Analyzing Attraction- Part 2

This is the second part in my most recent series on Attraction. It will be short, as will most posts in this series. You can find Part 1 here.

Why Are We Talking About This?

My various posts on sexual attraction have led many to ask, either in comment or via e-mail, two questions that relate to one another. The first:

Isn’t this supposed to be a Christian blog?

Which is invariably followed by:

If so, why are you talking about sexual attraction?

Both are good questions, and despite having answered them before many times, I will take the time to answer them yet again.

Yes, this is a Christian blog. I am a Christian (a Traditionalist Catholic, to be precise), and that background impacts this blog. And the reason I am talking about sexual attraction is because it matters to Christians. Especially those who want to marry. You see, despite the proclamations of some neo-Gnostics in the last few generations, devout Christians do not suddenly become asexual creatures. With the exception of those with the charism of singleness, humans are sexual beings. Becoming a Christian doesn’t change this. What it does do is require us to control our nature, and to channel it towards righteous ends- aka, marriage.

The thing is, sexual attraction plays a significant role in the marriage marketplace. Even as Christians we are still drawn to those whom we find sexually attractive, whether we realize it or not, and whether we admit it or not. Unfortunately, there have been a lot of lies told about sexual attraction in the past few generations. And Christians have been the ones peddling them more than any other group. Sadly, these lies have taken a considerable toll on many good Christian men and women.

What are the lies I’m referencing? While there are plenty, the greatest set of them have to do with what women find sexually attractive in men. Note that I said sexually attractive, and not simply attractive. As was discussed in the previous post in this series, attraction is a broad enough term to include many different things, including general traits that women like men to have. But those traits are not the kind that arouse women. And whether something arouses a woman or not matters. Because women, just like men, are sexual creatures. Yes, even Christian women. Thanks to their hypergamous nature and strict filters, among other things, women will “overlook” men who are not sexually attractive to them. Such men just won’t show up on their “radar.” Furthermore, Christian women have the exact same tendencies and triggers towards attraction and arousal that non-Christian women possess. As Deep Strength has explained, there are good reasons why women are drawn to them. This problem is compounded by the fact that most women don’t even understand their own attraction filters, or will deny what they know about them.

Christian women will not see sexually unattractive men as husband material (at least, not until they reach the Epiphany phase, but that’s a discussion for another time). Which means that a Christian man looking to marry who isn’t sexually attractive is going to be ignored/rebuffed by the Christian women around him (And that’s assuming that the women have healthy and realistic filters, which is often not the case). Those women who set sexual attractiveness aside are almost certainly bad risks for one reason or another, so they aren’t a real alternative. Those women who are marriageable filter men based on their sexual attractiveness, whether they realize it or not.

If Christian men want to marry, and more importantly, to marry well, they need to learn what women find sexually attractive in men, and what they don’t. They need to know what arouses women, and what turns them off. Without this knowledge Christian men are basically resigned to groping in the dark. In the present MMP that means they have next to a zero percent chance of marrying well. This is, needless to say, a recipe for disaster. We have already seen the effect of this in the last generation or so. Christian marriage rates are plummeting, and the divorce rate is… well the fact that I’m talking about a Christian divorce rate shows the magnitude of the problem.

Towards that end, this blog has explored, and will continue to explore, sexual attraction/arousal in women, so as to help devout Christian men marry virtuous Christian women. As I am one of those men, this is quite self-serving on my part, and I don’t deny my own selfish motivations for exploring this subject. Yet I hope to help other Christian men as well. First, because I consider it my duty as a Christian to do so as a form of loving my neighbor. Second, because in helping others I may well help myself. Third, if I should marry and have children one day, I want my children to be able to find spouses of their own- which means that those good Christian men out there, who will make for good fathers, need to marry and have children as well.

So expect to hear more on this subject well into the future. Which probably means later this week.

Matrimony Meltdown: A Guest Post By Mdavid

Or Marching to the Beat of the Sexual Revolution’s Drum

[Today’s guest post is brought to us courtesy of reader/commenter mdavid. It is presented as it was given to me. I have a few comments on it, but I will save them for the comments section, and leave them out of the OP.]

When considering present-day moral inconsistencies – and they are legion – the tolerance of divorce is one of the most indefensible. Yet we excuse it with surprising uniformity. Liberal and conservative, Christian and agnostic, black and white – we are all unified in our rejection of indissoluble marriage.

This evolution of marriage is not due to an economic cycle or an odd social phase that will be reversed in time. It is a permanent shift away from the religious culture that no longer exists in modern Western society except within isolated, and decisively unmodern, pockets. Consider: a majority of US citizens who marry will experience divorce themselves or have a close relative who does. Divorce is now completely acceptable, often celebrated, and sold as liberating. In fact, the only thing moderating divorce rates today is the rejection of marriage itself. This makes sense: why get married at all if divorce is so common? Why become a statistic? Why not stay free?

It’s important to understand that our acceptance of divorce is merely a logical response to changes in marriage law. What sort of contract can be abolished at the whim of either party – anytime, anyplace, and for any reason? If only one’s student loans were so flexible! The legal hypocrisy is rich; we hold young adults fully accountable for their college debt forever, regardless of means to pay or future life events, while simultaneously allowing marriage to be dismissed without cause. This is truly strange. Marriage used to be the most important contractual obligation one could make, certainly not second to personal debt. And rightfully so. It impacts the well-being of children, extended family, and finally society itself. Even a throwaway comment that you will pay for lunch has more legal accountability than a wedding ceremony. It’s bizarre.

It’s much worse than all that, however. Not only is divorce allowed, it’s encouraged by the law itself. Serving divorce papers to a family breadwinner is typically an immediate financial windfall for caregivers, creating a strong incentive to divorce or at least start thinking about it. And unsurprisingly, women initiate the vast majority of divorces. But nothing is steady-state. As any economic supply-and-demand model would suggest, the supply of quality male (or female) providers willing to marry under such conditions will, over time, become strained. This supply-and-demand concept was seen most dramatically in the now-defunct USSR, where laws provided little reward for productive workers. This created a painful lack of goods, to be followed by long queues of people facing empty shelves. This model applies to the family in the West today.

While people do still like the ideal of marriage, both for themselves and for society at large, the risk-reward imbalance, now enshrined into law, is simply too great for marriage to stay intact. This has midwifed a new era of cohabitation, one that is increasingly childless. While not ideal, this structure makes the risk of companionship acceptable to a growing number of people, especially productive people who are at the most risk. Back to the USSR analogy, cohabitation is the necessary “black market” of today’s marriage economics. Raise the price too high, and people will seek an alternative product.

Easy and common divorce means every marriage now operates under the legal sword of Damocles, where either party is at least subconsciously prepared to cut the thread if it benefits them personally. If you doubt this, just ask your typical bride or groom a few uncomfortable questions: What will you do if your spouse abuses you? Becomes an alcoholic? Quits their job? Realizes they made a mistake and can do better? Truth be told, those approaching marriage today are generally playing the odds that none of these things will actually happen. But when they do (and they do nearly half the time) the whole farce of modern marriage is exposed. And as families continue to shatter, the quality of potential partners in the next generation necessarily shrinks. Broken homes today beget broken homes tomorrow.

So what’s the answer? Should couples stay married in all cases? No matter what happens? Regardless of what they want? Yes. Yes. And Yes. Now, this doesn’t prevent an abused party from moving out. But separation is not divorce; it’s not even close. It’s as far from divorce as sleep is from death. If separation equaled divorce, our servicemen would be mailed divorce papers with their mobilization orders. It is understood people will often act like fools, but why should the law acknowledge their folly by allowing them to dissolve their family upon demand? Is this freedom to remarry really in the best interest of society?

Sadly, modern Christianity has been a somber but key facilitator in the game of marriage Russian roulette (if only the odds of survival – 20% – were so good!). Every major Christian denomination – Lutheran, Anglican, Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, Episcopalian, even the sacramental Eastern Orthodox – now allow for the abolition of a legally enacted marriage (the lone holdout is the Catholic Church, which has responded to the times by creating an even larger problem by winking at invalid marriages and then offering the resulting annulments like candy). What makes the abandonment of marriage by Christians so astonishing is the clear biblical testimonial by Jesus himself that “what God has joined [in marriage], let no man tear asunder.” And lest we forget, He then warns that remarriage after divorce constitutes adultery – and the Apostle Paul flatly states that adulterers will not inherit the kingdom of God. Have Christians read the bible since the sexual revolution?

Until modern marriage is replaced with something more rational, the intact family will continue to fade as a mainstream institution. The resulting decline of male investment in children will lead to less productive and less well-adjusted children. This will be a fearsome political, social, and economic change agent. Family change is multi-generational, so the consequences of modern ideas about marriage and family, which were fully in place by the 1980’s, should become more and more visible throughout our communities every day going forward. And most importantly, young people – but breadwinners especially – should approach marriage and family with extreme trepidation, if at all. This trajectory is now set; only the extent of the damage remains to be experienced. My mind is prepared. How’s yours?

Advice For A Prodigal Daughter

A bit of a different post for today. Certainly a break from the one before. Today’s post is a response to an e-mail I received recently,  one which is the latest amongst many that have run along similar lines. It came from a woman who I will refer to as ‘Prodigal Daughter’ throughout this post. I am writing this post for Prodigal Daughter and the other women in her position who e-mail me or have commented her on my blog, asking for help. Also, I want to have a post I can link to in the future when similar questions or concerns are raised.

As a measure of protecting her privacy, I’m going to paraphrase the content of Prodigal Daughter’s e-mail. Brackets are my explanations for things which either weren’t in the original e-mail or had to separated from the original message. Here is the paraphrased e-mail:

Prodigal Daughter began by asking for what I believed was the case about men in general, and not myself in particular.

This was followed by an explanation that she was millennial woman who is presently committed to living a serious Christian life, including biblical submission and a desire for a large family. However, she had sinned sexually in the past with a man. [So N=1.] She indicates that she is fairly good looking.  She hopes to find a God-fearing husband who will lead her future family. While she has turned her life around, she recognizes that she made serious errors in the past [and didn’t seem to excuse them]. She very much detests what she has done, but there is nothing she can do about it.

She acknowledged that a lot of God-fearing men only want a woman who has been chaste throughout her life, and she understands why. Her main question was whether it was a possibility that a God-fearing man could “forgive her past” and choose her as a wife despite her history. Was that wishful thinking on her part, and she was no longer desirable as a wife? [Prodigal Daughter can accept not marrying, if that is what happens, but she really does want a husband.] She sought my honest opinion on what men would think, knowing I couldn’t speak for all of them.

—————————————————————————————————————————

Before I get into my response, I would like to mention that I want to keep this post about helpful advice and suggestions. This post is intended to have a very specific focus. I will police this thread heavily, so keep that in mind. People can respond to the e-mail or my suggestions, but free-ranging debates that get off-topic will be deleted. Just wanted to be clear about that from the get-go.

One thing that needs to be addressed before responding to Prodigal Daughter’s inquiry is an important prerequisite. This is not directed at Prodigal Daughter but towards women who are in her shoes. They need to honestly ask themselves if they really are ready or capable of fulfilling the duties of a Christian wife. It is essential for women with sexual sins in their past to do some serious self-reflection (although it applies to all kinds of sins and harm in the past too). Sexual sins/history can (and often do) have a serious impact on a woman’s ability to maintain a healthy relationship, especially a lasting one like marriage. I know that some of my readers and plenty of others out there will disagree with this, but I do think that some women end up being so scarred by their past that they cannot (or are unlikely to) overcome it. So all women in this position need to examine themselves and make sure that they are not so damaged. A full post can be written on how to do this and what to look for, but a major warning sign is a sense of disgust or revulsion associated with sex, in whatever form or context. If you [in the general sense] have blocks in place that would interfere with your ability to afford a future husband his conjugal rights, I’m sorry but you should not pursue marriage. At least as long as you have that block.

[Prodigal Daughter has indicated that she doesn’t have this problem. She wants to enjoy sex in a manner pleasing to God and to her future husband. In fact serving her husband in this manner would be a joy to her.]

Having covered that, now to the main topic.

Reading through the e-mail, it looks to me that Prodigal Daughter is looking for the following:

• A God-fearing man
• Who is willing to lead her and her family; and
• One who will overlook her past

Prodigal Daughter, I will be blunt: you will probably have a very difficult time finding the husband you want.

Much of your difficulty, perhaps even most of it, will not be due to your past. Sadly, the general state of the Faith, the Church and marriage in the West these days is so bad that finding a God-fearing husband will be difficult for many Christian woman. Understand that this is a lousy market for Christians who want to marry and follow God’s commands. Whether a woman has been chaste her whole life or not, she will find a dearth of marriageable and marriage-minded Christian men out there. [The even bleaker situation Christian men face is covered well enough elsewhere on my blog.] So understand that the situation is tough irrespective of anything about you personally. [Prodigal Daughter has indicated she has noticed some of this already.]

That is the overall picture. As for the more specific…

First off, it is not a question of a God-fearing man “forgiving” you your past. You didn’t sin against him, at least, not him specifically. It would only be in the general sense of sinning against the church, of which he is a member. Rather, this is about him ignoring or overlooking your past, and either hoping it doesn’t affect your marriage or accepting the consequences that it means for your marriage. Again, this isn’t about forgiveness. We are called to forgive as Christians; but this is about a man evaluating whether or not you would be an acceptable wife. Your past choices will affect your abilities as a wife. Men will be deciding if you are worth the risk that your past entails.

Now, God-fearing men fall into several “camps” as far as a woman’s sexual history is concerned. Some, especially those who have been chaste themselves, won’t ever accept as a wife a woman who hasn’t been chaste. [For the sake of disclosure I should mention that I personally would fall into this camp.] It is tough to get a read of just how many men are in that camp. Others will hesitate about it, with the amount of baggage you have being a determining factor. The more you have, the more likely it will tip the scales against you. Your other attributes will matter here a great deal.  Of course, not all God-fearing men are as “picky”, especially those who have themselves fornicated in the past. What will matter to them will be your recent actions and your present state. There are also those who have been indoctrinated to think that it a woman’s sexual history doesn’t matter or that they are lesser men if they let it affect their judgment. While that can work for you, I would advise you be be careful when dealing with such men. You don’t want to marry a man who will secretly regret his choice or later resent being told to bury his wishes.

With an N (number of premarital sexual partners) of 1, you are in a far better position that many other prodigal daughters out there. Many of the men who would consider marrying a woman with a sexual history will be far more accepting of you with such a low number. They will know you aren’t a slut (a crude word but accurate and useful here). Instead  you are a woman who erred with a single man. Either you did so once and realized your error right away, showing more wisdom than most. Or you stuck with it, and showed an interest in a serious relationship. As sad as it is to say, this is in your favor. Most millennial women have higher N’s than that.

So in sum, there will be some God-fearing men who will not accept you as a wife because of your past. But your history is not so bad as to push away all of them.

Age is another possible hindrance. The older you are, the more restricted your choices. A man might be willing to overlook a certain history in a 20 year old that he wouldn’t for a 30 year old. In addition, men are drawn to youth in women. All else being equal, we will choose the younger woman. In addition, the younger you are, the more time you have to find someone. I would also point out that those men who want a larger family will want to marry a younger wife in particular.  The manosphere likes to throw around certain numbers, 25 years old and 30 years old being the most prominent, as ages past which a woman is not marriageable or worth marrying. I wouldn’t worry about that all that much- the ‘sphere is quite small and women past those ages can and do marry.  But it could always be a factor, so it is important to understand and accept that. Plus it means you shouldn’t waste time- this really does need to be the primary focus of your life right now.

In summary, the older you are/get, the tougher the situation will be.

You have mentioned you are fairly attractive. [Prodigal Daughter has explained she works out daily and eats well. She dresses modestly and attractively, and has her hair long and well groomed.] This will be in your favor, and might ultimately be what helps you find a husband. Men are drawn to beauty as well, and it might help a man decide you are worth the risk. Even when we shouldn’t, men will overlook a lot for a pretty face and a shapely body. Keep taking care of yourself here, this is a chance for you to really stand out. Keeping your weight down and your body-fat percentage in a healthy range gives you a leg up. Just keep in mind your attractiveness is tied to your age, so it will be of less help the more time that passes.

So where am I going with this? Simple- your situation is difficult… but not impossible. Your past counts against you, but your looks will help you out. Your age can help or hurt- it depends on how old you are. But women in your position can and do marry. Even to God-fearing men. So it is not a lost cause.

Here are a few pieces of advice that might help you out:

• Look at men older than you. Don’t just look at guys within 1-3 years of your age. You need to be looking well past that. Seriously consider men 5 to 10 years older than you. Trust me on this. An older man will appreciate having a younger wife, especially if she is still pretty. He might not care about history as much either, as he will be grateful to have a wife.
• Look out for men who are recent converts or “prodigal sons.” The men most likely to accept your past failings will be those with a sinful past as well. You will find more of those among those who have recently joined or returned to the church. Widowers, while rare, are a possibility if their wife died young.
• Be pro-active. Many men are gun-shy about marriage these days. Emphasize your support of, and willingness to engage in, Christian marriage (with biblical submission and everything). Ask around if anyone knows of any men who are looking for a wife. Introduce yourself and be friendly with the unmarried men in church. Talk with your fellow women, find out if any have brothers or cousins who might be interested in marriage.
• Set realistic expectations. Prince Charming doesn’t exist in real life, and never has. The highest value, most attractive men might not accept you because of your past. Age could also push some away. So be realistic, not picky.

I cannot promise that anything I’ve said will be of any help. Like I said, it will be a hard road, but not an impossible one. However, it is entirely possible that you may never find yourself a husband. Many God-fearing Christian men and women will not be able to find spouses int his day and age. Don’t build up unhealthy expectations or let your anxiety overcome you.

 “So do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will bring worries of its own. Today’s trouble is enough for today.”

At the same time, remember-

 “Ask, and it will be given you; search, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened for you.  For everyone who asks receives, and everyone who searches finds, and for everyone who knocks, the door will be opened.”

—————————————————————————————————————————

If any of my readers have any suggestions of their own they would like to, please feel free to do so in the comments. Once again, I would like to keep the comments focused on the topics of this post only, and will be policing them.

Random Musings and Links- #6

It is another one of those posts filled with links and random (and not-so-random) thoughts on my part. Given time restraints, I won’t be able to respond much to comments for the next day or so, but feel free to chime in despite that. I will try and keep things orderly at least.

I’m going to begin by address something that Deti said in my post Meager Options:

In the past, around 60 or so years ago, [what earlier comments said0 describes how it went down. Typically it was the man requesting (P in V) sex after a few months of dating or courtship, and the woman saying “Ok, but marriage first.” And typically he was giving up more and more resources (time, money, etc.) in exchange for more and more “sex” (kissing, making out, petting, oral, but reserving P in V for marriage). (Let’s not kid ourselves – lots of women were doing “everything but” P in V before marriage, for men they were “seriously dating”.)

What Deti is describing is an attitude held by most everyone in the MMP (yes, that’s right, the Marriage Market Place), including most “Christians.” That attitude is one of bending the rules as much as possible to favor one’s interests. The rules are simple: a woman exchanges lifetime sexual access and exclusivity with a man who in turn gives her resources, protection and status (which we might call “commitment”) for life. And the exchange is supposed to be at the same time. But neither men nor women really want that. Men want sexual access (and even better, exclusivity) without having to provide commitment, while women want to receive commitment without having to provide sexual access or in some instance, sexual exclusivity.

This ties in the whole concept of boyfriend/girlfriend. As Dalrock has explained, the terms were invented in order facilitate this bending of the rules. The whole notion of the celibate boyfriend is a means for Christian women who don’t want to provide sexual access to receives the commitment they want from Christian men. Likewise, many Christian men will use their status as boyfriend as a means for sexual gain for themselves. All of which goes to show why devout Christians should reject those ideas and the mindset behind them.

For those of you who haven’t been paying attention, Deep Strength and Ballista have been involved in a spirited debate about headship and authority in marriage. It starts with this post by Ballista and was followed by this post, which Deep Strength responds to here. I don’t exactly agree with either, but I think many of my readers will find them interesting. Here are both sets of posts:

Ballista- Anarchy in the Marriage; Negating Authority in Marriage; Headship in Marriage Implies Authority; Confusing Status with Action- Creating Supplicating Betas

Deep Strength- Headship is not authority in marriage; Headship is not authority in marriage Part 2; Headship is not authority in marriage Part 3

Dalrock explains why women are compelled to take over the Gaming world.

NSR brings the humor. And the beat.

Rollo explains how Yes Means Fear.

As always, Maeve has your baking needs covered. This time, Blueberry Muffins.

Chad discusses Falling on Your Sword.

Dropit delves into the nature of Ambiguity.

Free Northerner hosts a guest post about how men can avoid sex starvation in marriage. He also exposes some of the hypocrisy and ignorance of those decrying the “campus rape epidemic.”

Martel, who is busy writing his book, asks for some help increasing his knowledge of children’s literature and other media directed at them by the popular culture.

Allamagoosa looks at The Time and Place for Hierarchy.

I also want to address this comment left at her blog by someone named Ashley:

I’m in this situation with my significant other. Both of us are in professional school and in our twenties and the way our lives are scheduled, we couldn’t even get married until one of us graduates or after one of us takes our board exams for medical/dental school. But that’s like another 2-8 yrs and we would both be ~30 yrs old. And I want to have children so we’d have very limited time to enjoy each other sexually as a married couple. What is our solution? We don’t really have one. Either we push to get married early on or “foreplay” to relieve sexually tension. I know we aren’t suppose to “foreplay” but its very very unlikely going to lead to sex because besides the whole Christian ideal, an unwanted pregnancy is 100X feared with our schooling.

 First off, “foreplay” is probably not acceptable Christian behavior based on what she is hinting at. The way I look at it, if you aren’t comfortable explaining in graphic detail everything involved to all your friends and family… God probably doesn’t approve (at least, until marriage). This approach is a surefire way to come to sin, and in fact the mindset hints at a sinful attitude already (finding ways to “cheat the system”).

Second, delaying children is not a wise plan. It really isn’t. Mrs. ktc explains why you should Have Children.

Also, she has responded to my post Proposing A Question with her own post, Proposals. This brings me to the topic of marriage proposals on bended knee. I have yet to hear a good reason why men should do them. Mere expectations or custom at this point are not enough. This alone is reason enough for a man not to do it. But even more than that, bending the knee is a sign of supplication and (as those familiar with Game of Thrones will recognize) surrender. For all the talk about how essential it is for a man to start off strong by proposing to a woman, this runs entirely counter to that. Who the woman in question is doesn’t matter- as a custom it just has no merit. I invite my readers who disagree to explain otherwise, of course. But at this point proposing on bent knee is not something I’m ever going to do. And I will tell any woman I court as much. If she cannot accept that, then in my view it demonstrates she wasn’t a good candidate to begin with.

Be Feminine Not Feminist tells women: Don’t rob your children of their Daddy.

At Peaceful Single Girl this post demonstrates the damage caused to children by divorce.

Apparently Sigyn is having some real trouble with depression and could use your prayers.

Stingray explains yet another reason to homeschool.

At the same time, homeschooling isn’t easy, as Elspeth will tell you. Much of the problem is that we aren’t aligned as a community towards supporting homsechooling and mothers who stay at the household. The old support networks are gone, and were an essential part of the process.

Elspeth also discusses the difference between being unmarried and being single. I describe myself as unmarried, not single, and my reasons match up with those expressed at her blog.

Eviscerating the faith through decrying “Paulinity.” I’ve seen some of that applied here in the ‘sphere before. Mostly by men who want to engage in fornication. But I’ve seen a few women argue it as well, often to escape any requirements or duties placed upon them (especially in marriage).

I’ve argued before about the risk associated with women with tattoos, and here is yet more support for my concern.

Update: Red Pill Set Me Free talks about how a woman, any woman, however high-value, can become Ruined.

Proposing A Question

My post Meager Options generated some lively discussion, and has given me some ideas on follow-up posts. This post was originally going to come first, but in the last day I’ve considered holding it for the end of the week and discussing another matter first. However, I suspect that topic can wait for the time being, and will continue with my plan.

The subject of this post is marriage proposals, specifically how they pertain to Christian women (while non-Christians can add their two cents, I’m focusing on Christian marriage here). [For those interested in the conversation which started this, see this comment by Feather Blade where it started.] There are a couple of sub-issues here that I would like to explore, notably:

• Is it proper for a woman to propose marriage?
• Assuming it is proper, should a woman propose marriage?
• What is the appropriate form for a woman to propose?
• How does a woman’s proposing marriage fit with the seeking her father’s permission to marry?

I don’t intend to write a whole lot about the topic, at least, not in the initial post. Rather, I hope that my readers will add in their own thoughts and knowledge of the matter (if they have any). I’m aiming for a spirited discussion here, and one that I think is relevant. As I’ve indicated before, the Old Order is Broken. We can’t keep pretending that times haven’t changed. They have, and we as Christians need to reform ourselves and the Church. This will involve determining how exactly we will put the pieces back together once everything falls apart. Exploring the boundaries of marriage/Holy Matrimony is important, as the breakdown of that institution is in large part responsible for the overall decline of the West. [A further explanation is found at the end of this post.]

To briefly address those sub issues:

• I’ve searched through Scripture, and have found nothing which prohibits women from proposing. Nor are there any express matrimonial proposals from women either that I can find (although I will admit my knowledge there is still weak). I’ve also searched a bit through Sacred Tradition and the writings of the Saints to see if the topic is mentioned. So far I haven’t found anything, but that doesn’t mean its not that. I haven’t spent that much time on it, so I wouldn’t be surprised to have missed something. If any of my readers know of anything, please mention it in the comments below. Given what I do know right now, I don’t think that it is against Christian women to propose marriage.
• This leads me to whether women should propose.. Having thought on it some, and discussed it with a few others, I’m tempted to say that the answer is no. The argument against it is tied somewhat to scripture but also to natural law, with a dash of pragmatism included. My reasoning is as follows: A Christian man is supposed to be the head of the matrimonial union, providing leadership, vision and guidance. The act of proposing to a woman (that is, to ask her to be his wife) is the first real step in that role. He is offering to be the woman’s head; her acceptance to his proposal moves things forward to a point where it would become a reality. A man should be the leader in this to set the overall tone of the relationship. Something else to consider is that a man can take a woman to wife, but a woman cannot really take a man to husband. Just doesn’t make sense.
• I’m not really sure how a woman should propose. Certainly going down on one knee and offering a ring seems wrong. But then again, I’m oppose to men doing that too. Perhaps a woman can simply say that if the man courting her were to ask her to marry, she would say yes. That is as good as a marriage proposal in its own way. It doesn’t necessarily have to be as overt as a male proposal. Ruth is an example of one method of something that comes close to this, although maybe not the whole way.
• I suppose that running the marriage proposal by a father doesn’t really change things. If the man accepts, then he could go ask her father for permission. Or perhaps they could go together.

Those are my initial thoughts. Feel free to chime in.

[For those curious why I’m exploring this subject in particular, let me explain in somewhat greater detail. I know personally several women who have been or were in LTRs that were waiting for their boyfriend to propose to them, but he never did. Besides those few, I’ve heard of a fair number more who experienced the same situation. These women, who wanted marriage (or at least claimed to want it), were simply passive and waited for the man to play his part in the performance. Unfortunately for them, that never happened. What makes the story especially sad, frustrating or laughable, depending on who you ask, is that the women involved later complain about the time they wasted on this men who wouldn’t marry them.

Which makes me wonder if it wouldn’t have been better for those women to be more forward in their relationships. If they had proposed, it might have clued them in sooner that marriage wasn’t in the picture with their present boyfriend. Of course, I know that a fair amount of rationalization is going on here, but still, I think this is a far question to explore.]

Do We Need To Set Aside The Word Marriage?

I believe that someone in the ‘sphere has linked to this before, but I don’t think I’ve feature it on my blog so its about time. Monseigneur Charles Pope from the Archdiocese of Washington asks if we should stop using the word “marriage” when referring to sacramental unions. A few snippets:

It is a simple fact that word “marriage” as we have traditionally known it is being redefined in our times. To many in the secular world the word no longer means what it once did and when the Church uses the word marriage we clearly do not mean what the increasing number of states mean.

…

So the bottom line is that what the secular world means by the word “marriage” is not even close to what the Church means. The secular world excluded every aspect of what the Church means by marriage. Is it time for us to accept this and start using a different word? Perhaps it is, and I would like to propose what I did back in March of 2010, that we return to an older term and hear what you think.

I propose that we should exclusively refer to marriage in the Church as “Holy Matrimony.”

According to this proposal the word marriage would be set aside and replaced by Holy Matrimony. It should be noticed that the Catechism of the Catholic Church refers to this Sacrament formally as “The Sacrament of Matrimony.”

You can read the rest here.

I think that there is some strong merit to his proposal. Distinguishing ourselves from the secular individuals around us is important right now. Restoring the full meaning of the Sacrament and what it encompasses should be a vital task of the Church at the moment.

Where Does Ephesians 5:21 Belong?

I.

In my latest Selected Sunday Scriptures post, commenter A Vistor said this:

If I ever get married, the wife and I are going to have our Gospel reading starting at Ephesians 5:21.

I asked him if he meant Ephesians 5:22 instead, which prompted Mrs. C to ask:

Why would Eph 5:21 not be included in the Gospel reading of husband and wife?

She then linked to this article, containing material written by Pope John Paul II.

Mrs. C’s question is a good one, and covers a subject I’ve been meaning to address for a while. Time limitations will necessarily keep this post shorter than I should look, but I will try and answer her first question, as well as a second about what “mutual subjection” looks like for the Church as a whole.

II.

The short answer to Mrs. C’s question is this: Ephesians 5:21 doesn’t belong with the epistle reading of husband and wife because for most of the Church’s history they were considered two separate subjects (pun intended). By that I mean they were not considered to fit together as part of the same message by St. Paul. [Update: I wasn’t clear here. Sorry about that. I was trying to say that while both are related, they are not tied together as, say, verses 25 and 26. 5:21 is distinct from 5:22 in terms of what St. Paul was teaching overall. They relate, yes, but 5:22-33 encapsulates a specific point that St. Paul was trying to teach. Further edits will be in brackets but without the bold update notice.]

Now, most modern translations will include Eph 5:21 along with 5:22 and the rest of Chapter 5 of Ephesians. However, this is a recent phenomenon. As far as my research has yielded, including 5:21 and 5:22 together is less than a century old. Older translations did not do so. [Update: I was wrong about this. KMan in the comments below indicates that translations linking them go back at least 150 years.] For example, the Douay-Rheims edition of the New Testament (1899) included 5:21 in this section:

¹⁵ See therefore, brethren, how you walk circumspectly: not as unwise,

¹⁶ But as wise: redeeming the time, because the days are evil.

¹⁷ Wherefore become not unwise, but understanding what is the will of God.

¹⁸ And be not drunk with wine, wherein is luxury; but be ye filled with the holy Spirit,

¹⁹ Speaking to yourselves in psalms, and hymns, and spiritual canticles, singing and making melody in your hearts to the Lord;

²⁰ Giving thanks always for all things, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to God and the Father:

²¹ Being subject one to another, in the fear of Christ.

(Eph 5:18-21, DR 1899)

Verse 21 is included as part of the previous passage, concerning the church as a whole. It is the closing admonition of St. Paul’s “children of light” message, a reminder to always serve one another.

Looking further back, the Daily Missal of the Catholic Church pre-1962 had proscribed passages for different events, including matrimonial ceremonies. Guess what the epistle passage was? That’s right, Ephesians 5:22-33. Ephesians 5:21 was not included with the verses following it. That was the Missal in use for centuries, perhaps all the way back to the Council of Trent (if someone knows otherwise please clarify that for me).

The recognition that Ephesians 5:21 and 5:22 were separate thoughts goes even further back, however. In fact, it not only predates the split between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, but extends all the way to the early Fathers of the Church. Saint John Chrysostom, who became Archbishop of Constantinople in 397 AD and is recognized as a Doctor of the Church, wrote extensive homilies on various books from the Bible. Many of them were preserved and are accessible today. His homilies on the Letter to the Ephesians are among those preserved. These homilies are sequential and touch upon different passages within Ephesians, including Chapter 5.

It shouldn’t come as a surprise that St. John Chrysostom addressed 5:21 in a separate homily, which covered Ephesians 5:15-21. Reading through his homily, it seems fairly clear that the Saint regarded Ephesians 5:21 as connected to the verses above it, not to the verses which came after. This is also apparent in the next homily, which covers Ephesians 5:22-33, which he saw as a single message. The saint likes to reference previous applicable passages, but he doesn’t in that homily; Ephesians 5:21 never shows up at all. To St. John Chrysostom, Ephesians 5:21 and 5:22 did not belong together; otherwise said, Ephesians 5:21, while an important teaching, was not one that should be included in St. Paul’s teaching on matrimony.

For those interested, you can find those two homilies here:

Homily 19 on Ephesians (5;21)

Homily 20 on Ephesians (5:22)

They are not easy homilies to read, but well worth it in my opinion. I might showcase some of Homily 20 in future posts, it is that good.

So, taken together, the evidence is clear that Ephesians 5:21 was, for the longest time, recognized as being in a separate passage in Chapter 5 of Ephesians from verse 22. It is only recently that verse 21 has been stuck with verse 22. Now, I don’t know for sure why this was done. But my suspicion is that it wasn’t accidental. If anything, I suspect that the purpose was to weaken 5:22. Maybe not explicitly, but the modern translations which render 5:21 as a separate sentence can only serve to confuse the lay reader about the rest of that chapter.

III.

This brings me to the second question asked by Mrs. C:

I would like to ask you to define what it means in a practical way for the church body as a whole to “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.”

I promised to answer that, and will in this section. Although the truth is that I won’t be the one with the answer. Rather, it will be the aforementioned Doctor of the Church who I will draw from. He addresses 5;21 at the end of his 19th Homily on Ephesians, which I will quote below. Be warned: it is a long, dense paragraph. But if you can get through it you will see how he understood Eph 5:21. Here it is:

Subjecting yourselves one to another, he says, in the fear of Christ. For if you submit yourself for a ruler’s sake, or for money’s sake, or from respectfulness, much more from the fear of Christ. Let there be an interchange of service and submission. For then will there be no such thing as slavish service. Let not one sit down in the rank of a freeman, and the other in the rank of a slave; rather it were better that both masters and slaves be servants to one another—far better to be a slave in this way than free in any other; as will be evident from hence. Suppose the case of a man who should have an hundred slaves, and he should in no way serve them; and suppose again a different case, of an hundred friends, all waiting upon one another. Which will lead the happier life? Which with the greater pleasure, with the more enjoyment? In the one case there is no anger, no provocation, no wrath, nor anything else of the kind whatever; in the other all is fear and apprehension. In the one case too the whole is forced, in the other is of free choice. In the one case they serve one another because they are forced to do so, in the other with mutual gratification. Thus does God will it to be; for this He washed His disciples’ feet. Nay more, if you have a mind to examine the matter nicely, there is indeed on the part of masters a return of service. For what if pride suffer not that return of service to appear? Yet if the slave on the one hand render his bodily service, and thou maintain that body, and supply it with food and clothing and shoes, this is an exchange of service: because unless thou render your service as well, neither will he render his, but will be free, and no law will compel him to do it if he is not supported. If this then is the case with servants, where is the absurdity, if it should also become the case with free men. Subjecting yourselves in the fear, says he, of Christ. How great then the obligation, when we shall also have a reward. But he does not choose to submit himself to you? However do thou submit yourself; not simply yield, but submit yourself. Entertain this feeling towards all, as if all were your masters. For thus shall you soon have all as your slaves, enslaved to you with the most abject slavery. For you will then more surely make them yours, when without receiving anything of theirs, thou of yourself renderest them of your own. This is subjecting yourselves one to another in the fear of Christ, in order that we may subdue all the passions, be servants of God, and preserve the love we owe to one another. And then shall we be able also to be counted worthy of the lovingkindness which comes of God, through the grace and mercies of His only-begotten Son, with whom to the Father, together with the Holy Ghost, be glory, might, honor, now and forever and ever. Amen.

As I said, lengthy. The Saint’s interpretation of St. Paul is that we are charged to the service, given freely, of fellow believers whenever and however possible. It is a reminder that we are all co-heirs of eternal life with our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

IV.

So, in summary, [in an epistle reading] Ephesians 5:21 belongs with the verses above it, as they address how the members of the church are to relate to one another in general. It does not fit deal specifically with marriage, which is the case for Ephesians 5:22-33.  In addition, the context for understanding 5:21 is not [fully] present later in the chapter, but rather earlier. Ephesians 5:21 advises us to live out lives of continuous service to one another, always subjecting/subordinating our needs and desires to those of our brothers and sisters in Christ. It is universally applicable to all Christians, man and woman alike, married and unmarried. What Ephesians 5:22-33 articulates is how marriage is a step beyond this requirement, with special obligations and duties of both spouses that go beyond the “mere” subjection/subordination of our interests to our fellow Christians.[Hence, a marriage epistle reading should begin with 5:22, not 5:21. If you want to include 5:21 in the reading you should begin with 5:15 or even earlier.]

At best inclusion of Ephesians 5:21 in the epistle on marriage will only serve to distract or confuse the Scriptural message about marriage. At worst it will serve to undermine the message.

Update: Mrs. C has created her own post in response to this one, which you can find here. Be sure and give it a read.

A Helpful Opposite

Hearthie, commenting over at Elspeth’s blog, left a link to a post titled The Opposite of the Proverbs 31 Woman. I think my Christian readers would find it illuminating and worth the read. So go check it out.

What Qualities Should A Man Look For In A Wife?

I.

Today’s post is aimed at determining the qualities that Scripture says a man should look for in a potential wife. I first started this post some months ago, but put it on hold because it didn’t feel “right.” Something was off with it, but I couldn’t put my finger on it. Occasionally I worked on it to add a quote or two, but mostly it has lain fallow. Then I wrote my post Adult Man Defines “A Real Woman,” and it clicked for me what I was doing wrong. This line by commenter Feather Blade was particularly important in helping me understand where I was going wrong:

No one is going to find a young woman with all the virtues that only an entire lifetime of faithful service to God can endow on one.

That comment plus a few others (and my own thought on the matter) helped me understand that I was making two mistakes with my post.

The first mistake is that I was mixing up character traits with life skills. They are not the same, and mixing them up creates the problem that Feather Blade warns about: you start looking to find in a young woman what only an older woman would have had time to acquire and possess. Character traits are essential qualities of moral character- qualities that are less a matter of training than they are of personal discipline and willpower. Examples include fear of the Lord, courage and kindness. Life skills, on the other hand, are qualities that are acquired as a result of training, eduction and practice. This includes skills such as cooking, good business sense and tailoring (to name but a few). These take time to develop- in some cases, a whole lifetime.

The second mistake is that I was simply going through the bible line by line, looking for positive qualities in a woman. This approach is problematic because there won’t be any context for these qualities. As you will see, running Proverbs 31 line by line, or in small chunks, obscures the fact that it is talking about an older, more mature and more experienced wife.

Rather than simply delete everything and start over, I’m going to leave some of what I wrote so you get a sense of how the picture isn’t very clear when you search for qualities line by line or even passage by passage. That will encompass Part 2 of this post, which is a rather ugly affair. Part 3 will be different- it will directly explain what the character traits to look are, and why they should be sought. Part 4 will conclude.

 

II.

…[previous lines were deleted to make way for the new intro] I tracked down as many verses as I could that offered advice and mentioned women who were/would be quality God-fearing wives. I will be quoting them below, and include some commentary, mostly focusing on what is held as valuable or important in each verse/passage. Many of these passages are ones that I’ve covered before, but I am hoping to consolidate as many as I can in this post.

A gracious woman gets honor,
    and violent men get riches.

(Proverbs 11:16)

Here graciousness is held to be trait worthy of honor, and thus recognition, in women.

Like a gold ring in a swine’s snout
    is a beautiful woman without discretion.

(Proverbs 11:22)

Other translations use wisdom or sense in place of discretion, but they all capture the essence of the same trait. This is, in my view, a very important passage. The analogy places something of great value in a position where it is utterly wasted. The overall lesson here is that beauty in a woman is an utter waste if she has no discretion- if she isn’t wise. Two points are made: the first is that beauty is indeed, a valuable thing (else why compare it to a gold ring?), and the second is that sensibility in a woman is of even greater value than beauty.

A good wife is the crown of her husband,
    but she who brings shame is like rottenness in his bones.

(Proverbs 12:4)

The compare and contrast here makes it clear that a proper woman, a “good” one, is something to be esteemed, as compared to her improper or shameful counterpart. Essentially, a good wife is one who raises a husband’s stature in the eyes of others, and a bad wife is one who lowers it.

House and wealth are inherited from fathers,
    but a prudent wife is from the Lord.

(Proverbs 19:14)

Prudence, being a gift from the Lord, is a valuable thing indeed to have in a wife.

And this of course brings us to Proverbs 31. I will include only parts of it:

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.

Trustworthiness is valuable trait in a wife.

¹³ She seeks wool and flax,
    and works with willing hands.
¹⁴ She is like the ships of the merchant,
    she brings her food from afar.
¹⁵ She rises while it is yet night
    and provides food for her household
    and tasks for her maidens.

A good wife is one who is a hard worker. She is diligent and skilled with her hands. She can provide food for her family and keep the household well run.

¹⁶ She considers a field and buys it;
    with the fruit of her hands she plants a vineyard.

Good business sense is a sign of a good wife.

¹⁷ She girds her loins with strength
    and makes her arms strong.

A wife who keeps herself healthy, and stays fit and strong is truly worthy.

¹⁸ She perceives that her merchandise is profitable.
    Her lamp does not go out at night.
¹⁹ She puts her hands to the distaff,
    and her hands hold the spindle.

Once again emphasizing good business sense, along with foresight and skill with her hands.

²⁰ She opens her hand to the poor,
    and reaches out her hands to the needy.

Charity is a sign of a good wife.

²¹ She is not afraid of snow for her household,
    for all her household are clothed in scarlet.
²² She makes herself coverings;
    her clothing is fine linen and purple.

A good wife plans ahead for tough times.

²³ Her husband is known in the gates,
    when he sits among the elders of the land.
²⁴ She makes linen garments and sells them;
    she delivers girdles to the merchant.

Business sense and initiative are once again emphasized.

²⁵ Strength and dignity are her clothing,
    and she laughs at the time to come.

A good wife is joyous and always demonstrates strength and dignity.

²⁶ She opens her mouth with wisdom,
    and the teaching of kindness is on her tongue.

A good wife always speaks wisely and kindly.

(Proverbs 31:11-26)

Then there is this last part-

³⁰ Charm is deceitful, and beauty is vain,
    but a woman who fears the Lord is to be praised.

(Proverbs 31:30)

Charm from a woman is not to be trusted. My understanding of the use of the word vain in the Bible is to indicate that it is fleeting, something one can only be proud of for a short time, before it is gone. Hence beauty is fleeting and not something that can be counted on in the long run. In contrast is fear of the lord, or faith, which is to be praised- that is, something of great worth that should be recognized as such.

Do not deprive yourself of a wise and good wife,
    for her charm is worth more than gold.

(Sirach 7:19)

Wisdom is once again mentioned as a valuable thing in a wife. As is good- which probably means God-fearing in the eyes of the author.

[I am ending this section here. You have an idea now what I was doing, and where I was going- or not going, as the case may be.]

III.

In this section, rather than track down quotes/passages and then draw out valuable qualities from them, I will lead off with the valuable qualities to look for in a potential wife. The key character traits that a man should look for in a wife are as follows (and in what I perceive to be the order of importance):

1. God-fearing
2. Sensible
3. Courageous
4. Trustworthy
5. Diligent
6. Kind

If someone disagrees about the order I have, feel free to express your position in the comments. Now to explain a bit why each is important.

• God-fearing- This character trait, encompasses both faith and devotion, is of paramount importance. Proverbs 31 makes it clear that fear of the Lord is above all else in valuable qualities found in a good wife. The rest of scripture backs this up. Throughout scripture we can see the cost to a man married to a woman who doesn’t fear the Lord, and we can see the benefit to one who is married to a god-fearing woman. Moreover, fear of the Lord is the only real safeguard against the worst of female behavior- a man married to a non-believing woman is at the mercy of her capriciousness. This trait includes a number of manifestations of faith, including chastity.
• Sensible- Other words fit, depending on translation: Prudence, discretion, wisdom. But all signify the same essential character quality- the ability to exercise sound judgment. Of course, a woman’s ability to exercise this will depend heavily on her circumstances. A younger woman will almost certainly be less wise than an older one- something to keep in mind. Look for if a women is willing and able to learn from her mistakes (or errors), or if she is insistent on obstinacy.
• Courageous- Bravery may seem like a masculine trait, not a feminine one, but that isn’t so. Courage is essential to face the many travails of life, as well as to really live your faith as required. Standing up for you and your interests may require a lot of courage from her at times. So be wary about picking someone who will always fold in the face of difficulty or danger.
• Trustworthy- Does she keep her word? Will she do what she promised, or will she “forget” or make excuses for failing to do as promised? You want a woman you can trust. Without that, nothing, including your marriage itself, is secure.  Keep in mind this is the woman who will be spending more time with your children than anyone else. Trust is huge.
• Diligent- Is she a hard worker? Most life skills take a long time to develop. Years, or even decades are required to learn trades, or to acquire the “instincts” to be good at something like real estate, or to recognize a good business deal from a bad one. Instead of focusing on those, look instead to see if a woman is a hard worker. Does she work until completion on a task, however annoying or minor? If so, then there is a strong chance she will demonstrate that same diligence inside your household.
• Kind-  Encompassing graciousness, charity and a quiet, gentle spirit, kindness is a quintessential feminine trait. It is also one of the most valuable for a woman to posses. Now, not every woman will be able to express easily all forms of kindness, or graciousness. Some are developed over time. But even early on in life you can usually tell if a woman is inclined towards kindness or cruelty. Keep in mind that in a long marriage you will be with a woman for far longer than her beauty will last- make sure to pick a woman whose personality is one that is warm and inviting, and not contentious or quarrelsome. Else you might find yourself living on a rooftop….

Something that it is important to remember is that individual women will demonstrate these qualities in different ways. Just as every woman is unique, so too is how each woman demonstrates her possession (or lack thereof) of these qualities. You cannot simply ask a woman if she is, say, diligent, and get an accurate answer. Instead you must observe her. See what she does, and what she doesn’t do. Just as you know a tree by the fruit it bears, you know the qualities of a woman by what she does.

Note: I drew from many Books of the Bible to support this list. Proverbs and Sirach were especially prominent. However, other women were valuable sources of positive traits to look for, including Ruth, Abigal, Sarah (from the Book of Tobit), Esther and Judith. Also, Titus 2 and 1 Peter 3 also contributed.

[Update: Not all of these character traits are alike in how someone acquires them. Some, like diligence and trustworthiness, must be nurtured carefully from a young age in order to mature properly. Others can be acquired later in life. I think you can break them down into three categories in terms of how late in life they can be developed.

The first group, Fear of the Lord and Courage, are both amenable to change later in life. While someone can be taught the tenets of the faith throughout their life, the conscious decision to submit to God and to fear/revere Him as we should is an intensely personal choice. Such a choice is based on personal willpower and discipline, and is something that can manifest at any stage of life. A woman might have grown up an atheist, but can be convicted at some later point (such as when she turns 21) and become just as sincere in her faith as someone who was born to it. Likewise, courage is a matter of willpower. You cannot teach courage- you can give examples of it, but someone ultimately makes the choice for themselves to be courageous or not. This is something that can morph a lot during a lifetime.

The second group includes Kindness, Sensibility and Diligence. These are qualities that tend to require some nurturing to develop in a healthy manner. While not impossible, it is unlikely for a woman to have them without having had their seeds planted while she was young. Those who do change their ways and develop these traits later in life tend to be, in my experience, those women who had been reared properly but rebelled against it. Still, not impossible or unheard of for someone to acquire them without that foundation.

The last “group” is just Trustworthiness. I have never, in all my life, encountered someone who has ever changed in this regard. Either they can be trusted, or they can’t. Perhaps some folks will disagree with me here, but I can’t personally think of any examples which run counter to this. Whether someone can be trusted or not seems to be a fixed trait.

One last point- while these traits might be acquired later in life, one should never marry a woman expecting or hoping that she develops them. It is best, when one considers marrying a woman, to believe that she is at her best the day of your wedding, and will only get worse from there on out. While a cynical approach, I think it wise. It is simply folly to expect a woman to develop any of these traits after marriage. So only marry one who already has them- when she acquired them is less important than their presence and/or intensity.]

IV.

In summary, Scripture seems to indicate there are six qualities that a man should look for in a woman to determine if she will likely make a good wife: god-fearing, sensible, courageous, trustworthy, diligent and kind. Be careful not to mix up these important character traits with various life skills that can take years or decades to acquire or hone. I expect to expand on some of the ideas introduced in this post with follow-up posts down the line, and also to respond to any disagreements that arise in the comments. So expect that this won’t be the last word on the subject. Furthermore, I will probably update this post to correct mistakes and to fill in anything I’ve forgotten.

Final note- there is no such thing as a perfect woman. I rather doubt any of my readers need reminding of this. But it is important to mention all the same. None of us is perfect, and if we wait for perfection none of us will ever marry. So don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Look for a woman who has a good, solid foundation in these  character traits and the capacity, and willingness, for growth.

 

 

Some Things Never Change

Leane, who runs the most excellent blog  Finer Femininity (a recent addition to my blogroll), wrote a post a few days back titled Girls: Faults and Ideals. Within she quoted from a book of the same name by J.R. Miller. He was a Christian writer who lived from 1840 to 1912. So a man from a very different era.

Yet despite the great span of time between now and when he wrote the book “Girls: Faults and Ideals,” much of what he wrote then still rings true today. In the section that Leane quotes from, J.R. Miller provides answers from two questions that he asked of young (presumably) Christian men at the time. Here are the questions:

1. “What are some of the most common faults in young women of your
acquaintance?”

2. “What are some of the essential elements of character in your ideal
of true young womanhood?”

There are two responses in particular that I want to address with this post, although I encourage those who follow this blog to read the whole thing. The first response that I want to address, which covers faults, is this:

“Frivolity, arising from want of purpose in life,” one names, “even the most sacred duties and relations being marred by this frivolousness. The best years of life are wasted in small talk and still smaller reading, tears and sighs being wasted over a novelist’s creations, while God’s creatures die for want of a word of sympathy.”

My first thought when reading this was Wow. If you were to add “pursuing an education and a career” into the second sentence, it would be a perfect descriptor of much of what passes for modern Christian Churchian womanhood. What this tells us is that the problems we see in women in church these days are not new at all. They existed well over a century ago, and probably for far longer.

One line in particular that really struck me was how “[t]he best years of life are wasted” by women. Something I have pointed out on this blog before, and will continue to point out, is that the general desire that most women exhibit to avoid commitment to a man is nothing new. Most women want to delay (true) commitment for as long as they possibly can. I cannot find the source at the moment, but I do remember reading a book written in the 1800s which talked of how older female relatives would often have to push young women to marry. Without that push many would continue to wait and wait, and in the process rebuff the courtship efforts of many would-be suitors, and before long would get to be an age where the stream of suitors would dry up.

Women’s natural sexual strategy is serial monogamy, not “hard monogamy” (lifetime marriage). When this strategy is retrained by a moral order, such as Christian teaching and doctrine, it doesn’t make women suddenly switch over to prefer “hard monogamy.” If anything it intensifies their natural hypergamy and causes them to be extremely “picky” in their choice of commitment. Hence it is very important for a young Christian woman’s family raise her to recognize this instinct and help her overcome it. [The finer details of this are for another post, if not other blogs, to examine.]

Also worth mentioning is that last line about “God’s creatures die for want of a word of sympathy.” Clearly many women back then were no kinder to most men in church than they are today. This is another thing which needs to be taught to young women, and is among the traits that older women are to teach younger women listed in Titus 2:4-5.

Then we move to the second response:

Another puts it down as “A want of firm decision in character and action,” and says that too often, in times “when they ought to stand like a rock, they yield and fall;” and adds: “The young ladies of our land have power to mold the lives of the young men for good or for evil.”

The last sentence is what interests me most. Women have a lot of “soft power” available to them, and can use this power to exert a great deal of influence over men. In my view, this power is perhaps greatest when it comes to young women acting as an incentive for young men. Men are willing to do an awful lot in order to win the affections of a woman, including task both dangerous and tedious. But if men know that such tasks will lead them on a path towards marriage to a desirable young women, nearly all will leap at that chance.

But of course, all of that hinges on three different factors. The first is that desirable young women are available for young men to marry. The second is young that men don’t have plentiful and convenient options for female affection without marriage. The third is that marriage isn’t a legal trap for men. While the third is determined by law and civil society with only indirect influence by young women (not enough are installed in elected or bureaucratic office as of yet, and  overall they represent a small part of the electorate), young women directly control the first two factors.

If young women are not taking the steps to get ready to marry, or if they decide to not marry young, then the first factor will fall in its face. Likewise if women do things which render them unfit for marriage, or even questionable as marriage material. If they pursue a path which takes them out of the marriage market (either temporarily or permanently), then men won’t see an incentive to be found in marriage and will adapt. At the same time, if men have access to loose women and won’t suffer serious sanctions for consorting with them, their desire for marriage will drop dramatically. Here women must exercise restraint and act in a chaste manner- the supply of unchaste women has a direct relationship with the desire men have for marriage. When women are willing to sleep with men without marriage, only the most righteous of men will seek marriage (or at least, approach marriage with the proper attitude)- and there are few such men out there. Restraints on female sexuality are as much for modifying male behavior, as they are for female behavior. Both are inextricably linked together.

Which links back up to how “[t]he young ladies of our land have power to mold the lives of the young men for good or for evil.” Women, by their actions, can influence men to act one way or another. All of this used to be understood. Women were pushed to marry young, and to be chaste, because it not only benefited them, but young men as well, and through them, all of society. This soft power is easy to overlook, but is more potent that many a law.

So when we look at the problems among young women in the Church, and that of the young men, and ponder what went wrong, let us not deceive ourselves into thinking this is a new travail that we face. For Scripture reminds us thus:

Is there a thing of which it is said,
    “See, this is new”?
It has been already,
    in the ages before us.

(Ecclesiastes 1:10)