Since the modern “skewed” matriarchal marriage is very unstable, and children after divorce, with rare exceptions, remain with their mothers, the huge number of divorced women with children is completely natural.
Stupid man, who decided (in fact, which of the two decided is a moot point) to marry a divorcee with a child, naively believes that HE is starting a family. And he is very mistaken, because he can only JOIN the already existing family(a woman plus HER child), to create another example of matriarchal cohabitation, in which he is not assigned the first role. Let's calculate where it is new husband for such a woman: in the first place is she herself, in the second place is HER (not the common one, but HER!) child, in the third place is the mother, the father by this time has either died, or drunk himself or is outside the zone of interests of the divorcee. What remains for the new husband? IN best case scenario- fourth place. Women will probably object, saying, “for a woman, the child comes first.” So be it. But for a man this does not change anything. And if the father of his own child accepts the transfer of a woman’s attention from his person to their common child, then in the case of someone else’s child, it is much more difficult to come to terms with this. And is it necessary to humble yourself?
The main motivation of a divorced woman with a child when looking for a new husband is to provide comfortable (primarily material!) living conditions for herself and HER child - men should not have any illusions about this.
Having become skilled in “hanging noodles on a man’s ears”, manipulation and lies in a previous marriage (marriages), the divorcee will, of course, try to divert the man’s attention from her main and true goal - acquiring a new “sponsor”.
The woman’s imperative “if a man loves a woman, then he must love her child”, in fact, a type of manipulation “a real man should” (see the section on female manipulations), alas, still works in relation to men with brains softened by a woman’s upbringing. Women are trying with all their might to instill in weak-headed men the impression of the “nobility” of marrying a divorcee with a child (in ABF terms - “used with a trailer”), that it is, they say, quite normal - to select a woman who has ALREADY proven her marital insolvency.
A typical feature of such treatment of men is false stories about the ex-husband, making him and only him to blame for the collapse of the previous family, of course, in contrast to the prominence of one’s own “innocence” and all sorts of virtues, which the demonized ex-husband supposedly “did not appreciate.”
A woman’s favorite demagogic maxim “A father is not the one who gave birth, but who raised him” serves as an additional trump card in fooling men and encouraging suckers who are ready to enter into such an unnatural marriage.
The joining of a man to a divorcee and her child is deeply contrary to the very original idea of marriage - the birth of YOUR children and the creation of conditions for their development. It contradicts the concept of “clan”, already forgotten in our time, and breaks men’s sense of children as their own successors. The presence of such “marriages” with divorced women is direct evidence of the deep-rooted matriarchal degradation of our society, in which the role of a man is reduced to an uncomplaining womanizer, a supplier of resources.
Who will fall for her? Rake?
Original taken from http://masculist.ru/blogs/post-12.html
Lots of letters, but interesting
Dmitry Seleznev - Six reasons not to marry a divorcee with a child
I categorically do not recommend considering RSPs as candidates for a serious long-term relationship. I will list the main reasons and comment on them with quotes from http://www.antiwomen.ru/
Reason 1
And the simplest one: actually, a child or even children. After all, you like a woman, why should this fact make it necessary to take on the burden of raising someone else’s child? Women, as practice has shown, immediately accuse such a position of being “selfish.”
Yes, a man should be an egoist, in the good sense of the word. He is simply obliged to take care of the continuation of HIS family, about best conditions for your family, for your own children.
From time to time, women let it slip. No, no, something like this will come out of their mouth: “Yes, to a man, what difference does it make whether the child is his or not. Even better: the most problematic age is behind us.” Yes, there is a difference for men. And what another!
Every normal man (and this is the law of nature) strives to raise HIS children, to pass on his skills, knowledge, wisdom, and property from generation to generation. But I want to do this only for the sake of blood heirs, those children in whom you can observe your own traits and the traits of your family.
Moreover, the law of nature orders the male to spread his seed, his genes, wherever possible. But accepting other people's children is contrary to the very nature of a man. I’m not afraid of criticism and I’ll give an example from the life of the wild: the first thing lions do is kill the children of their female from a previous “marriage.”
Other people's children themselves are a clear reminder of a woman's past belonging to another man.
We want to ask those women who blame men for not wanting to marry a divorcee with a child: are you ready to raise a man’s children from previous marriages?
Reason 2
Marrying a woman with a child is simply unnatural. In the normal order of things, a woman enters a man's house and becomes new family with a man at the head. In the case of a divorce with children, the man enters an already existing (inferior) family, where the head is a woman. Thus, from the very beginning, the traditional, natural family hierarchy, headed by a man, husband, father of the family, is violated. This circumstance in itself calls into question the strength of such a family. It is unlikely that a building based on a “crooked foundation” will be durable.
The mere joining of a man to an already existing family deals a blow to his pride and, to a large extent, determines the nature of the relationship between spouses: the woman is in a state of stable dominance.
Know: for a divorce with a child, you will always be in 3rd place: she, the child, you. Only in this order. And that's the best case scenario. For very often the role of a surrogate male head of the family is performed by the woman’s mother. She is the unconditional ally of a woman in a previous divorce, and, often, her instigator.
“It’s not even a matter of “hierarchy” as subordination, but rather the priorities of the divorce department. She almost completely transfers her “failed” love for her husband onto the child, especially if it is a son (their words are “I have the most beloved and faithful man, and all the rest are kazly"). A mother who helps also becomes a stronghold of reliability. Well, a woman always remembers about herself, her beloved. In such a way that new man was able to push them all off their “pedestals”, the divorced woman must either fall in love VERY strongly (which is unlikely, because... spiritual energy anyway, first of all, she will spend money on the child), or really RETHINK her own system of priorities in order to understand that a normal (!) man will not be content with at least 4th place in her life.”
BoMG
Reason 3
Very often, a woman with a child, seeking to get married again, is looking, first of all, for a supplier of material resources who will help her and put her child (children) on their feet. In relation to this task, the personality of the man himself takes a back seat. This is a completely understandable motivation for a woman, but, of course, a male candidate for husband will not be initiated into its essence. From a woman’s point of view, everything is logical and fair, as it should be: “a man must provide for a woman and children.” The only question is why a man needs this.
Reason 4
The fact is that the very fact of a woman’s divorce is a huge disadvantage for her. Let me explain: even if we accept that her “goat ex-husband” is to blame for everything in the world (a very common characteristic ex-spouse presented to a potential new chosen one - by the way, a good indicator, be on your guard!), then the woman is, at a minimum, to blame for choosing such a husband for herself and such a father for her children.
“Any woman by nature has a mechanism for choosing a strong, intelligent and high-quality male, therefore, when choosing a partner, women are guided by marriage with a real man (nature has never set such a task for a man). Therefore, it is the woman who is responsible for the wrong choice of her husband and divorce.”
Smart ass
In practice, both spouses are to blame for the destruction of the relationship. However, to a greater extent the responsibility for psychological climate the woman in the family bears it. Think about what's behind her divorce.
Inability to build or maintain relationships? Bad character? Extreme selfishness? Excessive demands on a man? Irresponsibility? Treason? The low value of family as such in her eyes?
In any case, some of the above is present to one degree or another, and more often - everything mentioned in varying proportions and relationships. Let's remember the statistics: 75-80% of divorces occur on the initiative of women.
“The fact that the majority of divorced women are worthless wives, on whom life itself has already marked them as third grade, is not a stamp, but the realities of life.”
Smart ass
Most women do not have a critical mind, and it is unlikely that a divorcee would draw the right conclusions from her divorce. Women often like to repeat that “all people are different, she just might have been unlucky with her husband.” As a rule, they themselves sincerely believe in such “bad luck.” It is very difficult for a woman to admit her own guilt in divorce, as in everything else. Almost impossible.
“Unfortunately, women often go the wrong way, and society strongly encourages them in this. In the media, the situation when a man and a woman get divorced much more often is interpreted in the sense that you are so melting, but the man did not appreciate it, etc. and so on. Films, books, talk shows (this is a completely separate conversation), advice from friends (stupid and, as a result, just as unsettled, not
experts ), songs…
Everywhere it’s the same thing - “Divorced? You're right!" There is not even a hint of analysis of the situation and attempts to draw the right conclusions from it.”
Smart ass
Reason 5
I'll start right away with a quote:
“A divorced woman who has a child (this is exactly what we mean by the word divorcee) is no longer as naive and pure as a girl who has no negative life experience (it’s not a matter of virginity).
Of course, life experience will not hurt anyone, BUT ONLY IF THE CORRECT CONCLUSIONS ARE MADE FROM IT. IN otherwise experience is not only not useful, BUT ALSO HARMFUL, as it leads to excessive suspicion, callousness, a mercantile attitude towards men and other nuances of character that will not help, but will harm a divorcee in life.”
Smart ass
In other words, a divorcee is far from a “blank sheet of paper.”
They are armed with a ready-made and tested set of manipulative templates, a whole arsenal of behavioral patterns of a defensive-offensive nature, prejudice and suspicion. Of course, this applies to far from intelligent women, but what can you do if they are the overwhelming majority.
“The breakdown of the marriage itself indicates the presence of pathologies in her psyche, congenital or acquired (for every taste - from bitchiness to the search for a prince and hidden hatred of men). On average, a divorced woman has more cockroaches in her head compared to an unmarried woman. Are they crushed? Most likely not.”
Ioann Vasilievich
Reason 6
In any undertaking, probable prospects should be taken into account. In the case of marrying a divorced woman with a child, there can be a lot of pitfalls. Well, here are a few off the top of my head:
6.1. The relationship with the child (children) will not work out, the child’s possible jealousy or his reluctance to see someone else in his father’s place;
6.2. Pedagogical “triangle”: you can’t let everything go and forgive the child, but you also can’t go too far and thus run into the displeasure of the mother, who suspects you of being biased towards someone else’s child;
6.3. There are quite a lot of cases when a woman considers her maternal program to have already been completed and the man’s desire to have children together is ignored;
6.4. Having the biological father of the child(ren) somewhere near your family is unlikely to enrich your family life with positive aspects;
Etc. It is almost impossible to accurately predict everything possible problems, which may arise on the path of such a family.
All attempts to talk about the shortcomings of divorced women as potential brides are most often perceived with hostility by the women themselves and infuriate them. The counterarguments, if they can be considered such, look something like this:
“But my friend/sister/acquaintance/I myself got married with a child (children), they live happily, he loves the child (children) very much” and all that. So “the main thing is love; it’s very easy for a divorcee with a child to get married.”
This is where you greatly deceive yourself: the fact is that the main property of exceptions is that they are striking, attract attention and remain in memory for a long time. Yes, there are such examples, and you excitedly name them. You forget about 1: you didn’t count those who DIDN’T MARRY divorced women with children, and I assure you there are hundreds of times more of them.
Women in general very often pass off what they WANT as reality; the truth of a statement in a woman’s eyes often directly depends on whether she likes it or not. Divorced women and women who are considering divorce in the future really like the idea that a divorcee with children has the SAME CHANCES of getting married, they are psychologically more comfortable thinking that this is so, but the truth desire this “equality of chances” does not, alas.
« A real man» (with aspiration and an impressive accentuating pause!) will love the children of the woman he loves, only such a “real” one is capable of such love, care, tenderness, dedication, etc.(drool to taste) . Weak people, “muschmen”, are not capable of such love, of real feeling.
This should be answered: “Ladies, dear ones, don’t try to speculate on this hackneyed pseudo-concept of a “real man,” because in your eyes, the “realness” of a man lies in satisfying your own “wants,” in accordance with your attitudes and, often, in subordinating to you and being controlled by you.
Therefore, I am sincerely glad that I am not so “real” in your eyes, I am sure that I will never be like that, = like millions of other men. Don’t waste time, energy and words on juicy epithets and “guesses” about ourselves, our sexual orientation, the severity of childhood, resentment towards women, etc. It’s better to devote these minutes to your children.”
… And 7th reason do not marry a divorcee with a child:
...last year's potatoes were lamenting on the counter. Why doesn't anyone take her? And then she came up with a formula for herself - “it’s not the buyers who walk past her, but she lies past them.”
Reason one. The simplest
Having a child or children.
You like a WOMAN, why should this fact make it necessary to take on the burden of raising someone else's child? Women, as a rule, immediately accuse such a position of being “selfish.” That's what she is. But in a good sense of the word. A man is obliged to take care of the continuation of HIS family line, the best conditions for HIS family, for HIS children.
From time to time, women let it slip. No, no, but something like: “What difference does it make to a man whether the child is his or not?” will come out of their mouths. More better phrase: “The most problematic age is behind us.” Ladies, there is a difference between men. And what another!
Every normal man (and this is the law of nature) strives to raise HIS children, to pass on his skills, knowledge, wisdom, and property from generation to generation. But I want to do this only for the sake of blood heirs, those children in whom you can observe your own traits and the traits of your family.
Accepting other people's children is contrary to the very nature of a man. I will not be afraid of criticism and will give an example from the life of the wild: the first thing lions do is kill the children of their female from a previous “marriage”. Other people's children themselves are a clear reminder of a woman's past belonging to another man.
Reason two. Unnatural
In the normal order of things, a woman enters a man's house, a new family is formed with a man at the head. If we consider the case of divorce with children, the man enters an already existing (inferior) family, where the head is a woman. Thus, from the very beginning, the traditional natural family hierarchy, headed by a man, husband, father of the family, is violated. This circumstance calls into question the strength of such a family. Plus deals a blow to male pride and, to a large extent, determines the nature of the relationship between spouses: the woman is in a state of stable dominance.
|
Men, for a divorce with a child, you will always be in third place: she, the child, and only then you. This is the best case scenario. For very often the role of a surrogate male head of the family is performed by the woman’s mother. She is the unconditional ally of a woman in a previous divorce, and often her instigator. Therefore, with this situation, your place may not be third, but fourth.
Reason three. Selfish
Very often, a woman with a child who wants to get married again is looking, first of all, for a supplier of material resources who will help put her child (children) on their feet. At the same time, the personality of the man himself goes to the tenth plane. This is a completely understandable motivation for a woman, but, of course, a male candidate for husband will not be initiated into its essence. From a woman’s point of view, everything is logical and fair: “a man must provide for his wife and children.” The only question is why a man needs this.
Reason four. Psychological
The fact is that the very fact of a woman’s divorce is a huge disadvantage for her. Let me explain: even if we accept that her “scoundrel ex-husband” is to blame for everything in the world, then the woman is at least to blame for choosing such a husband for herself and such a father for her children.
In practice, both spouses are to blame for the destruction of the relationship. However, the woman bears greater responsibility for the psychological climate in the family. Think about what's behind her divorce. Inability to build or maintain relationships? Bad character? Extreme selfishness? Excessive demands on a man? Irresponsibility? Treason? The low value of family as such in her eyes? Don't know. In any case, some of the above is present to one degree or another, and more often - everything mentioned in varying proportions and relationships. Let's remember the statistics: 75-80% of divorces occur on the initiative of women.
Most women do not have a critical mind, so it is unlikely that the divorced woman drew the right conclusions from her divorce. Women often like to repeat that “all people are different, she just might have been unlucky with her husband.” As a rule, they themselves sincerely believe in such “bad luck”. It is very difficult for a woman to admit her own guilt in divorce, as in everything else. Almost impossible.
Reason five. Calculated
A woman who, by the age of 25, has a wealth of life experience, is not as naive and pure as a girl who does not have negative life experience (it’s not a matter of virginity).
Of course, life experience will not hurt anyone, but only if the right conclusions are drawn from it. Otherwise, the experience is not only not useful, BUT ALSO HARMFUL, as it leads to excessive suspicion, callousness, a mercantile attitude towards men and other nuances of character that will not help, but will harm the divorcee in life.
It turns out that you have before you a ready-made and tested set of manipulative templates, a whole arsenal of behavioral patterns of a defensive-offensive nature, prejudice and suspicion. Of course, this applies to far from intelligent women, but what can you do if they are the overwhelming majority.
From experience: a divorced woman has more cockroaches in her head than an unmarried woman.
Reason six. The last one.
If you marry a divorcee, a lot of pitfalls can emerge. A little offhand:
- The relationship with the child (children) will not work out;
- Pedagogical “triangle”: you can’t let everything go and forgive the child, but you also can’t go too far and thus run into the displeasure of the mother, who suspects you of being biased towards someone else’s child;
- A woman may consider her maternal program already completed and will ignore the man’s desire to have children together;
- Having the biological father of the child(ren) somewhere near your family is unlikely to enrich your family life with positive aspects;
|
All attempts to talk about the shortcomings of divorced women as potential brides most often infuriate women. The counterarguments, if they can be considered such, look something like this:
A “real man” (with a breath and an impressive accentuating pause!) will love the children of the woman he loves! Only such a “real” person is capable of love, care, tenderness, dedication, etc. Weak “musch women” are not capable of such love, of real feeling.”
Ladies, dear ones, don’t try to speculate on this hackneyed pseudo-concept of a “real man,” because in your eyes, the “realness” of a man lies in satisfying your own “wants,” in accordance with your attitudes and, often, in subordinating to you and being controlled by you. Don’t waste time, energy and words on juicy epithets and “guesses” about ourselves, our sexual orientation, the severity of childhood, resentment towards women, etc. Better spend these minutes with your children.
One way or another, there are a lot of divorced women with children in our country. Want to make sure? Just go to any dating site and set the search criterion “woman, over 25 years old.” Just keep in mind that not everyone writes in the questionnaire about the presence of children. We will not consider the reasons for the prevalence of this phenomenon in this article (chapter); we will focus on analyzing the characteristics of a certain average woman with a child (children) and understand for ourselves her suitability as a wife.
Reason one
And the simplest one: actually, a child or even children. After all, you like a woman, why should this fact make it necessary to take on the burden of raising someone else’s child? Women, as practice has shown, immediately accuse such a position of being “selfish.” Yes, a man should be an egoist, in the good sense of the word. He is simply obliged to take care of the continuation of HIS family line, the best conditions for his family, for his own children.
From time to time, women let it slip. No, no, something like this will come out of their mouth: “What difference does it make to a man whether the child is his or not. Even better: the most problematic age is behind us.” Yes, there is a difference for men. And what another!
Every normal man (and this is the law of nature) strives to raise HIS children, to pass on his skills, knowledge, wisdom, and property from generation to generation. But I want to do this only for the sake of blood heirs, those children in whom you can observe your own traits and the traits of your family. Moreover, the law of nature orders the male to spread his seed, his genes, wherever possible. But accepting other people's children is contrary to the very nature of a man. I will not be afraid of criticism and will give an example from the life of the wild: the first thing lions do is kill the children of their female from a previous “marriage.”
Other people's children themselves are a clear reminder of a woman's past belonging to another man.
We want to ask those women who blame men for not wanting to marry a divorcee with a child: are you ready to raise a man’s children from previous marriages?
Reason two
Marrying a woman with a child is simply unnatural. In the normal order of things, a woman enters a man's house and a new family is formed with a man at the head. In the case of a divorce with children, the man enters an already existing (inferior) family, where the head is a woman. Thus, from the very beginning, the traditional, natural family hierarchy, headed by a man, husband, father of the family, is violated. This circumstance in itself calls into question the strength of such a family. It is unlikely that a building based on a “crooked foundation” will be durable.
In itself, a man’s joining an already existing family is a blow to his pride and, to a large extent, determines the nature of the relationship between spouses: a woman in a state of stable dominance in relation to a man.
Know: for a divorcee with a child, you will always be in third place: she, the child, you. Only in this order. And that's the best case scenario. For very often the role of a surrogate male head of the family is performed by the woman’s mother. She is the unconditional ally of a woman in a previous divorce, and, often, her instigator.
Reason three
Very often, a woman with a child who wants to get married again is looking, first of all, for a supplier of material resources who will help her get her child or children back on their feet. In relation to this task, the personality of the man himself takes a back seat. This is a completely understandable motivation for a woman, but, of course, a male candidate for husband will not be initiated into its essence. From a woman’s point of view, everything is logical and fair, as it should be: “a man must provide for a woman and children.” The only question is, why does a man need this?
Reason four
The fact is that the very fact of a woman’s divorce is a huge disadvantage for her. Let me explain: even if we accept that her “goat ex-husband” is to blame for everything in the world (a very common characteristic of a former spouse presented to a potential new chosen one - by the way, a good indicator, be careful!), then the woman is at least to blame for that that she chose such a husband for herself and such a father for her children.
In practice, both spouses are to blame for the destruction of the relationship. However, the woman is largely responsible for the psychological climate in the family. Think about what's behind her divorce. Does she not know how to build or maintain relationships? Bad character? Extreme selfishness? Excessive demands on a man? Irresponsibility? Treason? Betrayal ex-husband? Lack of Faith? Self-centeredness? Pride? Lack of basic concepts and values in life? The low value of family as such in her eyes? Or maybe all together?
In any case, some of the above is present to one degree or another, and more often - everything mentioned in varying proportions and relationships. Let's remember the statistics: 75-80% of divorces occur on the initiative of women.
Most women do not have a critical mind, and it is unlikely that a divorcee would draw the right conclusions from her divorce. Women often like to repeat that “all people are different, she just might have been unlucky with her husband.” As a rule, they themselves sincerely believe in such “bad luck.” It is very difficult for a woman to admit her own guilt in divorce, as in everything else. Almost impossible.
Reason five
I'll start right away with a quote:
“A divorced woman who has a child (this is exactly what we mean by the word divorcee) is no longer as naive and pure as a girl who has no negative life experience (it’s not a matter of virginity).
Of course, life experience will not hurt anyone, BUT ONLY IF THE CORRECT CONCLUSIONS ARE MADE FROM IT. Otherwise, the experience is not only not useful, BUT ALSO HARMFUL, since it leads to excessive suspicion, callousness, a mercantile attitude towards men and other nuances of character that will not help, but will harm the divorcee in life.”
In other words, a divorcee is far from a “blank sheet of paper.”
They are armed with a ready-made and tested set of manipulative templates, a whole arsenal of behavioral patterns of a defensive-offensive nature, prejudice and suspicion. Of course, this applies to far from intelligent women, but what can you do if they are the overwhelming majority.
Reason six
And the last one. In any undertaking, probable prospects should be taken into account. In the case of marrying a divorced woman with a child, there can be a lot of pitfalls. Well, here are a few at a glance:
- The relationship with the child (children) will not work out, the child’s possible jealousy or his reluctance to see someone else in his father’s place;
— Pedagogical “triangle”: you can’t let everything go and forgive the child, but you also can’t go too far and thus run into the displeasure of the mother, who suspects you of being biased towards someone else’s child;
— There are quite a lot of cases when a woman considers her maternal program to have already been completed and the man’s desire to have children together is ignored;
— The presence of the biological father of the child(ren) somewhere near your family is unlikely to enrich your family life with positive aspects;
And so on. It is almost impossible to accurately predict all the possible problems that may arise in the path of such a family.
All attempts to talk about the shortcomings of divorced women as potential brides are most often perceived with hostility by the women themselves and infuriate them.
Women in general very often pass off what they WANT as reality; the truth of a statement in a woman’s eyes often directly depends on whether she likes it or not. Divorced women and women who are considering divorce in the future really like the idea that a divorcee with children has the SAME CHANCES of getting married, they are psychologically more comfortable to think that this is so, but alas, this strong desire does not make this “equality of chances” true.
A “real man” (with a breath and an impressive accentuating pause!) will love the children of the woman he loves, only such a “real” one is capable of such love, care, tenderness, dedication, etc. (drool to taste). Weak people, “muschmen” are not capable of such love, of real feeling.”
To this you should answer: “Ladies, dear ones, don’t try to speculate on this hackneyed pseudo-concept of a “real man,” because in your eyes, the “realness” of a man lies in satisfying your own “wants,” in accordance with your attitudes and, often, in subordination to you and under your control. Therefore, I am sincerely glad that I am not so “real” in your eyes, I am sure that I will never be like that, just like millions of other men. Don’t waste time, energy and words on juicy epithets and “guesses” about ourselves, our sexual orientation, the severity of childhood, resentment towards women, etc. It’s better to devote these minutes to your children.”
More interesting articles - read right now:
Sort Post Type
Post Page Category
Your Strengths Feelings Character and quality of Personality Positive Properties Character Positive Feelings Positive emotions Required knowledge Sources of happiness Self-knowledge Simple and complex concepts What does it mean? What is it? What does it mean? The meaning of life Laws and state Crisis in Russia Extinction of society About the insignificance of women To men required reading Biological mechanisms Genocide of men in Russia Required reading for boys and men Androcide in Russia Core Values Negative Character Traits 7 Deadly Sins Thinking process Physiology of Happiness Like Beauty Feminine beauty Goals Esoterics What is Cruelty What is A real man MEN'S RIGHTS MOVEMENT Beliefs Basic values in life Basic human goals Manipulation blackmail Human extinction Good and Evil Actions Loneliness Real woman Animal instincts of man Matriarchy Women again! Children and consequences Feminism Monstrous deception of men Family destruction in Russia Destruction of a family A manual for men Sort Name Similar
« In the Holy Scriptures it is written: “what God has joined together, let no man put asunder,” “and the two shall become one flesh.” In the Holy Scriptures, a woman’s second marriage after a divorce from her first husband is called adultery, but there are many cases when in our time the Church solemnizes such marriages. Why?“Yulia asks this question.
« I wanted to understand for myself: if a girl got married and divorced according to worldly law, and her second marriage was consummated, for her second husband it will be considered that he married a divorced woman (and does it follow from this “whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery”)?“A reader of the Foma.ru portal is already asking this.
« If it is a sin, then why does the Church allow 2nd and 3rd marriages? For reasons of economics, what is it? After all, in the church there are means to overcome fornication (this is fasting, prayer, the sacraments), and if a person does not want to lift a finger to fight sin, can such a person be considered Orthodox at all?“Anton expresses his opinion on this issue.
« I would really like to get an answer to the question that is now tormenting me. Several years ago, my husband and I divorced (through my fault), and then I married someone else (he had not been married before). Then I knew nothing about the fact that you can’t get a divorce and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. Since I found out, this sin has been tormenting me, it turns out that I myself have sinned and brought someone else into sin. What should I do, what should I do, please answer“- a woman who did not identify herself writes to the priest.
Attitude in antiquity
Opening the Gospel, you can find the following lines in it, however, in different places and in different contexts:
But I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for the guilt of adultery, gives her a reason to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery (Matthew 32:5).
Whoever divorces his wife for reasons other than adultery and marries another commits adultery; and he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery (Matthew 19:9).
Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if a wife divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery (Matthew 10:11-12).
Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery (Luke 16:18).
And to those who have entered into marriage I command, not I, but the Lord: the wife must not divorce her husband, but if she does, she must remain single, or be reconciled with her husband, and the husband must not leave his wife (1 Cor. 7:11).
A married woman is bound by law to her living husband; and if her husband dies, she is freed from the law of marriage. Therefore, if she marries another while her husband is alive, she is called an adulteress; if her husband dies, she is free from the law, and will not be an adulteress if she marries another husband (Rom. 7:2-3).
The attitude of the holy fathers
We can read about this from the holy fathers:
“Whether he (a divorced man) marries an undivorced woman or a divorced woman, he still commits adultery” (Zigaben, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew).
“The first (marriage) is law, the second is indulgence, the third is lawlessness. And whoever transgresses this limit is like a pig, and there are not many examples of such shame. Although the law gives divorce for any fault, Christ does not do so for any fault, but allows only separation from the adulteress, yet he commands to endure everything else wisely, and excommunicates the adulteress because she damages the race” (Gregory the Theologian, Works, part 3).
“If, sir,” I said, “a husband has a wife faithful in the Lord and notices her in adultery, will he be sinful by living with her?” And he answered me: “As long as the husband does not know the sin of his wife, he does not sin if he lives with her. If her husband finds out about her sin, and she does not repent of her adultery, then the husband will sin by living with her and will become a participant in her adultery.” “What should I do,” I asked, “if the wife continues in her vice?” “Let her husband let her go and be left alone. If, having let go of his wife, he takes another, then he himself will accept the sin of adultery.” “Well, sir, if a released wife repents and wishes to return to her husband, should she be accepted by her husband?” “If her husband does not accept her, he will commit a great sin,” he answered me. — One must accept a sinner who repents, but not many times. For for the servants of God there is only one repentance. Therefore, for the sake of repentance, a husband should not, having released his wife, take another for himself. The wife should do the same. ...Therefore, you are commanded that you remain single, both husband and wife, for in this case repentance can take place. But I give no reason for this to be done: let him who has already sinned no longer sin. As for his former sins, there is God who can give healing, for He has power over everything” (Hermas, Shepherd, commandment 4).
“What is the commandment? “A wife should not divorce her husband” and “a husband should not leave his wife.” The Lord primarily had husbands in mind when he commanded them to “divorce their wives, except for the guilt of adultery” (Matt. 5:32). And the Apostle especially addresses this commandment to wives. It is true that in Corinth, women enjoyed greater rights, and husbands allowed themselves greater freedom. He had already calmed the latter down quite a bit with a strict judgment against an incestuous man, then applying this severity to all fornicators and adulterers. Now he humbles his wives so that they do not quickly begin to separate. Why does he say: “if she gets divorced, then she must remain celibate, or reconcile with her husband” - she will reconcile - she will reconcile. He does not remember the reasons for separation, therefore, whatever the reason. He said this to one wife; but since in all his speech, his husband and wife are in equality in everything, then we must assume that this restriction also applies to the husband, i.e., that if he leaves his wife, let him remain celibate, or let him reconcile with his wife" (Theophan the Recluse, Commentary on the last part of 1 Cor.).
“The apostle tries to keep the marriage bond unbroken. For by prescribing abstinence to the one separating, he thereby prevents the dissolution of the marriage. By prohibiting marriage with another, it forces both parties to return to their previous marriage.” Limits their freedom so that, even if there are reasons for separation, they are more willing to use all means for reconciliation rather than rush into divorce. Adultery is not excluded here, of course, under the condition of sincere repentance on the part of the sinner” (Blessed Theodoret).
“A woman left by her husband, in my opinion, should remain celibate. For when the Lord said: “Whoever divorces his wife, except for the guilt of adultery, gives her cause to commit adultery” (Matt. 5:32): then by calling her an adulteress, he thereby forbade her to cohabit with another. For how is it possible for a husband to be guilty as the perpetrator of adultery, and a wife to be innocent, having been called an adulteress by the Lord for having intercourse with another husband?” (Basily the Great, Letter to Amphilochius on the rules, second letter, art. 48).
“Marriage with divorced spouses is adultery! The Lord Himself gave a precise answer to those who asked Him about this: “I tell you: whoever divorces his wife, except for the guilt of fornication, gives her a reason to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery” (Matt. 5:32). And you still make excuses: “So she or he is free, they are divorced” (Ioann Krestyankin, Experience in Constructing a Confession).
Opinions on Orthodox forums
« It is possible that whoever marries a divorced woman because she is unfaithful to her husband commits a sin equal to her sin. However, look at the episode when a woman was brought to Christ, caught in the act of betraying her husband, whom he did not allow to be stoned, and on what basis“Svetlana, a member of the orthodoxy.cafe forum, writes about this problem.
« Christians should not get divorced based on the statements in Matthew 19:3-9. But if you really want it, then they cheat you“Mikhail expresses his opinion.
« A second wedding is allowed upon the death of the first spouse or in the event of a registered church divorce. Church divorce is carried out by the reigning bishop of the diocese upon clarification of the reasons. For the reasons why a divorce may be allowed, see the Basics of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church: « In 1918, the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, in its “Definition on the reasons for the dissolution of a marriage union sanctified by the Church,” recognized as such, in addition to adultery and the entry of one of the parties into a new marriage, also the apostasy of a spouse from Orthodoxy, unnatural vices, inability to marital cohabitation that occurred before marriage or resulted from intentional self-mutilation, leprosy or syphilis, long-term unknown absence, condemnation to punishment coupled with deprivation of all rights of the estate, encroachment on the life or health of the spouse or children, daughter-in-law, pimping, taking advantage of the indecency of the spouse , incurable serious mental illness and malicious abandonment of one spouse by the other. Currently, this list of grounds for divorce is supplemented by such reasons as AIDS, medically certified chronic alcoholism or drug addiction, and the wife committing an abortion with her husband’s disagreement.”- Evgeniy, an active participant in the Orthodox forum, quotes the document .
Modern attitude
Indeed, if a man marries a divorced woman, he commits adultery. But only if his future spouse is guilty of the previous divorce. If she is the initiator without a serious reason for divorce (treason, threat to life), or she has not suffered serious penance after the initiated divorce, then the man commits adultery.
Marriage is not only a wedding; a marriage registered in the registry office is legal before God. Although, of course, for church-going Christians, a wedding is mandatory.
In accordance with the high purity of life presented to us by the Gospel, the Church allows the second and third marriage as some imperfection in the life of a Christian, condescending only to human weakness as protection from sin. Saint Justin Martyr, a 2nd century writer, says that “those who enter into a second marriage with our Teacher (Jesus Christ) are considered sinners.” Basil the Great writes that a second marriage is only a cure against sin. According to Gregory the Theologian, “the first marriage is law, the second is indulgence.” According to the 17th rule of the holy apostles, “whoever was obliged by holy baptism to two marriages cannot be a bishop, nor a presbyter, nor a deacon.” According to the 7th rule of the Neocaesarea Council (315), a bigamist needs to repent. The Church looks even more strictly at third marriages, seeing in it predominant sensuality. In ancient times, a bigamist was sentenced to 1 to 2 years, and a tripartist was sentenced to 3 to 5 years of excommunication from the Eucharist.
At the same time, he adds that if one of the spouses was not married, the wedding is performed in full rite, and not in the rite of the second-wed, which means a blessing is given.
To complete the answer, I would like to recall that the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church, in its Determination of December 28, 1998, condemned the actions of those confessors who “ prohibit their spiritual children from entering into a second marriage on the grounds that a second marriage is allegedly condemned by the Church; prohibit married couples from divorcing in cases where, due to certain circumstances family life becomes impossible for spouses" At the same time, the Holy Synod decided “n remind pastors that in their attitude towards a second marriage Orthodox Church is guided by the words of the Apostle Paul: “Are you united to your wife? Don't look for a divorce. Are you left without a wife? Don't look for a wife. However, even if you marry, you will not sin; and if a girl marries, she will not sin... A wife is bound by the law as long as her husband lives; if her husband dies, she is free to marry whomever she wants, only in the Lord” (1 Cor. 7:27-28,39)».
And remember: " there is no unforgiven sin except unrepentant sin«.
