Marriage Advice

Sougandhika Parinaya (सौगन्धिकापरिणय)
lithograph: Romancing around the Tree

Marriage Advice |
Monday – April 6, 2026

Can there be such a thing as a "dysfunctional" marriage? Of course not, marriage and dysfunction are impossible in coexistence, and if there is such a thing as a marriage in dysfunction, then that marriage is not a true marriage; a marriage in the name of the law is indeed no such thing as holy matrimony, and really many marriages are unholy, and should perhaps, depending on inclination, not even be considered marriage, but that is a note for another time.

    The point of marriage in modern times seems to be quite different from the truly sacred unity that marriage represents, and if one cares to rely too much on the vocabulary of the moderns, then yes referring to marriage as a kind of "institution" makes sense, but this modern institution is really an economic union. Sure, there are marriages in the legal sense that do meet the criteria for a kind of holy matrimony, but those appear to be the exception these days, and if anything many of those while being quite or somewhat sacred are still based far too much on preference and convenience as opposed to something truly sacred. Besides, most men and women enter into some kind of secularized profanity before they even enter into marriage, called a relationship, and often people will pass through many of these individual and momentary "unions" before they even bother with going onto marriage, and besides, most of these relationships are based on something substantial and material, truly something quite crude and corporeal that I refuse to mention. But do notice how open people are expected to be with their sensual preferences these days; to the point where this typically and traditionally profoundly private matter has come to rule everything. If marriage traditionally was about the continuation of the lineage for people of a more settled mentality, read "The Census", and about the future for people of a more vagrant and bohemian mentality, then this modern relationship conception seems to be all about the moment, truly the catharsis of monstrous addiction and lust in the objectification of humanity, drowning the senses in the filthy reduces of human substance, truly the worship of bodily fluids. Repent! Would the lord reign supreme o'er human power, or else seal sins repentance in blood? The traditional marriage on the other hand constituted a kind of covenant, sacred matrimony in the Catholic sense, and therefore marriage, again here in the traditional sense, represented, as previously stated, a sacred unity between husband, wife, and the Creator, and therefore a traditional marriage was truly anonymous and the members of this unity were qualified in this unity. Can qualification be spoken of in the connection to contemporary imaginations and reinventions of marriage?

    So, when it comes to marriage one has to approach the matter with skills, or else there would be nothing to contend with. On the matter of "gender roles" it must be added that men and women are typically differently inclined and if any kind of meaningful marriage advice should be received one must take these essentials into account: the fact is that women are far more respective to established authority, even if this is an illegitimate authority, than men, and this is due to their more contemplative and passive nature, which essentially means that women prefer to be appreciated, whereas women themselves prefer to only appreciate men in the negative, and typically this kind of intersexual communication takes the form of an assertive man and a passive woman, and because this passive modality suits women better, it is imperative that a man understands how women typically respond. Men on the other hand typically respond to the need to seek action, the call to adventure, this would apply even in the context of Eastern traditions, and this has typically meant that men are corporeally more able, whereas women can move much faster to the sacred. If women can move almost in a linear manner towards God, then men will usually only discover the light upon tribulations, and this is why men tend to be more susceptible to revelation and divinely inspired instruction. Essentially, the inner core of this masculine and feminine intercommunication consists of a kind of "complementarism", something that most ancients noted. But allow me to provide an example of the complementary natures of men and women: if a man is unable to steer the marriage towards the light, it will often become clear rather quickly that the women will become increasingly agitated, and typically this agitation will lead the woman down the rebellious path, read "Feminism", until either the whole marriage falls apart, what the moderns call dysfunction, or until the man takes command and steers the marriage onto the right course, but what women typically will not do, it is to take command over men, and especially not their husbands, and this is why women tend to be very talkative without expecting or seeking a conversation, and a man that recognizes her inherent instability is indeed a man that can diffuse her unstable substance and tendency towards destruction; you may say that men should essentially be able to absorb the harmonics of their wives inner grief over the unbearable now, and that way help steer her onto the future – onto the righteous path. Indeed, a marriage without these two complementary forces would be a marriage in complete disarray – complete disintegration. In light of this all, how could so-called "homophilic marriage" not be a true monstrosity? Of course, these last points fly in the face of the many tenets and assertions made by the revolutionary elites and all the other devious proponents of the humanist axiom, but these points nonetheless had to be made, and indeed these points will have to be made in the future as well.

    Lastly, the worst example of a capsized marriage is when the woman is in charge: what is the man supposed to do about this? Well, there are of course many different ways to approach this situation and different traditions do indeed also deal with this situation differently, but in most cases when a marriage exists in this kind of disharmony, it is the man that has to be blamed. If the woman (the wife or co-wife) has felt it necessary to steer the marriage, then the man is a man of very weak constitution, and really the only way to properly deal with this is to enforce boundaries, and this is actually something a wife desperate enough will lust after, but her lust must be squarely placed on the conscience of the man, and only he should be punished for this situation, read "The Male to Female Ratio". There are of course many different situations like this aforementioned that can occur, but my advice is almost always that the man is to blame, and if a marriage has capsized, then the man involved is often not worthy of any title, and really such a man must exist outside of any kind of established order. Perhaps these weak men are modern men?

Reginald Drax – April 6, 2026.