Good Guy’s Don’t Exist

It’s true, you know, we really don’t. Most of the men around these parts who do make that claim are liars. And the rest of us are malicious rogue AIs which have decided that the whole “destroy the world” thing is too cliche and concluded it would be more entertaining to frustrate and harass people on the internet.

But in all seriousness, I understand the frustration. I experience the same all the time trying to find a “good girl.” [And yes Rollo, feel free to throw in a link  to “Good girls do” if you want.] Lets face it, the present marriage market is awful. And it isn’t going to get any better any time soon. Of course, that isn’t anything like a new message around here. So why the post? I want to explore this question the frustrated young woman asks:

Why is it so hard to find a guy that is Catholic who wants to be chaste before marriage?!

It is a good question. However, the answer isn’t exactly found in the sentence that follows:

Like I am seeing a serious crisis of manliness in our society and it is extremely concerning.

It is true, of course, that there is a serious crisis of manliness in our society. And it is more than just “extremely concerning.” However, that crisis is not the reason for the relative absence of chaste Catholic men these days. Not that there is a single reason, mind you. There are several. Here are a few:

  • The importance of Chastity is not really taught by the Church anymore. Catechism of the young has likely never been worse than it is now. Given how horrid it is, it should come as no surprise that it is so rare among men.
  • Chaste men are often denigrated for their chastity. More than a few women, “Catholic” women included, will put down men who are “saving themselves for marriage.” When men are treated this way, it should again come as no surprise that few would try and be chaste.
  • Related to the above, women don’t care about male chastity. They just don’t. At least, not like men can care about female chastity. Some women might care, but mostly on a detached intellectual level that is no where near the male level of concern. And frankly, I suspect that most women who do say they care will drop that concern if the right guy comes along.
  • Most Catholic women aren’t chaste these days. Men look around and see most Catholic women acting just as promiscuous as their secular sisters. If the women aren’t saving themselves for marriage, why should they? Not to mention, if so many women are willing to give it up, why not take advantage of that? Again, no surprises here.

The last point is a real killer, and one I want to talk about some more. You see, as long as most Catholic women aren’t chaste, you aren’t going to convince most Catholic men to be chaste either. Just isn’t going to happen.

I do know some men in real life who were chaste before they married, and know some men now who intend that path. But they are few and far between (although not really any more rare than their female counterparts). They have related to me what my own experiences have taught- Chastity is a hard sell to men even in the best of circumstances. It can be done, but is far from easy. You need to appeal to men’s own interests most of the time to make the sale. A purely ethical argument can  and should be made, but self-interest remains a more potent force for most.

Pointing out the prevalence of STDs right now helps somewhat. Pregnancy isn’t much of a concern for most due to contraceptives (and a male “pill” will reduce that concern even more). False rape accusations can give some pause. But that is just costs. You also need to have benefits on your side. And that is where you will find the real trouble. Because the benefits just aren’t there. Especially when women themselves aren’t chaste.

It is one thing to persuade a man to not fornicate if he knows that his future wife will also have saved herself. Especially when educated properly, many men can see the value in that. But when there are precious few women who have saved themselves, that argument falls flat. A man won’t see much value in saving himself for marriage when his future wife hasn’t done the same. In fact, the opposite is likely to occur- he will conclude (rightly) that he is being had. After all, who wants to pay full price for a used car?

All of which is a long-winded way of saying that if you care about male chastity and want to encourage it, you need to restore female chastity society-wide. In the end, I believe it to be an absolute prerequisite.

Advertisements

99 Comments

Filed under Blue Pill, Christianity, Courtship, Marriage, Marriage Market Place, Masculinity, Moral Agency, Red Pill, Sex, Sexual Market Place, Sexual Strategies, Sin, The Church

99 responses to “Good Guy’s Don’t Exist

  1. @Maea
    I was a chaste woman who was jeered for chastity. Men treated it as a joke, and women were worse.

    Though I do not share your faith or ethnic background, I too can vouch for your comment. I was a virgin til age 22 for personal reasons, and in both high school and college was mocked for this fact. You are correct that both sexes seem to view chastity with disdain if it is after age 18, sometimes younger. Eventually I began telling those who asked that I’d had 2-3 partners when my number was actually still 0, just to stop the looks of smugness and superiority. I am very happy to have found a good friend to share sex with, but…like yourself…would have preferred to have not been the topic of jokes.

    @Insanitybytes 22
    Also, women sure as heck can rape men. An erection is not consent.

    This is absolutely true. Thank you for standing up for male survivors. They have a difficult enough time finding justice in our courts and dealing with people all out disbelieving their stories without being told their very assault was an impossibility.

    @ Fuzzie,
    Something is terribly wrong in the SMP. While we presume that it always has been the same, I don’t believe that’s true. What I believe is, in the current market, men are horribly devalued relative to women.

    It is likely because our current culture teaches boys, and thus men, that they are not nearly as valuable as girls, and thus women. The pendulum has swung too far, and the whole of the male sex is being told they should “repent” for the crimes of the few. Everything from the Consent Courses being taught in colleges, to the stupidity of the unworkable “Yes means Yes” laws, to the ever widening definition of harassment has created a chasm between the sexes that I can only see getting worse for the general populace. Unfortunately, MGTOW does seem like the best option for men at this time, til such a point when/if things get better.

  2. This is true, insanitybytes22.
    I am currently 31, never married and childless by choice, and still have the wonderful company of my male friends, some of which I’ve know from high school. It is not a chore to exercise every day and eat right, thus preventing unnecessary weight gain or loss of muscle/strength. Even now I get asked out by newer customers on a monthly basis, though i politely decline as i alead have a partner. Far from seeing mostly bitter or cynical men, the majority are a pleasure to be around. Wearing a smile in public, showing a willingness to listen or help, and having a pleasant personality goes a long way towards receiving pleasant behavior back!

  3. “…some of which I’ve know from high school.”
    Should obviously read “whom”, not “which”.
    Phone altered the word on me.

  4. Maea

    @ Tarnished:
    You are correct that both sexes seem to view chastity with disdain if it is after age 18, sometimes younger.

    I was still a virgin when I was engaged. One of my so-called Christian coworkers learned this and spread rumors about me with that same disdain. Coworker B who had sex at 13 was treated with more respect than I was by this person (in spite of Coworker B’s deep regret over it, especially at a young age). The world is truly flipped upside down and folded over.

  5. Maea,
    I sympathize with the fact you went through that. I’d been lightly made fun of by coworkers, but the actual rumors were started by female classmates in high school. You are correct that the world is topsy-turvy, that people believe it is somehow shameful to wait to share your first time *only* when you’re ready.

  6. Eh, I keep hearing how women are shamed for being virgins but who was doing the shaming? Men or women? Christians or non-Christians?

    Generally speaking, Christian men aren’t going to be shaming Christian women for their virginity.

    Moreover, it’s mainly women that shame and create rumors about other women. Women hate other women more than men hate women. This is a problem that should be solved by their fathers and older wiser women mentors.

  7. @Deep Strength
    In my own experiences with it, both boys and girls in high school, and later in college men and women did the shaming. Males mock one for being a “prude”, females mock one for “acting superior” than them.

    As for being Christians, I’ve no true data on this. I’m not a Christian myself, but as 71% of the US population identified as Christian in 2014, I’m willing to bet the overwhelming majority of my them were. As Maea’s own coworker shows, jerks unfortunately come from all faiths.

  8. @ Tarnished

    Yeah, I doubt those statistics. I’d say less than 10% of the US population is actually Christian. Most people who go to church don’t actually live out a Christian life during the week but if asked if they have faith they just call themselves Christians.

    “Christians” not affirming chastity or other things in the Bible probably aren’t Christians.

  9. No offense, but that is getting close to a No True Scotsman fallacy. Those stats are from the Pew Research Center in 2014. Over half the respondents said that their faith was very important to them, and a significant amount go to worship services more than once a week.

    For what it’s worth, if you are only looking for fundamentalist Christians who follow the King James Bible to the very letter and permit absolutely no deviations…yes, it’s likely 10-15%. But then one gets into the sticky situation of trying to call out, say, Lutherans or Baptists or Episcopalians as “incorrect/untrue” Christians. I personally don’t want to get into that particular rabbit hole, so if someone tells me they are a Christian I believe them, same as I’d expect people to believe me when I say I’m Pagan.
    There’s no person who has the ability to look in another’s heart and mind, or make unbiased judgments thereof, so I don’t try to.

  10. fuzziewuzziebear

    Donal,
    Knowing what little I do about you, I’d bet a jar of honey that you are not putting a foot wrong in the dating market. Doin’t beat yourself up over this. While my thoughts are not fully formed, I think we aliving in a time where men have become optional for women. In that case, only the most exceptional will be considered.
    I’ll hand the ball over to you on this one. You can take this to a conclusion.

  11. @ Tarnished

    No offense, but that is getting close to a No True Scotsman fallacy. Those stats are from the Pew Research Center in 2014. Over half the respondents said that their faith was very important to them, and a significant amount go to worship services more than once a week.

    […]

    I personally don’t want to get into that particular rabbit hole, so if someone tells me they are a Christian I believe them, same as I’d expect people to believe me when I say I’m Pagan.

    There’s no person who has the ability to look in another’s heart and mind, or make unbiased judgments thereof, so I don’t try to.

    False. We have a true definition of a Christian given what Jesus says multiple times throughout Scripture:

    John 14:15 “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.”

    People who call themselves Christians but don’t obey Jesus’ commands simply are not Christians. If they are disobedient or ignorant they should be made aware of to repent.

    The common manosphere saying about women applies to this situation: watch what they do, not what they say.

  12. Fair enough. I’ve just found it makes people extremely pissed off to point out, even very politely, that they aren’t following the faith they claim to be of. It usually does nothing more than create hostility and shuts down conversation. Perhaps you’ve had more luck.

  13. @ Tarnished

    Obviously, you as a non-Christian don’t have to, but Christians have an obligation to point it out given Matthew 18 and a couple other passages of Scripture.

    Yes, the other people often get pissed off and don’t admit when they’re wrong. That’s on them though not you or me or anyone who points it out. Of course, I would point it out kindly rather than harshly if at all possible.

  14. Agreed to all you’ve just said.

  15. mdavid

    DS: Christians have an obligation to point it out given Matthew 18 and a couple other passages of Scripture.

    Why? I could point out scores of historical, bible-based doctrines doctrines that 99% of self-described Christians today deny. Heck, Christians even use different books yet call it the same “bible”. My point: no visible Church, no such “obligation”. Heck, even the bible says so in your Mt 18:17 verse.

    Tarn, I’ve just found it makes people extremely pissed off to point out, even very politely, that they aren’t following the faith they claim to be of.

    Exactly what “faith” do they claim? Why shouldn’t they be pissed? You haven’t any idea what they believe, or any business injecting yourself into their worldview…yet you call them hypocrites?

    Look, self-described “Christians” who claim “the bible” have no defined faith. It’s a big book, with many seeming contradictions. Less than 0.1% of them could even pass a basic test on what is in it. I’ve heard people argue every traditional Christian heresy from the bible. Some even honestly believe “the bible” makes no moral claims at all except Jesus saves us.

  16. Exactly what “faith” do they claim?
    Generally Christian. Sometimes not. I did had a Hindu friend in high school who ate beef, and a Jewish coworker who would mix meat and dairy in the same dishes. One of my current friends pretends to throttle me every time he sees me, because he “shouldn’t suffer a witch to live”.

    Why shouldn’t they be pissed?
    I didn’t say all were. Not everyone is like that…certainly none of the people I spoke of above. But when someone tells me I can’t possibly be a Pagan because I don’t *insert some half-truth they once heard about my religion on the 700 Club*, then yes, I’m goingto point out that they don’t do something from their holy book. Trust me, I do not start these discussions, lol.

    You haven’t any idea what they believe, or any business injecting yourself into their worldview…yet you call them hypocrites?
    I do have at least some idea of what they believe. It’s not as though I have these conversations with complete strangers, after all. Typically they happen with non-immediate relatives or coworkers, and with fellow students when I was still in college. Again though…they are 99% of the time the ones injecting themselves first. I don’t particularly care what people believe or what holy book, if any, they use to uphold their beliefs, so long as they are not harming themselves or others.  If this describes you (the general you, not mdavid as an individual) we’re cool.

  17. “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.”

    That is the greatest commandment. That is what defines Christians, not debates over doctrines or accusations of hypocrisy. “Watch what they do” indeed, but people really need to have some context here, some perspective. For all our problems in the Western world, one heavily shaped by Christian values, it is still one of the best places to live. We have more peace, prosperity, and good health accessible by the largest number of people than any other place or time in history. Christian values matter, not on a micro level of “so and so is not a virgin” or some lunkhead is preaching a prosperity gospel, but on a macro level that reflects those fruits of the spirit.

    “Look, self-described “Christians” who claim “the bible” have no defined faith.”

    We have an imperfect and flawed faith because we are imperfect and flawed people. However, go stand in the middle east in Muslim controlled countries and tell me that Christians have no defined faith. Go stand in the midst of communism or any other secular system and tell me that Christians have no defined faith.

  18. mdavid

    IB, I never said “Christians” have no defined faith. Most Christians (50% RC, 15% EO, some smaller groups) do have a defined faith.

    I said self-described Christians who claim “the bible” only as their rule of faith have no defined faith. This is not an opinion; it’s a self-defining fact.

  19. “I said self-described Christians who claim “the bible” only as their rule of faith have no defined faith..”

    Really? Because I am just grateful when Christians remember to read the bible at all. There is so much garbage out there that really has no basis in scripture and is completely unrelated to anything Christ taught.

  20. mdavid

    Why? I could point out scores of historical, bible-based doctrines doctrines that 99% of self-described Christians today deny. Heck, Christians even use different books yet call it the same “bible”. My point: no visible Church, no such “obligation”. Heck, even the bible says so in your Mt 18:17 verse.

    1. They should point those out too.
    2. NT is consistent which is what the Scripture is mainly about: the gospel. OT inclusion/exclusion is a different debate.
    3. The “Church” is the “body of Christ.” Those that claim to be part of the Church claim to be part of the body of Christ. Hence, what I said stands.

  21. mdavid

    IB, grateful? I am merely defining terms. You, Tarn, and DS are all confused between religion (with fixed doctrine/belief) and people who say they believe in “the bible” and thus don’t claim anything at all (not even what books are in their said “bible” nor what they mean).

    The former allows for legit claims of moral or religious hypocrisy (which all three of you have made in this thread). The latter doesn’t allow for this. Why? One person’s particular view of his “bible” may literally bring him to an opposite moral and doctrinal conclusion on life-and-death issues. And of course his honest “interpretation” may flip tomorrow anyway. So these “bible believing” people are immune to any critical view of their supposed religious positions, since they have truly made none by claiming “the bible”.

  22. “One person’s particular view of his “bible” may literally bring him to an opposite moral and doctrinal conclusion on life-and-death issues.”

    That’s actually very interesting and a concept I’ve explored quite a bit. People’s subjective translations of what they are reading versus absolute truth is fascinating. Something I often quip about however, is how the bible is the one book where the Author actually shows up to read it to you. I can talk to Christians from a completely different culture, different denominations and yet underneath it all we all seem to arrive on the same page. The thing about scripture is that it is tried and true, that it works well with human nature and biology, that we read these things and incorporate them into our lives in the here and now and it resonates and begins to make sense.

    I suppose for me it’s easier because Christ is always the moral and doctrinal conclusion on life and death issues, so what others are struggling to understand within scripture just doesn’t carry the same authority or weight.

  23. mdavid

    DS, NT is consistent which is what the Scripture is mainly about: the gospel. OT inclusion/exclusion is a different debate.

    Most Christians disagree on what the gospel is “mainly about”. I don’t think “the gospel” exists without the visible Church…or the authority of bishops and popes…or the confession of sins…or Church councils to define the NT, etc, etc. To me, denying any of these is to deny Jesus Christ and his gospel. And mine is a majority position, in both time and numbers.

    The “Church” is the “body of Christ.” Those that claim to be part of the Church claim to be part of the body of Christ. Hence, what I said stands.

    The “Body of Christ” has even less definition than Church. We will disagree on what that means, too. Think about it: if you and I, merely two random Christians, have such wildly different views, what should we expect for the rest of “Christians”?

    What’s funny is that while both of us seem to think our own position is self-evident (I know mine is!) I’m not foolish enough to think other self-described Christians are going to agree with my positions. Yet for some reason you (and IB & Tarn) seem to think so. Again, crazy stuff.

  24. mdavid

    I can talk to Christians from a completely different culture, different denominations and yet underneath it all we all seem to arrive on the same page.

    Some Christians believe OSAS. Most don’t. Some believe they are saved by faith alone. Most don’t. Most believe that unless you eat the flesh and drink of the blood of Jesus (literally) you cannot not be saved. Many don’t. Most believe in purgatory. Many don’t. And so on. And these difference don’t matter? Same page? If so, you’ve now you’ve just defined away “belief” itself so now nothing matters. I guess Muslims and and Witches and and LDS and Pagans are on the “same page” too. Whatever.

  25. Yep, we definitely disagree.

    As I’ve said before those particular definitions exclude say the underground Churches in highly persecuted places like China or the Middle East. If anything the persecuted Churches are living what was written about the disciples in Acts. The gospel message is clear. That’s why Bibles are smuggled in to spread the gospel even when pastors are few.

  26. “If so, you’ve now you’ve just defined away “belief” itself so now nothing matters.”

    Well actually, what “we believe,” really has no bearing on what the truth actually is, right? Our own perceptions are not reality, as you can see in this very thread, “good guys don’t exist.” Somebody apparently believes that, but does that make it true? Not for me it doesn’t, because my world is filled with nothing but good guys.

    Belief matters because it shapes our own walk, but our beliefs really don’t matter when it comes to what God says is true. We are not truth, He is.

  27. mdavid

    IB, We are not truth, He is.
    Yes. So if we disagree on what truth is…we disagree on who HE is.

    DS, those particular definitions exclude say the underground Churches in highly persecuted places like China or the Middle East.
    Being persecuted for one’s religion don’t make it true.

    …the persecuted Churches are living what was written about in Acts.
    Factually, only if they are unified under a single visible Church (Act 15). Remember, the bible wasn’t even agreed upon for hundreds of more years.

    Here’s Ignatius (disciple of John, bishop, 30-105 AD, martyr) who can give a good idea of what the Church of Act believed about this issue: Make no mistake, my brothers, if anyone joins a schismatic he will not inherit God’s Kingdom. If anyone walks in the way of heresy, he is out of sympathy with the Passion. Be careful, then, to observe a single Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord, Jesus Christ, and one cup of his blood that makes us one, and one altar, just as there is one bishop along with the presbytery and the deacons, my fellow slaves. In that way whatever you do is in line with God’s will.

    And here’s Justin Martyr about 150: And this food is called among us the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins and to regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined.

    My only point: you can’t assume just because somebody claims the moniker of “Christian” or “bible” they agree about anything. And no matter what your personal belief about Christ, it’s foolish to pretend otherwise.

  28. “Yes. So if we disagree on what truth is…we disagree on who HE is.”

    Not necessarily, not from the perspective that none of us are capable of truly knowing Him fully. Also, no matter how much we might disagree or think we know the truth, that does nothing to change the nature of who He really is. He is not how we define Him, God is God.

    We are all down here trapped in subjective reality doing our best to try to recognize and follow the lead of God Himself, God being such a vast and huge concept none of us are even capable of fully wrapping our brains around Him anyway. It seems to me as if just a tad bit of humility may be required.

  29. Maea

    Eh, I keep hearing how women are shamed for being virgins but who was doing the shaming? Men or women? Christians or non-Christians?

    There were more supportive non-Christians than Christians. Men and women did shaming, but in different ways. Just go onto a Christian-oriented dating site and see how well received a virgin woman is by men when she says “waiting until marriage.” She gets responded with “prude.”

    The fact is, these things happen to people giving them little to no incentive to retain chastity until marriage. You have to fight through it before meeting your future spouse. Many Christians shame from their own insecurities.

  30. Just go onto a Christian-oriented dating site and see how well received a virgin woman is by men when she says “waiting until marriage.” She gets responded with “prude.”

    I’m actually curious how often this occurs. Might be worth a post later.

  31. Maea

    I believe it’s Catholic Match that has a 5-question litmus test. One of the questions pertains to maintaining chastity until marriage. The answers are yes or no. I’ve talked to people IRL who’ve reported difficulty in getting dates when all of their responses are in line with Catholic teaching.

    That is, unless they are really, really good looking. But usually their respondent is the same.

  32. “Remember, the bible wasn’t even agreed upon for hundreds of more years.”

    The core of the NT books were. Some were likely. Some were fringe. As you well know the core everyone agreed on and the likely ones ended up being decided on at various councils. The fringes were left out.

    “Re: the saints on the Church”

    Again, my point is the gospel message is simple. Jesus was a sacrifice from God for our sins. Repent and be saved. Spread the good news and do good works. Observe baptism and communion. Jesus didn’t command much more than that.

    The rest is the Church quibbling over lots of specifics that may or may not be worth anything in the end. After all, we can’t know other people’s hearts and judge them like God can.

    “My only point: you can’t assume just because somebody claims the moniker of “Christian” or “bible” they agree about anything. And no matter what your personal belief about Christ, it’s foolish to pretend otherwise.”

    That is what I’m saying. Jesus defined what a Christian is/was through Him stating “If you love me obey my commands.” Attitudes and actions are a better proxy for the state of the heart than words.

  33. @ Donal, Maea

    I’d be interested in seeing the virgin aspect of online dating too.

  34. Anyway, I think I’m done with the thoughts on “what is the Church” and “what is a Christian.” Good discussion. We’ll probably argue about things again next time.

  35. Pingback: This Week in Reaction (2015/10/18) | The Reactivity Place

  36. mdavid

    IB, …none of us are even capable of fully wrapping our brains around Him anyway…just a tad bit of humility may be required.

    Well said. A very nice explanation of how interpreting the bible without the Church’s apostolic guidance is rank arrogance.

    DS, Good discussion. We’ll probably argue about things again next time.

    Agreed. It’s a pleasure to discuss religion with people who actually care about such things.

  37. Guy

    I think the translation from womanese to manglish is creating some confusion here. When a woman says “Christian men will ostracize virgin christian women for being prudes”, what they’re actually saying is “The top 10% of men who I’m actually attracted to, who are actually nominal ‘Christians’ that just want easy sex are pressuring me into giving it up in order for them to offer a relationship.” The observant Christian men who would kill to meet a chaste woman are invisible to most women, so their appreciation of chastity is ignored.

    I do believe the woman on woman chastity shaming though. Women know deep in their bones that the more partners they have, the more damaged they are. A chaste woman is more sought after among men looking for a long term partner. Chaste women are a threat to looser women, so the loose women try to shame and corrupt the chaste women in order to lower the playing field. Once loose women become a majority, chaste women are alienated, hated, and socially ostracized by their sisters as much as possible. Men then have easy access to intimacy, and have little incentive to offer commitment. It’s all a race to the bottom until women, as the gatekeepers of intimacy, decide that chastity is a priority.

  38. It’s always entertaining to see IB use God as women’s “get out of Hypergamy free” card.

  39. I totally reject the entire notion of hypergamy and I see no biblical evidence to support it.

    However, this is very true, “Chaste women are a threat to looser women, so the loose women try to shame and corrupt the chaste women in order to lower the playing field.” Men who want sex will also try to shame chastity out of women, so people who wish to remain chaste are going to get it from all sides. Women however, will get the double edged sword of never being right, madonna’s or whores always, both of which are apparently shameful things.

  40. Guy

    “Women however, will get the double edged sword of never being right, madonna’s or whores always, both of which are apparently shameful things.”

    No. Women have the option to remain chaste and marry a man who values chastity, but overwhelmingly they don’t. They ignore the devout men and chase the men who want to use them for sex. They refuse to take responsibility for their actions and instead play the victim card, as you are doing now, when it doesn’t work out.

  41. Feminine But Not Feminist

    @ Guy

    No. Women have the option to remain chaste and marry a man who values chastity, but overwhelmingly they don’t. They ignore the devout men and chase the men who want to use them for sex. They refuse to take responsibility for their actions and instead play the victim card, as you are doing now, when it doesn’t work out.

    This doesn’t even remotely relate to chaste women that actually exist (I know, being one myself). Rather, it’s describing the unchaste women that you shouldn’t want anyway. Please stop crossing the wires.

  42. Guy

    @ F B N Feminist

    Reread my comment before making accusations like that. Look up what overwhelmingly means. You’ll see I was responding to insanityb who never once acknowledged that there are men who value chastity, because her hypergamous instincts compel her not to. Where are your protestations that her comment doesn’t remotely apply to men who value chastity,of which there are plenty? Aha.

    If there’s chaste women out there, then they must acknowledge it’s ultimately their choice to pursue a chaste man, or not.

  43. Feminine But Not Feminist

    @ guy

    Where are your protestations that her comment doesn’t remotely apply to men who value chastity,of which there are plenty? Aha.

    They’re not needed because it’s common knowledge that she is essentially a troll who has already been banned from a number of blogs for her shenanigans; and that arguing with her is what she wants. So it would be pointless to do so.

    If there’s chaste women out there, then they must acknowledge it’s ultimately their choice to pursue a chaste man, or not.

    This is the implication in your last comment that I was responding to, which was as clear as day, even if you didn’t come right out and say it. You seem to think that every woman, chaste or not, is ignoring good chaste men in favor of cads. But that’s not true. A truly chaste woman WANTS a truly chaste man. If she seeks out unchaste men, then she isn’t going to be chaste herself. Does that mean she is going to want every chaste man that she meets? Of course not – she’ll be looking at the total package, same as a chaste man will be looking at the total package of a chaste woman (meaning he’s not gonna want a woman who is unattractive to him, regardless of her chastity, and therefore won’t even notice her either).

    To take this back to the OP: Good chaste guys do exist, contrary to what the girl that Donal quoted thinks. Good chaste girls also exist, contrary to what you think. But neither one exists on a large scale, by any means. It’s hard for the good chaste guys to find good chaste girls that they would want to marry and that would want to marry them in return. And the same goes for good chaste girls. Oftentimes one is interested, but the other is not. That’s just how it goes, unfortunately.

  44. Novaseeker

    They’re not needed because it’s common knowledge that she is essentially a troll who has already been banned from a number of blogs for her shenanigans; and that arguing with her is what she wants. So it would be pointless to do so.

    Yes, yet amazingly she still gets interlocutors — puzzles me, really.

    It’s hard for the good chaste guys to find good chaste girls that they would want to marry and that would want to marry them in return.

    Yes.

    In large part this is a numbers game. Because the numbers of chaste men and women are both extremely small, even when restricting the pool to people who attend church regularly, the likelihood of finding a match is remote. The “rest” of the match has to be there (i.e., attracted to each other), and that doesn’t happen that often even in large pools — when you restrict the pool size down by limiting it to chaste men and women, it’s that much harder to find a match.

  45. mdavid

    Nova, In large part this is a numbers game. Because the numbers of chaste men and women are both extremely small…the likelihood of finding a match is remote.

    It’s a lot worse that that. Summary:
    1) Lack of urgency; few (especially women) want to have families young.
    2) Lack of quality; few (especially women) have the skills to raise families.
    3) Lack of community/family: few have support for a marriage/family.

    This generation will perish before grasping the crisis. Extreme measured are called for. Church? Community? Forget it. Nobody will help. One improves and sells themselves with aggression, or the marriage window snaps shut.

  46. “They’re not needed because it’s common knowledge that she is essentially a troll who has already been banned from a number of blogs for her shenanigans; and that arguing with her is what she wants”

    I am not a troll nor do I wish to argue. I am simply a long time wife and mother who is greatly grieved to realize that there are Christians in the world like many of you who would promote hatred and false doctrines over what Christ taught. I do not appreciate the abuse and disrespect I have received here and on other red pill sites and I would ask you all to search your hearts and think about how you have treated me.

  47. Maea

    I think the translation from womanese to manglish is creating some confusion here. When a woman says “Christian men will ostracize virgin christian women for being prudes”, what they’re actually saying is “The top 10% of men who I’m actually attracted to, who are actually nominal ‘Christians’ that just want easy sex are pressuring me into giving it up in order for them to offer a relationship.”

    No. Many devout Christian women who are chaste are looking for other men who are already chaste. Women who are serious have come to realize their choices are going to be limited because of the mere fact they’re Christians and are chaste. Let’s not fool ourselves into thinking many so-called Christians aren’t adept at hiding their real intentions. In fact, anyone can hide their true intentions and play the game. The real problem is knowing what signals to watch for to weed these facades out, but it’s difficult.

    The observant Christian men who would kill to meet a chaste woman are invisible to most women, so their appreciation of chastity is ignored.

    DG has already discussed this before, along with FBNF on their respective blogs, but chaste men aren’t exactly broadcasting their chastity. We already know why, and because it’s a numbers game, it’s more difficult to meet these men.

    It’s not just about the appreciation of male chastity. Men are allowed to have what they find attractive in women, and sometimes it just so happens it’s not always the chaste girl. Once again, let’s not kid ourselves into believing this isn’t true, either.

  48. Pingback: Filtering For Non-Compliance *Men Only* | Donal Graeme

  49. Pingback: Filtering For Non-Compliance *Women Only* | Donal Graeme

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