A Mountain Out Of A Molehill

This post is an opportunity for my readers to help my out. I am concerned that I might have made something out to be a bigger deal than it really was. Or perhaps misunderstood the point that was being made. It began when I read this post over at Leane’s blog. This paragraph in particular caught my eye:

Men left to themselves too long tend to become rough, brutish, and even evil. I saw enough of this in the Army during the two years overseas with the same outfit. There was something vital missing in the lives of these soldiers. It was the influence of their mothers, their sisters, their wives, and their sweethearts. The deterioration of the soldiers overseas was slow and gradual but still very definite. The great mass of mankind finds it pretty difficult to climb very much above its environment. An all-male environment is not good for a man over a long period of time. God never intended for the average man to so live. Eve appeared on the scene soon after Adam.

I reacted… rashly to this message. Here is my response:

I don’t know how to describe this paragraph other than as vile. The central argument is that without women (presumably good women) in their lives then adult men will become uncivilized savages. To the best of my knowledge there is zero support for this in Sacred Scripture or Tradition. A great many monastics lived lives which stand as a strong testament against the proposition advanced here.

Furthermore, even if this were true, and I contend it is not, this is an awful thing to include in advice supposedly directed at women. It is the worst kind of pastoral care. More than a few women will read this as saying that their presence is the only thing keeping the men in their life from being “ough, brutish, and even evil.” This feeds into the worst parts of female nature. It is especially poisonous for wives who have rebellious tendencies- which happens to be all of them, as all human beings are rebellious at heart. Simply put, there is no good reason to include this paragraph in this particular work.

Additionally, if I or another man was to write something similar, only with the roles reversed- describing the awful things women will do if left too long to themselves, would anyone simply leave it be? Or would it be called out?

I am going to stop here. I am sorry for hijacking this comment thread, but I could not remain silent.

This drew, as expected, some opposition from female commenters, as well as the blog hostess herself. What I hope to hear from my readers is whether my reaction to that paragraph was on target, and whether I over-reacted or not. As a quick recap, and to help folks better understand what I was saying, here are the three general points I was making:

1. The argument which the author made is not supported by Sacred Scripture or Tradition.
2. It was bad pastoral practice to include this paragraph in the book it was found in.
3. A similar paragraph or statement with the roles reversed would not be ignored like that paragraph was.

If anyone thinks I was wrong, please indicate where I screwed up. And if you have any problems with my response, besides the bad proofreading, please let me know. Don’t hold back, let me have it. [Although I will say that I think the response of one of the female commenters to a piece of red meat I left in the second point justifies my third point.]

So, did I make a mountain out of a molehill?

[Update: It wasn’t clear from my post, but Leane did not write that paragraph. Her post was quoting from a book called The Wife Desired. The book was written by a Catholic priest back in 1951.]

Tall, Dark And Handsome

One of the arguments that I’ve raised on this blog which has consistently generated the most opposition is that Christian women have the same sexual attraction or arousal filters that secular women have. In fact, I created my LAMPS/PSALM model in large part as a response to Christian women who objected that they “Were Not Like That.” My goal in creating LAMPS/PSALM was to provide a universal blueprint of the different factors or attributes that influence a woman’s sexual attraction or arousal to a man. Naturally enough, that model has received its fair share of opposition (not all of it from women, it should be noted).

Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on how you look at it) reality has a way of providing plentiful evidence to back up my theories. In particular, there are numerous accounts from Christian women which completely back up my theory. One such account, a sad tale indeed, can be found here. A thoughtful reader has helpfully alerted me to yet another account that supports my model. [It should be noted that this reader lives outside of America and Europe, and has confirmed that the harms of feminism and sexual liberation are not limited to those respective regions.] The title of the article is that of this post- Tall, Dark and Handsome. I recommend reading the whole article. It shouldn’t take much time, as it isn’t a lengthy one. As you will hopefully have read, the account contained therein follows the usual pattern:

• Good Christian Girl meets tall, dark and handsome Stranger
• Good Christian Girl learns that the Stranger is not a Christian (or his faith is lukewarm)
• Good Christian Girl is invited to spend time with Stranger
• Good Christian Girl decides that spending time with him is ok, its not like anything will happen
• Good Christian Girl discovers that she enjoys spending time with Stranger
• Good Christian Girl starts to experience “feelings” towards Stranger
• Good Christian Girl lies to herself about her “feelings”
• Good Christian Girl gets invited to some event or place where she would be alone with Stranger

This is where the usual pattern is broken. Fortunately for Camerin (the authoress of the article), she had some good friends with more sense than she did. They pointed out what was going on, and managed to get her to engage in some self-reflection. In having these friends Camerin demonstrated great luck. In acting reflecting on the situation, Camerin demonstrated far more wisdom than is typical in this day and age. It would have been very easy for things to have gone quite differently for her if she had lacked either.

As this story, and the countless other ones out there, should demonstrate, Christian women are affected by the same sexual attraction/arousal attributes that secular women are. This used to be common knowledge. Sadly, that wisdom was lost all with so much else in the last few generations. Christian mothers need to impart this knowledge to their daughters as they grow up, so that their daughters stand a chance resisting the temptations of this world. And Christian women need to stop deceiving themselves that they aren’t as drawn to the Tall, Dark and Handsome man as other women are.

Before I go, I wanted to quote and highlight this little tidbit:

The next time I saw Jake was at a dinner with some friends. Jake and some of the guys told stories about stupid things they’d done while drunk. I knew they were exaggerating a bit to impress and/or shock us girls, but I still should have been turned off. But for some inexplicable reason, I was still attracted to him.

This thinking is what you get when Christian Churchian culture misleads women about their own nature. If Camerin had known about what she was really attracted to it might not have made a difference. She might not have realized what was going on until her friend forced her to confront the truth. But perhaps she might have been clued in sooner. That could only have been a good thing for her.

P.S. It should also be noted that Camerin’s account appears to contain some other manospherian memes or tropes. There is Max, “my best guy friend,” who is most likely a Beta Orbiter. And there is the delusion about what she was actually attracted to: “I also realized that most of my attraction had been to his attention and flattery.” There are probably others, if I took the time to dig into the article further.

Miscommunication And Further Thoughts On Moral Agency

I.

One thing about the internet is that it exposes, for all to see, the vastly different communication styles that men and women possess. It is especially troublesome over the internet, where mistakes and the limitations of text can amply those differences. This post owes its origin and impetus to an incident that I suspect came about because of the divide in male and female thought and communication processes. I am writing this in response to a comment that was written by a woman who goes by the moniker Spacetraveller over at Dalrock‘s blog. Since it touches on Moral Agency, and because I haven’t written on it for a while, I thought a full post was a proper response.

It started with my comment in response to a few things Spacetraveller said in an earlier comment. You can find my original comment here.I will note at this point that my comment got chopped; several sentences were missing after “The answer would seem to be yes.” The missing sentences, which clarified some of what I was saying, may have tempered Spacetraveller’s response some if they hadn’t gone missing. Or perhaps not. Either way, what is said is said. Before continuing, I would encourage everyone to read my comment fully. Once done, you can read Spacetraveller’s response. The full comment is here, but as she addresses others as well I am quoting the relevant part of her comment below so as to save time:

Donalgraeme,

I am not sure what you are getting at. Is your argument one or the more of the following? Or are these strawman arguments of mine (that I have picked out from nowhere) that in no way reflect your thoughts?

1. I am a chaste man, but that’s only because no woman is chasing me. I do not expect a woman (who has many men chasing her at any given point) to be similarly chaste. It is just impossible.

2. Women have a natural desire to submit. So pre-marital sex is just another form of submission. So there…

3. Premarital chastity does NOT translate into post-marital faithfulness. All that rigorous moral training that young women used to have pre-marriage is unnecessary. All the data which shows that high pre-marital N-count is a risk factor for a woman commiting adultery because she is unable to stay faithful to one man …doesn’t count.

4. Asking a woman to suppress her sex drive before marriage leads to frigidity within marriage. All that self-control pre-marriage will just ensure that she continues to ‘control’ herself in her marital bed. (This one is my personal favourite).

5. ‘Keep your chastity’ is just as non-effective as ‘just say no to drugs’. It doesn’t work, so don’t even attempt it.

Donalgraeme, thank you for showing me the enormity of the problem we face in trying to correct the wrongs of the current SMP.
If a righteous man like yourself cannot fathom the idea that it is even remotely feasible for a young girl or woman to exercise some self-restraint before marriage, we are truly and totally lost as a generation.

You, like many well-meaning men are being hampered by the ‘women have no moral agency’ bug.
Whilst it is alright to note that many women are not doing the right thing with all the promiscuity that is going on, you seem to be resisting me for suggesting that we try to stop this. Because you see it as a ‘mission impossible’.
You make too many excuses for women. I am one, and I can tell you that we really do not need quite so many excuses, especially when it comes to sex. We are the sex that have the God-given ability to stave off sexual temptation more successfully than men (OK, I grant you, this becomes infinitely more difficult at ‘fertile time’, or ‘ovulation time’ when sexual drive in women approaches that of men…did someone say Bathsheba was in her fertile time when she decided to bathe in full view of King David? Um…if she had been in her non-fertile time, I am sure she would have bathed in a different place, away from prying eyes :)).

I am now convinced more than ever, that until this meme of ‘women have no moral agency’ is let go, things will remain as (rotten as) they are.
Which is another depressing thought.

I have just one more question: how does it benefit you to hold the views you do, Donalgraeme? Is it a self-preservation thing (‘it is impossible for women to be morally upright, so I accept that I can therefore never marry one’). Or is it a comfort to you to feel certain that you as a chaste man are morally superior to all women??

If either is the case, hey, that’s fine. I am however intrigued as to how this helps, in real life.
This level of ‘white-knighting’ is neither desired nor warranted though.
Because it gives you and other men more of the same as what you are getting – undesirable women.
I wish for you and others, that you get a better quality woman. I don’t have a younger sister (I am a ‘last born’). So the best I can do is make sure my daughter is a good one. And for that matter my son too. That is how I can contribute to the betterment of the SMP.

But it seems I shan’t be getting any help from you.
Shame, that is…
But no matter, I plough on regardless, with like-minded people.
If you change your mind in the future, please feel free to join us…

The rest of this post will try and answer her comment, and to expand/explain some of the themes connected to it. From Spacetraveller’s response it is clear that she didn’t understand what I was trying to say, much less my actual views. In the spirit of charity I assumed that she had merely misunderstood, in a dramatic fashion, and that prompted her response. Naturally I was concerned that my response was completely obtuse, and asked for second opinions to see if it was really that bad. Novaseeker helpfully chimed in and said that he disagreed with her conclusion about what I said, which has reassured me somewhat. Of course, that doesn’t mean I made sense, only that he came to a different conclusion. Hopefully this post will clear up previous misunderstandings and make my views on the matter a little easier to understand.

I will first begin by addressing each of the numbered points she brings up. Then I will cover some of her other points. Finally I will add a few thoughts of my own.

II.

Beginning with her numbered points:

1. I am a chaste man, but that’s only because no woman is chasing me. I do not expect a woman (who has many men chasing her at any given point) to be similarly chaste. It is just impossible.

In the past I am sure that the lack of women chasing me (or rather, the lack of desirable women chasing me) helped me in maintaining chastity. When I was in college in particular I think it was an aid. However, at present I think I am past that particular hurdle. By that I mean that I have built up my self-discipline to a point where I feel reasonably certain that I could resist any woman chasing me (at least, so long as I was of sound mind, i.e., sober). As for women, I believe that they can be similarly chaste. However, just as it can be difficult for a man to be chaste when he is “chased”, so too can it be for a woman. Being “chased”, especially by someone attractive and desirable, makes it much harder to resist temptation. At a young age this is especially true, when self-discipline has not been fully developed.

2. Women have a natural desire to submit. So pre-marital sex is just another form of submission. So there…

My word choice here was poor. So the misunderstanding here was entirely on me. I should have used the word yield, not submit. You see, its a pet theory of mine that women subconsciously want  to yield (sexually) to a man. But just not any man- the right man. Even as they resist the advances of men they feel beneath them, they secretly long for the man who isn’t so lowly- the man who they can “let through the gate”, if you will.

3. Premarital chastity does NOT translate into post-marital faithfulness. All that rigorous moral training that young women used to have pre-marriage is unnecessary. All the data which shows that high pre-marital N-count is a risk factor for a woman commiting adultery because she is unable to stay faithful to one man …doesn’t count.

There is definitely a link between pre-marital chastity and post-marital faithfulness. Statistics bear that out. However, there is no guarantee. A certain gentleman around these parts count vouch for that. Think of it this way- premarital sex makes the ability to bond and stay faithful weaker, but the opposite is not true. The bonding ability can only be damaged, it cannot be “improved.”

What I was trying to explain is that lumping not having sex before marriage and being faithful in marriage together ignores some significant situational differences. In the first situation, a woman (or a man for that matter) is entirely suppressing their sex drive. She has no outlet for it. In the second situation she has such an outlet, and should be using it whenever possible. A desire to “wander” on her part indicates that something more than just a desire to sate that drive is at play. A woman who has a high sex drive might have trouble being chaste before marriage. But if she marries the man she sins with, and stays with him, then there is only a slightly greater chance she will stray than if she had been chaste. Her problem was not a desire to sleep with lots of men, and be promiscuous, it was not sleeping with the particular man she wanted.

All of which is a way of saying this: I can see no advantage to requiring a woman to wait in order to demonstrate chastity, assuming she hasn’t strayed so far. That delay does not translate into something greater. And I am not the only person who believes this. In my latest Tradition post, St. John Chrysostom advised the very same thing I advise: marry children off when they are young. Help them find someone they burn for who will be a good match, get them married and give them that healthy and proper outlet for their sex drive.

4. Asking a woman to suppress her sex drive before marriage leads to frigidity within marriage. All that self-control pre-marriage will just ensure that she continues to ‘control’ herself in her marital bed. (This one is my personal favourite).

Does it always lead to frigidity within marriage? No. But it can and does. I believe that at least one of my readers and occasional commenters can vouch for the harm that the “purity” movement has caused with its antics. If you read around, you will find and hear stories that say just that. I didn’t come to this conclusion for the heck of it. It is the product of reading stories like that. Of hearing from men who married older virgins who found that they were frigid.

[DG: I am reconsidering this section, and may change my views after reflection. Understand that it may change if I come to a different conclusion]

[Here is the thing: it is not natural for human beings with a healthy sex drive to suppress that drive for long periods of time. It just isn’t. It may be required, for whatever reason, but that doesn’t mean that the consequences don’t exist. There are studies floating around which link men’s health to the frequency of sex they have. I’m not sure if similar studies are out there for women. But the point holds: everything has consequences. And requiring someone, woman or man, to suppress their sex drive for a long period of time will have consequences, whether they be physical, mental or emotional. Honestly, I’ve wondered about how I’ve been affected by my own chastity. I know that some damage has resulted, but I don’t know the extent. It is something that gives me considerable pause when marriage is concerned.]

5. ‘Keep your chastity’ is just as non-effective as ‘just say no to drugs’. It doesn’t work, so don’t even attempt it.

If all that is done is “say no to premarital sex”, then the truth is that it will be just as ineffective as “just say no to drugs” has proven. Emphasis on “all that is done.” My point being that you cannot simply say “be chaste” and leave it to that. As my original comment made clear, you cannot simply tell women to be chaste. You need to provide them the support they need to back this up, and to help them avoid situations where they will face grave temptations. Virtuous conduct is a community affair for everyone. Youth, especially, need people around them who will provide (real) moral support and look out for them.  As I indicated earlier in my original comment, sending young women off by themselves, either to college or to get a job, was not something widely practiced until very recently. At least, among those who could avoid it. When necessity compelled women to leave their homes and go elsewhere, it often did result in them being chaste.

III.

Having concluded the previous section, I will briefly try and address some of her other points.

If a righteous man like yourself cannot fathom the idea that it is even remotely feasible for a young girl or woman to exercise some self-restraint before marriage, we are truly and totally lost as a generation.

You, like many well-meaning men are being hampered by the ‘women have no moral agency’ bug.

Anyone who has read my blog knows that I do not hold such a view. Quite the contrary. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you haven’t read my blog and are mixing up some of my comments and arguments with those of other commenters at Dalrock’s blog.

You make too many excuses for women. I am one, and I can tell you that we really do not need quite so many excuses, especially when it comes to sex.

Let me assure you, I am not one to make excuses for women. If anything, I have been accused of going too far the other way.

We are the sex that have the God-given ability to stave off sexual temptation more successfully than men…

I will address that in the last section of this post.

I have just one more question: how does it benefit you to hold the views you do, Donalgraeme? Is it a self-preservation thing (‘it is impossible for women to be morally upright, so I accept that I can therefore never marry one’). Or is it a comfort to you to feel certain that you as a chaste man are morally superior to all women??

That is a good question, or a series of them, as the case may be… if I actually held those views.

This level of ‘white-knighting’ is neither desired nor warranted though.

I am not white-knighting here, trust me. I expect women to pull their own weight, just like men. However, I am also a realist. And that means that simply trusting people, without taking further steps, is not part of my approach to how to fix the problems we face.

IV.

I am going to conclude with two final points.

A.

First, I wanted to address this comment in further depth:

We are the sex that have the God-given ability to stave off sexual temptation more successfully than men…

Perhaps I am wrong here, but I find no Scriptural justification for this utterance. In fact, the Bible seems to take the view that neither men nor women are very apt to be successful here. Some of the early Church fathers do seem to have this view as well, but it is important to note the environment they adopt it in. Back then women did not act or live like modern, “liberated” women do. I will try and explain my thoughts on the matter as best as I can. Bear with me, this is difficult for me to get down to words.

I believe that in a relatively isolated situation without a lot of active temptations that women do have a greater ability to stave off sexual temptation. The primary reason for this is that the male sex drive is far more… predatory… than the female sex drive. Men are inclined to seek out sources of sexual gratification to a far, far greater degree than women. If left to our own devices, we will feel that impulse which will drive us to seek out a means of sating it. And that impulse is very, very powerful. And pretty much always active, with the exception of when we are very tired, or sick or famished. Think of the male sex drive as very pro-active. Whereas the female sex drive is more reactive. Women don’t have that same impulse to seek out sexual gratification. Nor is it as strong or constant. As St. John Chrysostom noted, “the management of them is easy.” But this only applies in an environment like what existed in his time- an environment in which young women didn’t wander the world like they do now.

When women aren’t isolated, their reactive sexual proclivities are less of a benefit to them when it comes to maintaining chastity. For one, they will be presented with more sources of temptation which could get them to react. Secondly, a woman’s sexual arousal state can vary far more than a man’s.

In most instance a man is always “on.” He is always at maximum. This means that a man who learns to control himself pretty much always learns to control himself when his sex drive is at maximum. Naturally, this is by no means an easy thing for a man to achieve. However, when a man does achieve it he is relatively immune- it becomes very hard to shake him when he is of sound mind [alcohol and certain situations might change this].Women, however, are not always at maximum. Their natural cycles affect how powerful their sex drive is. This makes is much more difficult for women to develop the discipline to control themselves when they are at their maximum. What this means is that women might have an easier time learning to control themselves during times when their sex drive is at low or medium. But they will find it more difficult to build the discipline to control themselves at times when their sex drive is a maximum because they will have less experience at it. And of course, their real maximum is not simply when they are at their cycle peak, but also when they are being aroused by an attractive man. Without experiencing both at the same time sufficiently, they won’t be ready for dealing with temptation when they are most vulnerable.

The end result of this is that in situations like today, I don’t think that women are any more suited to resisting temptation than men are. In fact, they might have a more difficult time for the reason just given- learning to control themselves at their “maximum” point is more difficult. Less opportunity means less chance to build that discipline.

B.

Also, I wanted to briefly touch on miscommunication. My suspicion is that Spacetraveller assumed that my comment was part of the larger discussion about moral agency in women that she was taking part in on the blog. It wasn’t- I was merely addressing a few points she raised in one of her comment’s, isolated from the rest of the overall discussion. What I think happened was an example of how men and women think differently. Men tend to compartmentalize ideas and discussions, while women take a holistic approach. In my mind I could see how my comment was merely a targeted addressing of a few select, discrete points of hers. She, on the other hand, naturally folded it into the overall context of the situation.

This highlights the importance of careful communication between men and women. When we talk with one another, we need to keep in mind that what is obvious to us may not be obvious to the opposite sex. While I think this particular explanation of our differences is a bit over the top, they truly are significant. The internet, because it is mostly limited to text, makes these communication problems even worse. Despite the fact that I should know better, I often forget that these differences exist. All of which means that when talking with women, I need to be especially careful in what I say and how I say it. Otherwise gross misunderstandings, such as the one in this post, will inevitably occur.

V.

That brings this post to an end. It could probably use some clean-up, but I want to get it uploaded sooner rather than later. So if anything needs fixing, I will get to it later. If anyone has any thoughts on anything I’ve discussed, feel free to express them in the comments below.

I do have one additional bit though- one of my readers, who doesn’t comment, was curious about a book called The Real Story. Are any of my readers familiar with it? And if so, what are your opinions on the book?

Matrimony Meltdown: A Guest Post By Mdavid

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shutting Their Eyes

Modern society shuts its eyes easily and willingly. We don’t want to see evil, or trouble ahead. And even for those that do, it must always be in measured amounts. They will squint, so that only some of the light comes through, leaving them with an incomplete picture.

Mrs. ktc clued me in to an example of this, found in this article by Camille Paglia- The Modern Campus Cannot Comprehend Evil. A few choice excerpts:

Wildly overblown claims about an epidemic of sexual assaults on American campuses are obscuring the true danger to young women, too often distracted by cellphones or iPods in public places: the ancient sex crime of abduction and murder. Despite hysterical propaganda about our “rape culture,” the majority of campus incidents being carelessly described as sexual assault are not felonious rape (involving force or drugs) but oafish hookup melodramas, arising from mixed signals and imprudence on both sides.

…

There is a ritualistic symbolism at work in sex crime that most women do not grasp and therefore cannot arm themselves against. It is well-established that the visual faculties play a bigger role in male sexuality, which accounts for the greater male interest in pornography. The sexual stalker, who is often an alienated loser consumed with his own failures, is motivated by an atavistic hunting reflex. He is called a predator precisely because he turns his victims into prey.

…

Misled by the naive optimism and “You go, girl!” boosterism of their upbringing, young women do not see the animal eyes glowing at them in the dark. They assume that bared flesh and sexy clothes are just a fashion statement containing no messages that might be misread and twisted by a psychotic. They do not understand the fragility of civilization and the constant nearness of savage nature.

Ms. Paglia is able to notice the animal eyes which glow in the dark. She can see the male predators out there. What she fails to see [or at least, acknowledge], however, are the predators in her midst.

You see, those women whom Ms. Paglia describes as naive are, in their own respect, just as feral as the men that she warns about. As a society we are quick to decry feral men, the male predators lurking in the dark. But we ignore the female predators who walk among us. We are quick to point out the evil in men, but balk at doing the same in women.

Someone like Ms. Paglia sees “bared flesh and sexy clothes” and worries about “messages that might be misread and twisted by a psychotic.” Her time, and society, would be better served by thinking [and talking] about what messages are intentionally sent with “bared flesh and sexy clothes” and how they are correctly read.

It is no accident that young women dress that way. Naivete has nothing to do with it. Women know, instinctively, the power their bodies have over men, and they use that power to get what they want: male attention and validation. Young women who dress that way are tempting men, they are provoking a sexual response in the deepest recess of the male psyche. Do men want this? For the most part, yes. Men like viewing attractive female flesh as much as attractive females like showing it. But that doesn’t change the nature of what these women are doing- they are tempting men, setting stumbling blocks before them. And even worse, they deny all the while that they are doing any of that. They claim empowerment as their rationale- as obvious a lie as any ever told.

Much is said by a few around these parts about how men push young women for sex in relationships (or push for sex instead of relationships). Yet in the present environment women push for it too (only they will deny it later if confronted). Don’t believe me? Go ask Ballista, he will have a story or two for you. I’m sure that Chad and Martel have similar tales to tell of women who pushed for sex right away. If you have been paying attention to the news lately (especially about female teachers sleeping with their students), you will know that women can be sexual predators too. Yet all together we as a society will ignore or downplay the dark side of female sexuality. We refuse to acknowledge that evil inherent in unrestrained female sexuality.

Message to Camille Paglia:

It isn’t just the modern campus that cannot comprehend evil- it is the whole of society. You see only that evil which you want to see, and nothing more.

Update: In case it wasn’t clear, the main thrust of this post was that we only recognize certain kinds of evil these days. Overt violence being the prime example. But other, subtler evils are not recognized or called out. I wanted to point out that Ms. Paglia was making much the same error that she was accusing college campuses of making.

Update 2: Sir Nemesis has questioned my criticism of Paglia. He argues that just because she hasn’t called out other evils, doesn’t means she doesn’t recognize them. Theoretically this might be true. However, I’m not familiar with her ever having done so. But focusing on what she specifically, has said or believes would be a mistake. This post is about more than just her. I’ve corrected the above post (with some additions and a strike-through), to try and make that more clear. The overall point, once again, was how some evils are recognized and acknowledged, and others aren’t. And there is a pattern to this which should be noticeable to those of us who give it careful thought.

Need Versus Want

Reader and commenter DJ recently left the following comment in my Questions and Suggestions page:

I’ve been reading and interacting for a while on your blog and one thing I realized isn’t clear in your posts. It often seems like you and others on this page would rather have a wife because they need you your [as] a meal ticket as opposed to they want to be with you. Bear with me on this[,] often there is talk about the good old days when women had limited options, at the same time there is complaining about a lack of sexual enthusiasm in women [with] “duty sex” and how that is hurtful. So I would like your take on this seeming inconsistency.

I have a small amount of free time with which to respond to his inquiry, so here is my hastily written reply. As always, I begin with by noting that I can only speak for myself. Other men around these parts will likely have different opinions on the matter.

From what I can tell, the main question that DJ is asking me is this:

Would you prefer your wife to feel like she needs you, out of material necessity, or would you prefer a wife who wants to be with you, out of sexual desire?

Now, if I had to chose between the two, and could only choose one of the two, then I would definitely choose the latter. If I was to marry, I would want my wife to want me- that is, to be sexually attracted to me.  As a number of bloggers have explained for years, especially Rollo, the female “attraction” (not my use of the term) for a man’s resources is no guarantee that a woman will want him sexually. Marrying a woman who fits the former category is risky- there is no guarantee that she won’t freeze me out, and then what? In the present environment I would have no recourse for a frigid wife. In fact, since she would be a net resource drain on me, I would be worse for marrying her.

Ideally, if I had to choose one thing that I was certain would bind a wife to me, it would be Christian marriage vows and all they encompass. If I could be assured of that, then I (and I suspect many other men) would feel far more secure. Sexual desire, after all, can be a fleeting thing. And as I just mentioned, material necessity is no guarantee of sexual desire.

[Ok, so I sort of lied before. I will claim to speak for others besides myself.]

When men around these parts talk about limiting female options, it is important to understand that we are not talking about some alternative system or method of getting women to desire us. It doesn’t work that way, and we know it. Rather, what we are discussing are possible methods to keep wives bound to their husbands. It is all about ties, really. And no, not the kind you wear.

If a woman feels like she needs a man’s material resources (meal ticket), then that need ties her to that man. If a woman feels sexually drawn to a man, and wants to sleep with him, that ties her to that man. If a woman is married to a man, and the law says she cannot simply leave him for another, that ties her to that man.

What we are advocating is a system where as many different social conventions, laws and other means tie wives to their husbands, as is possible. The more that binds a woman to her husband, the more secure the marriage is likely to be. This won’t necessarily affect her sexual desire for her husband, but it will protect him from divorce or abandonment. All things considered, this is better than nothing. Coupled with a restoration of “standing consent” to the legal system, and men will be much more secure in their marriages. Of course that means more “duty sex”, but from what I hear from many husbands duty sex is better than none at all. And many times what starts as duty sex will morph into enjoyment on her part.

So again, its not like we want one of these things over the others. We want both, and more besides. Women are moral agents, but they, like men, respond to incentives. And the more that is in place which encourages them to stay with their husbands, and to act as proper wives, the better. Of course, the same logic would apply to husbands as well. The overall goal is to incentive marriage, and incentive staying in marriage and upholding your vows, and to discourage the opposite.

Update: A few points of clarification.

1) I wouldn’t want a woman to be my wife only because she needs me to survive. I would want her to want to be with me. I suspect that neither of us would enjoy a marriage based only on material need. Nor would I even deserve a wife if I could only have one by forcing her to choose that path to survival

2) I am not looking for a wife simply to have an outlet for my sex drive. I want a great deal more, and am looking for a great deal more, in any woman I consider as a potential wife. Ideally, I would like someone I could have deep conversations with. Someone that I could relate to. Someone whose company I enjoy throughout the day, not simply when we are alone in the bedroom.

3) Lastly, I wanted to address this comment left by DJ:

It was more because I got the sense that the general feeling is if they don’t need me they will leave.

This sentiment is sparked by the fear that many men have that they will be abandoned by their wives. That they will be divorced, have their assets seized, their children taken from them and their lives ruined. Given the hideously high divorce rate right now, as well as the fact that women initiate most divorces, this is not an unfounded fear. It shouldn’t come as a surprise, then, that they would grasp for any means available to protect themselves from that fate. Since things like “wanting to be with someone” are ephemeral- you can always change your opinion about someone, after all- it only makes sense for them to support means that would work irrespective of what a woman might feel at one particular point in time.

A Feature, Not A Bug

Over at the Femininity building blog Girls Being Girls, Jenny laments how There’s No Character In The Dating Scene Anymore:

Character isn’t very important in our dating scene anymore. It used to be you would know the girls a guy dated before he approached you. You would hear the stories of how he treated them. You would know if he’s worked since he was ten or if he plays basketball for hours every day after school. Our dating market has somehow managed to isolate dating from character.

Jenny may not have realized it, but she has hit on something of considerable significance. To use software engineer’s parlance, what she has discovered is a feature, not a bug. Only instead of being an excuse, this really is a feature. The “dating market” replaced the “marriage market” in large part so this very phenomenon could take place.

You see, under a courtship system or market there was a certain amount of knowledge that was known and expected about everyone involved. A man wouldn’t have found it easy to court a woman as an unknown factor- her family wouldn’t have tolerated it. Instead, he had to introduce himself, to build history and rapport with her family or be backed up by trusted individuals who vouched for him. Or even better, he was a known factor because he grew up in the same community and his history was known to all involved. On the flip side, a man who courted a woman would also have access to a lot of information about her. Perhaps he grew up with her in the same community. If not, he could observe her family and talk with them. In addition, he could talk with members of the community who knew her well.

The point being that under a courtship model no one could really be an unknown. Everyone had history. Which leads to this statement by Jenny:

The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior

She is absolutely correct in this. Past behavior does give us a strong idea on what someone will do in the future. And that was a problem for a lot of people. For some their past behavior haunted them and acted as a huge handicap in the courtship/marriage market. For others it served as an obstacle, limiting what they could get away with. Yet others disliked marriage in general. All of them worked together to undermine the courtship model and to bring about something altogether new: The “dating scene”, which is in reality a sexual marketplace (“SMP”), because sex, not marriage, is the main goal now of most of its members. This new SMP has as its cornerstones mobility (provided through changes to the economy as well as new technology) and a lack of connectivity and history, which might perhaps be labeled “system memory.”

The first cornerstone, mobility, is all about the ability to move about to new locations, to new “markets.” If one particular area dries up, or you build a bad reputation there, you can always move to a new, fresh location.  In other words, you can escape your past behavior.

The second cornerstone, a lack of history and connectivity, means that most people in the dating scene don’t really know each other. Perhaps they have some similar friends or connections (otherwise how would they meet?), but those connections are far more tenuous than they would have been in the past. Outside of these potential sparse connections, those in the dating scene have little in the way of methods to learn about someone, apart from what that person reveals themselves.

Taken together, these two core components of the “dating scene” mean that you can always “start over.” This is especially easy if you are wise enough to avoid social media, and not let yourself build up an online presence (ironically the internet and social media in particular undermine this new system, hence the push to allow people to erase their internet history). Just move to a new location and you can begin anew. It is the perfect system for cads and harlots to ply their trade and largely escape the consequences of it.

This didn’t all happen overnight though. It took time for the SMP to replace the Marriage Marketplace. But as Jenny has  realized, that transformation is now complete. What little bit was left of the old courtship or marriage market is now gone. All that remains is “dating”, with all of its ugliness still intact. Again, this was not accident. It didn’t “just happen.” Isolating “dating from character” is the whole point of dating in the first place. If character still really mattered we wouldn’t even be talking about dating, we would be talking about courting. Boyfriend and Girlfriend wouldn’t exist as words, instead we would still use suitor. If you are lamenting how the “dating scene” looks now, understand this: what you are seeing now is not failure. It is success.

[Cross-posted at The Courtship Pledge]

Recommended Reading:

The Boyfriend Invention

 

Random Musings And Links- #2

Here are a few things that I’ve read recently that I think my readers might find interesting.

I found this post about punctuation in ancient Greek to be a fascinating read. It helps to explain some of the troubles with translating Scripture from the original Greek.

Courtesy of Mrs. ktc, here is a discussion on wifely submission at the Thinking Housewife which is very good in my opinion: The Importance of Wifely Submission. The comments especially are worth the read. She also posted a good quote last week of Pope Leo XIII on Inequality.

On a similar note, Deep Strength has a good post up on God and Marriage, examining authority and obedience, with a special emphasis on marriage. I left a few comments there, as did others, which I think are worth reading.

In that same post Infowarrior left an interesting link concerning Eleanor of Aquitane. I believe that she was one of the West’s first feminists, and think that the story in that link provides some good evidence of it.

Elspeth wrote a post a few days back advising husbands that We Will Get Over It. We Will. Trust me. It generated some intense commenting in response, with Empath disagreeing… strenuously. In reply Elspeth walked back a bit when she examined The Chicken and The Egg of relationships. As I was busy (primarily work, but I also have another post in the hopper that will be released later today or tomorrow) I didn’t participate. Having considered the matter some, I think that women can “get over it”… if they want to. The problem is that many (most really) women don’t want to get over it. They like to revel in “emotional terrorism” and don’t want to let go of that power, and the feelings its generates. Personally, I liken rebellious wives to drug addicts- if they don’t want to get better, if they don’t want to help themselves, there is nothing that other people can do to overcome this deficiency.

Allamagoosa discussed why the idea of “pregnancy transfers” isn’t exactly as great as some feminists think it is.

Her husband NSR alerted me to a Youtube sound loop that someone created of the Enterprise-D engines idling. Not bad for a white noise effect, if that is your cup of tea.

Agapoula got hacked recently and had to switch over to a new blog as a result.

Over at Girls Being Girls, a Southern Girl’s Guide to Flirting. I was intrigued by this line/suggestion:

“Be a good listener, but play hard to get.”  I  like that she said both, if you are overly submissive and eager, he might think there’s no challenge.  If you are too aloof and cold, he will be insulted.

I’m curious- are any of my male readers looking for a “challenge” in women. Speaking only for myself, I don’t care for that at all. Finding a good woman to marry these days is hard enough as is. A woman deciding to play hard to get doesn’t make this any easier. Perhaps it is just my INTJ at work, but I don’t like hard to get- at least, not until after I’m already sure that a woman like me. Before that I don’t care for it at all.

Over at Free Northerner’s, an intriguing post on the Traditional Family. If I get time I might respond to it later.

CaseyAnn has a brief, but interesting post about Modern American Posture. This has long been a problem for me, as I used to slouch a lot- although I have gotten much better in the last few years.

A few days back Zippy had a good post up about how Sola Scriptura is Positivist. I think all my Christian readers, Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant alike, would find it thought-provoking.

Apparently July is the month to celebrate all the tasty things that will kill you.

Moving on to things less likely to kill you… I am not a Zucchini person, but if you are then Mrs. C has you covered. Update with picture here.

Finally, Hearthie talks a little bit about her journey to become a better “First Officer.”

Making It Worth The Investment

TempestTcup, who helps run the Red Pill Women Reddit, posted a comment some woman left there not too long ago. It is short, but I will post only the central paragraph:

I am a very lazy person, and that makes it hard for me when it comes to most things feminine, because being traditionally feminine requires so much effort: I don’t cook anything from a recipe, I never bake, I don’t wear make-up, I don’t decorate, I don’t knit or sew or do crafts, I put minimal effort into my outfits, and I dislike shopping with a passion. However, I don’t really have any traditionally masculine interests, either – I can’t be bothered about sports, I don’t play videogames, I don’t read comic books, I don’t hunt/shoot etc etc.
I am interested in some of these things, I have a passing knowledge of many of them, but I don’t really care very much. Because of this I sometimes find it hard to converse with women on either end of the spectrum (and with men, sometimes) because I am rarely passionate about the things they are passionate about.

This doesn’t exactly paint a flattering picture of this (young?) woman now, does it? But her response is only the catalyst here. What interested me more than her indulgence of the sin of sloth were a couple of the comments made in response to the post. Commenter Cadders left this:

Ummm…..craving leadership…..male leadership perhaps?

Tempest followed up with a comment of her own:

True, but what male leader wants to put up with someone that catatonic? I bet it’d take a crowbar to wrench her out of her chair

And here Tempest gets to something very, very important. Few, if any, men would be interested in trying to lead that woman to a better state of life. It would be a major investment of time, and probably money. And for what gain? What kind of personality do you think that this woman possesses? I imagine it isn’t particularly endearing. What we are talking about here is a total make-over for this woman- nothing else will do.  Essentially, she has to become someone else entirely for any man worth his salt to want to be with her for the long term.

I’ve covered the subject of “training” a woman to be wife material before, in my post Some Assembly Required. In it I discussed what I could, and could not “train” in a woman to make her wife material. I also explained that I would, in fact, be willing to do that kind of “training”, and invest in a woman who shows potential. The thing is, I’m only going to invest in a woman if she makes it relatively easy and inviting for me to do so. [Edit: And I would only do so in areas where I am really just helping her change herself- like losing weight, for example] Dalrock’s metaphor of the Two Beaches is appropriate here, I think. A woman who makes it easy for me to “train” her, who doesn’t put up obstacles and fights me along the way? I’m willing to chance that. But a woman who turns this from a chore into a battle? Pass. [Edit: Not only would I not want to endure that kind of battle, but it would show she is beyond my ability to help/influence anyways.]

I mention all of this because the comment that Tempest highlighted reminded me of a young woman I  worked with a few months back. For a while I considered whether I could, and should, “train” her towards being wife material.  I knew she and I shared some similar views on life, and that she was a Christian.  She did give off some Christo-Feminist warning signs, however, and that gave me pause. On the other hand I thought I  could probably correct her in a relatively short time frame, and if that didn’t work out then I could always leave before having invested too much time and effort. I also had reason to believe she was a virgin. Of course, much of the reason for that is that she was quite overweight. Enough so to easily push her out of the acceptable category, at least as she was. What she had going for her was the fact that she still had something of a pretty face, which hinted at good genes. I suspected she would actually be quite attractive if she lose the excess weight.

Given all of this, I was tempted to “train” her up. I didn’t though, because she presented me with (to keep the previous metaphor going) an Omaha Beach like environment. Her personality was atrocious. She was extraordinarily difficult to work with, as she was flighty and controlling at the same time. She couldn’t take orders or follow them, and yet couldn’t lead at the same time. All in all, she thoroughly disabused me of the notion of trying to “train” her to be wife material. [Edit: Not only did I not want to “train” her, I knew that I couldn’t.]

As Tempest alluded to before, I didn’t [Edit: and don’t] want to put up with someone like her. There were simply too many barriers in my ways to make it worthwhile. “Training” her was a long-term project that I rationally concluded was a bad bet- I had no assurance of success, while at the same time I was assured of a high cost. A woman has to want to change, and be willing to change, in order for a man, or me at least, to consider “training” her to be wife material. That young woman showed neither inclination. In short, she didn’t make it worth the investment.

Unashamed Of The Faith

Today’s post is concerns a story from The Daily Blaze about two young girls, named “Precious” and “Hope”, who escaped from Boku Haram in Africa:

At first, the fighters pretended to be part of the local army, driving in similar vehicles and wearing clothing resembling military garb. Precious and the other girls believed they were there to protect them from the militants that were hiding in the tall brush.

But then, the men started pulling some of the girls out of bed, giving them no time to get dressed. Others grabbed what they could, mainly Bibles and clothing.

The men rounded up the hundreds of girls outside.

…

When the men had gathered the girls at the front of the school compound, one of them said, “We will release you but you have to get married. No more schooling,” Hope said.

Some of the men fought and shouted amongst themselves. One said, ”We have to call our master before we let them go. Keep them.”

The Boko Haram militants had parked three large trucks and several smaller cars at the compound gate. Before loading the girls in, the men confiscated all of the Bibles and any clothing the girls had managed to grab.

“The moon was so high and the fire was so bright there was no place we could hide or run,” Hope said.

The girls were told to get into the trucks, but it was too high for some and they couldn’t reach. Some of the men pulled the small cars alongside and then brought the rice bags they had stolen from the school to be used as a step to climb up.

When there was no room left in the trucks. Precious was standing alongside a small vehicle.

There were three girls, however, the militants didn’t have room for. One of the men shouted, “Are you Christian or Muslim?”

One of the girls was a Muslim, so she was allowed to run home, Precious said.

One of the Christian girls was pushed to the ground and a militant placed the muzzle of his weapon against her head.

“Renounce your faith or we kill you,” he said.

“It’s better to die than to renounce Christ,” the girl replied, Precious said.

He yelled it again, Precious said, pushing the girl farther into the hard earth. Then he let her up.

“He said, ‘Run home or we will kill you.’ They let the three girls go and they went running home,” Precious told Greve.

Precious didn’t know why they let those girls go. It didn’t matter why.

She was then shoved into the trunk of the vehicle.

I said earlier that this post concerned the girls who escaped from Boku Haram, but that exactly isn’t true. The post is really about that young girl who would rather die than renounce Christ. That young girl showed more courage, more conviction, than all of the mainstream Churchian pastors out there (you know who they are) combined. She was pushed hard into the earth and had a gun up against her head. She had every reason to believe that death awaited her if she refused to renounce her faith. But she didn’t.

Compare that to Protestant and Catholic leaders who will bite their tongues and not speak up about core Christian doctrine. Do they face death when they speak the Word? Hardly. They risk not death, but making women (and plenty of men) uncomfortable. And what will come about as a result of that discomfort? The worst that can happen is they lose their job, not their life. Yet, despite the far lesser penalty they would experience for defending their faith, these “Shepherds” will hem and haw and twist Scripture like a pretzel so as to not offend members of their congregations. Of course, that assumes that said “Shepherds” actually believe the Word in the first place.

As I think on it, this account reminds me of the tale of the Seven Brothers, from Second Maccabees. We in the West have become weak and soft. We’ve forgotten the true depth of sacrifice sometimes required of us for our faith. This is a difficult road to walk, even in the best of times. Yet so many of us aren’t even willing to take minor steps to stand up for the truth of God’s Word. I am no exception, I too have failed to walk the road when it was asked of me.  Looking back on my life, I am now ashamed of the times when I was silent, when instead I should have spoken up. To the best of my abilities I won’t make that same error again. I think all of us need to keep in mind that young girl, and be unashamed of our faith.