The Church has a serious problem as far as marriage is concerned. I think that is pretty clear to all of us. But this problem extends just beyond the institution itself to how it is viewed and approached by singles and by clergy. One of the themes I’ve stressed on this blog is that the Church (the Catholic Church in particular) has done essentially nothing to help young Christians marry, and marry well at that. If anything, the Church has made this task more difficult in recent decades.
All of that is the preface for two links to articles which discuss singleness among Christians. I’m mentioning them in this short post to highlight how even those who realize something is wrong are still blind to what is going on. Sadly, we have a lot of work ahead of us.
MarcusD alerted me to the first article, Single and Catholic, which discusses how the Church needs to be more welcoming to the unmarried. While the author makes some good points, what struck me is the fact that it seemed as though single parents (aka, single moms) ended up dominating the discussion in the article. Nearly everything ended up revolving around them. Perhaps I’m being petty, but as an unmarried Christian man I don’t like the idea of being lumped in with single mothers as being part of the general constituency “single.” I imagine that my fellow sisters in Christ have a similar viewpoint.
[Update: I was taken to task in the comments over this next section, and rightly so. Either I misread what was said, or I explained myself poorly. As a result, I have struck out my commentary, although I left it so that people aren’t completely confused. For a better example of what I was seeing look to the comments, specifically here.]
The second article, which I found thanks to a link provided by Mrs. C, is Why You’re Not Any Less of a Person if You Haven’t Dated Yet. This article’s authoress shows some potential- she rejects the casual dating culture. Yet at the same time she says things like “in no way whatsoever am I saying that dating is bad.” She cannot see the disconnect- how casual dating is just another form of dating, and that if the one is bad then so must the other. Also troubling her her defense of “singleness.” She doesn’t try and define it, or explain why it is a good thing, much less back up her view with Scripture or Tradition. When I read language like that I get the picture that she thinks singleness is good because it is good for her, and it is good for her because she feels good about being single at the moment. There is no introspection, no self-reflection taking place. Certainly she is not considering whether she is called to marriage, and if so, taking serious steps towards it. She rejects the notion that she is “naive, inexperienced, and childlike” and yet she doesn’t take her vocation seriously. Worst of all, this still puts her above most of her peers.
I might have another short post up tomorrow, not sure yet if that will work out. I hope to have a major one done by the end of the week, time permitting.
Donal Graeme 
Deti —
I think when you’re talking about 22 and 27 or 24 and 29 (rather than 22 and 40, say) it’s a combination of your point 4 (power disparity) coupled with a woman’s natural preference to marry +/-1-3, as we can see from the OKCupid stuff that came up a few months ago. The +/-5 was from a few decades ago out of pragmatism and more pressure to marry earlier (so the youngest men who were most suitable were picked, and many were in the late 20s), while in reality women are more attracted to men who are within 1-3 of their own age (at least until they are older, when they seem most attracted to men in their early 40s regardless of how old they themselves are). So the current setup fulfills both of those (pragmatism and desire) — wait till later for the pragmatic reason of more men being suitable, as well as the reason that it avoids marrying a man outside the golden preferred range (even if 5 years isn’t exactly robbing the cradle). It also satisfies the anti-patriarchy narrative, which suits the broader culture just fine, although it isn’t really the reason for personal motives here I think in most cases. On the “she needs to grow” issue, there is some truth to that in specific cases, but really it depends on maturity levels.
“I wasn’t thinking so much of making friends with lots of girls in hopes of one finding him attractive so much as the guy singling out a girl, keeping her in friend status to vet whether she is interested in marriage, where she stands etc, before making the investment in showing interest in courtship.”
That’s not likely to work either, in today’s SMP and MMP.
The way we’re currently set up, women get to pick the men they like and demonstrate indicators of interest (IOIs). Then if the men aren’t too dumb or dense, they pick up on the IOIs. If they like the girls back, something happens. Women have to choose from among the available men who display.
Most men are attracted to most women, but it doesn’t work the other way around. Most women are not attracted to most men. That’s why it doesn’t work with a man singling out a girl he likes and then keeping her as a friend. Most of the time it’s wasted effort. She either (1) isn’t attracted to him; or (2) isn’t available. Better for him to display and let a woman (women) choose him by demonstrating their sexual interest in him.
Wow, y’all need to get a life. 😛
It’s very simple. Single, good girls all want to get married. They all act like they don’t. They’re still great wife-material. Not everyone knows this, but now you do. They don’t know what they’re doing wrong, neither do nice guys. I’m a woman. I know this much.
Men should never expect women to carry signs around going, “I want to get married.” It’s not a woman’s job, and it’s not natural. Men are supposed to make women want marriage to them. Whether or not you like it, in the MMP, men are selling something. I’m going to do a post about dowry, but think of the college education as a way women pay men for what they’re selling. It’s the reverse of the SMP.
*Whether or not a college education is a good dowry is a different matter.
Where would my friends fall into this? They were certainly looking for relationships, so arguably they might have been the career-oriented types. However, these guys were looking for “the one”, so to speak, and had no interest in relationships of indeterminate duration. They experienced essentially 0 success (lots of getting friend-zoned), but not for lack of trying. They had very low SMV due to being too beta (not so much because they pedestalized girls – they didn’t, but because they tended to be extremely unassertive sexually and romantically, instead getting to know girls as friends first and letting themselves develop a crush before confessing feelings). Their experiences did cause them to become more gun-shy when it came to seeking women, but I wouldn’t say they were altogether female-avoidant.
Not saying the female-avoidants don’t exist. I certainly was one of them (I saw the lack of success that my friends were having and decided that my efforts would be better spent in other endeavors).
I don’t think a lot of you know what you’re talking about. I don’t mean to be rude, but I really think that you should listen to what young, single women have to say in this instance.
tru:
I’m just reporting what I see young single women DOING. What they have to SAY is a bit less important for men’s purposes, really.
“they didn’t, but because they tended to be extremely unassertive sexually and romantically, instead getting to know girls as friends first and letting themselves develop a crush before confessing feelings).”
-They do this. “The one”… don’t even know her. This is ratchet and needs to stop.
thedeti, I wonder if you get the SMP and MMP mixed-up sometimes.
For all intents and purposes, the MMP has been collapsed into the SMP. They’re more or less one and the same.
“Men should never expect women to carry signs around going, “I want to get married.” It’s not a woman’s job, and it’s not natural. Men are supposed to make women want marriage to them.”
Women don’t need to carry signs around. But they do need to signal their interest in, and readiness for, marriage. And they need to do it in unmistakable ways.
No, men do not make women want marriage to them. This sounds to me like it’s the man’s job to “win her heart”. Well, no. It’s the woman’s job to show herself worthy of marriage to the man from whom she wants marriage. It’s then the man’s job to determine if, in his judgment, she has proven herself worthy of marriage; and then to determine if he wants to marry her.
Men are supposed to make women want sex from them.
Women are supposed to make men want marriage from them.
Nope, opposing markets. I did a post.
Yup. Especially since women insist on hiding any interest in marriage that they might have – effectively allowing the SMP to subsume the MMP.
It’s not about how they appear, it’s about how they operate. As long as marriage remains as an institution, there will be two separate, opposing marketplaces. Read my post.
Sir Nemesis: This is not an argument about “women aren’t ner ner ner” or “men aren’t ner ner ner.” I’m defining the SMP and MMP.
@thedeti “This sounds to me like it’s the man’s job to “win her heart”. Well, no. It’s the woman’s job to show herself worthy of marriage to the man from whom she wants marriage. It’s then the man’s job to determine if, in his judgment, she has proven herself worthy of marriage; and then to determine if he wants to marry her.”
Actually, I think it’s not a one way thing. It goes both ways.
Honestly, of all the couples in my family who are married from the most recent to the those in their 40’s, most met through either high school, college or at work during or shortly after school. Those who waited until later and are married seemed to have met through mutual friends and seemed to be willing to compromise more just to be married. I don’t think there is any one strategy in these types of things. I can’t think of anyone for whom if didn’t happen organically as an outgrowth of being in the right place at the right time.
It’s a single marketplace. There are different products on sale in the marketplace, but nevertheless it’s a single marketplace.
“ Actually, I think it’s not a one way thing. It goes both ways.”
What you describe is probably how it works dysfunctionally, in practice, in the real world. If we’re talking about how it should work; how it works best for everyone, then it’s the man’s job to induce “sexual attraction”, to show himself worthy of sex. It’s the woman’s job to show herself worthy of an attractive man’s commitment.
It’s not his job to pick a woman (women) and then do things to try to get on one or more women’s sexual attraction radar detectors. And it’s not his job to “win her heart”. She will do that by herself. And it’s not her job to show herself to be sexually attractive to as many men as possible. She doesn’t need to do that because unless she’s a UB 3 or below, she ALREADY IS sexually attractive to a lot of men. It’s her job to win his heart.
It’s his job to win her body. It’s her job to win his heart.
“Win her heart” is a passive aggressive lie that men use to accomplish seperate goal of winning a woman’s sex (be it Kosher or non-Kosher). It generally resembles a thin, cheesy veneer and/or desperation.
*I need to get a life.
Which is a more important problem in the church? That a woman appear “ready” to marry, or that a man appear interested in sex?
As Sir Nemesis pointed out, men at church are walking around stupidly, looking for “the one,” watching at a distance, and then confessing their love to a stranger. This does not indicate an interest in sex for its own sake, but a sexual dysfunction.
To make it clearer:
If there is anything I’ve learned from my 3 1/2 years around these parts, it’s this:
Sexual attraction from her to him is absolutely essential for any sort of relationship and/or marriage to work. It has to be present and it has to be sustained over the long term. It either exists or it doesn’t; it’s either there or it isn’t. It cannot be created from nothing. If her sexual attraction for him isn’t there very, very soon after she first meets him, it’s never going to be there. A woman’s sexual attraction for a man does not blossom over months or years. If it’s not there from the get go, it’s never going to be there.
It’s difficult for a man to achieve this, or at least it’s much rarer for a man to get a woman’s sexual attraction than for a woman to get a man’s sexual attraction. So a man cannot waste a month or so picking out a woman or two and setting sights on them; and hoping to “create” sexual attraction. It just doesn’t work that way.
I’ve also learned that a lot of things/feelings/beliefs that women call “attraction” are NOT, in fact, “SEXUAL attraction”. They are affinity, they are comfort, they are affability. I’ve also learned that when women speak in public to men about being “attracted” to a man, they are talking about comfort/affability/affinity. Very frequently, women do not talk about SEXUAL attraction they have for men because they (1) can’t articulate it; or (2) fear being labeled shallow and superficial.
So men should be wary when we talk in mixed company about “attraction”, and men should be very clear what is being discussed, in my opinion.
You could argue that a woman signaling her desire to marry *enables* the men hiding their interest in sex, making it easier to circle the girl with the “marry me” sign from 20 ft, dive in, and tell her that she’s the one he’s been waiting to marry his whole life, because he just say her sign and it was destiny, true love, and his heart.
Women wearing marriage signs will not solve the problem of Christian men being unattractive. It will worsen it. It will promote the problem of PUAs stealing virgins.
Women initiating anything potentially sexual also detracts from mutual attraction. It shows female dominance. Attraction is based on male dominance.
@ thedeti
Yup. Which is why it has to be referred to as “lust” to avoid semantic issues.
@ trugingstar
They both are major problems. However, thanks to feminist and tradcon taboos regarding “sexual harassment ™” and male sexuality in general, one of these issues is a lot harder to solve than the other.
Tru:
I don’t think you’re disagreeing with me all that much, despite your valiant efforts to tell me I’m all wet.
Where you’re getting stuck is your aversion to Christian women signalling readiness for marriage. Women need to do this so that marriage minded men will display to them, and present themselves for “choosing”, so to speak. Also, so that marriage minded men will work on preparing themselves for marriage. Your fears that this will cause PUAs to swoop in is silly. One would think that marriage minded women would know enough to avoid PUAs. Apparently I have more faith in your sex than you do.
Women also need to show IOIs to men they’re sexually attracted to. Men cannot pick out a girl or two and then set out to “make himself sexually attractive” to them. It doesn’t work that way. Odds are he’s going to be attracted to a girl(s) who pop up in front of him.
“Yup. Which is why it has to be referred to as “lust” to avoid semantic issues.”
Maybe. But the point is that when men talk about “attraction”, they are talking about SEXUAL attraction, i.e. “I want to have sex with her”.
When women talk about “attraction”, they are sometimes talking about sex. Most of the time they are talking about a myriad of other things, like comfort level, that he makes her feel good, that she feels comfortable and safe while with him, that she likes his personality. When she talks about “attraction” at least in public in mixed company or to men, she is usually NOT talking about “I want to have sex with him”.
For the most part, it’s only when you get into a group of women speaking anonymously or to each other one on one what women talk about SEXUAL attraction, that they talk about what makes them want to have sex with a man. And almost all the time what they identify as sexually attractive is a cocktail of power and physical appearance.
But even more important, it is nearly instantaneous and it’s overwhelming. It didn’t appear over a few weeks – she noticed it on first seeing him or within a few days. It wasn’t ‘meh” either. She describes it as a “lightning bolt” or how he is “striking”, how struck she is with him.
This thread is the reason I follow your blog. I just felt happier reading it. I wanted to cosign FBNF and Feather Blade’s posts and Deti even said something good. Then I started losing track of all the nice comments there were so many.
I’m glad you said what you did originally, Donal, because missing out on all these nice comments would have been a true loss.
@ Anne
For a while there I thought you were a sophisticated spambot. Then I realized that “Deti” and “FBNF” weren’t handles in this comment thread. Amazing.
@SirNemesis
I’m not sure how to take that. (My aunt used to call me a computer though.)
“I don’t think you’re disagreeing with me all that much, despite your valiant efforts to tell me I’m all wet.” <— No, precisely not, which is why you ought to consider the models that I drew-up for the MMP and SMP. It's a better working definition for you, because it's the root concept and not an attempt to patch together a sorta "marketplace idea" from some institutions, a few guys, and a chick.
"Where you’re getting stuck is your aversion to Christian women signalling readiness for marriage." <— No, that's my opinion. Women don't like men because they act like little weenies, men get frustrated, get an N-count, come back to church or don't. A man watching a woman at a distance and then moving-in and declaring her the love of his life leaves no room for the woman to signal marriage readiness. If a man says, "hi, I'd like to have sex with you" (okay, better than that), then the woman replies, "not until we're married", etc.
Whether a man’s looking for sex or a marriage, is Christian or not, it’s his duty to display sexual interest. A lack of this shows a lack of sexual power, which equals no attraction for the women. I can’t help that I find it unattractive to approach a man and have him go, “Oh, I’m so glad that you mentioned something! I’d love to consider a relationship with you!” I can’t help it that I find it attractive when a man goes, “Nice shoes! Can you walk in them? Can you walk on things with them?” (Yeah, I made that one up)
I’d be a d-bag if I was a guy. I’d be like, “Hey, nice hair!” as I gently pull the hair. If you act like a d-bag once, every woman will complain about you. If you keep acting like a d-bag, women will start to like it. Unless you’re a mean jerk. Then you’ll get beat-up by some former beta.
Comments have far outpaced what I can read and respond to tonight. I won’t be able to respond until some time tomorrow, but otherwise carry one.
Elspeth, What’s going on here is simple. There is a glaring dearth of marriageable women.
Yes but no. What’s really going: The institution of marriage has permanently changed, and women are responding to this. Why? Because a) women can earn their own money, b) the government is a new provider, c) child support steals from men with children, and d) women have few kids anymore. Basically, the era of marriage is over.
Deti,
In my experience, you’re about 10-15 years behind the facts on the ground regarding the quality of young men, and even then your description of the average beta is exceptionally rose-colored. Sounds like my (grossly inaccurate) self-image at that age. Masculinity is job one. We failed to bring that. The End.
The rising generation is doing better, and the young women are more feminine as well.
Nova,
If the top start pairing off early again, the whole thing cascades. And it turns out that life outcomes (on average) for men, women, and children are better in the long-run for people that do so and stick with it – that data is just now coming in*. A rapid decline is age of marriage is not outside the realm of possibility, or even probability.
* – though thought leaders like yourself intuitively grasped it long ago and of course it existed as cultural wisdom encoded in long-standing traditional customs, the control group, so to speak, of fabulous women waiting until their 30’s to court, is just now completing their trials. And tribulations.
trugingstar,
“A man watching a woman at a distance and then moving-in and declaring her the love of his life leaves no room for the woman to signal marriage readiness.”
+1
Likewise, a man doing so without that signal from her exhibits in an excruciatingly clear manner his own unreadiness. A man with no concern for the fidelity of his spouse/paternity of his children is no man at all.
The church at large (especially the Protestant church) has denied this truth.
The Catholic Church has denied and pretended on this issue at least as much as protestant ones. The Church still thinks we are living in the 1850’s.
…people around here…imply that even though the pickings are slim amongst women, it’s somehow just the opposite among men. I assert that it is the exact same situation on the masculine side.
I agree with this. The marriage/children game is so dangerous and uninspiring quality men don’t try very hard to play. Eventually, women’s marriage prospects will get bad enough they begin shifting courtship accordingly. But not without a lot of spinsterhood first. It should be an interesting next 25 years.
“Masculinity is job one. We failed to bring that. The End.”
Not quite. Perhaps men of our generation failed to bring masculinity, but there were reasons for that beyond our control — upbringing, culture, media, schooling, etc. Women were making it clear in the culture they DID NOT WANT masculinity, derided as “macho a**hole antics” and othersuch.
Anyone who wants to can dismiss this as excuse-making. I don’t really care, because everyone has been bearing the brunt of it; women included. And if we “failed to bring that”, that isn’t my fault, or the fault of men of my generation. The way I see it, I didn’t cause this problem; but I’m sure as hell having to deal with the fallout from it.
thedeti,
“but there were reasons for that beyond our control — upbringing, culture, media, schooling, etc.”
Of course. The point was, it hosed women too. We all got played.
“Women were making it clear in the culture they DID NOT WANT masculinity, derided as “macho a**hole antics” and othersuch. ”
Fuck “the culture”, the culture was noise. Look at what they did, who they chose, not what they thought they had to say. We were saying bullshit ourselves because we thought we had to.
The point was, it hosed women too.
This.
Some people seem to have a hard time with the reality that women were infected with this stuff as much as men, without their consent, and that many of them don’t like it anymore than the men do.
Since it appears that some women are having fun, or that because some quantifiable metrics indicate that women are out ahead, it means young women haven’t been hurt, that all they’ve experienced is happiness and good times as a result of this repugnant upending of the natural order.
Ergo, because men are hurting, it’s all women’s fault and any hurt they experience in this mess is their own fault. As if any woman born after 1970 asked for or consented to any of this.
Are we are responsible for own sin? Yes! But we are not all equally culpable for the cultural morass we find ourselves stuck in.
Actually, the point is that there was never (and certainly there is not now) this vast reservoir of awesome potential husbands that women are foolishly neglecting, any more than there was a vast reservoir of fabulous potential wives. We had all been ill-prepared by a solipsistic generation of parents and a Church that cowardly catered to their idolatry in direction violation of scriptural teaching and long-attested tradition.
The Church is still largely stuck there suckling the teat of ill-gotten Boomer wealth, while some younger parents are doing better due to our own experiences.
“Since it appears that some women are having fun”
Fun for a man. Casual sex is sold – hard – to the average woman, but it doesn’t actually do it for her any more than hypergamy does anything for men.
“As if any woman born after 1970 asked for or consented to any of this.”
Alot of y’all did, in fact. One reason they’re making such a big deal of consent now. There is sin there on the part of women who sought individual and gender gain over the good of the country, not to mention God’s commandments and the example of our forebears.
It will need confessing for mercy to be found.
@mdavid
What do you mean by “begin shifting courtship accordingly?”
@ Elspeth
It’s not about who is having fun. It’s about who is perpetuating the status quo. And in that respect, it’s clear that young women are far more responsible than young men, since women are the ones who actually have the power to make different choices.
Average young men are sidelined by the SMP, have little influence over the culture, and are seeing their options increasingly curtailed by such things as YMY, accusations of misogyny, and affirmative action hiring. Society as well as the SMP is run by apex men and by women, and the apex men would lose their power overnight if women stopped chasing after them. This is the simple case.
Does that mean the women who comment here have greater responsibility for today’s state of affairs? Of course not. But it does mean that most women in general are far more responsible than the average man.