A Warning And A Lesson

Today’s post is inspired by the comments of this post over at Dalrock’s. It will be divided into two parts, the first of which responds to a comment by “Bee”, while the second features some of my thoughts and commentary concerning a comment left by “stringtheory.”

I.

Here is part of what commenter Bee said in response to Deti talking about the incorrect, inaccurate and often outright deceptive teaching in church on the nature of men and women:

What would you teach a class of teenage, Christian men to give them the correct perspective?

Would you encourage the young men to marry young?

(Link to comment here)

I’m going to address them in order, starting with the question of “What would you teach a class of teenage, Christian men to give them the correct perspective?”

Well, the first thing I would do is advise that they read the Wisdom Books in the Bible. Proverbs, Sirach and Song of Songs especially. I know that most Protestant Bibles don’t have the Book of Sirach, which I think is a tragic loss for those who have never read it. Fortunately there are plenty of online resources where Sirach can be read in several different translations. So if you don’t want to buy a new Bible that would be a viable alternative. Both Sirach and Proverbs mesh well together in terms of explaining positive and negative traits in women. They warn men about the consequences of choosing a wife poorly and can help keep women off a pedestal. Song of Songs is useful for disabusing men of the notion that women are asexual creatures, which can again help keep away the pedestalization. All of that makes for a good, solid foundation.

Other passages in the Bible provide good lessons as well. Genesis has valuable insights of course. Potiphar’s wife’s advances on Joseph provide stark warning about female nature. Samson provides all kinds of object lessons. Both the story of David and Solomon have great value as well. All of these will tie in to what will be taught later about female nature.

Before going any further, I would tell these young Christian men that male sexuality is not inherently evil or twisted or anything of that sort. God created us as sexual creatures (save perhaps those with St. Paul’s gift), and that is a good thing. Teach them that sex is both proper and good inside of marriage- for it unites man and woman together as one flesh and is the avenue by which offspring come about- which is what God desires.

With that taken care of, I would explain to those teenage men what women find attractive in men. Help them understand the differences between Attraction traits and Desirability traits. Then I would explain to them why women find those traits attractive. Make it clear to them that most people out there, Christian or non-Christian, don’t understand this. Consequently, they will need to be suspicious of anything else they’ve been taught before which clashes with this. Inform them that there is a lot of bad teaching out there, and they need to be able to distinguish the truth from lies.

Then I would move on to explain other aspects of female nature. Some important examples include:

• Hypergamy
• The Good Genes/Good Provider dichotomy and how that plays out
• Fitness Tests
• The impact of a woman’s sexual history on marital stability
• The inability to negotiate desire
• The differences in how women communicate as compared to men

The Feminine Imperative (an ephemeral concept if there ever was one) would also be something that would need to be explained to them. While difficult to describe, it has a huge impact on nearly all aspects of our culture, and learning it is critical for men to understand why the present culture (within and without the Church) is what it is.

By the end of all these lessons, these young men should be able to see women for what they are: fallen, sinful creatures… just like men. This brings us to the second question- “Would you encourage the young men to marry young?”

The short answer to this is yes, I would. I’ve explained before why young marriage is a good thing. Young marriage would (or to be more accurate, could) help these young men avoid sexual immorality. However, that would be an incomplete answer. Because at the same time I would also encourage the young men to prepare for marrying young. That means getting serious about their life right away. If they pursue an education, don’t waste time on needless classes. Take what they need, and only what they need. Finish as swiftly as possible, so as to minimize debt and get into the workforce as soon as possible. Consider trade school if not looking at college or university. Also consider community college combined with a full or part-time job.

At the same time, it would also be necessary to encourage the parents of the young men to support their sons marrying young. Most Christians these days, parents especially are opposed to young marriage, on a variety of grounds- none of them really good. Expect a lot of resistance here. And that leads into the real problem with all of this. You see, encouraging young men to marry young is rather pointless unless you can encourage young women to marry young. Right now that isn’t happening, in fact it is the exact opposite. This provides the perfect lead-up to part two-

II.

Commenter Stringtheory left the following comments:

On a recent camping trip, one of the guys was telling us about how his 28 year old son had started taking antidepressants. His son has never suffered from depression but told his dad he was able to say the right things and get a prescription. He’s taking them to try and kill his sex drive because he’s simply tired of pursing women with no success. The dad is upset and angry. His son is reasonably attractive, a working professional with a decent income, but all the girls he asks out turn him down, or if he does go out they want to have sex right away and his son wants to wait until marriage. So instead of being tempted with porn or fornication he’s cutting out the source of his temptation. We were all talking about the morality of this. Is it wrong to kill one’s sex drive to avoid marriage or immorality?

(Link here)

I should correct my above statement. The question wasn’t “Is it wrong to kill one’s sex drive to avoid marriage or immorality?” but rather to avoid immorality. I want to make clear that my friend’s son wants to get married, but he simply can’t find any non-virgins and doesn’t think his prospects are going to get better any time soon. About six months ago he did strike up a friendship with an 19 year old who was (presumably) a virgin and things seemed to be moving along but it got quashed by the girl’s parents and church elders who thought that his interest was inappropriate given the age difference. After that he had had enough and started down the chemically eunuch route.

(Link here)

Most of my regular readers will likely understand why I sympathize with that young man. He sounds like a slightly younger version of myself, trying to clear much the same hurdles. Before answering stringtheory’s question, I want to continue where I left off- how young women are not encouraged to marry young.

I don’t recall if it was Novaseeker or Cail Corishev who once said something along the lines that there are few things that Christians fear these days so much as a young women with potential marrying young. Whether or not that accusation is true (I think it is for many),  stringtheory’s account, and that of other Christians in this part of the web, does demonstrate that many if not most Christians do not want young, attractive virgin women to marry good, virtuous men. They just don’t. If there was no age gap, as there was here, then another reason would have been given for why the relationship should not have been. As for why so many Christians act in this manner, there are two different forces working together here- one relating to women and one relating to men.

When it comes to women, most Christians oppose on principle the idea of a young, (attractive) virgin marrying. Of course, if one or more of those traits is not present, then the opposition tends to melt away. She’s no longer young? Why then, of course she should marry. She’s not attractive? Well, it won’t be such a loss if that man, older or not, marries her (although this is still not favored- its just tolerated more). She’s no longer a virgin? Well, it would be good for that men to marry her and “save her” from her past mistakes.  So for those young men that Bee was asking about… well, it really doesn’t matter if you encourage them to marry young or not. Because everyone else in church is encouraging the women the men want to marry (and should marry) to not marry. At least, not right away. Not until they get more “life experience” and other such nonsense. This really is one of the great tragedies of our age- the Christian women who should marry, and would make (all other things being equal) the best wives- those who are young and virgins, are for the large part essentially commanded that they shouldn’t marry until they are no longer young.

This brings us to the men. Based on what I have seen, and what others have relayed to me, it appears as though many Christians don’t want good, virtuous Christian men to marry well. Oh, they would never admit to it and would instead deny the accusation vociferously. They would protest and say that of course they want those nice men to marry well. But the women they want to marry, those young (hopefully attractive) virgins from the paragraph before, are basically off-limits to them. As for what women they are “allowed” to marry, that is, to court without scandal or reprisal? Yeah….  Honestly, sometimes I get the impression that a lot of Christians see good, virtuous men as janitors or sanitation workers who are expected to pick up the “trash” in church. If you continue to follow stringtheory’s comments in that thread he basically describes that exact phenomenon in action. Undoubtedly it is one of the major reasons why so many men are leaving the church right now. These men are essentially being punished for their virtue, which sure doesn’t help encourage it any, as incentives matter.

Before I close I also want to address the question of “Is it wrong to kill one’s sex drive to avoid [sexual] immorality?” I know that I have read some of the works of the early Church Fathers who discussed physical castration, and they made it clear that it was a sin. One’s body is holy, a gift from God, and is not to be disfigured. I think that the same reasoning would apply to chemical castration as well. Your brain is part of your body, and using chemicals to alter your brain chemistry to suppress, hinder or eliminate certain brain functions is harmful. Yes, the intent might be good, but the action itself is not just or ordered. Jesus was not being literal when he said we should cut off our hand if it caused us to be sin- he was applying a metaphor, as per his usual style. However, reasonable minds might differ and I am curious what my readers think about the subject. Is is acceptable to use chemicals to suppress one’s sex drive so as to avoid sexual immorality? Let me know in the comments.

Slipped Through The Cracks

In my last major post, I discussed the important role that parents need to play in helping their children marry. As a brief summary, I advocated that parents: 1) help their children find worthy spouses and 2) help their children marry those worthy spouses while young. Such an effort would help children to maintain a virtuous life and keep away from sexual immorality, something which pervades every drop of modern culture.

But what about those for whom this advice comes too late? Once children are “out of the nest” the ability to help them in this way diminishes rapidly. What about young Christian adults whose parents didn’t help to prepare or aid them in marrying young? Parents can make up for this to a degree- while training and preparation might not be possible any longer (or of limited value), they can still help their children find worthy spouses. Unfortunately, not everyone grows up with God-fearing or responsible parents, or even an intact home.  Those with parents who aren’t willing or aren’t able to help are truly in a forlorn position.

Its understandable for those parents who still have young children to not be overly concerned with young Christians who have “slipped through the cracks.” When the world at large is constantly attacking you on every front, and seeks to destroy or corrupt everything you hold dear, there is a natural inclination to enter a “bunker” mentality. Everything not connected to you and yours is simply pushed out of your mind and disappears into the nebulous aether of “out there.” Again, understandable. But in my view a mistake.

I believe that this is a classic instance of similar interests aligning such that “if we don’t hang together, we shall surely hang separately.” That means parents with young children should try and help single, young Christian adults to find worthy spouses to marry, and that young, single Christian adults should try to help parents with young children prepare their children for marriage and help them (as time passes) to find spouses for themselves. Setting aside the moral considerations (in my view this is a great act of Christian charity here), there are strong self-interest reasons to work together in this manner.

The first reason to do this lies at the heart of success for both groups: networking. More than anything else, the collapse of the old networks between between members of faith communities is the single biggest impediment to devout, young Christians marrying. In the past you used to be able to count on friends and family to help you find a spouse, or to help your children (or grand-children) find a spouse. Coupled with the relative dearth of actual, devout, God-fearing Christians (as compared to “Churchians” -those who attend church for the social value but are not Christian in act or belief), it is extremely difficult for many young Christians to find suitable mates. Those who are fortunate enough to be born to a rebuilt network, such as a traditional church or a home-schooling group, fare somewhat better. But even they suffer from the limited pool available. If both groups of Christians- parents and singles, work together they can rebuild the old networks of faith communities much faster than if they operate solo. Every new person that is brought into the network is another chance to branch out and bring even more people into the fold. In mathematical terms the growth of the network is exponential, not linear.

The second reason lies in future hopes and opportunities. If your youngest son is still in diapers, it might not seem beneficial to you or your family right now to help a 20 or 30 year old Christian man find a wife to marry. But in 20 years your son might be looking for a wife, and if that man you helped two decades earlier now has daughters… well, that might make all the difference in the world. Naturally the same logic applies for a young Christian woman as well. Remember, you reap what you sow. As for Christian singles, helping those who are parents now can benefit any future children you have. Or grand-children, for that matter. This kind of project requires long-term planning and thinking, and that means laying the foundation for the future, today.

In my next post in this series I hope to cover some of how both groups can actually help another, both in the moment and in the future.

Keeping The Reward

It is clear to anyone of good sense nowadays that something is very wrong within the Church when it comes to marriage. Divorce, once near unheard of, has become so commonplace as to be an accepted part of life. The median and mean age of marriage continues to get pushed back. And many young Millenials have decided that they simply won’t marry, for a variety of reasons. Marriage among Christians has never been in a more precarious position.

This crisis has come about due to a multitude of factors: no-fault (aka unilateral) divorce, rampant promiscuity, legalized and easily available contraception and abortion, feminism and the elevation of romantic love are just a few of them. As Christians living in a post-Christian culture, there is little or nothing we can do about many of these. In many respects it seems that the only thing that Christian parents can do is educate their children in the faith and impart as much moral guidance in them as possible. But this isn’t true. There is something that Christian parents can do, something that used to be done, the absence of which is amongst the many reasons why marriage is in such a poor state today.

What is this “something” that parents can do to help their children?

They can actively work to help their children marry young.

Parents used to do this- they used to seek out wives and husbands for their sons and daughters. They used to help arrange marriages for their children at a young age. [Contrary to popular myth, an arranged marriage is not the same thing as a forced marriage; the latter were terribly uncommon, generally found only among the nobility.]

Unfortunately, this practice, like so many others, has fallen to the wayside in recent decades/centuries. Our love of freedom and independence has lead most parents to let their children handle matters of marriage all by themselves. Ostensibly this is because young Christian men and women have the right to choose their own future for themselves. Yet in practice what is really going on is that young Christians are being thrown to the wolves- they are thrust out into a broken Marriage Marketplace that chews most of them up. A lucky few manage to make it through unscathed, but most are caught up in either promiscuity or involuntary celibacy.

Sadly, few Christians seem to be willing to take the steps which will help their children escape this fate. Again, the solution  is very simple, with just two components:

1) Help their children find worthy spouse candidates…

2) and help them marry those candidates while they are young.

The excuses are many as to why parents won’t help their children out here, and amusingly enough, they aren’t original either. My research into the early history of the Church has lead me to discover that the advice I and others are giving now has been around for a long, long time. Here is what Saint John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople and Doctor of the Church, had to say on the subject of parents raising their children and caring out their souls:

Hear this, ye fathers and mothers, that your bringing up of children shall not lose its reward. This also he says, as he proceeds, “Well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children.” (1 Tim. v.10.) Among other commendations he reckons this one, for it is no light praise to devote to God those children which are given them of God. For if the basis, the foundation which they lay be good, great will be their reward; as great, if they neglect it, will be their punishment. It was on account of his children that Eli perished. For he ought to have admonished them, and indeed he did admonish them, but not as he ought; but from his unwillingness to give them pain he destroyed both himself and them. Hear this, ye fathers, bring your children up with great care “in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.” (Eph. vi.4.) Youth is wild, and requires many governors, teachers, directors, attendants, and tutors; and after all these, it is a happiness if it be restrained. For as a horse not broken in, or a wild beast untamed, such is youth. But if from the beginning, from the earliest age, we fix it in good rules, much pains will not be required afterwards; for good habits formed will be to them as a law. Let us not suffer them to do anything which is agreeable, but injurious; nor let us indulge them, as forsooth but children. Especially let us train them in chastity, for there is the very bane of youth. For this many struggles, much attention will be necessary. Let us take wives for them early, so that their brides may receive their bodies pure and unpolluted, so their loves will be more ardent. He that is chaste before marriage, much more will he be chaste after it; and he that practiced fornication before, will practice it after marriage. “All bread,” it is said, “is sweet to the fornicator.” (Ecclus. xxiii.17.) Garlands are wont to be worn on the heads of bridegrooms, as a symbol of victory, betokening that they approach the marriage bed unconquered by pleasure. But if captivated by pleasure he has given himself up to harlots, why does he wear the garland, since he has been subdued?

Let us admonish them of these things. Let us employ sometimes advice, sometimes warnings, sometimes threatening. In children we have a great charge committed to us. Let us bestow great care upon them, and do everything that the Evil One may not rob us of them. But now our practice is the very reverse of this. We take all care indeed to have our farm in good order, and to commit it to a faithful manager, we look out for it an ass-driver, and muleteer, and bailiff, and a clever accomptant. But we do not look out for what is much more important, for a person to whom we may commit our son as the guardian of his morals, though this is a possession much more valuable than all others. It is for him indeed that we take such care of our estate. We take care of our possessions for our children, but of the children themselves we take no care at all.What an absurdity is this! Form the soul of thy son aright, and all the rest will be added hereafter. If that is not good, he will derive no advantage from his wealth, and if it is formed to goodness he will suffer no harm from poverty. Wouldest thou leave him rich? teach him to be good: for so he will be able to acquire wealth, or if not, he will not fare worse than they who possess it. But if he be wicked, though you leave him boundless wealth, you leave him no one to take care of it, and you render him worse than those who are reduced to extreme poverty. For poverty is better than riches for those children who are not well-disposed. For it retains them in some degree of virtue even against their will. Whereas money does not suffer those who would be sober to continue so, it leads them away, ruins them, and plunges them into infinite dangers.

The above quote is from his Ninth Homily on First Letter to Timothy. Written over 1600 years ago, Saint John Chrysostom’s words ring true now just as they did in the early days of the Church. There is so much wisdom contained therein that I am not sure where to begin in dissecting and analyzing these two paragraphs.  Here is but a brief encapsulation of his sage advice and teaching, along with my thoughts about it:

– Parents ought to be concerned most of raising their children to be virtuous. Nothing else is nearly so important. If they raise them well, great will be their reward. Raise them poorly, and the punishment accordingly great.

• This sentiment is now mostly lacking in Christian parents. Rather than raise their children to be virtuous, they raise them to be successful. How many of you have heard parents brag about the successes of their children? About the great deeds they are accomplishing, or the bright future they have ahead of them? Then ponder, if you have the stomach for it, on how many times you’ve heard parents praise the virtue of their children, and deeds which clearly manifest that virtue (as compared to the modern equivalent of blowing a horn ahead of them).

– Rather than be given great license, young Christians need to be restrained, disciplined and mentored. Discipline applied at an early age will bear fruit later in life.

• This advice is so eminently true and obvious you almost wonder why it need be said. But sadly there are some Christian parents who clearly need it, because they spoil their children and give them free reign. What befalls those children later is entirely tragic, and entirely foreseeable.

– Train children to be chaste. The best way to do this is for them to marry young (especially sons). Promiscuity before marriage weakens the marital bonds, and invites future sin.

• Preaching young marriage is counter-cultural even in the Church these days. I know plenty of Christians who advocate that people “wait” to marry, including many parents. They seem to have little to no concern about the dangers of temptation when they thrust their children out in a world that is fully of vice and promiscuity. Speaking from personal experience, I know that it is extraordinarily difficult to maintain a virtuous life while still single, especially in this culture. The temptations and frustrations are incredible, and many will not be up to the challenge.

– Parents take more care preparing their property for their children then they do actually raising their children. They spend a great deal of time thinking about who will work with their son, but not stop to think of who will marry him and whom he will spend his whole life with. If a child has strong morals, and is full of virtue, then they will get through life safely and securely. No amount of wealth can cover deficiencies in character or virtue.

• This part I found disturbingly prescient. I mean, isn’t he describing the general phenomenon of parents sending their kids off to college to get an education and develop a career to a T? Parents are doing everything they can to prepare their children to succeed at life in all areas except (for many) the most important: marriage. This is an obvious recipe for disaster.

In conclusion, Christian parents these days need to reconsider how they are raising their children. Are they raising them to succeed at worldly matters, or are they raising them to excel at loving God and keeping His commandments? Unfortunately, most nearly everyone in the Church has, whether willingly or not, conformed to the world. While we may profess different things from our secular brothers and sisters, we act little different when it comes to raising our children. This needs to change.

A vital step in that change is the role Christian parents play when it comes to their children and marriage. Christian parents need to reject the secular approach of leaving marriage entirely to their children. Instead, they need to get involved early, and often, in their children’s lives to help prepare and train them to marry well. The effort begun with the Courtship Pledge by Scott and Mychael is an example of how Christian parents can do their part to change how Christians look at and understand marriage. This project, and efforts like it, is critical to restoring Christian marriage and raising up a new generation of virtuous Christians who will bring light to the world.

I would entreat all Christian parents reading this to ask themselves what they are doing to prepare their children to live virtuous lives, what they are doing to help their children maintain their virtue, what they are doing to prepare their children for marriage, and what they are doing to help their children find and marry a worthy spouse. Then ask yourselves what more you can do for those entrusted into your care, so that you might not lose your reward.

[This is cross-posted over at the Courtship Pledge]

Random Musings- #1

This brief post is a short collection of some random thoughts that I’ve had lately. Reader input is encouraged.

Balance

One thing that I have noticed in myself is a tendency to favor “balance” in certain situations.  One of the more common ones is when I am writing something critical of women- I instinctively think of something to include which is critical of men in order to balance it out. Having noticed this tendency, I am doing my best to quash it, but it has proven remarkably difficult to suppress. Still, the fact that I know its a problem is probably the biggest step in its correction, because most men don’t even realize that they have this problem.

This leads to an interesting point- are most Churchian leaders aware of this particular flaw? I believe it qualifies as a flaw because it often serves to detract or undermine any point they are making. Such leaders are quite prone to this; they will criticize men whenever they criticize women, and they will praise women whenever they praise men. My belief is that some of them know full well what they are doing- they are protecting their interests by not angering the most vocal and involved members of their “flock.” Others, however, I think are so deluded and conditioned that they don’t realize what they are doing. Whether it is a desire to be fair or non-judgmental or whatever, they have made it a habit to seek “balance” whenever women are concerned.

Anyone else have this tendency?

[This segment was motivated by this post by Cail Corishev.]

Being a King

For some time I have been trying to perfect the following phrase:

I will treat you like a Queen… so long as you recognize that I am your King.

It is a pet project of mine- a ready-made quip when dealing with a woman I’m investigating for marriage potential who shows signs of being a “princess.”  The idea being that I would ask her if she would expect to be treated like a queen when we marry. If she says yes, I would mention this. It could also apply if her parents said something similar as well.

So far it doesn’t seem quite perfect, but I haven’t been able to tweak it to that Goldilocks level of “just right.” Perhaps some of my readers would feel like adding their thoughts.

Removing the Mask

Rollo’s most recent post, Controlling Interests, got me thinking about two different things. The first is how brazen many women now are when it comes to living their lives they way they want to. And the second is how a fight is likely brewing between the female “haves” and “have-nots”.

The basic strategy which many (most?) women employ right now, which is regularly known as AF/BB (see Rollo’s post for more), is one that requires two distinct elements to pull off: deceit and desperation. Many, if not most, men would not be content to marry a woman whom they realize is choosing to marry them solely as a meal ticket, and effectively a sperm donor as well. It should surprise no one that men don’t like to be used in that way, and will balk at it if they realize that is what is happening. Hence the importance of hiding what is going on from them.

On the other hand, this repulsion at being used is mitigated/countered by a sense of desperation in many men in the West. Owing to the nature of the SMP, they have limited options when it comes to female companionship. Naturally, this makes them desperate, and they are willing to take on women they wouldn’t otherwise if it gets them at least some measure of opportunity with them.

What seems to be happening is that many women are now certain that male desperation in the future will be greater than any sense of male self-respect, and so they can do whatever they want and not have to hide it. Part of me wonders if women see the ability to be open about their intentions/strategy as a status symbol- a woman who can act that way is a woman of value, and therefore a woman to be envied. The problem with this strategy, though, is that it relies on male desperation not having any limits. I suspect this to be a grave mistake. This is because the average quality of women in the West has been dropping fast, perhaps even faster than male desperation has been rising. If that is the case, we will soon reach a point where most men will simply not accept the (Western) women who are available, no matter how desperate they might have become.

All of this plays into part of this subject- the looming fight between women. Women at the margins of “value” will start to feel the pinch first. The “where have all the good men gone?” articles out there seem to indicate that this has already begun. It will only increase in tempo over time as more and more women drop below the acceptable rate for most men. Combine this with many men being burned or realizing what a danger most Western women are, and you get a huge disparity in outcome between the female “haves” and “have-nots”.

What I am uncertain of, and curious about, is what shape this fight will take. Women are already starting to question the dominant paradigm in numerous ways, one example being the delaying of childbirth. Perhaps a similar reaction will take place, where women attack their brazen sisters from the margins, discouraging them from “painting women in a bad light”, or some such. Or they could always latch onto the tried-and-true method of “fixing” the problem by attacking men as insecure pigs.

So, what do my readers think of this matter? Will women “price themselves out of the market” faster than male desperation can compensate for? And how will women on the margins react to more and more men becoming aware of the con that is being pulled on them?

 

Incoming Question

Today’s post is my attempt to answer a question posed by reader and occasional commenter Nathan. He left it in my Questions and Suggestions page, which is the perfect place to leave any questions you might have related to my blog or the topics I cover. Here is Nathan’s comment in full:

What is your best info and advice for men to pick and plan their personal missions in life, who are concerned about how the possibly low income and high expense of that mission lifestyle will effect and decrease their odds of marrying a truly godly woman? This seems like picking a mission without any hope for a wife OR picking a wife and trying to make a lot of money, but without any personal mission, and both of those options seem less than ideal.
I’m pissed off that nearly [every] example of married men in the bible is rich, mad that most Christian women are repelled by a lack of high income.
What to do?

Let me begin by noting that while Nathan asks only one question (in a short and long version), there are several possible topics to discuss besides just the question of “what to do?” As I see it, there are three major issues here (along with several sub-issues that I will only touch on):

• How can a Christian man still marry if he is intent on pursuing a life-path/mission that not only doesn’t pay well, but is expensive at the same time?
• What is the significance of the fact that nearly every married man in the bible is rich?
• Why are most Christian women repelled by a lack of high income?

I am going to address the last question first, as I believe it will be relatively easy to cover. The second question is actually worth a post all of its own, as it will require some serious delving into scripture. So that will follow at some point in the future. The first question will be what I will finish with, and devote most of this post towards. I would ask that those who comment keep to the two points that this post covers. [Having finished the post now, I can say that it isn’t my best. But I wanted to respond to him as soon as possible, so I’m posting it right away rather than spend the time to try and smooth the edges. Keep this in mind as you read the rest.]

This brings me to the issue of why it seems that most Christian women are repelled by a lack of high income. The first thing I would like to do is point out that all women, not just Christian women, are attracted to a man with a high income. Money, of which income is a significant component, is one of the attributes that women use to measure the attractiveness of a man. As its position in the PSALM formula indicates, Money is the weakest of these attributes. But it is still something that women pay attention to, at least when high numbers are concerned.

Even with this in mind, a number of men around the sphere have argued for some time that most Christian women are even more materialistic than their secular sisters. Personally, I have no opinion on the matter. In my experience most women who profess to be Christian are no more concerned, and no less, than secular women when it comes to income and wealth in general. But for the sake of this post let us assume that their assessment is accurate. So why would Christian women be more insistent on a man having a higher income than secular women?

One reason that I can think of is the so-called “Prosperity Gospel.” Apparently this is quite prominent in a number of Protestant Christian circles. Since most of those men making these allegations/observations tend to be Protestant, I wonder if there might be a link between the two. Not being familiar with this particular theology, its adherents, or Protestant churches in general, I will leave it to my Protestant readers and commenters to offer their thoughts on this possible cause.

Another factor might be the rampant sense of entitlement that is fostered amongst many Christian women these days in the West, especially in the US. The title of EAP, or Entitled American Princess, is sometimes associated with “good church girls”, who are often called “Daughters of the King.” Given the rampant feminism in most Christian churches these days, it is only natural that unhealthy and unrealistic expectations will be developed in many young Christian women.

There might be other factors at play, but I can’t think of them at the moment. My readers are encouraged to off their own suggestions at what might be behind this.

Something I want to touch on real quickly is that women should be concerned about a man’s income, or his future ability to provide, when it comes to marriage. After all, he will need to provide for a family, especially while his wife is pregnant and they have children. A man who cannot provide for a family, now or in the future, needs to understand that his ability to marry will be severely limited. And there is nothing wrong with this- we men are called to a great responsibility as husbands and fathers, and need to live up to that. What I think that Nathan was getting at, though, is that many Christian women’s perceptions of what an appropriate income is to support a family are heavily skewed to the high end. As a result few men can hope to live up to these unrealistic, and unnecessary, expectations.

Finishing that, we return to the initial question of what a man can do about marrying when pursuing a low-income “mission.” As I just alluded to, men need to understand that they are primarily (but not solely) responsible for supporting their family. This isn’t something that can be escaped from just because a man is serving on “a mission from God.” Unless a man has some means of materially supporting his wife and children in the future, he needs to understand that a family is just not in the cards. It might be a necessary sacrifice (albeit a great one) in order to pursue his God-given mission. Is that a hard road to walk? Well, yes it is. But Jesus warned us as much:

²⁹ And every one who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name’s sake, will receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life. ³⁰ But many that are first will be last, and the last first.

(Matthew 19:29-30)

I think that part of the dilemma faced by Nathan is self-imposed, in the sense that he (perhaps without intending to) rejects a lifestyle that earns a high income as compatible with serving the Lord. While riches make entering heaven difficult, it is not impossible. After all, with God all things are possible. One doesn’t have to be poor to serve God. It just helps keep distractions out of your life.

In addition, our personal missions can be quite varied. For some Christians it might be actual missionary work in Africa or Asia. For others, it might be charity work closer to home. For others it might involve raising funds or foodstuffs or other necessities for those in need (something Saint Paul himself engaged in). For others it might be evangelization, or something as simple and yet as difficult as raising a family of saints. I could go on listing possible paths for a long time yet; there is no limit to the ways we can serve the Lord.

But if you feel called to a specific vocation (to use the Catholic parlance), it might be necessary to give up a wife and family. If you think this might be the case, then I recommend lots and lots of prayer. Combine this with discussions with wise and devout individuals in your life, to discern if that is truly your calling. If it is, understanding that you are giving up a lot in this life, in the hope to gain a hundred-fold in the next.

Another option worth mentioning is to pursue mission style work later in life. One doesn’t have to do it when young. In fact, there are many reasons to do it while older. A man can spend his young working hard, acquiring money, getting married and raising a family, and then once the children are grown up he and his wife can engage in that mission then. At that point in life mission work might be a nice break from what you did before, and you might be better prepared for it as well. You doesn’t have to serve God the same way your whole life- the way we can serve can adjust as we gain experience and wisdom.

A biblical example of a Christian married couple who might fit this bill would be Priscilla and Aquila. Scripture doesn’t mention that they had children with them, nor does it mention their age. But given the way that they moved freely with Paul, I suspect that they were probably without children at the time. This might have been because their children had already grown up and moved to their own household. It is also possible they were infertile and simply couldn’t have children. If the former, however, they provide an example of a married couple who served God in a powerful and memorable way.

My advice to any man is to first discern what vocation he is called towards. Is marriage part of his God-given mission? If so, then he needs to plan and act accordingly. That means being in a position to support a wife, and then later a family. If you feel called towards something else right away, then you need to accept the sacrifice that is asked of you, and make peace with that. Otherwise, you can still plan your mission after you have an empty nest, where you and your wife do the Lord’s work in the manner you are called to. Just be sure and discuss this with potential wife candidates, so that they understand the nature of the mission, and man, they are becoming joined with.

That completes my initial thoughts on the matter. I would encourage my readers to offer their own thoughts and advice to Nathan, and to anyone else contemplating the same situation.

Update: The Unreal Woman has expanded on her thoughts in the comments in a post over at her blog. I highly recommend it.

May The Odds Be (N)ever In Your Favor

There are certain ideas or concepts that never seem to die around these parts. One rather consistent meme that likes to rear its head often is that certain groups have it easy in the present Marriage Marketplace. This simply isn’t true. No one has it easy in the MMP. Some groups merely have it better than others. But no one has it easy.

Despite what certain commenters and posters would have you believe, chaste women don’t have it easy. Sure, they may be the “rock-stars” of the MMP, but the MMP is basically operating in the same space as the Sexual Marketplace. And chastity and the SMP don’t get along too well, as you might imagine. As I’ve explained before, unchaste women have ruined things for chaste women in the present environment. If you aren’t willing to play by the SMP’s rules, its awfully hard to get into the game. The end result is that young, chaste, marriage-minded young women can have a difficult time finding a husband if they aren’t plugged into a network of like-minded people.

This lack of networking is a problem I’ve tackled before. Until new ones are built (such as the one that Scott and his wife are working on), most marriage minded folks out there are having to grope about in the dark. I’ve talked with a number of young, marriage minded women in the months since I created this blog, and they all relate the same kind of difficulties. Being skipped over because they don’t exude a “slut aura.” Being rejected or “dumped” for not putting out. Being told the wrong things by their family and friends. Even, in some instances, of family acting almost to sabotage them. Most of them have no one to help them, no one to guide them, no one to bend a sympathetic ear to. So they end up adrift in a sea of loneliness and despair, with nary a glimmer of light to be seen.

Sadly, it was women (older women with a different set of values) who have poisoned the well for these young ladies. In his post, Ugly Ducklings?, Cail Corishev exposes how it isn’t a matter of men not finding women attractive (although I am working on a post that examines this issue). Instead, as he points out in in his latest post, women are responsible for the current state of the MMP:

Men don’t expect girls to be interested in marriage anymore, especially right out of high school.  What’s the worst thing that can happen to a bright, young 18-year-old girl, in the eyes of our society — even in church people?  Pregnancy.  Not because of the sin, primarily, but because it closes off her “potential.”  Even if she gets married to the father, who turns out to be a responsible provider, and they make a good family together, there will still be people who will sigh and wonder “what could have been,” as if she would have been curing cancer if she hadn’t gotten sidetracked by diapers and PTA meetings.  Everyone except a few oddballs like the Amish or very traditional Catholics is in agreement: a girl shouldn’t get tied down too early, preferably not before 26-28, after college and a few years of establishing a career.

So young men catch this vibe and act accordingly.  The guy who expresses an interest in marriage around typical 20-year-old girls quickly learns that he might as well talk about his struggles with chronic foot odor.  The romantic, marriage-minded boy learns that he has to hide his good intentions, so as not to scare away the girls who just want to have fun.

Unless men exercise total or near total control over the marriage market (such as in Old Testament Israel), it is women who decide the rules of the game. And women have decided as a majority that they would rather “have fun” and dabble at careers than marry young (and in a chaste manner). As a result, they convince men (who aren’t marriage-minded by nature) that marriage isn’t something to center their life around. This, plus the dangerous legal regime that men face in marriage today, means that a lot of men who would have swiftly married these women in the past are no longer in the market themselves. Throw in porn and a history of being treated poorly by women, and many men have simply checked out.

When the costs of marriage are high, and the perceived benefits low, it is only rational for people to eschew marriage. [Minor spoilers to follow]. The title of this post references an example of this. The protagonist of the book/film The Hunger Games, a 16 year-old young woman by the name of Katniss, is not at all interested in marrying. Her reason? She lives under a totalitarian regime that every year forces randomly chosen children to fight to the death. Katniss can’t bear the thought of possibly having to see her children die like that, and so decides against marriage. While an extreme example of incentives/disincentives at work, it accurately conveys how our environment affects our decisions with regards to marriage. Unfortunately, that environment is not likely to change any time soon.

Alas, it seems as though the odds are never in our favor.

Guard Your Strength

I. Introduction

This post has had a interesting history. It started, almost two months ago, as a post about Biblical advice on finding/attracting/taking a wife. Then  it morphed into a post about the qualities that a man should look for in a wife. I wasn’t entirely satisfied with the end result, so I shelved it. Last month I started to modify it so that it was a post about what to look for and what to avoid in women when screening for a wife. But even that didn’t seem right.

Then, over the last few weeks, I read a number of comments in various blog which all said, to some degree or another, that male chastity was of little to no importance. Seeing a number of men, including some self-professed Christians, dismiss the sin of fornication (but only in men) triggered something in me. Inspired, I went back to this post and re-wrote it to respond to those who think chastity is only a female concern. Of course, being me, I had to take the post further than that, and so it encompasses some other related subjects as well.

I should mention that this post is written from a Christian perspective. It will contain a lot of quotes and passages, from both the Old and New Testaments. Non-believers are of course entitled to simply ignore this post. I have organized this post into 5 sections, starting with this introduction. Following that is section two, which directly addresses fornication and chastity in men. Section 3 looks at marriage and section 4 at female chastity and how it relates to male chastity. Finally there is the conclusion.

II. The Destroyers of Kings

The Old and New Testament approach chastity and fornication by men in a different fashion. In fact, one of the more common pieces of “evidence” offered by those who disregard chastity in men is that the Old Testament doesn’t flat out say fornication by men is a sin. Of course, if you actually look at the Pentateuch (or the other parts of the OT), female fornication isn’t explicitly called a sin either. Deuteronomy’s punishment of stoning for a woman who wasn’t a virgin when she married was for instances of fraud (a woman holding herself out as a virgin but she wasn’t), although the clear implication was that her fornication was a sin as well. There are a number of reasons why the OT was silent about fornication per se, and a big one is that it almost always involved prostitution. Outside adultery and a man lying with a virgin, most extra-marital sex centered around prostitutes. The distinction between harlot and whore in OT times was razor thin, “loose” women were usually prostitutes; the modern concept of a “slut” just didn’t exist back then.

As a result of this, what you find in the Old Testament regarding chastity is usually declamations against prostitution. Although some general advice against “loose” and “foreign” women can be found as well. Another major difference is that the OT couches most of its teaching to men in the form of self-interest. Since I will start with the Old Testament, this will be evident quickly. Here are some of the more poignant passages:

¹⁴ The mouth of a loose woman is a deep pit;
he with whom the Lord is angry falls into it.

(Proverbs 22:14)

²⁶ My child, give me your heart,
and let your eyes observe my ways.
²⁷ For a prostitute is a deep pit;
an adulteress is a narrow well.
²⁸ She lies in wait like a robber
and increases the number of the faithless.

(Proverbs 23:26-28)

² Do not give yourself to a woman
so that she gains mastery over your strength.
³ Do not go to meet a loose woman,
lest you fall into her snares.
⁴ Do not associate with a woman singer,
lest you be caught in her intrigues.
^…
6 Do not give yourself to harlots
lest you lose your inheritance.
⁷ Do not look around in the streets of a city,
nor wander about in its deserted sections.
⁸ Turn away your eyes from a shapely woman,
and do not look intently at beauty belonging to another;
many have been misled by a woman’s beauty,
and by it passion is kindled like a fire.

(Sirach 9:2-4, 6-8)

² Wine and women lead intelligent men astray,
and the man who consorts with prostitutes is reckless.
³ Decay and worms will take possession of him,
and the reckless person will be snatched away.

(Sirach 19:2-3)

¹⁹ My child, keep sound the bloom of your youth,
and do not give your strength to strangers.

(Sirach 26:19)

² No, my son! No, son of my womb!
No, son of my vows!
³ Do not give your strength to women,
your ways to those who destroy kings.

(Proverbs 31:2-3)

Some Old Testament teaching addresses chastity in a different form, focusing on a man’s dignity.

¹⁵ Drink water from your own cistern,
flowing water from your own well.
¹⁶ Should your springs be scattered abroad,
streams of water in the streets?
¹⁷ Let them be for yourself alone,
and not for sharing with strangers.

(Proverbs 5:15-17)

After a reading like that, I couldn’t help but think of this:

Leaving that aside, as a bit of information for those having trouble with the last passage, water and water sources often had strong sexual connotations in the Old Testament. I will leave it to my individual readers to actually put the pieces together, of course.

All together, the Old Testament advocates that men avoid harlots and those with whom they could commit fornication (or adultery, for that matter). The appeal to self-interest and a sense of dignity is chosen out of effectiveness, however, not because there isn’t sin involved. The Old Testament is very clear about it being a sin for the men of Israel to associate with foreign women. Since that is largely where promiscuity as we would understand it would have been found, the inference that fornication is a sin is easy to make. Of course, the New Testament makes this inference unnecessary, as it directly deals with this subject:

⁹ Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, ¹⁰ nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

(1 Cor 6:9-10)

¹³ “Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food”—and God will destroy both one and the other. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. ¹⁴ And God raised the Lord and will also raise us up by his power. ¹⁵ Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! ¹⁶ Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.” ¹⁷ But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. ¹⁸ Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sina person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body.

(1 Cor 6:13-18)

⁴ Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous.

(Heb 13:4)

¹⁹ Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, ²⁰ idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, ²¹ envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

(Gal 5:19-21)

⁹ I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— ¹⁰ not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. ¹¹ But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. ¹² For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? ¹³ God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”

(1 Cor 5 9-13)

³ But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. ⁴ Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving. ⁵ For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.

(Eph 5:3-5)

The references to sexual immorality in all of these passages and verses come from the classical Greek word, Porneia. It refers to illicit sexual intercourse, which includes fornication amongst other sins (see here for more). Couple that with the admonitions against the works of the flesh and warnings against sensuality, and it is clear that the New Testament teaches that fornication is a sin that Christian men are to avoid.

Combine the New Testament and Old Testament teachings together, and you can see that men shouldn’t be associating with, much less having intercourse with, loose women or prostitutes. What I find fascinating is the emphasis on a man protecting himself from women. I was only half-joking above by including that clip from Dr. Strangelove. There is some truth to the title of this section, a man can lose his strength, power and dignity to women. Given the stories of “player burnout” being told of certain Pick-Up Artists, it shouldn’t seem far-fetched that promiscuity harms men just as it harms women. With this understanding, we can see that chastity for men isn’t solely about being “a good Christian boy”, but about a man protecting himself from harm.

III. The Blessed Fountain

The previous section contained a lot of Thou Shalt Not’s, but not as much teaching on what should be done. This section will correct that. I don’t think it will come as a surprise to anyone to learn that the intended avenue by which men of the faith can protect themselves and meet their needs is marriage:

¹⁸ Let your fountain be blessed,
and rejoice in the wife of your youth,
¹⁹     a lovely deer, a graceful doe.
May her breasts satisfy you at all times;
may you be intoxicated always by her love.

(Proverbs 5:18-19)

²⁰ Seek a fertile field within the whole plain,
and sow it with your own seed, trusting in your fine stock.
²¹ So your offspring will prosper,
and, having confidence in their good descent, will grow great.

(Sirach 26:19-21)

Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” ² But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. ³ The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. ⁴ For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. ⁵ Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

⁶ Now as a concession, not a command, I say this. ⁷ I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.

⁸ To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. ⁹ But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

(1 Cor 7:1-9)

³ For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality; ⁴ that each one of you know how to take a wife for himself in holiness and honor

(1 Thess 4:3-4)

Unlike with harlots and whores, a man’s relations with his wife do not drain or weaken him. Whereas loose women will take money and strength from him and give him only fleeting pleasure in return, a man who invests in his wife will be repaid many times over. In fact, scripture tells us that there is nothing of this world more valuable than a good wife:

²⁷ A woman’s beauty lights up a man’s face,
and there is nothing he desires more.
²⁸ If kindness and humility mark her speech,
her husband is more fortunate than other men.
²⁹ He who acquires a wife gets his best possession,
a helper fit for him and a pillar of support.

(Sirach 36:27-29)

¹⁹ Children and the building of a city establish one’s name,
but better than either is the one who finds wisdom.
Cattle and orchards make one prosperous;
but a blameless wife is accounted better than either.

…

²³ A friend or companion is always welcome,
but a sensible wife is better than either.

(Sirach 40:19, 23)

¹⁰ A good wife who can find?
She is far more precious than jewels.
¹¹ The heart of her husband trusts in her,
and he will have no lack of gain.
¹² She does him good, and not harm,
all the days of her life.

(Proverbs 31:10-12)

Marriage isn’t necessary for a Christian man, of course. Both Jesus and St. Paul tell us that it isn’t necessary to be married in order to walk the hard path. I already quoted from 1 Corinthians 7 before, where Paul explains that a man who can control himself need not marry. As he points out:

³² I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; ³³ but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife,

(1 Cor 7:32-33)

If a man can control his passions, and not fall into sexual immorality, then he needn’t marry. Instead he can focus entirely on pleasing the Lord. A wife and family is a distraction from this. Our Savior also talked of how “there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven”. But all of this only applies to those with that level of self-control, of which men there are few. A man without that level of control should marry.

IV. A Well of Your Own

Having covered the importance of male chastity, of avoiding sexual immorality and the value of marriage for men, it is only appropriate that I turn this post towards women. After all, teaching men that they should avoid sexual immorality and should marry is only half the battle, as it were. The matter of what type of woman a man should marry cannot be ignored. Proverbs 31 provides some measure of insight, and other parts of scripture also give some idea. St. Paul, throughout his letters, tells us about the fruits of the Spirit, which are signs to look for in a wife candidate.  Since the overall topic of this post is chastity though, that will be the point of discussion in this section.

Those who are familiar with my blog and my online persona know that I am very particular when it comes to a potential wife candidate. Specifically, I am looking to marry a woman who is a virgin. Not a “born-again virgin”, or a woman on her “second-virginity”. An actual, real, hasn’t “known a man” virgin. Needless to say, this position has garnered a not insubstantial amount of negative responses over the many months that I have been blogging. Much of it has even come from self-identified Christians. Unsurprisingly, the responses from men and women have been very different.

With only one or two exceptions, most of the men who have criticized my position do so from the perspective that I am being unrealistic. They tell me that in the present environment I can’t reasonably hope to find what I am looking for. My usual response is to tell them that I do have a realistic understanding of my “chances.” I have been around this part of the web long enough to learn how things really work; I have taken the Red Pill, put on the Sunglasses. This world of ours is not a Disney fairy tale: there is no happily every after, the Ingenue doesn’t choose the Hero, and good doesn’t always triumph over evil. Trust me, I know how bleak the odds are.

As for how women respond, it ranges from simple condescending shaming to outright hatred. [See here for an example]. As I alluded to earlier, Christian women join in this, and frankly, their responses aren’t much better than those of their secular sisters.  The most common attack is that I am “unforgiving”, followed closely by “I shouldn’t judge women who aren’t virgins.” Of course, as I point out time and time again, it isn’t a matter of forgiveness, because women excluded by my filter haven’t wronged me. And 1 Corinthians (which I quoted in part II) makes it clear that we are to judge our fellow Christians on such matters. Those are easy enough to dismiss. The ones that really get to me though, are the more subtle attacks, the insinuations that it isn’t Christian to consider a woman’s sexual past if she has truly repented, and looking upon me as a lesser and “weaker” man for insisting that any woman I marry be a virgin.

For those Christians holding such views I direct your attention to these verses, which I have already quoted before:

¹⁵ Drink water from your own cistern,
flowing water from your own well.
¹⁶ Should your springs be scattered abroad,
streams of water in the streets?
¹⁷ Let them be for yourself alone,
and not for sharing with strangers.
¹⁸ Let your fountain be blessed,
and rejoice in the wife of your youth,
¹⁹     a lovely deer, a graceful doe.
May her breasts satisfy you at all times;
may you be intoxicated always by her love.

(Proverbs 5:15-19)

¹⁹ My child, keep sound the bloom of your youth,
and do not give your strength to strangers.
²⁰ Seek a fertile field within the whole plain,
and sow it with your own seed, trusting in your fine stock.
²¹ So your offspring will prosper,
and, having confidence in their good descent, will grow great.

(Sirach 26:19-21)

I highlighted several parts in bold because they are particularly meaningful here. Proverbs especially makes it clear that a man shouldn’t have sexual relations with any woman but his woman, aka- his wife. His attentions should only be directed towards his wife, and hers towards him. There is a clear implication here that a husband and wife should only have, and ever had, relations with each other and no one else. Likewise, Sirach advises a man to seek out a fertile field, which in context here is an untapped land ripe for planting. Translated, a man should not give his strength to (have sex with) strange women (women other than his wife) but instead acquire (marry) an untapped, fertile field (a virgin woman) and sow his seed to produce great stock (have lots of children).

I would be remiss at this point to fail to mention one of Cane Caldo’s great quotes:

Men are like farmers, and place a higher value on rich virgin soil, smooth slopes, easy irrigation, and a decided lack of plow-shattering stones.

What I am looking for is nothing more than what Scripture recommends to me. I have done exactly as Scripture advises me to do: I have guarded my strength, and not given it away to women. To any woman. All I am doing is looking for a woman who has guarded herself accordingly. A man who has guarded his strength, who has kept himself pure, has every right to ask the same of any woman who would be his wife. Not only does he have the right to seek such women, but Scripture says that he should seek out such women.

If that offends anyone, well, too bad. I am not saying that a non-virgin woman can’t or shouldn’t marry, only that she isn’t acceptable to me. There are plenty of other men out there in the world, including Christian men who themselves walked in sin in the past. Seek them out; it shouldn’t be hard, as they are far more common than someone like myself.

Not all Christian men who are in a position similar to mine have to follow this advice. It is a choice that each Christian man who has maintained his strength has to make for himself. If you find it acceptable to marry a non-virgin woman, then that is your right. I add only this: make that choice because it is what you have decided for yourself, not because you have been shamed or guilted into it by others.

V. Conclusion

And so this post comes to its (long overdue) end.

Men are not given a pass by God to engage in fornication or other forms of sexual immorality. Female chastity receives more attention in the Bible, but that doesn’t mean men aren’t held to a high standard themselves. There is now, and has always been, only one appropriate medium for human sexuality, and that is inside marriage.

Yes, marriage is a “bum deal” for men now in the West. The Law and the Culture are hostile to married men, and frankly, so is the Church in many instances. But that doesn’t change how we as Christians are to act. The world has always hated God, and therefore will always hate us as well. Christian men have two choices: take their chances in marriage, or life a celibate life in the model of Paul. More than a few Christian men in these parts have started down that latter path, and I wish them well. For those of us who don’t want to, or can’t, walk that path, then we must try to find the best possible candidate and marry her. We may end up walking that lonely path anyways, if our efforts to find a suitable wife prove fruitless. Either way, we all have a difficult journey ahead of us. But its not like we weren’t warned.

Reclamation

This post constitutes my (for the moment anyways) closing thoughts on the Game debate. Deep Strength has given his own, which you can find here. I am prompted to write this because of the following comment left by Novaseeker over on Dalrock’s blog:

As far as I can tell there are three main perspectives that are coming out of this discussion so far:

1. Game is a tool which can be used for good or ill, and can be a practical help for men in pursuing Christian relationships (i.e., marriage). Joseph of Jackson, Hawaiian Libertarian, Deti, Dalrock (I think?), Slumlord (and me).

2. Game is bad for Christians because it was developed by immoral people to further their immoral acts.. Further, it isn’t needed because the bible has all the information you need in order to learn how to attract a mate and maintain a healthy relationship with them. Cane, Donal, Northerner, Elspeth (1/2).

3. Game is morally illegitimate in its provenance and also superfluous because it teaches nothing new. But neither is the Bible a manual of female sexual psychology and inter-sexual attraction. Rather, what you need to do is free yourself of the cultural assumptions arising from living in a liberal democracy, and then figure it out. It’s not hard to just figure it out — and if it’s hard for you, there’s really a lot more wrong with you than we can mention in a blog post. Zippy, SSM, Elspeth (1/2).

====

While I understand that Novaseeker was using broad strokes when he categorized everyone, I think his assigning me to category 2 is a mistake. Of course,  my posts on the matter have been less than clear (You can find them here, here and here). So it is entirely understandable that he might be confused about my position. I guess that I would fall into the middle ground between 1 and 2. To clarify things a bit:

• I don’t think that the Bible has everything a man “needs” to find, attract and keep a good mate. I think that may be Cane’s position, but I will let him speak for himself on that.
• My concerns about Game are not so much centered around the fact that evil people created it (and yes, the PUAs are evil). Or that they created it for evil purposes. After all, God can turn evil towards good.

As Cane himself has noted, in the past a lot of the knowledge and skills needed to find, attract and keep a good mate were things that a man could count on his father and other male relatives teaching him. Unfortunately that skill and knowledge has mostly been lost over the past few generations, and even worse, many men grow up without a father or other strong, positive male relatives. Those ancient conduits of understanding have been denied to several generations of young men, who are thrust out into a world that often gives them false teaching instead. The Bible only tangentially addresses these points, in large part because the way marriage was entered into in most of the Bible is vastly different than it is now.

Given all of this, it is important to try and replace that lost knowledge and repair the damage done. Some say that Game is the fix. Others say it isn’t.  My argument is that Game is a partial and problematic solution. For one, much of Game’s tools and knowledge are geared towards STRs, not marriage. Some of it does work there, but not all. In addition, a man who starts to use Game can, if he is not careful, come to adopt Game. As Deep Strength has noted, part of the problem with analyzing Game and Christianity is how people approach the matter. One approach advocates grabbing individual tools and them adding them into an existing  framework. This is using Game. Christian men can grab some of the tools and use them safely. Joseph of Jackson has done so with considerable success, and even I have done this. The other route is to take Game, the whole framework of it, and then try and “Christianize it.” This is adopting Game.  I think this is a huge error, because a man without a strong moral/ethic framework and without a lot of wisdom runs the risk of having the secular aspects of Game overcome him. It puts his soul at risk.

[This paragraph was not in the original version posted, but added from a version which was never uploaded] Something worth covering real quick is the idea of Game as a toolbox. Even if one accepts this analogy, keep in mind that a tool is not useful without instructions. The truth is that Game isn’t merely a set of tools, but a set of tools plus instructions. Now, a tool might be morally neutral, but instructions are another matter entirely. After all, they teach you how to use something, and that necessarily implies a moral choice on how that something will be used. Either one learns to use it for good, or for evil. The parts of Game that concern me are those instructions, because learning how to use things like Agree and Amplify is about more than just knowing what they are. I guess what I am trying to say here is that when a guy learns how to use the various tools that Game artists teach, they pick up (pun intended) a lot more behaviors and mental processes than they realize.

Recognizing this and other pitfalls, my goal (and that of several other bloggers like Chad and Deep Strength) has been to create the “alternative” to Game that Free Northerner asked for. Right now a Christian man really has no place to learn any of this, aside from Game, if he didn’t learn it growing up. I (we) aim to change that. A simple explanation is that we are setting about creating an entirely different set of instructions for a different toolbox in order to create something new restore something old. Some of the tools inside this book might be familiar to Game advocates, and others might be new (or old).

I see myself, and the other men working on this project, as following in the tradition of Ezra and Nehemiah. We don’t intend to stand on the shoulders of Heartiste and Roosh. Instead, we are working to rebuild and reclaim what was destroyed and lost over the course of the last few generations. Along the way we will look over our shoulders at the Game advocates, to see what they are doing and to glance at their schematics. Anything of value that can be used ethically we will reverse engineer and integrate into our structure. When we are finished we won’t have to debate the morality of using Game, because we will no longer need it.

Evaluating The Intangible

I.

This post is a sequel to and expansion upon my post Settle(ment). In that post, I delved into transactional thinking and whether or not people should “settle” when looking for a spouse. Interestingly enough, the concept of settling drew little discussion compared to transactional thinking. Given that evaluating potential spouses drew more response, it was worth exploring further. [Warning: this post doesn’t really do a great job of that.]

I have two goals with this post. First, I would like to respond to some points raised in Settle(ment), to mention a few comments that I thought were especially insightful and to clarify a few things. Second, I would like to provide a little insight into my evaluation process when looking for a wife.

II.

Before I address anything specific, I would be remiss if I failed to mention that Deep Strength has written a post which is something of a response to my previous one. His post, Life is Transactional, can be found here.

Commenter Ev had a good line when the sacredness of matrimony was brought up: First be savvy, then be loyal.

Maeve mentioned a bit of her marriage story, which can be found here and here. Her story is probably a typical one- two young people meet, get to know each other, fall in love, and then marry. [That is overly simplistic, of course, but carries across the main point.] I found her story to be fascinating because she wasn’t looking specifically to marry, but still had two criteria that she required in a husband. Without intending to be rude by singling her out, I would point to her story as an example of how not to do things. Christians should be deliberative when the subject of marriage is concerned, and should not act aimlessly.

Now to clarify a few matters. First off, a lot of folks seem to be confused by the concepts of SMV and MMV. Lauratheringmistress left a comment which provides an example of this, plus some other misunderstandings. Her beginning paragraph is a good starting off point:

I think I am getting distracted by the SMP valuation model. Fundamentally, what a man values for a purely physical, short term interaction is different from what he values for a long term relationship. Same for a woman.

This is incorrect. I suspect the confusion arises because many people (Laura included) believe SMV and MMV are two entirely different things. They aren’t. Rather, SMV is folded into MMV, so that it is part (but only a part) of MMV. Remember, SMV is based solely on attractiveness. And men are always attuned to the attractiveness of women. This means that what a man looks for in a woman in a physical sense in a short term interaction is still what he values in a long term relationship. The difference is that when evaluating for long term relationship material a man also looks for an additional set of attributes. This is where a woman’s character and other “intangible” qualities come into play.

For women, the process is not entirely dissimilar. Male SMV is based off of the LAMPS/PSALM set of attributes, which are sometimes referred to as “Alpha traits.” These are critical for short term interactions.  Male MMV includes all of those factors, in addition to a number of other character traits (like loyalty, stability, compassion, etc.) which are sometimes referred to as “Beta traits.” These are crucial for long term relationships. The problem for men and women alike these days is that men seem to have either the one, or the other. Not both.

What all of this means is that we cannot ignore the role that SMV plays with MMV. I mention this because I have noticed that women seem to downplay the importance of “looks” when offering advice about marriage. The phrase I hear most often is “looks aren’t everything.” I’ve heard this in many different forms, and Laura herself contributed an example of it:

To put it bluntly, you would be a fool to wife up a 9 unless she was also superior to all other candidates in relevant areas like virtue, good sense, overall femininity, domestic skills, etc. And you might miss a gem of a woman whose appearance is only average but is ideally suited to you temperamentally.

Now, before I go on, I want to point out that Laura is not necessarily wrong in her comment. Marriage is a total package deal. Having said that, reading that paragraph told me that there seems to be a general misunderstanding on the part of women in how men value the importance of attractiveness in women.  So let me clear this up for my female readers: we value it a lot. It is really, really important to us on an instinctual, primal level. And yet, at the same time, we also have much broader filters than women do when it comes to attractiveness. The result is an interesting situation where men value physical appearance far more than women, and yet have such broad filters that we tend to find more women attractive than women do the other way around. That does not mean, of course, that we men are slaves to this instinct. We aren’t. We can and should judge a potential wife on criteria other than just how attractive she is.

But women need to keep in mind that for them, “looks” is just one criterion amongst many when judging a man’s attractiveness. But for men, it is everything when evaluating female attractiveness. It is not something that we can just set aside without a lot of mental discipline and self-control. This desire for attractiveness is deeply rooted in our unconscious mind, and our happiness as men is actually determined in part by how attractive our wife is.  Also, with only a few exceptions, most other attributes can be trained or acquired by women/wives over time, but attractiveness is pretty much fixed without resorting to plastic surgery. I’m telling you this in an attempt to convey just how much we give up when we downgrade attractiveness compared to other attributes in potential wife candidates.

III.

With all of that taken care of, I thought I would provide a brief window into my thought process when it comes to evaluating a woman as a potential wife. Some of the attributes that I am going to cover are easy to measure, they aren’t really intangible. But plenty of them are. How do you measure someone’s faith, after all? Or give it a value? It is often a guessing game, and comparisons are often the only way you can measure some of these. Because none of this is an “exact science”, this whole section is going to be rather incoherent. As I write it out, I realize it is a continuation of what I started with this post.

The Big Four-

This is the name I give for the four most important attributes and qualities that evaluate in a potential wife. These are the “make or break” attributes, or “screening criteria.” A “failure” here removes a women from the pool of candidates. The first two, Chastity/Sexual History and Age, are immutable, that is, they cannot be changed. Then there is Attractiveness, which can be affected to some degree through dieting and exercise, although only plastic surgery can significantly improve it. Last is Religious Devotion, which is mutable. One thing I would like to note about the first three is that they are “core” criteria for all men. Whether they realize it or not, all men consider a woman’s age, her sexual history and her attractiveness when evaluating her qualities as a long-term prospoect. Men are hardwired, for want of a better term, to consider these factors.

Chastity/Sexual History: As a screening criteria, this one is relatively simple. A woman with any kind of real sexual history is out. I am looking to marry a virgin, and unless I transgress myself this is not going to change at any point (barring divine command). [If I had fornicated in the past, this would be a more complicated evaluation process. I would look at the number of partners a woman had, the nature of the relationships, how long they lasted, when the last one was, etc. Also, I would try and evaluate whether she had genuinely repented and whether she was an Alpha Widow.]

Age: This is an especially important attribute for several reasons. For one, a younger woman is more likely to be able to have children, can have more children, and the children are likelier to be healthy. Age also significantly impacts female attractiveness and how long a woman has left at her present level. In addition, the older a woman is, the more likely she is to be set in her ways, and the more negative behaviors she is likely to have picked up. Unlike some men, I don’t draw a line in the sand when evaluating a woman by her age, except when it comes to being older than me. For many 25 seems to be that bright line, after which they won’t consider a woman for marriage. Myself, I use a sliding scale. The younger a woman is, the higher her overall value. Just because a woman is in her mid to late twenties doesn’t mean I will rule her out. Instead, I evaluate women more critically in all other areas the older they are. In terms of how this might play out, what it means is that I might rate a “6” who is 18 and is deficient in feminine virtues to be roughly equal to an “8” who is 28 and has more of those virtues. It is about tradeoffs- the younger the woman the more children she can have and the longer I will be married to her at her present attractiveness. Overall, a younger woman will have a larger margin to work with in other fields. All of which goes to show why women should try to marry when they are younger.

Attractiveness: As far as attributes go, this is pretty straightforward. While it might be fleeting, it is important to help establish “wife googles”, and as the study I linked earlier suggests, affects a man’s mental well-being. I cannot really offer any insight into how I evaluate this attribute, because beauty is one of those things which is easy to point out and difficult to explain. Something which does sort of relate to this though is how well a woman takes care of herself. A woman who eats right and exercises regularly will score higher in this regard than one who doesn’t, even if the latter rates higher on the “1-10” scale. This is because the woman who takes care of herself will age better and maintain her looks for longer.

Religious Devotion: What I am looking for is a devout Christian woman who is committed to living a biblical marriage. I will consider non-Catholic women, but they must be willing to convert. It isn’t enough in my view for the children to be raised as Catholics, I have seen the tension that occurs in mixed-religion marriages. That is something I intend to avoid. As far as measuring devotion, I will look at a number of different things, including: was she born to the faith or did she convert later? How involved is she in Church and in church related activities? Does she spend time on her own accord trying to improve her faith? What I am trying to judge is if she is serious about her faith, or whether she is just in “autopilot”, and is a Christian because she was born one and her faith has never been challenged. Basically, I am trying to evaluate the Fruit of the Spirit to get an idea of the depth her faith. Needless to say, this is very important to me; it is a matter of protecting myself from divorce, as well as ensuring my children are raised well and that I have a positive influence in my life. I haven’t forgotten what happened to Solomon.

Here are some of the “lesser” qualities that I look for in a potential wife. It isn’t so much that they are important, but they tend to be easier to change/fix. These are evaluation criteria, the kind of attributes that would “add value” to the marriage. They are in no particular order.

1) Femininity- How feminine a woman is overall.

2) Temperament- How easy a woman is to get along with.

3) Personality type- Whether she has a personality type that will match well with an INTJ (me).

4) Cooking abilities- Can she cook? How well, and what?

5) Cleaning aptitude- Can she maintain a home, and do so without much prompting?

6) Mothering capacity- Very intangible. Whether she would make a good mother or not. Measured by how well she gets along with children, her overall interest in having children, openness to homeschool, etc.

7) Submissiveness- How accepting she is of her place in the marriage hierarchy.

8) Intelligence and curiosity- Would impact whether or not we could have engaging conversations with each other. Also important for children, both directly and through homeschooling.

9) Earning capacity- An overall measure of her ability to earn money for the household. Can include work at and away from the home.

10) Initiative/Entrepreneurial spirit- Slightly different from above, but measures a woman’s overall ability to improvise, to save, and to think up new ideas to benefit the household.

I could go on and on, so I will stop there.  The key thing to understand is that I am looking for a woman who adds value to my life, a helpmeet. I expect to be able to make most ends meet myself when it comes to finances, so what I want is a woman who fills in other gaps. Someone to provide solace; someone to warm my heart and my bed. Applying the Captain/XO analogy, I am going to be leading the household much of the time, so I am looking for someone to help manage it.

When I evaluate a woman, I will be trying to discern not only where she is in each of these categories, but also her capacity and willingness to improve in areas that need work. In many respects her willingness to improve is the most important attribute she can have. Everyone needs work in at least some areas, and everyone “slips” in their standards over time. I don’t know what life will be like in ten years, so a woman who is willing to make necessary changes is a woman with value.

All of this comes out to a balancing game in the end. As I alluded to earlier, a very young woman who is less attractive, but is willing (eager even) to improve will be high value, just as a woman somewhat older who has perfected the feminine arts and takes care of herself will be high value. Thinking on this, unlike SMV, MMV is very much a matter of comparison when women are concerned. Unlike SMV, I’m not sure now if you can assign it an arbitrary numerical value. While a woman’s beauty can be measured against some abstract ideal (and is thus unaffected by the beauty of the woman next to her), a woman’s value as a wife and mother can only be measured when you have multiple women to compare. During the evaluation process, I will be comparing any potential wife to the other women I know, including both female family and friends to get an idea of her value. And I rather suspect that she will be doing the opposite with me.

IV.

This post ended up being less focused and less informative than I intended. I seem to be making a habit of that lately, and I apologize. Hopefully at least a few of you  found this helpful. My next few posts over the coming week should be better, although I make no promises.

Settle(ment)

I.

One of the more frequent areas of discussion/debate in the ‘sphere as far is marriage is concerned is “settling.” While the subject rarely is the chief topic of any post, it does seem to come up an awful lot (One example of this phenomenon can be found here). Usually, although not always, it is a question that drives this. Some of the most common include:

– Should someone “settle” when they marry?

– When is “settling” acceptable in marriage?

– Is “settling” better than the alternative?

All of these are good questions, and worth thinking over. I think it is about time that I addressed this topic on my blog; actually, I’m surprised I haven’t really covered it directly before.

II.

But rather than addressing those questions, I would like to direct my readers to this post by Denise over at Love the Possibility (which I have recently added to my blogroll). The post, “Singles- What’s Your BATNA?” examines the question of “settling” in terms of a business negotiation, and I think really helps to frame how the issue should be addressed.  The previous questions fold into her analysis and so don’t need to be answered separately. Here is a sample:

“BATNA” is a concept used by legal and business negotiators to figure out the point at which they will no longer compromise and will walk away from the table.  It stands for “Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement.”  Essentially, different parties face one another at the table with an idea of what they want the outcome of their negotiation to be.  They need something from the other and know that they might have to compromise to get it, but don’t want to compromise too much.  They want to get as much as they can without giving up more than they’d like.  To figure out the point at which they will no longer compromise, they think about what their best alternative would be if no agreement were reached and everyone went home with empty hands.  Then, they compare the other side’s offer to that alternative.

I encourage everyone to read the whole post. Denise has provided the best compact yet comprehensive take on the issue that I have seen to date. I would simply re-blog it, except I have a few ideas of my own that I want to contribute in the next section. Since it was her idea, any thoughts specifically on the BATNA model should probably be left over at her blog.

III.

After I read Denise’s post, and thinking back to the post at Hearthie‘s blog which I linked earlier, something clicked. The discussion over at Hearthie’s had swirled around what was “ideal” and whether people strove for it or not. The framework that Denise has provided has helped me see that “ideal” in the context of what people are looking for, what they can get and what they think they can get. A model formed in my mind over how such a “negotiation” might work inside someone’s head. All of the terms I have below are my own. I’m sure that there is some technical or professional language which covers the same thing, but I decided to keep it simple (and on my own terms). Here is how I see it:

At the top you have the Ideal. This is what someone secretly hopes for, the potential spouse they would ask for if the stars and moon aligned to give them everything and anything they wanted. Of course, while this is what everyone wants, they also know that it isn’t realistic to shoot for. So its mostly just hopes and dreams.

Below this you have the Goal. This is the best potential spouse that someone believes is attainable for them. It is based on what the individual person believes that they can realistically attract/gain commitment from. The Goal is something that a person will actually aim for and actively try to achieve. A person who finds a potential spouse at the Goal “point” is likely to either offer or accept commitment from them, knowing that they will find better.

Even lower than that you have the Break. This is the point where someone starts to question the value of the deal. They might hesitate before going lower than this point, and will certainly investigate other options. I suspect that when most people talk about “settling” here in the ‘sphere, they mean accepting as a spouse someone lower than the Break.

At the bottom you have the Limit, or BATNA point that Denise talks about. This is the absolute lowest “value” in a spouse that someone is willing to accept. If they can’t find anything above this, they are likely to “opt out” of marriage.

Also, between the Goal and the Break is an area I call the Standard. This is where Denise’s explanation on material alternatives is helpful. Potential spouses who fall in this region  point are neither immediate acceptances or immediate rejections. Instead, they are evaluated against what is actually available as an alternative, what might be available as an alternative, and the perceived value of the potential candidate.

Here is an model I made a while ago to represent the 1-10 system of female SMV, although I think it can be applied (number wise) to MMV as well. I’m using it as an example of how this model might play out.

The Ideal would be the 10, which is, as this model points out, “out of my league” or unattainable save in fantasy. At 9 we have the Goal, which is a value that a man might feel is attainable for him. Should he attract a 9 that would accept his proposal, a rational man would “wife her up” knowing that he couldn’t do any better. All of the women from 9 down to 6, the “attractive” range, would fall in the Standard region. At the boundary between 6 and 5 we have the Break, where a man would hesitate before going lower. And finally at the 4/3 boundary you have the Limit.

IV.

Before I wrap up, there are a couple of ideas I want to throw around.

The first is that hypergamy creates much higher Goals and Limits for women than is the case for men (yes, I know, obvious). What seems to be one of the more common complaints, especially in the Christian part of the ‘sphere, is that many of the “Daughter of the King” types elevate their Goals and Limits to stratospheric levels, with the Limit often being the same as the Goal.

The second is that both men and women have trouble with the Limit. Some men really do have too high of a Limit, just like women. However, another problem that often comes up around here is that some men have too low of a Limit, and will “wife up” women they should have nothing to do with.

Third, everyone probably has a clear idea of what their Limit is. And it is something that, with some discernment, can be realistic. But a Goal involves a lot of guesswork, as it is difficult to estimate the best spouse you can get, and so people risk setting it too high or too low.

I’m sure that folks have their own observations and thoughts to add, so feel free to mention them in the comments. I will be around infrequently over the next few days, so don’t expect to see me comment or reply to anyone (although I will try and keep an eye on things to mod as needed).