Anomalous Behavior

There is something I wanted to quickly point out today. An important bit of knowledge that it is always good to keep in mind.  We sometimes forget it here, partially due to the echo chamber effect, and partially because of the natural human tendency to impute our experiences onto others.

The “manosphere/androsphere” is not an accurate cross-section of society, whether American or “Western” in general. It is a biased sample, not a fair one, that skews heavily in certain areas. Most people (men in this instance) out there are “Blue Pill”, not “Red Pill.” They will not think or act the same as those who reside in this part of the internet. So patterns of behavior which might apply to men who have taken the “Red Pill” will not necessarily apply to those who are still “Blue Pill.” In fact I would go so far as to say that we should expect them to be quite different in a lot of ways.

Honesty is important, and an honest assessment will show that men in this neck of the woods are an anomaly. I certainly am. Now, that might change over time, and might even be changing now, but for the moment the majority of men are very different from those in the ‘sphere. These differences are even greater when we are talking about the Christian part of the ‘sphere.

One huge aspect of this difference lies in what a man might look for in a woman. A “Blue Pill” man will value and seek out traits and characteristics than a “Red Pill”  man wouldn’t, and vice versa. For some “Blue Pill” men an education is a must for a woman, while for some “Red Pill” men it might not matter, or might even be a negative. Some “Blue Pill” men might expect and want their wife to work out of the home, whereas a “Red Pill” man might expect and want his wife to stay at home and home-school the children. Things like age, work status, dress habits, sexual history and more will all be different to some degree. They are even different between “Blue Pill” men. In addition, both will have different ideas about red flags or things to avoid in a woman. All of which is to say that a lot of what is said here only really applies to the men in these parts, not necessarily the men outside of the ‘sphere.

This has a lot of ramifications. One of them is advice to women. I and others around these parts have offered various bits of advice to women who frequent or come across our sites. However, a frank acknowledgement must be made: not all of it will work that well on outsiders, i.e., “Blue Pill” men. Sure, things like dressing in a feminine fashion and having long hair are universal (or near to it). But pieces of advice won’t always work, or will have a low chance of success. Or will carry with it hardships or consequences when applied to the general population. Chastity is a significant one, and one I’ve highlighted before. [Given the overall environment, only the most attractive women can easily marry while refusing to sleep with a guy beforehand.] Some of my advice on being more forthright and forward as a woman might also carry problems with it when interacting with “Blue Pill” men. Added together, I should probably include “caveat emptor” to all my posts, or maybe “your mileage may vary.”

In summary, the manosphere is not an accurate representation of what average men are like in the world around us. For a variety of reasons we have found this place and call it home, and as a result think, act, behave and believe differently from everyone else. This isn’t the “real world.” So take everything I say with a grain of salt, and approach everything with an open mind.

An R-Rated Subject

Today’s relatively short and hastily written post is going to address a subject that may not be for everyone. I’m sure that more than a few of my readers will not care for it at all. It is bound to generate some heated debate and disagreement.

The subject, of course, is romance.

Recently I was engaged in a conversation with a young woman who reads my blog on occasion and she indicated that she didn’t believe that men cared about romance at all. I disagreed, and asked why she thought that. She pointed towards the manosphere/androsphere  and the fact that most of the men in that community deride romance. Apparently for her discovering the ‘sphere had been something of an epiphany, as it had informed her that men weren’t interested in romance. While cautioning that the ‘sphere isn’t necessarily an accurate cross-section of men, I disagreed with her conclusion that the ‘sphere demonstrates that most men aren’t romantic or otherwise have no sense of romance.

If anything, I explained, the rise and “success” of the ‘sphere owes to the fact that men are the more romantic of the sexes [an area where Rollo and I are in agreement]. The reason why so many men find their way here, in fact the reason the ‘sphere exists, is in large part because many men were romantic for a large part of their lives. And that it didn’t work very well for them.

Men might not be very romantic, but if so then women are even less romantic. For all their talk of romance and its associated trappings- flowers, poetry, letters and the like, women these days sure don’t hesitate to associate themselves with men who display zero interest in romance. And by associate I mean sleep with, if not pursue (and sometimes get) relationships with, such men. As for those men who are interested in romance… well, the word Incel doesn’t exist because some guy got bored and decided to make something up.

If the men in these parts don’t seem very romantically inclined, I would argue it is because their romantic nature was burned out of them. By women. And by extension poor advice from other men. Men can only sustain so many rejections…. they can only watch for so long as women abandon the romantics for the players and cads whose idea of a gift is skittles… and men can only tolerate so much betrayal before their sense of romance collapses in on itself and dies like a red giant turning into a white dwarf.

She disagreed. Instead of believing that most men start as romantics, she argued that most men took to romance only because they thought it would work. That it would get them the female attention they so greatly (and desperately) desired. I started to compose an argument to rebut hers, but then realized that I was basing most of what I would say on just myself. As someone who was (from an early age) and still is, a romantic at heart, I would naturally disagree that most men are just mercenary about romance. The thing is, I don’t actually know that most men are really like that. I’m not exactly an average male in a number of ways, and I know I’m not a representative sample.

So while I understand the sample size is small, I’m hoping my male readers here can chime in. Do you consider yourself a romantic? If you aren’t now, where you a romantic at some point in the past, before the world turned you away from romance? What caused you to lose your sense of romance?

Nice For Me But Not For Thee

A few weeks back, on my Questions or Suggestions page, commenter Nathan asked these questions:

“Is Girl-Game just the female equivalent of being the “Nice Guy?” If so, then why do we praise Girl-Game as a positive virtue while chastising being a “Nice Guy” as a negative vice?”

He then added this:

I’m not suggesting being a “Nice Guy” is a good thing, but then why do we praise women for doing basically the same thing.

Sorry for taking so long to get back to you Nathan, hopefully this post will make up for that somewhat. I will begin by repeating (in a cleaned up format) what I said in reply to your original comment:

Men and women are very different, so what works for one may not work for the other, and vice versa.

As for a longer answer, Vox at AlphaGame has a post up linking to this study. Some snippets:

Scientifically, nice (heterosexual) guys might actually finish last. A study published in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin recently found that while men were attracted to nice-seeming women upon meeting them, women did not feel the same way about men. Researchers from the University of Rochester, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and the Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) Herzliya in Israel investigated a possible mechanism explaining why women and men differ in their sexual reactions with receptive opposite-sex strangers.

…

In the first of three studies, researchers explored whether women or men perceived a receptive opposite-sex stranger as sexually desirable and, if so, whether that “responsive” quality registered as overtly feminine or masculine. The researchers found that men who perceived possible female partners as responsive found them to be “more feminine and more attractive.” Past research suggests that physical cues of femininity stimulate sexual attraction because they suggest higher estrogen levels, better overall mate quality and solid reproductive health.

On the other hand, women didn’t necessarily perceive a responsive man as less masculine, but they also did not find a responsive man more attractive. What’s more, when women perceived their male partner to be responsive, they were less attracted to the man.

In other words, it appeared that in an initial encounter men liked nice ladies; women thought nice guys were kind of lame.

There is plenty more, I suggest everyone read the whole thing. Here is what Vox had to say on the matter:

Men find nice women to be attractive. Women don’t find nice men to be attractive. The Masters of Game have been observing this for years; science is finally beginning to test some of the Game hypotheses, and unsurprisingly, are confirming them. It’s very simple. Being nice to an attractive woman is a display of low value. Being a jerk to an attractive woman is a display of high value. Women are drawn to DHV and repulsed by DLV. Because hypergamy.

Nice does not work for men. It just doesn’t. At the very best it does nothing positive, and at the worst will torpedo a man’s chances with a woman. Being perceived as “nice” lowers a man’s perceived Masculine Power in the eyes of women, rendering him less attractive.

But the opposite is not the case- nice can and does work for women. I wouldn’t exactly say that a nice woman is more attractive, but I would say that she is more desirable. So it won’t be a huge help (although it cannot hurt) to a woman who has otherwise lost the genetic lottery, but for even an average woman it can make a significant difference. This is because men tend to classify women above their attraction floor into two categories: women who are to be used and then discarded, and women who are to be possessed and kept. Begin nice as a woman, in fact “Girl Game” in particular, is all about being perceived in that latter category.

So, in summary, being nice is a bad move for men and a good move for women. It makes a man less attractive and makes a woman more desirable. Women are “praised” for pursuing “Girl Game” because it works for them- we praise success, not failure, which is all that “Nice Guy Game” ever entails.

Selected Sunday Scriptures- #34

Today’s post starts with a verse from the Book of Deuteronomy:

⁵ “When a man is newly married, he shall not go out with the army or be charged with any business; he shall be free at home one year, to be happy with his wife whom he has taken.

(Deuteronomy 24:5)

I found this verse fascinating because it is one which would, I think, baffle most modern Christians. We are a people who moves about a lot, and to whom marriage is often an afterthought. So the idea of spending a whole year tied to home and one’s spouse no doubt would be foreign to many. Yet there is a great deal of logic and sense behind this. A whole year provides a good amount of time for the married couple to work towards having a child and an heir (something which would have been very valuable to the ancient Israelites). It also would work to help cement the bond between the married couple, especially through the conjugal act which would bring about that heir. Most of all, though, I think this law would keep worldly distractions at bay and make their marriage the priority of their life for that time.

A short passage from the First Letter from St. Peter:

¹⁴ As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance, ¹⁵ but as he who called you is holy, be holy yourselves in all your conduct; ¹⁶ since it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy.”

(1 Peter 1:14-16)

This passage, and those like it, are always a good reminder that God wants us to be holy, not happy. Happiness is a transitory, illusive thing. At least, so far as this world is concerned. It comes and it goes. But holiness is something that can and should always be with and about us. And ultimately, it leads to the only happiness that last- being united forever with our God who loves us.

Finally, a dark passage from Micah:

² The godly man has perished from the earth,
    and there is none upright among men;
they all lie in wait for blood,
    and each hunts his brother with a net.
³ Their hands are upon what is evil, to do it diligently;
    the prince and the judge ask for a bribe,
and the great man utters the evil desire of his soul;
    thus they weave it together.
⁴ The best of them is like a brier,
    the most upright of them a thorn hedge.
The day of their watchmen, of their punishment, has come;
    now their confusion is at hand.
⁵ Put no trust in a neighbor,
    have no confidence in a friend;
guard the doors of your mouth
    from her who lies in your bosom;
⁶ for the son treats the father with contempt,
    the daughter rises up against her mother,
the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law;
    a man’s enemies are the men of his own house.
⁷ But as for me, I will look to the Lord,
    I will wait for the God of my salvation;
    my God will hear me.

(Micah 7:2-7)

It seems to me that these are the kinds of days that the prophet Micah warned us about. We are beset at all sides, and even those close to us cannot be trusted. All mean to lead us astray or bring us to harm. in times like this it is easy to give in to despair. But we must now do as the prophet did then- look to God and trust in Him to lead us to salvation.

Saturday Saints- #26

We have come to the letter “Y” in our list of saints, and so today’s saint is Saint Yrieix:

Saint Aredius (c. 510–591), also known as Yrieix, was Abbot of Limoges and chancellor to Theudebert II, King of Austrasia in the 6th century. He founded the monastery of Attanum, and the various French communes called St. Yrieix are named after him.

Here are some of the legends surrounding him:

He was the son of Jocundus, a wealthy Roman. As a young boy he was sent to monastery at Vigeois to study. At the age of 14, he was sent to Metz, under Theudebert. He became the chancellor. Aredius left the court, where life was dissolute, to join Nicetius, bishop of Trier. He converted to Christianity; when he was singing psalms, a dove came down from the sky and flew around him, Aredius tried to shoo it away, but this one was placed above his head. The dove remained with Aredius during thirty days. When his father died, he joined his mother Pelagia in a villa in Attanum (Attane).

(All drawn from the wiki article on him)

[Side note: Some letters in the Alphabet are sadly lacking in saints whose names begin with them. Might I suggest to any of the faithful among my readers that if you should have any children, or more children, that those poor, forgotten letters receive some love too? We need more saints whose names begin with Q, and X and Y in particular.]

Clarifying The Lesson

This post is a follow-up to my earlier post A Warning And A Lesson. There was some confusion about that post, which I’m hoping to clear up.

I am going to begin by addressing this comment from The Unreal Woman:

So a young woman’s family actually bothering to provide vetting in her process of finding a husband is now horribly wrong? Either you want courtship and the interference from the adults who know the young woman well that it will entail or you want to just do what you want without other people interfering.

To make it clear, I do not have a problem with someone’s family vetting a potential spouse. In fact, I am a major supporter of it. The lack of familial involvement in the marriage process in the last few generations has, in my opinion, been one of the major reasons why the marriage market is so messed up right now. I would be a hypocrite to support the Courtship Pledge if I opposed family involvement and interference in the courtship process.

At the same time I’ve received some e-mails from people who suggest that while I may not have a problem with parental input, there is a general consensus among men towards the opposite belief. I think that this view has merit, based on what I’ve seen and heard, especially talking to men around these parts. A lot of men are highly suspicious of parental involvement in the present marriage market, and frankly I have trouble blaming them. Most parents these days act only as a negative force when it comes to courtship. By that I mean that the only thing most of them ever do is exercise a form of veto power. Few if any will actually go to the trouble of helping their children (principally daughters) to find good, marriageable spouses. So its understandable if men are leery at this prospective system- the sum total of their experience with it has likely only been negative. When all you’ve ever heard is No its easy to suspect that you won’t ever hear a Yes.

[As a side note, a much better method exists that what these veto-parents utilize. Right now the general strategy is to wait for a daughter to bring a man to their attention, and then determine if he is suitable or not. Oftentimes this will be met with a rejection, which can be problematic if the woman has already got some feelings for him and/or thinks he would be a good husband. A superior method would be for parents to go out, screen men and then introduce the ones who are suitable to their daughter. That way, his approval is already “baked in.” I think daughters would also approve, as they would be the ones having the “final say” under this system.]

Another thing I want to clear up is the role of the example I provided. I included that story from stringtheory mostly to buttress my argument that encouraging men to marry young is of limited utility in the present age. I don’t know any of the players in that story. In legal terms it must be something like triple hearsay or something. That is to say I don’t know any of the background details. I don’t know if there were some perfectly valid reasons for the parents to reject that young man as a suitor. It might not have been his age at all, but something else, and they only used his age as an excuse. Or perhaps the parents didn’t think their daughter was ready for marriage, or that she would be suitable for him. The point is, I don’t know the full details. None of us do.

I will note that TSK was right in pointing out that the young man did respect the parent’s wishes. He didn’t try and elope with their daughter. Heck, he even respected the wishes of the elders of his church, despite their patently unbiblical perspective (which was apparent in later comments by stringtheory).

Something that surprised me about that post is that no one asked me what the warning was, and what the lesson was. I hope that means it was obvious, but in case it wasn’t: The lesson was about what I think young Christian men should be taught about women, and the warning was that encouraging and preparing men for young marriage wasn’t wise without also preparing them for the high probability that they won’t be able to marry (or at least, marry well).

Another thing I want to discuss is the intersection of maturity, delaying young marriage, and age gaps. I agree in principle that for some young women it would be best for them to wait a few years to marry. They might not have the maturity at, say 18 or 19, to marry, but would in a few years of continued development. But I think that such cases are not common, and instead quite rare. From my own experience and observations, women (very) rarely become more suited for marriage as they age. Either they were raised properly, or they weren’t. Adding more time to the clock won’t change that. Rather, women who are older tend to become less suitable for marriage- they pick up more bad habits, they are more cynical and jaded, they are more used to independent living, they are more influenced by the general culture, and so on. So parents need to be careful about advocating it.

Also, there seems to be a general consensus in traditionalist circles that marriage is good for maturing men and/or encouraging them to settle down- the old “a weighted truck drives more surely” line. Yet the counterpart- that marriage and family life is good for maturing young women and so on and so forth, doesn’t seem to get the same play. To be honest, this makes me suspicious. While I acknowledge that what works for men might not work for women, and vice-versa, I’m not sure this is the case here. Either one view or the other is likely equally applicable.

Lastly, I’ve had some people mention maturity and age gaps together. Frankly, this baffles me. Either someone is ready for marriage, or someone isn’t. I have yet to be convinced that an age-gap really changes the metrics or dynamics (or whatever you want to call it) of marriage by itself. Or at least, so far as personality or maturity issues are concerned. This is purely anecdotal of course, but speaking from personal experience one of the women with whom I have “clicked” best was significantly younger than me. Big age gap, yet we both got along much better than with those our own age (and we both acknowledged as much).

There’s more that can be said, but I think I’ll leave it for another post in the future if I believe it needs to be addressed.

[Update: Allamagoosa has written a post in response to this one, you can find it here.]

Selected Sunday Scriptures- #33

I was in a conversation recently with a friend and the subject of women serving others came up. When I started to consider what I would write about for today’s post, that conversation resurfaced and I decided to search for some passages that concerned women serving. Here are a few, starting with the Gospel of Mark:

²⁹ And immediately he left the synagogue, and entered the house of Simon and Andrew, with James and John. ³⁰ Now Simon’s mother-in-law lay sick with a fever, and immediately they told him of her. ³¹ And he came and took her by the hand and lifted her up, and the fever left her; and she served them.

(Mark 1:29-31)

Then we move to the Gospel of Luke:

Soon afterward he went on through cities and villages, preaching and bringing the good news of the kingdom of God. And the twelve were with him, ² and also some women who had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities: Mary, called Mag′dalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, ³ and Jo-an′na, the wife of Chu′za, Herod’s steward, and Susanna, and many others, who provided for them out of their means.

(Luke 8:1-3)

This brings us to St. Paul’s first Letter to the Corinthians:

Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? ² If I am not an apostle to others, at least I am to you; for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.

³ This is my defense to those who would examine me. ⁴ Do we not have the right to our food and drink? ⁵ Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a believing wife,^[a] as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?

(1 Cor 9:1-5)

I left the footnote in place for the passage from 1st Corinthians because some translations render it as “believing wife”, while others render it as “believing woman” or “believing sister.” Either way, it was clear that the Apostles were accompanied by women who served, who might have been their wives or sisters in the faith.

I mention all of these because women have a divine calling to serve others, especially men of the faith. It is also a noble calling- that is, one which doesn’t demean or degrade women. Unfortunately, it appears as though the long tradition of valuing and encouraging this divine service has been abandoned. Most faith traditions seems to have replaced it instead with the overall secular paradigm of “women can do anything and everything that men can do (and often better!).” What this means is that women, Christian women, are often encouraged to act just like Christian men.  I consider this a tragic loss to the faith, as a huge gap has been left which cannot be readily replaced.

This gap is what drove the conversation that started this line of thought. We were discussing how many women these days don’t like the idea of serving others. Or at least, serving their family or loved ones. Serving someone random guy or gal who happens to be your boss (aka a career)? That’s just great! And empowering! And you Go Grrllll! But serve the man to whom you are bound for life, and your children by that man? Why that’s awful! And degrading! And You Deserve More!

As for those who do serve others through mission trips and the like, even that is corrupted. Because it seems to me, and to those I’ve talked with, that those mission trips are really all about her. About how great and wonderful she is. Which means that she isn’t serving others, but herself.

Sadly, even when you point this out to most Christian women they just don’t get it. Or maybe they do, but they don’t want to accept it. Either way, the church is the worse off for it.

A Feature, Not A Bug

Over at the Femininity building blog Girls Being Girls, Jenny laments how There’s No Character In The Dating Scene Anymore:

Character isn’t very important in our dating scene anymore. It used to be you would know the girls a guy dated before he approached you. You would hear the stories of how he treated them. You would know if he’s worked since he was ten or if he plays basketball for hours every day after school. Our dating market has somehow managed to isolate dating from character.

Jenny may not have realized it, but she has hit on something of considerable significance. To use software engineer’s parlance, what she has discovered is a feature, not a bug. Only instead of being an excuse, this really is a feature. The “dating market” replaced the “marriage market” in large part so this very phenomenon could take place.

You see, under a courtship system or market there was a certain amount of knowledge that was known and expected about everyone involved. A man wouldn’t have found it easy to court a woman as an unknown factor- her family wouldn’t have tolerated it. Instead, he had to introduce himself, to build history and rapport with her family or be backed up by trusted individuals who vouched for him. Or even better, he was a known factor because he grew up in the same community and his history was known to all involved. On the flip side, a man who courted a woman would also have access to a lot of information about her. Perhaps he grew up with her in the same community. If not, he could observe her family and talk with them. In addition, he could talk with members of the community who knew her well.

The point being that under a courtship model no one could really be an unknown. Everyone had history. Which leads to this statement by Jenny:

The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior

She is absolutely correct in this. Past behavior does give us a strong idea on what someone will do in the future. And that was a problem for a lot of people. For some their past behavior haunted them and acted as a huge handicap in the courtship/marriage market. For others it served as an obstacle, limiting what they could get away with. Yet others disliked marriage in general. All of them worked together to undermine the courtship model and to bring about something altogether new: The “dating scene”, which is in reality a sexual marketplace (“SMP”), because sex, not marriage, is the main goal now of most of its members. This new SMP has as its cornerstones mobility (provided through changes to the economy as well as new technology) and a lack of connectivity and history, which might perhaps be labeled “system memory.”

The first cornerstone, mobility, is all about the ability to move about to new locations, to new “markets.” If one particular area dries up, or you build a bad reputation there, you can always move to a new, fresh location.  In other words, you can escape your past behavior.

The second cornerstone, a lack of history and connectivity, means that most people in the dating scene don’t really know each other. Perhaps they have some similar friends or connections (otherwise how would they meet?), but those connections are far more tenuous than they would have been in the past. Outside of these potential sparse connections, those in the dating scene have little in the way of methods to learn about someone, apart from what that person reveals themselves.

Taken together, these two core components of the “dating scene” mean that you can always “start over.” This is especially easy if you are wise enough to avoid social media, and not let yourself build up an online presence (ironically the internet and social media in particular undermine this new system, hence the push to allow people to erase their internet history). Just move to a new location and you can begin anew. It is the perfect system for cads and harlots to ply their trade and largely escape the consequences of it.

This didn’t all happen overnight though. It took time for the SMP to replace the Marriage Marketplace. But as Jenny has  realized, that transformation is now complete. What little bit was left of the old courtship or marriage market is now gone. All that remains is “dating”, with all of its ugliness still intact. Again, this was not accident. It didn’t “just happen.” Isolating “dating from character” is the whole point of dating in the first place. If character still really mattered we wouldn’t even be talking about dating, we would be talking about courting. Boyfriend and Girlfriend wouldn’t exist as words, instead we would still use suitor. If you are lamenting how the “dating scene” looks now, understand this: what you are seeing now is not failure. It is success.

[Cross-posted at The Courtship Pledge]

Recommended Reading:

The Boyfriend Invention

 

Saturday Saints- #25

For today’s saint we reach farther to the East, towards Russia. Our saint for today is from the Eastern Church, and is Xenia of Saint Petersburg:

Saint Blessed Xenia of St. Petersburg (Russian: Святая блаженная Ксения Петербургская [Xenia Grigoryevna Petrova – Ксения Григорьевна Петрова]; c. 1719–1730 – c. 1803, Saint Petersburg) is a patron saint of St. Petersburg, who according to tradition, gave all her possessions to the poor after her husband died.

Her husband had been Colonel Andrey Fyodorovich Petrov, a chanter at the Saint Andrew Cathedral. After his death, Xenia became a “fool-for-Christ” and for 45 years wandered around the streets of St. Petersburg, usually wearing her late husband’s military uniform.

St. Xenia’s grave is in the Smolensky Cemetery of St. Petersburg. It has been marked by an ornate chapel since 1902. She was canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church on February 6, 1988. Her feast day in the O.S. is January 24, which is February 6 in the New Calendar.

St. Blessed Mother Xenia is noted for her intercessions in helping those with employment, marriage, the homeless, for fires, for missing children, and for a spouse. She is venerated in several countries. There are about 40 churches and chapels built in her name.

I hadn’t heard of her until I started searching for a saint whose name began with X. Upon finding her story, I was fascinated, in large part because of her acting as a “fool for Christ.” While I had heard of the term before, I had never known much about it, or how it was more prevalent in the Eastern church as compared to the Western church. Reading up on it was certainly a learning experience. Those who are interested in learning more about her can read the wiki on her, or this article on the Life of St. Blessed Xenia of Petersburg.

St. Xenia

A Warning And A Lesson

Today’s post is inspired by the comments of this post over at Dalrock’s. It will be divided into two parts, the first of which responds to a comment by “Bee”, while the second features some of my thoughts and commentary concerning a comment left by “stringtheory.”

I.

Here is part of what commenter Bee said in response to Deti talking about the incorrect, inaccurate and often outright deceptive teaching in church on the nature of men and women:

What would you teach a class of teenage, Christian men to give them the correct perspective?

Would you encourage the young men to marry young?

(Link to comment here)

I’m going to address them in order, starting with the question of “What would you teach a class of teenage, Christian men to give them the correct perspective?”

Well, the first thing I would do is advise that they read the Wisdom Books in the Bible. Proverbs, Sirach and Song of Songs especially. I know that most Protestant Bibles don’t have the Book of Sirach, which I think is a tragic loss for those who have never read it. Fortunately there are plenty of online resources where Sirach can be read in several different translations. So if you don’t want to buy a new Bible that would be a viable alternative. Both Sirach and Proverbs mesh well together in terms of explaining positive and negative traits in women. They warn men about the consequences of choosing a wife poorly and can help keep women off a pedestal. Song of Songs is useful for disabusing men of the notion that women are asexual creatures, which can again help keep away the pedestalization. All of that makes for a good, solid foundation.

Other passages in the Bible provide good lessons as well. Genesis has valuable insights of course. Potiphar’s wife’s advances on Joseph provide stark warning about female nature. Samson provides all kinds of object lessons. Both the story of David and Solomon have great value as well. All of these will tie in to what will be taught later about female nature.

Before going any further, I would tell these young Christian men that male sexuality is not inherently evil or twisted or anything of that sort. God created us as sexual creatures (save perhaps those with St. Paul’s gift), and that is a good thing. Teach them that sex is both proper and good inside of marriage- for it unites man and woman together as one flesh and is the avenue by which offspring come about- which is what God desires.

With that taken care of, I would explain to those teenage men what women find attractive in men. Help them understand the differences between Attraction traits and Desirability traits. Then I would explain to them why women find those traits attractive. Make it clear to them that most people out there, Christian or non-Christian, don’t understand this. Consequently, they will need to be suspicious of anything else they’ve been taught before which clashes with this. Inform them that there is a lot of bad teaching out there, and they need to be able to distinguish the truth from lies.

Then I would move on to explain other aspects of female nature. Some important examples include:

• Hypergamy
• The Good Genes/Good Provider dichotomy and how that plays out
• Fitness Tests
• The impact of a woman’s sexual history on marital stability
• The inability to negotiate desire
• The differences in how women communicate as compared to men

The Feminine Imperative (an ephemeral concept if there ever was one) would also be something that would need to be explained to them. While difficult to describe, it has a huge impact on nearly all aspects of our culture, and learning it is critical for men to understand why the present culture (within and without the Church) is what it is.

By the end of all these lessons, these young men should be able to see women for what they are: fallen, sinful creatures… just like men. This brings us to the second question- “Would you encourage the young men to marry young?”

The short answer to this is yes, I would. I’ve explained before why young marriage is a good thing. Young marriage would (or to be more accurate, could) help these young men avoid sexual immorality. However, that would be an incomplete answer. Because at the same time I would also encourage the young men to prepare for marrying young. That means getting serious about their life right away. If they pursue an education, don’t waste time on needless classes. Take what they need, and only what they need. Finish as swiftly as possible, so as to minimize debt and get into the workforce as soon as possible. Consider trade school if not looking at college or university. Also consider community college combined with a full or part-time job.

At the same time, it would also be necessary to encourage the parents of the young men to support their sons marrying young. Most Christians these days, parents especially are opposed to young marriage, on a variety of grounds- none of them really good. Expect a lot of resistance here. And that leads into the real problem with all of this. You see, encouraging young men to marry young is rather pointless unless you can encourage young women to marry young. Right now that isn’t happening, in fact it is the exact opposite. This provides the perfect lead-up to part two-

II.

Commenter Stringtheory left the following comments:

On a recent camping trip, one of the guys was telling us about how his 28 year old son had started taking antidepressants. His son has never suffered from depression but told his dad he was able to say the right things and get a prescription. He’s taking them to try and kill his sex drive because he’s simply tired of pursing women with no success. The dad is upset and angry. His son is reasonably attractive, a working professional with a decent income, but all the girls he asks out turn him down, or if he does go out they want to have sex right away and his son wants to wait until marriage. So instead of being tempted with porn or fornication he’s cutting out the source of his temptation. We were all talking about the morality of this. Is it wrong to kill one’s sex drive to avoid marriage or immorality?

(Link here)

I should correct my above statement. The question wasn’t “Is it wrong to kill one’s sex drive to avoid marriage or immorality?” but rather to avoid immorality. I want to make clear that my friend’s son wants to get married, but he simply can’t find any non-virgins and doesn’t think his prospects are going to get better any time soon. About six months ago he did strike up a friendship with an 19 year old who was (presumably) a virgin and things seemed to be moving along but it got quashed by the girl’s parents and church elders who thought that his interest was inappropriate given the age difference. After that he had had enough and started down the chemically eunuch route.

(Link here)

Most of my regular readers will likely understand why I sympathize with that young man. He sounds like a slightly younger version of myself, trying to clear much the same hurdles. Before answering stringtheory’s question, I want to continue where I left off- how young women are not encouraged to marry young.

I don’t recall if it was Novaseeker or Cail Corishev who once said something along the lines that there are few things that Christians fear these days so much as a young women with potential marrying young. Whether or not that accusation is true (I think it is for many),  stringtheory’s account, and that of other Christians in this part of the web, does demonstrate that many if not most Christians do not want young, attractive virgin women to marry good, virtuous men. They just don’t. If there was no age gap, as there was here, then another reason would have been given for why the relationship should not have been. As for why so many Christians act in this manner, there are two different forces working together here- one relating to women and one relating to men.

When it comes to women, most Christians oppose on principle the idea of a young, (attractive) virgin marrying. Of course, if one or more of those traits is not present, then the opposition tends to melt away. She’s no longer young? Why then, of course she should marry. She’s not attractive? Well, it won’t be such a loss if that man, older or not, marries her (although this is still not favored- its just tolerated more). She’s no longer a virgin? Well, it would be good for that men to marry her and “save her” from her past mistakes.  So for those young men that Bee was asking about… well, it really doesn’t matter if you encourage them to marry young or not. Because everyone else in church is encouraging the women the men want to marry (and should marry) to not marry. At least, not right away. Not until they get more “life experience” and other such nonsense. This really is one of the great tragedies of our age- the Christian women who should marry, and would make (all other things being equal) the best wives- those who are young and virgins, are for the large part essentially commanded that they shouldn’t marry until they are no longer young.

This brings us to the men. Based on what I have seen, and what others have relayed to me, it appears as though many Christians don’t want good, virtuous Christian men to marry well. Oh, they would never admit to it and would instead deny the accusation vociferously. They would protest and say that of course they want those nice men to marry well. But the women they want to marry, those young (hopefully attractive) virgins from the paragraph before, are basically off-limits to them. As for what women they are “allowed” to marry, that is, to court without scandal or reprisal? Yeah….  Honestly, sometimes I get the impression that a lot of Christians see good, virtuous men as janitors or sanitation workers who are expected to pick up the “trash” in church. If you continue to follow stringtheory’s comments in that thread he basically describes that exact phenomenon in action. Undoubtedly it is one of the major reasons why so many men are leaving the church right now. These men are essentially being punished for their virtue, which sure doesn’t help encourage it any, as incentives matter.

Before I close I also want to address the question of “Is it wrong to kill one’s sex drive to avoid [sexual] immorality?” I know that I have read some of the works of the early Church Fathers who discussed physical castration, and they made it clear that it was a sin. One’s body is holy, a gift from God, and is not to be disfigured. I think that the same reasoning would apply to chemical castration as well. Your brain is part of your body, and using chemicals to alter your brain chemistry to suppress, hinder or eliminate certain brain functions is harmful. Yes, the intent might be good, but the action itself is not just or ordered. Jesus was not being literal when he said we should cut off our hand if it caused us to be sin- he was applying a metaphor, as per his usual style. However, reasonable minds might differ and I am curious what my readers think about the subject. Is is acceptable to use chemicals to suppress one’s sex drive so as to avoid sexual immorality? Let me know in the comments.