Reference: Improving The Sexual Attractiveness Of Christian Men Won’t Cure The Christian Marriage Crisis

[This is a reference post, made to be linked to in the future by myself, or anyone else who finds it helpful and convenient. It may be updated over time to include both past and future conduct.]

It is widely recognized in the ‘sphere that Christian men, as a whole, tend to be unattractive and unappealing to women (Christian and secular alike). Under the PSALM/LAMPS model they fair poorly. They are for the most part raised that way, with everyone from their parents to the Church to society in general contributing to this deficiency.  Many posters and commenters, myself included, have dedicated themselves to helping Christian men overcome this.

At the same time it is recognized that there is a serious crisis in the Church when it comes to marriage. Divorce, while lagging behind the general culture, is still increasingly prevalent. Furthermore, the number of those who do marry every year diminishes. The median age of marriage has continued to climb, even among Christians.

This problem has been tied to the fact that most Christian men aren’t sexually attractive to women. While it is certainly a factor, the unfortunate truth is that even if Christian men were to become sexually attractive for the most part, the crisis wouldn’t end. Here are several reasons for this:

1. Christian women don’t want to marry, or at least, don’t want to marry young. They are following along with the culture embraced by secular women, and delay or avoid marriage. Christian men becoming more sexually attractive doesn’t mean that the hearts of Christian women will be changed and they will turn towards marriage.
2. Marriage is an increasingly dangerous legal landmine for men. It offers less than ever in terms of incentives, and the costs are higher than ever before. Even if Christian men became more attractive and knew they could gain a wife, they might view the risk as worthwhile.
3. Tied to the previous point, even if Christian men are more sexually attractive, that does them little good if the Christian women around them are not marriage material. The quality of Christian women has dropped precipitously in the last century (alongside that of men), and this impacts the marriage market. Even if a man could attract a woman, or more than one, the ones he attracts might not be ones he finds worthy to marry.
4. Parents and friends, Christian or secular, often discourage their children from marrying young. This has the net effect of discouraging marriage in general, and I would argue, also increases divorce in the aggregate.
5. Poor teaching about marriage also is a factor in this crisis. When young people are misguided when marriage is concerned, it is only natural that things won’t go well.

This list is not exhaustive, and likely will be added to over time. Those who feel that they have additions to make to it may do so in the comments.

Reference: Men Refusing To Marry Non-Virgins Won’t End The Hook-Up Culture

[This is a reference post, made to be linked to in the future by myself, or anyone else who finds it helpful and convenient. It may be updated over time to include both past and future conduct.]

Numerous solutions to the hook-up culture have been offered in the ‘sphere. One such solution goes something like this:

If men refused to marry non-virgins (with a few potential exceptions) then women would no longer participate in the hookup-culture.

Here is one example of such a statement:

Hookup culture is a great example. It could end tomorrow if the Church told the young men in the congregation not to marry nonvirgins except under special circumstances. It sends an indirect message to the girls that they’ll be held accountable for their behavior and offers no pre-made rationalization that will work.

Unfortunately, this would not work for a number of reasons. The hook-up culture would not end if Christian men refused to marry non-virgin women, it would not end even if all men refused to marry non-virgin women.

Here are some reasons why:

1. Women do not have the same sense of time that men do. They are not, as a general rule, as forward thinking. Thus, they are less likely to consider the long term consequences of their actions. Therefore, many will fornicate even if they “know” the consequences, because at the time they won’t be thinking about them.
2. Many women will believe (and this will have the strength of a religious conviction) that an exception will be made for them. They will be sure that the “right man” will come and marry them despite their past. Or they will be convinced that they will meet, somehow, the criteria to justify an exception. This will be the case even if there are no exceptions made.
3. Women are, in their fallen state, naturally inclined towards sins and wrongdoing. Their Appetites lead them towards such temptation. The soul, through the Natural Law, might feel a pull towards marriage. But for most that pull is not, in and of itself, enough to overcome the demands of the flesh. This means that the “lure” of marriage will, for many, not be strong enough to overcome immediate desires.
4. Many women, if given the choice between no marriage but he chance to have sex with attractive men, and marriage with little or no choice of that being with a truly attractive man, will choose the former. The “goods” of marriage are less than they used to be, and in the present environment women do not feel the same push or pull towards marriage as in the past. Hence, the hook-up culture is an attractive option for them. Especially with the removal of social stigma for it, and for its consequences (bastard children).
5. Many women will believe that they can “cheat” the system by hiding the fact that they are not virgins. Plastic surgery and other devices can cover up or temporally hide the physical signs of past sexual activity. They can combine this by hiding their indiscretions. That means not keeping obvious boyfriends and engaging in secret hookups. Or perhaps keeping such behavior far from home, perhaps even overseas. That minimizes the chance of witnesses and someone talking.

This list is not exhaustive, and likely will be added to over time. Those who feel that they have additions to make to it may do so in the comments.

 

 

Brief Thoughts And Updates

Just a few quick things for today. First, on Comments.

A.

I tend to be very lenient when it comes to comments. There are a few things I won’t tolerate, however. Here are a couple:

1. Lying about what myself or others have said on this blog. Disagree with what I or others say all you want. But don’t put words in anyone’s mouth.
2. Excessive vulgarity or obscenity.
3. Using sock-puppets, or repeatedly dropping comments from different screen names and e-mail addresses. If you want to comment here, pick a name and e-mail, and stick with it for a while. No one-off comments.

This list is not exhaustive, only illustrative.

B.

Deep Strength has a post up on Tim Tebow’s apparent poor choice in women. I find his analysis to be pretty much spot on. To draw upon some of the ideas I mentioned in this post, Tim is being led on by his Appetites. Thus far he has managed to maintain his chastity, but for how long? Eventually, no matter what, when you play with fire you will get burnt.

Tim needs to reevaluate what he is looking for in a woman. He needs to stop, contemplate Scripture, and pray. He is looking in the wrong places, and until he changes that, things won’t get better for him. Here is some arm-chair advice of mine, some of which was echoed in the comments:

1. Stop dating/courting women who lack virtue. Remember, you can know a tree by the fruit it bears. Plus missionary dating is foolhardy at best. Would a bank owner hire a bank robber to guard his bank, in the hope that the robber reforms? Only a fool would.
2. Stop dating/courting famous women. Really. There are few things more destructive to one’s character than fame. You are unlikely to find a virtuous woman among famous women. Look elsewhere.
3. Start looking for virtue first, and then switch to filter for attractiveness. Starting with a group that will work off the bat, and then going for the best in that group is a much sounder strategy than he is employing.

Really, this is kind of sad. Tim is, at least among Protestant Christians, near the top of the male MMV hierarchy. I am having trouble thinking of anyone above him. If he started looking in the right places, he at least should be able to marry well, despite the present state of the MMP.

C.

Be Feminine, Not Feminist has started a new blog, which you can find here. She is blogging under a new name (her real one, apparently) with a focus on faith. My Christian readers, especially the female ones, might find it of interest.

D.

Cane Caldo has an excellent post up wherein he looks at marriage and the metaphor of the Vine and Branches. Very much worth a read. He has a follow up to it already, found here.

Scott has a post up as well in reply, which I think also merits reading. You can find it here.

I am going to try and respond to both of them as soon as time permits, as I think there is a lot to be discussed on the matter.

Filtering For Non-Compliance *Women Only*

[This is the first of my dual or split posts, one for male commenters and one for female commenters. As noted earlier, this is something of an experiment. Further, I used a less than stellar post to test everything out. This particular post is for the women. The previous one will be for men.]

In my post Good Guy’s Don’t Exist, commenter Maea related stories she had heard first hand from women who had tried online dating. In particular, that if they explained they were “waiting for marriage” men would call them “prudes.” She later clarified her earlier statement with this:

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

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

My first reaction was to wonder how often this occurs. So for this post I would like to hear from my female commenters who have tried out online dating in the past. What are you experiences with this phenomenon? How frequent was it? How did you react? Any difference between secular or Christian sites? If you have heard from other women about this matter, please feel free to mention what you know in this post.

Additionally, was there any difference in this between online dating and “real-world” dating? Was this more frequent offline, or less?

*Again, this post is for female commenters only. Violating comments will be deleted.*

Filtering For Non-Compliance *Men Only*

[This is the first of my dual or split posts, one for male commenters and one for female commenters. As noted earlier, this is something of an experiment. Further, I used a less than stellar post to test everything out. This particular post is for the men. The next one will be for women.]

In my post Good Guy’s Don’t Exist, commenter Maea related stories she had heard first hand from women who had tried online dating. In particular, that if they explained they were “waiting for marriage” men would call them “prudes.” She later clarified her earlier statement with this:

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

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

At first, I had wondered how often this occurs. However, what I would like to explore with this post is not so much the frequency of that particular behavior but the reason for it. [I have addressed the final point in her comment before, and might do so again at some point. For the moment it is outside the scope of this post.]

I am curious why men would look at a Christian dating/marriage site (and a Catholic one focused on marriage in particular) and seek women who wouldn’t live up to Christian standards of conduct. Or, if finding those who did, would try and shame them for it. While Maea was talking only about Catholic Match, I would expect to see this behavior elsewhere, and so would include this post to cover all nominally Christian dating/marriage sites.

I can understand the desire for sex certainly, but why would they look towards a Christian dating site for that? Wouldn’t a secular one be a better choice? Assuming, of course, they are only interested in sex. If they are looking for more and actually want to get married, that again raises the question of why they are going about it that way. I guess what bothers me is this: why would you go on to a site which is supposedly for people with certain values, and then seek those without such values, and attack those who do? Otherwise stated, why marry a woman who only purports to be Christian, or is only a “so-so” Christian?

Here are a few things that I have thought of, so far (in no particular order and not mutually exclusive):

• This behavior is mostly irrational. The men who do this aren’t really thinking through the inherent hypocrisy. It really isn’t conscious rationalization but habit, borne out of living essentially secular lives in a secular age.
• These men don’t mind marrying “so-so” Christian women because they themselves are “so-so” Christian men. They don’t see any contradiction in their actions because they pick and choose what to believe. In the Catholic Church these kinds of people are called “Cafeteria Catholics.” I suppose “Buffet Christians” would also work.
• For whatever reason these men feel they need to marry a Christian woman, but of course don’t want to actually carry out a proper courtship process. Perhaps their family expects its. Or maybe they think they would make better mothers or something.
• Related to that, perhaps these men think that such a woman represents a lesser divorce threat to them. For Catholic Match in particular, men who “call out” women as “prudes” are perhaps hoping to find women who might sleep with them before the “I do” but won’t divorce them.
• Lets not forget the effects of Original Sin, of course. Concupiscence is a constant thorn in our side, and one finds its way into the recesses of our mind quite easily. Given the power of the male sex drive, making excuses for it is relatively easy. So setting aside one particular part of teaching/doctrine wouldn’t be intellectually trying.
• They could also be caught up in the whole “try before you buy” mentality that is quite prevalent right now. Of course, that mentality isn’t a new one, but this age certainly is embroiled in it.

I invite my male readers to offer their own thoughts on what might be involved here.

*Again, this post is for male commenters only. Violating comments will be deleted.*

 

Good Guy’s Don’t Exist

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clarity is Charity

[DG: Updated, see below]

A female reader of my blog reached out to me recently about an experience she had with online dating. She had met a Christian guy online, and they had gotten to talking about marriage back and forth for a while- a number of months. It had been going well and was getting serious- they were all set to meet, an important step since they lived far apart. Then the guy went silent. She didn’t hear from him for a month. None of her responses were answered. There had been no warning that he was going silent either.

Eventually she finally heard back from him. His message was very short, amounting to basically three lines:

• I’m not sure my future includes marriage
• Besides, I’m really busy right now and can’t give you any time
• But lets try and be friends anyways

I suppose that it goes without saying that she was somewhat upset by this response. To put it mildly. Not only had he rejected her, and not only had he refused to give any real reason, he also pulled a LJBF on her. She contacted me to try and understand what was going on. She genuinely didn’t understand. To be honest, neither did I.

His message was one that could only hurt her. It left most nearly everything up to her imagination, and her imagination took her dark places. I think that would be the case for most nearly any woman. She wondered if he had been playing with her all along, and pulled this stunt merely to mess with her. She wondered if he hadn’t found her attractive, and was merely using her for “relationship practice.” And of course, before she heard from him she wondered if something terrible had happened to him, and had worried greatly. I gathered from her that the guy in question had known she was at least somewhat emotionally attached to him. Apparently he even claimed to be considerate of women’s feelings. But his silence and his curt message refute his own assertions.

This brings me to the central point of my post- if you are a guy and reject a woman, you owe her the truth. Tell her enough so that she won’t have good reason to wonder if it is a trick or if there is something wrong for her. Perhaps she will anyways, but at that point it is on her, not you. Remember that woman is the weaker vessel, and act accordingly. Be considerate of their feelings- clarifying matters for them is an act of charity. Unless there is a solid legal reason not to tell her, you should do so. Yes, even if it is embarrassing or shameful. Be a man and bite the bullet. That answer this woman received came across to me as very passive-aggressive, and frankly as a bit unmanly. Don’t repeat that.

And while I’m at it, women owe men the truth as well. The present marriage marketplace is an utter mess. It won’t get any better if people employ rejections that lack all empathy for the other person. Tell other people as much as you can. It is the charitable thing to do.

Update: The woman in question contacted me, and provided a few clarifications (I had misunderstood and misinterpreted her a bit, plus her initial contact was on the shorter side).

1. They had been in touch for about two months- they had talked marriage but not to the point where she was expecting a proposition. Rather, she had thought that this guy was serious about exploring marriage.
2. She did not think it was a matter of attraction- I misinterpreted her when I thought that.
3. She had wanted to meet much sooner, but he had delayed a meeting.
4. She had done some basic background inquiry, and it seemed to back up that he was in fact a real person.

Some Scattered Thoughts

Today’s post is a short one, owing to a lack of time and imagination on my part. There are a few posts around the ‘sphere that I want to comment on or highlight for my readers.

To begin with, Beefy Livinson critiques the liberal “distinction” between “Rule of Law” and “Rule of Men.”  As he explains it,

Government simply is authoritative discrimination in favor of one alternative instead of others.

Worth a read, especially for those with a political bent.

Deep Strength has a couple of posts up that are interesting. His most recent covers his first meeting with “her father.” I think it is well worth the read, especially for those single men looking to marry among my readers. He made a number of unforced errors, and hopefully others can learn from his experiences. Like some of the other readers, I thought that the father’s actions were also doubtful at parts. At the same time, it is evident that he truly cares about his daughter, which is a rarity these days. I think it is worth pointing out that the father may not have any prior support to help him in his own vetting process. Christian fathers are often as bereft of knowledge these days as young Christian men looking to marry. Past generations dropped the ball for everyone.

Additionally, Deep Strength examined the matter of vetting and the risk of divorce. Lots of good analysis there. I want to take a stab at answering the questions that Deep Strength posed at the end of the post. In particular, I want to offer an additional theory: the “Feminine Mystique.” Women like to maintain the air that the female of the species is ultimately unknowable. In the context of DS’s post that means unpredictable. I know Rollo has a post or two on the subject, but as I see it women like to keep men in the dark about how they really are as it benefits them for men (or most of them) to be ignorant. Ignorant men cannot catch on to strategies like AF/BB, for example. Also, it helps women filter for male attractiveness- those rare men who do “get them” are more likely to be successful with women, and thus probably superior genetic stock. There are probably other reasons, but I think I’ve established enough for what it is. It is also worth mentioning that much of it might be unconscious on the part of women- almost reflexive, as it were. But not all, of course.

Cane Caldo has made some dramatic life choices recently. The first post is here. The second is here, and the third here. A point he brings up is that patriarchy, as far as daughters are concerned, is heavily focused on protecting and guarding them. The same can be said of sons as well, in an indirect fashion. By ensuring that women are raised right, fathers in a patriarchy can ensure that their sons have access to decent pool of marriageable women. Without the protection of Patriarchy, such a pool will dry up quickly. See the present day for reference.

Zippy is back, at least for one post. Once again he covers the lies inherent in a democratic form of government. What surprised me is that he predicts our present system has as many as 50 years left in it. I wouldn’t have given it that long, but unfortunately he might be right. Ours has proven to be a surprisingly robust socio-political system, and inertia can have a profound effect.

Finally, congratulations are in order to blogger Chad, who became recently engaged to the young woman he has been courting for some time.

Some Get It

I have written before that Most Christians Just Don’t Get It. This can take two forms which are not mutually exclusive: either they don’t understand how things work, or they cannot be taught (or learn) how things work, often due to their own intransigence. Fortunately, most does not mean all. On occasion I come across some Christians who do seem to understand at least part of what is going on. I had the opportunity to talk with a woman in the last few days who fit that profile.

Some very brief background on her first. Catholic mom with a number of kids, several of them adults. Has both sons and daughters. Traditional Catholic, and has been that way for a long time. Very much in tune with the problems in the Church right now. Husband is easy-going and seems like a cool guy, and doesn’t appear to be a wimp.

We got to discussing problems with the Church at the moment, including how it is shrinking rapidly. Eventually we started to discuss marriage and the problems the church faces there. I explained to her some of my own difficulties in that regard, as well as problems that other men face. Without being direct, I covered a number of different issues that the ‘sphere talks about. I found her to be both a good listener, and very receptive. Based on what she said, I think she was aware of some of the problems beforehand, but had never had the whole situation clearly explained to her before. So it wasn’t something entirely new.

What might have helped her in understanding this was the situation of her oldest son. He was approaching his mid-twenties and hadn’t found anyone to marry yet. It was clear from her face and tone that she was rightfully worried about the situation her son was in. She recognized that it wasn’t simply a matter of her son not having “found the right person yet.” Even before we had talked she understood that there was something dreadfully wrong with the marriage market. Reader mdavid will not be surprised to hear that she had sent her son, and was sending some of her other children, to a very traditional Catholic college in the hopes of helping them to find a spouse. She related to me that she knew of a number of other Catholic parents who did the same with their children. [I know a few of them myself.] In fact, she knew of a few families who had moved out of state to a traditional Catholic community in order to make it easier for their children to marry.

So its clear that some Christian, or at least Catholic, parents understand that the MMP has serious issues. What I have found at the same time is that while they may understand that something is wrong, and even to some degree what is wrong, most don’t fully understand why it is wrong. I have some thoughts there I want to explore, but that can wait for another post.

 

Random Musings and Links- #7

Its been quite a while since I last wrote one of these posts, and thus it is long overdue. I’m going to cover some important links, relate a few of my thoughts and preview a few possible post ideas in the future.

To begin with, I wanted to give my readers a heads up that I am going to refrain from commenting at other blogs for the near future. I have not been pleased with my comments for a while. None have been good, much less great, and many were sub-par. Given the trouble that a few have caused me, I’m going to hold off with them for the moment, although I will still comment here. Part of my problem is that when I comment I usually write in haste, which does not lend itself well to careful thought or careful writing. So expect to see very little of me around for the time being.

Deep Strength has written a post exploring how AWALT and how NAWALT. There are three things he has as “questionable” that I wanted to briefly address:

• Do women have the ability to agape love their husbands? There are no commands for women to agape love their husbands but to philea love them (Titus 2).

• Do women have full moral agency?

• Are women able to act as their own agent outside of men: what about the fact that women were under their fathers in the OT, and confirmed through 1 Cor 7 to also be under the authority of their fathers prior to marriage?

While others have provided good commentary, there are a few things I wanted to note. First, just because scripture doesn’t command it doesn’t meant that women don’t have the ability to agape love their husbands. Scripture contains what is essential, surely, but it doesn’t contain everything- it cannot, in fact. That is why Jesus gave us the Church, after all- for continued wisdom and guidance. Second, concerning moral agency, I think Deep Strength is conflating moral agency- the ability to choose between right and wrong- with [edit: potential or alleged] female susceptibility to deception. They are not incompatible. Women can choose to do the right thing, just as they can choose to do the wrong thing. Deception merely makes it more difficult to discriminate between the two. Third, women are indeed able to operate as agents outside of the authority of men. Scripture mentions ta number of instances of it, in both the OT and NT. However, that doesn’t mean it is necessarily for the best, at least, all the time. This ties again to the susceptibility of deception- protecting women from deception probably had a large part to do with that. There might be more, of course, and this could be a subject worth exploring in a further post.

Elspeth has closed up shop, although she might comment from time to time. So has Mrs. ktc. Both are going to be moved to my inactive section shortly.

Empath talks about the subtle power of examples.

Stingray has a new blog focused on religious discussions.

Ballista provides yet another example of how conservatives either don’t get it, or pretend not to get it when it comes to marriage.

Bonald has an interesting post, among a great many, which discusses inter-species romance. I mention this one specifically because James T. Kirk is involved.

Free Northerner explores the potential Selection Effects of War.

I agree with Beefy Levinson that enemies are easy to deal with, it is your treacherous friends that are the problem.

Related: Rebellion at a Catholic High School. I hope the admin stands firm.

Mrs. C. had an interesting post on St. Patrick’s day which discussed welcoming sinners. I encourage my readers to read it, because I want to comment on it briefly. There is an interesting tension that the Church has endured since its creation between welcoming sinners, on one hand, and turning a blind eye to sin, on the other. Sometimes the Church has gone too far one way, and sometimes too far the other. I think that a major determinant of how the Church should act with regards to any given individual is determined by that person’s background. The way I see it, there are four sorts of backgrounds someone might have: 1) someone who was born to the faith and never left the church (although they might have strayed), 2) someone who wasn’t born to the faith but converted and is present still in the Church, 3) someone who was born to the faith but then left (prodigal son/daughter?) and 4) someone who wasn’t born to the faith and hasn’t converted before. Each needs to be treated somewhat differently. In brief, I would accord more leniency to persons from the latter backgrounds. The danger of too much leniency (or mercy) towards the former is that it might establish in the minds of the faithful the notion that eschewing sin is not an important or vital part of the faith. In other words, it acts as a stumbling block. This is less of an issue for someone who is coming to the Church for the first time, either ever or for a long time.

Vox brings a story of how Little girls need fathers.

As I was writing this post Rollo put up a new post of his own, where he delves into the subject of “Betas in Waiting.” His efforts in examining the different “stages” of the life of most modern women have provided me with a lot of insights. Some of them will come into play in a future post of mine examining male and female “Sexual Strategies”, and how they interact with one another.