This, from my friend Heidi Stone. Every married woman needs to read it.
I would also suggest that any man who is married and has children needs to read it, too, as–if you’re sober in your reading–you’ll notice that there is enough there for the guys.
Priceless.
The National Enquirer, whose CEO is a longtime friend of Donald Trump, and which has endorsed Donald Trump, has come out firing against Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) , the Tea Party conservative who is Trump’s only serious challenger in the GOP end of the Presidential race. According to the Enquirer, Cruz has had five different mistresses.
Cruz, for his part, has come out swinging, dismissing the story as garbage, accusing the Trump camp of floating the story.
Those who accept the story will make their case as follows:
(a) The National Enquirer has successfully blown the lid on other sex scandals: Gary Hart, John Edwards, Tiger Woods, and even Bill Clinton;
(b) a Washington Times reporter claims to have “confirmed” two of the mistresses;
(c) the $500,000 payment from the Cruz Campaign to the Carly Fiorina campaign smacks as hush money, as one of the alleged mistresses worked for the Fiorina campaign;
(d) one of the alleged mistresses, working for the Donald Trump camp, spilled the beans in a private post.
Cruz supporters will counter, with the following case:
(a) Roger Stone is one of the instigators in this. Stone, a longtime Republican strategist, is well-known for dirty tricks and is himself quite the pervert. (He has, after all, been outed as belonging to at least one swingers club.) Anything coming from Stone should be immediately suspect.
(b) “Confirming” a mistress requires very hard evidence, none of which is provided.
(c) While the NE has broken other scandals, they have also been wrong on many stories, too.
(d) Ditto for the Washington Times.
(e) Given that Carly Fiorina ultimately endorsed Cruz, the $500,000 could easily be related to that. Moreover, Fiorina would have had ample incentive to blow the lid on Cruz if this was part of any hush deal, and Fiorina–a businesswoman–would have known had that been the case.
(f) Some of the alleged mistresses have themselves disavowed any truth to the story.
Both sides have merits in this. While the NE is certainly a third-tier tabloid, they have successfully blown the lid on high-profile scandals. And yes, Cruz supporters are correct in that all we have seen in this story is innuendo and inference.
Here’s my take…
While Cruz’s denial was otherwise sound, he still has left a door open: he has not denied ever being unfaithful to his wife. And that is quite the omission.
If Cruz has been a faithful husband, then this is what he needs to say:
As a public official and a private citizen, I have built my house on trust: when I say I’m going to do something, I do it. I have fought cases that I said I would fight–against the advice of experts–and won. As a Senator, I have kept every one of my promises: in spite of much pressure to compromise and strike deals that would be harmful, I have stuck to my guns and fought the good fight.
As husband, I have kept my promise to my wife. When I took wedding vows, I meant what I said when I chose to “forsake all others.” I also meant what I said when I said “for better or worse”, and “in sickness and in health”, although Heidi has had to deal with the “for worse” whereas I got the “for better” end of the deal.
While I have been tempted, in the words of a former President, “in my heart”, I have remained faithful to the marriage bed. Just as I have kept my promise to Heidi, I have kept my promise to the people of the United States of America, and if you vote for me, you can trust that I will continue to keep that promise.
Unless Cruz can unequivocally say that he has NEVER cheated on his wife, he needs to get out of politics. The last thing we need is another would-be God and Country conservative who can’t keep his pants zipped.
OTOH, if he CAN say that he has been faithful, then he needs to stay the course, as the truth is on his side.
What would it take for me to buy the NE story? Hard evidence: a sex tape, racy photos, sexting messages, unexplainable text messages, a stained dress, forensic proof that puts him in compromising positions. Any of those things come up, and Cruz has a serious problem.
But even in the absence of that type of evidence, if Cruz cannot truthfully say that he has been faithful to his wife, he will be in trouble sooner or later. If that is the case, then he needs to get out of politics, as this will blow up in his face, guaranteed.
In May, when I assessed the firestorm over Josh Duggar, I had this to say:
It would be fair, in his circle of accountability, to question him significantly about who he is today. Has he cheated on his wife? Does he use pornography? What changed in his conduct after his scrapes at age 14? Has he learned to control his passions in a way befitting a Christian gentleman?
Well….we now have our answer.
It appears that Mr. Duggar never learned to control his passions, and in fact let them run beyond even the loosest Christian boundaries.
He HAS cheated on his wife.
He IS addicted to pornography.
His sexual experimentation has far exceeded the marriage bed.
I say none of this to kick Duggar while he’s down. He’s not the only person outed in the Ashley Madison hack; in fact, over 30 million people were outed. While some of those e-mail accounts may have been hijacked and the people “outed” could be innocent, let’s just say that the overwhelming majority are probably guilty. This is a sad commentary on America.
My cynical side says that the ranks of Ashley Madison users will include no small number of ministers and other Christian leaders. This could lead to the mother of all shakeups in the Church, and that will likely be a good thing when the smoke clears.
I feel sorry for the offended spouses and their children.
As for Mr. Duggar, his character has caught up to him. His parents let him skate when he was a teen; he has not checked his passions and has instead expanded them into adultery and other perversions. He now must face a reality that has become public knowledge, even as he faces a lawsuit from one of his former victims.
I hope, for this own sake, that he faces his reality as David faced his own.
And like I said, he won’t be the last.
First, some disclosures. These are no-brainers, but the ensuing discussion is going to almost certainly create some blowback.
(1) From a Christian standpoint, I accept that men and women alike are called to eschew sexual immorality and to keep sex in the marriage bed.
(2) While the dynamics of the pickup (PUA*) culture are rational, they are not something endorsed by Scripture. Ergo, the man who “plays the field” is in the same spiritual peril as the woman who “hooks up” or engages in sexual relations in a non-marital scenario.
Ok, with those out of the way, here we have an interesting poll which, if true, gives men more reason to be skeptical about marriage.
Susan Walsh has long contended that, as a result of feminism and the allure of “no strings attached sex”, women are gravitating to the Alpha males in such a way that (a) a small percentage of men are having a disproportionate amount of the sex, and (b) as a result of (a), many Alpha males have a “soft harem” fomented in no small part by the hookup culture.
The poll seems to jibe with the dynamics of Game exacerbated by the onslaught of feminism: many women are riding the carousel–in either hookups or serially-monogamous relationships with Alpha males–and then “settling down” with the “nice guys” (Betas), who aren’t as exciting as the Alphas were. The dynamics are so lopsided that, in the college ranks, the male virgins–in raw and percentage terms–outnumber the female virgins.
Those of us guys who were/are in the ranks Christian singles for any significant length of time have seen these types pass through. They often have degrees, they are in their late 20s or early 30s, sometimes–not always–they are divorced (a bad marriage to an Alpha), and are now looking to settle down with a “good Christian guy”.
Like I said, we can rip the men all day about such things as “playing the field” (the Alpha males), delving into pornography, and even, in some cases, dating women for a long time without committing. The Church does a good job of that. I can say for a fact that the men’s leaders are on top of this matter like flies on dung.
At the same time, I don’t see a whole lot of attention given, from the pulpit or even in the publishing house, to women who play the hookup culture, or engage in serial monogamy.
If the poll I have cited is even in the ballpark–and it probably is–then this type of baggage is every bit as insidious for the husbands as the baggage of male porn usage is for the wives. Don’t believe me? Heregoes…
If the lackluster sex isn’t bad enough, the poll found that 66 percent of married women would rather read a book, watch a movie or take a nap than have sex with a spouse.
That should fill men with great confidence about the appreciation their wives have for them.
So where are the ministerial exhortations and admonitions? Where are the “pro-family” leaders? Where are Driscoll and Chandler?
And where are the prominent Christian women leaders who should be exhorting and admonishing the ladies?
___
*PUA is an acronym meaning “PickUp Artist”, and is commonly used in the blogosphere to describe those who pick up women for short-term sexual relationships, hookups, or one-night stands.
In November, Dalrock provided an assessment of this piece, by Jenny Erikson, who divorced her husband. While I agree with Dalrock, I do think his assessment is incomplete.
As I read Erikson’s post, several things stood out:
(1) If half of what she says about her pastor is true, he is a manipulative, micromanagy scumbag.
Seriously? Using the FB page of a parishioner to confront them about what you perceive to be a problem? Go back and read Matthew 5. If you believe that the husband is head of the wife, then it is on you to take it up with the husband–or talk to the two of them together–if it is that important. Facebook is not the place to be airing that crap.
And calling people out for crying babies? That’s so juvenile. While I can understand where a pastor may find such interruptions annoying, I’ve seen many good pastors–even hardcore conservative fundamentalist types–deal with these issues with grace and humor.
(2) Her husband has no balls.
If my wife is doing something of which my pastor does not approve, and he airs it on FB rather than come to me first, I’m going to let him know–in no uncertain terms–that (a) I, not him, am the head of my wife, and (b) if he has a problem with something that my wife is doing, he needs to take it up with me, and (c) if he takes it to Facebook like that again, I will personally rip his head off.
By going around the husband and confronting the wife, he is attacking the manhood of her husband. That the husband does not stand up to that is troubling.
And that’s not to say that the pastor was wrong to be concerned about the matter–her taking her kids into Victoria’s Secret. It was arguably worth a mild admonition, although I probably would have let the matter slide if I were a pastor.
(While I have no qualms with her going to VS herself–one’s intimate apparel is, and ought to be, a private matter–it does not strike me as the best judgment to take one’s children in there. Like I said, if I’m a pastor, I probably wave that off, but I can understand why a pastor might at least have a word in private with the couple about it, just to give a mild admonition. But doing and end around the husband is very bad Biblical protocol.)
Still…
(3) Jenny is wrong for divorcing her husband, and has exposed herself as a liar.
She claims that the pastor acted on a “4th hand rumor”, and yet she had already made up her mind and in fact told her husband that she had already filed the papers. There was no “rumor” at all; it was a done deal. To keep falling back on the “rumor” argument is factual dishonesty.
Moreover, she listed no Biblical reason for her divorce. Even stipulating that pastor was a jerk and that her husband has no balls, none of those stipulations–individually or collectively–make a Biblical reason for abrogating the marriage covenant.
At best, Jesus allows divorce for one case: adultery. If he cheated on her, then she has grounds.
Some folks will suggest that abuse is legitimate grounds. While I will never fault a husband (wife) who divorces an abusive wife (husband), I am not going to twist the Scriptures and suggest that the Bible endorses it. In such cases, it may be a necessary evil, but it would be less than honest to suggest that the Scriptures say something that they don’t. Even then, Jenny has not provided a case that her husband was abusive. If anything, he was too passive. But abusive? Not so much.
Yes, her pastor is a manipulative jerk.
Yes, her (now ex) husband is probably an otherwise decent man who is way too passive.
Still, Ms. Erikson is worse than the two of them combined, as she is dropping a nuclear bomb on her children.
And yes,
(4) the church is correct for excommunicating her.
Whatever their faults, they should call this crap for what it is, and call her to repentance.
Class dismissed.
This has got to take the cake. I did check the info and it appears that the couple is separated.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0xR58HS3-A&feature=player_embedded
I cannot answer as to whether this is the exception or the rule for black youth.
(I realize that anecdote is not statistic, but–having been to inner-city schools and one integrated school–I never saw a situation that was this bad. Then again, it’s been a while since I was in school.)
Still, if this is indicative of the situation, I’d say the black community is disintegrating even worse than I thought.
During the runup to Mother’s Day, I saw no small number of accolades directed toward mothers, including single mothers. Many were very heartfelt toward those moms who raised their children well. The inclusion of single mothers tended to be more generic, with the presumed intent to ensure that they were also included in the accolades.
During the runup to Father’s Day, I also saw no small number of accolades directed toward fathers, including single mothers. Many were heartfelt toward those dads who raised their children well. The inclusion of single mothers seemed to be generic, assuming that those brave, heroic single mothers were playing both roles. There were also no small number of passive-aggressive pot-shots at abusive fathers, “sperm donors”, and other manners of no-shows.
And yet there were no accolades directed toward those single fathers who–like those single mothers who are in that position not due to their own choices–also bust their asses to put roofs over their children’s heads and raise their children well.
Pardon me, but this is total B.S.
While I have seen no small number of shots at bad–or no-show–fathers, I’ve yet yet to see a mention of (a) those women who chose to sleep with those men and put themselves in a position of possibly having children with men they know to be iffy at best, (b) those mothers who abuse their children by shacking up with said men who, in turn, abuse their sons and/or daughters, (c) any mention of those single dads–who also wear both hats–who bust their asses to put food on the table, be there for their kids, and teach them well.
And yes, folks, those men are out there, and I would submit that they are far more plenteous than the no-show dads out there.
So ladies and gentlemen, use this day to honor your fathers. And if you have nothing good to say about them, then don’t say anything.
My dad wasn’t perfect, but as far as I am concerned, he did a damn good job.