Mentoring

How to pick a husband who will love you for a lifetime

13 Comments

One of my female Facebook friends was concerned about the way that some men seem to be able to cheat on their wives so easily, and she asked me for a piece of advice on how to avoid being the victim of adultery.

My advice for her was to choose a man who is interested in her for the right reasons – reasons that go beyond 1) her appearance and 2) her ability to be fun. The first thing to know is that a good man understands the value of women beyond superficial things. And the second thing is that a woman has to understand what men need from women in their roles as wives and mothers and then 1) take steps to prepare for those roles, and 2) be willing to improve in their abilities to perform those roles.

Choose a man who wants a woman for the right reasons

Let’s talk about the first point – finding a man who needs a woman for more than beauty and entertainment. Think of going for a job interview. Let’s say that a woman was interviewed by a man for a job as a combination of 1) housekeeper, 2) therapist, 3) investment manager, and 4) teacher. There’s more that wives do than that, but let’s leave it at those 4. Now, suppose that the man hires that woman and she is able to perform all 4 of those duties well – so well that the man really really appreciates her. Does it matter if she gets a little older? Of course not! That just means that she is even better now than she was when she started, and her value has gone up! So if the job is based on the right criteria, getting older actually makes the woman a better employee.

But what if the job description is 1) look sexy, 2) go out to nightclubs, 3) play ice hockey, 4) go parachuting. Well, now we have a problem… because getting older usually means that those things are less likely to happen well – or happen at all. And what happens with workers that don’t perform? They get unappreciated and their work gets handed off to someone else who can do the job. The thing to realize here is that there is nothing wrong with a woman who is rejected because she isn’t sexy or fun. The problem is with the man – with his wrong desires. A man who wants sexy looks isn’t really a candidate for marriage – marriage isn’t for people who want recreational sex and thrills. Marriage is for life-long love and parenting.

So the first thing that a woman needs to do is to choose a man who needs her to perform tasks that she can still perform when she is older. It’s even better if you choose a man who values you for things that you can do even better as you get older.

How to do it

So how are we going to find a man who has a requirement for a woman who will get better and better at over time?

1. How does he treat his previous girlfriends?

It’s a good idea to interview his previous girlfriends and ask them what it was like for them with this guy. Can those ex-girlfriends explain his long-term plan? Where did the ex-GF fit into that plan? What did he do to prepare her to fit into his plan? How much emphasis did he place on appearance and entertainment as opposed to talking about finances, parenting, education and moral values? What kinds of activities did he choose – fun things (ballroom dancing and yoga) or things that would prepare the couple for marriage (talking to the woman’s father)? What did he talk about – silly stuff like sports and beer, or apologetics and public policy? How did he lead on moral issues – did he just assert his view, or did he try to persuade? How was he on spiritual questions – had he thought about his religion or was it just what he grew up with? How did he evaluate ex-GF for his plan? How did he lead – did he just give her orders or did he try to persuade her? How did he try to explain to her what men are like and what men need from women, practically and emotionally? What was his plan for having children? How did a woman fit into that plan to have children? What was the goal for having children at all?

If we are specifically worried about not getting cheated on, then the only way to judge that IS by having each of his previous girlfriends come forward and tell you that he was opposed to sex outside of marriage. I think absolute chastity is required, because what it says to you is 1) the man can control himself, 2) the man wants to retain his judgment during courting, 3) the man does not think that relationships are for recreation but for commitment, 4) the man is child-focused – he thinks that marriage is the safest place for raising babies. If a man does not believe that the place for sex is in a marriage, then he is basically going to have affairs whenever he thinks he can get away with it. Either he knows what sex is for, or he doesn’t. Either he is serious about having a stable, loving marriage, or he isn’t. Either he has a purpose for women that is not just for recreation, or he doesn’t. Either he can control himself or he can’t.

2. What decisions has he made to prepare for marriage?

The best thing to do here is to make a list of the roles that men play in marriage and just ask the man point blank – what have you done to prepare for these roles? The roles are 1) provider, 2) protector and 3) moral/spiritual leader.

For 1) just ask him what he studied in school, what his resume looks like, and what his balance sheet looks like. Don’t ask him about the future – ask him about the past. A man can make up any lies about the future he wants. Remember: only money he earned counts as “provider” evidence. Beware of men who take out loans or spend a lot. Beware of men who study political science or psychology. Beware of men who drive their parents’ cars or live in their parents’ homes. Beware of men with expensive addictions to alcohol or cigarettes. Beware of men who spend a lot of money trying to appear trendy and macho.

For 2) we care more about ideas than physical brawn or weapons training. A man is far more likely to have to go to bat for his family armed with his mind than with his fists or weapons in this day and age. And that means understanding logic and evidence and having studied issues like economics, education, science and so on. It’s easy enough to spring secular leftist friends on him and see if he can handle debating them.

For 3) we are looking for a man who holds to Biblical values, whether they are popular or not. A man who can lead morally should be able to argue for Bible-based moral values using secular arguments and public evidence – preferably peer-reviewed. He needs to have a record of being to be persuasive on moral issues with non-Christians. It’s not enough to express opinions. He has to accept the Bible’s teaching on moral issues and then be able to be convincing to people who don’t accept the Bible. That’s the requirement.

The example I like to use is that he needs to be able to explain why premarital sex is morally wrong by showing the evidence that it reduces the stability and quality of the marriage, and this is unacceptable because his goals for the marriage require that the children be developed in a stable, loving marriage. Don’t listen to his opinions – demand the evidence. Why does morality matter to him? How do we know he is telling the truth? For spiritual leadership, it’s the same thing. He needs to be convincing – not just give his opinion. He needs to explain the alternative views and then refute the false ones and prove the true ones. He needs to appeal to logic and observable, testable evidence. Church attendance is not a good way to test a man for being a spiritual leader, since you learn almost nothing of value in most churches.

I think this is important because today there is a lot of pressure from people to just be nice – to back away from unpopular moral values and from exclusive theological statements. If a man cannot defend his views using public, testable evidence, then he is not safe to marry. A man who can only state his opinions and say “the Bible says” is not reliable. To make the right choices, he needs to know why. He needs to not be twisting what the Bible says just because he wants people to like him.

3. Fathers know best

It is very, very important to get to know that man’s father before you marry him. Make sure his parents are still married, then sit down and talk to the father to find out how he treats his wife. It’s also a good idea to just talk about the man’s character with the father. He will be able to think of anecdotes to show what the man is really like. Test the man’s father for his ability to provide, his ability to protect, and his ability to lead on moral and spiritual issues.

But most important of all is to let your father (the woman’s father) have all the time in the world to ask the man questions, to see his resume, financial statements, and letters of reference from past girlfriends (and past girlfriend’s fathers). The father of a woman is the one who cares the most about her – he is her protector. So he has to be given complete carte blanche to perform investigations and interviews. In my experience, the mothers of young women are not as reliable as the fathers.

4. Make him work for it

The man’s job during courting is to evaluate the woman by asking her difficult questions. But the woman also has a job – her job is to make the man prove that he is worthy by making him invest in her life. That means giving him plenty of tasks to do – tasks related to his roles. Not stupid things like being a good dancer, but important things like scheduling time with her to talk and listen about specific topics related to the relationship. And he has to do work, like solving her problems and performing tasks for her, and bringing her gifts. A man should keep a woman supplied with books and build her up so that she has confidence and strength to put forward her views convincingly.

He also needs to understand the role of emotions and do what it takes to keep her spirits up – frequent flowers, notes, poems, essays, etc. A man should know how to make a bad woman into a good woman – so that he can compliment her when he is finished building her up. That’s what men do. That could involve careful use of praise and blame to point in the right direction, or it might involve correcting her false beliefs and confirming her true beliefs with evidence. Men are supposed to make women more moral and more effective – that way the man has someone he can trust and rely on to turn to for care and help.

A woman has to make sure that the man has the habit of making commitments and following through on them when things get hard. A woman should look for evidence of long-term friendships, long-term ownership of pets or property, long-term stability in career or housing. No quitting or dropping out.

Conclusion

I hope that those ideas will at least provide some food for thought. The main point I want to make is that there are some men who are capable of love and marriage and some who aren’t. A woman cannot pick a man who is handsome and fun and penniless and non-judgmental and then nag him into making more money, being interested in religion, being able to set moral boundaries for kids, being faithful, etc. The only sure way to get a man to love you for life is to choose a man for that specific purpose, and for no other purpose.

Related posts

News

Obama fundraisers got 80% of green energy loans ($16.4 billion)

1 Comment
Obama Economic Record November 2011
Obama Economic Record November 2011

From the Daily Beast, an article that explains how Obama rewarded many of his campaign fundraisers with green energy loans backed by taxpayer dollars.

Excerpt:

It would take an entire book to analyze every single grant and government-backed loan doled out since Barack Obama became president. But an examination of grants and guaranteed loans offered by just one stimulus program run by the Department of Energy, for alternative-energy projects, is stunning. The so-called 1705 Loan Guarantee Program and the 1603 Grant Program channeled billions of dollars to all sorts of energy companies. The grants were earmarked for alternative-fuel and green-power projects, so it would not be a surprise to learn that those industries were led by liberals. Furthermore, these were highly competitive grant and loan programs—not usually a hallmark of cronyism. Often fewer than 10 percent of applicants were deemed worthy.

Nevertheless, a large proportion of the winners were companies with Obama-campaign connections. Indeed, at least 10 members of Obama’s finance committee and more than a dozen of his campaign bundlers were big winners in getting your money. At the same time, several politicians who supported Obama managed to strike gold by launching alternative-energy companies and obtaining grants. How much did they get? According to the Department of Energy’s own numbers … a lot. In the 1705 government-backed-loan program, for example, $16.4 billion of the $20.5 billion in loans granted as of Sept. 15 went to companies either run by or primarily owned by Obama financial backers—individuals who were bundlers, members of Obama’s National Finance Committee, or large donors to the Democratic Party. The grant and guaranteed-loan recipients were early backers of Obama before he ran for president, people who continued to give to his campaigns and exclusively to the Democratic Party in the years leading up to 2008. Their political largesse is probably the best investment they ever made in alternative energy. It brought them returns many times over.

Think of it as a welfare program paid by the middle class to enrich the secular leftist millionaires and billionaires. Taxing the poor to pay for the rich. That’s what the Democrats mean by stimulus spending. And that’s why we have been running trillion-dollar deficits for 3 years with an unemployment rate of 9% or more. They got elected in order to enrich themselves, because they are motivated by greed.

Related posts

News

Gay Penn State coach Jerry Sandusky charged with sexually assaulting boys

4 Comments

Warning: this post contains very graphic subject matter. Reader discretion is advised. Do not read this if you are under the age of 18.

Associated Press reports on the homosexual Penn State coach who sexually abused boys.

Excerpt:

An explosive sex abuse scandal and allegations of a cover-up rocked Happy Valley after former Penn State defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky, once considered Joe Paterno’s heir apparent, was charged with sexually assaulting eight boys over 15 years. Among the allegations was that a graduate assistant saw Sandusky assault a boy in the shower at the team’s practice center in 2002.

[…]Sandusky, 67, was arrested Saturday and released on $100,000 bail after being arraigned on 40 criminal counts. Curley, 57, and Schultz, 62, were expected to turn themselves in on Monday in Harrisburg.

The allegations against Sandusky, who started The Second Mile in 1977, range from sexual advances to touching to oral and anal sex. The young men testified before a state grand jury that they were in their early teens when some of the abuse occurred; there is evidence even younger children may have been victimized. Sandusky’s attorney Joe Amendola said his client has been aware of the accusations for about three years and has maintained his innocence.

[…]A preliminary hearing scheduled for Wednesday would likely be delayed, Amendola said. Sandusky is charged with multiple counts of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, corruption of minors, endangering the welfare of a child, indecent assault and unlawful contact with a minor, as well as single counts of aggravated indecent assault and attempted indecent assault.

[…]The grand jury said eight boys were targets of sexual advances or assaults by Sandusky. None was named, and in at least one case, the jury said the child’s identity remains unknown to authorities.

One accuser, now 27, testified that Sandusky initiated contact with a ”soap battle” in the shower that led to multiple instances of involuntary sexual intercourse and indecent assault at Sandusky’s hands, the grand jury report said.

He said he traveled to charity functions and Penn State games with Sandusky, even being listed as a member of the Sandusky family party for the 1998 Outback Bowl and 1999 Alamo Bowl. But when the boy resisted his advances, Sandusky threatened to send him home from the Alamo Bowl, the report said.

Sandusky also gave him clothes, shoes, a snowboard, golf clubs, hockey gear and football jerseys, and even guaranteed that he could walk on to the football team, the grand jury said, and the boy also appeared with Sandusky in a photo in Sports Illustrated. He testified that Sandusky once gave him $50 to buy marijuana, drove him to purchase it and then drove him home as the boy smoked the drug.

The first case to come to light was a boy who met Sandusky when he was 11 or 12, the grand jury said. The boy received expensive gifts and trips to sports events from Sandusky, and physical contact began during his overnight stays at Sandusky’s home, jurors said. Eventually, the boy’s mother reported the allegations of sexual assault to his high school, and Sandusky was banned from the child’s school district in Clinton County in 2009. That triggered the state investigation that culminated in charges Saturday.

But the report also alleges much earlier instances of abuse and details failed efforts to stop it by some who became aware of what was happening.

Another child, known only as a boy about 11 to 13, was seen by a janitor pinned against a wall while Sandusky performed oral sex on him in fall 2000, the grand jury said.

And in 2002, Kelly said, a graduate assistant saw Sandusky sexually assault a naked boy, estimated to be about 10 years old, in a team locker room shower. The grad student and his father reported what he saw to Paterno, who immediately told Curley, prosecutors said.

This reminds me of the case where a gay Duke University official adopted a black 5-year old child and then offered him to other gay men for sex on the internet, in exchange for money.

Excerpt:

Frank Lombard is an associate director at Duke University’s Global Health Institute and a homosexual who was charged last week with the molestation of his adopted 5-year-old black son and actively trying to sell him for sex on the internet.

The 40 words above are 40 more than the Main Stream Media has said on this horrible story.

In nearly a week since Lombard was arrested, not one national broadcast or cable television news show has picked up the story. Compare this to the weeks on end of sensational coverage of the white male lacrosse players of the same university charged with rape several years ago.

At the time of this post not one television show has reported the story and only 17 newspapers in the United States featured it – a majority of which are only small local newspapers.

And most of these articles cited the American Press’ report on the events, which was as follows:

AP) WASHINGTON – A Duke University official has been arrested and charged with offering his adopted 5-year-old son for sex.

Frank Lombard, the school’s associate director of the Center for Health Policy, was arrested after an Internet sting, according to the FBI’s Washington field office and the city’s police department.

According to an affidavit by District of Columbia Police Det. Timothy Palchak, an unnamed informant facing charges in his own child sex case led authorities to Lombard.

Authorities said that Lombard tried to persuade a person -who he did not know was a police officer -to travel to North Carolina to have sex with Lombard’s child.

The detective’s affidavit charges Lombard identified himself online as “perv dad for fun,” and says that in an online chat with the detective, Lombard said he had sexually molested his son, whom he adopted as an infant.

The court papers say Lombard also invited the undercover detective to North Carolina to have sex with the young boy, and even suggested which hotel he should use.”

In response to the AP report, which most of the newspapers used almost verbatim, Mike Adams of Townhall made the observation that “The Associate Press (AP) did not mention the fact that the five-year old offered up for molestation was black. Bringing that fact to light might be damaging to the political coalition that exists between blacks and gays. Nor did the AP mention that the adopted child is being raised by a homosexual couple. Bringing that fact to light might harm the gay adoption movement.”

With this shocking lack of coverage of an even more shocking story, many are asking why this did not make the front pages and top headlines like the Duke lacrosse team scandal did. Thomas Lifson of American Thinker posited that “identity politics … apparently trumps all sense of outrage.”

And here’s another similar story, this time from Scotland where the head of a gay youth organization was running a child sex ring.

Excerpt:

Eight men in a Scottish paedophile ring have been found guilty of a series of “horrific” sex offences against children and babies.

[…]Two of the men – convicted sex offender Neil Strachan and gay rights campaigner James Rennie – were convicted of sex attacks on children.

Strachan, 41, and Rennie, 38, both from Edinburgh, were also found guilty of conspiring to abuse youngsters, as were three other members of the gang.

[…]The jury found Rennie, the former chief of LGBT Youth Scotland, an organisation dedicated to helping young gay people, guilty of molesting a young boy over more than four years.

The child was just three months old when the abuse began.

Those are the facts. I have no comments on them, and I will be strict about filtering comments to this post because of Obama’s law governing speech on controversial issues.