How to Build a Better Marriage: For Husbands

Our staff of experts has personally tested each and every one of these recommendations to ensure it will have a lasting impact on your marriage.

1. St. Pauls says "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her." (Eph 5:25) And how much did Christ love his church? Enough to be crucified for her. That's right, husbands, you are supposed to die on the cross for your wife, every moment of your marriage. If you at any point don't feel like you're dying a brutal, slow, and horrific death on a cruel instrument of torture, that means you're not loving your wife enough.
2. Your primary responsibility in this life is to provide for all your wife's needs and wants. You must make sure all her material needs are taken care of before you even think about doing a single thing for yourself. And she really does need a big house and a nice car. Forcing her to make do with less is, like, psychological torture. I'm sure St. Paul would agree. If you have a hard time making enough money to provide for all your wife's expensive needs, remember that you can sell some body parts. Christ gave his body for his church, so why won't you?
3. If you can't provide for her material needs, then you're basically a failure as a husband. In fact, that's a good argument that your marriage wasn't valid in the first place.
4. You should frequently compare yourself to other couples you know. Do they seem happy? Well, the external appearance is a reflection of their interior life. If they seem happier than you, then it must be because they are, probably because the man is a much better husband than you. Ponder all the ways that he's better than you, and all the extra things he does for his wife that you don't. Their happiness is probably in large part because he must make more money than you, so can therefore provide for all his wife's needs better than you.
5. If your wife ever does something to hurt you in some way, don't correct her. Asking her to change would put a burden on her, for the sake of making your own life easier, which is totally selfish. In fact, she probably didn't do anything wrong to begin with. It was probably your subconscious mind playing tricks on you to make you think she did, to give you an excuse to make your own life easier at her expense, you selfish jerk.
6. Never burden your wife with your own problems. Christ carried his own cross, and so should you. Well, except for that time Simon of Cyrene helped him, so unless your married to him, you shouldn't ever ask for your wife's help if you're struggling with something. Again, that would be burdening your wife for your own benefit. Instead, just suffer in silence, and never let on that anything's wrong. Besides, if she really loves you, she'll figure out what's wrong and offer to help anyways.
7. Asking your wife to do anything she doesn't want to that would benefit you is, like, the most selfish thing in the universe. This goes doubly so for sex. If you ask your wife for sex, and she doesn't want to, then just asking has pressured her, because The Patriarchy™ has instilled into her an obligation to please you. And pressuring her is basically marital rape. So if you have the slightest reason to suspect that your wife might not be in the mood, asking her for sex is as bad as raping her.
8. In fact, if you don't have incontrovertible proof that she does want sex right this second, then you probably shouldn't bring up the topic. Only if she is climbing on top of you and pulling your pants off are you allowed to think about asking her for sex. But even then, that's an edge case, since she's probably been guilt-tripped into wanting to please you by The Patriarchy™.
9. She did all the hard work of carrying, giving birth to, and nursing the baby. That means it's your turn now. She shouldn't ever have to lift a finger for them. If she has to change a diaper, that's, like a mortal sin for you. If you were at work to provide for her material needs when she changes a diaper, then it's only a venial sin, although a better husband would find a job that allowed him to do both.
10. What quality do all saints have? They're happy! And what do happy people not do? They don't grumble or mutter, even interiorly. If you find yourself thinking grumbly thoughts, then that means you're not a saint.

(No Subject)

*crickets*

*crickets*

*crickets*

Um... hello?

*crickets*

*crickets*

*crickets*

Leaving this here so I can find it later

Two months without an update, and this is my big comeback?

On John C. Wright's blog, a reader leaves the comment:

When you said “Those of you who are Christian men and soldiers in this culture war” 

Is there a particular reason for the choice of “Christian men” rather than “Christians”? 

(I had shown this post to a lefter-leaning friend, one who does not hold with what NK Jemisin has said, and that friend found that choice of words…off putting, and confusing. My attempts to explain have not proven completely satisfactory – and are likely less accurate than yours would be.)

 Mr. Wright responds:

In grammar, as in life, the male embraces the female. 

Your friend has been deceived. Have your friend look in any dictionary. Depending on the context, the word ‘man’ either means a male human or means any human. Likewise ‘dog’ either means male dog or any dog, or fox means any fox or male fox. (I believe only cats, oxen and horses have separate names for the male sex). 

That has always been its meaning. Unlike women, we males do not get a separate word for ourselves in English as we enjoy in Greek. 

Your friend was told that no one says ‘men’ unless he means to exclude and offend women. In this fashion, perfectly innocent men can be accused without a shred of proof or likelihood. It is a lie and a damned lie; an attempt to stir up enmity where none exists. 

I use the correct grammar because I am deeply, deeply offended that the politically correct liars successfully deceive poor unwary victims like your friend. So I go out of my way to use the correct use, first because I hate lies, and second because if no one uses the correct usage, people like your unwary friend would never encounter it. 

Every document written before 1984 uses the word in this way. Your unwary friend will read the Declaration of Independence, where it says all men are created equal, or read the Bible, where it says all men are created by God, and assume the authors in both cases mean that only males are equal, but that princesses outrank peasant girls; or think that God created males but not females. The liars, in effect make it so that you unwary friend cannot read any documents before 1984 correctly. It is the same as burning the library of Alexandria. 

Your friend is now the third person this week who has been put off by ordinary English used in an ordinary fashion. The offense is absurd and contrived as if a mutual enemy told your friend that saying ‘Gesundheit’ was a German swear word, and then your friend sneezed and heard me say ‘Gesundheit.’

{Phfr}

Babbies edition

{pretty}

{happy}

Four-and-a-half, and already a master of the dual-shock controller.

{funny}

I took Damien to his first movie the other day; he did fine, but I think I enjoyed it more.

Damien's rendition of Potter Puppet Pals' "The Mysterious Ticking Noise"

{real}

Covered in small creatures.

Baroque

Over on John C. Wright's blog, he posts the rules for an alternate version of chess: http://www.scifiwright.com/2014/03/baroque/.

What do you think? Something to add to CPM2DoB? I like the incorporation of different ways to capture an enemy piece, either replacing, jumping, squeezing, withdrawing from, or all of the above. I could easily see incorporating some of these as moves.

Bell and Whistle Cage Match: Movies

Qualifications for entry: movie must have been release last November and either a) star someone with the last name "Hemsworth" or b) be based on a book with the word "Game" or "Games" in the title.

The contenders:

 vs.vs.

That's right, kids, a three-way showdown!

Fight!

Why Is It Always Lesbians?

This has been bugging me for quite some time now. Here's a list of current and recent TV shows I've watched that have, in at least one episode, featured a lesbian, bisexual woman, or lesbian couple in a manner meant to be taken seriously/portrayed in a positive manner.

• Elementary
• Arrow
• The Walking Dead
• Once Upon a Time
• Person of Interest
• Sherlock
• Dollhouse
• Touch
• Last Man Standing
• Stargate Universe
• Heroes
• 24
• Firefly
• Buffy the Vampire Slayer
• Good Luck Charlie (le sigh)

(What's most upsetting about the last one is that the show is targeted specifically to families, on a network for kids. Disney has gone to the Dark Side, and, unfortunately, can't be trusted with my children's entertainment anymore. They have also hastened the cancelling of our cable. I was waiting until the summer (after all our other shows end their seasons), but I think I'll just do it now.)

But back to the topic. Now, of those shows, here are the ones that have portrayed a gay or bisexual man, or same-sex male couple in a similarly serious/positive manner.

• *crickets chirping*

This is something I first noticed a long time ago. The rule I've come up with, which might be called the lesbian rule, concerning homosexuality in TV shows, movies, and other media can be stated as such: if the homosexual or bisexual is meant to be taken seriously, she will be a women. If it will be played for laughs, he will be a man.

Typically, the lesbian(s) will be attractive, upper-middle-class types who don't conform to any of the stereotypes about lesbian women, such as being "butch".

Typically, homosexual men will be portrayed as a metrosexual/overly stylish and generally conform to stereotypes about gay men.

I've wondered about this for a while now, and struggled to explain it. I've pondered over whether or not it might be related to pornography (for surely, "hot girl-on-girl action" is used far more frequently in spam than "hot guy-on-guy action"). I suspect it has something to do with objectification, since when they're included in this way, it's always in an attempt to further an agenda; the character and actress are being, in a way, objectified to fit the agenda. I suppose women are easier to visually objectify than men, which would be the connection to porn.

Either way, when TV writers wish to upset the "hetero-normative assumptions of the culture" and make the unpalatable palatable, they always choose to further their agenda by degrading women.

By the way, "hetero-normative" is one of those words that, if you use it, makes me immediately dismiss you as a loon. Sort of like "Zionist conspiracy" and "the spirit of Vatican II."