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.

Tell, Don’t Listen

Shorter post today, inspired by Deep Strength’s most recent post. He examines covert and overt contracts, and how they relate to men interacting with women. One of the areas that he covers is the infamous “friendzone”, and how nice guys try to use “friendship” to get close to women. As he explains:

This is the covert contract that many immature men run. They think that if they trade emotional support, helping out a woman with things, complimenting her, sending her flowers, or any other “trade of good deeds” will get her to like him more.

While I would like to say needless to say at this  point, I can’t. It remains necessary to say that this strategy doesn’t work well at all. It is also necessary to inform and remind men that they should be careful when discussing emotions with women. As Deep Strength explains:

In general, I would say do not go out of your way to listen to or talk about your emotions with women nor help them out with personal matters. Discussing your emotions with women especially if you are interested in her is something that women do with other women. By doing this early on you are telling her that you’re her friend and not a romantic prospect. Hence, often times said women get angry when they find out later you are really interested in them.

This is one of the classic covert contracts that I discussed earlier. Men think that supporting a woman emotionally and helping her out much like a provider would will make her like him more. In reality the opposite occurs: your actions tell her that you are her friend. When it is revealed that you like her she feels used that you were trying to gain her attraction and affection through underhanded tactics. Although that may not have been your intention it comes off that way. Likewise, such men feel hurt because they actually thought it would work that you could buy her affection.

He is completely spot on here. If you are interested in a woman, keep in mind that you are not her emotional band-aid. And she isn’t yours either.

At the same time, when a woman is emotional there is a potential opportunity for a man to really build up attraction between himself and the woman in question. It relies on you telling her about her emotions, not listening to her tell you about them. As Rollo is fond of saying, women expect, and want, a man who Just Gets It. They don’t want to have to explain themselves to a man. That is a major turn-off for them. On the other hand, if a man can demonstrate that he does, in fact, “get” a woman, that can be a major turn-on.

The tactic I have in mind goes something like this:

• When a woman starts to talk about how she is feeling, and it is clear that strong emotions are involved, interrupt her. Tell her that you want to hear what happened. And to tell you just the facts. Not for her to tell you how she felt about everything.
• As she relates the facts, break them down and try to figure out how they would relate to basic female nature. What would frighten her? What would make her anxious? What would excite her? All of this is going on in your head silently.
• After she has related a few facts, tell her how those facts made/make her feel. Explain what it is that is affecting her, and how.
• Then ask for her to relate more facts. And repeat the process of analyzing and explaining.
• As you do this, lower the pitch and volume of your voice subtly. If you can, lean in a bit. Keep eye contact the whole time.
• Soon you will be able to relate how each fact makes her feel.
• The real gift is to be able to take this into the future. To read into the situation, guess at the facts she has yet to relate, examine her present emotions and try and infer what happened. Tell her this.
• You will know you are succeeding when she starts making comments about how you really get her, or for some women, when they go really quiet and just stare at you with astonishment.
• At this point, you want to have a good “closing move.” Since this is written with Christian men in mind, a hug and/or a light kiss can be quite effective. You’ve already shifted the woman’s strong emotions away from whatever was bothering her towards you. Now you want to shift them from negative to positive emotions.  A hug, perhaps coupled with a kiss or stroking the woman’s hair, can accomplish this.

The goal of all of this is to convince the woman, at an unconscious level, that you truly understand her. That you have pierced the veil of the “feminine mystique” and she is now an open book to you. Few things can elevate a man in a woman’s eyes as much as this. I should point out that this tactic is also high-risk, high-reward. If you aren’t careful you will end up being an emotional band-aid or sponge. It is not a tool for a beginner. You need to have a pretty good understanding of female nature to pull this off. It also helps to be able to “read” people well.  But if it works you can achieve a very strong emotional connection with a woman that translates into a powerful feeling of attraction/arousal on her part.

Hopefully this will be of some help to at least one of my male readers. I have another post in the works on a related matter that I hope will also be beneficial. With luck it will be done by the end of the week.

 

Update: There are a few clarifications I would like to make:

1. This tool is one that works best on a woman you are somewhat familiar with. Cold reads are difficult, and likely to backfire.
2. Something like this works best when there is already some interest in you by the woman, but you want to keep that interest going and strengthen it. So it works best after the beginning of any courtship.
3. Like all tools, use it only when needed. And that is not often. I would only recommend using it once or twice as a serious endeavor during a courtship. Don’t rely on it or use it as a crutch. Remember, the best “tool” in your kit is a strong, masculine frame.

Words Of Power

I recently came across this essay by Bonald, who blogs over at Throne and Alter. Somehow I had missed it when he posted it a few weeks back. I wish I hadn’t as there were some interesting points raised both in the main post as well as in the comments. This [post will explore a few of them. Naturally enough I hope my readers will provide their thoughts.

To start with, I found this paragraph concerning customs of how men should interact with women interesting:

Men are stronger than women.  Women thus enter the public sphere from a position of weakness.  The sense of helplessness this might inspire is alleviated by customs whereby men appear to cede high status to women, what we now call “chivalry” (which is, of course, distinct from the medieval warrior code of the same name).  Our many ritual acts of deference to our ladies, holding the door for them and so forth, wouldn’t make sense except as a corrective to the real power everyone knows men hold.  Manosphere writers misunderstand these customs when they imagine them stemming from a view that women are inherently more valuable, while feminists who regard such “benevolent sexism” as a part of the patriarchy are basically correct (but with their moral evaluations reversed, as always with them).

I’ve always found the argument that deferential behavior was driven by some biological recognition that women were more “valuable” than men to be a stretch. At least, a stretch to imagine that was the only force at work. Fortunately a commenter by the name of JMsmith offered this:

As you say, the old courtesies were the means whereby a man signaled that he was not a sexual threat. For instance, a man removed his hat to make himself shorter and less physically imposing. He also spoke in tones that were lower and more soothing. In various ways, some of them entirely symbolic, he put his strength and hardihood at the woman’s service. I remember being taught that, when walking with a girl, I must always walk on the outside of the sidewalk, lest a passing car splash her with mud, slush or puddled water.

But none of these courtesies were emasculating. On the contrary, they affirmed a man’s manhood, which is why the feminist declared war on them (sort of). The old courtesies allowed a male to be gentle and a man. In other words a gentleman.

The behavior of the “consummate gentleman” was, in other words, a sexual “kill button.” It served to set women at ease by assuring them that they were not in, or about to enter, a sexual situation. The manosphere is largely populated by men who were misinformed about this, and who consequently went through life leaning on the sexual “kill button” under the mistaken belief it was a sexual detonator.

Now this has some real merit to it, I think. Especially that last paragraph. When you think about it, deferential customs (when they are kept to sane levels) help to make social interactions between men orderly. In fact, you can extend it to women as well. De-sexualizing social interactions helps to reduce competitive behaviors between men and women. Modesty is a female counterpart to male deference- modestly dressed women are less overtly sexual and thus less likely to incite or generate more sexualized responses from men. This will naturally lead to competition between men, which strains the social order.

Bonald’s mention of “language of conquest” was also worth noting:

Men want sex more than women.  This means women have a stronger bargaining hand in the bedroom.  No man wants to beg for sex; that would be humiliating and contemptible.  We thus ritually correct the power asymmetry by describing sexual intercourse in terms that flatter the man’s agency:  he “took her”, “had his way with her”, and so forth.  Feminists misunderstand this language by taking it literally, thinking it reflects a “rape culture” and that men experience their sexual appetite as a strength rather than a weakness.  In fact, men often experience lust as perturbability, as weakness, and we are embarrassed by its power over us.  Here it is the writers of the manosphere who seem closer to the mark, pointing out that the woman herself prefers to be “conquered” than to be petitioned.

I’m not sure that I agree with the first two sentences, at least in how they translate into “ritual language.” Men, being stronger than women, really can “take it” if they want to. Of course, there might be serious consequences for it, but that potential still exists. However, civilized living requires men to set aside that power or at least severely restrain it. In that sense men are willfully restricting their power in a manner similar to, although not the same as, deferential custom. I would wager that men use that language because it allows them to remove, at least in their minds, the restraints that society places on their sexuality. That it comes from stronger female bargaining power seems a bit weak to me.

On the other hand, I very much agreed with this paragraph:

And this role we hate.  Folk wisdom has it that when a boy pulls a girl’s pigtails, it probably means he likes her.  I’m sure this is true.  When a man becomes attracted to a girl, he feels a paradoxical urge to tease and offend her.  Girl’s are cute when they’re shocked and offended–no doubt about that.  If you can amuse and shock a girl all at once–get her to exclaim “I can’t believe you just said that!” in between suppressed giggles, it feels like, like victory.  You’re not some beggar pleading for sex.  No!  It feels like you’re in charge.

Lastly, in the comments the subject of women wanting sex and how they react when it was denied came up. I think that the strong reaction women have isn’t simply that they aren’t used to being denied it. Rather, I think that women cannot handle rejection in this area as well as men normally done. Possibly it is because women experience it less. But I think that there is an innate female aspect to this as well.

Of course, I might be completely wrong, and my readers have a chance here in the comments to demonstrate my folly.

[As an aside, I am working on a follow-up to my post on sympathy, as it is obvious that some things need to be cleared up, in addition to my desire to explore the nature of the responses to that post.]

Absence Makes The Heart Grow Emptier

Background: One of the deepest writers in the entire ‘sphere also happens to be one of those who writes the least: Ace of Spades. His posts can sometimes be just a few short sentences in length, spaced apart by the occasional break. When added together they rarely amount to more than a paragraph or two. However, each word is fraught with meaning (almost always on multiple levels), and he can accomplish with a few lines what others need an essay to convey. Yet the insight he hopes to convey isn’t always obvious, and all of his posts need to be “unpacked” (or unzipped, to use computer terminology) to some degree. I’ve unpacked posts of his before, and he expressed appreciation for my effort. At the same time he asked me to make similar efforts in the future, and this post follows in that path.

The post I want to examine today is “… [there’s] oh so many ways for me to show you how your dogma has abandoned you…” Like nearly all of his posts, it begins with a song which helps set tone and context. I suggest listening to it before reading further. I intend to analyze his post line by line, so it may help to read the full post at his site, as I don’t intend to post it all together here. Also, while each line will have analysis, much of it will be at the end of the post as well. Now to get to it:

All pig-tails and patent-leather shoes.

These two features together hint at femininity in a juvenile context- a young school-age girl. She is young and innocent, and looks the part- wearing her hair in pig-tails and dressing up in nice looking clothes for when she goes to school. This sets up the point of view of the post- that of a young girl (at least in the beginning).

Daddy never seems to care.

The key language in this line is the word “seems.” Ace included that word on purpose. Whatever “Daddy’s” actual intentions might be, they are ultimately irrelevant in this context. What matters is how the young girl from the above line perceives his concern, his lack of care about her.

This is important because “Daddy” might care, but not be in a position to do anything about it. If the father of a young girl has been kicked out of the home and separated from his children by force of law because “Mommy” decide to frivorce him, then what he wants or intends doesn’t matter. The amount of time he can spend with his daughter will be limited, in some cases quite severely. And no matter how much Daddy tells his daughter that he loves her, that he cares for her, that he wants to spend time with her… she won’t believe him if he doesn’t spend much time with her. She cannot help but rationalize his limited contact as a lack of care on his part, no matter how much the matter is explained to her. For a child, a father’s presence, or the lack thereof, is not something which is guided and directed by a rational thought process (no matter how smart the child).

As a side note, even if the biological father is present, but he doesn’t act like an actual father (that is, as a masculine man exercising the office of fatherhood), it is like he isn’t even there at all.

And fathers are the first glimpse of God all children see.

The fact that this line alone is in bold makes it clear that this is the most important line in the whole post. So why bold it?

Numerous studies have shown that it is the father, not the mother, who has the greatest influence on a child’s faith. A devout father can lead his children to follow his faith, no matter the beliefs of the mother. Yet not amount of holiness by the mother can compensate for a father’s disbelief. The reason why is as Ace describes- in their father children see their first real glimpse of God. How so? A father- a true father who can act as such, acts much as God: he admonishes and disciplines when necessary, he provides strength and comfort in times of distress, he pushes for improvement as required, and he loves throughout.

A child’s relationship with his or (in this case) her father helps that child understand boundaries, to understand authority, to get a sense of what is right, and what is wrong. Nothing can replace this understanding.

Left little choice, you choose to sin.

An interesting line. choice in what? By itself this line is incomplete.

Just to get some attention.

Now the previous line makes sense. The young girl from before is feeling the effects of her father’s absence. Without realizing it, without understanding it, part of her- deep in her subconscious- needs a strong male presence in her life. Specifically, she needs the presence of a father. Only she cannot comprehend that. She can only understand that she wants male attention. And so she seeks it. She seeks it from other men, to get that attention and validation that she knows she wants, without understanding why. Without that firm foundation which can only be build over years by a strong and loving father, she will invariably seek that attention in a sinful fashion. Fornication cannot help but seem like love to her.

But boys are not the Almighty.

This line hints at two things, neither of which is mutually exclusive. And when you get down to it, they derive from the same point. Why “Almighty,” when the previous lines suggest that it is a father that the young woman (for she is no longer a girl at this point) seeks? Because she is also seeking God. For just as her need for a father’s presence was not met, so too her need for a sense of God’s presence in her life is not met. For as was indicated earlier, our ability to know God is in large part shaped by our father. To not know the former is to inhibit our connection to the latter.

The men she is sleeping around with cannot (and even if they could, likely would not) give her the love that she seeks. Eros is what her hormones tell her to seek, but it is Agape that her soul longs for- the true, lasting and selfless love of a father, both one of this world, and Eternal. Sadly, this is beyond her ken.

Thus, the emptiness still grows—

Eros without Agape is poison to the soul. We cannot fill ourselves solely with Eros, no matter how hard we try. Instead we simply feed into our hunger, demanding more and more. [Edit: Think of it like salt and water. Salt is good and necessary for our health, and adds much flavor to life. But too much salt, and not enough water, and we throw our electrolyte balance off. This can kill our body if not swiftly correct. Just as Eros can add flavor to our life, without Agape to keep us balanced we risk death, only of the eternal sort for it is our soul which is threatened.]

All the while the emptier and emptier we feel. For the young woman caught in this trap, there is seemingly no escape. She moves from man to man, and yet her need for that male presence only grows greater. She thirsts, and goes to the well, but cannot be satisfied. All because she is going to the wrong well, which she knows not.

regardless of how much they put in you.

The obvious inference here is what this double entendre suggests: the sexual act, which literally involves putting something in the young woman. However, it is more than just that. Some of the men might mean well or even be serious in their attentions/intentions. They might actually love the young woman. But that doesn’t matter- they cannot provide what she needs.

The years fall away and that little girl continues to struggle.

This is a trap from which the young woman cannot seem to escape [but I repeat myself]. Ironically, while she is no longer a little girl in body, in many ways her mind and emotional state never advanced beyond the tender years. How could they?

(Still wearing pigtails and patent-leather shoes.)

Once again, two meanings are present. As the previous line hinted at, the young woman is still mentally and emotionally a little girl. Her maturation process was incomplete, as a core ingredient was missing.

The other meaning hints at the sexualized lifestyle of the young woman, as well as her increasing age. In an effort to try and recapture her youth, and that sense of innocence from before, she tries to adopt a more youthful appearance. She wears clothing and hairstyles that make her seem younger, or otherwise bear some connection to her youth. On the one hand this ties into her sexuality, and a desire to keep it at its peak (even though that is only a brief window). On the other hand, this attempt to recapture her youth is a desperate attempt by the woman to try and repeat her childhood. To have a youth again where that strong man she desperately needs will be present this time.

To wrestle love from the unloving.

Yet another reminder that those men she associates with, those men she sleeps with and gives herself to, cannot give her what she wants needs. Nor can they be truly blamed in this [absence on her part], as it is not their place.

But it is not only men who she attempts to wrestle with. It is causes and movements. Anything and everything that gives even the faintest flicker of potential meaning and purpose. She longs for a place where she can belong. But causes and movements are cold. Unloving. They too cannot give her what she wants needs: a family as it was meant to be.

To punish herself until absolution arrives.

Self-loathing invariably becomes a part of this. The young woman is miserable, and no matter how much she may deny it to others, she knows it deep down inside. Her misery is something she knows is a result of having done something wrong, although she may not know what. Her sense of guilt, as ill-formed as it is, drives her to yet further misery. All in the hope that it will end someday. That she will finally have paid a heavy enough price for whatever it was that she did wrong. A wrong for which she was punished by not having a real father in her life.

Yet it never does.

Of course, she was not responsible for her father not being in her life. Her upbringing is not something she shares blame in. But this is something she never hears, or rather, never hears as she should. She might be told that it isn’t her fault. But that is meaningless or ultimately futile without being told whose fault it is, without understanding why things were wrong in the first place.

The humanist sacristy is empty.

A sacristy is a place where clergy prepare for services. So what does Ace mean by this line? He is trying to indicate that humanism has nothing, has no one, to actually carry out services in the first place. Its very nature is to leave people to fend for themselves, to suffer through life’s trials without solace or guide… or absolution.

The progressive wine is soured.

I take this to mean that much of the appeal of progressivism is gone now. It has sat at the same place for so long it has gone stale. No one wants to drink it, although they may feel compelled to do so. After all, it is a liturgical center-piece of the present-age “social gospel,” and so cannot simply be dispensed with.

And no one listens in the digital confessional…

We, all of us, seek absolution. We may not realize the need to repent and confess our sins, but we have it all the same. Sometimes (perhaps even most of the time), we rationalize away this impulse. We call it something else. But its essence remains the same- after all, a rose by any other name is still a rose.

Alas, the internet is no proper confessional. Ace says that no on listens, because to hear, and to listen, are two different things. To listen to something is to pay attention to it, to recognize its meaning and to try and understand what is being said, even as we hear it. But over the internet true listening is not possible. Only hearing. Too much is lost in the process of putting words onto digital ink, of spilling it across monitors the world over. There is something inhumanly mechanical about the internet which disconnects us, even as it helps bring us together like never before. Because of this, the internet can never replace the confession booth.

save the echo.

Interestingly enough, part of us still knows what we are saying, even if we cannot accept that truth. So ultimately a digital confession merely rebounds at us and amplifies the need we feel.

You were forgiven – and loved – long before you strayed.

This line applies both to the young woman’s earthly father, as well as her father in heaven. The theology involved should be pretty basic to most any Christian, and so I won’t go into too much depth. But it is worth pointing out that God knows we are going to stray, that we are going to sin, long before we ever do. His sacrifice at Calvary was not merely for what we have done, but for what we have yet to do. It is a sacrificial love that persists throughout the ages.

Underlying this is the call by both Daddy and our Father to return. To come home. To seek him/Him out and to try and create a proper relationship this time.

Oh, child, who told you that you were naked?

The end is always a good place to return to the beginning, to Genesis. Here Ace alludes to the Fall, to the eating of the Fruit of the Tree of Good and Evil. Yes, I know, obvious. So why include it? To remind us that no one told Adam and Eve they were naked. They knew it themselves as a result of eating the Forbidden Fruit. Likewise, the young woman (or should I say women?) featured here was never told that she was on the wrong path. No one needed to tell her. The understanding that she is naked, that she is in a shameful place, is intrinsic to her nature. When we revolt against the natural law, we cannot help but recognize that a crime (of sorts) has taken place.

So what is the full context of what Ace is trying to say? Again, there are many layers here.

On one level Ace states that the absence of a strong father in a young woman’s life will almost invariably lead her towards a life of dissolution and sin. The absence of a strong masculine presence will ache within her akin to hunger pains, and she will gorge herself upon men (seeking masculinity) in order to try and sate that hunger. Sadly, such binge eating will never alleviate her need.

Ace is also explaining that the crisis of faith we are seeing now in Christianity is the product of the destruction of the institution or office of fatherhood. Without strong fathers in their lives many children cannot help but abandon the faith. Of course to them there is no abandonment; without a father they never really knew God in the first place.

He is also pointing out that the humanist and progressive institutions of our day cannot replace what they destroyed. They are, at best, base mockeries of something greater. Though they may mimic the form of Faith, they can never replicate the function. Just as realizing their nakedness was innate to Adam and Eve after taking the fruit, the desire to confess and be absolved of our sins is also innate within us. The present progressive paradigm, however, cannot meet that need, as it rejects its existence in the first place. You cannot heal a spiritual injury when you refuse to recognize there is an injury in the first place, or even anything spiritual.

I am sure there is more to it, but my time is limited and so I must cap my analysis here. Mayhaps Ace will fill in what I could not.

[Update: I fixed a number of typos and grammatical errors, plus added a few words and an example to the post. Hopefully it will be easier to read now. Sorry for any confusion or post ugliness- I hadn’t intended for this post to go public when it did.]

The Consolation Prize

In his latest post, Ace of Spades examines the dreaded “Friend Zone.” His post focuses on one particular line from the web-comic which his post examines:

“Sorry my friendship is a crappy consolation prize!”

Ace gets right to the point:

Putting aside the childishly stated false apology (as irritating as it is), I arrive at this:

It isn’t a “crappy consolation prize”.

It simply isn’t a prize at all.

…

It’s an effectively useless offering.

What Ace is pointing out is something that has been pointed out in the ‘sphere many, many times- when a woman “friendzones” a man, she isn’t interested in actually being his friend about 99% (0r more) of the time. Rather, she keeps him around as a meatshield, as a mule, and as a walking ATM.

Ace asks three questions to point out the absurdity of claiming friendship in these kinds of scenarios:

What do we have in common?

What are the interests we share?

What are the tasks you can and, more importantly, will do for me when I’m in need?

It is the third question which really gets to the heart of the matter. I can have things in common, I can share interests with people who aren’t my friends. As a matter of fact I know a fair number of people with whom I share many interests and have much in common who are anything but my friends. What makes a friend a true friend is a willingness to help you when you are in need and without expectation of immediate or even long-term payback. The “Friend-Zoner” has no interest in any such thing. As Scripture warns:

There are friends who pretend to be friends,
    but there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother.

(Proverbs 18:24)

The “Friend-Zoner” is not among the latter.

Of course, Ace isn’t done. He has this to say:

…I already have a handful of men that can and will readily do those things for me.

They’ll talk with me.

Share with me.

Help me out of a jam.

I don’t need another person to do those things.

Plus, they’ll back me up in a physical altercation, should it be necessary.

They’ll also help me move heavy things.

The great irony here, is that both men and women seek male friendship for what quantifiable things men can provide.

Ace doesn’t ask the question, but he certainly implies it. And what is that question? Simple:

What benefits does a female friend provide that a male one doesn’t?

In this modern day age of empowered, strong, independent women, what does a modern women provide as a friend that a man cannot? What valuable skills does she bring to the table? What unique talents is she offering as a friend?

Do yourself a favor, and don’t spend too long on those questions.

Pretty much all of my male friends are better cooks than the women I know. Few, if any, of the women I know are able to sew. Even on those tasks which were traditionally female, women are no better than men these days. As I sit here at my desk, I am scratching my head trying to think of how a female friend is better than a male friend in the modern age (or any age, for that matter). So far the only thing I can think of is that she can offer her perspective, biased and subjective as it is, about your current dress and appearance. Otherwise I have nothing- at least for men in general. Specific men with unique circumstances might find something, but in general a female friend confers no advantages… and plenty of disadvantages.

And even for those men who find some advantage, there is always this:

Not to mention, the majority of women are miserly with their resources, emotional, financial and non-sexually physical.

…

They conserve them, wisely – to be fair, for the men with whom they are enamored (reciprocated or not).

I suspect that if a man were to expect little, he would not be disappointed.

As I think on it, I should note that I only have a few female friends. And they are real friends, in that they will -and have- helped me out in the past. What is shared in common between all of them is that I never had a romantic interest in any of them. Not simply that I expressed none, but had none, for a variety of reasons. The reverse is also true as near as I can tell. And I suspect that is the reason why they are actual friends. But even then, what Ace explained is correct- they are more miserly than my male friends. Not that I blame them- they are doing exactly what Ace described- conserving their resources for “the men with whom they are enamored.”

Now, before I sign off, there is another matter. One that I want to explore in this post. A concept or a theory I want to bounce off my readers.

I call it the “LJBF Drop-off.”

Now, I haven’t been the subject of many LJBF “offers” in my life- for a variety of reasons. In recent years I can only think of one or two that might qualify.

With those, and others I’ve seen/experienced in mind, I notice something: when that LJBF moment arrives, the nature of the relationship invariably changes. Even if a man accepts the “offer,” the woman doesn’t treat him the same. While she never was lavish with her “resources” before, afterwards she is even more stingy. I suspect that this is the case any time a woman rejects a man as a romance candidate. Once that rejection is made, her interest in and “support” of that man drops off. She will offer little, although still take as much as before. I’m curious if my readers have spotted that as well.

MCJDGI

I’ve decided to adopt the acronym which is this post’s title and use it in the future, both in posts and comments. I’m not sure if it is original or not; it wouldn’t surprise me if someone else thought it up before me.

Oh, as for what MCJDGI means? Simple enough:

Most Christians Just Don’t Get It

I chose that particular acronym because it was more civil and polite than some of the others I thought up. It doesn’t really roll off the tongue though, and I may choose another one if I can think up something that sounds better. But enough of that.

The reason for this post is founded in the simple enough notion that Most Christians Just Don’t Get It. They (most Christians) have no clue what is going on in the world around them, and make a mess of things when they try and solve various problems, either in the church or general society. I suppose I could say Churchians, instead of Christians, but I think even most actual Christians don’t get a lot. An excellent example of how MCJDGI can be found in the issue of pornography. While they understand it is a problem, their proposed solutions, and their understanding of why it is a problem, are sorely lacking.

Case in point: this article which Lori Alexander posted on her blog. Read it before continuing.

Now, set aside the obvious theological errors contained therein. [Of course there is a link between bad theology and the other errors, but ignore that for the moment.]

Set aside the unnecessary male bashing and the misunderstanding of the present marriage market (which are pretty much case in point with most Christians these days).

Focusing only on pornography, we can see from that small article that this Michael fellow Just Doesn’t Get It. He fails to grasp a simple enough truth:

Rampant pornography usage is a SYMPTOM.

That is right, a SYMPTOM. A sign of another, greater problem. Or several of them, as case may be.

Here is the thing: boys and young men have been looking at naughty pictures of various stripes for thousands of years. This is nothing new. The ease of access, and the life-like nature of it might be new, but the drive to access it is not new at all.

And offsetting all of that was the easy access in the past to prostitution. I don’t think we in the West understand just how ubiquitous prostitution used to be. Boys and young men didn’t have to settle for pornography in the past- they could get the real thing at a local brothel for fairly cheap. Let’s face it- most men have always needed an outlet for their sex drive. That is just the way we are wired. Teaching young men discipline and restrain can help a lot, but its not a permanent solution for most. Young marriage was the solution that the early Church taught, so as to help young men avoid the sin of fornication;  too bad most Christians these days don’t encourage it (or even actively oppose it).

Of course, that only explains part of it. There is another cause at play here, another source of this particular symptom. And it happens to be the real problem. That problem that Michael Pearl doesn’t identify? A lack of strong fathers in the lives of young men.

When you get down to it, most of the deviancy or immoral behavior that he describes can be attributed to the absence of strong fathers in most Christian families. Sometimes this is because mom has kicked dad out (and brought in dad #2 or #3 or whatever). Other times the actual father might be present. But he is anything but strong. In most instances he is weak willed and incapable of exerting the kind of presence and influence over his son that is necessary to help the son build up true discipline. Most young Christian men have no masculine role models in their lives, and it shows. Without strong fathers to guide them, we should expect that many, if not most, young Christian men are going to go astray somehow.

Unfortunately, MCJDGI. They cannot see how this particular issue- the crisis of Christian fatherhood, is at the root of most ills in the church. And as long as they are blind to it (whether willfully or by ignorance), things are only going to get worse.

Getting Past Anger

Deep Strength has an excellent post up today advising a reader on how to get past the “Anger Phase” of the “Red Pill.” The whole thing is worth reading, so I won’t quote selectively from it. Instead, I wanted to offer a few comments and some practical advice to his reader.

First, I would say that the anger phase is less dangerous than the “Bitter Phase” of the RP. The Bitter phase is what can really destroy a man, and I’ve seen it happen to a number of men who’ve found their way to these parts. Problem is, the Bitter Phase is the next phase after the Anger Phase if a man isn’t careful (a certain amount of bitterness is unavoidable, but the phase involves lingering and stewing in bitterness). Successfully managing the Anger Phase is key to avoiding that slip into bitterness.

Second, I think that anger has some value if channeled appropriately. A little righteous anger can go a long way. If you use it as a motivator and something to give you that initial kick towards self-improvement, then it can be quite helpful. Just don’t rely on it exclusively, or for long.

There were a few things that helped me get over the Anger Phase and not fall into the trap of the Bitter Phase. Here are a few of a more spiritual nature:

• Pray, and pray often. Sometimes small prayers throughout the day can be that extra something you need to get by.
• Read Scripture daily. I didn’t do that before, and do now. Also, I recommend reading and praying aloud a Psalm a day, and if you have time, two. One in the morning and one at night would work well.
• Read up on the early Saints. Learn about their lives, and read their writings. This has really been profound for me. So much of what is going on now is a repeat of errors made long ago. St. Anthansius is an excellent source of inspiriation.

A few other bits of advice:

• Work out. It will make you feel great as well as look great. It can improve confidence and give you a sense of control in your life.
• Eat healthy. That fits with above, but you would be surprised what a difference healthy eating can make. It is another way of taking charge of your life in a positive way.
• Socialize more. Most especially, talk to women. Where? Everywhere? When? Whenever you can. Losing your old, bad habits can only be done through trial and experience, and the fires of experience.

Another thing worth covering is performance and approval. My advice would be to stop caring what women think of you. Stop trying to perform for them. That doesn’t mean do the opposite of what they want, it means to stop considering whether they would approve or not. You need to adopt an attitude of ambivalence. When you actively try and perform for women, or seek their approval, you give them power over you. That will never end well. In fact, that advice applies to men as well- just stop seeking approval from others and instead do what you must.

You need to focus on other matters, and other concerns in your life. Build yourself up, both spiritually and temporally. If you work at this hard enough and long enough, you will find that they (women primarily, but men as well) cannot affect you any longer. Fascinatingly enough, the better you are at this, the more success you will actually see with women.

Hope that is of some help.

Guiding Young Men Through The Red Pill

[Note: this post is going to be one of the rare ones where posting privileges will be restricted to my male readers/commenters. If any female readers/commenters would like to contribute, they can e-mail me what they would like to say. My e-mail can be found at my About page.]

I caught a conversation recently over at Dalrock’s between several male commenters who also happen to be fathers. They were discussing all of the difficulties that come with raising sons and introducing them to the “Red Pill”, and then dealing with what happens after that introduction. Scott, who runs the Courtship Pledge, expressed a desire for a place to continue the conversation, as Dalrock’s wasn’t exactly the proper place for it. I am providing this post so that he and other fathers can continue the discussion. Furthermore, I’m not restricting participation only to biological or legal fathers. Men who are father figures to young men who need guidance through the “Red Pill” are also invited to participate. That can mean older brothers, uncles, cousins or a really close family friend.

One caveat that I should mention is that this post is primarily devoted to helping out Christian young men. As Deep Strength has explained recently, the deep philosophical differences between the secular manosphere and Christian manosphere lead down two different paths. Hence, any discussion needs to be geared towards one, or the other. And since this is a Christian blog, the focus of this post will be in helping, guiding, mentoring or teaching young Christian men.

As far as the discussion goes, I will leave it to those interested to voice their thoughts. I might chime in occasionally, but will leave it to them to kick it off. I will, however, be a bit more active in this post in terms of “trimming” off-topic discussion. If there is a big demand for it I will create a new off-topic post for folks to blow off some steam. But otherwise, keep to the topic. Since its a fairly broad one, I think that should be relatively easy to do.

Update: Related Links:

College Red Pill Truth

Raising Boys in this Brave New World

5 Step Process to Maturity in Relationships