Shutting Their Eyes

Modern society shuts its eyes easily and willingly. We don’t want to see evil, or trouble ahead. And even for those that do, it must always be in measured amounts. They will squint, so that only some of the light comes through, leaving them with an incomplete picture.

Mrs. ktc clued me in to an example of this, found in this article by Camille Paglia- The Modern Campus Cannot Comprehend Evil. A few choice excerpts:

Wildly overblown claims about an epidemic of sexual assaults on American campuses are obscuring the true danger to young women, too often distracted by cellphones or iPods in public places: the ancient sex crime of abduction and murder. Despite hysterical propaganda about our “rape culture,” the majority of campus incidents being carelessly described as sexual assault are not felonious rape (involving force or drugs) but oafish hookup melodramas, arising from mixed signals and imprudence on both sides.

…

There is a ritualistic symbolism at work in sex crime that most women do not grasp and therefore cannot arm themselves against. It is well-established that the visual faculties play a bigger role in male sexuality, which accounts for the greater male interest in pornography. The sexual stalker, who is often an alienated loser consumed with his own failures, is motivated by an atavistic hunting reflex. He is called a predator precisely because he turns his victims into prey.

…

Misled by the naive optimism and “You go, girl!” boosterism of their upbringing, young women do not see the animal eyes glowing at them in the dark. They assume that bared flesh and sexy clothes are just a fashion statement containing no messages that might be misread and twisted by a psychotic. They do not understand the fragility of civilization and the constant nearness of savage nature.

Ms. Paglia is able to notice the animal eyes which glow in the dark. She can see the male predators out there. What she fails to see [or at least, acknowledge], however, are the predators in her midst.

You see, those women whom Ms. Paglia describes as naive are, in their own respect, just as feral as the men that she warns about. As a society we are quick to decry feral men, the male predators lurking in the dark. But we ignore the female predators who walk among us. We are quick to point out the evil in men, but balk at doing the same in women.

Someone like Ms. Paglia sees “bared flesh and sexy clothes” and worries about “messages that might be misread and twisted by a psychotic.” Her time, and society, would be better served by thinking [and talking] about what messages are intentionally sent with “bared flesh and sexy clothes” and how they are correctly read.

It is no accident that young women dress that way. Naivete has nothing to do with it. Women know, instinctively, the power their bodies have over men, and they use that power to get what they want: male attention and validation. Young women who dress that way are tempting men, they are provoking a sexual response in the deepest recess of the male psyche. Do men want this? For the most part, yes. Men like viewing attractive female flesh as much as attractive females like showing it. But that doesn’t change the nature of what these women are doing- they are tempting men, setting stumbling blocks before them. And even worse, they deny all the while that they are doing any of that. They claim empowerment as their rationale- as obvious a lie as any ever told.

Much is said by a few around these parts about how men push young women for sex in relationships (or push for sex instead of relationships). Yet in the present environment women push for it too (only they will deny it later if confronted). Don’t believe me? Go ask Ballista, he will have a story or two for you. I’m sure that Chad and Martel have similar tales to tell of women who pushed for sex right away. If you have been paying attention to the news lately (especially about female teachers sleeping with their students), you will know that women can be sexual predators too. Yet all together we as a society will ignore or downplay the dark side of female sexuality. We refuse to acknowledge that evil inherent in unrestrained female sexuality.

Message to Camille Paglia:

It isn’t just the modern campus that cannot comprehend evil- it is the whole of society. You see only that evil which you want to see, and nothing more.

Update: In case it wasn’t clear, the main thrust of this post was that we only recognize certain kinds of evil these days. Overt violence being the prime example. But other, subtler evils are not recognized or called out. I wanted to point out that Ms. Paglia was making much the same error that she was accusing college campuses of making.

Update 2: Sir Nemesis has questioned my criticism of Paglia. He argues that just because she hasn’t called out other evils, doesn’t means she doesn’t recognize them. Theoretically this might be true. However, I’m not familiar with her ever having done so. But focusing on what she specifically, has said or believes would be a mistake. This post is about more than just her. I’ve corrected the above post (with some additions and a strike-through), to try and make that more clear. The overall point, once again, was how some evils are recognized and acknowledged, and others aren’t. And there is a pattern to this which should be noticeable to those of us who give it careful thought.

Selected Sunday Scriptures #43

Today’s first passage is from the First Letter to the Corinthians:

It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not found even among pagans; for a man is living with his father’s wife. ² And you are arrogant! Should you not rather have mourned, so that he who has done this would have been removed from among you?

³ For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present I have already pronounced judgment ⁴ in the name of the Lord Jesus on the man who has done such a thing. When you are assembled, and my spirit is present with the power of our Lord Jesus, ⁵ you are to hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.

(1 Cor 5:1-5)

This passage both angered, and saddened, me when I re-read it this week. You know that the Church is in a sad state indeed when it would be considered radical for a church community to actually excommunicate someone like this. And yet that is exactly what St. Paul commanded the church in Corinth to do. But it doesn’t happen at all, save perhaps in the most conservative of Protestant churches. I cannot say I’ve ever heard of the Catholic Church doing this in recent years. Or even the Orthodox Church (my Orthodox readers can correct me if I’m wrong about this). This disobedience on the part of the Church (and disobedience is exactly what it is) bears a large role in the present degeneration of the Bride of Christ. It is also only one of three reasons why I chose this passage today.

The second reason is the fact that it is an illicit union, an unlawful marriage, that drives St. Paul to command excommunication. It seems pretty clear to me, and my readers are well aware that I’m no biblical scholar, that unlawful marriages are cause enough to justify excommunication of a “believer.” Yet this never happens, despite the fact that there is no shortage of “believers” who presently belong to illicit unions in the church. Unlawful marriage is immoral, it is a serious, serious sin, and the Church does nothing (and for my Catholic readers, they should be aware that some Church leaders want to essentially say it is no big deal at all).

The third reason this passage grabbed by interest is because St. Paul commanded excommunication as an act of mercy. How else can you explain “hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord?” By thrusting this person out of the Church, he would be outside of the protection of God’s grace. As a result, he would feel the full measure of Satan’s power. Yet this is not simply a punishment, but a means to help the transgressor find his way back to Christ. It seems to me that St. Paul is explaining that for grave sins like porneia, it is only when you experience the full measure of your guilt, when the weight of your sins crushes you, both in body (temporal consequences) and spirit (spiritual consequences), that you are able to truly repentant and find your way back to Christ.

That brings me to the second passage for today comes from Isaiah:

⁸ Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?” And I said, “Here am I; send me!” ⁹ And he said, “Go and say to this people:

‘Keep listening, but do not comprehend;
keep looking, but do not understand.’
¹⁰ Make the mind of this people dull,
    and stop their ears,
    and shut their eyes,
so that they may not look with their eyes,
    and listen with their ears,
and comprehend with their minds,
    and turn and be healed.”
¹¹ Then I said, “How long, O Lord?” And he said:
“Until cities lie waste
    without inhabitant,
and houses without people,
    and the land is utterly desolate;
¹² until the Lord sends everyone far away,
    and vast is the emptiness in the midst of the land.
¹³ Even if a tenth part remain in it,
    it will be burned again,
like a terebinth or an oak
    whose stump remains standing
    when it is felled.”
The holy seed is its stump.

(Isaiah 6:8-13)

Something that I think few Christians, or at least, those who claim to be Christians, grasp is just how much warning the people of Israel had of what would befall them. Time and time again they were warned by prophets, such as Isaiah, of the doom that awaited them. Yet only a handful ever listened. And that doom came and swept them all away. But despite this history, despite the warnings, the people of Israel continued to make the same errors over and over and over again.

Looking around me, I see that nothing has changed. The “faithful” of the Lord are seemingly oblivious to what is going on around them. And it is not like they don’t have any warning. We’ve been warned, time and time again, about what was happening and what is to come. Yet we don’t listen. We know and understand nothing, and shall reap the whirlwind before the end.

Q & A

Tonight’s post is dedicated to answering a few of the questions that I’ve been been asked since this blog started. They have been left as comments, or sent to me via e-mail. Some I’ve answered before, and I will try and include a link to those answers. Others might have been addressed only obliquely, or not at all.

—————–

Question: Is this a Game blog?

Answer: No. This is not, nor has it ever been, a “Game” blog. While I accepted its legitimacy for a while, I’ve come to realize that Game, if it can even be defined, is not something which can be supported.

—————–

Question: Hey, I thought this was a Christian blog, so why are you talking about sexual attraction and the kind of stuff Pick-Up Artists talk about?

Answer: Because sexual attraction matters to everyone looking to get married, Christian or not. In an age where people largely choose their own mates, a person’s sexual attractiveness plays a huge role in determining whether they can get married or not. By ignoring this for so long, the Church has only made the marriage situation worse in the west.

—————-

Question: Wait, I thought this was a Red Pill bog… so what is all this Christian stuff doing here?

Answer: While I cover topics that generally fall under the umbrella of “The Red Pill”, I am also a Catholic Christian. That belief system is not something that I simply set aside when I cover topics which aren’t normally addressed by Christians. As far as I’m concerned many “Red Pill” topics are of great concerns to Christians, and so I approach them from a Christian perspective.

—————-

Question: Why do you hate women?

Answer: Contrary to popular opinion, I don’t hate women. In fact, I happen to like actual feminine women quite a lot. In fact, I find their presence (both virtual and real) to be quite enjoyable. Truth be told, I’m not very good at hating anyone (trust me on this, I’ve tried).

—————-

Question: Well then how come you want to subjugate women in marriage then?

Answer: I don’t want to subjugate women in marriage. I am a Christian, and as a Christian I recognize that wives are called to subject themselves to the authority of their husbands. That is a far cry from subjugation, given that their husbands at the same time are required to love them as Christ loved the Church. If anything women are getting the better end of the deal. Plus that requirement is for their own benefit, as it will help make their husbands more attractive in their eyes.

—————–

Question: But why do you talk so negatively about women?

Answer: It is important to keep in mind that this blog is aimed primarily towards men. Women are welcome, of course, but my principal audience is men. And men talk and interact in a very different manner from women. If that makes women uncomfortable, so be it. I’ve explained this in a more complete fashion in several different posts. Here is one of them.

——————

Question: What is with your name?

Answer: I explained the rationale behind my name in this post.

—————–

Question: You keep using weird terms and words like SMV and FI and Hypergamy- what do they mean?

Answer: I wrote a post defining some of the terms that I use here.

—————–

Question: What do you have against feminism and feminists?

Answer: Feminism is one of the greatest frauds perpetrated upon mankind. It has no foundation in religion, science or reality, and has wrecked countless lives in its long existence. Feminists, at best, are useful fools and at worse callous monsters who don’t care whom they hurt so long as they get the society they want. Never mind the fact that they can never actually have what they want, and the process of bringing it about will bring civilization down around us.

—————–

Question: Why is it that someone as smart as you is a Christian- surely you know it’s superstitious nonsense?

Answer: That superstitious nonsense has done a far better job of predicting our present social devolution that science has. Its explanations of human nature have been proven correct time and time again. Likewise, the moral code and social order that Christianity supports is demonstrably the best means of checking the excesses of human behavior and providing the stability necessary for orderly and non-stagnant civilization.

—————–

Question: How can you call yourself a Christian when you refuse to forgive women who have sinned (sexually) in the past? Don’t you know that God has forgive them?

Answer: To begin with, to forgive someone I would need to be sinned against. If a woman has fornicated with someone else, then besides a general sin against the church community, she really hasn’t sinned against me. So there is nothing to forgive, really. And yes, God has forgiven her for her trespasses. But just because the spiritual consequences of her sin may be gone, the physical/temporal consequences are not necessarily wiped away. The worldly effects of some sins last well beyond the point of repentance. For sexual sins, a woman’s ability to pair bond can be damaged, or she could even be an Alpha Widow.

—————–

Question: How come all of the men here are cold, insensitive and uncaring jerks?

Answer: For the most part, none of the men in this part of the internet wanted to be that way. They were forced to become cold and uncaring, often out of necessity. Some were unjustly divorced by their wives, their marriages and families torn apart by women who cared more about their own enjoyment and “feelings” than their marriage vows. Others have undergone years or even decades of sexual denial at the hands of their wives. Many have hearts of ice as a result of years, decades for some, of rejection by women, who ignored them to chase after bad boys instead. Yet more have become cold as a result of despair arising from an inability to find worthy women to be their wives. The truth is that most men are romantics at heart, including the men around here, but the women in their lives crushed that right out of them.

—————–

Question: If you are a Christian, how come you see marriage as just an exchange of goods and services?

Answer: The short answer is that I don’t. As for a longer answer…. It is important for women to understand that men are able to compartmentalize things in their head in a way that women either don’t or can’t match. We can talk about marriage in transactional terms one minute, and then examine it from a sacramental perspective in another, and then debate its relation to Christ and the Church in a third. I would very much advise my female readers to be wary of projecting female thought processes onto myself, and the men around these parts. Men and women are very different- we think differently, we perceive the world differently, and we react to stimuli differently. So don’t assume that when we say something that it means the same thing it would if a woman said it.

—————–

Question: How come, if this is a Christian blog, you let pick-up artists and their like comment here? Why the hypocrisy?

Answer: My allowing someone to comment here is by no means an indication that I approve their lifestyle or share their beliefs. Sometimes a different perspective can be a valuable thing, if only to illustrate a point I am making. As a general rule, I let most people comment here, so long as they are civil and respectful to other commenters.

—————–

Question: Well then, how come I can’t comment here? Why did you ban me?

Answer: I have banned very few people on my blog. If you cannot comment for some reason, it might be that you are included in my spam filter. Its possible that you ended up there by accident. If you want to comment but cannot, feel free to e-mail me and I will look into it. You can reach me at d0nalgraem3 -at- gmail.com (no spaces or hyphens, just use the @ symbol. Also, that is a zero in the name).

—————–

That is what I have for now. I’m sure I think of more soon, and add them to this post. In the meantime, if my readers have any more questions (preferably ones that can be answer in a paragraph or two), feel free to mention them in this comments of this post.

Saturday Saints- #35

We come once again to the letter H, and today’s saint, Saint Hormisdas:

Pope Hormisdas (450 – 6 August 523) was Pope from 20 July 514 to his death in 523. His papacy was dominated by the Acacian schism, started in 484 by Acacius of Constantinople’s efforts to placate the Monophysites. His efforts to resolve this schism were successful, and on 28 March 519, the reunion between Constantinople and Rome was ratified in the cathedral of Constantinople before a large crowd.

A few facts about Saint Hormisdas from his wiki:

• Prior to becoming a deacon he married, and had at least one son, who later became Pope Silverius. At this time the Western Church ordained married men so long as they married before first taking holy orders. Also, unlike the present day Eastern Church, there was no bar to married clergy rising above the office of Presbyter as long as they met the requirements of 1 Timothy 3.
• Much of the effort of his papacy was devoted to ending the schism between Rome and Constantinople.
• He was a staunch defender of orthodoxy, and despite his desire to end the existing schism, wouldn’t tolerate heresy.
• When the Eastern emperor Anastasius proposed a discussion on the schism, Hormisdas responded with a list of demands. Anastasius tried to encourage political leaders in Rome to oppose Hormisdas, but they refused. Ultimately Anastasius died and his successor Justin acceded to nearly all the demands.

One of the fascinating things I’ve learned from studying the early history of the church is how there were a number of breaks between the Eastern and Western churches well before the final schism between them. Fortunately, men like Hormisdas were able to heal those breaks, at least for a time. While we cannot know for certain, it is possible that without him the split between East and West might have been in full force five centuries earlier than when it finally occurred.

St. Hormisdas

 

Can’t Win For Playing The Game

If this article is to be believed, at the University of Michigan a man can be a perpetrator of sexual violence whether he sleeps with a woman, or not:

Examples of abuse listed on the University of Michigan’s domestic violence awareness website say “sexual violence” includes “withholding sex and affection” and “discounting the partner’s feelings regarding sex” – definitions that have come under fire by some men’s rights activists.

The terms, found under the heading “definitions,” also suggest verbal or psychological abuse include: “insulting the partner; ignoring the partner’s feelings; withholding approval as a form of punishment; yelling at the partner; labeling the partner with terms like crazy [and] stupid.”

Oh wait, there is no need to believe them, they link to the University’s website directly in that article (and in the first sentence, no less).

This madness keeps on getting worse and worse. And there seems to be no end in sight. Of course, rules like this make for excellent Black Knight fodder.

Just think about it. The word partner isn’t defined in that document, meaning that it is open to interpretation. So there is all kinds of room for abuse present. So what is to stop a man from claiming to be a partner with a woman, and then accusing her of sexual violence if she refuses to sleep with him? Or even show affection, such as with hugs or kisses. The possibilities to twist this system against itself are endless. At least, they would be if they were ever intended to be fairly applied. But I think that most of us know that that was never the intention. Despite the inclusive language, women are supposed to be the survivors, and men the abusers. Still, I’m sure an enterprising, would-be Black Knight could find plentiful ways to amuse himself at this absurd system’s expense. In fact, this would be the perfect opportunity for a Beta-Orbiter to achieve some measure of revenge. And he might have the close contact with a woman to pull off the “partner” bit too.

Need Versus Want

Reader and commenter DJ recently left the following comment in my Questions and Suggestions page:

I’ve been reading and interacting for a while on your blog and one thing I realized isn’t clear in your posts. It often seems like you and others on this page would rather have a wife because they need you your [as] a meal ticket as opposed to they want to be with you. Bear with me on this[,] often there is talk about the good old days when women had limited options, at the same time there is complaining about a lack of sexual enthusiasm in women [with] “duty sex” and how that is hurtful. So I would like your take on this seeming inconsistency.

I have a small amount of free time with which to respond to his inquiry, so here is my hastily written reply. As always, I begin with by noting that I can only speak for myself. Other men around these parts will likely have different opinions on the matter.

From what I can tell, the main question that DJ is asking me is this:

Would you prefer your wife to feel like she needs you, out of material necessity, or would you prefer a wife who wants to be with you, out of sexual desire?

Now, if I had to chose between the two, and could only choose one of the two, then I would definitely choose the latter. If I was to marry, I would want my wife to want me- that is, to be sexually attracted to me.  As a number of bloggers have explained for years, especially Rollo, the female “attraction” (not my use of the term) for a man’s resources is no guarantee that a woman will want him sexually. Marrying a woman who fits the former category is risky- there is no guarantee that she won’t freeze me out, and then what? In the present environment I would have no recourse for a frigid wife. In fact, since she would be a net resource drain on me, I would be worse for marrying her.

Ideally, if I had to choose one thing that I was certain would bind a wife to me, it would be Christian marriage vows and all they encompass. If I could be assured of that, then I (and I suspect many other men) would feel far more secure. Sexual desire, after all, can be a fleeting thing. And as I just mentioned, material necessity is no guarantee of sexual desire.

[Ok, so I sort of lied before. I will claim to speak for others besides myself.]

When men around these parts talk about limiting female options, it is important to understand that we are not talking about some alternative system or method of getting women to desire us. It doesn’t work that way, and we know it. Rather, what we are discussing are possible methods to keep wives bound to their husbands. It is all about ties, really. And no, not the kind you wear.

If a woman feels like she needs a man’s material resources (meal ticket), then that need ties her to that man. If a woman feels sexually drawn to a man, and wants to sleep with him, that ties her to that man. If a woman is married to a man, and the law says she cannot simply leave him for another, that ties her to that man.

What we are advocating is a system where as many different social conventions, laws and other means tie wives to their husbands, as is possible. The more that binds a woman to her husband, the more secure the marriage is likely to be. This won’t necessarily affect her sexual desire for her husband, but it will protect him from divorce or abandonment. All things considered, this is better than nothing. Coupled with a restoration of “standing consent” to the legal system, and men will be much more secure in their marriages. Of course that means more “duty sex”, but from what I hear from many husbands duty sex is better than none at all. And many times what starts as duty sex will morph into enjoyment on her part.

So again, its not like we want one of these things over the others. We want both, and more besides. Women are moral agents, but they, like men, respond to incentives. And the more that is in place which encourages them to stay with their husbands, and to act as proper wives, the better. Of course, the same logic would apply to husbands as well. The overall goal is to incentive marriage, and incentive staying in marriage and upholding your vows, and to discourage the opposite.

Update: A few points of clarification.

1) I wouldn’t want a woman to be my wife only because she needs me to survive. I would want her to want to be with me. I suspect that neither of us would enjoy a marriage based only on material need. Nor would I even deserve a wife if I could only have one by forcing her to choose that path to survival

2) I am not looking for a wife simply to have an outlet for my sex drive. I want a great deal more, and am looking for a great deal more, in any woman I consider as a potential wife. Ideally, I would like someone I could have deep conversations with. Someone that I could relate to. Someone whose company I enjoy throughout the day, not simply when we are alone in the bedroom.

3) Lastly, I wanted to address this comment left by DJ:

It was more because I got the sense that the general feeling is if they don’t need me they will leave.

This sentiment is sparked by the fear that many men have that they will be abandoned by their wives. That they will be divorced, have their assets seized, their children taken from them and their lives ruined. Given the hideously high divorce rate right now, as well as the fact that women initiate most divorces, this is not an unfounded fear. It shouldn’t come as a surprise, then, that they would grasp for any means available to protect themselves from that fate. Since things like “wanting to be with someone” are ephemeral- you can always change your opinion about someone, after all- it only makes sense for them to support means that would work irrespective of what a woman might feel at one particular point in time.

Selected Sunday Scriptures- #42

The first passage today comes from the Prophet Isaiah:

¹⁶ The Lord said:
Because the daughters of Zion are haughty
    and walk with outstretched necks,
    glancing wantonly with their eyes,
mincing along as they go,
    tinkling with their feet;
¹⁷ the Lord will smite with a scab
    the heads of the daughters of Zion,
    and the Lord will lay bare their secret parts.

¹⁸ In that day the Lord will take away the finery of the anklets, the headbands, and the crescents; ¹⁹ the pendants, the bracelets, and the scarfs; ²⁰ the headdresses, the armlets, the sashes, the perfume boxes, and the amulets; ²¹ the signet rings and nose rings; ²² the festal robes, the mantles, the cloaks, and the handbags; ²³ the garments of gauze, the linen garments, the turbans, and the veils.

²⁴ Instead of perfume there will be rottenness;
    and instead of a girdle, a rope;
and instead of well-set hair, baldness;
    and instead of a rich robe, a girding of sackcloth;
    instead of beauty, shame.
²⁵ Your men shall fall by the sword
    and your mighty men in battle.
²⁶ And her gates shall lament and mourn;
    ravaged, she shall sit upon the ground.

(Isaiah 3:16-26)

As I was reading through Isaiah again this passage stood out to me. It wasn’t so much the justice that God was going to mete, but the reasons for it. Haughtiness, pride, those are the things that provoke God to punish the women of Zion. And why not? They were proud in their prosperity, their wealth, their security. No longer did they hold fast to the Lord. In fact, they didn’t even think that they needed God anymore. And so the Lord decides to disabuse them of their misplaced sense of security of self.

Given the prosperity and wealth and security of the modern age here in the West, I think that most Christian women would do well to dwell upon reading these words, and tremble when thinking of what came after.

The second passage comes from 2 Peter:

¹⁴ Therefore, beloved, since you wait for these, be zealous to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. ¹⁵ And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, ¹⁶ speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. ¹⁷ You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability. ¹⁸ But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.

(2 Peter 3:14-18)

This passage, like a number of other passages in the New Testament, reveals that even early in the Church’s history there were those trying to twist scripture to fit their own purposes. Given that the apostles themselves had to combat heresy, why should it surprise us to see it so prevalent in general Christian culture today? Our Lord told us that the Truth would set us Free. The Adversary knows this, and so always endeavors to encourage deceit in men and women to keep the Truth buried beneath lies. Just like the apostles, we too need to confront and root out these lies whenever they show themselves. Otherwise they will take further hold in the hearts of the faithful and lead them astray. As for those who are not of the faith, they will never know it unless we bring these lies to light.

An Eye On The Faith

Small post today. Just a few observations related to church and Christianity in general.

• I passed by a church a few days back and noticed that there was a single spot near the front that wasn’t handicapped parking, yet had some sort of writing on the asphalt. Curious, I went over to see what it said. The message? “Reserved for Pastor’s Wife.” Ah, those little status symbols, can’t forget them, can we? Hypergamy, like greed, never sleeps.
• I attend both Latin and non-Latin Masses in several different Catholic churches, depending on what my schedule permits. The most striking difference is age- the median age at the Latin Mass Parish that I attend is probably a third that of the Novus Ordo parish I usually attend.
• On a similar vein, that same church proves the importance of having lots of kids. When I attended Mass there last, I was one of the youngest people there (second or third youngest, and I’m no spring chicken). Looking around, I realized that any church which doesn’t encourage large families is a church that is doomed to die. The standard 2-3 kids of most Catholic families these days just doesn’t cut it. Given the low retention rate these days, plus general population stability numbers, that kind of family size means a church will die out over time. And that is exactly what I see when I attend that church- at least, at the non-Spanish masses. Those are very different, at least for the moment. But of course it should be mentioned that their family size is much higher.
• I’ve attended good services and bad services at Latin and NO Masses. The whole gamut? I’ve seen that. And however bad a Latin Mass turns out, it isn’t nearly so bad as an awful NO Mass. Worst case scenario for a Latin Mass is the priest stumbles over the words at points. But for an NO mass, the worst is unbearable: a butchering of Amazing Grace by the choir, off-key and tone-deaf parishioners trying to sing along, a long-winded homily that not only repeats itself but also is devoid of substance, and a dress code that wouldn’t be acceptable at a Mad Max audition.
• Very few Catholic churches make real efforts to be inviting to newcomers. Over my lifetime I’ve attended Mass at many, many parishes. And only a few have ever been truly inviting. I’ve heard the same from others as well. Most churches don’t seem to care, whether we are talking about the clergy or the laity. Part of this is the utter lack of community at most of these churches. Some were better, but even those with a sense of community never seemed all that inviting to newcomers. Or at least newcomers who were single men.

That’s enough for now. If anyone has any observations of their own, feel free to contribute.

Saturday Saints- #34

We move once again to the letter G, and this brings us to today’s saint, Genevieve of Paris:

Saint Genevieve (Sainte Geneviève) (Nanterre, c. 419/422 – Paris 502/512), in Latin Sancta Genovefa, from Germanic keno (kin) and wefa (wife), is the patron saint of Paris in Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox tradition. Her feast is kept on 3 January.

She was born in Nanterre and moved to Paris after encountering Germanus of Auxerre and Lupus of Troyes and dedicated herself to a Christian life. In 451 she led a “prayer marathon” that was said to have saved Paris by diverting Attila’s Huns away from the city. When Childeric I besieged the city in 464 and conquered it, she acted as an intermediary between the city and its conqueror, collecting food and convincing Childeric to release his prisoners.

You can find out more about St. Genevieve at her wiki article, here.

St. Genevieve

Appearances

[To begin with, apologies for the low level of activity here at this blog, and elsewhere. I am still catching up with comments here. Hopefully I will have time to respond to them today. The next few weeks will be very busy for me, and posting and commenting will be erratic, at best. So don’t be surprised if my weekend, religious themed posts are the only ones I make. Not sure how long this will continue, but into October at the very least.]

Short post today, following up with something I said in my most recent musings post. Therein I said the following:

Something that I want to address as well is the Looks/Athleticism versus Personality debate that seems to show up all the time in the comment section at The Rationale Male. A lot of folks there place too much stock in Looks, as compared to the other LAMPS/PSALM attributes. My suspicion is that the reason why is because Looks and Athleticism are obvious to everyone, whereas Personality/Power can be much more difficult to pick up. Not sure when I will get to writing it, but would love to finish it sometime this month.

To clarify, when I say Looks in that quote I meant the more general category of Appearance, which is used in the simpler alternative to my LAMPS/PSALM formula, APE, to encompass both Looks and Athleticism. I don’t think most of Rollo’s commenters distinguish between the two, so for the remainder of this post I will use Appearance, or A, in lieu of Looks and/or Athleticism.

To quickly summarize what many argue over at Rollo’s blog: Appearance matters more than anything. Good looking men get all the good looking women. Personality and “Game” only gets a man so far. If you aren’t born good-looking, you are just out of luck.

There’s more, but I think I got the heart of it. As for my response, well, I think that argument is bunk. Which should surprise no one, really, since I’ve argued for over a year that the most important part of male sexual attractiveness is a man’s masculinity and personality, which are both tied together. I think there are two reasons why many of the men there have come to that erroneous conclusion.

The first reason is that handsome, good-looking men are also more likely to be confidence and assertive, and those score stronger on their Personality/Power attribute. This comes about because Appearance is the easiest attribute to evaluate. You just need to look at a man to get a fairly accurate reading on where he falls on the scale of Appearance. Since women notice it so easily, they will often direct a lot of attention early on at handsome men, in order to evaluate them more fully (although they may not consciously realize this). Such attention will often, at least initially, be positive. Good-looking men who receive this kind of positive attention are likely to build their confidence more easily, as well as to hone their communication skills with women. This in turn will, over time, improve their Power/Personality scores as well.

So it isn’t simply that handsome men just have their looks going for them, they often will also have their confidence and interpersonal skills going for them as well. But those talents/skills aren’t as visible as a man’s looks. So those who observe the success of handsome men with women don’t realize that a lot more is going on beneath the surface than just looks. This is supported by reports from many in the ‘sphere of conventionally handsome men who were able to get initial attention from women but quickly lose it due to personality defects. Whether that is shyness or feminization leading to an emasculated personality, those men find themselves victims of the fact that Power/Personality is more important than Appearance to female sexual attraction.

The second reason for this disconnect is that women want it all. Women want a man who scores well on all the LAMPS/PSALM factors. If given the choice between a good-looking man “with Game” and an average-looking man “with Game”, women will choose the former (at least, in so far as attraction is concerned). Since good-looking men tend to be confident, they “have Game”, more often than not, it stands to reason that a good-looking man will simply be more attractive all around than a man who isn’t good-looking. Surmounting that hurdle is possible though. Strong External factors, such as social Status or Money, can give an average-looking man an edge. But relatively few men can have that kind of Status or Money. So in the present SMP good-looking men have a significant advantage over men who are only average (or below) in looks. This is only heightened by the fact that women can often achieve decent Status and Money values for themselves, thus raising the bar for men. Personality can compensate for a deficiency in Appearance, but it is very, very difficult to have  Power/Personality score that is high enough to beat out a man with a high Appearance score and a high Power/Personality score.

Taken together, those two factors- good-looking men also have a high Power/Personality score, and women wanting it all, explain the phenomenon that the commenters at Rollo’s blog have observed and described. Of course, my readers are free to disagree and voice that disagreement in the comments.

I should note that I also have another post on attraction which I want to work on, although I have no idea when I’ll have the time for it. I want to explore some alternate theories of attraction, including that which Rollo seems to advocate.