alexandria.
Lutheranism, the teachings of Martin Luther, contained hatred of Jews, and he actively promoted burning their homes and churches. His influence on Marx and Hitler, and their legacy cultures, resulted in the deaths of more than a billion people.
Those second-century church leaders promoted monogamy as a means of satisfying the envy of pagan men who struggled to get women to marry them. They could not earn the approval of women’s fathers, especially those worthy of admiration. There was another issue, illustrated in the Book of Job. Young men tended to live within the patriarchal rule of their fathers, building huge wealth and families. That practice was not as evident in Gentile culture. Jewish women’s families chose to marry them to wealthy men and become part of polygynous households. Eventually, that ascetic movement ended up with the creation of liberalism, which in turn fostered feminism, the promotion of women out of the home and into the workplace. That single act, the influence of women away from their biological roles as wives and mothers, promoting sameness in careers, has destroyed every society that the Christian church influenced. There is not one culture on earth where Christianity and Western society have had influence that is not on a path to extinction by the year 2100. The trajectory of the math on that issue indicates that it is irreversible unless a fundamental shift is immediate. Math and biology don’t lie, and currently the only cultures on earth that are growing are fundamentalist, polygamous Muslims, and a very few where women have no opportunity other than to trade sex for food. That is a very sad fact. We support orphanages in Africa which are populated by the children of women who bore them, then died from the diseases they caught from the many men they mated with. Many women I know today around the world have children from three or four different men, none of whom they married. Often, these children suffer in poverty. Those populations may still be growing, but as the children get educated and find jobs for $10 per day, they increasingly avoid getting married and having children to men from their culture. The future of those societies is bleak. Orphans don’t tend to do well in those societies, and most often, the churches don’t encourage solutions. In the Philippines, there are tens of thousands of children who have simply been abandoned to forage when their parents move on to new relationships. The same is true in Brazil.
Church pastors promote women to stay single and involved in church activities rather than marrying a man with other wives. Those women might be sweeping the church and singing on Sunday, but they are also having sex, so the children keep getting born, and the women beg for food from strangers. Pastors most often promote their own self-interest instead of solutions that would help their parishioners.
Modern marriage’s problem is that it fails to reconcile the conflicts between tradition and practicality, where women have the ability to make choices. There are legitimate biological and sociological reasons why marriage and family structures have existed in a similar state for thousands of years all over the world. Now, what we see mostly is cultural depravity and destruction.
It is my opinion that the government should NEVER have gotten into the business of marriage, but that horse has left the barn. What that did was to further the transition from a permanent relationship where the only reason for divorce was through the cause of true adultery, and into the realm of casual divorce, where secular judges favored women over men.
The matter is more complicated than that, of course. The breakdown of masculine values influences the issue; the institution of abortion and the horrors involved in that industry, and the ability of a judge to destroy the path of inheritance. Remember how important that was throughout history? The writings are clear: “A good man leaves an inheritance for his children’s children.” Everything was dependent on the presence of fathers and their ability to pass everything, money, wisdom, and culture, on to future generations. Now, that wisdom has been replaced by a one-generation system of child support and separating fathers from their children’s daily lives.
There is a reason why 80% of prison inmates and teenage mothers come from single-mother households. Further, 87% of abortions are sought by single women. 95% of abortions are from unintended pregnancies. Feminism and modern era Christianity did that. We are killing ourselves.
There is another set of statistics that I find interesting. One would think that, having divorced once, people would learn from their mistakes and not repeat them. The truth is that second and third marriages have much higher divorce rates than first marriages. I did find an interesting argument in one study. The more education women have in college, the higher their fertility. Among educated women, high school graduates were most likely to reproduce at a sustainable level, but just barely. Women with a bachelor’s degree were far below the extinction level, a master’s degree was better, and a doctorate was higher yet. However, all college-level fertility statistics were below the extinction level. What is the value of educating females if it is a virtual guarantee of extinction? I know these are very difficult questions, but they need to be addressed. The absolute fact is that if the world never saw another female attorney, society would survive. If most women aren’t having 4-5 babies by the time they are 30 years old, it doesn’t. We need to find a way to accommodate both.
We have to deal with the uncomfortable facts that are resulting in the complete breakdown of human society, at least those parts that have been influenced by the second-century Christian movement to asceticism. I say that because there are sections of Christian society that are stunning examples of an alternative. The Amish are one, although they are a closed society, and that doesn’t translate into populations at large.
The truth is that women, or society, would never return to the institutions of real marriage and family life. It would mean getting married early, having 4-5 children by the time they are 30 years old, and returning to relying on their husband to be the provider and leader of the family.
It would mean that there would be no more nightclub scenes or women running around without supervision. There would be no drunk girls on the streets, or men for that matter. Men would have no easy path to irresponsible sex. This means that men would not have individual access to women on social or professional levels. If men had sex with a girl or woman, it would require marriage and a bride price, or death.
It would mean recognizing that most men don’t qualify to be husbands and fathers, especially those who are in their twenties. Men would be expected to prove themselves responsible and able to support their wives and children. No other herd animal species assumes that all males should reproduce. The rule of thumb is that only 20% of males qualify to pass on their superior genetic material. My grandfather was a world-famous behavioral psychologist. He always said that males’ most important role in any society is to pass on excellent genetics and control the young males. In most herds, horses, for instance, the alpha females actually run the herd and determine which mares breed. The obvious implication on modern society is that women should embrace polygynous families, where women share a desirable man, a man who can provide structure and leadership. This would allow women to choose who would be homemakers and provide child care, and who would work outside the home. These decisions would be made deliberately, collectively, and cooperatively, for the benefit of the entire family.
There are those who will say, “Oh, that just benefits men so they can have more wives.” That kind of statement isn’t well considered. Polygamy didn’t only benefit superior men; it benefited women and was clearly a negative for less capable males. Remember that monogamy laws limit the legitimate options of women. That is why the institution of monogamy was invented, not for the benefit of women.
My father was considered to be a pretty good catch on my mom’s part. I remember her telling me that some of her girlfriends told her they wanted him if she ever gave him up. If you think mating is about men competing for women, you haven’t been to the local High School lately. Girls compete for the biggest, smartest, most athletic boys. I have also managed senior independent living communities. I can tell you firsthand how aggressive and competitive 80-year-old widows are for the husbands of other women. The entire plastic surgery and cosmetics industry is about women competing for male attention through what women perceive men want. The truth is that men want a peaceful household and regular sex. The modern marriage doesn’t provide either one.
So, what is the answer? Let’s assume that our culture doesn’t devolve into fundamental Islam by 2100. Let’s assume that Muslim and Latino cultures find that the second generation refuses to continue their norms of large families. I suggest that we adopt several of the more successful Muslim practices, such as polygamy and marital contracts.
First, we need to get past the idea of finding a “soul mate.” We also need to get past the idea that two women giving each other attention is sinful. I’ve watched women in cultures all over the world. Western women are freakishly inhibited. I am going to really incite the Christian community when I suggest that you show me one place in scripture where girl-girl sex is specifically prohibited. Don’t give me some innuendo about sexual morality, give me the kind of specific statement that describes male-male sex. I’m not endorsing it, I’m simply stating the truth, it isn’t mentioned. I think part of that is cultural, but I can’t get past the fact that, given multiple opportunities, it isn’t described. Before you cite Romans 1: 26 you should know that this is one of the most misappropriated scriptures in the Bible. It has nothing to do with two women having sex. This was a discussion about the practice of anal intercourse with Roman male and female prostitutes in the pagan temples there.
In Asia, it is the norm to see two women walking arm in arm. I have known hundreds of poly relationships, and nearly all of them involve women who help meet each other’s emotional and sexual needs. If I lost you with that comment, you haven’t known two or three women living in the same household with a man. Men simply can’t meet all of the emotional needs of women. We’re built differently and have completely different energies. Yes, we need each other and complement each other, but that doesn’t mean that men can emotionally fulfill women in the same way other women do.
I will use my wife as an example. We love each other and are a great team. There are certain ways in which we fulfill each other emotionally. At the same time, when we go on vacation, the best situation is for us to go with another woman or two, family members usually. They go on shopping trips and adventures together that would bore the brains out of me. They will take photos of themselves for hours. My wife and her girlfriends go on excursions to tulip fields and the arboretum. They gather for Karaoke nights. Their husbands stay home and work, or if we attend dinners organized by our women, we sit and chat about politics or sports for an hour or two, and then we are ready to leave. We do not feel the need to hang out with “the boys” and share our feelings like the women do. I’m not saying some men don’t, but men take other men best in small doses. Women NEED other women. Women organize and prepare holidays, weddings, and funerals. Men enjoy them, up to a point, but if we miss some, it’s fine. Colonies of women living together improve everything about family life and society.
Just the act of encouraging community breastfeeding of children, which happens in nature and was common throughout history, would change our lives for the better. Unfortunately, the idea is almost repulsive to modern women. We screwed that up by not teaching proper behavior as a society. Screwed it up, badly.
The next thing we should do is forget institutional marriage as we know it. We should abandon the entire idea in favor of domestic contract unions. This is common in other cultures, and the more I’ve explored the idea, the smarter it seems. Sure, have a celebration, invite your friends, but that should be the result of the union, not the evidence of it.
One example of how this would benefit us is that almost all marriages struggle with unrealized expectations. The phrases “I thought you wanted that!” or “He/she was different before we got married” are almost universal.
Before marriage, the participants should write out every expectation, wish, and condition, including the potential involvement of other members in the union. Don’t tell me that it isn’t going to happen or that one of you doesn’t want it. Assume it eventually will and deal with it. The statistics are clear. 70% of married people report being unhappy. In 75% of marriages, someone has an affair. 50% divorce and 25% survive the infidelity. 75%. Why not anticipate the obvious and make a plan that allows for multiple partners in some organized fashion? That is why poly family structures were the norm for thousands of years in more cultures than not. For those who object based on religious arguments, for thousands of years, Jewish, then Christian, then Muslim cultures, all with the same theological origin, were polygynous, and there is no indication that Christians are more monogamous than non-Christians. In a recent study, as many as 40% of evangelical pastors had affairs with a woman in their flock, and the issues in the Catholic priesthood are well known. According to an investigation by the Associated Press, in 2019, the church released the names of more than 5,000 credible offenders. That number represents 30% of parishes.
My point is that we need to be realistic and plan for success in our family relationships. We also need to find a way to prevent the destruction of our society.
It should be clearly written down how many children they want, how they will be raised, how finances will be handled, and even mundane things like who will do laundry and who will mow the lawn. Every aspect of their lives should be agreed upon, including how changes will be negotiated and what happens in the case of divorce. Both parties should go through counseling, including the use of behavioral profiles to better understand how they each filter the world. There should be a psychological analysis. Harsh, I know, but people who marry a person who has mental or emotional damage end up harmed. PTSD, Borderline Personality Disorder, and disruptive Attention Deficit issues can be devastating to relationships and families. Again, not all people warrant being a mate and reproducing. That’s life. If you don’t identify and deal with issues up front, you’ll pay for it in pain later.
That kind of pre-marriage work and negotiation makes it difficult for the partners to operate outside of the agreement once they are united. It also prevents either one from gaining subsequent benefits from the dissolution of the family and marriage. If one or the other doesn’t perform as promised, they forfeit benefits in a divorce, and only under rare circumstances should a mother get custody. If one or the other decides to include others in their lives, that should be specifically negotiated regarding who, how, and when.
I am proposing an adult, logical way to create a relationship. The foolish alternative is to think that we should fall in love, kiss and cuddle, get married to only one person under the influence of youthful inexperience, emotion, and hormones, then submit control of our lives to divorce attorneys and judges.
Our self-destruction has to end if we are going to survive as a society. What we haven’t discussed here is how to change a culture of women who are rewarded for bad behavior and decisions, and men who exploit them and reward them for their own selfish pleasure. That might take another paper to explore those subjects. The problems are interwoven.
If you want to explore these subjects further, read some of my novels. Along with the thrill of adventure, rescuing trafficked girls, and destroying bad guys, we explore the nuances of relationships and how to build better ones in the future.