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.

 

 

Selected Sunday Scriptures- #104: Rise Up!… And, Er… Ignore The Elephant In The Room

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

(Genesis 1:27)

While this blog is focused first and foremost on masculine matters, I devote plenty of time to discussing women as well. There are a number of reasons for this, but the most important is the simple fact that the fates of men and women are intertwined. One can only change men so much before further developments are impossible without affecting women as well.

Sometimes this can be forgotten, both by men outside of this neck of the woods, and by those within. Here is an example of the former. A quote:

In our culture today fathers are becoming less and less a part of our children’s lives and the absence of fathers has led directly to the downfall of Christian culture in America. Currently, 40 percent of American children do not grow up with their biological father.

That number is on the rise as more and more couples choose the lifestyle of cohabitation and decide not to get married at all. Since the men in those relationships are not bound by any marriage vows, they feel less responsibility to stick around, especially if the marriage or childrearing starts to get tough. What are the results of fatherless homes? Let’s take a look at the statistics:

The author goes on from there to talk about the perils of fatherless families. He is absolutely right in this, of course. But at the same time, he missed the huge elephant in the room: divorce. Now Dalrock has covered this blind spot plenty, and I don’t feel it necessary to repeat his many, many posts on the subject. However, this blind spot is not unique. There are others.

To get an idea of one, lets look at what this author talks about next:

Now this absences of fathers in everyday does not only apply to the demise of domestic life. In fact, what we are also experiencing in our culture is the absence of fathers in the spiritual life of the home, even when the father is present in the family. As pointed out by Doug Barry in his “Battle Ready Rally,” we typically praise our grandmas for passing on the faith in our family. We almost never hear about fathers or grandfathers passing on the faith to their children. Typically, “church” or “religion” is viewed as something reserved for women.

…

These Polish men failed to see that their primary responsibility as head of the household was to fight the spiritual battle for the lives of their family. As Saint Paul says in Ephesians 6:12, “For our struggle is not with flesh and blood but with the principalities, with the powers, with the world rulers of this present darkness, with the evil spirits in the heavens.” It is our duty as fathers to fight that battle and to be a firm foundation for our family. If we don’t do it, our society will continue to crumble around us.

All well and good. I don’t disagree with his general argument- Christian men do need to lead the spiritual life of their families. But as I indicated earlier, the author here is missing something important, something essential. What is missing?

Well, leadership, of course. He mourns the loss of spiritual leadership. But if a man is not a leader in other ways in his family, how can he flourish as (much less be encouraged to be) a spiritual leader. And where does this take us? Why, authority in the family, naturally.

²² Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. ²³ For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. ²⁴ As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands. ²⁵ Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, ²⁶ that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, ²⁷ that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. ²⁸ Even so husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. ²⁹ For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the church, ³⁰ because we are members of his body. ³¹ “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” ³² This is a great mystery, and I mean in reference to Christ and the church; ³³ however, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.

(Ephesians 5:22)

Men cannot fulfill their role as spiritual leaders in their family if the rest of their leadership is cut off at the knees. How effective will a man be if the children see his wife, their mother, constantly rebel against his leadership? I think we all know the answer to that.

Ultimately, the real blind spot here is to the way that the Church treats men, husbands/fathers in particular. The lack of respect, the lack of support for a husband’s authority, all of these undermine any desire or efforts for men to be the spiritual leaders of their families.

As Deep Strength and others have pointed out, men (like women) respond to Incentives. this applies to actions within marriage, as well as before or without. Now, does that excuse men who don’t try to carry out their duties? Of course not. But the blame is not only theirs to share.

⁵ “Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me; ⁶ but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.

⁷ “Woe to the world for temptations to sin! For it is necessary that temptations come, but woe to the man by whom the temptation comes!

(Matthew 18:5-7)

If we want more men to act as spiritual leaders in their families, the Church needs to stop treating men like trash. It needs to encourage and admonish, yes, but also respect and acknowledge. Further, women need to be taught to encourage and aide their husbands in being leaders, rather than be taught to belittle them and usurp their authority.

Male and female He created us. The behaviors of both need to be addressed if we want to see positive change. Ignore one sex entirely, and you will never get very far at all.

A Failure To Communicate

One of the various subjects this blog is devoted to is analyzing and addressing the differences in communication styles and methods between men and women. No easy task, given both the difficulty of the subject matter as well as social conditions. However, it is a critical one as failures to understand how men and women communicate are a major cause of family troubles in the present age- especially among Christians.

For a recent example of a failure to communicate, see this post and its follow-up by Sunshine Mary. They stem from a post by Dalrock, Unhinged. All three posts showcase a serious ignorance of how how men and women communicate. I encourage my readers to look at all three posts, as this post won’t make sense without that- especially Sunshine’s most recent post. In my post I want to focus in particular on that second one, “Is the problem a lack of listening or a lack of submitting?”

The Good Pastor that Sunshine discusses is a man concerned about his wife’s well-being. Perfect? Of course not. No man is. Yet it is clear that he tried to, in his mind, find out what was wrong. To discover what was bothering his wife. Unfortunately, his ignorance of his wife’s nature got in the way of his honorable efforts. Instead of making things better, his efforts to find out what was troubling his wife only made matters worse.

No doubt Pastor Wangerin believed that he was listening to his wife, or at least, willing to listen. Sadly, he wasn’t. Oh, he was listening to what words she said. But he utterly failed to listen to the real message that she was trying to convey. A message conveyed without words. This is a common error that men make- we pay attention to the verbal message and miss all of the other cues that women are sending our way. In many instances, especially when the matter is important, and emotions are involved, the verbal message is less important than non-verbal communication. Sometimes it doesn’t matter at all.

Wangerin’s wife was sending a barrage of messages his way, but he kept on missing them. His wife, of course, couldn’t help but notice that he missed them. To her they were plain as day.  If he was listening to her then he would, of course, understand what she was trying to tell him. So she interpreted this (mostly at an unconscious level) to mean he wasn’t listening! 

Remember, women expect men to Just. Get. It. A real man would just understand what is going on. He wouldn’t need it explained to him. Pastor Wangerin’s continued inquiries only served to remind his wife, again and again, that he didn’t get it. This conveyed to her, at an unconscious level, that he wasn’t a real man. That is the message he conveyed to his wife.

His wife later told him that she felt that he wasn’t prioritizing her enough, among other things. Said other way, she didn’t feel like he was present enough in her life. Fascinatingly enough, this was probably a true charge on her part. She likely did miss his masculine presence in her life. Unfortunately, his inability to understand his wife meant that he acted in such a way as to heighten this absence in her life.

If there is a lesson to be learned here (and I think there is more than one), it is that husbands need to listen to all that their wife says. That means what she says verbally, and what she says non-verbally. Pay more attention to your wife’s behavior and mannerisms so you can pick up those subtle cues. Is this a lot of work? Sure is. But it is part of the duty of headship.

Likewise you husbands, live considerately with your wives, bestowing honor on the woman as the weaker sex, since you are joint heirs of the grace of life, in order that your prayers may not be hindered.

(1 Peter 3:7)

At the same time, wives need to understand that men do not communicate as they do. They need to keep this in mind, and to alter their own communication style so they can sync up with their husbands. Don’t simply assume that they will “get you.” This means less non-verbal communication, and more straightforward explanation to one’s husband of what is wrong. Both of you will benefit from clear communication between you.

My soul takes pleasure in three things,
    and they are beautiful in the sight of the Lord and of men;
agreement between brothers, friendship between neighbors,
    and a wife and a husband who live in harmony.

(Sirach 25:1)

Widows, “Single-Mothers” And Raising Another Man’s Child

[Short post today inspired by a concept broached in Rollo’s most recent post.]

For a long time now I have been bothered when Widows with children are called “Single Mothers” or are lumped together with “Single Mothers.” Frankly, it is insulting to widows and is socially destructive as well. A widow is a woman who acted properly, not destructively. She worked within the social system and was a stabilizing force. A “single-mother,” on the other hand, is a woman who engaged in socially destabilizing behavior and essentially undermines society. [There are a few rare exceptions. A woman who murdered her husband, or the victim of rape, for example.]

With that in mind, I would argue that whatever one’s take on raising another man’s child when the mom is a “single-mother” (a PC device I should probably stop using), a ban should not be applied to the children of widows. Here are several reasons why:

• We want women to engage in socially stabilizing behavior. Marrying is one such behavior. Knowing that they can get married again if their husband dies adds extra incentives to women to marry (and have legitimate children).
• Men who marry and have children but die early benefit when their children are taken care of by a new husband/father. Early death can happen to any man- we never know the hour and all that. There is a genetic imperative for us to want to have children that in turn have children. This imperative is served by our genetic children having a father figure in their lives- especially if we die early. It benefits us to not only know our children will be taken care, but to actually have them be taken care of. Furthermore, this possibility benefits pretty much every married man, whatever his station.
• Men who care about having children will also be more likely to want to marry and have legitimate children. This is beneficial to both their children, as well as society. Probably less pronounced an effect on men as to women, but still beneficial to society.

It is up to any man to decide whether or not to marry a true widow, of course. Further, there are few young widows with children these days, so it won’t be a common concern for men looking to marry (or remarry, if they themselves are a widower).

Also, I think that a similar exception should naturally be made for godchildren. Again, responsible husbands/fathers benefit when we know we are looking out for one another, and our families. That doesn’t necessarily mean marrying a widow- both parents could be dead, for example. But similar reasoning applies all the same.

Commenters are of course free to voice their own thoughts below.

Thoughts On Married Clergy

A few days ago the blog Catholicism Pure and Simple posted excerpts from an article about a possible push in the next synod to allow married priests. Those who aren’t Catholic or Orthodox will probably not find it or this post interesting. But I did, in particular because of my recent experiences. I’ve been attending a few different Eastern Catholic parishes for a long time now, and at several of the parishes the priest (also pastor) was married. Having had regular occasion to see married priests in action, and also having experiences with celibate priests (both New Mass and TLM alike) for most of my life, I imagine I have a somewhat different perspective than most Catholics. With that in mind, I wanted to offer a few thoughts of my own on the subject.

To begin with, I do not think that married priests in the Western Rite represent the end of the world. Having seen both systems in action, I can assert with a fair measure of confidence that married priests are just as effective in their pastoral and sacramental duties as celibate priests. In fact, I dare say that the married priests I have experience with are more orthodox and better pastors than a fair number of the celibate Western Rite priests I have encountered. From what I can tell their personal experience with marriage and children gives them an insight there in pastoral matters that celibate priests lack. Further, the Eastern Church has had married priests since the beginning, and it has not proven to be any kind of detriment.

At the same time, I fully appreciate the value of celibate priests. The married priests I have had for pastors have all been pastors at smaller parishes. It would be much more difficult for a married priest to be a pastor at a larger parish without running into time issues with his own family. Also, their own outside perspective on marriage can be very valuable as well- they can be detached in vital way. Time, though, is the biggest factor, and it is no surprise that this is mentioned by St. Paul in his letter to the Corinthians. Celibate priests can devote all their time to pastoral care in a way that married priests can’t.

Taken together, I not only have no problem with married priests in the Western Rite, but I think it could prove beneficial. Something that is important to keep in mind is that the Western Rite tradition of only celibate priests is just that- a small “t”, human tradition. It is not Sacred Tradition, much less doctrine. It is pastoral discipline. Furthermore, that tradition has been around for less time than married priests were permitted in the Western Church.

However, I am apprehensive about this new “push” for married clergy. I think that the authors of that article may be right that there is more behind it. I suspect that some may be using it as an avenue to try and change actual doctrine, rather than pastoral discipline. If that is the case, and I suspect it is, then caution is the order of the day. It is important to do the right thing for the right reasons, otherwise it soon stops being the right thing.

One further note- I do not see married priests as being a panacea to “cure” the priest shortage here in the West. At least, not by itself. That problem is deeper, and much of it is rooted in series problems with Western seminaries. Until those problems are fixed, the kind of married men you would want to be priests won’t make it through to ordination. In other words, the same negative filter would be applied to them as well as to non-married men.

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.