Quote Of The Day- October 7th, 2014

Today’s QOTD comes from Novaseeker, from this thread at Dalrock’s:

There is no way society will tolerate men having sex on the regular with a woman and then being able to get away without paying. No way.

Source here.

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.

Q & A

Tonight’s post is dedicated to answering a few of the questions that I’ve been been asked since this blog started. They have been left as comments, or sent to me via e-mail. Some I’ve answered before, and I will try and include a link to those answers. Others might have been addressed only obliquely, or not at all.

—————–

Question: Is this a Game blog?

Answer: No. This is not, nor has it ever been, a “Game” blog. While I accepted its legitimacy for a while, I’ve come to realize that Game, if it can even be defined, is not something which can be supported.

—————–

Question: Hey, I thought this was a Christian blog, so why are you talking about sexual attraction and the kind of stuff Pick-Up Artists talk about?

Answer: Because sexual attraction matters to everyone looking to get married, Christian or not. In an age where people largely choose their own mates, a person’s sexual attractiveness plays a huge role in determining whether they can get married or not. By ignoring this for so long, the Church has only made the marriage situation worse in the west.

—————-

Question: Wait, I thought this was a Red Pill bog… so what is all this Christian stuff doing here?

Answer: While I cover topics that generally fall under the umbrella of “The Red Pill”, I am also a Catholic Christian. That belief system is not something that I simply set aside when I cover topics which aren’t normally addressed by Christians. As far as I’m concerned many “Red Pill” topics are of great concerns to Christians, and so I approach them from a Christian perspective.

—————-

Question: Why do you hate women?

Answer: Contrary to popular opinion, I don’t hate women. In fact, I happen to like actual feminine women quite a lot. In fact, I find their presence (both virtual and real) to be quite enjoyable. Truth be told, I’m not very good at hating anyone (trust me on this, I’ve tried).

—————-

Question: Well then how come you want to subjugate women in marriage then?

Answer: I don’t want to subjugate women in marriage. I am a Christian, and as a Christian I recognize that wives are called to subject themselves to the authority of their husbands. That is a far cry from subjugation, given that their husbands at the same time are required to love them as Christ loved the Church. If anything women are getting the better end of the deal. Plus that requirement is for their own benefit, as it will help make their husbands more attractive in their eyes.

—————–

Question: But why do you talk so negatively about women?

Answer: It is important to keep in mind that this blog is aimed primarily towards men. Women are welcome, of course, but my principal audience is men. And men talk and interact in a very different manner from women. If that makes women uncomfortable, so be it. I’ve explained this in a more complete fashion in several different posts. Here is one of them.

——————

Question: What is with your name?

Answer: I explained the rationale behind my name in this post.

—————–

Question: You keep using weird terms and words like SMV and FI and Hypergamy- what do they mean?

Answer: I wrote a post defining some of the terms that I use here.

—————–

Question: What do you have against feminism and feminists?

Answer: Feminism is one of the greatest frauds perpetrated upon mankind. It has no foundation in religion, science or reality, and has wrecked countless lives in its long existence. Feminists, at best, are useful fools and at worse callous monsters who don’t care whom they hurt so long as they get the society they want. Never mind the fact that they can never actually have what they want, and the process of bringing it about will bring civilization down around us.

—————–

Question: Why is it that someone as smart as you is a Christian- surely you know it’s superstitious nonsense?

Answer: That superstitious nonsense has done a far better job of predicting our present social devolution that science has. Its explanations of human nature have been proven correct time and time again. Likewise, the moral code and social order that Christianity supports is demonstrably the best means of checking the excesses of human behavior and providing the stability necessary for orderly and non-stagnant civilization.

—————–

Question: How can you call yourself a Christian when you refuse to forgive women who have sinned (sexually) in the past? Don’t you know that God has forgive them?

Answer: To begin with, to forgive someone I would need to be sinned against. If a woman has fornicated with someone else, then besides a general sin against the church community, she really hasn’t sinned against me. So there is nothing to forgive, really. And yes, God has forgiven her for her trespasses. But just because the spiritual consequences of her sin may be gone, the physical/temporal consequences are not necessarily wiped away. The worldly effects of some sins last well beyond the point of repentance. For sexual sins, a woman’s ability to pair bond can be damaged, or she could even be an Alpha Widow.

—————–

Question: How come all of the men here are cold, insensitive and uncaring jerks?

Answer: For the most part, none of the men in this part of the internet wanted to be that way. They were forced to become cold and uncaring, often out of necessity. Some were unjustly divorced by their wives, their marriages and families torn apart by women who cared more about their own enjoyment and “feelings” than their marriage vows. Others have undergone years or even decades of sexual denial at the hands of their wives. Many have hearts of ice as a result of years, decades for some, of rejection by women, who ignored them to chase after bad boys instead. Yet more have become cold as a result of despair arising from an inability to find worthy women to be their wives. The truth is that most men are romantics at heart, including the men around here, but the women in their lives crushed that right out of them.

—————–

Question: If you are a Christian, how come you see marriage as just an exchange of goods and services?

Answer: The short answer is that I don’t. As for a longer answer…. It is important for women to understand that men are able to compartmentalize things in their head in a way that women either don’t or can’t match. We can talk about marriage in transactional terms one minute, and then examine it from a sacramental perspective in another, and then debate its relation to Christ and the Church in a third. I would very much advise my female readers to be wary of projecting female thought processes onto myself, and the men around these parts. Men and women are very different- we think differently, we perceive the world differently, and we react to stimuli differently. So don’t assume that when we say something that it means the same thing it would if a woman said it.

—————–

Question: How come, if this is a Christian blog, you let pick-up artists and their like comment here? Why the hypocrisy?

Answer: My allowing someone to comment here is by no means an indication that I approve their lifestyle or share their beliefs. Sometimes a different perspective can be a valuable thing, if only to illustrate a point I am making. As a general rule, I let most people comment here, so long as they are civil and respectful to other commenters.

—————–

Question: Well then, how come I can’t comment here? Why did you ban me?

Answer: I have banned very few people on my blog. If you cannot comment for some reason, it might be that you are included in my spam filter. Its possible that you ended up there by accident. If you want to comment but cannot, feel free to e-mail me and I will look into it. You can reach me at d0nalgraem3 -at- gmail.com (no spaces or hyphens, just use the @ symbol. Also, that is a zero in the name).

—————–

That is what I have for now. I’m sure I think of more soon, and add them to this post. In the meantime, if my readers have any more questions (preferably ones that can be answer in a paragraph or two), feel free to mention them in this comments of this post.

Can’t Win For Playing The Game

If this article is to be believed, at the University of Michigan a man can be a perpetrator of sexual violence whether he sleeps with a woman, or not:

Examples of abuse listed on the University of Michigan’s domestic violence awareness website say “sexual violence” includes “withholding sex and affection” and “discounting the partner’s feelings regarding sex” – definitions that have come under fire by some men’s rights activists.

The terms, found under the heading “definitions,” also suggest verbal or psychological abuse include: “insulting the partner; ignoring the partner’s feelings; withholding approval as a form of punishment; yelling at the partner; labeling the partner with terms like crazy [and] stupid.”

Oh wait, there is no need to believe them, they link to the University’s website directly in that article (and in the first sentence, no less).

This madness keeps on getting worse and worse. And there seems to be no end in sight. Of course, rules like this make for excellent Black Knight fodder.

Just think about it. The word partner isn’t defined in that document, meaning that it is open to interpretation. So there is all kinds of room for abuse present. So what is to stop a man from claiming to be a partner with a woman, and then accusing her of sexual violence if she refuses to sleep with him? Or even show affection, such as with hugs or kisses. The possibilities to twist this system against itself are endless. At least, they would be if they were ever intended to be fairly applied. But I think that most of us know that that was never the intention. Despite the inclusive language, women are supposed to be the survivors, and men the abusers. Still, I’m sure an enterprising, would-be Black Knight could find plentiful ways to amuse himself at this absurd system’s expense. In fact, this would be the perfect opportunity for a Beta-Orbiter to achieve some measure of revenge. And he might have the close contact with a woman to pull off the “partner” bit too.

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.

Object of Contention

I.

Mrs. ktc over at To our bodies turn we then had a post some days back (found here) in which she linked over to a discussion at The Thinking Housewife in a post called Looking for a Wife.

The discussion starts thanks to a commenter named George- a frustrated mid-30’s Christian man who cannot find a wife. While there is a lot to dissect in his comment, and the ones that follow, I want to focus on one particular segment of his comment. Specifically, the parts in bold of his second to last paragraph:

This lack of goal fulfillment is most dispiriting when it comes to family formation, as I feel that if I cannot find and marry a mate within a few years that it will be too late from a practical perspective to achieve my goal of having a family. After 35 the single male is for better or worse seen as defective and a romantic discard, especially those who are shy and have had little experience in relationships. They are seen as losers and I have come to the conclusion that this is absolutely the correct way to view them. They are not up to their duties as men to procreate, provide, and protect and they have failed the game of life. This of course also means that I consider myself to be a loser. Is this the correct way to view such men? I understand that not all men want to marry or have families, that some men abstain for religious or other convictions, and that events in life sometimes lead to undesirable but uncontrollable outcomes. But I have had plenty of time to do the heavy lifting and have failed to do so, frankly out of cowardice and fear, and also because it is very difficult to find traditionally minded women out there.

[Emphasis mine]

Comments were closed there, so I couldn’t respond, which is a pity because I had a lot to say about this. This post is about objectification of men, and how it relates to George and to other men in Church. It will be in two parts- the first addresses George specifically, and the second men who find themselves in a position similar to George (somewhat older man who is moderately successful yet unmarried).

II.

My first, initial reaction was disgust. Here was a man who had completely, unreservedly accepted the feminist construction of man as an object designed to serve women. Under this view men exist only so far as they can provide for and protect women, and for a rare few, procreate with them. It is the ultimate objectification of men (unless someone can clue me in to one that is worse), turning them into mere tools for women. Ballista over at Society of Phineas has countless posts about this mindset. Plenty of other bloggers have addressed it as well, including Dalrock and Free Northerner, to name a few. And this guy had bought into it hook, line and sinker. His question “Is this the correct way to view such men?” is a meaningless formality, and not a serious inquiry, as one can tell by both the proceeding and following sentences.

George’s real problem is not his lack of a wife. That is a problem, true, but one that can wait. First he needs to recognize the poison that has infiltrated his mind and eject it, forcibly (much like removing snake venom from a wound). In its place he needs to accept that men (and women) exist to glorify God, first and foremost. Everything else comes second. To place anything about serving and glorifying God is Idolatry. And that is what George has (apparently unconsciously) done. Note how serving God never shows up in his comment in reference to himself. He is an idolater and doesn’t even realize it. Until George transforms his mind, until he reassess his worth and value, everything else he does is moot.

What would I tell George?

I would tell him that serving God needs to be the primary focus of his life. Perhaps that means doing so as a husband and father. Perhaps it doesn’t. Prayer and discernment are key- figure out your vocation, your calling so that you can do what God wants you to do. At the same time, recognize your value as a man doesn’t depend on how well you can “procreate, provide and protect.” Your value is based on how well you serve God. It is not based on how well you serve women. If society teaches something other than that, society should be ignored. Conform to God, not the world. Oh, and once that is done, remember you aren’t looking for a woman whom you will serve as your wife. You are looking for a helpmeet, a woman who will help you serve and glorify the Lord.

III.

This brings me to another point. Even after a man stops objectifying himself, he needs to watch out for other people, especially other Christians Churchians, who will objectify him. Now, I gather from George’s comment that he has relatively little, if any, sexual history. So what follows will be based in part on that assumption, as applied to him and to other single Christian with little to no sexual history.

I’ve written in the past that “sometimes I get the impression that a lot of Christians see good, virtuous men as janitors or sanitation workers who are expected to pick up the “trash” in church.” I believe that this phenomenon is largely a result of Christians Churchians having come to objectify men (aided along by the feminine imperative, of course). They view men as tools or resources that can be used to solve problems. This is especially prevalent among those in leadership positions, who have to confront those problems in church and find solutions for them. One such problem is the former carousel rider and/or single mother. Both are problems in their own way, especially the single mother, who is almost certainly a net resource drain on the church. What I think happens is that is that when someone in leadership looks at that situation, he sees a problem that needs solving. And what do you do when you have a problem that needs solving? You look for the right tool to fix it, of course. Enter the single Christian man looking for a wife- here is the solution to the Church’s problem! When he marries that washed up harlot single woman the man has the wife he was looking for, and the Church no longer has a drain on its resources. And if there were children, why they have a father now!

Of course, someone with that mindset is motivated by what is best for them, and best for the church as an organization. They do not have the best interest of single Christian men in mind. Certainly they never stop to consider what would make for a good wife for the somewhat older single Christian man with little to no sexual history. If they did they would realize that such women would certainly not be good wives for men in George’s position (Truth be told, they might not be good wives for men in any position-but that is another matter). Of course, those who have that mindset would never stop to consider what would make for a good wife for men like George. If they did, they would have to recognize that it would be women whom the church would be in short supply of, and the kind of women that most people in the church don’t want marrying anyways (devout, younger, not unattractive women with little to no sexual history).

I would say to George and to a man in a similar position the following: marry a woman because you want to marry her and because she is a good match for you and you are a good match for her, not because others want you to marry her. Unless God orders you to marry a harlot, you are under no obligation to wife one up. Don’t let anyone convince you otherwise. You have no duty to rescue a woman from her past mistakes errors by marrying her. You do not owe it to a child that is not yours to marry his or her mother just so that child has a “father.” You should take to wife a woman who is a good match for you (and vice versa), not someone that people in church are trying to offload on you. Marriage is meant to glorify God, through properly channeling human sexuality and rearing God-fearing children. It is not about reducing the monetary burden of a Church. Or for providing a happy, fairy-tale ending to all the women in Church. If anyone tries to press the issue, make it clear to them that you are a man, not a tool. You have inherent value and dignity. This means you aren’t obliged to marry an unsuitable woman*. And don’t hesitate to make that abundantly clear. If they don’t respect that position, then leave that church, shake the dust from your feet, and find a new community of actual Christians.

IV.

In summary:

Men, don’t objectify yourselves. You exist to serve and glorify God, not to serve and glorify women. Also, don’t let others objectify you, especially when it comes to a wife. Marry a woman who is a good match for you. If you don’t have much of a sexual history, ignore those who want you to marry a single mother or former carousel rider. If they don’t accept your decision, leave that church and find a better one.

* I should at this time emphasize that suitability is the most important thing here. A woman might have truly, earnestly repented of her past but that doesn’t automatically mean she would make for a good wife. I am working on a post (hopefully out by Friday) which will examine what men should look for in a wife, and it will delve into further detail on this. But some qualities, like sensibility and good judgment, are crucial for a woman to have to make a good wife, and a man needs to look for them in a potential bride. Women who have grievously sinned (especially sexually) knowing what they were doing have demonstrated a serious lack of such traits. Furthermore, they might never gain good sense or judgment, despite their repentance.

Of course, that covers only character. As readers of my blog are well aware there are other reasons why a woman’s past might not make her suitable as a bride, especially for a man with little to no sexual history. A woman whose innocence was stolen from her is not at fault for her past, but unfortunately that past can and usually does impact her marriage. A man must carefully discern whether such a woman is a suitable match for him, and also whether he is equipped to deal with the consequences of her tragic past. My suspicion is that few men with no sexual history are ready or capable of this. A similar reasoning applies to women who were not raised to see fornication as a sin- they are usually not a good match for such men.

The important thing is prayer and discernment. Don’t let anyone else manipulate you into what is likely to be a bad marriage. 

Adult Man Defines “A Real Woman”

Donal Graeme authored this list at the age of [redacted]. His closing comment: This list is not exhaustive and women like this do exist!

A real woman . . .
… doesn’t strive to be an equal to men. She understands that she was created to be a helpmeet, a suitable helper, to man and lives accordingly. (Genesis 2:18, 1 Corinthians 11:9)

…is quiet in church and asks men for spiritual guidance. (1 Corinthians 14:34-35, 1 Timothy 2:11)

…is chaste and ignorant of the sinful ways of the world. (Titus 2:4, Sirach 26:15)

…will embrace her femininity and not dress or present herself as a man. She will keep her hair long. (Deuteronomy 22:5, 1 Corinthians 11:6)

A real woman . . .
…isn’t embarrassed to cover her head when praying or spreading the Word of God. (1 Corinthians 11:2-16)

…knows that being wise and sensible is essential to being a Godly woman. (Proverbs 2:1-10, 1 Samuel 25:3, Tobit 6:12)

…won’t spend her prime years chasing a career and instead seeks to get married while she is still young, pretty, and fertile. (Proverbs 5:18, Sirach 15:2, Sirach 26:20)

A real woman . . .
…won’t try and usurp leadership when it isn’t her place. She doesn’t try to take over the role of men in church in order to prove something. (Titus 2:4, Ephesians 5:22-24, 1 Peter 3:1, 5-6, 1 Timothy 2:12)

…is kind so that “the word of God may not be discredited.” (Titus 2:4, Proverbs 31:26)

…knows better than to believe everyone, especially when they tell her things she wants to hear. (2 Timothy 3:6-7)

…would never think to gossip or spread lies. (Proverbs 16:28, 1 Timothy 5:13, 2 Timothy 3:2-3)

A real woman . . .

…will never date or become romantically entangled with a non-believer. (2 Corinthians 6:14-15)

…values her purity for the valuable thing that it is. She is not ashamed to live and act differently from the world in order to guard herself. (Sirach 26:15, 1 Corinthians 6:13-20)

… won’t be controlled or swayed by her base impulses. (2 Timothy 3:6)

… would never desecrate her body with a tattoo. (Leviticus 19:28)

A real woman . . .
… will never dress like a slut. She isn’t ashamed to dress differently from non-believing women. (1 Peter 3:3-4)

…doesn’t act like a bitch. She is polite and gracious to everyone she meets. (Proverbs 11:16, 1 Peter 3:4, Sirach 26:25)

…will keep her body fit and healthy. She doesn’t eat too much and won’t let herself become fat. (Proverbs 23:21, 31:17, Philippians 3:19)

…never gets drunk. (Titus 2:3, Sirach 26:8)

A real woman . . .
…loves her children and family. She won’t sacrifice them or eat them because it is convenient. (Titus 2:4, 2 Kings 6:26-30, Lamentations 4:10)

…is pleasant and expresses joy all the time. She never sulks about and laughs when things don’t go her way. (Proverbs 31:25, 1 Thessalonians 5:16)

…doesn’t blame others for her own problems, especially men, and instead embraces responsibility. (Proverbs 12:27)

…listens to the wisdom and teaching of her elders.  (Titus 2:4)

A real woman . . .
…controls her temper and her emotions. She refuses to let anger control her and bother those around her. She can deal with mood swings and rejects her innate emotional nature. Instead she approaches life from a clear-headed and logical perspective.  (Proverbs 14:29, Proverbs 17:27, Proverbs 25:24, Sirach 25:20)

…works hard, is capable of providing for a family and is financially responsible. (Proverbs 31:13-22)

…will not speak unless it is absolutely necessary. She refuses to chatter or nag. (Sirach 26:14, 27, 1 Peter 3:4, James 1:26)

… is a wonderful cook, and cooks every meal from scratch using fresh ingredients, unless her husband dictates otherwise. (Proverbs 31:14-15, Sirach 26:13)

[This post was inspired by this post by Allamagoosa.]

[Update: Added some suggestions from folks and tweaked the wording of the post somewhat.]

An R-Rated Subject

Today’s relatively short and hastily written post is going to address a subject that may not be for everyone. I’m sure that more than a few of my readers will not care for it at all. It is bound to generate some heated debate and disagreement.

The subject, of course, is romance.

Recently I was engaged in a conversation with a young woman who reads my blog on occasion and she indicated that she didn’t believe that men cared about romance at all. I disagreed, and asked why she thought that. She pointed towards the manosphere/androsphere  and the fact that most of the men in that community deride romance. Apparently for her discovering the ‘sphere had been something of an epiphany, as it had informed her that men weren’t interested in romance. While cautioning that the ‘sphere isn’t necessarily an accurate cross-section of men, I disagreed with her conclusion that the ‘sphere demonstrates that most men aren’t romantic or otherwise have no sense of romance.

If anything, I explained, the rise and “success” of the ‘sphere owes to the fact that men are the more romantic of the sexes [an area where Rollo and I are in agreement]. The reason why so many men find their way here, in fact the reason the ‘sphere exists, is in large part because many men were romantic for a large part of their lives. And that it didn’t work very well for them.

Men might not be very romantic, but if so then women are even less romantic. For all their talk of romance and its associated trappings- flowers, poetry, letters and the like, women these days sure don’t hesitate to associate themselves with men who display zero interest in romance. And by associate I mean sleep with, if not pursue (and sometimes get) relationships with, such men. As for those men who are interested in romance… well, the word Incel doesn’t exist because some guy got bored and decided to make something up.

If the men in these parts don’t seem very romantically inclined, I would argue it is because their romantic nature was burned out of them. By women. And by extension poor advice from other men. Men can only sustain so many rejections…. they can only watch for so long as women abandon the romantics for the players and cads whose idea of a gift is skittles… and men can only tolerate so much betrayal before their sense of romance collapses in on itself and dies like a red giant turning into a white dwarf.

She disagreed. Instead of believing that most men start as romantics, she argued that most men took to romance only because they thought it would work. That it would get them the female attention they so greatly (and desperately) desired. I started to compose an argument to rebut hers, but then realized that I was basing most of what I would say on just myself. As someone who was (from an early age) and still is, a romantic at heart, I would naturally disagree that most men are just mercenary about romance. The thing is, I don’t actually know that most men are really like that. I’m not exactly an average male in a number of ways, and I know I’m not a representative sample.

So while I understand the sample size is small, I’m hoping my male readers here can chime in. Do you consider yourself a romantic? If you aren’t now, where you a romantic at some point in the past, before the world turned you away from romance? What caused you to lose your sense of romance?

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

 

Keeping The Reward

It is clear to anyone of good sense nowadays that something is very wrong within the Church when it comes to marriage. Divorce, once near unheard of, has become so commonplace as to be an accepted part of life. The median and mean age of marriage continues to get pushed back. And many young Millenials have decided that they simply won’t marry, for a variety of reasons. Marriage among Christians has never been in a more precarious position.

This crisis has come about due to a multitude of factors: no-fault (aka unilateral) divorce, rampant promiscuity, legalized and easily available contraception and abortion, feminism and the elevation of romantic love are just a few of them. As Christians living in a post-Christian culture, there is little or nothing we can do about many of these. In many respects it seems that the only thing that Christian parents can do is educate their children in the faith and impart as much moral guidance in them as possible. But this isn’t true. There is something that Christian parents can do, something that used to be done, the absence of which is amongst the many reasons why marriage is in such a poor state today.

What is this “something” that parents can do to help their children?

They can actively work to help their children marry young.

Parents used to do this- they used to seek out wives and husbands for their sons and daughters. They used to help arrange marriages for their children at a young age. [Contrary to popular myth, an arranged marriage is not the same thing as a forced marriage; the latter were terribly uncommon, generally found only among the nobility.]

Unfortunately, this practice, like so many others, has fallen to the wayside in recent decades/centuries. Our love of freedom and independence has lead most parents to let their children handle matters of marriage all by themselves. Ostensibly this is because young Christian men and women have the right to choose their own future for themselves. Yet in practice what is really going on is that young Christians are being thrown to the wolves- they are thrust out into a broken Marriage Marketplace that chews most of them up. A lucky few manage to make it through unscathed, but most are caught up in either promiscuity or involuntary celibacy.

Sadly, few Christians seem to be willing to take the steps which will help their children escape this fate. Again, the solution  is very simple, with just two components:

1) Help their children find worthy spouse candidates…

2) and help them marry those candidates while they are young.

The excuses are many as to why parents won’t help their children out here, and amusingly enough, they aren’t original either. My research into the early history of the Church has lead me to discover that the advice I and others are giving now has been around for a long, long time. Here is what Saint John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople and Doctor of the Church, had to say on the subject of parents raising their children and caring out their souls:

Hear this, ye fathers and mothers, that your bringing up of children shall not lose its reward. This also he says, as he proceeds, “Well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children.” (1 Tim. v.10.) Among other commendations he reckons this one, for it is no light praise to devote to God those children which are given them of God. For if the basis, the foundation which they lay be good, great will be their reward; as great, if they neglect it, will be their punishment. It was on account of his children that Eli perished. For he ought to have admonished them, and indeed he did admonish them, but not as he ought; but from his unwillingness to give them pain he destroyed both himself and them. Hear this, ye fathers, bring your children up with great care “in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.” (Eph. vi.4.) Youth is wild, and requires many governors, teachers, directors, attendants, and tutors; and after all these, it is a happiness if it be restrained. For as a horse not broken in, or a wild beast untamed, such is youth. But if from the beginning, from the earliest age, we fix it in good rules, much pains will not be required afterwards; for good habits formed will be to them as a law. Let us not suffer them to do anything which is agreeable, but injurious; nor let us indulge them, as forsooth but children. Especially let us train them in chastity, for there is the very bane of youth. For this many struggles, much attention will be necessary. Let us take wives for them early, so that their brides may receive their bodies pure and unpolluted, so their loves will be more ardent. He that is chaste before marriage, much more will he be chaste after it; and he that practiced fornication before, will practice it after marriage. “All bread,” it is said, “is sweet to the fornicator.” (Ecclus. xxiii.17.) Garlands are wont to be worn on the heads of bridegrooms, as a symbol of victory, betokening that they approach the marriage bed unconquered by pleasure. But if captivated by pleasure he has given himself up to harlots, why does he wear the garland, since he has been subdued?

Let us admonish them of these things. Let us employ sometimes advice, sometimes warnings, sometimes threatening. In children we have a great charge committed to us. Let us bestow great care upon them, and do everything that the Evil One may not rob us of them. But now our practice is the very reverse of this. We take all care indeed to have our farm in good order, and to commit it to a faithful manager, we look out for it an ass-driver, and muleteer, and bailiff, and a clever accomptant. But we do not look out for what is much more important, for a person to whom we may commit our son as the guardian of his morals, though this is a possession much more valuable than all others. It is for him indeed that we take such care of our estate. We take care of our possessions for our children, but of the children themselves we take no care at all.What an absurdity is this! Form the soul of thy son aright, and all the rest will be added hereafter. If that is not good, he will derive no advantage from his wealth, and if it is formed to goodness he will suffer no harm from poverty. Wouldest thou leave him rich? teach him to be good: for so he will be able to acquire wealth, or if not, he will not fare worse than they who possess it. But if he be wicked, though you leave him boundless wealth, you leave him no one to take care of it, and you render him worse than those who are reduced to extreme poverty. For poverty is better than riches for those children who are not well-disposed. For it retains them in some degree of virtue even against their will. Whereas money does not suffer those who would be sober to continue so, it leads them away, ruins them, and plunges them into infinite dangers.

The above quote is from his Ninth Homily on First Letter to Timothy. Written over 1600 years ago, Saint John Chrysostom’s words ring true now just as they did in the early days of the Church. There is so much wisdom contained therein that I am not sure where to begin in dissecting and analyzing these two paragraphs.  Here is but a brief encapsulation of his sage advice and teaching, along with my thoughts about it:

– Parents ought to be concerned most of raising their children to be virtuous. Nothing else is nearly so important. If they raise them well, great will be their reward. Raise them poorly, and the punishment accordingly great.

• This sentiment is now mostly lacking in Christian parents. Rather than raise their children to be virtuous, they raise them to be successful. How many of you have heard parents brag about the successes of their children? About the great deeds they are accomplishing, or the bright future they have ahead of them? Then ponder, if you have the stomach for it, on how many times you’ve heard parents praise the virtue of their children, and deeds which clearly manifest that virtue (as compared to the modern equivalent of blowing a horn ahead of them).

– Rather than be given great license, young Christians need to be restrained, disciplined and mentored. Discipline applied at an early age will bear fruit later in life.

• This advice is so eminently true and obvious you almost wonder why it need be said. But sadly there are some Christian parents who clearly need it, because they spoil their children and give them free reign. What befalls those children later is entirely tragic, and entirely foreseeable.

– Train children to be chaste. The best way to do this is for them to marry young (especially sons). Promiscuity before marriage weakens the marital bonds, and invites future sin.

• Preaching young marriage is counter-cultural even in the Church these days. I know plenty of Christians who advocate that people “wait” to marry, including many parents. They seem to have little to no concern about the dangers of temptation when they thrust their children out in a world that is fully of vice and promiscuity. Speaking from personal experience, I know that it is extraordinarily difficult to maintain a virtuous life while still single, especially in this culture. The temptations and frustrations are incredible, and many will not be up to the challenge.

– Parents take more care preparing their property for their children then they do actually raising their children. They spend a great deal of time thinking about who will work with their son, but not stop to think of who will marry him and whom he will spend his whole life with. If a child has strong morals, and is full of virtue, then they will get through life safely and securely. No amount of wealth can cover deficiencies in character or virtue.

• This part I found disturbingly prescient. I mean, isn’t he describing the general phenomenon of parents sending their kids off to college to get an education and develop a career to a T? Parents are doing everything they can to prepare their children to succeed at life in all areas except (for many) the most important: marriage. This is an obvious recipe for disaster.

In conclusion, Christian parents these days need to reconsider how they are raising their children. Are they raising them to succeed at worldly matters, or are they raising them to excel at loving God and keeping His commandments? Unfortunately, most nearly everyone in the Church has, whether willingly or not, conformed to the world. While we may profess different things from our secular brothers and sisters, we act little different when it comes to raising our children. This needs to change.

A vital step in that change is the role Christian parents play when it comes to their children and marriage. Christian parents need to reject the secular approach of leaving marriage entirely to their children. Instead, they need to get involved early, and often, in their children’s lives to help prepare and train them to marry well. The effort begun with the Courtship Pledge by Scott and Mychael is an example of how Christian parents can do their part to change how Christians look at and understand marriage. This project, and efforts like it, is critical to restoring Christian marriage and raising up a new generation of virtuous Christians who will bring light to the world.

I would entreat all Christian parents reading this to ask themselves what they are doing to prepare their children to live virtuous lives, what they are doing to help their children maintain their virtue, what they are doing to prepare their children for marriage, and what they are doing to help their children find and marry a worthy spouse. Then ask yourselves what more you can do for those entrusted into your care, so that you might not lose your reward.

[This is cross-posted over at the Courtship Pledge]