The Rules

     Visiting Grove City College last week -- that brave school that has long said to the government, "We shall not bow down before you" -- I was struck by the normality of the students.  I don't mean that as faint praise.  In fact, I have plenty of good things to say about the college, and maybe I'll say them in my next post, but the one thing that struck me most forcibly was that the students were, well, normal.  Let me give you a few examples.

     I was sitting in the Student Center, waiting for my host and idly looking at that only remaining section of most newspapers that a thinking person can sometimes skim -- I mean the sports section --, when I overheard a conversation among three men, discussing the stock market, how various investments were faring, what Hoover did and did not do in 1929, and how an intelligent investor should treat his debt in a time of tight credit.  I figured they were three economics professors, but no, they were only undergraduates.  They were normal undergraduates, in the sense that they were cut from some reliable norma or T-square, rather than dilapidated shambles of appetite and fad.  The evening before, as I was walking through the giant quadrangle at the center of campus, I overheard baritone strains of opera, and looked over to see a burly young fellow filling the area with Puccini (I think) as he ran down a frisbee sailing over his head.  Again, it struck me as rare, these days, but wholly normal that a young person out of doors on a pleasant day should want to sing.  And it was like that all the time I was there.  I was even told the undergraduate men and women had an eye to marrying one another.  "Ring by Spring" is the merry proverb at Grove City.  You put over a thousand good looking and healthy young men in the company of over a thousand good looking and healthy young women (the numbers are exactly even at Grove City), and it's no wonder that there are a lot of marriages.  That's normal.

     Now Mrs. Esolen and I have talked quite a lot about this business of marriage, especially as our daughter enters her junior year of college, and as many of my favorite students, now family friends, grow older and are looking for someone to marry.  Their choices have occasionally been, alas, less than satisfactory.  We've concluded that although almost everybody recognizes that a lot of students graduate high school whom only a fool would hire, the bigger problem is that even more young men and women are out there, many of them graduates of college, whom only a fool would marry.  They are common, as common as nails.  But they are not normal.  You can have a bucket of nails bent out of shape, and that wouldn't make them normal either, not if there were a thousand to every nail that you could actually drive into a board.

     So then, whom could you marry?  A long time ago we came up with something we called "Esolen's Rules."  They're only half facetious.  But they are an attempt to get at the normal:

1. Don't marry a woman who likes cats but does not like dogs.  You may marry a woman who doesn't like either, or whose reason for not liking dogs is that one of them bit her when she was a toddler.  But a woman who likes cats but does not like dogs will be a Joan Crawford or Jane Wyman.  Ronald Reagan married Jane Wyman, and look how sorry he was about that.

2. Don't marry a man who is neater than you are.  You may, however, marry a man who polishes his tools and puts them away after use....

3. Don't marry anybody, man or woman, who says, "I'm going to call you at eight," and then leaves you waiting by the phone for an hour.  Exceptions can be made for people who are kidnapped by Arabs, or who have epileptic seizures.

4. Don't marry anybody who insists on a separate bank account, bed, bathroom, vacation, or zip code.  It makes no sense to be one flesh and two wallets.

5. Don't marry a woman who spends more on makeup than she does on food.  In general, don't marry a woman who engages in the sin of reverse gluttony.

6. Don't marry a man who does not like dogs.  Such men do not like children.  Don't marry a man who does not like children.  On the other hand, I have known at least one excellent man who thought he didn't like children, until he had some; seven, I think, at last count.  Perhaps the rule may be rephrased: Don't marry a man whom you cannot imagine rolling on the ground in a wrestling hold, with a Labrador retriever or three children, or hollering on a ferris wheel, with a Labrador retriever or three children.

7. Don't marry a woman who exercises so frequently that you cannot tell if she is a woman or a very strange looking 13-year-old boy.  I'm going out on a line here, but the real purpose of the rule is to determine whether she will mind getting fat, as happens when you are going to have a child.  In other words, don't marry a woman whom you cannot imagine having a child.  Do not marry a woman who does not like children.

8. Do not marry a man who treats his mother or his sisters discourteously.  As he treats his mother, so will he treat you.  But by all means do not marry a man who takes his direction from his mother, or who is ruled by his mother's ambitions.  Mama's boys are unhappy, and they make their wives unhappy too.  So are the mothers of mama's boys, come to think of it.  Unhappy days are here again.

9. Do not marry a woman who sneers at innocent male pastimes, such as football.  Such women do not really enjoy the company of men, and after a period soon reached, do not enjoy the company of their own husbands.  They are also the most ignorant of what men are really like.  You may marry a tomboy, so long as she's a girlish tomboy and doesn't take the sport with dreadful seriousness.  You may marry a Daddy's girl, so long as she is not spoiled when it comes to money.

10. Never marry anyone who is secretive about money.  Such people are also secretive about sex.

11. Never marry a man who lets you take the initiative in everything.  You want a jellyfish, maybe?  You want Burt Lancaster instead.

12. Never marry a woman who never lets you take the initiative in anything.  You want a porcupine, maybe?  You want Maureen O'Hara instead.

13. Never marry a woman who does not laugh at your jokes or your buffoonery.  That is one of the nicest ways in which men "serve" women, and women respond by taking delight in the antics.  That is why God made impersonators of Marlon Brando, Sean Connery, and Homer Simpson.  It may in fact be the principal justification for the existence of Marlon Brando, Sean Connery, and Homer Simpson.  This rule is simply an instance of the more general rule that you should never marry a woman who does not genuinely admire you, nor should a woman marry a man whom she does not admire.

14. Never marry anyone who delights in "exposing" you in public.  Teasing does not count; in fact, never marry a man who cannot be teased.  You can marry a woman who cannot be teased.

15. Never marry a man who is not admired by respectable male friends.  The people in the world who know a man best are the men he works and plays with.  They know well if he is a cheat, a thug, a loser.  You may marry a man who does not have female friends.  If anything, you should be suspicious of a man whose friends are principally female.  The men may be avoiding him, and there is a reason for that.

16. Never marry anyone who is not interested in looking at your fourth-grade yearbook.  This means: never marry anyone who seems unaware that he or she is marrying also a family, a hometown, a past, silly friends, comedies and tragedies.  Never marry anyone who does not want to meet your father and mother.  If your sister doesn't like him, dump him.  If your sister doesn't like her, dump her.  That is why God created sisters.  Their approval, however, is not a sufficient condition; they will occasionally like losers, but they almost never detest good marrying material.

17. Never marry a feminist of either sex.  That would be as bad as marrying someone with the soul (not the occupation, but the soul) of a lawyer.

18. Never marry anyone whom you catch in a lie, even a little one.  Trust us on this one.  People in love are about the most gullible creatures on God's green earth.  In fact, beside the dictionary entry on "gullible" there's a picture of a woman in love, eyes looking dreamily upward, hands holding her chin; and a picture of an indignant young man defending the honor of his beloved, who would never do such a thing, no sir!

19. Never marry a woman who does not like to feed people, or a man who does not like to help out with the removal of a junked car, regardless of how much he knows about junked cars.  By all means marry a woman who enjoys seeing men eat, or a man who looks at a mudslide and says, "I can make a really fine wall out of that."

20. Never marry anyone, man or woman, who scoffs at virtue, who reduces "good" and "evil" to arbitrary counters in the war of all against all, whose humor is flippancy, who looks down upon janitors and maids, who cannot delight in making simple things (like a batting T or a thank-you note), who thinks tradition is old and shopworn (such people are followers of every fad that comes), and who is never, ever, just relaxed, grateful for a shady seat under the maple tree in fall.  That is another way of saying that you should never marry anyone who does not know who God is.

Comments

[TM]

You've limited the field somewhat...

[Kamilla]

Tony,

Can I add an addendum to rule #13?

Marry a woman who laughs at your enjoyment of the Three (Six?) Stooges, even if she doesn't care for them herself.

Otherwise, your list is near perfection and every so much better than that silly book a friend convinced me to read!

Kamilla

[Michael]

>>You've limited the field somewhat...<<

Indeed. And so much the better for it.

These rules remind me of a set imparted to me by my former youth pastor (he is now our church's sole pastor as we look to call a new senior pastor), a good friend.

For men:

1) Always apologize. If there’s friction, it’s 99.9% likely that you did something wrong. So apologize for it. Do not be so proud as to think you are without fault. Word of warning: know what you’re apologizing for!
2) (This rule omitted out of habit. It is "guy-exclusive"; in other words, it isn't supposed to be shared with women...go figure.)
3) Christ must be first in her life. Or you will never be second.
4) No close girlfriends. You will not associate exclusively and intimately with another female. It leads to suspicion and demeans your exclusivity with her. If you profess to be hers, then you better be able to be with her the same way you’re with another girl, and more.
5) Never lie. Really not complicated.
6) Give her an adventure. You will not be boring, you will have direction in life. You will give her something to support and enjoy.
7) Have a life. Get out with friends. She is not the sole reason for your existence. Never will be. Moreover, she may suck for you, no matter that you think differently. Your loving friends, objective third parties, will tell you as much.
8) You can’t both love and protect. This is a two-way rule. You can’t love and protect her because love is about freedom, and you can’t lock her up so she’ll never be hurt. On top of that, you cannot protect yourself, because love is about vulnerability. You might get hurt. Get over it.
9) She must be your equal. Think your smarter, more attractive, cooler? If you don’t respect her as your peer, you will not foster a healthy relationship. Not to mention it means you don’t love her anyway.
10) Don’t be a wimp. Step up. Be bold. Embrace your male instincts to do things for her. Don’t let her whip you, et cetera, et cetera.
11) Take walks. Do not go anywhere. Do not intend to go anywhere. Just take a walk. This is time with her that fosters conversation and deeper intimacy.
12) Be a gentleman. Open doors, pull out chairs, say excuse me, put a napkin on your lap. It may seem archaic, but it shows you respect her enough to act with courtesy, even if it is a bit over-the-top.
13) Don’t strut. The desire to establish your "alpha" position with other males only reveals your own insecurity. Be secure with who you are, in life, in Christ, and in her.
14) Use poetry. Or songs. Or something. Be romantic, show that art matters and that you take the time to learn (or write) something beautiful for her.

For girls:

1) Do not expect or complain without first verbally communicating a desire. Yes, this seems wordy, but let's be frank: men do not read your mind, no matter how well they know you. They want to please you, so help them out.
2) Forgive and forget. Do not bring up an old mistake or fault during a disagreement three weeks later as emotional blackmail. Men aren't perfect; we never will be. So when we are genuinely sorry, know that we are genuinely sorry.
3) (I do not know this rule. As number 2 is guy-exclusive, number 3 is apparently girl-exclusive.)
4) No close guy friends.
5) Never lie.
6) Christ must be first in his life.
7) Have a life.
8) Your relationship is between two people. You and him. Do not gossip with your friends about what you did. Share, have a life, yes. But the point of intimacy is also privacy.
9) Be proactive. Just as men want to please you (cf. #1), they also want to pursue you. But a gentleman will not court without permission--let him know, somehow, how you feel.
10) Do not attempt to control the relationship. Relationships evolve on their own time; to push something before it is time forces people into things they are not ready for. In the words of Solomon, "do not awaken love before it so desires."
11) Let him ride to your rescue. You ought not to be a damsel in distress, but when you need help with something, let him be that help. He wants to be your white knight--if he is in anyway worth it, he better be noble--give him a chance to do so.
12) Don't nag. Not every task is about the value of the relationship. When you ask him to do something, and he says he will, trust him. He will do it on his time. If it is important, tell him, but do not continually press an issue that is non-essential; it says you don't value you what he is doing for you.
13) Clothing communicates. So consider what you are wearing. An outfit doesn't just show him you're beautiful, but everyone else--what are you sharing with the passers-by that is exclusively his?
14) You cannot change a man. So don't try.

[Michael]

Gah! Italics off.

[labrialumn]

Indeed, perfection is a very limited field.

J. R. R. Tolkien reminded one of his sons that women are not china dolls on pedestals, they are fellow survivors of a shipwreck. Women ought also remember this about men, and parents about the younger generation.

Likewise as I would hear Mrs. Schaeffer say in years past "In a fallen world, if you demand perfection or nothing, you will always get nothing."

Finally, Anthony Esolen, consider these "losers": Did God make junk? Are they truly trash? Or are they human beings made in the Image of the Living God, damaged by the Fall and by sin, ill-served by the current society and educational system, and who you, as a Christian, are called to serve, not to be snide about?

[Bill R]

"13. Never marry a woman who does not laugh at your jokes or your buffoonery."

Absolutely! This trait is rarely genetic, however: your kids will likely scratch their heads in wonder (or worse...) at your jokes. Just remember--SHE still laughes! You may be a buffoon, but you're HER buffoon...

[Kamilla]

"9) She must be your equal. Think your smarter, more attractive, cooler? If you don’t respect her as your peer, you will not foster a healthy relationship. Not to mention it means you don’t love her anyway."

No, no, no, no BLECH! To quote a friend, "love doesn't speak the language of equality". He also told me to take a look at the scene in Shakespeare's "The Tempest" where Ferdinand and Miranda declare their love for one another.

Equality? No thanks.

Kamilla

[Michael]

Kamilla,

I've always found number nine a weird rule, too. It strikes me as funny that we who know we are unworthy of love--it is at the very core of the Gospel--should think we are somehow on the same footing as those we aspire to.

But I think the point of the rule isn't an equality of station (that's heresy), but an equality of value. To put another on a pedestal not only makes you by point of station blindly kowtowed to her will (completely circumventing the pointing of having an individual life), but also gives her very little room to move before she comes crashing down to earth. By the same token, to think we are in anyway above our significant others is to deify ourselves.

That said in my pastor's defense, however, I cannot help but think though I lead her, though I strive to be better for her, that I am still aspiring to the level of my girlfriend. Call it a paradox.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>It makes no sense to be one flesh and two wallets.<<<

But it makes perfect sense to have one flesh and three bathrooms, especially after one has female children. Women's grooming paraphenalia expands to fill the available bathroom counter space, in any case.

>>.Do not marry a woman who sneers at innocent male pastimes, such as football. <<<

I sneer at football. Marry a woman who prefers more manly sports, such as crew.

>>>Never marry anyone who is not interested in looking at your fourth-grade yearbook. <<<

Conversely, never marry anybody who INSISTS on looking at your fourth grade year book. There are some things you simply don't want others to know.

>>> She must be your equal. Think your smarter, more attractive, cooler? If you don’t respect her as your peer, you will not foster a healthy relationship. Not to mention it means you don’t love her anyway."<<<

Actually, as I said before, all married women are slumming.

[W.E.D. Godbold]

I've never seen anything like rule #13 before, but I just realized that maybe 33% of the laughs in our marriage are from her laughing at my "buffoonery". And I eat it up. The other 67% comes from laughing at the antics of our children.

I also think AE's list is better (saner, less rigorous maybe) than the one from Michael's youth pastor. I also agree with Kamilla (and Michael) that estimations of "equality" should have no place in one's thinking on these matters. It's unseemly.

[Joe Long]

"Did God make junk? Are they truly trash? Or are they human beings made in the Image of the Living God, damaged by the Fall and by sin, ill-served by the current society and educational system, and who you, as a Christian, are called to serve, not to be snide about?"

Well, the Cretans are liars, evil beasts, slow-bellies - so quoted St. Paul (and asserted, "This testimony is true"). Of course, Paul himself was recruited from among those a Greater called a "generation of vipers", among other dismissive and disparaging comments.

It was said the great General Jackson "lived by the New Testament, fought by the Old"; in the same way, let us evangelize by the Gospels, loving and compassionate - but court by the book of Proverbs, shrewd and judgemental. Each is a corrective to the natural tendency.

[Wonders for Oyarsa]

"Or are they human beings made in the Image of the Living God, damaged by the Fall and by sin, ill-served by the current society and educational system, and who you, as a Christian, are called to serve, not to be snide about?"

And called to marry, apparently?

[David Poe]

Excellent -- I will remember this in the future! Here are a few others I could think of, mostly light-hearted but filled with a kernel of truth.

-- Do not marry her if her Christmas or Birthday lists contains the phrase "Any movie with Brad Pitt." Schoolgirl crushes should have stopped with high school. Likewise, do not marry him if he attempts to defend Jessica Alba's acting.

-- Do not marry him if he cannot control his temper. A rare outburst when the car dies in traffic or the computer eats an important document is one thing, but if he throws stuff, swears, and snaps at you because his kicker on his fantasy football team didn't win, tell him its over. This goes double if its a video game. Likewise, if she ever responds to "what is wrong?" with "nothing" followed by a lot of pouting, call her on it once. After that, be done with it.

-- Marry her if she says she's spent time in prayer over the future of your relationship. Marry him if he does the same thing. Do not marry her if she tells you that God told her that you're "The One" after one date.

-- Do not marry him if he refuses pre-marital counseling.

-- Do not marry her if she appears to be horrified about being single after college.

-- Do not marry him if he's a lot older, but gleefully boasts about how he doesn't "feel" 34 and doesn't think of himself as a day older than 21. If he is struggling with growing up, he always will.

-- You may marry her if she has a cat or two. Do not marry her if these cats are the primary subject of her conversation, insist on sleeping with her, and are allowed to sit on human furniture you are not allowed to sit on. Do not marry her if she has a post-it with the slogan "The more men I meet, the more I love my cat."

[Tony Esolen]

Wonders,

Exactly. We're called to love people whom we would never hire. We're called to love people whom we would never marry, or would never want our sons or daughters to approach, not in a hundred years.

The "Rules" here are meant to be filters. We've tried to come up with little diagnostic criteria that will filter out almost all the bad 'uns, while unfortunately catching quite a few decent people too. The idea is that the loss you incur in marrying badly is far more devastating than is the loss you incur in failing to marry someone who might have been all right.

One Rule I forgot to mention, and I don't know how I forgot it:

Never marry anyone who believes in divorce. You may yourself believe in divorce, in which case nobody should marry you; but that's the other person's lookout. Even if you believe in divorce, you should not marry anyone else who does.

If that Rule sounds harsh, allow me to translate it into other fields:

Never enlist a man as a soldier who believes that desertion is an option. Never enter a business partnership with someone who believes it may be all right to break your contract, embezzle half of your assets, and join up with the competition.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>-- Do not marry her if her Christmas or Birthday lists contains the phrase "Any movie with Brad Pitt." Schoolgirl crushes should have stopped with high school. Likewise, do not marry him if he attempts to defend Jessica Alba's acting.<<<

Alan Rickman is OK, though, right? 'Cause otherwise, I made a BIG mistake 27 years ago.

>>>-- Do not marry him if he refuses pre-marital counseling.<<<

An absolute waste of time, unless of course, you're too immature to get married in the first place. None (I repeat NONE) of the most successful marriages I know (including my own) every bothered with "pre-marital counseling. Talk about the triumph of the therapeutic!

>>>-- Do not marry him if he's a lot older, but gleefully boasts about how he doesn't "feel" 34 and doesn't think of himself as a day older than 21. If he is struggling with growing up, he always will.<<<

You seem to be one of those people who equates "maturity" with "being too tired".

>>>-- You may marry her if she has a cat or two. Do not marry her if these cats are the primary subject of her conversation, insist on sleeping with her, and are allowed to sit on human furniture you are not allowed to sit on. Do not marry her if she has a post-it with the slogan "The more men I meet, the more I love my cat."<<<

What if you have a cat or two, and they are the primary subject of your conversation? Can the two of you get together and live cattily every after? 'Cause if you can't, I made another big mistake 27 years ago.

All of which goes to show that fatuity of making up such stupid lists, even in jest.

[David Poe]

>>Alan Rickman is OK, though, right?<<
He's in Harry Potter and played an cynical angel, so we're safe. Besides if there were a proliferation of Alan Rickman movies and series back in the early 80s, I would have snatched them up, too.

>>You seem to be one of those people who equates "maturity" with "being too tired".<<

Nope, I realize that maturity has both its rewards and responsibilities, while someone who is 34 going on 21 is simply desperate to cling to the frivolities of their youth. Be active all you want, run, play football with the kids or the guys, build a triple-cheese burger at Fuddruckers, I don't care. Just remember to grow up after college. Nothing's more pathetic than a guy in his mid-30s who wants to spend most of his waking hours partying and playing XBOX and order pizza until 4am every night -- unless he's in his mid 40s and doing the same.

>>'Cause if you can't, I made another big mistake 27 years ago.<<
Pay attention to the "and" word, it means that there are additional conditions.

>>All of which goes to show that fatuity of making up such stupid lists, even in jest.<<

Just a list, you should really relax.

[Joe Long]

Lists can be wonderful things...my wife had one, and apparently used it to nix a few candidates - and she claims she didn't even have to bend it, to accept ME. I haven't looked too closely at that claim, leaving room for charity.

I think the real value of the idea is to establish that before marriage is the time to establish your set of "deal-breakers" - and to, if necessary, break the deal. Too many folks apparently do that in the wrong order; they court whatever they find attractive, marry it, and only give it a list of "musts" and "cannots".

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Just remember to grow up after college. Nothing's more pathetic than a guy in his mid-30s who wants to spend most of his waking hours partying and playing XBOX and order pizza until 4am every night -- unless he's in his mid 40s and doing the same.<<<

I don't know any teenagers who do that, but I tend to hang out with the overachievers.

>>>Just a list, you should really relax.<<<

I was fine until you got to the pre-marital counseling part, which I see as pernicious and counterproductive. If Churches wait until their young people get engaged to address the nature and responsibilities of marriage, it's waaaay too late for a few hours with a Kumbayah-spouting, touchy-feelie facilitator to do much good. Besides, as I said, I don't know any long-married couples who did that thing, and lots of divorced couples who did.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Lists can be wonderful things...my wife had one, and apparently used it to nix a few candidates - and she claims she didn't even have to bend it, to accept ME.<<<

You know she's lying, Joe. Either she didn't have a list in the first place, or she did and tore it up when she met you.

If my wife had a list, she must have had, "Must be obnoxious New York Jew" written on the top of the page. Because the first thing she said upon meeting me was "Boy, he sure is obnoxious".

[Beth from TN]

I find with the young people who wander into my office wishing to discuss this subject that it is quite salutory to ask them to list all the traits they are looking for in a prospective husband or wife. Once we've established this ideal, this paragon of virtue, this perfect elder or Proverbs 31 woman, I then ask, "So, are you the kind of woman/man that this person you've described would want to marry? If not, what are you doing to get there?"

Once we work that through, I've seen not a few very chastened folk wander back out -- hopefully both more realistic about human beings and more concerned with developing their own character.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Never enlist a man as a soldier who believes that desertion is an option. <<<

I don't think I know of any soldiers who don't, when the going gets really tought, think of desertion as an option. It's always an option, there in the back of your head. But you don't do it, not because you don't believe in it, but because you are worried about what your buddies will think of you. Primary group bonds, and the fear of being though afraid are what hold soldiers in the line.

But even then, it is recognized that combat drains the courage out of a man. Every soldier has his limits, beyond which he cannot go. It is both a mental and physical debilitation--lack of food, lack of sleep, constant stress, constant fear all take their toll. Most combat psychologists now believe that most men reach their limit after about 180 days on the line.

Think of the man's courage as a battery. As he is exposed to combat, he runs down the charge, until the battery is flat. Taking the man off the line for rest and recuperation may partially recharge the battery somewhat, but it never goes back to its original level. Every man has his breaking point, and when he reaches it, he can react in different ways: he can become psychotic; he can become catatonic; he can run away. At that particular point, the bonds of comradeship and the constraints of being thought a coward no longer have the power to hold him on the line.

I'm not saying marriage is like that--though undoubtedly some of them are.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Once we work that through, I've seen not a few very chastened folk wander back out -- hopefully both more realistic about human beings and more concerned with developing their own character.<<<

Just tell them not to make perfect the enemy of the good, or they will die at home, alone, surrounded by hundreds of cats.

[Beth from TN]

That's what "more realistic" was meant to convey. :)

[Stuart Koehl]

I should add to my digression on soldiers and desertion that the same kinds of bonding and constraints that keep soldiers together seem to me at work in marriage, too. People stay together because they bond with each other, and neither wants to let down the other. At the same time, fear of being thought a failure also keeps people from walking out, although in this case, it is probably more societal expectations than those of one's spouse.

If this is the case, then the main thing needed to strengthen marriage is to re-stigmafy divorce, just as the best way to reinvigorate marriage is to re-stigmafy premarital sex and bastardy.

Which, of course, society is not going to do because, well, that might hurt someone's feelings.

[Kamilla]

"Never marry anyone who believes in divorce. You may yourself believe in divorce, in which case nobody should marry you; but that's the other person's lookout. Even if you believe in divorce, you should not marry anyone else who does."

Absolutely, Tony! And, for folks in my age range, that generally means don't marry someone who is already divorced.

When a friend of mine and his wife married over 30 years ago, his father refused to do the honors until they agreed to promise, as part of the ceremony, never to consider divorce as an option.

To that, I would add, never sleep apart due to anger. And, never worship separately. I've seen too many cases where these two lead to the reconsideration of the divorce option.

Kamilla

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Absolutely, Tony! And, for folks in my age range, that generally means don't marry someone who is already divorced.<<<

On the other hand, I know quite a few people whose second marriages have worked out just fine.

>>>When a friend of mine and his wife married over 30 years ago, his father refused to do the honors until they agreed to promise, as part of the ceremony, never to consider divorce as an option.<<<

Well, he's an ass, and lucky that they still talk to him.

[Abigail]

One rule: if you are a woman, marry the man who seems to you the perfect representative of the virtues of masculinity. If you are a man, marry the woman who seems to exemplify the true nature of femininity.

[Bill R]

"Because the first thing she said upon meeting me was "Boy, he sure is obnoxious"."

Wow, that's really hard to believe, Stuart!

[Kamilla]

Stuart,

I am sure you know how much value I place on your opinion of a man you've never met. Come to think of it, it's about the same value I place on your opinion of most things.

Kamilla

[Judy K. Warner]

So does Greta like obnoxious men, Stuart, or did your other qualities overcome her?

[Bob]

Sucky people suck n stuff. . .they should go away!

[Wonders for Oyarsa]

Don't know why Stuart needs to be so contrary here. It's pretty clear what Tony means by "considering divorce an option". Yes, desertion could be a moral option in some conceivable circumstance, but Tony is quite right that holding out in the difficult times is a matter of something "not being an option" to you, and not just "a choice I am currently choosing not to exercise". One has to burn the ships.

Anyway, the thing about premarital counseling need not be trivial or therapeutic, especially in this day and age where even churchgoing folks are religiously illiterate. It's often a very necessary time for catachesis.

[Judy K. Warner]

This isn't a rule like the ones above, but a suggestion. If you want to marry someone who meets certain requirements, go where people like that are likely to be. This sounds obvious, but in my experience many people don't do that, but think the perfect partner will spring out the ground in front of them.

[Kamilla]

Yes, Judy - she has to show up to the party. But, I think that once she has come, it is *his* job to ask, "May I have this dance?"

Kamilla

[Joe Long]

Old joke (shorn of original dialect):

Judge to defendent in case of "nonsupport" : "Sir, you know how strongly I disapprove of desertion..."

Defendent: "Judge, you don't know that woman. I'm no deserter; I'm a refugee!"

Judy - even worse than expecting those "someones" to appear in ordinary life, lots of youngsters go looking for them exactly where they WOULDN'T be. Amazing, the level of thought that DOESN'T go into these things...

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>One rule: if you are a woman, marry the man who seems to you the perfect representative of the virtues of masculinity. If you are a man, marry the woman who seems to exemplify the true nature of femininity.<<<

These seem like rules for perpetual bachelorhood and spinsterhood, if you ask me. Why not take up the monastic tonsure immediately, and save some time?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Wow, that's really hard to believe, Stuart!<<<

Isn't it, though?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Don't know why Stuart needs to be so contrary here. It's pretty clear what Tony means by "considering divorce an option". <<<

In the "good old days", why precisely did people NOT get divorced? Was it because they had a deeper commitment to marriage, or a better understanding of marriage's sacramental implications? I don't think so. It really comes down to a few very pragmatic factors:

1. In many places, divorce was simply illegal (particularly in Catholic countries), so that put a damper on things right away.

2. In other countries (e.g., Great Britain, divorce was hideously expensive and time consuming, which placed it out of reach of most people.

3. In places where it was neither prohibited outright or priced out of reach, it was still messy (someone had to be found guilty of something) and was the object of social stigma. "Respectable" people did not get divorced, and everybody wanted to be "respectable". Faced with the disapproval of the neighbors (and the family), most people would tough it out rather than undergo the trauma.

In other words, just as with the soldier and desertion, for the married couple divorce was always an option, but one which typically was rejected because of exterior constraints as well as interior inhibitions which had nothing whatsoever to do with religious commitment.

>>>Anyway, the thing about premarital counseling need not be trivial or therapeutic, especially in this day and age where even churchgoing folks are religiously illiterate. It's often a very necessary time for catachesis.<<<

But it usually is (my experience reviewing the materials used in a lot of Catholic "Pre-Cana" programs), and furthermore, six or eight weeks of catechesis after a life of twenty-something years is not going to inspire metanoia in those who don't understand the meaning of Christian marriage.

[W.E.D. Godbold]

I've read that some pre-marital counselors use written instruments that--while they don't do a very good job of predicting compatibility--have a very high (like 85%) chance of detecting incompatibility. That wouldn't be a bad thing to know before getting married, especially considering the self-delusion to which our race is prone. Of course there have been lots of happy marriages instituted before the invention of such instruments, but we've lost a lot of the cultural capital that helped to guide those.

I do think there are species of people who do make the perfect the enemy of the good. That is, they are so afraid of divorce they aren't willing to risk much in a marriage partner.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>So does Greta like obnoxious men, Stuart, or did your other qualities overcome her?<<<

I guess I'm good breeding stock.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>This isn't a rule like the ones above, but a suggestion. If you want to marry someone who meets certain requirements, go where people like that are likely to be. <<<

Most people meet the people they marry at the places they spend most of their time, which would be either school or work. There are certain advantages to this: when you spend a lot of time with a person (say, about 40 hours a week), you get to see a lot of different sides of that person which you would not see in a more exclusive setting (e.g., a church social).

The downside is you get to see a lot of that person before you get married.

[James Kabala]

Mr. Koehl: Usually I respect your opinions, even when expressed merely to be contrary, and in fact I often agree with them, but #3 above is a circular argument. Why was divorce not "respectable?" Why would the neighbors disapprove? Isn't it because the broader society recognized the trouble that divorce brings?

[Lee Herring]

Mr. Esolen,

Fortunately I have had (taken) the time to read all the comments, some (most) of which have gone far afield of your original list. So I would like to comment on the original document rather than on the interpretations.
1. As the father of two teenage boys and a beautifully precious 9-year-old girl, thanks for the list.
2. I also chased frisbees when I was in college. Still do occasionally. I must admit, however, I never sang while doing so.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Why was divorce not "respectable?" <<<

A whole range of reasons, which, ultimately, one might trace back to New Testament injunctions against it, but these were certainly secondary. Divorce was not respectable because (a) it indicated either that a man was unfaithful to his wife (not so bad, except when one got caught at it), or (b) that he could not control his wife. That in turn would put the whole issue of progeny into doubt. A man wearing horns was not worthy of respect--even before Christian times.

For a woman, it was the flip side of the coin: if she was the guilty party, then she was a trollop, and no other "respectable" man would have her, because she could not be trusted to remain chaste. If she was the offended party, then it was a matter of whether she could keep her man at home, or worse, that she didn't have the good sense to look the other way.

As I said, these attitudes are pre-Christian, going back to the Romans.

[Clifford Simon]

I have a married relative - let's call her my "sister," per Esolen Rule #16 - who gives per-marital counseling, for free, and without even waiting for a solicitation. The brand of counseling is the one that makes marriage out to be what it is made out to be in advertisements selling E.D. drugs. (I'm just saying, when God made sisters, He made them a lot of fun. ;-)

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I have a married relative - let's call her my "sister," per Esolen Rule #16 - who gives per-marital counseling, for free, and without even waiting for a solicitation. <<<

Every Jewish family has at least one of those. We call them yentas.

>>>The brand of counseling is the one that makes marriage out to be what it is made out to be in advertisements selling E.D. drugs.<<<

You mean you and the Missus are getting in the mood when your teenage daughter suddenly arrives home from college without so much as a word of warning? Yeah, that is PRECISELY what marriage is like (unless it's like the commercial in which poor dysfunctional hubby, having taken his little blue pill, accidentally breaks the faucet on the kitchen sink, sending plumes of water everywhere in an overtly freudian manner).

[Ethan C.]

>>The brand of counseling is the one that makes marriage out to be what it is made out to be in advertisements selling E.D. drugs.<<

Two bathtubs side by side overlooking the coast?

A bunch of middle-aged guys making up new lyrics to "Viva Las Vegas"?

I sure hope marriage *isn't* like E.D. commercials; I don't know how I could ever get in the mood if I was always hearing some voice in the background blather on about side-effects...

[Michael]

I always think of the Levitra commercial where the man can't seem to throw a football through a tire...

Which is technically an aiming problem. The football was fully inflated.

[Abigail]

Stuart,

I didn't say, "Marry the woman who is the perfect instantiation of femininity"; I said marry the one who seems to you to be perfectly feminine. Big difference there. The point is not only the virtues of the woman, but also your special appreciation of her particular virtues. And love, we can hope, covers and transforms a lot of flaws.

Then again, maybe I'm just in a panic at the thought that my own children--I have four teenagers--will aim too low. I'm having a hard time imagining a man good enough for my oldest daughter, if you want to know the truth.

[Maggie]

Huzzah, the full list! Guess I can delete that old email now . . . (am I allowed to like cats more than dogs if I have a history of caninephobia? :-D)

[Nick]

I take some umbrage to:
6. Don't marry a man who does not like dogs. Such men do not like children. Don't marry a man who does not like children. On the other hand, I have known at least one excellent man who thought he didn't like children, until he had some; seven, I think, at last count. Perhaps the rule may be rephrased: Don't marry a man whom you cannot imagine rolling on the ground in a wrestling hold, with a Labrador retriever or three children, or hollering on a ferris wheel, with a Labrador retriever or three children.

I like kids. I do not like dogs. I tolerate dogs. Dogs are not people. I am not required to like them. Children I'm required and genuinely do like. Dogs lick their butts. Anything that licks its butt and then demands to lick me is of questionable virtue. Cats, while similar do not _insist_ on the licking and can be drop kicked when pushy. Dogs have also bit my sister (pit bull) which makes me skittish and myself (stupid yappy wiener dog).

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I like kids. I do not like dogs. I tolerate dogs. Dogs are not people. I am not required to like them. Children I'm required and genuinely do like. <<<

No, you're required to LOVE your kids. If you can also like them, it's a wonderful bonus.

[Susannah]

Thanks for adding #17 to the list. I'm in hearty agreement with it!

"Don't nag," should be on every newlywed wife's list, *without exception.* Girlfriends and fiancees, too. Please, learn from my own sad experience. :)

I found the results of Meyers-Briggs quite helpful for mutual understanding in all stages of our marriage, so premarital counseling was probably a good idea for us. Then again, both hubby and I are fascinated with temperament paradigms.

#1 most helpful marriage advice comes from scripture. #2 most helpful marriage advice came from The Five Love Languages. Seriously.

[Susannah]

Oh, and we've been through two cats but have yet to own a dog. Dogs are tolerable only after every person in the house has been potty-trained.

It's not for lack of dog-ownership on hubby's part, either. He grew up with SPCA rescues constantly circulating through his house (his mother's job), and had a decent dog he trained himself.

He now prefers cats.

[Wonders for Oyarsa]

No, you're required to LOVE your kids. If you can also like them, it's a wonderful bonus.

That whole "I love him in the Lord, but can't stand the guy" trope is such a crock... I know, there are the exceptional cases where Christian charity will love that which we cannot like, but most normal cases (like children) it means (among other things) finding things to like.

[Susannah]

Oh, and we've been through two cats but have yet to own a dog. Dogs are tolerable only after every person in the house has been potty-trained.

It's not for lack of dog-ownership on hubby's part, either. He grew up with SPCA rescues constantly circulating through his house (his mother's job), and had a decent dog he trained himself.

He now prefers cats.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I found the results of Meyers-Briggs quite helpful for mutual understanding in all stages of our marriage, so premarital counseling was probably a good idea for us. <<<

My wife and I, and a bunch of our friends, were introduced to Myers-Briggs after we had been married for about ten years. We sat around the living room together and had a very good laugh.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>That whole "I love him in the Lord, but can't stand the guy" trope is such a crock... <<<

No, sorry, it's not. I love my brother like, well, a brother. If he came to me for help, I cold not turn hm away. But I don't like him and wouldn't want to spend leisure time with him. By the same token, there are people I know whose kids are just walking trainwrecks. They love their children, as can be seen by the anguish they suffer because of them. If they didn't love them, they would not care. But they don't like their children, at least not they way they are at present. And that's because their children, as they are right now, are not very likable people.

As a parent, I am obligated to love my children. Not only is that part of my divinely ordained role as father, but God also hard-wired us that way (most of us, anyway). But I am not obligated to like them, and you need to understand the distinction.

[Judy K. Warner]

I've read studies that show pre-marital counseling cuts the rate of divorce. There were a few cities that adopted active pro-marriage measures -- I wish I could remember the details; I read about it in the American Enterprise magazine years ago. They also put other measures in place, such as having older successful married couples mentor newly married couple. Not with perfect marriages, necessarily, but with marriages that had weathered the years and come out happy. My guess is that less educated people would benefit more from pre-marital counseling than more educated ones. This is based on the wide disparity of divorce statistics between the educated and uneducated. Of course, it would be useful to find a way to get people to get married in the first place instead of shacking up serially.

I think the reason it has an effect on less educated people (this is a proxy for less intelligent) is that we have lost all of our traditions regarding marriage. Things that used to be passed on about choosing a partner and having a good marriage have disappeared into the sea of do-your-own-thing and relativism that is our society now. Intelligent people often figure these things out for themselves, but less intelligent people follow the advice of Oprah et al and do what feels good at the time.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I've read studies that show pre-marital counseling cuts the rate of divorce. <<<

The tendency, I think, would be more to discourage people from marrying in the first place.

>>>I think the reason it has an effect on less educated people (this is a proxy for less intelligent) is that we have lost all of our traditions regarding marriage. <<<

Actually, I think it is more that less educated people tend to get married more readily, while the more educated (and in their own mind, more sophisticated), only marry when they decide to have children, opting to cohabit until then.

[NTBH]

Meyers-Briggs is good for a few things. But ultimately it is attempting to apply Aristotelean categories to a human person. People end up giving it much more credence than it deserves.

[The Jig's up]

Oh man, the only thing Meyers-Briggs is good for is entertaining those who foolishly think people fall into categories of that sort. Funny how those tests always tell people just what they want to hear, too. . .

Also, don't blame a guy for not liking kids. It's probably not his fault.

[Natalie]

Excellent list! I can't think why so many people select life partners with less thought and fewer criteria than they have for a new car. I mean, you wouldn't buy a car just because of the paint color, right?

I think that the form of premarital counseling that tries to determine whether the engaged couple has made a giant mistake and should call it all off is pernicious. Once things get to that point, it is WAY too late for evaluation. That should happen much, much earlier in the process.

However, we had premarital counseling and it was more like, is there anything we need to work on in the three months we have before getting married? Are we having any issues now that we need to fix before marriage?

[DGP]

>>I think the reason it has an effect on less educated people (this is a proxy for less intelligent) is that we have lost all of our traditions regarding marriage.

>>The tendency, I think, would be more to discourage people from marrying in the first place.

My experience suggests neither. Educated people are almost as ignorant of their religious traditions as the uneducated -- which is to say, they are no longer traditions, for they have not been handed down. Pre-marriage preparation of any sort almost never dissuades people from marriage. Once folks decide to marry, only family crises (usually, the discovery of adultery) can stop them.

Instead, I think the principal value of pre-marriage prep is its introduction of a modicum of reflectivity into the relationship. Thus prep programs have a greater effect on the uneducated, who would otherwise be less reflective. They have only the short-term effect of avoiding divorces in the first three years or so, and do not influence later divorces brought on by the failure of the unconverted to embrace the self-denial that gradually weighs on married persons.

[DGP]

By "reflectivity" -- should I have said "reflection?" -- I mean self-examination, the ability to look at oneself, at the patterns of thought and speech, and discern patterns that transcend the issue of the moment, the "who left the toilet seat up" complaints.

[Bob]

I never understood why anybody would want to leave the toilet seat up. What's the point? I'm a man, and I've never felt the desire to leave up the lid on the dirtiest thing in the house. Do you just like showing off the old toilet bowl? Can't hold it long enough to open that thing? How do you people manage not to wet yourself?

[Ethan C.]

I was going to say, if you want to introduce some reflectivity, you could just buy some shiny tape. :)

[Kamilla]

Ethan,

You're not a fan of patent leather shoes, are you?

Kamilla

[Larry Geiger]

I married #14. She cannot be teased! She's from the midwest, and as literal as they come. But, it works. Good rule.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>However, we had premarital counseling and it was more like, is there anything we need to work on in the three months we have before getting married? Are we having any issues now that we need to fix before marriage?<<<

This assumes that all people and all couples are alike, therefore there are objective rules to be followed to establish a strong, lasting marriage. A very American approach: let's study a lot and learn to do things that other people do instinctively (we like cookbooks so much, we apply the cookbook mentality to sex, raising children, making money, finding happiness, etc.).

That aside, all couples are different, so the "rules" that everyone lays down (my favorite is the emphasis on "communication", usually interpreted as having to talk every last thing to death) probably don't work for at least half of them. I know some people who have been married for five decades who hardly say a dozen words to each other all day. But then, they don't have to, because they know how to communicate. I'm sure that they would not pass whatever tests they give out at these counseling sessions, in the same way that Saints Peter and Paul would never be accepted into any modern seminary.

[nichole]

Esolen: Great list except 17. I don't get it. Maybe because I think of myself as a feminist (although conservative) and I'm a lawyer. Marrying many years ago at age 19 (he was 20) I'm not sure I thought all those issues through, but they all fit our marriage today. Thanks for sharing!

[Kamilla]

Nichole,

Perhaps it is because feminists tend to take themselves too serious and generally have a grossly deficient sense of humour.

I was once kicked off a feminist e-list (actually, I save the owneress the bother by taking myself off) for telling them about the horribly insulting and yet terribly funny card my mother gave me for my 40th birthday. I was told it was an inapropriate use of humour to make fun of women and their bodies in that manner.

Oh well. I still laugh at the card, too.

Kamilla

[oh my word. i wear mascara, does that make me a girlish tomboy?]

why the double standard on #14? why would anyone want to marry a petulant woman who can't take what she dishes out? if you can stomp on a guy's ego, you can stomp on a girl's ego, too. ok for both or ok for none.

oversensitive girl who makes you walk on eggshells + years of buttsharking
= proverbial manhood-stripping wife who makes your toes curl as you huddle on the edge of a roof

[Ethan C.]

>>You're not a fan of patent leather shoes, are you?<<

No, just the regular leather kind for me.

(Sorry, but I'm not sure I got your joke...)

[Wonders for Oyarsa]

The critic who objects to number 14 for not being egalitarian obviously hasn't read much Anthony Esolen.

[oh my word. i wear mascara, does that make me a girlish tomboy?]

sure haven't; just dropping by from the pagan outerworld. analogous to the urge y'all have to mess with jehovah's witnesses when they come to your door.

don't mind me. please, continue listening to your twila paris cassette tapes...

[NJI]

>>>I've read that some pre-marital counselors use written instruments that--while they don't do a very good job of predicting compatibility--have a very high (like 85%) chance of detecting incompatibility. That wouldn't be a bad thing to know before getting married, especially considering the self-delusion to which our race is prone. Of course there have been lots of happy marriages instituted before the invention of such instruments, but we've lost a lot of the cultural capital that helped to guide those.<<<

Eh, I can create a test with better than those results easily enough. It's a wooden disk with the word "NO" on each side. The test consists of asking "Are we compatible?" and tossing the coin. It will, without fail, identify 100% of incompatible couples. (My apologies if this is overly facetious, but the point stands.)

I confess that #9 had me worried through to the rephrase, because I really, really don't like dogs. At all. In fact, I usually feel the urge to kick dogs for doing extremely stupid things like licking my feet or jumping at me. However, the rephrase saves me, because I love children, and can be found quite regularly wrestling with (curiously) three of them... being my little brother and his two neighborhood buddies. :-D

[Ranee @ Arabian Knits]

Neither my husband nor I care for dogs or football, though we will tolerate it for other people's sakes. We are most definitely cat people, though it appears we are also chicken people, honeybee people, turkey people, sheep people and cattle people. Our middle son wishes us to be pig people, but I think that is only because he thinks it will come with a talking and writing spider. We might be interested in keeping a pig if it didn't need protection from predators so we could keep it outdoors.

As for what Kamilla said, I don't think that sleeping apart in anger is a good thing, but from experience, it is sometimes more restorative than sleeping as far apart as possible from someone with whom you are very angry and by whom you are very hurt (and that usually is the experience of both spouses, not just one). I suppose if this happened regularly, it would be a bigger issue, so even though we both strive not to retreat from each other, there is sometimes not a better way to handle it when you've been arguing for two or more hours already and being tired will just make the argument worse. Then again, I can count on my hand the times we've had arguments that ended up like this in 12 years of marriage. Those fights are the only things we regret in our marriage.

Worshiping in different places is wrong, I think. The husband is the head of the household, and if the couple cannot come up with something that suits them both, I think it is the obligation of the wife to go with the husband and keep the family together. I'll add the disclaimer that I don't think the husband should be a thug and not listen to his wife or take her thoughts into consideration.

[Farmer Pete]

A lot of pre-marital counseling is nothing more than "doing the maths". Does it surprise anyone here that many couples front up to be married having never considered anything more than their romantic attraction. Never having considered the mechanics of sharing life with another imperfect human being.
Someone who refuses to consider the practicalities of mmarraige before starting out on it is going to hurt you badly.

As for not marrying someone who is not your equal. The qualifications make it obiouys that it is referring to not marrying someone that you look down on. One of the keystones of marraige is respect, and if you do not respect someone, then you are a fool to consider a relationship of this nature.

If divorce is regarded as an available option, then you (or they) will not work as hard to maintain or improve the marraige. To borrow the military analogy, the great victories have not been one by troops who believe that they will fight only so hard and no harder. They have been won by soldiers for whom it is better to die fighting than to desert.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>To borrow the military analogy, the great victories have not been one by troops who believe that they will fight only so hard and no harder. They have been won by soldiers for whom it is better to die fighting than to desert.<<<

The former is more true than the latter, else we'd all be speaking Japanese. And the choice is not so much fighting to the death or desertion as it is fighting to the death on the one hand, and retreat and/or surrender on the other. Unless one is an absolute fanatic, there comes a time when retreat and/or surrender become rational options. A commander is remiss in his duty if he insists that his troops continue to fight past any reasonable hope of victory; he is throwing their lives away needlessly.

So, in fact, wars are not won, as a rule, by armies that are willing to fight to the death over armies that are willing to desert, retreat, or surrender. The calculus is much more relative--in which the side that can hold out just five minutes more (as opposed to the death) will win. As another saying goes, if you are part of a camping party being chased by a bear, you don't have to be faster than the bear, just faster than the slowest member of your party.

So, in the military analogy, the bear is the spectre of defeat, the little voice that says, "Time to go, now!". Both sides have that little voice whispering to them. The one who can ignore it for a few moments more than the opposition wins. But as a rule, neither sides thinks of fighting to the death, and those who do invariably lose.

[Joe Long]

Indeed, there's a venerable strain of military black humor involving willingness to die. Its most famous expression was George Patton's advice to "make the other poor sod die for HIS country". Its current expression usually involves a cheerful willingness to cooperate with the enemy's apparent desire for martyrdom.

Of the Irish, too, it was said that they often floundered because they sang catchy songs about the romance and glory of dying for the Cause, and believed them...

But you can't go too far the other way, either, or you're at Voltaire's point of view: "A rational army WOULD run away." Chesterton (as usual) expressed the paradox quite well:

"A soldier surrounded by enemies, if he is to cut his way out, needs to combine a strong desire for living with a strange carelessness about dying. He must not merely cling to life, for then he will be a coward, and will not escape. He must not merely wait for death, for then he will be a suicide, and will not escape. He must seek his life in a spirit of furious indifference to it; he must desire life like water and yet drink death like wine."

"Invariably", Stuart? The Alamo, Thermopylae, and Midway's Torpedo Squadron Eight spring to mind - although, of course, chiefly because they were exceptions.

[NTBH]

This thread should be exhibit A for Altena's Observations on Blogging

[Mrs. Damian Garcia]

Visiting from Amys Humble Musings...

This is a funny list. I laughed a lot while reading it and the comments. Thank you for sharing it. I think that some of these are good to follow and some are just silliness. Never marry a person who was already divorced? My first husband left me because he was not mature enough to be married (his words, not mine). My second husband is the man of my dreams. I just celebrated my 13th anniversary 4 days ago but maybe this one won't work out either. ;-)

Seriously though, divorce should not be a option for most people. I got married the second time a month after I turned 20. We are both stubborn people, fiercely in love, had to withstand the odds against family, etc. The problem with people these days? It is too easy to give up. No one is willing to compromise with their spouse. Who cares if the toilet seat is up? It takes me two seconds to put down. Who cares if the tooth paste is squeezed in the middle. Fix it yourself. It is that hard? My husband puts up with my throwing the paper on the floor as I read it. He does not yell or throw a fit. There are times to fight for what you want but these days everyone seems to fight about everything. No compromise.

A note about premarital counseling; if your parents are doing their jobs as husband and wife then you don't need counseling. You see in real life the give and take of marriage and know it is not about one walking all over the other but about respect, consideration, compromise and lots of loving on each other. It teaches the child what marriage is all about and they don't enter life thinking it is all about them and their needs but about their spouse too.

I think people who don't know how to stick with marriage are missing out. There is something so deeply soothing to the soul when the person you are with loves you despite your faults, your gray hairs, wrinkles or weight gain. When someone understands your thoughts, your feelings and your soul, it is so satisfying. When I married my husband 13 years ago, I knew we would always be together but I had no idea how fulfilling and satisfying it could be.

Making a list is a fine idea but with list making comes common sense. If you lack that then perhaps you should not be getting married.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Of the Irish, too, it was said that they often floundered because they sang catchy songs about the romance and glory of dying for the Cause, and believed them...<<<

When God made the Irish,
He made the Irish mad,
For all their wars are happy,
And all their songs are sad.

>>>"Invariably", Stuart? The Alamo, Thermopylae, and Midway's Torpedo Squadron Eight spring to mind - although, of course, chiefly because they were exceptions.<<<

Invariably. The Alamo was a defeat, pure and simple. if Santa Ana hadn't been such a total military dork, it could have been a catastrophe for Texas. There were about 225 Texians in the Alamo, and once they decided to stand instead of waging a fighting retreat against the Mexican Army (hacking at Santa Ana's already tenuous line of supply), they were boxed in with no place to go. Rather than spending two weeks trying to reduce them, Santa Ana could have just masked it with a battalion of infantry and a troop of lancers--he had the men to do it. Santa Ana then advances right smart-like to Washington on the Brazos, disperses the Texas government, chases Sam Houston back to Louisiana, and becomes the savior of Mexico. Instead, he makes a ham-fisted assault on a weak position, loses more men than he wanted to, creates a bunch of martyrs by killing all his prisoners, then wanders into a trap at San Jacinto. God looks after Texas because He intended it to be part of the United States. By the way, a lot of the Texians in the Alamo tried to make a break for it, once the Mexicans got over the walls. They tried to make their way down to the river, but were cut down by lancers that Santa Ana had positioned there for just such an eventuality.

Thermopylae: Legend aside, there is no indication that Leonidas intended to make a stand to the death. There is every reason to believe that he thought he could hold the Hot Gates indefinitely with the 7000 (not 300) men that he had with him (there were 300 Spartans, 700 Thespians, about 1000 Thebans and 5000 other Greeks present). When the pass was turned, Leonidas dismissed the other contingents. The Thespians stayed willingly--their polis had already been wiped out by the Persians--and the Thebans were kept more or less as hostages--too much "medizing' on their part. Even now, we are not sure that Leonidas intended to stay to the bitter end--he may have been attempting a rear guard operation, but got cut off by the Immortals coming up in his rear. In any case, don't forget that the Thespians went down with the Spartans, and there were more of them, too. Also don't forget that large numbers of Thebans DID surrender (which is how we know what happened in the Last Stand).

But, as it so happens, Thermopylae was a speed bump on Xerxes path of conquest. The Greeks finally did manage to put together a coalition army, but the Persians outmaneuvered and outfought them at almost every turn (Salamis was an irritant, but did not really inhibit the Persians). At the decisive Battle of Plataea, the Greeks were facing almost certain defeat until a Persian mis-step created the opening for an almost accidental charge that turned the day for Greece. Waiting on miracles is not good strategy.

Now, the Torpedo bombers at Midway are another matter altogether (and let us not forget that there were three such squadrons--Torpedo 3 from Yorktoan, Torpedo 6 from Enterprise, and Torpedo 8 from Hornet). None of them went on what they thought was a suicide mission; based on their performance at Coral Sea, the Torpeckers were feeling pretty cocky (they overestimated their hits by about 100%, though), and certainly thought they could hand it to the Japs. They were not really that aware of the deficiencies either of their planes or their torpedoes. Once they got into their attack runs, they really didn't have much of a choice other than to press home the attacks. To break off the attack would have been suicide, since it would have broken up whatever dubious protection was offered by the formation, and the Japs would have picked off the stragglers. There is also the herd mentality in operation, just as with a cavalry charge: once you all get going in the same direction, the adrenaline takes over and there really is no going back (until you hit some immovable object). The three torpedo squadron attacks, occurring in succession, brought all Japanese fighters down to low altitude, thus allowing the late-arriving dive bombers an unimpeded attack. But, like the Greek attack at Plataea, that was also something of an accident: the dive bombers missed the Japanese fleet and only found it by following a Japanese destroyer. They could just have easily missed it, in which case, thirty of thirty six torpedo planes would have been lost for nothing. War is the realm of chance. Having missed the Japanese fleet, lost most of his torpedo bombers, and a good part of his dive bombers and fighters without scoring a hit, would Spruance have hung around for Day 2? Not very likely--he would have run like hell, and rightfully, too. Even after destroying all of the Japanese carriers, Spruance withdrew rather than expose his surviving carriers to a possible Japanese surface attack. Discretion is the better part of valor. Or as was written on the walls of the briefing hut of 464 Squadron (an RAF Mosquito unit responsible for some of the most daring low-level raids of World War II), "He who fights and runs away--lives!"

[Carbonel]

Here via Wittingshire this time.

Never marry anyone who believes in divorce.

If one is a reflective sort of person, and (presumably) one want that sort of person in one's husband (or wife) then... it's hard to imagine they won't have thought about the question.

To stretch the analogy (perhaps) past the breaking point, what of the foolish young solider who joins up for both good (patriotism) and foolish (jingoism) reasons and finds himself sent to guard the charnel house at Bergen-Belsen? Or the soldier whose officers are all murdered (along with the royal family) in the coup, and most of the non-comms in the following purges, and who wonders when his turn is coming next?

The question is not, then, "Do I desert?" but "How soon?" and "How many innocents can I take with me?"

I would say, "Only marry someone who would divorce you with the same readiness he'd allow his surgeon to cut amputate his right arm at the shoulder"

If marriage is truly a sacrament making a man and a woman one flesh, then divorce is an major amputation. And in this world of sin and woe, sometimes amputations are required.

[Kamilla]

"And in this world of sin and woe, sometimes amputations are required"

The amputation worries me less than the eagerness so many exhibit to re-attach someone else's arm . . .

Kamilla

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>The amputation worries me less than the eagerness so many exhibit to re-attach someone else's arm . . .<<<

But why settle for just one arm? Or two for that matter? Wouldn't it be better to have three or four arms, maybe a spare leg, and possibly eyes in the back of one's head? Maybe those Muslims and Mormons were on to something.

[Firinnteine]

Kamilla,

Well said.

I rather liked Robert Farrar Capon's assertion in Bed and Board: Plain Talk About Marriage that divorce is not so much a wrong as a "metaphysical impossibility" -- which statement is open to discussion from a philosophical standpoint, but strikes a chord with the imagination, at least mine.

It's a good book, by the way, if you don't mind a little early-60s silliness... in spite of the fact that Capon later followed much of his Episcopal brethren off the theological deep end, and himself got a divorce; true things are no less true for the failure of those who proclaim the truths to practice them.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I rather liked Robert Farrar Capon's assertion in Bed and Board: Plain Talk About Marriage that divorce is not so much a wrong as a "metaphysical impossibility" <<<

Orthodox theologians would agree with that statement, and indeed, insist that it does not go far enough to stress both the transcendent nature of marriage as a true sacrament, and therefore the utter indissoluability of marriage, which in turn makes sacramental re-marriage impossible under ALL conditions.

[Firinnteine]

Presumably both Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theologians would agree (and Capon comes down in a fairly catholic place generally in that particular book).

Query: is this true for all marriage, or just for Christian marriage specifically? Is a pagan marriage still in some fashion sacramental?

[Stuart Koehl]

There is a difference between Orthodox and Roman Catholic theology of marriage. The former believes that marriage, as a sacrament, perdures beyond death, which is why the Orthodox Church allows only one sacramental marriage per lifetime (all re-marriages, for whatever reason, being by "economy" and not sacramental in character. On the other hand, the Orthodox Church allows divorce 'by economy" for a limited number of reasons, and for a limited number of times.

On the other hand, the Latin (Roman Catholic) Church views marriage as sacramental but also as a life contract, the bonds of which are broken on the death of a spouse. It thus allows unlimited sacramental marriages, as long as there is no other living spouse. At the same time, it also maintains the indissolubility of marriage within the terms of that life contract, by not recognizing divorce at all (but at the same time practicing its own brand of "economy" by being very liberal in granting decrees of nullity).

>>>Query: is this true for all marriage, or just for Christian marriage specifically? Is a pagan marriage still in some fashion sacramental?<<<

That's a good question. I have not seen a definitive answer one way or the other. I will say that when we got baptized, my wife and I did not have to get remarried (Darn! I really wanted one of those crowns!), because the Church assumed that ours was a 'natural marriage", and that our chrismation would, by the descent and action of the Holy Spirit, "make whole that which is deficient". From this, I think you could argue that, to the extent a pagan marriage lives up to the truth of Christian marriage, it shares to some extent in the sacramental nature of marriage.

[Ruth]

Stuart Koehl sure comments a lot. I think he should consider getting his own blog. Just saying.

I hate cats--I'm phobic, actually--so I loved the list. I like dogs, but I don't prefer the big ones that shed and slobber. When I sit down to read and my little dogs shimmy their slender bodies all over me, I tell them, "No. This is catlike behavior and it will not be tolerated."

Premarital counseling is only as good as the counselor. There are a lot of bad counselors out there. When I was a young mother battling black depression, I went to a counselor who told me, "We'll work on improving your networking skills and your ability to communicate your needs to others so you can get them met." Depressed and sick in the head as I was, God still gave me the clarity to run like the wind from that one. I read through the Bible instead, and today I am basically healthy and whole (on my fourth time reading through the Bible--this is what I attribute my mental health to). And I am not divorced.

Beware of worthless counselors. They are ALL OVER THE PLACE. And on top of that, THEY CHARGE YOU MONEY for life-wrecking advice. This is not to say that pre-marital counseling is always bad. But ours was, I believe. The only things that I remember about it are damaging and humiliating.

The most important thing in a potential spouse is that he/she loves Jesus. The second most important thing is that he/she loves you--is interested in you, cares about your well-being, is willing to sacrifice for you, will go to the moon to defend or protect you. If it is one-sided, if you love the potential mate beyond all else but are not quite sure that the feeling is mutual, then let it go. Don't try to make it work because you want it to. Don't think the other person will change or learn to love you. Give up the relationship while you can do it for free.

Yes, I'm a little mercenary. I think if a woman's ideal is for her husband to love her the way her dad did, she should marry a rich old man.

[NTBH]

Stuart,
It's too bad you didn't get to go through the crowning ceremony. My wife and I did it once I started the process of working towards ordination because my jurisdiction insists that all potential candidates for ordination have been married or had their marriages blessed in the Church.

It is a beautiful ceremony. It was also amusing to have the priest pray for "fair children" with our three blond kids watching.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Stuart Koehl sure comments a lot. I think he should consider getting his own blog. Just saying.<<<

He's got one, over at the Weekly Standard.

>>.Beware of worthless counselors. They are ALL OVER THE PLACE. And on top of that, THEY CHARGE YOU MONEY for life-wrecking advice. <<<

oh, so true!

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>It is a beautiful ceremony. It was also amusing to have the priest pray for "fair children" with our three blond kids watching.<<<

It truly is. I've sung the responses at many weddings, and also several ordinations (three diaconal, one presbyteral). it didn't take me long to cotton on to the fact that the two rites are essentially the same, and that marriage is actually a form of ordination, which is why husband and wife can be priests of their domestic church.

[Farmer Pete]

>>>The former is more true than the latter, else we'd all be speaking Japanese.<<<

Stuart.
You do not know those who fought them very well.

Nor do you know those who fought in such battles as Stalingrad.

In some cases, those who fought believed that taking a very high risk of losing their lives was preferable to losing the war and the consequences thereof.

In others, such as Stalingrad, those who faought knew that desertion would result in an appointment with a firing squad.

Australian Military history is replete with examples of men who when wounded and seperated from their unit, refused to believe that they had "done enough" but went to great lengths to rejoin their mates. Even when that meant going back to the front line.

It isn't about not valuing your life. It's about valuing some things more than your life.

I kew people who went through two world wars. To do this as volunteers, requires that you truly value what you're fighting for. I would that all had this attitude towards marraige.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>You do not know those who fought them very well.<<<

Oh, I know my fair share, from New Guinea, China and the Central Pacific.

>>>Nor do you know those who fought in such battles as Stalingrad.<<<

It's easy to be brave when there is an NKVD barrage battalion to your rear, armed with machine guns and instructed to shoot you down if you should choose to retreat.

They're Ozzies, and therefore special. Yet the Australians had their skiddadles, not just in New Guinea, but also in North Africa (see, e.g., The Benghazi Sweepstakes).

>>>It isn't about not valuing your life. It's about valuing some things more than your life.<<<

I never said it wasn't. But the things that they value, which cause them to fight to the death (at least when talking about Western armies) is not mom, apple pie and the girl next door--it's comradeship, love of the men in your primary group, the desire not to look bad in their eyes or to let them down, and above all, the fear of being thought afraid.

>>>To do this as volunteers, requires that you truly value what you're fighting for.<<<

True, but aside from officers who made war their profession, there were precious few volunteers in either World War, at least not after the first few battles. And a survey of American soldiers, at least (Stouffer, et al., The American Soldier) indicates most of the draftees were blithely unaware of the "deep moral principles" involved in either war--a fact which worried General Eisenhower greatly. In fact, not until we started uncovering the death camps in Austria and Czechoslovakia did the typical GI develop a real loathing for the Germans and come to see the war as a great moral crusade. The Pacific was, of course, quite different. There, you had the moral indignation of Pear Harbor combined with the fury and indignation of the Bataan Death March and other atrocities (and probably also a nice patina of race hatred, too).

>>>I would that all had this attitude towards marraige.<<<

Well, such soldiers are heroes, and heroes are few and far between (though one soldier once described heroism as "keeping your head down and your sphincters clenched"), so it's not really a good model either for other soldiers or for marriage. Better to go with my more mundane expectations: soldiers stay in the line because they are afraid of letting down their buddies and being thought a failure, with all the public disdain and humiliation that entails. People stay married because they are afraid of letting the other person down and are afraid of being thought a failure and suffering public humiliation. Of course, the less stigma attached to divorce, the less the humiliation, the less of a reason to stay married.

We could always put NKVD barrage battalions outside our houses, to keep us from walking out on our wives and husbands.

[Darin]

Dr. Esolen,

My name is Darin Miller and I am the editor-in-chief of the Grove City College newspaper, The Collegian. I wondered if you would be willing to let us re-print this post in our newspaper. I think the College's students would be very interested in what you have to say on the subject of marriage.

Thank you for your time,

Darin

[Stephen]

Darin, wait, who are you writing to?

Oh yeah, that's right, Anthony Esolen. He was the original author of the post, right?

Seems like that was so long ago, after wading through this latest edition of Mere Koehlments.

[Michael]

Stephen, wait, who are you writing to?

Oh, yeah, that's right, a world that didn't berate Stuart for his contributions.

Maybe you'd like to say something constructive?