MrMary Responds || Woman seeks divorce because her husband didn’t like ‘Frozen’


The Japanese blog and forum Kikonsha no Hakaba, or the aptly named Marriage Graveyard, got a shock last week when one of its readers, a 31-year-old husband, revealed that the Disney blockbuster had upended his otherwise stable marriage. The man, who was not named, should have been primed to enjoy the movie: After all, he was a student of Danish literature, which gave life to Frozen‘s inspiration, Hans Christian Andersen’s tale of the Snow Queen. His literary degree garnered him an annual salary of 11 million yen—equivalent to a tidy six figures in U.S. dollars. This let him lead a comfortable, debt-free lifestyle and enabled his 29-year-old wife to live on his salary. And thus it had been for the duration of their six-year-marriage, until he uttered the fateful words:

“It’s an OK movie, I guess, but I didn’t really care for it personally… Do you really think it’s that good?”

I still believe that marriage is a  shoddy contract at best. Some couple can re-purpose that contract into something beautiful but those couples are far and few in between.  if you read the article you will see that the couple had no serious problems and had a steady relationship. If you believe that, then can I ask you

  1. Would you leave someone you loved if they didn’t like a movie you liked
  2. Do you think that the dude dodged a bullet
  3. Can you offer any comments or thoughts on this that doesn’t include or blame the patriarchy ?

I think he dodged a bullet, personally but this is ridiculous.

Stop publicly shaming the #aftersex selfie-takers The much-bemoaned Instagram phenomenon deserves more credit.

Love & Sex Narratives and the Death of Public Discourse

This is what goes through my head when I see a news story in the love and sex category. Chances are I can predict where the whole article is going to go. I thought that it be a nice to illustrate what I mean. There are four general narratives when it comes to love and sex stories. Let me list them for you.

  1. Tried something that is considered by my general demographic to be taboo. It made me question myself, my values and ideology. I feel that while I may not have any answers I am more tolerant of other people’s differences. Also This new thing I tried may be great for me and I wanted to write 2000 self-congratulatory words.
  2. We (we hear meaning this massive seemingly homogeneous society devoid of class racial and linguistic differences to name a few) need to stop doing this behavior that chastises, judges and promotes negative stereotypes which are damaging to many people (despite the fact that most of the people featured in the pictures are by majority Caucasians.
  3. Trying something new later in life. I am going to compare and contrast what I thought about it to what it actually is, or I will talk about an extreme behavior I encountered and try to make either some grand sweeping generalizations about a group of people
  4. Reflection of past ideologies, thoughts and experiences, some surprising things 1/5 of the way in but this is followed up by reflections of irony. Some times there are just ironic sardonic reflections.

Click on the pictures and see which narrative they fall under. Give or take most can be described and summed up by one narrative or a combination of the narratives listed above.  Tell me what you think.

Top Love and Sex Stories


Please, Don’t Misunderstand me

I have been very fortunate to have taken classes on rhetoric when I was younger and be on the speech and debate team. Rhetoric is the art of discourse which aims to improve the capability of writers or speakers to inform, persuade, or motivate particular audiences in specific situations. Going back to my homey Aristotle there are three ways that one can influence an audience. One can appeal to their emotion, their sense of logic, or the guiding beliefs or ideals that characterize a community, nation etc

When I look at these articles I am at a loss. There are no arguments presented, no stunning bit of logic presented us that will restore our faith in ourselves, or neighbor or the ideology our nations so expouse. I am not being engaged, or if I am it is only superficially. What I see is rather stock stories repeated again and again – the characters are a bit changed, the situation a bit changed but the outcome is always predictably the same. I am starting to feel that the need to talk intelligently about our lives and the world around it and the vast cycles of history we find ourselves in  are not the concern of the news media outlet.

I love As someone who writes I am very happy the authors get to feature their works and hopefully get paid for them.  My issues is with the media itself. Maybe it’s just me but does anyone get what I am saying ? When I read Habermas’ works on the public sphere many years ago I didn’t see the depth of it’s implications till now. It’s become increasing difficult to read the news and also comment on it as I feel I adding to the mess.

According to Habermas, a variety of factors resulted in the eventual decay of the public sphere, including the growth of a commercialmass media, which turned the critical public into a passive consumer public; and the welfare state, which merged the state with society so thoroughly that the public sphere was squeezed out. It also turned the “public sphere” into a site of self-interested contestation for the resources of the state rather than a space for the development of a public-minded rational consensus.  … […] … Habermas outlined how our everyday lives are penetrated by formal systems as parallel to development of the welfare state, corporate capitalism and mass consumption. These reinforcing trends rationalize public life. Disfranchisement of citizens occurs as political parties and interest groups become rationalized and representative democracy replaces participatory one. In consequence, boundaries between public and private, the individual and society, the system and the life world are deteriorating. Democratic public life cannot develop where matters of public importance are not discussed by citizens. An “ideal speech situation” requires participants to have the same capacities of discourse, social equality and their words are not confused by ideology or other errors. In this version of the consensus theory of truth Habermas maintains that truth is what would be agreed upon in an ideal speech situation.


Romantic Love and Chivalry – How We never got it right

One of the ramifications of a very Eurocentric approach to history is that cross cultural interactions are greatly minimized. My view of history in many ways parallels Shakespeare’s line from Julius Caesar:

There is a tide in the affairs of men. Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune; Omitted, all the voyage of their life Is bound in shallows and in miseries. On such a full sea are we now afloat, And we must take the current when it serves, Or lose our ventures.

Europe, Africa, as well as the Near and Far East have been for centuries very well connected. It common that one civilization plants an ideological seed in another’s soil. With a right amount of care, and attention these transplanted seeds may blossom. This is an important consideration to keep me mind as we sift through the debris of the past in our attempt to understand how we have at this moment i

Romantic Love

In a past blog post: Why it Doesn’t Work So well: Horny mystics, The Love Ideal West, and my fucking Lucky Charms, I wrote about the romantic Love Ideal the West has taken up. The Crusades brought the West and the Islamic Civilization in closer contact. I’d like to add to that here:

Professor Hitti and others are fully persuaded of the Arab origins of the troubadors : “The troubadors . . . resembled Arab singers not only in sentiment and character but also in the very forms of their minstrelsy . Certain titles which these Provencal singers gave to their songs are but translations from Arabic titles.” P. Hitti, History o f the Arabs, New York, 1951, p . 6oo .

The troubadors sang of love, and the beloved. They depicted love to be this wild passionate affair that drove one mad. They spoke of love for love’s sake. However, one thing many troubadours and their admirers didn’t grasp was that these song had a mystical dimension to them. The mystics of the time codified their experiences with certain words and images. The work of Henry Wilberforce Clark comes to mind. I believe it was his seminal work: An Account Of Sufi Mysticism: With a Glossary of Esoteric Terms Elucidating the Secrets of the Sufi Orders that brought this codified system to light in the early 1900’s I believe. To make a long story short, implicit to these love poems or songs was the idea that human love wasn’t an end in and of itself it was a vehicle to something greater. The West in the cross cultural exchange fixated on human love being an end in an of itself neglected its deeper mystical connections. In fact, Western mystical traditions focus on sexual abstinence and a withdrawal away from life as opposed to living our passions.


European chivalric tradition also didn’t happen in isolation. They were influenced heavily by the mystical practices of the Middle East and Persia. As described by a popular Sufi figure in the West Dr Javad Nurbakhsh

The tradition of chivalry involved consideration for others, self-sacrifice, devotion, the helping of the unfortunate and unprotected, kindness towards all created beings, keeping one’s word and self-effacement – all qualities that were later to emerge as the noble attributes of the perfect human being from the point of view of Sufism. In addition to these attributes of a true human being, the chevaliers were committed to a particular code of etiquette and conventions, from which the main objective and principles of chivalry or javanmardi were derived.

Again, the West got the code of etiquette and convention but not the mystical understanding which animated it. At its heart Chivalry was a practice designed to help instill the spiritual insights into the unity of all created beings beyond form and duality. I will not go into all that mystical stuff or the principles of the unity of Being , mystical practice and all that jazz because no one gives a shit. I just want to make the case that what we call chivalry isn’t chivalry. Rahter is is a vestige of a poorly understood tradition.


Chivalry in it original form was based in the mystical experience of unity in all created beings. It was not Gynocentric, because in mystical experience on unity transcends gender and our dualistic categorizations. When it comes to chivalry we have inherited the chafe not the wheat. Furthermore one of the many causes of divorce is idealism in relationships not grounded in reality. “Research shows that couples who believe in the concept of “soul mates” are at much higher risk of disenchantment, conflict, and divorce. Couples who hold the more traditional view of marriage being based on a lifelong mutual commitment are happier, fight less, and are more likely to stay together.” The ideals we hold on to greatly affect our behaviors. I tend to believe that the pervasiveness of this unbalance romantic ideal in the media sets influences thought and behavior. I have always felt that reintroducing the historical context to certain cultural ideology can serve as a means to help us re-examine how we are living and why we hold what we hold to be true and stuff yeah that’s it


PS – I was writing a book of sorts on something and heavily involved into this moment in history and cross cultural exchange so if somethign inst clear lemme know.


Money, Marriage and Divorce – Some Ideas on Why Marriage isn’t attractive anymore

A buddy and I were talking about marriage and stuff and I thought I’d share some things that were thrown out in our discussion

Social Anthropologist Edmund Leach defined marriage as  a set of legal rules that govern how goods, titles, and social status are handed down from generation to generation. There is no one definition of marriage that account for it’s manifestation cross-culturally. According to Mr Leach, the functions of marriage are as follows:

  1. Establish the legal father of a woman’s children & vise versa.
  2. Allow a monopoly on sexual access to each other.
  3. Establish rights to  each others labor.
  4. Establish rights over property.
  5. Establish inheritance.
  6. Establish a “relationship of affinity” between spouses & their relatives.

In most of the world, marriage is not based on romantic love, but on economic considerations. Actually only 300 years ago did marrying for love become popular. For those who feel that marriage is sacred, I’d like to bring up that it was only until 1536 during the Ecumenical Council of Trent that the church decided that marriage was a sacrament. “In both Jewish and Greco-Roman cultures, the law recognized marriage as a “social fact” with certain juridic consequences, but marrying was almost exclusively a family matter, which took place without the necessary involvement of either religious or civil authority. Concerning the council of Trent”

In the 24 session, the council issued decrees on marriage which affirmed the excellence of celibacy, condemned concubinage, and made the validity of marriage dependent upon the wedding taking place before a priest and two witnesses. 

The divorce laws and settlements reflect the long history of marriage being a business and not a sacred affair. Are you familiar with the whole Paul Heather Mills divorce debacle. The judge decided McCartney should pay Mills a lump sum of around $33 million, which together with existing assets of around $15 million means she will gain a divorce totaling nearly $50 million. Concerning their then four and a half-year old child, Beatrice gets £35,000 a year. Heather Mills wasn’t there when Sir Paul was breaking history. Why does she deserve all that money ?

Paul McCartney is a special case because of his celebrity and wealth. However  many everyday guys have been crippled by divorce. My brother in law went through a divorce recently and was just awful. It is unclear to me knowing that everything you worked for can be taken away because of some antiquated laws and mindsets, why any guy would want to enter into marriage ? By the way more than 2/3 of all divorces are initiated by women. Most of them are not for valid reasons like infidelity or abuse anymore.

Decades ago, family structures were such that most men went to work and most women tended the home, partly because open discrimination against women in the workplace was widely accepted and women couldn’t get a fair shake in the working world. The laws of the time reflected that reality, providing married women with various financial protections in case of divorce. At the same time, laws assumed that women were better suited to nurturing and raising children than men, so the kids usually ended up with mom. The world has changed, but the divorce courts have lagged behind

  • Permanent alimony still persists in some states meaning that men may be financially indebted to ex-wives for the rest of their lives, even if the marriage was extremely brief and both partners are employed.
  • Today men receive custody in only 10-15 percent of cases.
  • Family courts are structured in a way that makes it particularly challenging for a man to dispute paternity. Some states have statutes of limitations  on a man’s right to request a paternity test in Texas, it’s four years.

I think there are significant numbers of guys turned off to the idea of marriage. Do you feel it’s valid? What are your thoughts




A Convo on Gender Roles, Dating & other stuff 2 : The two issues we aren’t dealing with

When Last we Left ….


Today, men are given confusing and contradictory advice. Socially, they are expected to be “compliant” (i.e. cooperative) partners to women. However, they are also urged by women’s sexual interest to maintain an “attractive personality” (i.e. assertive and ambitious). Unfortunately, men sometimes report that attempting to balance these notions does not result in satisfaction, happiness, or women’s appreciation and respect.

… men lament about being in a “no win situation” in modern dating. If they follow what society tells them to do, they often end up “good guys” who are taken advantage of, mistreated, and disrespected. In contrast, if they follow more “assertive” biological imperatives, they are labeled “jerks” and “players”—who may get sexual gratification, but not love or respect from what they would consider a “good woman”. Overall, they report that there is often little incentive for men to date and even less for them to consider long-term commitments.



If for a second, I believed anything society told me I would have killed myself a long time ago. Society has a vested interest in you working to maintain its biases, inherent power structures, and lies. Every time some one talks about peace, coming together, free thought, they get killed! Killed !!!

I believe that there is a direct relationship between how much you benefit from society and how much you believe the nonsense it wants you to ingest. It’s been clear to me that society doesn’t value my life so I don’t drink the Kool Aid offered. Society by it’s very nature cannot promote individuality. It has to treat people as pieces of meat that act a specific set of ways under a handful of conditions. Furthermore, unless you are a Caucasian of a certain class society has never cared for you.

We can agree that our society is a going through changes. I feel as many others do that we are put at odd with who and what we are. Or in other words, we are facing a conflict between social demands and biological motivations. A psychologists advises that: “until something changes, the best we can all do is adapt and find our own, unique way.”

I am going to offer you my thoughts: THE ONLY WINNING MOVE IS NOT TO PLAY.

I will be saying more on this later.

The Reality

I try to be as realistic as possible. I have no allegiance to Men’s or Women’s Right’s movements. My allegiance is to self-respect, common sense and humanism. What I do know well is myself. I spent a lot of time getting to know my self (that’s actually not a masturbation joke). I push myself, learn new things, engage people etc. I’ve come to a point where I can identify my voice from the multitudes of voices telling me: what I should aspire to, what I should look for, how I should behave, etc. I have settled on three rules for myself:

  1. My happiness is paramount I like everyone else is search for meaning and something real help us move forward to the vision of how we want to live.
  2. I never do something because I am supposed to, rather I do things because I want to do it.
  3. Be sincere. What I feel internally should match what I say externally. I should never repress or silence what I feel

Looking at Sex & Gender Roles

I have been informed that that there are many “strategies” guys use to deal with the frustrating dating scene. Some dudes opt out of the dating game completely. This is actually a movement called Men Going Their Own Way Movement. Other dudes get into the whole pick up artist scene, etc. To be honest with you, I was dumbfounded reading about all this stuff. To me these “strategies” are only momentary patches on a larger problem in my opinion. The problem is two fold:

  1. Coming to terms with the advances and collateral damage of feminism.
  2. Suppression and demonization of the expression of masculinity.

Until we deal with both issues, we will not make any real progress I feel. I am going to leave this here and go one from this place.