[Y]ou have to accept that once someone starts being willing to use Violence against you, it will continue until something breaks the cycle.Being more cynical about the system than Athol, I very much disagree with his conclusion. From what I have seen and read, (4) is skipping past Go and going directly to the full and aforementioned colonoscopy. If one reads Theodore Dalrymple's chronicle of witnessing violent abuse and intersexual relations as an emergency physician, it is apparent that (2) is actually the smarter bet.
There are four possible outcomes…
(1) You do nothing, she keeps smacking you when you’re insolent. You learn to be whatever she decides is “good” and figure out ways to apologize for things that are her fault, lose all sense of a personal identity, clean up the messes she makes and generally turn yourself into a human shield if she ever looks sideways at the children.
(2) You respond with greater Violence and hit her back harder than she hits you. Well… this might work briefly, but honestly the more predictable outcome is simply an escalation of both of you playing the Violence strategy toward the full colonoscopy of emergency services and interventions. There’s not really a winner here.
(3) You quit the relationship. Actually this may not be a bad option. If there are no kids involved and no particular reason to stay, you really may as well bail on someone who displays this level of poor judgment. I’m betting she’s not exactly a peach in the other areas of her life either.
(4) You get Outside Force involved. This is the only possible route if you want to try and address the situation and also keep the relationship intact. The trick here is that you have to make this as defensively clear that you are not the abuser as you can. Video or audio of her acting violent and/or verbally aggressive, while you are clearly not doing anything other than defensively trying to block and dodge may be helpful. If you are injured and she isn’t, head to the Emergency Room and say what happened, which will then trigger a police visit to follow up on your defensive injuries.
Why? Because the woman is always more malleable than a system that relies upon and profits from a continuing supply of "abused" women. Any contact with the system, even voluntary contact from a genuinely abused man, permits it to manufacture an "abused" woman, even from a woman who is herself the abuser. And it will not hesitate to do so.
Men simply cannot rely upon Outside Force. It is too treacherous and too readily turned against them. Therefore, the only real options are (2) and (3), which means the only option if one wishes to salvage the relationship is (2). My disagreement notwithstanding, I must note that there is genuine wisdom in his concluding statement: "once someone can hit you and get away with it, they don’t stop hitting you."
40 comments:
Yeah, take your pick from #2 and #3, but don't bother with #4. He actually says why, when he says that video of her attacking and you only defending yourself "may be helpful." That shouldn't be "helpful"; it should be a slam dunk. But maybe, if you're able to catch her on video cracking your skill with a frying pan, you might get some sympathy from the authorities.
Or maybe you won't, but by the time you know how they're going to react, you're in the System and there's no getting out.
I would go for option #3 only. Given today's BS criminal "justice" system, #2 will probably result in severe colonoscopy action. #4 will probably end up with colonoscopy action as well. As for #1, yeah right.
If you are married and have kids, you're only option is #2. Taking #3 leaves an abusive parent with the kids.
PUAs and alpha-male narrative is a myth:
http://tyrionlannister69.wordpress.com/2014/03/23/pick-up-artists-game-subculture-evolutionary-analysis/
If you're not willing to leave the relationship (there are kids), you have to do a risk/reward assessment. Ask yourself two questions:
A. Am I more likely to be arrested or otherwise punished by the state if I hit her back or if I challenge her in the court system and give her an incentive to falsely accuse me of abuse that I didn't do?
B. Am I more likely to fix the relationship and make things better for the kids (the reason you're considering staying in the first place) if I hit her and possibly put her in her place, or if I involve the state?
I think question B is a no-brainer; if there's any chance of salvaging the relationship, bringing the man-hating "domestic abuse" apparatus of the state into it will not do that. If you involve police and counselors and child protection snoops, any chance you had of getting control of your marriage again is over. Your best hope then is to escape unscathed, in which case you might as well have gone with option #2 in the first place. On the other hand, if you respond to violence with violence and let her know you're not going to take that, there's a chance that that could be what she was trying, in her crazed female way, to get from you. It could save your marriage. It might not, of course; but there is a chance it could, even if a small one.
Question A is more difficult; it depends on how far you think she will go in lying and using the state against you. But odds are she will go farther than you think, especially once the experts start talking to her and trying to "help" her express how abusive you've been. It's definitely not clear that you're more likely to get arrested for hitting her than for not hitting her and letting her hate grow to the point where she'd like to see you in jail. People tend to assume that inaction is less risky than action, but it's not necessarily.
(5) Permanently eliminate the threat in such a way that your involvement is undetectable.
(5) Permanently eliminate the threat in such a way that your involvement is undetectable.
Wasn't that a Hitchcock movie?
This is one reason why all men should know basic fighting techniques. The one time my wife attacked me I executed a takedown and held her against the floor until she calmed down. No marks or injury, 'hurting mommy' with the children watching didn't seem like a good idea, no matter who started it.
She couldn't handle the stress of being the sole parent while I was away, and had become an alcoholic. I got out of the military shortly afterwards and we had many good years together. (2) can work, but why escalate violence when demonstrating the ability will do?
Never call the police. It's a rule.
Yeah... I know of too many times someone showed up at the emergency room with some sort of injury, the little woman was completely uninjured, and the man still went to jail and had his kids taken.
^ That. I remember reading a story about a military dude who's wife started going bezerk on him, he was bewildered. Right infront of the kids too with them telling her to stop hitting daddy (he didn't touch her). She stomped on his head and he came to later, blood oozing.
Went to the emergency room, they called the cops who talked to her, she of course made out it was because he had been long term abusive, scared her etc. So of course it went to court and they locked him up and banned him from seeing the kids. Despite the kids actually witnessing him not even touching her, and he being the only one with ANY type of injury.
Apparently all the way through he just asked "what do you do when a woman hits you?" The only person who had an answer was a lawyer who said "run".
Oh and as to video evidence? What about the guy who recorded his wife having a complete and utter childish tantrum in his car, just because he was busy being a good husband and doing housework and she wanted to go to the lake. He got SO many negative comments (mainly from women) about how he was violating her privacy etc by videoing it, even though the guy had no choice as she spent all her time telling everyone how horrible he was.
Thankfully I am never been in this situation. The more I think about this I think that if the female hits the man in a relationship, the relationship is over. The man has either made a bad choice of a mate or he has lost the respect of his mate to the point that recovery is impossible. Seeking away with this kids in an option if one had kids to consider. If one didn't want to take that risk then you could concede that you have made bad choices and disappear yourself. If you're stuck battling for your kids in the system you have lost already. Admit defeat and move on. Option 2 may save the relationship, but is the relationship worth saving at that point? I would be curious as to the outcomes of option 2. It seems most of the option 2 cases would lead back to the system. Any option that leads to the system is failure.
Also off-topic again, but I'm seeing more and more lasses doing the Miley Cyrus tongue thing, and they look absolutely horrid.
A cheeky poke of the tongue can look nice, but face allover the place with tongue hanging out like a dog just looks blergh. SO many of them are taking "selfies" doing it now, oblivious that it's a total turn off. I know they're herd animals but damn. I shouldn't expect more I guess.
Why isn't this listed as an outcome?
"I’d very firmly verbally bump back on, and the groceries would rot inside her car before I’d do anything about them. The message being a very clear “The Violence Strategy will not get you what you want” statement."
Why isn't this listed as an outcome?
It is. That is #1. Doing nothing.
No, that is not #1.
Firmly verbally telling her it is unacceptable and then letting the groceries rot in the car is not doing nothing. The doing nothing mentioned in outcome number one is that of kowtowing to her demands.
It depends on the class of the woman. Some will jump to colonoscopy immediately. If you hit harder, use it to eliminate any further violence. Leave her six months later.
Dalrymple is a psychiatrist, by the way.
(5) Permanently eliminate the threat in such a way that your involvement is undetectable.
That's just #2 with no intermediate steps.
I may have said this before, I used to work with a guy who had (or at least claimed) family members in some Philly-area mafia. Said men in the family never got divorced. There were a few widowers, but no divorced men...
But I suspect if you're the sort of guy that's an option for, you're less likely to need to exercise it. Unless you married a crazy woman, which has been known to happen.
Question A is more difficult; it depends on how far you think she will go in lying...
Well, at the point where she is willing to end the relationship, the evidence seems to be that she's no longer the woman you used to know. I don't think you can trust your judgment about what she is or isn't willing to do in that situation.
TheTFTrader said...
No, that is not #1.
Firmly verbally telling her it is unacceptable and then letting the groceries rot in the car is not doing nothing. The doing nothing mentioned in outcome number one is that of kowtowing to her demands.
In some ways it's worse. It's the sort of passive-aggressive response that enrages women even more. The old "I'll take my ball and go home" routine doesn't work when you a) are home and b) are a grown man. And, watch how fast the court would spin that into a tale of "verbal abuse" anyway. Once the relationship goes there, you've pretty much got nothing to lose. And she needs to understand that.
This is the sad fact of where our society is now. Simply put, there is nothing you can do that can't be interpreted against you once the system gets you in its fangs. Bearing that in mind, may as well make your choices count.
I have an uncle who lived choice #1 for at least a couple decades of his life. Honest, hard-working family man, well-paid (even brilliant) engineer, devout Christian, devoted father... Married a Christian widow with 2 children, who always sort of gave me the chills when I was a kid. I didn't find out until I was 14 that she had spent most of the marriage assaulting him. She would be oh-so-pleasant and genteel when being visited by anyone in the church or family, but if he said one wrong thing, the minute company left, she would turn into a 5'1" 100lb. banshee, hitting him with anything she could get her hands on, knocking him unconscious more than once. Pure psychopath. He had to watch everything he did or said around her.
As a typical high I.Q. delta/gamma analytical sort of man, he had absolutely no clue how to deal with her. Believed strongly that it would be wrong to use any force on her, so the most he would do was grab her wrists to restrain her. He tried every combination of #1 you could think of, including TFTrader's avoidance tactic. Had zero effect. He finally turned to option #4 after counsel from a few close friends and family at church. This was back in the late 70s when our system hadn't turned full psycho, so he escaped (mostly) unscathed, although the only punishment meted out to his wife was that the court ordered her not to deny him full marital relations, with the result that once a week she would plop down on the bed and say "All right, get it over with."
Of course, conniving little demoness that she was, over the years she strategized and learned all the right angles until in 1982 she finally managed to convince some court that he was abusive, and divorced him, taking almost everything he owned, and his children, and leaving him a hollow shell of a man for the ensuing 2 decades. Ironically, the one child that stood by him was her first child by another marriage, who was now a grown man.
This was back in the 80s. Imagine how much worse it is now.
Firmly verbally telling her it is unacceptable and then letting the groceries rot in the car is not doing nothing.
Yes, it is. "Firmly telling"... are you kidding me? Presumably it is the magical "firmly" that makes all the difference. Perhaps we should tell that to all the children too and we can solve bullying. Just "firmly tell" a bully who punches you that it is unacceptable and it will never happen again.
TFtrader,
No doubt your context is a relationship where that's all it takes to keep your wife in line. The relationships we are discussing are so far past your wife's indiscretions that the disapproval of the husband is laughed at and despised.
That's a different world, just as women react much differently to men they are attracted to.
I dated a psycho chick once. She slapped me full in the face one day. I instinctively started throwing a cross at her jaw, but stopped myself. The shocked look on her face was priceless.
It was my fault though: I was too "nice" in the relationship. She had issues. Instead of taking the lead from the start, I let her act out because I thought I was doing the right thing. Till the day it quite literally hit me.
Women like a man who takes charge. Damaged women REQUIRE a man who takes charge.
(2) You respond with greater Violence and hit her back harder than she hits you.
Or, you put her across your knee and give her a thorough spanking.
If your wife strikes you in anger, strike her back. There is simply no other option as far as I'm concerned. You will go to prison if you do.
But she has abandoned any sense of respect, decency, or love for you when she does that. Instead, you have to base your relationship on fear at that point.
Yes, if a man appeals to outside force he might get a fair hearing, but then he might also take his paycheck into a casino and walk out a millionaire. Neither is very likely to happen, though.
"Firmly verbally telling her it is unacceptable and then letting the groceries rot in the car is not doing nothing."
As Athol said this is to be done at the very first time. His premise in the article being that it is a winning strategy to get what she wants. Given that, holding firmly to not comply with her is not the same doing nothing as in outcome #1.
"But once someone can hit you and get away with it, they don’t stop hitting you." This is the same as her continuing because it is a winning strategy. If you no longer comply like the doormat in #1 it isn't a winning strategy anymore and she's not getting away with it because she doesn't get her desires met. There is a big difference between the guy in #1 getting smacked and being subservient to her from then on and a guy standing firmly not bending to her whims after being smacked.
Correct me if I'm wrong Vox, but you claim to be a fundamental Christian? I base the following on that.
A husband submits himself in love to his wife (Ephesians 5:21, 25), not in exchange of authority, or cowing down to her fleshly whims and desires (Romans 8:5), but in the strength of the Spirit of God (Galatians 5:16), he leads her into godliness and righteous living (Ephesians 5:23, 25-29) as he gives her the affection due (Proverbs 5:18-19; 1 Corinthians 7:3). He is to "likewise" (1 Peter 3:7) submit himself to her, even to the point of suffering if she is physically abusive, for that is the context of the "likewise."
1 Peter 2:18-21 tells slaves to submit, even in the case of being beaten (1 Peter 2:20). Then 1 Peter 3:1 tells wives to submit in like manner. Then He tells the husbands to live "likewise." If a man were to have such an abusive wife, he could live out Jesus' words in Matthew 5:39.
But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. (Matthew 5:39)
There is no scriptural basis for doing anything other than turning the other cheek, not complying and continuing to love (Mark 12:30-31). Her hitting you is evil but, you don't repay evil for evil (1 Peter 3:9).
If you used to act as in #1, standing firmly like this to end her violence is still the only option. Resolute non-kowtowing coupled with all the other proper manly behavior should resolve the problem. Depending on the length of time you allowed it to continue it will naturally be more difficult and take longer. Regardless, you still have no basis for retaliatory violence. Using violence in such a manner does not salvage a marital relationship. You become a bully and a tyrant as she was and now she is the slave.
For married men with children there really is no good solution. Option 2 will likely not work, because the court system is stacked in favor of women. She will accuse you of attacking her without provocation, you will go to jail, you will lose most of your assets, and you will lose the kids. Further, most men don't have the luxury of being fully independent as far as bread-winning is concerned. If you are convicted of abuse, you will not get a job above busboy again. Any potential employer will see your criminal background in their background check of you. For this reason, I do not recommend hitting back, unless you can weather the consequences of jail.
What a man needs is irrefutable audio and video evidence of her abuse, and then take the kids and get the hell out. Get a good divorce lawyer and give her nothing. You will be able to get your house back. Do NOT call the cops without consulting your attorney first. Such audio and (especially) video evidence may be hard to obtain in many circumstances. If your marriage is troubled in any way, you will know if before your are hit your crazy spouse. Record EVERY interaction you have with her ... always. Yes, this seems close to option 1 (do nothing) but escaping with your kids and money is the best revenge.
"There is no scriptural basis for doing anything other than turning the other cheek, not complying and continuing to love (Mark 12:30-31). Her hitting you is evil but, you don't repay evil for evil." TFTrader
Does the Bible really prohibit self-defense? Please. There are circumstances where hitting back is the moral thing to do. Don't shoe horn the Bible into your personal views.
"Using violence in such a manner does not salvage a marital relationship." - TFTrader
But it may save your life.
TFTrader, try reading your Bible in a more sensible manner. Obviously Eph 5:21 could not mean that everyone submits to everyone else, much less that husbands submit to wives. You can't submit and lead at the same time. Anyone who applies an ounce of context in the reading realizes that this means something along the lines of "submit as is appropriate for the roles you find yourselves in." You had a new church that was sill trying to figure things out, and people were thrown into leadership roles without much preparation, while others were cast as servants, and these roles might have been at odds with their secular lives. Ergo, a rich man might find himself in a church role of submitting to a much poorer man, etc... Thus the Christian is enjoined to embrace whatever role he might find himself in. Reading it as such, it makes perfect sense to segue to the admonition of the wife to embrace her role.
Husbands are enjoined to love their wives, of course. But love does not imply the absence of correction when needed. The details of how that works out in modern society is of course the problem Vox is addressing here.
Yes Nomennovum, of course I was adovcating you just stand there as your wife approaches to stab you or let her stab you again. Please. Don't put words into my mouth, I'm not shoe horning anything. The Bible doesn't prohibit self-defense. I say everyone should be armed. If someone breaks into your home or threatens your life on the streets you should not hesitate to use your weapon.
Since the situation you're picturing has a clearly deranged harridan seeking your life then flee. A marital relationship is not the same as any other and the Bible doesn't give leave anywhere to be violent with her. Again, if she escalates as you say, then escape for your life as in 1 Kings 19:1-3.
Rycamor, obviously God is a liar and doesn't mean what He says (Prov. 30:5-6). What you say may sound good to conventional wisdom and itching ears but, it is not what the Word says. As I said earlier, the submission of a husband is not in exchange of authority. Similar with submitting to all others (fellow Christians) is not an exchange of authority but in love putting their needs above your own. Again, their needs, not their whims and impulsive fleshly desires, their needs.
Oh brother, TFTrader, do you ever live in a world of your own. You white-knighting bible-thumpers will spell the end of the church. What happened to a more masculine Christianity?
The problem with defending yourself when you are attacked -- by either sex -- is not as a result of what is found in the Bible. It is a result of what is found in the criminal and divorce codes. Our laws are written by for the benefit of women and to the legal and economic detriment of men. Why must we interpret the Bible similarly? Because women?
You seem to lack an appreciation for the fact that marriage as envisioned by God is most certainly not what exists today in America. Women are not expected to submit in any way to their husbands. I bet your church doesn't require that. Do you tell women to do so? You mention that men have authority in a marriage. Pray, of what sort? He cannot defend himself (except to refuse to do some menial task that she should be doing herself in any event). He can't even raise his voice above a firm "If you physically assault me again, I shall refuse to take out the garbage tomorrow." To pretend that which exists today is a God-given sacrament is delusional. Modern marriage is nothing more than a shared-living space arrangement, coupled with a free option to acquire half of a man's assets.
Does the Bible prohibit the spanking of an errant child?
You didn't really read any of the verses I quoted did you. Based on your response you have no idea what I believe. So, I will now tell you what the Bible says about men and women and marriage, etc.
To begin with you must have the fear of the Lord. Without this you will not begin to have knowledge or understanding (Prov. 1:7, Psalm 111:10). This fear is not merely reverance but terror as God is a consuming fire (Heb. 12:29). He does whatever He pleases (Psalm 135:6), and is the one Lawgiver who is able to save and to destroy (James 4:12). Don't fear the man who can kill you but fear Him which after He has killed you has the power to cast you into hell (Luke 12:5).
In this fear believers submit to the Lord and it is in this manner that wives are to submit to their husbands. Titus 2:5 shows the word of God is blasphemed if wives aren't discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good and obedient to their own husbands. A wife who does not heed this during her marriage will find herself in the lake of fire with the unbelieving (Rev. 21:8).
Women are not created to be independent entities. She was created for man, to be his helper (1 Cor. 11:8-9, Gen. 2:18). Women are under the curse of Gen. 3:16 trying to control men but, he will rule over her. That rule is in all things. In society in general, under her father when not married, under her husband if married, in prayer, in the church. 1 Cor. 7 shows her father has the authority to keep his daughter from getting married. She is then to be an unmarried homemaker, not to go get a job somewhere.
Godly masculinity is described as follows. To be strong and courageous and fight not to become slaves (1 Sam 4:9). You also prove yourself to be a man by walking in His ways, keeping His statutues, commands and judgments (1 Kings 2:1-3, 1 John 2:14). To be strong in grace that is in Christ Jesus and not have a spirit of fear but of power and love and a sound mind (2 Tim. 2:1,7). Godly masculine strength is displayed in: authority (Gen 1:28, Daniel 4:17, Romans 13:1, Micah 6:8, Prov. 12:10, 2 Sam. 23:3, Jer. 22:15-16); in the home (1 Tim. 3:4-5, 1 Tim. 3:12, Prov. 14:26, Psalm 128:1-4); with the wife (1 Peter 3:7, Prov. 14:29, Prov. 17:27, 18:2, James 1:19-22 etc); in the church (Heb 13:7,17,24, 1 Tim. 5:17, Prov. 3:1-4, etc).
Also briefly, the Bible not only condones polygyny but it is even governed in the case of a brother's widow, etc. It also includes concubinage. To touch on divorce, God makes it clear that He hates it. It is to deal treacherously and covers one's garment with violence (Malachi 2:16). You are violently ripping apart one flesh (Mark 10:6-8, Matt. 19:6).
You are indeed to physically discipline a child (Proverbs 13:24, 23:13-14, 29:15 & 17, Eph. 6:4). However, your wife is not your child. God has no problem saying what He wants people to do. If He wants husbands to physically discipline their wives then it would be written in the Word. It is not written thus you don't do it. There is plenty of scripture in how to deal with a wife some of what I've already quoted.
The problem is people have no fear of the Lord today. They don't believe God's Word. They hate one another (Titus 3:3), they are disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, etc (2 Tim. 3:1-7)
TFT, the problem with you Bible literalists is that you literally can't follow the Bible literally. "Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature." I suggest you get cracking...
Now, "mutual submission"... explain to me exactly how that works. Does that mean literally anyone in the Church can come up to me and give me an order, and I have to do it? And then I can do the same to literally anyone in the Church? Gee... we wouldn't have a serious escalation problem there in the end, would we?
Better yet, give me a single example from Scripture of this happening. In fact, give me ONE single example anywhere in Scripture of a man submitting to his wife, and that action being commended or held up as an example for us to follow.
Now, as regards whether a man can punish or discipline his wife in some way, that's something we don't have any direct teaching on either way. But in the case of self-defense, the Bible never ever teaches that one should refrain from self-defense. Ever. The whole "turn the other cheek" thing has nothing to do with self-defense, but rather how you deals with attempts by others to humiliate you. Taken in that context it is obviously not a submissive act but a fairly proud one. A submissive response to a cheek slap would be to bow one's head or kneel.
Rycamor,
Agreed on point with "turn the other cheek." This is not a call to be a doormat, or to become slaves, or even close to slaves.
Note he did NOT say "but still let him slap that cheek." No, our Lord said to just "turn the other cheek", aka, be willing to forgive and give the person another chance. But where does it say we are to let ourselves be hit again? Nowhere. Jesus Christ was no pushover. Forgive once, be willing to let the person see their mistake. Don't let them abuse you again.
It does not say "let the other cheek get slapped". Christianity would have died out a loooooooooong time ago if our Lord had meant or said that.
TFT,
The Bible says a man should love his wife as Christ and God love the church, which clearly includes chastening and discipline. Some women need the shit smacked out of them because they have absolutely lost it.
Their father nor any of the other men in their families failed them utterly in disciplining them as young girls. Society and other mature individuals are not responsible for putting up with their bullshit, adolenscent lack of discipline. The only thing her husband and the other men in her life are now responsible for? Recognizing the situation and seeking to remedy it both in the short and long term, which may include smacking the crazy out of her in moments when she loses it.
Treat others as you would want to be treated is the second most important commandment for all Christians, as clearly stated by our Lord and Savior. That is undeniable.
I know one thing: If I am being bat-shit crazy, highly abusive, totally manipulative and unfair, and physically attacking someone, I want someone to knock the SHIT out of me. Period. If I had demon-filled, anger-filled, childish, unreasonable, and un-Christian hissy fits that were wholly disrepectful to God and any other human being in my presence, to include myself, how would I want people to treat me? Shut me the fuck up and knock me out and refuse to deal with me until I got a hold of myself. And by no uncertain means put up with my violence nor my irrational behavior or abusive language.
Note: Our Lord DID NOT say, “but don’t lay a hand on a woman, ever.” Nor did he say “ease up on the ladies dear chappies.”
We are civilized, but being civilized only happens when you have the ABSENCE of uncivilized behavior, aka we must be highly, highly intolerant of uncivilized behavior. And using justified physical violence is the ultimate mode of communication to the uncivilized. If you let them have free reign, the savages turn your entire house, society, and nations into a savage place.
So, that commandment of Our Lord and Savior trumps ANY pacifistic, Marxist-feminazi, gamma-delta male interpretation of “turn the other cheek” that you might cling to.
You would have us be slaves. It’s Christians like you who are turning us into slaves. You will bow to Muslims and Islam, because they are violent and you refuse to fight and kill for those you supposedly “love”. You already have the mind and spirit of a slave, which My Lord did not give me. As Scripture states and as my Lord showed me and taught me. His apostles were carrying assault weapons (swords) even in the Garden the night he was taken. What, for looks? No, because using violence to protect those we love is natural, human, real, and it is LOVE. Yes, maybe even from hurting ourselves.
There is a looooooooooooooooooooooong list of Saints, Crusaders, conquistadors, church fathers, pastors, priests, nuns, theologians, monks, Popes, and generations of solid, solid Christian men and women who faced hard realities of life in ways you never have nor ever will.... who prayed, meditated, and read the Bible more than you ever will, in Latin and Greek.... that would vehemently disagree with you.
They're also the ones who BUILT Christendom. You're the one surrendering it to savages, darkness, and evil. All 'cause of a little bratty woman. Wow, now that's the Victory Christ spoke of, isn't it?!?
This whole thing I can't even...
Look it's only a problem if you're married with kids. If so then like some said, get proof and destroy the bitch in court.
Any other scenario...if your woman feels like she is entitled and/or able to hit you in the first place, for any reason in any way at any given moment, then you are a bitch, not a man, and deserve to be literally bitch-slapped.
Please.
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.