Analyzing Attraction- Part 5

The latest in my long running series is here. The first post can be found here, and the fourth here. Today’s post is going to be less focused than the last.

“Guypergamy”

One of the infamous commenters who occasionally frequents these parts has accused men of acting in a manner entirely similar to women when it comes to mate maximization. Her argument is that men are just as picky and choosey  as women are, and that only the “hottest” women will get asked out/dated/married by men. She calls this “Guypergamy.”

Setting aside the ridiculous name, there is an element of truth to this. As most who frequent this blog are aware, lifetime monogamy is not natural to the human condition- neither men nor women are naturally monogamous. Women are inclined to serial monogamy, while men are inclined to polygamy.

The natural male response when a man comes across a woman he wants is to add her to his existing “harem.” If he runs across two at the same time, he takes both rather than choose between the two. Or as the old joke goes: If you ask a man whether he prefers a blonde, brunette or redhead, his answer will be “yes please.” You can see this especially with David and Solomon in the Old Testament. Although Jacob is another good example. When he got Leah rather than Rachel at first, he didn’t discard Leah when he later got Rachel. Essentially, the male instinct isn’t to replace an existing woman with a new one when a man run across her. When a woman is “discarded”, it is usually due to her age or a lack of resources on the man’s part (prioritizing them for himself and the women he prefers).

This dynamic changes dramatically when men are forced into hard monogamy- aka, lifetime marriage. When men are confronted with “one and done,” their behavior shifts. They start to become a lot pickier. Far more picky, in fact, then they are normally. However, I don’t think that men are ever quite as picky as women tend to be. But it can be close.

And that is just in a “hard monogamy” marriage market. Things become even more complicated when the market is as distorted as it is now. When lifetime marriage and the MMP is distorted, two different forces are at work. On the one hand, the lack of viable product (marriageable women) forces men to lower their  standards or go without. And on the other hand, the instability of marriage and easy dissolution of marriage makes men even more cautious and choosier. This leads to… interesting results.

The most likely result is that men simply leave the market. They give up and go home. But another result, the one more applicable to this neck of the woods, is a little more complicated. These are men who we might call R&D men- Resigned & Discriminatory. While they haven’t given up on marriage, they are resigned to the fact that they probably won’t marry. And they are highly discriminatory about who they will actually marry. They have strict standards and will generally stick to them. I strongly suspect that most Christian men in the future will fall into this category. Not that there will be necessarily be a large number of such men- I see a strong contraction in the numbers of the faithful ahead in the future.

As for how choosey these men will be, I predict fairly choosey. Knowing the odds, they will insist on getting a good deal in the marriage market, or they will simply walk. This means a number of things will be part of their “list”: lots of feminine traits, a high degree of devotion, chastity, minimal feminist/worldly beliefs, youth and good looks. The latter is what drew the ire of the aforementioned commenter. She (and others) disliked that men would only pay attention to the “hawt” girls.

I understand and sympathize a bit with her perspective. But only so much. It is unfair, certainly, as she and other “good” women aren’t responsible for this mess. But a mess is what has been left to us. And men are finally starting to adapt to it. From a male perspective, here is what is going on in our heads:

If we are going to take the risk of marrying in the present environment, then we are going to insist we get the best possible deal out of it. In other words, we want a reward on equal footing with the risk. And that means, in large part, youth and beauty (which often go together). Beauty I will explain in the next section, but youth is also important to such men.

One of the rewards that men in this category are apt to seek is a large family. Not all, of course. But many will have that desire. The younger a woman, the more she brings to the table when it comes to fertility. This will increase her perceived “reward” value. And that is the conscious factor. Men are unconsciously drawn to youth in women. It has an appeal that we never really lose, as evidenced by various “studies” which show that the ideal age range of women for men is around 20-21.

Now, for a while men have been accepting older and older women as their brides. The general increase in median age of marriage demonstrates this. However, I suspect that men are going to be increasingly wary of marrying older women. This was tolerated at times in the past, but I don’t think that toleration will hold in the current broken market.  Desperation will still affect many, to be sure. There will always be “thirsty” men. But as more R&D men emerge, or put another way, as they become a larger share of the marriage market, I expect that women will have a harder time marrying later.

Those are just a few of my thoughts on the subject. I invite my male readers who might fall into that category to offer their own.

The Holy Lampstand

One constant in my various discussions of attraction is that someone shows up and says that Christians shouldn’t be taking attractiveness into account when marriage is concerned. Most often it is directed only at men, and not women. One such person, going by the moniker Corvinus, showed up recently at this thread over at Dalrock’s to make that same, old, tired argument. He, assuming it was a he, basically stated was that all matters was for a woman to be a Christian. Her attractiveness doesn’t matter. Fortunately a number of commenters there, including Feminine But Not Feminist, quickly took him(?) to task over his(?) foolhardy arguments. The following hypothetical from FBNF pretty effectively shut him down (as evidenced by the fact he hasn’t responded to it):

If a Christian woman were to show interest in marrying you (if you’re a man; if you’re a woman then just say so), but you had absolutely zero attraction to her to the point that the idea of having sex with her is repulsive to you, had trouble keeping up a conversation because you just don’t “click”, and she is so crazy and unkind to you that you don’t even like being in her presence at all, but she still said she would be interested in marrying you… would YOU PERSONALLY be willing to marry this woman that you flat-out don’t want, just because she “is Christian”? If “yes” then please back it up with something from Scripture that clearly shows that men are obligated to marry such a woman simply because she is Christian (good luck finding that). If “no” then please explain why you wouldn’t do so but are telling every other man here that they should.

 The thing is, you could remove the part about “clicking” and personality/craziness and it would still work. Marrying a woman whom you are not attracted to is a recipe for disaster. Even more so if she repulses you. The only exception might be for those men who have no sex drive. But they probably should marry at all, as St. Paul makes clear in 1 Cor 7. And that passage also highlights the importance of being being inflamed with passion towards your spouse. Because if you aren’t towards her, than you will be towards someone else. And that leads to ruin, as the Book of Proverbs makes abundantly clear several times. Proverbs also makes it clear that the way to cool your passion is through your wife:

¹⁵ Drink water from your own cistern,
    flowing water from your own well.
¹⁶ Should your springs be scattered abroad,
    streams of water in the streets?
¹⁷ Let them be for yourself alone,
    and not for strangers with you.
¹⁸ Let your fountain be blessed,
    and rejoice in the wife of your youth,
¹⁹     a lovely hind, a graceful doe.
Let her affection fill you at all times with delight,
    be infatuated always with her love.

(Proverbs 5:15-19)

It is kind of hard to rejoice in her if you never felt that “spark” in the first place. But even with that in mind, the notion that men should not or cannot consider a woman’s beauty has no scriptural basis. Far from it- in fact Scripture speaks to quite the opposite:

¹⁷ Like the shining lamp on the holy lampstand,
    so is a beautiful face on a stately figure.
¹⁸ Like pillars of gold on a base of silver,
    so are beautiful feet with a steadfast heart

(Sirach 26:17-18)

²² A woman’s beauty gladdens the countenance,
    and surpasses every human desire.

(Sirach 36:22)

And then of course there is the entire Song of Songs, which extols female beauty (along with the handsomeness of the man). When you point this out (admittedly, a little harder for Protestants who have tossed aside the Book of Sirach) those who argue against considering attractiveness always like to trot out Proverbs 31:30. When you point out that Proverbs 31 didn’t say to ignore or set aside beauty, but to remember it is fleeting, and that the rest of Proverbs warns about letting it bedazzle you, most usually huff and leave.

The thing is- life isn’t fair. Some win and some lose when it comes to good looks and attractiveness. That doesn’t sit well with a number of folks, but that is how the world is. As unfair as it is, men just like beauty. We do. There is something inherently pleasing and uplifting about it. Even when not in a direct sexual context, it “gladdens the countenance.” I don’t think women really understand just how powerful this can be. Telling men to set beauty aside will be no more successful in the long run than telling women they should be drawn to supplicating and weak men.

That is not to say that men cannot prioritize other features of a woman above her looks. We can, and many do. But it isn’t easy. And we never really set it aside- instead, we make a conscious decision to accept less of it in the hopes of gaining something else (hopefully) more valuable instead. At least, that is the case for those with options. For those without options, then it is less determination and discrimination at work, and more desperation.

The key point, as always, is that a man should never marry a beautiful woman just because she is beautiful. That is a plus, certainly. But since looks fade over time it is a passing pleasure. So ground your decision on traits that don’t fade like that. In the end, they are far more valuable to your enjoyment of your marriage, and life as a whole. Not to mention much safer for your soul. That said, there is no reason why, all things being equal, a man shouldn’t marry the better looking of two women.

What Is In A Name?

In my previous post of this series, which examined Hypergamy, I ended up deciding that I didn’t like the word as applied. I suggested that a new word or phrase was needed to explain the phenomena that it was used to describe. So I invite my readers to give it their best shot. Think of a new and more accurate name to describe the phenomena described and commented on in my last post in this series.

That brings this post to a conclusion.

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?

Cardinal Burke Is Getting There….

As many of you may have seen through links on other blogs, Cardinal Raymond Burke gave an interview recently in which he addressed the Church’s “Man Crisis.” You can find the full interview here. Reading the interview made me tentatively hopeful. There were definitely some good things said by the Cardinal, and a few that could seemingly be drawn from some Catholic “Red Pill” blogs around these parts. A few of his statements, however, showed that he still has some ways to go in understanding the present crisis. I cannot help but feel, however, that he is on the right track, and hopefully this is a harbinger of further understanding by him and the Magisterium in what is truly going on.

I’m going to use this post to very casually dissect his post, by highlighting what he gets right and where he could use further enlightening.

What Cardinal Burke got right:

• First, he understands that there is a serious problem right now with men in the Catholic church. A crisis even. Further, he doesn’t indicate a belief that the problem is temporary or in the process of being solved.
• He correctly identifies that radical feminism has caused a huge number of problems for men in the Church and throughout the general culture
• The Cardinal recognizes that the Church has been “feminized” in the last 50 years and this feminization of the Church has significantly impacted men in a negative way.
• He seems to recognize that Catholic men are not as “manly” as in the past, and that manliness is no longer taught or encouraged.
• The awful state of catechesis in the church is recognized and declared to be the severe problem that it is. I’ve seen first hand, and many of my commenters can attest to, the terrible teaching that many Catholics or Catholic converts receive.
• As part of the above, present Catholic teaching about marriage, outside Traditionalist circles, is terrible.
• He understands the essential and irreplaceable role of a father in the development of children.
• Cardinal Burke’s mention of how men in the 70’s were afraid of marrying the women around them was extremely potent.
• The home life for many Catholics now is lacking. He doesn’t say it directly, but I gather he recognizes that most Catholic parents don’t really ensure that children live their faith.
• His language concerning the Novus Ordo Mass makes me think that he recognizes that it is not very appealing to men. It can be satisfactory, as he notes, with good music and proper reverence. But this is often lacking.
• On the other hand, the Traditional Latin Mass is usually more appealing, as it lacks the bad music and is extremely orderly and reverential.
• He recognizes that there is a rampant denial of sin in the present environment.
• While he doesn’t go outright and say it, its clear that he views Vatican II as having caused some serious negative side-effects.
• His words about encouraging priests to be more manly were quite good.

Here is where I think improvement needs to be made:

• Cardinal Burke denounces radical feminism, but apparently fails to see that “soft” or “traditional” feminism can be just as damaging to men, and has been. Frankly, any “ism” can be dangerous, and the toleration of “good” feminism is ultimately more dangerous than radical feminism will ever be.
• He does not really talk about divorce and divorce laws and how they helped influence and set up the present “man crisis.” I suspect he does not fully understand the present divorce environment.
• Some of his language about men and service to the family is troubling. It very much seems to fit the “married man as a mule” approach that has been a core part of Churchianity for quite some time. In particular his mention of chivalry concerns me. I have every reason to believe that he doesn’t understand what it really is.
• Connected to the above, he doesn’t discuss or mention how fathers have lost authority and respect in the family- key incentives in encouraging this vocation among men.
• While he acknowledges how important fatherhood is, he doesn’t address how it is mothers who often sabotage it in the present environment.
• He talks about various things that push away men, yet commits one of them throughout the interview: he constantly reaffirms that he hasn’t forgotten women or their issues or their feelings. He even throws in some flowery compliments. This is something that almost never happens in the reverse, and is a powerful message to men that they don’t matter as much as women.
• When it comes to pornography the Cardinal gets is nearly all wrong. Yes, its a sin and a major problem. But pornography is a symptom of a greater problem, and reflects the distorted view of sexuality in the present environment; it doesn’t create it.
• One of the most important things that he doesn’t touch on, which is essential to understanding the state of men in the Church, is the role of women in shaping them. Men and women shape each other all the time. You cannot understand the “man crisis”, or fix it, without understanding the role women play in influencing men.

While I know I didn’t touch on everything, the above two lists are, I believe, fairly comprehensive. I invite my readers to offer their own thoughts on Cardinal Burke’s interview. Did I miss something in my post? Did I get something wrong? Have a different take? Feel free to voice your thoughts. As always, I ask folks to be respectful and civil to other commenters.

As an addendum, here is an additional article that is old and probably familiar to most of my readers, but worth re-reading- Young men giving up on marriage. It sort of ties in to the OP, and I may explain why in the comments later if time permits. Hat tip Mrs. ktc.

Analyzing Attraction- Part 2

This is the second part in my most recent series on Attraction. It will be short, as will most posts in this series. You can find Part 1 here.

Why Are We Talking About This?

My various posts on sexual attraction have led many to ask, either in comment or via e-mail, two questions that relate to one another. The first:

Isn’t this supposed to be a Christian blog?

Which is invariably followed by:

If so, why are you talking about sexual attraction?

Both are good questions, and despite having answered them before many times, I will take the time to answer them yet again.

Yes, this is a Christian blog. I am a Christian (a Traditionalist Catholic, to be precise), and that background impacts this blog. And the reason I am talking about sexual attraction is because it matters to Christians. Especially those who want to marry. You see, despite the proclamations of some neo-Gnostics in the last few generations, devout Christians do not suddenly become asexual creatures. With the exception of those with the charism of singleness, humans are sexual beings. Becoming a Christian doesn’t change this. What it does do is require us to control our nature, and to channel it towards righteous ends- aka, marriage.

The thing is, sexual attraction plays a significant role in the marriage marketplace. Even as Christians we are still drawn to those whom we find sexually attractive, whether we realize it or not, and whether we admit it or not. Unfortunately, there have been a lot of lies told about sexual attraction in the past few generations. And Christians have been the ones peddling them more than any other group. Sadly, these lies have taken a considerable toll on many good Christian men and women.

What are the lies I’m referencing? While there are plenty, the greatest set of them have to do with what women find sexually attractive in men. Note that I said sexually attractive, and not simply attractive. As was discussed in the previous post in this series, attraction is a broad enough term to include many different things, including general traits that women like men to have. But those traits are not the kind that arouse women. And whether something arouses a woman or not matters. Because women, just like men, are sexual creatures. Yes, even Christian women. Thanks to their hypergamous nature and strict filters, among other things, women will “overlook” men who are not sexually attractive to them. Such men just won’t show up on their “radar.” Furthermore, Christian women have the exact same tendencies and triggers towards attraction and arousal that non-Christian women possess. As Deep Strength has explained, there are good reasons why women are drawn to them. This problem is compounded by the fact that most women don’t even understand their own attraction filters, or will deny what they know about them.

Christian women will not see sexually unattractive men as husband material (at least, not until they reach the Epiphany phase, but that’s a discussion for another time). Which means that a Christian man looking to marry who isn’t sexually attractive is going to be ignored/rebuffed by the Christian women around him (And that’s assuming that the women have healthy and realistic filters, which is often not the case). Those women who set sexual attractiveness aside are almost certainly bad risks for one reason or another, so they aren’t a real alternative. Those women who are marriageable filter men based on their sexual attractiveness, whether they realize it or not.

If Christian men want to marry, and more importantly, to marry well, they need to learn what women find sexually attractive in men, and what they don’t. They need to know what arouses women, and what turns them off. Without this knowledge Christian men are basically resigned to groping in the dark. In the present MMP that means they have next to a zero percent chance of marrying well. This is, needless to say, a recipe for disaster. We have already seen the effect of this in the last generation or so. Christian marriage rates are plummeting, and the divorce rate is… well the fact that I’m talking about a Christian divorce rate shows the magnitude of the problem.

Towards that end, this blog has explored, and will continue to explore, sexual attraction/arousal in women, so as to help devout Christian men marry virtuous Christian women. As I am one of those men, this is quite self-serving on my part, and I don’t deny my own selfish motivations for exploring this subject. Yet I hope to help other Christian men as well. First, because I consider it my duty as a Christian to do so as a form of loving my neighbor. Second, because in helping others I may well help myself. Third, if I should marry and have children one day, I want my children to be able to find spouses of their own- which means that those good Christian men out there, who will make for good fathers, need to marry and have children as well.

So expect to hear more on this subject well into the future. Which probably means later this week.

Advice For A Prodigal Daughter

A bit of a different post for today. Certainly a break from the one before. Today’s post is a response to an e-mail I received recently,  one which is the latest amongst many that have run along similar lines. It came from a woman who I will refer to as ‘Prodigal Daughter’ throughout this post. I am writing this post for Prodigal Daughter and the other women in her position who e-mail me or have commented her on my blog, asking for help. Also, I want to have a post I can link to in the future when similar questions or concerns are raised.

As a measure of protecting her privacy, I’m going to paraphrase the content of Prodigal Daughter’s e-mail. Brackets are my explanations for things which either weren’t in the original e-mail or had to separated from the original message. Here is the paraphrased e-mail:

Prodigal Daughter began by asking for what I believed was the case about men in general, and not myself in particular.

This was followed by an explanation that she was millennial woman who is presently committed to living a serious Christian life, including biblical submission and a desire for a large family. However, she had sinned sexually in the past with a man. [So N=1.] She indicates that she is fairly good looking.  She hopes to find a God-fearing husband who will lead her future family. While she has turned her life around, she recognizes that she made serious errors in the past [and didn’t seem to excuse them]. She very much detests what she has done, but there is nothing she can do about it.

She acknowledged that a lot of God-fearing men only want a woman who has been chaste throughout her life, and she understands why. Her main question was whether it was a possibility that a God-fearing man could “forgive her past” and choose her as a wife despite her history. Was that wishful thinking on her part, and she was no longer desirable as a wife? [Prodigal Daughter can accept not marrying, if that is what happens, but she really does want a husband.] She sought my honest opinion on what men would think, knowing I couldn’t speak for all of them.

—————————————————————————————————————————

Before I get into my response, I would like to mention that I want to keep this post about helpful advice and suggestions. This post is intended to have a very specific focus. I will police this thread heavily, so keep that in mind. People can respond to the e-mail or my suggestions, but free-ranging debates that get off-topic will be deleted. Just wanted to be clear about that from the get-go.

One thing that needs to be addressed before responding to Prodigal Daughter’s inquiry is an important prerequisite. This is not directed at Prodigal Daughter but towards women who are in her shoes. They need to honestly ask themselves if they really are ready or capable of fulfilling the duties of a Christian wife. It is essential for women with sexual sins in their past to do some serious self-reflection (although it applies to all kinds of sins and harm in the past too). Sexual sins/history can (and often do) have a serious impact on a woman’s ability to maintain a healthy relationship, especially a lasting one like marriage. I know that some of my readers and plenty of others out there will disagree with this, but I do think that some women end up being so scarred by their past that they cannot (or are unlikely to) overcome it. So all women in this position need to examine themselves and make sure that they are not so damaged. A full post can be written on how to do this and what to look for, but a major warning sign is a sense of disgust or revulsion associated with sex, in whatever form or context. If you [in the general sense] have blocks in place that would interfere with your ability to afford a future husband his conjugal rights, I’m sorry but you should not pursue marriage. At least as long as you have that block.

[Prodigal Daughter has indicated that she doesn’t have this problem. She wants to enjoy sex in a manner pleasing to God and to her future husband. In fact serving her husband in this manner would be a joy to her.]

Having covered that, now to the main topic.

Reading through the e-mail, it looks to me that Prodigal Daughter is looking for the following:

• A God-fearing man
• Who is willing to lead her and her family; and
• One who will overlook her past

Prodigal Daughter, I will be blunt: you will probably have a very difficult time finding the husband you want.

Much of your difficulty, perhaps even most of it, will not be due to your past. Sadly, the general state of the Faith, the Church and marriage in the West these days is so bad that finding a God-fearing husband will be difficult for many Christian woman. Understand that this is a lousy market for Christians who want to marry and follow God’s commands. Whether a woman has been chaste her whole life or not, she will find a dearth of marriageable and marriage-minded Christian men out there. [The even bleaker situation Christian men face is covered well enough elsewhere on my blog.] So understand that the situation is tough irrespective of anything about you personally. [Prodigal Daughter has indicated she has noticed some of this already.]

That is the overall picture. As for the more specific…

First off, it is not a question of a God-fearing man “forgiving” you your past. You didn’t sin against him, at least, not him specifically. It would only be in the general sense of sinning against the church, of which he is a member. Rather, this is about him ignoring or overlooking your past, and either hoping it doesn’t affect your marriage or accepting the consequences that it means for your marriage. Again, this isn’t about forgiveness. We are called to forgive as Christians; but this is about a man evaluating whether or not you would be an acceptable wife. Your past choices will affect your abilities as a wife. Men will be deciding if you are worth the risk that your past entails.

Now, God-fearing men fall into several “camps” as far as a woman’s sexual history is concerned. Some, especially those who have been chaste themselves, won’t ever accept as a wife a woman who hasn’t been chaste. [For the sake of disclosure I should mention that I personally would fall into this camp.] It is tough to get a read of just how many men are in that camp. Others will hesitate about it, with the amount of baggage you have being a determining factor. The more you have, the more likely it will tip the scales against you. Your other attributes will matter here a great deal.  Of course, not all God-fearing men are as “picky”, especially those who have themselves fornicated in the past. What will matter to them will be your recent actions and your present state. There are also those who have been indoctrinated to think that it a woman’s sexual history doesn’t matter or that they are lesser men if they let it affect their judgment. While that can work for you, I would advise you be be careful when dealing with such men. You don’t want to marry a man who will secretly regret his choice or later resent being told to bury his wishes.

With an N (number of premarital sexual partners) of 1, you are in a far better position that many other prodigal daughters out there. Many of the men who would consider marrying a woman with a sexual history will be far more accepting of you with such a low number. They will know you aren’t a slut (a crude word but accurate and useful here). Instead  you are a woman who erred with a single man. Either you did so once and realized your error right away, showing more wisdom than most. Or you stuck with it, and showed an interest in a serious relationship. As sad as it is to say, this is in your favor. Most millennial women have higher N’s than that.

So in sum, there will be some God-fearing men who will not accept you as a wife because of your past. But your history is not so bad as to push away all of them.

Age is another possible hindrance. The older you are, the more restricted your choices. A man might be willing to overlook a certain history in a 20 year old that he wouldn’t for a 30 year old. In addition, men are drawn to youth in women. All else being equal, we will choose the younger woman. In addition, the younger you are, the more time you have to find someone. I would also point out that those men who want a larger family will want to marry a younger wife in particular.  The manosphere likes to throw around certain numbers, 25 years old and 30 years old being the most prominent, as ages past which a woman is not marriageable or worth marrying. I wouldn’t worry about that all that much- the ‘sphere is quite small and women past those ages can and do marry.  But it could always be a factor, so it is important to understand and accept that. Plus it means you shouldn’t waste time- this really does need to be the primary focus of your life right now.

In summary, the older you are/get, the tougher the situation will be.

You have mentioned you are fairly attractive. [Prodigal Daughter has explained she works out daily and eats well. She dresses modestly and attractively, and has her hair long and well groomed.] This will be in your favor, and might ultimately be what helps you find a husband. Men are drawn to beauty as well, and it might help a man decide you are worth the risk. Even when we shouldn’t, men will overlook a lot for a pretty face and a shapely body. Keep taking care of yourself here, this is a chance for you to really stand out. Keeping your weight down and your body-fat percentage in a healthy range gives you a leg up. Just keep in mind your attractiveness is tied to your age, so it will be of less help the more time that passes.

So where am I going with this? Simple- your situation is difficult… but not impossible. Your past counts against you, but your looks will help you out. Your age can help or hurt- it depends on how old you are. But women in your position can and do marry. Even to God-fearing men. So it is not a lost cause.

Here are a few pieces of advice that might help you out:

• Look at men older than you. Don’t just look at guys within 1-3 years of your age. You need to be looking well past that. Seriously consider men 5 to 10 years older than you. Trust me on this. An older man will appreciate having a younger wife, especially if she is still pretty. He might not care about history as much either, as he will be grateful to have a wife.
• Look out for men who are recent converts or “prodigal sons.” The men most likely to accept your past failings will be those with a sinful past as well. You will find more of those among those who have recently joined or returned to the church. Widowers, while rare, are a possibility if their wife died young.
• Be pro-active. Many men are gun-shy about marriage these days. Emphasize your support of, and willingness to engage in, Christian marriage (with biblical submission and everything). Ask around if anyone knows of any men who are looking for a wife. Introduce yourself and be friendly with the unmarried men in church. Talk with your fellow women, find out if any have brothers or cousins who might be interested in marriage.
• Set realistic expectations. Prince Charming doesn’t exist in real life, and never has. The highest value, most attractive men might not accept you because of your past. Age could also push some away. So be realistic, not picky.

I cannot promise that anything I’ve said will be of any help. Like I said, it will be a hard road, but not an impossible one. However, it is entirely possible that you may never find yourself a husband. Many God-fearing Christian men and women will not be able to find spouses int his day and age. Don’t build up unhealthy expectations or let your anxiety overcome you.

 “So do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will bring worries of its own. Today’s trouble is enough for today.”

At the same time, remember-

 “Ask, and it will be given you; search, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened for you.  For everyone who asks receives, and everyone who searches finds, and for everyone who knocks, the door will be opened.”

—————————————————————————————————————————

If any of my readers have any suggestions of their own they would like to, please feel free to do so in the comments. Once again, I would like to keep the comments focused on the topics of this post only, and will be policing them.

Meager Options

As I am somewhat busy at the moment, I’m afraid original posts will have to wait for the time being. In the interim I am going to do what I often do when pressed for time: rip off of major bloggers, in this case Dalrock. In the comments of his post The more meager a woman’s choices, the more attractive she must be, someone by the name of trugingstar left this comment:

I’m going to play the devil’s advocate to the commenters, and say that more older men are cheating and that the dating market is bad for women who want to get married. I’m a 20-something woman. I *ahem* am the first to tell if a marriage is on the rocks, and I’ve made it into kind of a game to guess how I end up a mistress candidate in the fantasies of married fellows (cold? mean? miscarriage? former alpha? just a really guy young?). This happens to my friends often, as well. We have a running joke that the only men interested in us are already married.

I also have only a little bit of time left in the *secular* dating scene to meet a *Christian*, because the Christian dating scene is pure idealism. By secular, I mean not sleeping around, but going on hundreds of first dates that fail the “how often do you go to church?” test.

If you date at a church, you end up with the left-overs, most of the time. Someone my age has a shot with someone in his 30s. The kind of pew-warmer who’s unmarried, unsexed, and in his thirties is often alone for a reason. It’s usually a serious issue. It’s not the same as me going out and sleeping around and meeting a thirty-something that’s sleeping around.

So, why all the cheating? Why all the poor selection? Duh: everyone knows this – uncommitted (by this, I mean “unmarried,” not necessarily ONS) sex outside of the church, marriage (especially male) discouragement within the church, creates no reason for most men to marry. It also creates a surplus of women who are available for extramarital sex.

I’m just going to literally go with the title here; yes, “the more meager a woman’s choices, the more attractive she must be.” I can’t get my equal in attractiveness, virtue, whatever, because the choice selection is meager. BUT. I can get married men. Can’t WAIT for marriage.

There is a lot to dissect and respond to in this comment, and this post will be devoted to just that.

The first thing that I found interesting about this post is it can be interpreted two different ways.  One possible interpretation is that as a woman’s choices (in men) become more meager, the more attractive that she has to be to get a man (or at least attract one worth having). Technically this is true. In a limited market, you need to have more assets on hand to pull off a successful transaction. This applies to both commercial markets and the marriage market. And it is the same for both men and women- In a “buyers” market we need to have more and more to make the sale.

However, what I understand Dalrock to actually say is that the woman he was quoting from was convinced that because she was so attractive there were few good options for men available to her. In essence, because she was so high-value she was “priced out of the market.” This seems to be the very same attitude expressed by the commenter, who apparently started a blog a few days ago. She was convinced that because she was not likely to find “my equal in attractiveness, virtue, whatever”, which I take to mean she felt she couldn’t successfully carry out assortive mating.

Now, the obvious counter to this, which Dalrock hints at, is that women who hold this view are probably greatly over-estimating their actual worth (or SMV/MMV). If they really were as high-value as they thought they were, their choices wouldn’t be so meager. Or maybe they aren’t that meager, but they just don’t see the decent men around them for what they are. Of course the situation is often more complicated than that, but still, it has to be the case for some-most especially the woman Dalrock quotes.

Now I’m going to parse individual thoughts from her comment, starting with this:

more older men are cheating and that the dating market is bad for women who want to get married.

Most of the studies I’ve seen indicate that men are more likely to commit adultery (I despise the word “cheat” in this context) than women, although not necessarily by a huge discrepancy. Now, some men around these parts dispute these numbers, but I don’t. While I think that women often would have an easier time cheating if they wanted to, most don’t want to. They don’t have the same sex drive as men, and many of the men around them wouldn’t be seen as worth breaking their vows with. Also, I suspect that women are more likely to seek a divorce and then sleep with whoever they want, whereas men are less keen on seeking divorce as a means to break their vows.

And yes, the “dating” marking is bad for women who want to get married. That’s only natural, as the dating market was created to push dating instead of marriage. Men and women who are serious about marriage, chaste Christians especially, face a brutal marriage market at the moment.

I’m a 20-something woman. I *ahem* am the first to tell if a marriage is on the rocks, and I’ve made it into kind of a game to guess how I end up a mistress candidate in the fantasies of married fellows (cold? mean? miscarriage? former alpha? just a really guy young?). This happens to my friends often, as well. We have a running joke that the only men interested in us are already married.

Sadly, I can’t really scoff at this, which is something I suspect more than a few manospherians have done. I have gotten more than a few hints or propositions from married women over the years. Some subtle, others not so much (some of the invitations to pull off a “relationship coup” were especially sickening). From my perspective, for a long time, it seemed like the only attention I got from women was from those who were married (with the only exceptions being those who were unacceptable for some other significant reason). It was rather disturbing to me, actually, to think that a number of women I worked with or met somehow saw me as their “rebound” guy.

If you date at a church, you end up with the left-overs, most of the time. Someone my age has a shot with someone in his 30s. The kind of pew-warmer who’s unmarried, unsexed, and in his thirties is often alone for a reason. It’s usually a serious issue.

Can’t you just feel the love folks? The condescension here is sadly typical. I’m sure that more than a few of my male readers can relate their own stories about similar experiences. Understand, ladies, it is attitudes like this which cause a lot of men to drop out of the game entirely.

It’s not the same as me going out and sleeping around and meeting a thirty-something that’s sleeping around.

Assuming I’m reading this right, she is saying that she thinks things, and by things I mean men, are far worse inside the church than out in the SMP. Do some of my female readers understand why this and other statements have many Christian men in the west swearing off marriage, or at least western women?

Why all the poor selection? Duh: everyone knows this – uncommitted (by this, I mean “unmarried,” not necessarily ONS) sex outside of the church, marriage (especially male) discouragement within the church, creates no reason for most men to marry. It also creates a surplus of women who are available for extramarital sex.

All great in theory, and with some factual basis. Certainly the part about marriage discouragement is correct. But it also misses the fact that women aren’t signalling to men that they want to get married (at least until they are older) like they used to. And without that signalling, men aren’t quite so apt to get ready for marriage themselves, either mentally or otherwise. In addition, that “surplus of women who are available for extramarital sex” aren’t an asset to the majority of men who have trouble competing in the present SMP.

And that’s enough for now. Not sure I’ll be able to post again until the end of the week. In the meantime, feel free to add your own thoughts.

A Helpful Opposite

Hearthie, commenting over at Elspeth’s blog, left a link to a post titled The Opposite of the Proverbs 31 Woman. I think my Christian readers would find it illuminating and worth the read. So go check it out.

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.

The Male Hamster In Action- Exhibit # 1273

Men have a Rationalization Hamster, just like women. It is a more reclusive beast than the female variant, true, but it exists all the same. Most of the time it keeps its head low and maintains a low profile, such that we don’t notice when it is at work at its wheel. But occasionally it gets revved up and engages in a full-fledged, undisguised rationalization that can rival anything the female Hamster can accomplish.

An example of such a moment took place recently in Dalrock’s post “From celibate boyfriend to celibate husband (true love doesn’t wait).” A commenter left this, one of the most brazen and hilarious examples of male Hamsterization I have ever seen. Unsurprisingly, if you switched out a few words here and there the comment would be pretty much indistinguishable from what the average female troll leaves at Dalrock’s blog. If you have some free time, check it out.

Whither Thy Sons?

Quick post tonight, likely not another major post until next Wednesday.

In my post The Different Strains of Feminism, hoellenhund2 posted the following comment:

I’m sure you know that one recurring them on tradcon blogs is that young, chaste tradcon women find it difficult to find potential husbands willing to court them, especially if these women are plain-looking. Common sense tells us that these women should be looking for potential husbands among the sons of tradcons, that such families are as likely to have sons as daughters. In other words, the sex ratio isn’t lopsided, and young tradcons should be able to pair off.

So…what gives? What about the tradcon married couples who have sons? We don’t see them around the internet that much, do we? Are they raising their sons right? Why aren’t such men courting these supposedly desperate women?

Before I could respond mdavid offered his thoughts on the matter. Without accepting or rejecting his ideas, here are a few of my own (some of which are quite similar to mdavid’s):

1) Localized Sex Ratio Disparities-

While it is true that in a large enough sample size there should be a relatively similar number of men and women, this might not be the case for individual churches and communities. The smaller a group of families, the more statistically likely it will be for there to be an abundance of men or women at a certain age bracket. This would explain how you can have some commenters show up at my blog or others and talk about all the single women they know at church who can’t find a man, and then the other commenters who talk about all the single men they know at church who can’t find a woman. Both sets might be speaking the truth about their particular church/community.  For myself, I know that the parishes (churches) I’ve attended over the years have all had gender disparities where there are more single men than women (and not by a small number either).

2) Sons Expected to Fend for Themselves-

One reason why we may not hear from more parents or family/friends of tradcon men having trouble finding potential wives is that many tradcons expect that young men will do the heavy lifting of finding a wife themselves. Since men are supposed to be active and looking for a wife, then if they haven’t found one yet it is their own fault. Whereas if a woman hasn’t “found” a potential husband yet, it is because the men aren’t looking or there aren’t any out there.

3) Women Make it Hard on Suitors

Another potential problem is that young women are making it difficult for young men to court them. Perhaps they aren’t putting themselves in a position where young men can meet them and get to know them. If I only ever see you at Church, it makes it awfully hard for me to contact you and establish some sort of relationship. (speaking from experience here). Not lingering at Church makes this even harder.

Maybe they present an attitude that chases away men or convinces them, for one reason or another, not to pursue. It is one thing to be modest, but another entirely to be an Ice Queen or a Princess.

4) Male Attrition

There is another major reason that could be at play here. And that is the fact that in traditional communities more men than women “fall away” from the faith. In one of my earlier posts (I cannot remember which at this point), I argued that women, as herd creatures, are more likely to assume whatever the dominant moral code of a community is. A traditional, conservative community is more likely to have traditional, conservative women. Men, on the other hand, are more willing to buck the trend and go off on their own. In a traditional community this means leaving the faith and conforming to the world. Hence if you have 100 men and 100 women in the 18-30 bracket in a traditional community, you might lose only 10 of the women to worldliness, but you could lose 30-40 of the men. This naturally leaves a disparity between the number of eligible young men and women in such a community.

Working with this is the fact that young men are expected to support families in a way that young women are not (in some cases to absurd degrees). This means that men naturally have to be exposed more to the world, and to the outside culture, than women, in order to support a family. Their greater exposure makes them more vulnerable and more are lured away as a result.

That wraps up my immediate ideas on the matter. I invite my readers to offer their own thoughts on the subject.

Update: In case it wasn’t clear, I wasn’t actually endorsing the notion that there is a dearth of traditional young men willing to court traditional young women. I was trying to explain why it seems like more people come to these parts from TradCon circles and complain about the lack of marriageable men, as compared to marriageable women.