Meager Options

As I am somewhat busy at the moment, I’m afraid original posts will have to wait for the time being. In the interim I am going to do what I often do when pressed for time: rip off of major bloggers, in this case Dalrock. In the comments of his post The more meager a woman’s choices, the more attractive she must be, someone by the name of trugingstar left this comment:

I’m going to play the devil’s advocate to the commenters, and say that more older men are cheating and that the dating market is bad for women who want to get married. I’m a 20-something woman. I *ahem* am the first to tell if a marriage is on the rocks, and I’ve made it into kind of a game to guess how I end up a mistress candidate in the fantasies of married fellows (cold? mean? miscarriage? former alpha? just a really guy young?). This happens to my friends often, as well. We have a running joke that the only men interested in us are already married.

I also have only a little bit of time left in the *secular* dating scene to meet a *Christian*, because the Christian dating scene is pure idealism. By secular, I mean not sleeping around, but going on hundreds of first dates that fail the “how often do you go to church?” test.

If you date at a church, you end up with the left-overs, most of the time. Someone my age has a shot with someone in his 30s. The kind of pew-warmer who’s unmarried, unsexed, and in his thirties is often alone for a reason. It’s usually a serious issue. It’s not the same as me going out and sleeping around and meeting a thirty-something that’s sleeping around.

So, why all the cheating? Why all the poor selection? Duh: everyone knows this – uncommitted (by this, I mean “unmarried,” not necessarily ONS) sex outside of the church, marriage (especially male) discouragement within the church, creates no reason for most men to marry. It also creates a surplus of women who are available for extramarital sex.

I’m just going to literally go with the title here; yes, “the more meager a woman’s choices, the more attractive she must be.” I can’t get my equal in attractiveness, virtue, whatever, because the choice selection is meager. BUT. I can get married men. Can’t WAIT for marriage.

There is a lot to dissect and respond to in this comment, and this post will be devoted to just that.

The first thing that I found interesting about this post is it can be interpreted two different ways.  One possible interpretation is that as a woman’s choices (in men) become more meager, the more attractive that she has to be to get a man (or at least attract one worth having). Technically this is true. In a limited market, you need to have more assets on hand to pull off a successful transaction. This applies to both commercial markets and the marriage market. And it is the same for both men and women- In a “buyers” market we need to have more and more to make the sale.

However, what I understand Dalrock to actually say is that the woman he was quoting from was convinced that because she was so attractive there were few good options for men available to her. In essence, because she was so high-value she was “priced out of the market.” This seems to be the very same attitude expressed by the commenter, who apparently started a blog a few days ago. She was convinced that because she was not likely to find “my equal in attractiveness, virtue, whatever”, which I take to mean she felt she couldn’t successfully carry out assortive mating.

Now, the obvious counter to this, which Dalrock hints at, is that women who hold this view are probably greatly over-estimating their actual worth (or SMV/MMV). If they really were as high-value as they thought they were, their choices wouldn’t be so meager. Or maybe they aren’t that meager, but they just don’t see the decent men around them for what they are. Of course the situation is often more complicated than that, but still, it has to be the case for some-most especially the woman Dalrock quotes.

Now I’m going to parse individual thoughts from her comment, starting with this:

more older men are cheating and that the dating market is bad for women who want to get married.

Most of the studies I’ve seen indicate that men are more likely to commit adultery (I despise the word “cheat” in this context) than women, although not necessarily by a huge discrepancy. Now, some men around these parts dispute these numbers, but I don’t. While I think that women often would have an easier time cheating if they wanted to, most don’t want to. They don’t have the same sex drive as men, and many of the men around them wouldn’t be seen as worth breaking their vows with. Also, I suspect that women are more likely to seek a divorce and then sleep with whoever they want, whereas men are less keen on seeking divorce as a means to break their vows.

And yes, the “dating” marking is bad for women who want to get married. That’s only natural, as the dating market was created to push dating instead of marriage. Men and women who are serious about marriage, chaste Christians especially, face a brutal marriage market at the moment.

I’m a 20-something woman. I *ahem* am the first to tell if a marriage is on the rocks, and I’ve made it into kind of a game to guess how I end up a mistress candidate in the fantasies of married fellows (cold? mean? miscarriage? former alpha? just a really guy young?). This happens to my friends often, as well. We have a running joke that the only men interested in us are already married.

Sadly, I can’t really scoff at this, which is something I suspect more than a few manospherians have done. I have gotten more than a few hints or propositions from married women over the years. Some subtle, others not so much (some of the invitations to pull off a “relationship coup” were especially sickening). From my perspective, for a long time, it seemed like the only attention I got from women was from those who were married (with the only exceptions being those who were unacceptable for some other significant reason). It was rather disturbing to me, actually, to think that a number of women I worked with or met somehow saw me as their “rebound” guy.

If you date at a church, you end up with the left-overs, most of the time. Someone my age has a shot with someone in his 30s. The kind of pew-warmer who’s unmarried, unsexed, and in his thirties is often alone for a reason. It’s usually a serious issue.

Can’t you just feel the love folks? The condescension here is sadly typical. I’m sure that more than a few of my male readers can relate their own stories about similar experiences. Understand, ladies, it is attitudes like this which cause a lot of men to drop out of the game entirely.

It’s not the same as me going out and sleeping around and meeting a thirty-something that’s sleeping around.

Assuming I’m reading this right, she is saying that she thinks things, and by things I mean men, are far worse inside the church than out in the SMP. Do some of my female readers understand why this and other statements have many Christian men in the west swearing off marriage, or at least western women?

Why all the poor selection? Duh: everyone knows this – uncommitted (by this, I mean “unmarried,” not necessarily ONS) sex outside of the church, marriage (especially male) discouragement within the church, creates no reason for most men to marry. It also creates a surplus of women who are available for extramarital sex.

All great in theory, and with some factual basis. Certainly the part about marriage discouragement is correct. But it also misses the fact that women aren’t signalling to men that they want to get married (at least until they are older) like they used to. And without that signalling, men aren’t quite so apt to get ready for marriage themselves, either mentally or otherwise. In addition, that “surplus of women who are available for extramarital sex” aren’t an asset to the majority of men who have trouble competing in the present SMP.

And that’s enough for now. Not sure I’ll be able to post again until the end of the week. In the meantime, feel free to add your own thoughts.

Advertisements

95 Comments

Filed under Christianity, Churchianity, Courtship, Marriage, Men, Red Pill, Sex, Sexual Market Place, Sin, Temptation, The Church, Women

95 responses to “Meager Options

  1. mdavid

    trugingstar,
    a) You and I are miles apart in our understanding of family, religion, sex, and biblical self-interpretation. Too far to have a meaningful discussion, so I won’t respond to that part.
    b) I’m sort of enjoying, as Gen-X, being called the “older generation”. It’s a first for me.
    c) Traditional kids I know don’t have the issues you do; my sons do well for themselves. Interestingly, they seem more critical of women than I and can afford to be: there is a massive shortage of well-groomed, educated, confident young men willing to a) get married and b) have/support a large family. Being in demand, they can take their pick. The big question is: are any women worth picking? I have my doubts, even among the Traditional set. So of course a religious vocation or a MGTOW lifestyle is always a fine option when one has an extended family for social support.

  2. @ Feather Blade

    What’s wrong with the direct approach (simply stating that you want to find a husband and get married)?

  3. The Scolds' Bridle

    To the girls, but in specific the one who was worried about looking “too eager”.

    To a worldly man, or to a religious man who is sexually active, a woman announcing that she is looking for marriage make the guy think this:

    “Gee, I dunno, I want to play the field and consider my options.”

    To a man who is waiting until marriage for sex, he will think:

    “Holy cow! If this chick and I work out, I could start getting laid in as little as 6-12 months!”

    Exaggeration, yes, but not that far from the truth. Male and female chastity was a wonderful marriage-accelerator. Because girls get horny too, y’know.

  4. After my divorce and I reentered the SMP one of the 1st things I had to do was figure out which chicks were married. Its insane the amount of attention you receive from married women. I think the number of unfaithful wives is much higher then folks account for.

  5. trugingstar

    Mdavid, wow, your wife sounds lucky. You will not deign to respond to me, because I’m not gnostic enough for you. Maybe if I pray really hard, I can get to your level. I’m apparently just bad arguments everywhere, which is a good excuse for your hurt pride.

    Yes there are women worth picking, and you’ll ground your “boys” if they pick one. Or choose any vocation other than pastor, which is a very stressful vocation with a very high suicide rate, so I really hope that when God speaks to you, it’s actually God, and you’re not some over-bearing helicopter-parent going by your flesh. Because the shoe seems to fit.

    I think it’s hilarious how “nicely” and passively you called me “unmarriagable,” saying that you would never allow your sons to touch someone my age with a 39.5-foot pole. I don’t care, dude, how washed-up your act is now. I doubt that you were any where near as Biblically chaste as I am at your age. Therefore, take the plank out of your eye, dude. You’re in absolutely no position to play the market still, even if it is vicariously, and you’d lose.

    I also just love how you accuse me of Biblical ineptitude. Honey, I was raised in a homeschooling, Evangelical environment. From the time I was a baby, I’ve attended church, was taught the Bible, etc. Let me tell you what: I totally respect a woman’s choice to wear a skirt instead of pants. But you can’t go around calling women who do not follow that extra-Biblical sentiment “unmarriagable” and essentially whores. That shows contempt for your sisters in Christ: you’re just looking for a reason to dislike young women. I think it’s more of a piety competition for you with other parents.

    You know what, “traditional” *women* don’t have the issues I do, because their parents turn them into a beauty pageant project so that they get married by age 18. What’s good about this, is that their parents have a clue, when it comes to their daughters, that the market don’t wait for a college degree. Although, we could all do without the competitive, anything goes spirit that accompanies their pedestalizing. However, nobody wants to marry some hick guy, which is why your vicariously picky sons are single and bound to remain so.

    Let me tell you what: I’m really open to “traditional” femininity (although, I consider myself to be darn traditional), but back in the 90s, I witnessed a bunch of washed-up traditional women having affairs. My mom went through a phase wherein she felt guilty about wearing jeans, but then all of the posturing “role models” that she compared herself to had issues on the inside. You know what was weird, is that a lot of these women ended-up losing their husbands. Apparently, they moved on right after these incidents. I’m not saying that anything happened… What I am saying is that skirts etc. can be meaningful for a woman, but I’m generally suspicious that it’s an act. The Bible says that what makes a woman beautiful is her character, not her outward adornments.

    One young woman my age, beautiful person, who wears long skirts and got married early, recently posted that her parents got back together after being separated. They were active in the homeschool community, had a ton of kids, sadly lost a few. Very conservative. Doesn’t matter.

    P.S. What is “Biblical self interpretation?” I practice exegesis, so no, we’re on very different pages. We’d be on the same page, if you were on a page in the Bible. You have no scripture to validate your disobedience of Paul’s teachings on marriage.

    What’s more, I seriously doubt your credentials to lecture non-fornicating young adults about whom they should marry. I think you were out there enjoying the world at our age. It’s not some birthright that you have as someone else’s married old father to “show the way”; you’re just another dude with bad advice, in my book. No one here has to listen to you. It would be better of you to be silent on a matter that you know nothing about. You don’t know anything about the current marriage market. You don’t know how to avoid fornication without the help of a spouse. Until you tell people with “so much experience” that their advice is garbage, they think they’re somehow smarter and better and wiser than someone who’s kept his or her pants on and has grown-up with the scriptures. They take advantage of our willingness to serve, and make it about serving them, because their flesh is still so weakened by their past. It’s people using whatever tool they can to be the boss, even the whole “respect your elders” ploy, which is not Biblical: “honor like an older brother,” but not respect, nor necessarily respect the advice of, unless it’s earned. I give an ear to older people with good advice, but you should humbly listen to someone like me. This isn’t a competition about who’s the boss, I really just know way more than you about this. I’ve earned my perspective the long, difficult, and painful way.

  6. trugingstar

    Lol, I’m miles away from understanding sex??? Just can it.

  7. mdavid

    trugingstar,

    You will not deign to respond to me, because I’m not gnostic enough for you.

    I don’t want to fight with you. If you have a something meaningful to discuss, do so and I’ll reply.

    I also just love how you accuse me of Biblical ineptitude. Honey, I was raised in a homeschooling, Evangelical environment. From the time I was a baby,

    You make my point. I’m not evangelical, and I don’t think the bible supports evangelical positions. So why should we argue about it?

    Or choose any vocation other than pastor, which is a very stressful vocation with a very high suicide rate,

    Priests have lower suicide rates than the average to my knowledge.

    I think it’s hilarious how “nicely” and passively you called me “unmarriagable,”

    I don’t know you from Adam and know nothing about your marriage potential. In fact, I clearly stated this above. So quit libeling me.

    I’m not looking for a fight, so please don’t start one.

  8. Donal, if you really want to work on your Central/Eastern European languages (Slovak, Polish, etc.), you might consider enrolling in a summer program at the University of Pittsburgh where they have intensive six or so week sessions at different levels–if you have the opportunity, of course.

  9. @SrNemesis
    “What’s wrong with the direct approach (simply stating that you want to find a husband and get married)?”

    The first difficulty that I can see with this is: to whom do you say this and in what situation?

    Call it a failure of imagination, but I can only see this being not awkward if one is involved in a mixed-sex Bible study. Whether it would be an effective tactic is another matter entirely.
    It would be extremely odd to say it to men in a conversation, unless the conversation already concerned marriage.
    It would be a natural thing to discuss with other women, but unless one of them has a male relative she’s trying to marry off, perhaps not terribly useful.

    To say it to an individual man though… in that case, I would have trouble separating the general declaration of interest in husband/marriage from the specific declaration of intent to marry that person… which is as good as a proposal, which is exceedingly forward and not the woman’s place to do.

    So… whether there is something wrong with employing the direct approach would depend on the social situation, and the idea of employing it myself gives me the heebs.

  10. @ Feather Blade

    I agree that individual positive signaling is a difficult thing to do. Not many good opportunities for it. And that applies for both men and women. More than a few men around here have stories of talking about being marriage minded, and that scaring women away.

    which is as good as a proposal, which is exceedingly forward and not the woman’s place to do.

    Forward it might be, but why is it not the woman’s place to do so? Lets be honest, the idea that men must make the proposal is a cultural artifact. It is not supported by Scripture or Sacred Tradition.

  11. Mrs. C

    @DG Lets be honest, the idea that men must make the proposal is a cultural artifact. It is not supported by Scripture or Sacred Tradition.

    As Catholics, we believe Mary is the model of the Church. Did God give his fiat to her asking to bring His Son into the world or did she give hers?

    I think the man proposing is not just cultural but sets the tone for the marriage. He’s inviting her to follow him in his vision. She shouldn’t ask to follow Him. If your marriage is truly going to be a Christian one, then as Head, you say “Come, follow me.”

  12. @ Mrs. C

    As Catholics, we believe Mary is the model of the Church. Did God give his fiat to her asking to bring His Son into the world or did she give hers?

    I fail to see the comparison here. They are completely different matters.

    The Book of Ruth provides an example of a woman being very “forward” with marriage, the woman in question is praised, not called out for being too forward.

    I am not saying that there aren’t good reasons why a man shouldn’t be the one to make the proposal. But the notion that women can’t is not one that I’ve heard a convincing argument against.

    I’ll be honest here. Based on my experiences and anecdotal evidence, I suspect that a lot of the female push-back against it is based on feminine-primacy concerns. Especially a fear of rejection.

  13. As I think on it, this would make for a great topic for a new blog post. I will try and create one on this topic either Monday or Tuesday of next week.

  14. Mrs. C

    @DG – You make some good points. Do you also feel that the tradition of asking the father of the bride for his blessing is also outmoded? If not, how would that work, if the woman were to propose?

    You don’t have to answer that here but I’d be interested in your answer in your post if you don’t think it would muddle the point too much.

  15. Forward it might be, but why is it not the woman’s place to do so?

    If one subscribes to the idea that women are the gatekeepers of sex and men are the gatekeepers of commitment, then it becomes the proper function of the man to offer commitment to the woman, in exchange for her offering him sex (and the children resulting therefrom). The commitment must come before the sex, otherwise the woman has wasted her resources for naught, but it means that a woman offering marriage to a man is her usurping his place in the order of things.

    The book of Ruth makes a poor counter example – she did not go up to Boaz and ask him to marry her, she just put herself in his way, and he took the steps to make her his.

    As far as forwardness is concerned…some how I associate “forwardness” with “probable promiscuity” in my mind. I suppose this doesn’t have to be a universal association, but it is one that prevents me at least from taking bold action.

  16. Mrs. C

    @Feather Blade “The book of Ruth makes a poor counter example – she did not go up to Boaz and ask him to marry her, she just put herself in his way, and he took the steps to make her his.”

    Hmmmm…..been thinking deeper about this and you may be right about it being a poor counter example. I found it explained that in the OT times women did have a right to claim the marital protection due to them. As a widow and a kinsman of Boaz by marriage, he would have had a duty to take her as a wife, if there were no other to redeem her. He was also the one who took notice of her first as a good woman by staying with her MIL and already offered her protection in his fields by commanding her to glean from no other field than his. He also offered her the provision of food and drink. It was due to this action on his part, that Naomi recognized that he would be a good husband for Ruth. Boaz, knowing there was yet a kinsman closer in relation to her, had to get the other kinsman to renounce his claim by reminding him that if he laid claim to the field, he would have to take on the care and protection of another wife. The closer kinsman renounces his rights and Boaz is then free to “redeem” her by buying the portion of land from Naomi, which also comes with Ruth as a wife. I wouldn’t really say she proposed marriage to him so much as, basically showed him that since he already took her under his protection as a maid servant, that he should also give her the marital protection that was due her as a kinswoman. She showed him that due to his offer of protection and provision, she preferred to be “redeemed” by him.

    That also, being an OT example, is before the time of Christ, which raised women from the status of possessions to the model of Jesus and the Church. Jesus sacrificially loves first and asks the Church to respond by following Him.

  17. mdavid

    It’s foolish to look to the cultural times of the Jews for tips on marriage proposals today. Since we are miles away from the marriage law of said Jews at said time (women could not own property, men could physically control wives, women had little political and little earning power, etc.). Those biblical Jews certainly wouldn’t recognize our version of “marriage”, so why should the proposals look the same? The whole thing is asinine. It’s the consequence of Christians worshiping a text and not a God guided by a Church.

    Today, marriage means nearly all relationship risk (legal, and financial) transfers to the man. It thus seems more appropriate that women should propose to men; that is, she should offer a partnership, followed by a solemn promise not to use the law of the state against him. Only then would both parties offer their “terms” of “marriage” (kids or not, male headship or not, what makes divorce acceptable, etc.) and these promises would be in the marriage ceremony.

    I think dowries might actually make a comeback, held by a third party prior and apart from the marriage, as evidence she isn’t a flake and has been responsible with her money. Again, the risk/reward is too large for men today, so the market will find ways to adjust. That is, if Western culture even survives. It’s more likely some traditional culture will take it over like the Germanic tribes wiped out the Romans, and their form of marriage will look very different.

  18. I’m going to reserve any commentary for the post, which will try and address these issues, and more.

  19. If one subscribes to the idea that women are the gatekeepers of sex and men are the gatekeepers of commitment, then it becomes the proper function of the man to offer commitment to the woman, in exchange for her offering him sex (and the children resulting therefrom).

    No, this appears to me to be completely backwards. If the man randomly offers commitment to the woman, then he’s an extremely poor gatekeeper. Quite the contrary, the woman should request commitment from the man, and if he so chooses he can decide to provide that commitment in exchange for sex. Conversely, the man can instead request sex from the woman, and if she so chooses, she can decide to provide that sex in exchange for commitment.

    The commitment must come before the sex, otherwise the woman has wasted her resources for naught,

    Sure. Although from the man’s perspective, one could say the sex must come before the commitment, otherwise the man has wasted his resources for naught. This is certainly the position I take, at least when we’re talking about marital commitment. Fortunately for me, I’m a secular man so my choice of actions isn’t constrained by Christian morality in this regard.

    but it means that a woman offering marriage to a man is her usurping his place in the order of things.

    She isn’t offering it but requesting it. She’s indicating that he actually does have something that she values. This is rather important in setting an even playing field, since it goes without saying that unless he is already in a relationship, she has something that he values (namely sex), but not that he has something that she values (since many young women today don’t value commitment).

  20. Although from the man’s perspective, one could say the sex must come before the commitment, otherwise the man has wasted his resources for naught. This is certainly the position I take, at least when we’re talking about marital commitment.

    A curious position. Have you ever bothered to commit to a woman from whom you have requested sex? Or have they never bothered to request commitment? If a woman with whom you were sleeping requested commitment, would you grant it to her?

  21. mdavid

    A curious position.

    About 3% of people in the West wait for marriage. Exactly how has the normative cultural position “curious?”

  22. Exactly how has the normative cultural position “curious?”

    I didn’t want to cause offense by calling it a foolish position.

  23. “the woman should request commitment from the man, and if he so chooses he can decide to provide that commitment in exchange for sex. Conversely, the man can instead request sex from the woman, and if she so chooses, she can decide to provide that sex in exchange for commitment.”

    Sir Nemesis, this is actually a pretty good statement of how this “dance” plays out in practice. In the past, around 60 or so years ago, this describes how it went down. Typically it was the man requesting (P in V) sex after a few months of dating or courtship, and the woman saying “Ok, but marriage first.” And typically he was giving up more and more resources (time, money, etc.) in exchange for more and more “sex” (kissing, making out, petting, oral, but reserving P in V for marriage). (Let’s not kid ourselves – lots of women were doing “everything but” P in V before marriage, for men they were “seriously dating”.)

    I doubt very much that women were FIRST saying “I want to get married so give me commitment”, and then men saying “OK I’ll give you a ring, but once I do I get sex”.

    “from the man’s perspective, one could say the sex must come before the commitment, otherwise the man has wasted his resources for naught. This is certainly the position I take, at least when we’re talking about marital commitment. Fortunately for me, I’m a secular man so my choice of actions isn’t constrained by Christian morality in this regard.”

    And this second paragraph pretty well describes how it goes now. Men say “sex now, maybe commitment later”. And a lot of women are saying “OK, if you’re hawt enough.”.

  24. A curious position. Have you ever bothered to commit to a woman from whom you have requested sex? Or have they never bothered to request commitment? If a woman with whom you were sleeping requested commitment, would you grant it to her?

    All of this is essentially hypothetical, since I have had neither commitment nor sex thus far. There was one girl that all but offered to hookup with me, but I had no interest in her (her promiscuity was a dealbreaker, and so were other aspects of her personality that went hand in hand with it).

    Would I marry a woman with whom I have already had sex? Of course. That’s the goal, although I’m going to be rather cautious in my choice of spouse, and part of that includes the rather crudely labelled “test drive”. I am of course willing to give up pseudo-commitment (in the form of a boyfriend/girlfriend “relationship”) first in exchange for sex. Heck, if she’s a virgin, I’d be willing to even agree to an engagement first. But I would strongly prefer that she request commitment first rather than for me to have to make an unsolicited offer of commitment. To make an unsolicited offer of commitment would make me the beggar and her the chooser, which is not a position I wish to be in.

  25. Pingback: Proposing A Question | Donal Graeme

  26. @SirNemesis;
    I apologise for the intrusiveness of my questions. Thank you for answering them despite that – I now understand your position a bit better.

    But I would strongly prefer that she request commitment first rather than for me to have to make an unsolicited offer of commitment. To make an unsolicited offer of commitment would make me the beggar and her the chooser, which is not a position I wish to be in.

    That is an understandable concern, though I would think that it should be possible to phrase the offer in such a way that you could not be perceived as begging.

    I want to say that a woman’s offer of sex ~is~ a tacit request for commitment, in the “I am putting myself in a very vulnerable position in front of you, and risking a destitute life of raising your bastard child if you accept my offer, please don’t accept unless you are willing to take me on permanently” kind of way… but that idea does not seem to be congruent with modern behavioral patterns (to a say nothing of the available pharmacopeia).

    Other tacit requests for commitment, of course, would be a woman (with whom one is in a relationship) expressing interest in having kids, expressing interest in wedding paraphernalia, and/or suggesting that the two of you move in together.

    But to for a woman to explicitly ask “Man, please marry me” … it sets a precedent of her as the leader and initiator in the relationship, and the man were interested in being leader in his own household, he would have to fight against that precedent for the rest of the marriage

  27. Anne

    mdavid: Could you please explain your definition of the word normative? I thought it had a different definition than the one you appear to be using.

  28. John Nesteutes

    There’s hope for trugingstar. A few days ago, she announced on her blog she’d start covering her head.

    I know a sizeable number of guys who will only marry a woman who “loves The Lord, dresses modestly, and wears a veiling”. Any girl who does those things and is remotely attractive is in the running. It almost fear unwholesome women will figure this out some day and start poaching our men.

  29. Kevin

    I think men should offer commitment in the form of marriage and they should do so when their is some risk. Nothing ventured nothing gained. Aren’t men supposed to be the risky sex (leaving aside the ridiculous legal risk of being married which is simply borderline a reason alone not to marry)?

    As a Christian pre-marital sex is definitely off the table. However, given the data I am not sure if I were an atheist I would have sex before marriage. Sex is not so amazing that its better a few weeks before marriage versus after marriage.

    Separately- trugingstar says a lot of sensible things, just so abrasivly. I also don’t understand all the text above about pants vs skirts. Is that a thing in some part of Christianity? Dang it’s a big tent.

  30. mdavid

    Anne, mdavid: Could you please explain your definition of the word normative? I thought it had a different definition than the one you appear to be using.

    I get your point. The general definition of Establishing, relating to, or deriving from a standard or norm works any way, but I’m guessing you are thinking of the more specific what is considered to be the correct way of doing something where marriage before sex is the “correct” way.

    Well, I think that ship has sailed. Very few people anymore plan on waiting for marriage, and many men now openly mock it. My wife often calls men getting married pulling a “beta move”, and she’s unfortunately right in this day and age. Marriage rarely offers men anything, and only the most desperate or lucky men have something to look forward to if they risk it.

  31. mdavid

    JN, I know a sizeable number of guys who will only marry a woman who…dresses modestly, and wears a veiling. Any girl who does those things and is remotely attractive is in the running.

    Yes, this. Women with floor dresses & headcoverings are hawt, and they define marriage material. At least a +2 on the MMV.

    …almost fear unwholesome women will figure this out some day and start poaching our men.

    Not a chance. Most women’s egos are too large. Hell, I know lots of trad women who still can’t bring themselves to do it. Sort of amusing.

  32. Sadly, mdavid is right that a lot of “Traditional” women are tradition in form but not substance.

    But I agree that serious signs of devotion, with veiling being a major one, are strong indicators of high MMV. And while floor dresses aren’t necessary “hawt” (at least not to me), I do think that headcoverings can be and often are.

  33. Pingback: Random Musings and Links- #6 | Donal Graeme

  34. trugingstar

    Short skirts or long skirts? You have to pick one.

  35. @ trugingstar

    I’m curious. Was that rhetorical, or directed at someone?

  36. trugingstar

    I’m curious.

  37. trugingstar

    What my response is gonna be. 😛

    I just have random Gene Parmesan moments.

  38. If your intention all along was to confuse me, congratulations. You’ve succeeded.

  39. DJ

    DG I think the question was your preferred hem length, and Trugingstar appears to be flirting with you.
    Trugingstar am I close?

  40. trugingstar

    I wanted to know what was hawt. I doubt that MDavid and John think long skirts are the hawtest. They’d prolly perfer short. I also can’t really visualize the burka and mini skirt combo that gets DG so hawt. That must be FALSE.

  41. DJ

    @trugingstar
    in all honesty it is kinda hot , it sorta gives an air of taboo and mystery I guess. http://www.hot-costumes.com/sexy-burka-halloween-costume-p-530.html
    idk about long skirts being hot but they can be beautiful.

  42. I know I’m being baited here, but I’ll answer anyways.

    I never meant burkas when I referred to headcoverings But then again, you knew that already. I was referring to Mantillas and the like.

    Also, I used quotations around hawt for a reason. I distinguish between “sexy” and “beautiful.” Sometimes they are together, sometimes they are not. “Hawt” was something I categorized with sexy.

    DJ is right that there is an “air of taboo and mystery” around a veiled woman. This can sometimes be sexy, as it can be very suggestive if pulled off right. There is another component to it as well though. Veiling can make a woman seem vulnerable and innocent. This also has a strong appeal to men (or at least, to me), as it draws out our protective instincts. Such women are to be cherished and held on to, not to be used and discarded.

    The big thing to understand is that a woman’s face is a major focus of our visual attention, as much of her beauty is found there. Hiding that beauty, if only somewhat, intrigues us and makes us want to learn more.

    Such is not the case with a woman’s lower leg. While they can look nice, they don’t have the same “draw” as a woman’s upper leg. So the difference in “hawtness” between a full length dress and one that stops at the knees isn’t all that great for most men. Without that same appeal, “hiding” the leg with long dresses doesn’t have the same effect as veiling does.

    Will I find a woman with a shorter dress more appealing than one wearing a longer dress? Probably. But much depends on how much shorter it is.

    Really, what looks best on a woman at a given time depends on the situation, and on what I’m looking for.

  43. trugingstar

    DG, was not baiting you. I actually had a problem picturing what you were talking about. Your description makes sense. My earlier comments were directed at some of your commenters. Hope that clears things up!

  44. @ trugingstar

    I actually had a problem picturing what you were talking about.

    Ok, that is understandable. It is hard to express exactly the different ways men can look at women, at least in terms of a short comment. I should have been more clear in my original comment. Glad some of the confusion has been cleared up.

    And to clarify further… long skirts and headdresses would be signs of high MMV in a woman if she wore that at church. So if I’m looking for MMV signs, that would trigger a positive response for me. If I’m trying to determine raw attractiveness (SMV), then I’ll be looking for something else. Make sense?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s