Actual Contraceptive Use and the Pregnancies that Result

Take a good look at this chart. It illustrates exactly how NOT effective birth control is and how our almost religious belief in contraceptive affects pregnancy rates.

(For a copy of the excel spreadsheet, send me an email.)

If you don't believe the numbers, take a gander at this website:
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_contr_use.html

What does the chart mean? What can we conclude?

43,000,000 women are said to be engaging in regular sex. 38,000,000 are said to be using some form of contraceptive. Of those 38,000,000 women who do use contraception, they collectively engage in so much sex that almost 2 and a half million of them will become pregnant within a year.

That is 6.55% or 1 out of every 15 women.

Think it's that bad because I lumped all of the contraceptives together? Want to consider a single contraceptive? Okay, how about the number one contraceptive. 1 in 11.49 women will get pregnant each year. Yikes. That's even worse than the general contraceptives. That means that the pill actually brings the average down!

Okay. How about the condom? 1 in 5.75 women will get pregnant. Twice as bad as the pill.

Ah, but what if we combined them. What if she is on the pill and he still wears a condom. SURELY that will virtually eliminate the possibility of pregnancy. Hardly. Out of every 66 women who regularly engage in sexual activity (probably less than the population you'll find in every night club on a Friday night), one will get pregnant within a year.

Also, take a look at the difference in effectiveness between condoms and withdrawal. Wow. I would wager a guess that you consider withdrawal to be the epitome of unsafe sex. And when you think of safe sex, you think of a condom. But they aren't that much different. Condoms are only 1% more effective.

Well, obviously this chart illustrates the necessity of education, right? Well, you might think so because if 43,000,000 women are engaging in sex and only 38,000,000 them are using contraceptives, that leaves 5,000,000 women who don't use contraceptives*.  And because of this, 4 and a quarter million of them will become pregnant. This is more than twice the number of pregnancies by the 38 million women who have sex with contraceptives. But if these women did all use a contraceptive in the same percentages, almost 300 thousand of them would still get pregnant. That's not an insignificant number.

And it doesn't negate the fact that there are still almost 2 and a half million women each year getting pregnant from so-called protected sex.  It is a strawman argument to bring up the 4 and a quarter million women who get pregnant from unprotected sex because the important point is that contraceptives are causing more pregnancies because they cause us to have more sex than we would have without them.

One more thing about education. 89.4% of the population of sexually active women are using contraceptives! I don't think education is going to increase that number by very much. Clearly, sex ed has done its job. People are convinced that contraceptives work.

They are in fact BRAINWASHED into thinking that contraceptives work. Oh, we all know that contraceptives aren't 100% effective, but that doesn't stop people from acting as if the contraceptives are.

So what's the conclusion?

SAFE SEX IS A MYTH! If anything the belief in safe sex CAUSES us to act recklessly and to have sex much more than the contraceptives are designed to handle. The result is MORE pregnancies than before the pill changed our attitudes about sex.


*Because withdrawal is considered to be a means of contraceptive, this means that "no method" is the male ejaculating inside the female every single time he has sex with her throughout the year. I don't think 11.6% of all men ejaculate inside the woman every single time.

Pre-marital sex leads to specialization and that leads to incompatibility

The most common excuse people give for pre-marital sex is "we should find out if we are sexually compatible." Two problems with this.

#1 It's widely accepted that the longer you are married, the better sex becomes. The first time you have sex with someone is usually not the best.
#2 If you don't have any experience, then you haven't developed any tastes.

If you both wait until you are married, you are both virgins when you are married. You have NO experience so you aren't likely to have developed certain tastes about sex. You might be intrigued with different positions, role-play, oral sex, anal sex, toys, handcuffs, candles, feathers, ice, bondage, and maybe even kinkier things. But you don't know what you like and don't like yet. You will discover your tastes TOGETHER. You aren't likely to love kink if you haven't ever experienced it. And if you try it with your spouse and he or she doesn't like it, then you aren't likely to get kinky enough for it to become important to you. You won't even know how important it could be to you.

The lovely thing about discovering sex together is it truly enhances the bond. The sexual bond isn't just about pleasure, hormones, and vulnerability. It's also about discovery. And I think the importance of this discovery is undervalued today.

The problem with incompatibility isn't that people have too little sexual experience before they marry. The problem is that they have too much. Each person who has experience with sex before marriage has become a specialist. Then the task of choosing a mate includes finding another specialist who fits you. But if you don't specialize before you marry, then you and your mate will specialize together, and you will have harmony in the bedroom.

Most of the people saying "you need to find out if you are compatible" are coming at the question with their own experience in mind. They are assuming that one of the individuals will have had experience. But that's not always the case. And if it is, then you should be open if the person you want to marry is a virgin and recognize that some of your specialization might have to change. But it doesn't have to be bad or even boring. Rediscover your love of sex with your new spouse, especially if they are a virgin. And if both of you have experience, then forget it. Try to find common ground. Marriage is all about compromise. If you can't compromise in bed, then it's probably going to manifest elsewhere first.

One final thought. If you are one of the people who says "you need to test drive the car before you buy it," fine. Are you willing to wait until you are ready to "buy" the car before you test drive it? Are you willing to wait to get engaged to this person before you have sex? No? Then this argument is nothing but a red herring. You are having pre-marital sex because you are immoral and can't control your urges. Stop trying to act responsible because you aren't.

Respect is NOT earned. It is DIS-respect that should be earned.

There's a lot of confusion over the word "respect." It can mean two things: courtesy and honor. What is honor? How does it differ from courtesy? Well, let me tell you.

I realized some time ago that there are 3 levels of respect.

• Courtesy - How you treat everyone, stranger or best friend. You are polite to them. You don't insult them. You don't talk badly about them behind their back. You don't argue with them in public. You don't try to make them look bad. It's mostly about what you don't do. You don't disrespect them.
• Disrespect - There are two kinds:
• Feeling of disrespect - How you think about people who prove that they are not worthy of courtesy.
• Action of disrespect - You might also sometimes "disrespect" someone, by doing the negative things listed under courtesy, even if you respect them. When you do this, you are likely to change their opinion of you and they are likely to start to disrespect you, both in feeling and in action.
• Honor - How you think about someone who is wise. It's deeper than just treating them with courtesy. Your thoughts about them have grown. How you treat them is related to how you feel about them. You are much more likely to be obedient towards someone you honor than someone you are just courteous towards. You think higher of someone you honor than you think of yourself. But you might still disrespect them (action) from time to time.

You know, you hear this a lot:

"Respect must be earned."

And in the same paragraph the same person will say:

"I treat everyone with respect."

Here is where the confusion between courtesy and honor really surfaces. If, when you say "respect must be earned," you describe courtesy, you have it backwards. We must by default treat everyone respectfully... with courtesy... until they have demonstrated that they don't deserve it. It's only until you think about respect in terms of honor that you are right to say "respect must be earned."

I see a lot of people do this. They are clearly thinking one thing: courtesy. But they are describing honor.

Is this important? You BETCHA!!! If you are thinking and describing courtesy when you say "respect must be earned" then you are advocating treating every stranger you meet with disrespect until they have proven that they are worthy of courtesy. Maybe this is why people treat each other so badly. They buy into the "respect must be earned" philosophy and treat each other with dis-respect until that person proves they deserve respect. It's backwards. How is someone going to earn this courtesy if you are treating them with disrespect? Are YOU going to treat someone courteously if they are treating you disrespectfully? If they don't treat you courteously, are you going to start to respect them? No. So you must understand how important this issue is.

Of course in general we do often "treat everyone with respect." But the effect of "respect must be earned" still manifests itself quite a lot too. Far too often I feel.

So I think it's time we recognize the difference between courtesy and honor and we start to treat EVERYONE with courtesy, irrespective of our beliefs on the phrase "respect must be earned."

Indeed. We really must treat everyone with respect.

Don't begin your prayers with "if."

I saw in a movie long ago a girl after a date said to herself about the boy walking away, "if he likes me he'll turn around and look at me." He turned around. "Yes!" she squealed to herself. Cute. But come on. How real is that? Did the guy actually like her or was he just being nice? He might have liked her but was him turning around the signal? She could have said, "if he likes me he'll stop and tie his shoelace." Ridiculous.

People will give you advice, say about a girl. They'll say "you have to be direct with her. Tell her your intentions right away before you enter the 'friend zone.' Most girls appreciate guys being direct." But what about the girl who likes to move slow? What about the girl you HAVE to befriend first? Well, the advice giver will say "if being direct doesn't work out, then she's not the girl for you." WHAT A COP OUT! How ridiculous is that? He's saying one of two things, either HIS ADVICE is what MADE her the right girl for you, or the 5% of girls that this "advice" doesn't work on aren't right for anyone, because, after all, his advice is supposed to work for every guy. He doesn't realize that if you had followed the advice her GIRL friend told you, to befriend the girl first and approach things slowly, she would have grown to realize how compatible the two of you really are. If you do that, all of a sudden she's the right girl for you? Just because you chose someone else's advice? The advice has no connection at all to her being the right girl. You are either compatible or you aren't. All you can do is be yourself and try to win her heart the best way you can.

How many people are we compatible with? A lot. A whole lot. I think we are compatible with a lot more people than we realize. But how many do we end up with? One. Ideally. Does that mean you aren't compatible with the other people? No. Compatibility is a constant. You are either compatible with someone or you aren't. Sure it changes over time, but generally speaking you either are compatible or you are not. So the reason you don't end up with someone, even though you are compatible, isn't because you are only compatible with just one person. It's because conditions weren't right when the opportunity was at its best. Opportunity wasn't good enough, no matter how compatible you two are.

I hate it when people say things like "if so and so then it wasn't meant to be." No. You don't get to dictate the terms of a cause and effect relationship. Nature does. God does. It's like praying for something. I read in Boy Meets Girl, how Joshua Harris's girl prayed to God, "please if it's your will that Joshua be the man for me, tell him NOT to call me tonight." She believed that if Joshua was strong enough in Christ that he would hear God's word and fight the temptation to call. Nice idea, but completely faulty. Sure, in this case God said yes, but what if God had said, "no?" What if Joshua prayed a contradictory prayer? Would she have known? What if God had bigger plans? What if His plan was BETTER than hers? What if God said "no" to this girl? If Joshua hadn't called, then maybe he just wasn't interested. Or worse, what if he DID call but God said NO to this girl's prayer because He wanted Joshua to be proactive and to chase after her. Now he calls her and she loses interest, all because she THOUGHT she had a bargain with God. She didn't necessarily have a bargain. God doesn't say yes to every prayer, and if you give him an ultimatum or a bargain, watch out.

Think about how ridiculous this prayer would be... "If you don't want me to be with this guy, let me win the lottery tonight." Wouldn't it be great if God worked that way? I'd get both. I'd get the girl of my dreams one day then the next day say, "Ok God, if you want me to be with her then can you confirm it by letting me win the lottery? Thanks." Riiiight. God's not a vending machine.

Don't dictate to God. Don't bargain. Ask? Sure. Pray? Definitely. Beg? I guess. Fast? Yes. But don't think a bargain is going to work.

In short, don't begin your prayers with "if." He might say "yes." But then again, He might say "no." You'll never know if he said "yes" or "no," even if your condition is met. Just because you prayed for a condition, and the condition was met, it doesn't mean He said "yes" to the prayer. Be very careful about these sorts of prayers.

I do believe Jesus told us not to test God. You tread on thin ice when asking these sorts of questions.

It's difficult to fall in love with someone you don't trust.

Have you ever known couples who fell in love and married in a very short amount of time? Months? Weeks??? I have heard of some, curiously all Christian, which seems bizarre considering the Christian stance on divorce. But these couples seem to make it work somehow. How do we explain this phenomenon?

My guess is they get to really know one another very quickly, because they already know what to expect from a true Christian. I realized something, a reason why I am hesitant to say that I love a girl too soon, despite extreme feelings of affection for her: trust. I have always said that love is selfless, that if you can't put them above yourself, then your affectionate feelings are selfish. If it's about how they make you feel, then it's not love. It's infatuation. It's not necessarily a bad thing understand. It's part of the process of falling in love for most of us, because we are programmed (by society) to look out for number one. But as you grow in your relationship with that special person, you start to realize that the "whole you" (which includes that other person) is actually more important to you and you naturally start to put them first.

Here is the first explanation of Christians falling in love very quickly. Christians who have been able to genuinely practice putting themselves last all of their lives are more able to put their significant other first more quickly because they don't need to make that transformation from me to we. They never think if themselves first and as a consequence they are able to very quicky demonstrate their faith to the person they are interested in.

Another reason why they fall in love so quickly is regarding trust, or at trust's root, knowledge about the other person. It's difficult to fall in love with someone you don't know... or know to trust. So how do you know that you can trust them? Generally time is the only answer, but... if you are a particularly strong Christian, and you find yourself attracted to another particularly strong Christian, you might be a candidate for finding love quickly.

What I really think I understand now about these Christians who fall in love so quickly, and the reason why in the past I would take time to fall in love (a couple of months, maybe 3 or 4), is that I didn't quite trust them. Why not? Because we were both a bit too worldly. Because they were worldly, I was unfamiliar with their beliefs. I had to learn about them first to determine how much of my beliefs I would have to compromise to be with them. Some girls made me realize that I would have to compromise too much. Other girls made me regret doubting their faith. They fell in love far quicker than I and my reticence left them disappointed. By the time I'd caught up, it was too late.

Now I see that it should be easier as a strong Christian, not more difficult. Christians have a specific set of core beliefs that make us who we are. If you are a strong Christian falling for another strong Christian, finding that trust should be easier because we know what to expect. Finding trust with a worldly person is more difficult because you don't know what they believe in. There are so many belief systems, many of them incompatible. You have to learn more about that person and really examine how compatible your beliefs are. If you don't strongly subscribe to and understand an established belief system, like Christianity, you will always find it difficult to trust another person you date because you will never know what to expect from them*. If you don't have any obvious common ground with the person you are interested in, you have to learn a lot about them first. You have to learn what beliefs they subscribe to. But if you are, say, a Christian, all you have to do is learn how strong of a Christian they are. Find out if you are both at the same point in your development as a Christian.

Sure, it's not 100% automatic. You'll always need to learn about people you date, and even strong Christians differ on many core beliefs. But knowing that you share a majority of your core beliefs from the start gives you a sense of security that you cannot have with anyone else. You don't have to be so protective. You don't have to focus so much time learning about each others' core beliefs. You can spend more time learning about the other things that make each of us unique and attractive.

Many Christians doubt other people A LOT. Comes with the territory. But amongst the Christians that we trust, we can put real faith in each other. All you have to do is prove to each other that you are a strong Christian, and you will automatically know a lot about each other, especially your beliefs. So if you are a traditional strong Christian interested in another person, all you have to do is find out if they truly aim to embody Christ's love in the world. Once you do that, as long as there is chemistry between the two of you, love will surely bloom. True love. Unfailing love.



*The world's answer to this problem is to create a blanket "acceptance" of all belief systems and to not intrude, force your beliefs on them, and not meet in the middle. Curiously this "open mind" actually encourages closed mindedness because we aren't "supposed to" challenge one another's beliefs. Progress is slow without challenge. Christians challenge each other's beliefs all the time. It kind of defines us. We try to become better through Christ every day. We can only achieve that by listening to advice from other Christians.

Leadership & Preferential Treatment meets Love & Respect

If you haven't read Love and Respect you absolutely have to. I just realized just how much my recent line of thinking about leadership and preferential treatment goes along with this book.

I'll illustrate this with a rather inane example. Maybe I'll replace it later on if I come up with a better one but let's say a couple wants to go to the movies. The guy wants to see a horror movie. The girl can not stand horror movies but there is a great chick flick all of her friends have been raving about. The guy hates hates hates chick flicks though. What to do? What to do?

Let's remove all other variables from the equation and say that they are in a small town where there is nothing to do. The small theater only has two screens. They must see one of these two movies. Okay. The way I believe the couple should handle this is the woman should trust her man's leadership ability to handle the situation fairly. If he cannot come up with a compromise he should go with his girl's choice and see the chick flick. Why? Because he got what he needed: respect. She cared enough about him to respectfully defer to him. So he should show her love enough to give her what she wants.

See? It all goes back to love and respect. A woman who allows her man to lead shows him that she respects him. She trusts his actions. She doesn't just give up and say, "oh forget it. Let's just do what you want." No no no! She lovingly and respectfully gives him the lead. It's not very respectful to say "I give up."

The man should return the favor. She showed him respect. He needs to show love. A man who chooses what the woman wants shows her that he loves her more than he loves himself. He values her as a person.

Doesn't that sound nice? Guys!!!! Learn from this lesson! Give your girl what she wants!!! Not because it will get you points. Not because she will beat you if you don't. Not because she tells you what to do. Do it because she loves and respects you. If you keep proving that you will put her first she will give you the leadership and the respect you need and deserve.


(I still don't believe that respect should be earned. I think that it's a right because men need respect more than they need love. I strongly believe that if women deserve unconditional love men deserve unconditional respect.

However, even though I believe this, I would never tell my girl to respect me. If your girl believes that you have to earn respect, then you are going to have to earn it nonetheless. Earn it without argument. Fighting for respect loses you respect.)

Leadership and Preferential Treatment

Okay, this is surely going to create controversy so let me begin with a disclaimer. This is just a theory. If you have anything to add that might contradict or support this theory I am eager to hear your comments. Okay. Here we go.

There are two kinds of equality: symmetric equality and asymmetric equality.

Symmetric equality is cooperative.
"Where do you want to go eat?"
"I don't know. Chinese or Italian."
"I had Chinese last night. Let's have Italian."
"Ok. Where to?"

That's cooperative or symmetric equality. Both contribute equally to the decision.

Then there is asymmetric equality. And there are two kinds of this... One in which the leader is the person who can guide the decision with skill or desire and one in which neither or all parties involved can guide the decision with skill or desire.

Who gets to lead an asymmetric situation? The answer is usually the person who is better at making the decision and the person who wants to make the decision. If the man in a relationship is good with cars, then he should be allowed to do it. That is the easy type of asymmetric situation of equality. The woman will defer leadership to him because he is good at the task.

But what about the situation that isn't so black and white? What if neither of them is good at working on the car? What if neither wants to work on it? Let's imagine that they can't take it to a shop and let's say that one of them needs to work on the car while the other walks down the road to call the relatives and say they are going to be late. They are in a hurry so they need to do double duty. So who works on the car? Who walks?

Someone needs to own up and take the lead. Who then? Well there should be a default leader.

Before we discuss who should lead let's move on to the flip side. I think one of the reasons why leadership is so controversial is because we so often equate leadership with advantage. But I believe that God intends the leader to give his advantage away. This I call preferential treatment. It is the flip-side of leadership.

If there is a default leader then the other person should have some advantage that matches the advantage that leadership gives. Well that advantage is preferential treatment. If one is allowed to be the default leader, then the other person should receive preferential treatment by default. Guess who has always received preferential treatment in a healthy romantic relationship? The woman naturally, and that is precisely the way it should be. Therefore, the man should be the natural default leader.

Let me be clear in saying that outside of the relationship, both members of the couple are to be considered equal. But within the relationship, the leader should consider the other person to be more important. Yes, I said that right. He is the leader and he considers his girl more important. This is absolutely essential in maintaining true balance within the relationship. It keeps the leader from being selfish. If the leader considers himself to be superior, then she will be his servant. She will have nothing to balance the relationship if he uses his leadership to give himself preferential treatment.

I can hear the crowd screaming, "They are equal!!" I do agree in principle. Men and women are equal, but still we are both distinct and different. The man is a lump of gold worth a million dollars and the woman is a diamond worth a million dollars. Both equal in value, but still different. However, the idea that both can be treated equally in every situation is pretty naive. If you refuse to come to terms with the fact that there are situations in life that do not allow for equality, you are one day going to find yourself putting an 'x' in the box that says "irreconcilable differences." There really are many situations that don't allow for equality. And that is why leadership is balanced out with preferential treatment.

If it wasn't, then the two would have to keep score because you will run into millions of scenarios in your lifetime in which both can not possibly be treated equally. "You took the first life raft last time, so this time I get to jump out of the burning building first." That's completely ridiculous. Keeping score is just not right. Maybe with children, but not with a man and a woman. It's better just to just give preference to the follower. To do otherwise is going to result in strife between them.

A problem with this is becoming obvious. Are they just supposed to do what she wants all the time? Of course not. If that were true then the leader wouldn't have any responsibility at all and leadership would certainly have no advantage. Occasionally the leader will have to contradict what the follower wants. Sometimes he can not go along with the follower's desires. But he needs discernment. This is why we need someone to be the default leader. He must obtain the experience to decide when the follower's desire is the right thing to do and when the right thing to do is something else. He needs the practice to both discover when it's right to contradict her and to keep making her feel loved when he has to go against her desires. He needs a lot of practice to achieve this long term. Because of this, the woman should wait for the man to take the lead. If the Sunday date is getting rather late, then it's the leader's job to decide when the date ends. If the woman just up and takes the lead and says, "Ok, it's getting late. We should go home" then she hasn't given the man the opportunity to practice leadership. AND more importantly, she hasn't given him the opportunity to prove to her that he is capable of being a good leader. And let's face it, women today do not trust men to lead. And yet, they WANT a man who can and will lead. Women want a take charge guy who knows what's right and will fight for it. But she'll never find him if she doesn't ever give a man a chance to show her that he is a natural born leader. Now, if in the Sunday date scenario, the guy is not doing his job and is letting the date continue too long, the woman might be able to offer up her opinion. But she should still allow him the opportunity to practice leadership. Eventually it will become clear whether or not the man will ever learn leadership. If that's the case, then you should probably consider if you even want to be with such a wishy washy non-man.

Please understand that I am not trying to say the woman should never have a choice. She absolutely should. A date scenario is an example of a traditional relationship. The man is wooing the woman, trying to show his mettle and be a good match for her. He is the natural leader on a date. In general though, the context of this blog post is about the 1% of the time in which the leader is not obvious. In 99% of the situations in life the two will either collaborate or one will be an obvious leader. But that one single percent is very important. The Bible tells the man to lead and the woman to submit. The reasons I listed I think support what the Bible tells us.

I see two rights when it comes to men and women. One is the right to lead. The other is the right of preferential treatment. If you are a leader, then your significant other must receive preferential treatment. If you receive preferential treatment, then you must defer leadership to your significant other. To do otherwise (meaning you get leadership AND preferential treatment) would make you the superior and the other person your servant. How can you have equality if you are both the leader and you receive preferential treatment? You can't. It is why some men today really dislike the feminist movement. It is also the reason FOR the feminist movement.

Here is how it happened. Long ago God created man and woman. Men were the leaders and they gave their women preferential treatment. In fact, men used their leadership to give women preferential treatment. If someone else threatened a man's wife's treatment, he would stand up for his wife. I believe that is the way God intended. I believe that if you are outside of a relationship looking in, you should look at the woman and the man equally. Man and woman should be considered equal. But within the relationship, the man should consider his woman to be superior. But she should not think that she should be allowed to lead. The president doesn't open doors does he? He has other people plan his day, right? Sure, he could decide to take control on a whim and run off to vacation. I'm sure he does react when necessary, but I doubt he plans every facet of his life in office. His job is bigger than one man can handle. A woman that badgers her husband is like a president who tries to control every facet of his life.

Ok, back on topic. As men led, because they could, some men began to give themselves preferential treatment. It became more and more the norm and eventually women began to feel like second class citizens. Some women became truly oppressed. I don't think that all men oppressed their women but many women did not feel like they were equal to their husbands. So they rebelled and began to get jobs, demand the right to vote, demanded sexual freedom, taught their children the idea that a woman (even with preferential treatment) should be allowed to lead.

Then the tables started turning. Women became good at living independently. They started to want men instead of needing them. And then they started to dominate their personal relationships because they no longer needed men. And now look at what has happened. The pendulum has swung the other way and men are now the slaves. We have to wait on our women hand and foot and we get no say in any matter. Oh yeah, there are times where our opinion is asked for, but in general, women wear the pants. Scoff all you want, but it's so funny the standup comics make jokes about it all of the time. Standup comics I've found are generally good at distilling the condition of society pretty well. They make their living by observing life and thier naturally clever nature enables them some real insight. They find truth in the idea that women are in charge these days. So I also do. And I don't like it one bit. Not because women are incapable, but because it makes men into slaves.

What is this respect thing anyway?

I used to have an idea about what respect meant to being a man. I thought I would be happy to be married to a woman that didn't insult me, or to one who didn't always think that I was stupid or that I was wrong all the time.  All I cared about was a woman that didn't have negative feelings about me. As long as she didn't think badly of me, I imagined that I would have been ecstatic with her. In the back of my mind disrespect was the opposite of respect so to not show one meant the other. In other words, you show me respect by not disrespecting me.

But it recently occurred to me that this idea is too... uh... "post-modern".  Disrespect and respect are in fact not opposites. You can refrain from disrespecting someone you do not respect. You don't even have to think negatively about someone and still not respect them. You may not have any feeling about someone at all and still not show them disrespect. But do you respect them?  Probably not.

It's also possible to respect someone and to disrespect them at the same time.  You may respect someone and talk badly about them behind their back, especially if you are angry with them.  Think back on your teen years.  Even if you respected your parents, you no doubt did many things that you knew were disrespectful.  So in fact disrespect and respect are really not all that related.

Disrespect is an action.  Respect is an emotion.

Respect is more than not arguing in public, or not insulting a person. To respect a person you MUST look up to him. A wife should think that her husband is the greatest thing since sliced bread. If she doesn't feel this way, then why is she married to him? She is not fulfilling his desire to be respected and he is obviously not fulfilling her desire to be with someone who is worthy of her. Husbands and wives are more than roommates with benefits. They are lovers and best friends. They have searched the ends of the Earth and in the end forsook 3 billion other people so they could be with this one single person forever. Choosing a spouse isn't simply inviting that person to be a part of your life. It is also EXCLUDING all other people from the intimacy in your life. To get that feeling and to ensure that no one supplants the spouse a deep desire must be maintained throughout the entire relationship.

We can think of our relationships with the opposite sex by examining our competition with the same sex. Men compete with other men with strength, intelligence, and power. Women compete with other women with beauty, charm, and style. So to win a Woman's heart, show her that she is the most beautiful, charming, fashionable person in the world.  To win a Man's heart appears easier.  Simply look up to him.  If he is the man for her, this should come naturally.

Before a woman marrys a man, she must in her heart replace her Daddy with the man.  She must stop looking to her Daddy for protection, guidance and support and begin to look to the future husband.  If she didn't grow up with a Dad, who does she look up to? Who does she turn to for support and guidance? Who does she look to for protection or answers? Her Mom? Her friends? Herself? That is the right of her husband. He deserves to fill that role first. She must look up to her husband.  THAT is respect.  Feeling that he can do anything, even if he can't.  Knowing that he has all the answers, even if he doesn't.  She should be so blind to all common sense with regards to him.  THAT is love.  I really think that women want a man that does this to her.  Correct me if I am wrong.

Maybe I'm being a hair "melodramantic" here, but there are relationships like this.  And they seem quite nice.