In my previous post, A Poor Example, I mentioned a post that Scott and Elspeth wrote about how June Cleaver might be unmarriageable right now. What I want to do with this post is make a series of observations based on what they mentioned in their post, as well as in the comments. I will likely expand on it over time, as I have a chance to re-read the comments. This won’t be an in-depth post, but rather more of a list with perhaps a comment or two of my own.
So here are some of my observations:
- The Market for devout Christians, men and women alike, is awful. I wrote previously on this topic in my Market Failure series of posts. You can read Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3 via the links. As for who has it worse, I think that is mostly an academic exercise. My gut says men more than women, but not by a huge amount.
- Geography play a huge role in the difficulties of the marriage market right now. Different geographic locations are more or less favorable to men or women. My suspicion is that where I live the ratio between marriageable men and women heavily tilts to men, and that of course makes the market tougher for men.
- Demographics also plays a significant role. As various Christian groups have splintered, and there is even more separation in belief within groups, the overall pool of eligible mates has dropped precipitously. So while absolute numbers might be up, the actual pool is perhaps smaller than it has been for perhaps even centuries.
- Most Christian parents are not raising devout Christian children. Much less marriageable ones.
- Young men are much less interested in marriage than they were in the past. Having a few more years under my belt since I started blogging, I have seen this more and more. Younger men are just less interested in marriage. The why of this is worthy of a whole post of its own.
- Too many people are doing too little to make marriage happen these days. Marriage needs to be a matter for the whole community.
Also, the answer to this:
Is it possible that parents of the last several generations, responding to the cultural cues from blue-pill pastors and other sources have raised both sex children to be pretty useless at “traditional” marriage, and therefore a different approach to finding matches for them may be required?
…is yes and yes.
More to come as I think on it.
Update: A few more observations-
- The market is seriously hampered by the amount of deception going on. The worst lies, from what I have seen, tend to be those that people tell themselves. Self-deception makes hit harder to diagnose problems, among other ills.
- Introverts and shy people are especially vulnerable in the market right now. Given how few effective venues there are for meeting eligible mates, each one has to count that much more. For introverts, that is much more difficult.
- I am among the most the most “pro-marriage” of guys in the Christian manosphere. At least as it applies to my own life. Only a couple might be at the same level as me, such as Deep Strength. I don’t know if that was the case originally, but it seems to be the case now. And even despite my subjective “gun-ho” approach I am still very cautious.
Donal Graeme 
If you believe that men are not shamed for masturbating, you must be living in some alternate universe I’ve never heard of.
You still haven’t answered these questions:
if women really hate all this casual sex they’re having, why are they having it? If they really don’t want all this casual sex, what are they doing to change such that they don’t have to have all this casual sex they say they don’t want (but continue to have, nonstop)? And if they don’t want casual sex, then what do they want? And if they want something other than casual sex, why don’t they go get it? Or at least, why don’t they NOT do things they claim they don’t want to do?
thedeti:
Who actually does believe that, as an undistorted expression of truth?
I don’t for one minute believe that men are masturbating to porn because they really just want to be husbands and fathers … etc.
Right.
Yes — in the same sense that men who masturbate to porn, go to strip
bars, sleep with prostitutes, etc do so because they want to.
True or false:
Modern men have terrible “SMP/MMP” options, but modern women are or should be satisfied with their “SMP/MMP” options.
None of your responses to the previous posts mean anything without answers to these questions:
if women really hate all this casual sex they’re having, why are they having it? If they really don’t want all this casual sex, what are they doing to change such that they don’t have to have all this casual sex they say they don’t want (but continue to have, nonstop)? And if they don’t want casual sex, then what do they want? And if they want something other than casual sex, why don’t they go get it? Or at least, why don’t they NOT do things they claim they don’t want to do?
I dont’ for one minute believe that women are having casual sex because they really just want to be wives and mommies but …
“Who actually does believe that, as an undistorted expression of truth?”
Are you kidding? This is the usual justification women put forth when confronted on their having casual sex. “I just wanted to be a wife and a mommy! I did it because I wanted to find a husband and get married! I only wanted a boyfriend! I don’t really want to sleep with a bunch of men! The alcohol/drugs/peer pressure/daddy issues/personality disorder/mental illness made me do it!”
True or false:
Sexual modernism is a crap sandwich for everyone, and constantly playing the victim card doesn’t help.
thedeti:
If men really hate masturbating to porn then why are so many of them doing it?
Your cartoon characterization of poor victimized men in a world where women get everything they want is so ridiculous that it is hard to believe that even you actually believe it.
And your claim that women are having casual sex, but hate it, and don’t want it, and want something “more”, is in my view, equally ridiculous.
thedeti:
That you don’t seem to notice the distortions in your own paraphrases demonstrates the cartoonish nature of your whole polemical approach.
Who’s paraphrasing? I’m simply reporting what women say about their own conduct, as well as your apparent claims here.
True or false:
Modern men have terrible “SMP/MMP” options, but modern women should be satisfied with their “SMP/MMP” options.
answer these questions. I’ll change them slightly since you don’t like the “women hate the casual sex they’re having” part.
if women really aren’t satisfied with all this casual sex they’re having, why are they having it? If the casual sex they have is so unsatisfying and they want something else, what are they doing to change such that they don’t have to have all this unsatisfying casual sex (but continue to have, nonstop)? And if casual sex is so unsatisfying, then what would satisfy them? And if something other than casual sex would satisfy them more, why don’t they go get it? Or at least, why don’t they NOT do things they claim are so unsatisfying?
Your constantly terming my statements as “polemic” (i.e. a strong written or verbal attack on someone or something) doesn’t make it so. I’m not attacking anyone or anything. I’m asking questions and making observations. I’m not the first or the most eloquent to make them.
You can’t attach a label to something and change its nature by attaching that label to it. I’m sure you understand that concept; it’s difficult to believe you’re making that fundamental error here.
thedeti:
Again with the cartoon paraphrase. Characterization of various peoples’ subjective feelings at various times given various actions are, of course, as various as human psychological states tend to be..
I feel like something might be accomplished here if we can just agree about the nature of the objective situation.
True or false:
Modern men have terrible “SMP/MMP” options, but modern women should be satisfied with their “SMP/MMP” options. That is, women generally have objective options available which they ought to find satisfactory, but men generally do not have objective options which they ought to find satisfactory.
Said more simply, modern morally good women have abundant good options; modern morally good men do not have abundant good options.
True or false?
There’s nothing cartoonish about my questions. it’s not about feelings or characterizations of feelings. It’s about what women are doing and why they do it. (It’s also about what men do and why they do it, but I’m leaving that aside for now.)
You’re not being objective at all here.
at any rate, I’m not going to accept your claims or your insistence that you’re somehow the lone objective voice here. You’re obviously not going to accept anything I have to say, instead choosing to mischaracterize it as “polemic” and about “feelings”. That’s fine. I’m content to leave it here. Thanks anyway.
thedeti:
I am asking you to be objective.
Is the following statement, in your view, objectively true or false:
Modern morally good men have terrible “SMP/MMP” options, but modern morally good women should be satisfied with their “SMP/MMP” options.
ENOUGH!
Seriously, this talking past one another has been painful to watch. It has seriously derailed the thread, too. At the same time, it does provide an opportunity for another post.
So Zippy, Deti, how about leaving this tete-a-tete alone until later today, when I get a new post up in which everyone can answer the questions that you both posted?
Zippy,
Please allow me to answer your question. True, men have terrible SMP/MMP options. Also true, women should be satisfied with their SMP/MMP options. The reason for both is hypergamy. Women desire men who are superior and they want the same quality for marriage as what they can attract for short term.
What i see you doing here is defending the status quo. Also, have you ever thought that women might be deceptive in their intentions?
I think where there’s some misunderstanding here is in the unstated lens being used here.
As I read Zippy, he’s basically saying that the poor ability of men and women to achieve their ultimate goals in the market (let’s say that the ultimate goal is “marrying well”) results in many of each of them picking from the best immoral options easily available to them: porn and hookers for most men, and casual sex for most women and a small number of men who have access to it. These are being viewed as equivalencies because I think he is viewing them in moral terms — that is, these are both immoral alternatives which do not lead to the ultimate goal of “marrying well”. They look different for men and women because of differences between men and women because it is easier for women to get access to casual sex with sexually attractive mates than it is for men to do so. I don’t think Zippy doubts that, but he sees it as being the female equivalent of men masturbating to porn or hiring a hooker in moral terms. The fact that most people of both sexes reflexively view unpaid, consensual sex with another human being as being rather qualitatively different from masturbation or paid sex with a prostitute is immaterial to him, because he is looking at it from the moral perspective only.
Donal,
I am sorry. I did not see your comment until mine was published.
If I may wade in to clarify something …
I think where there’s some misunderstanding here is in the unstated lens being used here.
As I read Zippy, he’s basically saying that the poor ability of men and women to achieve their ultimate goals in the market (let’s say that the ultimate goal is “marrying well”) results in many of each of them picking from the best immoral options easily available to them: porn and hookers for most men, and casual sex for most women and a small number of men who have access to it. These are being viewed as equivalencies because I think he is viewing them in moral terms — that is, these are both immoral alternatives which do not lead to the ultimate goal of “marrying well”. They look different for men and women because of differences between men and women because it is easier for women to get access to casual sex with sexually attractive mates than it is for men to do so. I don’t think Zippy doubts that, but he sees it as being the female equivalent of men masturbating to porn or hiring a hooker in moral terms. The fact that most people of both sexes reflexively view unpaid, consensual sex with another human being as being rather qualitatively different from masturbation or paid sex with a prostitute is immaterial to him, because he is looking at it from the moral perspective only.
fuzziewuzziebear:
I am not interested in whether the truth does or does not favor someone’s idea of the status quo. I am interested in the truth for its own sake, and because every discussion which does not start with the truth just ends up in self deception, rationalization, etc.
(I don’t expect everyone to be familiar with my writing in general, but for those who are familiar I expect the notion that I am a defender of the status quo wouldn’t pass the laugh test).
My hope was simply to get past the rhetoric to the specific point of dispute about objective reality, summarized somewhat imprecisely as “good girls have plenty of good options, most good men don’t”.
I don’t disagree with the “most good men don’t” part: in fact I think it is pretty manifestly true. I do disagree with the “good girls have plenty of great options” part though: I think the modern sexual situation is a disaster — objectively, no matter what fleeting feelings they have about it at one time or another — for everyone.
Novaseeker:
True.
In fact the basic issue raised by the OP – and certainly a major question raised by donalgraeme’s blog in general – is (in my understanding, no intention to mischaracterize) what moral and meaningful options are available to men and the context of those options.
I am not interested in – and in general it is a mistake to take too much of an interest in – whether (generally speaking, as there will always be wide variance here) sluts find their self indulgence ‘more satisfying’ in some perverse and fleeting psychological sense than porn addicts. That is like arguing about whether the high from crystal meth is better than the high from heroine: which is to say, not even really pertinent at all.
What I am interested in is whether women who are trying to do the right thing have an easy time of it compared to men who are trying to do the right thing. I dispute the conventional manosphere position that this is the case.
@Zippy:
As a fellow truth seeker who is increasingly finding myself less disdainful of and more sympathetic (sometimes even empathetic) towards others due to the current crappy mess we are all having to live with:
*I applaud you for your intellectual honesty and balanced moral weights*
Pingback: Those meth heads have it so much better | Zippy Catholic
Seriously, this talking past one another has been painful to watch.
(a.) Make a blog about how sex and marriage is awful.
(b.) Cultivate reasonable dialogue.
Pick one.
I’m going to go with the old standby:
Ecclesiastes 7:27 “Behold, I have discovered this,” says the Preacher, “adding one thing to another to find an explanation, 28 which I am still seeking but have not found. I have found one man among a thousand, but I have not found a woman among all these. 29 “Behold, I have found only this, that God made men upright, but they have sought out many devices.”
In quantifiable numbers, 0/1000 versus 1/1000.
@Zippy
Agreed. But there’s been a lot of fast-n-loose with the adjectives: “good”, “great”, “easy”, “easier”… There is an imbalance of the sexes, their respective options (especially as it pertains to what it means to be considered good), and the forces arrayed against them; and it does favor women. It favors good women less than bad women, but it still favors good women more than good men.
A Christian woman can sleep with her boyfriend, break up, have a one night stand “rebound”, bear a bastard from it, and yet still be promoted as a “good catch” after she cries about making mistakes. In contrast: A Christian man who did the same things needs to debase himself as a boy-who-shaves and then complete . A virgin Christian man is viewed as having something wrong with him.
Playing into this: women are incessantly told the world is theirs and to shoot for the moon. So they think they deserve the best men, and snub men actually in their own ballpark. At any time they could start playing their own field if they wanted to. They just don’t want to. Men don’t get to pick in what field they play.
@DG
Can you please correct the above sentence?
“In contrast: A Christian man who did the same things needs to debase himself as a boy-who-shaves and then complete a recovery program.”
Cane Caldo:
There are differences between meth addiction and heroin addiction too. And there are sensible ways to talk about these things and insane ways to talk about them.
To make it mildly more concrete: that some addicts may have easier availability of their drug of choice is not an advantage, unless one’s concept of advantage is perverse.
It favors good women less than bad women
A lot less, but thank you for saying so.
Two notes:
1) I added another observation. It will likely be the last.
2) The follow-up post to Zippy and Deti’s debate should be going up soon.
Pingback: Market Analysis: Stock Imbalance | Donal Graeme
@ Donal
Your last note:
Yeah, I’m extremely pro marriage and always have been. That which God created as Good is Good. Humanity was created as very good, and marriage was created for a husband and wife to partake.
Of course, it pays to be wise and keep your eyes open given the climate of the culture.
@Zippy
I compared the trials of good women and good men, and the judgment by others of who is good.
To be more concrete about things we need to be more specific about these good men and good women.
My experience among young-ish British Catholics (for such a wondrous beast am I) is that the specifically youth-ish events have more eligible women than men. A great many of the eligible women are virgins who have in the past shunned the attentions of non-Christian or insufficiently chaste men, and many of them are positively scouring the ranks of available Catholic men for someone who meets the basic requirements of a marriageable man.
The relatively few orthodox Catholic young men would presumably like to make headway with these women, but many are socially inept. My now-wife once went to a “Youth 2000” event which included a ball, an event clearly organised for the specific purpose of matching up young Catholic couples, and not one young Catholic man approached her or acted with any social competence (NB: she’s well worth approaching).
This leads to frustrated young women eventually either compromising on pre-marital sex so as to get a less orthodox (or irreligious) boyfriend/husband and not miss the baby boat, or lowering their not-unreasonable standards so as to remain faithful, and then having lacklustre marriages.
In essence, I think that if young Catholic men could get their act together then things would look a lot brighter all round. But that leads us on to Dalrock territory, feminine ideas of courtship, “good” men’s lack of Game, and you all know how that goes.
Pingback: Market Analysis: A Lack Of Confidence | Donal Graeme
Pingback: Market Analysis: Penny Stocks | Donal Graeme
Pingback: Market Analysis: Collective Bargaining | Donal Graeme