Topic: Looking for a husband…

[Punch]

Are you sure he would limit it to one?  You are dancing with them, not marrying them.

Aw. Well, I meant that you should ask your spiritual father about the site (and show it to him, if he doesn't know it) before becoming too excited or signing up, but okay. It's better to follow your spiritual father's advice in this search anyway. And do not despair! God gave a child to Sarah, no doubt he can give a husband to a good woman such as yourself!

I don't know if I should have chicken or pork for dinner tonight and my spiritual father still hasn't replied to my email even though it's 5:30. Should I just pick one and hope it is right or go without dinner to be safe?

Silly 

Yes, it is silly, which is the point I was making. (and I believe Punch as well) The business on this forum of "ask your spiritual father" for every little thing is ridiculous.

Should I ask Mary or Jane to the school dance? Ask your spiritual father.

Pleats or flat-front? Ask your spiritual father.

Coke or Pepsi? Definitely ask your spiritual father.

Why would you need to ask your spiritual father about pleats or flat fronts?  There already is a canon forbidding pleats unless the article of clothing in question is a kilt or a cute skirt.  On pants it is forbidden.

(If my spiritual father were to answer the other two questions it would probably go something like this: 1 - Both.  Whichever one says yes.  3 - Slivovitz.)

[Punch]

Yes, it is silly, which is the point I was making. (and I believe Punch as well) The business on this forum of "ask your spiritual father" for every little thing is ridiculous.

Yes, and perhaps beyond silly.  I wonder if some of these "spiritual father" cultists would hack their spouse apart with an axe if the "spiritual father" told them to do it.  Particularly those that can't seem to make the most basic decisions without contacting one.

[vamrat]

Are you sure he would limit it to one?  You are dancing with them, not marrying them.

Aw. Well, I meant that you should ask your spiritual father about the site (and show it to him, if he doesn't know it) before becoming too excited or signing up, but okay. It's better to follow your spiritual father's advice in this search anyway. And do not despair! God gave a child to Sarah, no doubt he can give a husband to a good woman such as yourself!

I don't know if I should have chicken or pork for dinner tonight and my spiritual father still hasn't replied to my email even though it's 5:30. Should I just pick one and hope it is right or go without dinner to be safe?

Silly 

Yes, it is silly, which is the point I was making. (and I believe Punch as well) The business on this forum of "ask your spiritual father" for every little thing is ridiculous.

Should I ask Mary or Jane to the school dance? Ask your spiritual father.

Pleats or flat-front? Ask your spiritual father.

Coke or Pepsi? Definitely ask your spiritual father.

Why would you need to ask your spiritual father about pleats or flat fronts?  There already is a canon forbidding pleats unless the article of clothing in question is a kilt or a cute skirt.  On pants it is forbidden.

(If my spiritual father were to answer the other two questions it would probably go something like this: 1 - Both.  Whichever one says yes.  3 - Slivovitz.)

Law of averages.  I am only assuming a 0-50% success rate.

[Punch]

Law of averages.  I am only assuming a 0-50% success rate.

I was not commenting on your success rate, but rather that I doubt that your spiritual father would limit you to just one.  I know for sure your natural father would not.  Now, as to how many girls would say yes, you are on your own there.

[vamrat]

Law of averages.  I am only assuming a 0-50% success rate.

I was not commenting on your success rate, but rather that I doubt that your spiritual father would limit you to just one.  I know for sure your natural father would not.  Now, as to how many girls would say yes, you are on your own there.

That's why I figured his answer would be "both" as far as asking, then pick whichever one said yes.  Actual success rates are closer to the 0-10% range, but there are only two options so I rounded the fraction up rather than down since I am an optimist!   

[vamrat]

I wonder if the mods would allow an Orthodox singles thread?  Might be of some value.  I consider marriage to be sacrament of the Church.  Perhaps a bit more Church involvement would be nice.  (I see from some of the links that ironchapman amongst others has put up that some Churches are getting involved in this.)

[Sauron]

Yes, it is silly, which is the point I was making. (and I believe Punch as well) The business on this forum of "ask your spiritual father" for every little thing is ridiculous.

Yes, and perhaps beyond silly.  I wonder if some of these "spiritual father" cultists would hack their spouse apart with an axe if the "spiritual father" told them to do it.  Particularly those that can't seem to make the most basic decisions without contacting one.

Actually, you can decide to hack up your spouse on your own. Where the spiritual father comes in is deciding what sort of axe to use.

[TheMathematician]

I wonder if the mods would allow an Orthodox singles thread?  Might be of some value.  I consider marriage to be sacrament of the Church.  Perhaps a bit more Church involvement would be nice.  (I see from some of the links that ironchapman amongst others has put up that some Churches are getting involved in this.)

been there, done that
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,38137.0.html

[vamrat]

I wonder if the mods would allow an Orthodox singles thread?  Might be of some value.  I consider marriage to be sacrament of the Church.  Perhaps a bit more Church involvement would be nice.  (I see from some of the links that ironchapman amongst others has put up that some Churches are getting involved in this.)

been there, done that
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,38137.0.html

I was thinking more along the lines of one where all the single and looking ones could post and then get to know one another, possibly through PM's, etc.

[orthonorm]

I wonder if the mods would allow an Orthodox singles thread?  Might be of some value.  I consider marriage to be sacrament of the Church.  Perhaps a bit more Church involvement would be nice.  (I see from some of the links that ironchapman amongst others has put up that some Churches are getting involved in this.)

been there, done that
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,38137.0.html

I was thinking more along the lines of one where all the single and looking ones could post and then get to know one another, possibly through PM's, etc.

Skeevy.

Anyone is capable of meeting someone at their parish or outside and having them convert if they have any degree of ability to relate to the opposite sex and are above 30.

Any woman in love with a guy will easily convert to any nominal Christian denomination like Orthodoxy.

Rather than have the few women who show up here be the center of attention for every man (they already are, but to make it "official" skeeves).

There are plenty of secular and religious online dating sites which are very successful if people are just honest.

[Punch]

Yes, it is silly, which is the point I was making. (and I believe Punch as well) The business on this forum of "ask your spiritual father" for every little thing is ridiculous.

Yes, and perhaps beyond silly.  I wonder if some of these "spiritual father" cultists would hack their spouse apart with an axe if the "spiritual father" told them to do it.  Particularly those that can't seem to make the most basic decisions without contacting one.

Actually, you can decide to hack up your spouse on your own. Where the spiritual father comes in is deciding what sort of axe to use.

 

[vamrat]

I wonder if the mods would allow an Orthodox singles thread?  Might be of some value.  I consider marriage to be sacrament of the Church.  Perhaps a bit more Church involvement would be nice.  (I see from some of the links that ironchapman amongst others has put up that some Churches are getting involved in this.)

been there, done that
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,38137.0.html

I was thinking more along the lines of one where all the single and looking ones could post and then get to know one another, possibly through PM's, etc.

Skeevy.

Anyone is capable of meeting someone at their parish or outside and having them convert if they have any degree of ability to relate to the opposite sex and are above 30.

Any woman in love with a guy will easily convert to any nominal Christian denomination like Orthodoxy.

Rather than have the few women who show up here be the center of attention for every man (they already are, but to make it "official" skeeves).

There are plenty of secular and religious online dating sites which are very successful if people are just honest.

It's all a matter of attrition, I tell you!

What does "skeevy" mean, BTW?  I always thought it was another word for drawers.

[Azul]

I see no picture

[vamrat]

I see no picture

It's gone, dog.  You missed out!

[Azul]

I see no picture

It's gone, dog.  You missed out!

who ate it?

[Sauron]

Rather than have the few women who show up here be the center of attention for every man (they already are, but to make it "official" skeeves).

While I object to the word "skeevy" because it is a female shaming word up there with "creepy", your content is correct. The problem is that most men do not understand how to interact with women, as shown by the overweening attention the women here tend to receive.

[Punch]

But . . . but . . . these are good Christian women. 

Rather than have the few women who show up here be the center of attention for every man (they already are, but to make it "official" skeeves).

While I object to the word "skeevy" because it is a female shaming word up there with "creepy", your content is correct. The problem is that most men do not understand how to interact with women, as shown by the overweening attention the women here tend to receive.

[Sauron]

But . . . but . . . these are good Christian women. 

I find that you often need to remove both of those adjectives.

And, the men are snookered. I had a Baptist man defend the movie Fireproof to me the other day. I was gobsmacked.

[Punch]

But . . . but . . . these are good Christian women. 

I find that you often need to remove both of those adjectives.

And, the men are snookered. I had a Baptist man defend the movie Fireproof to me the other day. I was gobsmacked.

Those two adjectives mean everything to me, hence my views regarding several women on this board.  As to those that do not meet this critera, I really do not care how they are dealt with. 

[ZealousZeal]

But . . . but . . . these are good Christian women. 

I find that you often need to remove both of those adjectives.

And, the men are snookered. I had a Baptist man defend the movie Fireproof to me the other day. I was gobsmacked.

Oh, that is a dreadful movie.

[Sauron]

But . . . but . . . these are good Christian women. 

I find that you often need to remove both of those adjectives.

And, the men are snookered. I had a Baptist man defend the movie Fireproof to me the other day. I was gobsmacked.

Those two adjectives mean everything to me, hence my views regarding several women on this board.  As to those that do not meet this critera, I really do not care how they are dealt with. 

Then I frankly do not understand the purpose of your initial comment.

[Punch]

Then I frankly do not understand the purpose of your initial comment.

I took your your comment preceding mine to imply that some men on this board do not know how to treat women (and were possibly less than manly) because they treat the women on this board with respect.  I did leave open the possibility that you were actually pointing out that some men on this board did not know how to treat women due to some of the less than respectful way that some of our women are treated.  Hence the neutrality of my statement.  The meaning of your statement (and the one preceding it by another poster) was unclear to me, hence the manner of my response.

[Sauron]

Then I frankly do not understand the purpose of your initial comment.

I took your your comment preceding mine to imply that some men on this board do not know how to treat women (and were possibly less than manly) because they treat the women on this board with respect.  I did leave open the possibility that you were actually pointing out that some men on this board did not know how to treat women due to some of the less than respectful way that some of our women are treated.  Hence the neutrality of my statement.  The meaning of your statement (and the one preceding it by another poster) was unclear to me, hence the manner of my response.

Everyone deserves to be treating with respect. The problem that many men have is that they put women on a pedestal and do their best ot be "nice guys". Then, they wonder why all the hot girls are with "jerks".

[Shiny]

Then I frankly do not understand the purpose of your initial comment.

I took your your comment preceding mine to imply that some men on this board do not know how to treat women (and were possibly less than manly) because they treat the women on this board with respect.  I did leave open the possibility that you were actually pointing out that some men on this board did not know how to treat women due to some of the less than respectful way that some of our women are treated.  Hence the neutrality of my statement.  The meaning of your statement (and the one preceding it by another poster) was unclear to me, hence the manner of my response.

Everyone deserves to be treating with respect. The problem that many men have is that they put women on a pedestal and do their best ot be "nice guys". Then, they wonder why all the hot girls are with "jerks".

Is this really still a thing? I mean I play the game pretty good in dating, but when it comes to being a boyfriend I just be awesome at that point.

[Shiny]

But . . . but . . . these are good Christian women. 

I find that you often need to remove both of those adjectives.

And, the men are snookered. I had a Baptist man defend the movie Fireproof to me the other day. I was gobsmacked.

Oh, that is a dreadful movie.

I've never seen the movie and I've heard how bad it is by Orthodox, can someone explain why?

[dzheremi]

Everyone deserves to be treating with respect. The problem that many men have is that they put women on a pedestal and do their best ot be "nice guys". Then, they wonder why all the hot girls are with "jerks".

Is this really still a thing? I mean I play the game pretty good in dating, but when it comes to being a boyfriend I just be awesome at that point.

I wouldn't think so. I've never asked or heard of anyone asking why girls like jerks, but I've sure heard about that happening a lot. It seems like a movie cliche. Ditto all this "nice guy" business. What I have heard is that "friend zone" garbage, which as far as I can tell is a way of saying "I'm a nice guy" without feeling like you're being a whiny jerk. (But you still are.)

[Punch]

Then I frankly do not understand the purpose of your initial comment.

I took your your comment preceding mine to imply that some men on this board do not know how to treat women (and were possibly less than manly) because they treat the women on this board with respect.  I did leave open the possibility that you were actually pointing out that some men on this board did not know how to treat women due to some of the less than respectful way that some of our women are treated.  Hence the neutrality of my statement.  The meaning of your statement (and the one preceding it by another poster) was unclear to me, hence the manner of my response.

Everyone deserves to be treating with respect. The problem that many men have is that they put women on a pedestal and do their best ot be "nice guys". Then, they wonder why all the hot girls are with "jerks".

Most of the "hot" girls that end up with the jerks get what they deserve.  As you alluded to above, most are neither nice nor Christian. 

[Sauron]

Then I frankly do not understand the purpose of your initial comment.

I took your your comment preceding mine to imply that some men on this board do not know how to treat women (and were possibly less than manly) because they treat the women on this board with respect.  I did leave open the possibility that you were actually pointing out that some men on this board did not know how to treat women due to some of the less than respectful way that some of our women are treated.  Hence the neutrality of my statement.  The meaning of your statement (and the one preceding it by another poster) was unclear to me, hence the manner of my response.

Everyone deserves to be treating with respect. The problem that many men have is that they put women on a pedestal and do their best ot be "nice guys". Then, they wonder why all the hot girls are with "jerks".

Most of the "hot" girls that end up with the jerks get what they deserve.  As you alluded to above, most are neither nice nor Christian. 

What eludes the great majority of men is that one can exhibit the qualities of "jerks" while still being "nice guys".

[Punch]

Then I frankly do not understand the purpose of your initial comment.

I took your your comment preceding mine to imply that some men on this board do not know how to treat women (and were possibly less than manly) because they treat the women on this board with respect.  I did leave open the possibility that you were actually pointing out that some men on this board did not know how to treat women due to some of the less than respectful way that some of our women are treated.  Hence the neutrality of my statement.  The meaning of your statement (and the one preceding it by another poster) was unclear to me, hence the manner of my response.

Everyone deserves to be treating with respect. The problem that many men have is that they put women on a pedestal and do their best ot be "nice guys". Then, they wonder why all the hot girls are with "jerks".

Most of the "hot" girls that end up with the jerks get what they deserve.  As you alluded to above, most are neither nice nor Christian. 

What eludes the great majority of men is that one can exhibit the qualities of "jerks" while still being "nice guys".

The problem is, I find most men to be so disgusting that I would rather not exhibit most of the qualities of the "jerks".  I am a loner for the most part, as are most of the men that I have respected.  As I wrote in another thread, my vision of a "real man" is somewhat different than that of most.  Thankfully I have found a few women that share the same vision.  I am even married to one of them, and have been for more than 30 years.

[Sauron]

The problem is, I find most men to be so disgusting that I would rather not exhibit most of the qualities of the "jerks".  I am a loner for the most part, as are most of the men that I have respected.  As I wrote in another thread, my vision of a "real man" is somewhat different than that of most.  Thankfully I have found a few women that share the same vision.  I am even married to one of them, and have been for more than 30 years.

Then I suspect you exhibit those qualities (confidence, stability, etc) that the "nice guys" lack while still being a decent man.

If the nice guys would get a clue, they would realize that most divorces are filed by the wife. Then, they would find that most of the time, the husband was abusive, addicted, or adulterous. Rather, it is just even though "he's so good to me" that "something was missing".

The best and most public modern example is "Eat, Pray, Love". The first few chapters can be read on Google Books for free, and we learn it is a story of a woman who is married to a perfectly nice man, but then she goes cuckoo for no apparent reason.

[SolEX01]

The problem is, I find most men to be so disgusting that I would rather not exhibit most of the qualities of the "jerks".  I am a loner for the most part, as are most of the men that I have respected.  As I wrote in another thread, my vision of a "real man" is somewhat different than that of most.  Thankfully I have found a few women that share the same vision.  I am even married to one of them, and have been for more than 30 years.

Then I suspect you exhibit those qualities (confidence, stability, etc) that the "nice guys" lack while still being a decent man.

Is having confidence and stability a bad thing whether one is a "jerk" or a "nice guy?"

If the nice guys would get a clue, they would realize that most divorces are filed by the wife. Then, they would find that most of the time, the husband was abusive, addicted, or adulterous. Rather, it is just even though "he's so good to me" that "something was missing".

"something was missing" - that can go either way.  I didn't pursue marriage with one woman because I found a lot lacking in her and I was a jerk to her at times.

The best and most public modern example is "Eat, Pray, Love". The first few chapters can be read on Google Books for free, and we learn it is a story of a woman who is married to a perfectly nice man, but then she goes cuckoo for no apparent reason.

See, the woman has an issue that isn't obvious during the courtship phase and rears its ugly head after the marriage - whether 1, 5, 10, 20, 50 years have passed.  Divorce is less stigmatizing than 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago.  With Facebook, old acquaintances can come back into the picture (e.g. one spouse marries a nice person and rediscovers the jerk on Facebook).

[Shiny]

Everyone deserves to be treating with respect. The problem that many men have is that they put women on a pedestal and do their best ot be "nice guys". Then, they wonder why all the hot girls are with "jerks".

Is this really still a thing? I mean I play the game pretty good in dating, but when it comes to being a boyfriend I just be awesome at that point.

I wouldn't think so. I've never asked or heard of anyone asking why girls like jerks, but I've sure heard about that happening a lot. It seems like a movie cliche. Ditto all this "nice guy" business. What I have heard is that "friend zone" garbage, which as far as I can tell is a way of saying "I'm a nice guy" without feeling like you're being a whiny jerk. (But you still are.)

Wait huh? "Friendzoning" happens all the time to guys by women.

[Asteriktos]

I sure as hell ain't friend zoning some of the dudes on this thread. What a bunch of jerks.

Oh wait, that's not what they meant...

[ZealousZeal]

But . . . but . . . these are good Christian women. 

I find that you often need to remove both of those adjectives.

And, the men are snookered. I had a Baptist man defend the movie Fireproof to me the other day. I was gobsmacked.

Oh, that is a dreadful movie.

I've never seen the movie and I've heard how bad it is by Orthodox, can someone explain why?

The acting is abysmal. However bad you're thinking, it's worse.

[Sauron]

Is having confidence and stability a bad thing whether one is a "jerk" or a "nice guy?"

Not at all. The problem is that women like confidence men. Nice guys aren't big in the confidence department. They tend to be inoffensive, placating pushovers. Boring!

"something was missing" - that can go either way.  I didn't pursue marriage with one woman because I found a lot lacking in her and I was a jerk to her at times.

In these cases, what is missing is "tingles" that the woman wants to feel. Do I need to be explicit as to where she wants to feel them?

See, the woman has an issue that isn't obvious during the courtship phase and rears its ugly head after the marriage - whether 1, 5, 10, 20, 50 years have passed.  Divorce is less stigmatizing than 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago.  With Facebook, old acquaintances can come back into the picture (e.g. one spouse marries a nice person and rediscovers the jerk on Facebook).

Because the jerk gives her the tingles.

[Sauron]

But . . . but . . . these are good Christian women. 

I find that you often need to remove both of those adjectives.

And, the men are snookered. I had a Baptist man defend the movie Fireproof to me the other day. I was gobsmacked.

Oh, that is a dreadful movie.

I've never seen the movie and I've heard how bad it is by Orthodox, can someone explain why?

The acting is abysmal. However bad you're thinking, it's worse.

The problem with the movie is its message.

[ZealousZeal]

But . . . but . . . these are good Christian women. 

I find that you often need to remove both of those adjectives.

And, the men are snookered. I had a Baptist man defend the movie Fireproof to me the other day. I was gobsmacked.

Oh, that is a dreadful movie.

I've never seen the movie and I've heard how bad it is by Orthodox, can someone explain why?

The acting is abysmal. However bad you're thinking, it's worse.

The problem with the movie is its message.

I figured the Orthodox who told him how bad it was covered that aspect, but perhaps I assume too much. I certainly had my issues with the message, but I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on it.

[SolEX01]

Is having confidence and stability a bad thing whether one is a "jerk" or a "nice guy?"

Not at all. The problem is that women like confidence men. Nice guys aren't big in the confidence department. They tend to be inoffensive, placating pushovers. Boring!

"something was missing" - that can go either way.  I didn't pursue marriage with one woman because I found a lot lacking in her and I was a jerk to her at times.

In these cases, what is missing is "tingles" that the woman wants to feel. Do I need to be explicit as to where she wants to feel them?

See, the woman has an issue that isn't obvious during the courtship phase and rears its ugly head after the marriage - whether 1, 5, 10, 20, 50 years have passed.  Divorce is less stigmatizing than 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago.  With Facebook, old acquaintances can come back into the picture (e.g. one spouse marries a nice person and rediscovers the jerk on Facebook).

Because the jerk gives her the tingles.

Tingling is stronger than love.

[Sauron]

But . . . but . . . these are good Christian women. 

I find that you often need to remove both of those adjectives.

And, the men are snookered. I had a Baptist man defend the movie Fireproof to me the other day. I was gobsmacked.

Oh, that is a dreadful movie.

I've never seen the movie and I've heard how bad it is by Orthodox, can someone explain why?

The acting is abysmal. However bad you're thinking, it's worse.

The problem with the movie is its message.

I figured the Orthodox who told him how bad it was covered that aspect, but perhaps I assume too much. I certainly had my issues with the message, but I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on it.

Short summary of the movie: man takes 40-day challenge to convince his whorish wife not to frivolously divorce him. While he is doing this, she takes off her wedding ring and flirts with a nice doctor at work.

Watch the few minutes after this link until about the 42 minute mark. He makes nice gestures, and she is a flaming shrew:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxKDeNnBUM0&t=35m8s

"I don't have for coffee" Oh, do you have time for me to put that mug someplace uncomfortable?

Note her whorish lunch date at 1:04 and her getting busted at 1:12. Oh, and can I puke at 1:22 - "has anyone ever told you that you're wonderful?" 1:28 "my husband has had his chance"

She can only stop being whorish until her husband spends his entire savings on what she wants to buy.

[Sauron]

Is having confidence and stability a bad thing whether one is a "jerk" or a "nice guy?"

Not at all. The problem is that women like confidence men. Nice guys aren't big in the confidence department. They tend to be inoffensive, placating pushovers. Boring!

"something was missing" - that can go either way.  I didn't pursue marriage with one woman because I found a lot lacking in her and I was a jerk to her at times.

In these cases, what is missing is "tingles" that the woman wants to feel. Do I need to be explicit as to where she wants to feel them?

See, the woman has an issue that isn't obvious during the courtship phase and rears its ugly head after the marriage - whether 1, 5, 10, 20, 50 years have passed.  Divorce is less stigmatizing than 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago.  With Facebook, old acquaintances can come back into the picture (e.g. one spouse marries a nice person and rediscovers the jerk on Facebook).

Because the jerk gives her the tingles.

Tingling is stronger than love.

That is the tragedy.

[Shiny]

But . . . but . . . these are good Christian women. 

I find that you often need to remove both of those adjectives.

And, the men are snookered. I had a Baptist man defend the movie Fireproof to me the other day. I was gobsmacked.

Oh, that is a dreadful movie.

I've never seen the movie and I've heard how bad it is by Orthodox, can someone explain why?

The acting is abysmal. However bad you're thinking, it's worse.

The problem with the movie is its message.

I figured the Orthodox who told him how bad it was covered that aspect, but perhaps I assume too much. I certainly had my issues with the message, but I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on it.

Short summary of the movie: man takes 40-day challenge to convince his whorish wife not to frivolously divorce him. While he is doing this, she takes off her wedding ring and flirts with a nice doctor at work.

Watch the few minutes after this link until about the 42 minute mark. He makes nice gestures, and she is a flaming shrew:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxKDeNnBUM0&t=35m8s

"I don't have for coffee" Oh, do you have time for me to put that mug someplace uncomfortable?

Note her whorish lunch date at 1:04 and her getting busted at 1:12. Oh, and can I puke at 1:22 - "has anyone ever told you that you're wonderful?" 1:28 "my husband has had his chance"

She can only stop being whorish until her husband spends his entire savings on what she wants to buy.

Are you serious? Thats the message of the movie?

How awful.

[Punch]

The problem is, I find most men to be so disgusting that I would rather not exhibit most of the qualities of the "jerks".  I am a loner for the most part, as are most of the men that I have respected.  As I wrote in another thread, my vision of a "real man" is somewhat different than that of most.  Thankfully I have found a few women that share the same vision.  I am even married to one of them, and have been for more than 30 years.

Then I suspect you exhibit those qualities (confidence, stability, etc) that the "nice guys" lack while still being a decent man.

I reject the notion that a person has to be a jerk in order to exhibit confidence, stability, and the like while being decent.  TRUE confidence does not require being a jerk, or even an Alpha male.  Likewise with stability, honor, industriousness, loyalty, and any other number of good traits.  I have known several men in my circles who are able to exhibit these traits quietly without being obnoxious bores.

If the nice guys would get a clue, they would realize that most divorces are filed by the wife. Then, they would find that most of the time, the husband was abusive, addicted, or adulterous. Rather, it is just even though "he's so good to me" that "something was missing".

Funny, in my more than 30 years of Church work (and hearing the conversations of my pastor father before that), I find that your first two sentences are correct.  All this proves is that most men are poorly behaved when it comes to marriage.  While I have known, personally, men who were cheated on and who had wives that went "crazy", the VAST majority of the men that I know who had their wives file against them had it coming.  In fact, the statistic that I have read is that in 75% of divorces, cheating by the man was a factor, vs 25% for women.  This is right around what I have seen.  So, I do not see the logic of your "Rather" statement as they are the minority of divorces.  Your first two statements are, however accurate by my experience.

The best and most public modern example is "Eat, Pray, Love". The first few chapters can be read on Google Books for free, and we learn it is a story of a woman who is married to a perfectly nice man, but then she goes cuckoo for no apparent reason.

Yes, I base everything that I know on books I read on Google.  My life experiences count for nothing.  Of course, having spent most of my life West of the Appalachians and East of the Rockies, I probably have a different outlook on life than coastal people.

[ZealousZeal]

But . . . but . . . these are good Christian women. 

I find that you often need to remove both of those adjectives.

And, the men are snookered. I had a Baptist man defend the movie Fireproof to me the other day. I was gobsmacked.

Oh, that is a dreadful movie.

I've never seen the movie and I've heard how bad it is by Orthodox, can someone explain why?

The acting is abysmal. However bad you're thinking, it's worse.

The problem with the movie is its message.

I figured the Orthodox who told him how bad it was covered that aspect, but perhaps I assume too much. I certainly had my issues with the message, but I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on it.

Short summary of the movie: man takes 40-day challenge to convince his whorish wife not to frivolously divorce him. While he is doing this, she takes off her wedding ring and flirts with a nice doctor at work.

Watch the few minutes after this link until about the 42 minute mark. He makes nice gestures, and she is a flaming shrew:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxKDeNnBUM0&t=35m8s

"I don't have for coffee" Oh, do you have time for me to put that mug someplace uncomfortable?

Note her whorish lunch date at 1:04 and her getting busted at 1:12. Oh, and can I puke at 1:22 - "has anyone ever told you that you're wonderful?" 1:28 "my husband has had his chance"

She can only stop being whorish until her husband spends his entire savings on what she wants to buy.

Along the same lines as my issues then:

It takes two to tango in a marriage, and while I allow for the possibility of exceptional cases to contradict this, the majority of the time a marriage does not fall on one person's actions alone. In Fireproof, I felt like they went out of their way to portray him as this jerky guy who couldn't care less about his wife (all that money! the porn!), but what we don't see is their history and her actions beforehand. Not that I'm saying that it's totally okay to treat your spouse like crap if you feel justified... but actions don't happen in a vacuum. Maybe he couldn't care less because she's always been a "flaming shrew".

[SolEX01]

Is having confidence and stability a bad thing whether one is a "jerk" or a "nice guy?"

Not at all. The problem is that women like confidence men. Nice guys aren't big in the confidence department. They tend to be inoffensive, placating pushovers. Boring!

"something was missing" - that can go either way.  I didn't pursue marriage with one woman because I found a lot lacking in her and I was a jerk to her at times.

In these cases, what is missing is "tingles" that the woman wants to feel. Do I need to be explicit as to where she wants to feel them?

See, the woman has an issue that isn't obvious during the courtship phase and rears its ugly head after the marriage - whether 1, 5, 10, 20, 50 years have passed.  Divorce is less stigmatizing than 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago.  With Facebook, old acquaintances can come back into the picture (e.g. one spouse marries a nice person and rediscovers the jerk on Facebook).

Because the jerk gives her the tingles.

Tingling is stronger than love.

That is the tragedy.

That is life.  How one reacts to the temptations that surround him? the temptations to be a jerk; the temptations to take advantage of unsuspecting women; the response to women who tell him that he makes them tingle.

[Sauron]

I reject the notion that a person has to be a jerk in order to exhibit confidence, stability, and the like while being decent.  TRUE confidence does not require being a jerk, or even an Alpha male.  Likewise with stability, honor, industriousness, loyalty, and any other number of good traits.  I have known several men in my circles who are able to exhibit these traits quietly without being obnoxious bores.

You apparently reject the notion of comprehending what I have written. If you had, you would know that you are agreeing with me.

Funny, in my more than 30 years of Church work (and hearing the conversations of my pastor father before that), I find that your first two sentences are correct.  All this proves is that most men are poorly behaved when it comes to marriage.  While I have known, personally, men who were cheated on and who had wives that went "crazy", the VAST majority of the men that I know who had their wives file against them had it coming.  In fact, the statistic that I have read is that in 75% of divorces, cheating by the man was a factor, vs 25% for women.  This is right around what I have seen.  So, I do not see the logic of your "Rather" statement as they are the minority of divorces.  Your first two statements are, however accurate by my experience.

Actually, that was a typo. I intended to write that the husband was generally not abusive, addicted, or adulterous.

If you must appeal to statistics, you will be surprised to learn that women cheat more often.

The best and most public modern example is "Eat, Pray, Love". The first few chapters can be read on Google Books for free, and we learn it is a story of a woman who is married to a perfectly nice man, but then she goes cuckoo for no apparent reason.

Yes, I base everything that I know on books I read on Google.  My life experiences count for nothing.

Actually, you are right that your life experience is worthless. The reason is that a self-reported anecdote is not data.

I advised that the book can be read on Google because I do not recommend anyone to spend money on that trash.