[Note: This is an older work of mine. The ideas that I explored here have largely been replaced or rejected since I first wrote it.]
Below is re-creation from Google cache of a post that SSM put up a number of weeks back concerning moral agency and women. I am attaching my additional thoughts to the end, as before.
An interesting conversation about whether or not women can control their reactions and responses to dominant men took place on a previous thread.
Commenter Donalgraeme wrote:
I suspect that the truth is that around a powerful, dominant masculine presence the part of a woman’s brain which is responsible for logic and reason simply shuts down. Pure biological instinct takes over, leaving the three main drives of a woman: 1) Sex with alpha males, 2) protection, and 3) provision. At this point she starts seeking to fulfill impulse #1, sex with an alpha male. No rational thought is involved. Just pure lust.
To women, the notion that a relationship might result is probably the most logical conclusion that they can reach as to their actions after the fact. The truth is that they don’t know, and don’t understand why they did what they did. So the Hamster kicks in, and draws out this solution. In other cases it resolves itself as “he took advantage of me.”
Personally, I am starting to wonder if a man with a dominant alpha frame is irresistible to women. That is, given the opportunity, she would have sex with him no matter the cost or consequences. Or what some have called “trading 5 minutes of alpha for a lifetime of beta.” Worst of all, the woman has no control over this. She cannot help herself, and really doesn’t have full agency in this kind of situation.
Deti discussed a youth pastor whose wife had an affair with an alpha male and concluded:
Looking back on it now, it makes perfect sense. Alpha dominant man targets mousy pastor’s wife for easy sex. He pushes her hard, finds her buttons, pushes some more. Milquetoast hub can’t compare; this dude has found buttons she didn’t even know existed. She can’t help herself and gives in; finds out she LOVES it. Reason and logic slowly return; the awful truth dawns on her; she offers groveling apology; all is well.
Here’s the problem — can a woman stand up under that kind of pressure, especially if she knows the sex will be off the charts; the man making the moves is more attractive than H by all objective measures; there is low risk of detection; there really aren’t any consequences to speak of; and the dude is pushing all her buttons juuuuuust right? donal, I don’t think she could. I think she’d just have to make sure she didn’t go into the situation in the first place.
“I’m really starting to think the woman who uses this strategy is simply fulfilling the female Prime Directive:
Secure alpha seed from the best man possible, get pregnant and have babies. ”
That’s pretty much it. And the part that frightens me is this: women don’t really have any choice in the matter if they come across the right man at the right time.
Makes me understand why so many cultures hid their young women…
…Many societies hid away their young women, only allowing them out of the family home when they became married. Feminists decry this as oppression and tyranny, but the truth is that women are vulnerable to the powers of an Alpha.
Jesus taught his disciples to remove those things which bring them to temptation. Unfortunately for women, they themselves are the tempting object. Hence, to avoid sexual sins they must avoid situations where they could be subject to the irresistible power of a dominant masculine frame. In our modern world, that is nigh-well impossible.
So, whose fault is it when women sleep around if it isn’t their own fault? Women experience a sharp increase in sex drive during the days surrounding ovulation, provided they are not using hormone birth control. If she’s married, no problem; her husband gets to be the beneficiary of her increased interest in sexual activity. If she isn’t married and there is a relatively dominant male in the vicinity, just how much ability and responsibility does she have to regulate her own behavior?
There are a large number of verses about sexual immorality in the Bible but let us just consider two:
1 Thessalonians 4:3-5 For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality; that each one of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honor, not in the passion of lust like the Gentiles who do not know God
1 Corinthians 10:13 No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.
Obviously we can see that, since it is God’s will, it must be possible to abstain from sexual immorality and that when tempted, God will provide the way of escape. But I wonder…were these verses meant to cover the current situation of females spending years and years as free agents? In Bible times, a girl married in her teens, going straight from her father’s home to her husband’s. There were no opportunities to encounter alpha males on spring break in a sunny locale while drinking tequila (or for the Christian girl, to encounter native alphas while on a “missions” trip). Is a twenty-year-old woman who is ovulating and has a drink or two in her really able to exercise moral agency in that situation?
And if she is not, then what moral responsibility does she have?
Given the increased risk of divorce a sexually promiscuous woman has, it is a serious question for both Christian and non-Christian women and their future husbands alike.
Additional thoughts plus some comments:
One poster, James127, made this interesting argument:
“Neither natural selection, nor God, would have made women incapable of choice.”
After having given it some thought, I think the he is wrong when it comes to natural selection. I can see a reason why nature would want women to eventually buckle. From an evolutionary biology perspective, reproduction is essential to the survival of the species. However, for humans (and many other animals), reproduction can be a dangerous event for a female. It involves considerable risk, and exposes a woman to a lot of potential harm. From a selfish point of view, a woman might be well served to avoid having children, in order to avoid that danger. If women had a weakness, as it were, to strong dominant men that made them incapable of resisting in the right circumstances, this serves two purposes: the first is to ensure that the woman carries on with the act that brings about reproduction, and the second is to ensure that only a truly masculine man can be the biological father. Not a rock solid answer, I’ll admit. Might be worth some further thought down the line.
Here are some of the comments I left in the post:
I have been working on this theory for a while now. The essence of the theory is this: the female brain might work in such a way that if a woman were to find herself in a position where she was under the influence of a man with a dominant, masculine frame, the rational part of her mind stops working properly. She can’t think straight. The only things running through her head are base instincts, with desire for the man being the most paramount. If the woman is isolated, away from friends and family or other sources of moral authority who might be able to constrain her behavior, then she might not be able to say “No” to the man if he presses her. She will eventually yield to him.
The important thing is that she might still be a “good woman”, or even a “good Christian woman.” She might believe that fornication is a sin, and that pre-marital sex is wrong, and that she should save herself for her husband. She might be wearing a promise ring, or whatever talisman supposedly will protect her virtue. But it doesn’t matter. Against such a man, without an external moral source, she cannot prevail.
Most importantly, he doesn’t have to force her. Just use the powerful lure of his dominant masculine frame.
I am starting to wonder if the ancients knew of this, or suspected this. Suspected that all women, or even most women, no matter how virtuous, would be incapable of resisting that kind of temptation. Hence the isolated life of most women in many cultures.
What is relevant to this is the attitude of the Churchians. When they hear of a supposedly good Christian woman who has been having pre-marital sex, they instinctively blame the man. After all, she is a “Good Christian Girl” (“GCG”) and no GCG would have sex with someone not her husband… willingly. Therefore, some man MUST have taken advantage of her. This is especially the case where they know the GCG, and knows she is in fact a GCG. Since she wouldn’t commit a sin, logic to the Churchians dictates that it must be the fault of the evil man who took advantage of her. They never stop to consider that there might a circumstance where a GCG might have sex, and the man doesn’t take advantage of her, because it would require them to consider a terrible possibility: That no amount of virtue can protect a young woman from that Dominant Alpha Male (“DMA”) if he can use all of his charms against her without interruption.
This is a terrible thing for them to consider because it means that the only way for a GCG to stay virtuous is to stay away from any DMAs. Given that such men can be found nearly everywhere, and nothing can be done by society to stop this, it means that the GCGs would have to be the ones to avoid DMAs. To accomplish this they would have to necessarily restrict where they go, when they go there, and with whom they go. In short, it requires them to give up the freedom which Feminism has taught them they can fully enjoy. A GCG can no longer act like a man if she wants to maintain her virtue. And given the feminization of most Churches, this is of course unacceptable. Hence, blame the males, the only acceptable response to this situation.
Deti linked to the following post at Dalrock’s which is related:
Once again, I am not saying that the woman has no self-control at all. What I am saying is that there might be a point where she can lose her self-control. She is still responsible for her actions up to that point. If she placed herself in a position where sin was likely, then she is responsible for that sin.
What I am challenging in a way is the notion that you can just send a “Good Christian Girl” (“GCG”) out into the world and expect her to resist all temptation. In one respect that is not entirely dissimilar to the arguments by the Churchians in that the GCG will be taken advantage of by a man. However, that cannot truly be the case, because that GCG makes the choice of ignoring the perils of sin and temptation.
I think that Matthew 5:29 applies here. Women need to avoid the potential for temptation, just as men must. If that means that a woman must avoid certain activities and places that are not so treacherous to a man, then so be it. Life isn’t fair.
More later if I find it.