Why don’t men talk to women about commitment and marriage any more?

Painting: “Courtship”, by Edmund Blair Leighton (1888)

I saw this essay from a young woman named Jordana Narin who is explaining how she feels about not being able to talk seriously to a man she had sex with. She is a radical feminist and has a useless, easy degree in creative writing.

The essay was published in the radically leftist New York Times.

First kiss:

I met [a guy] at summer camp in the Poconos at 14, playing pickup basketball by day and talking in the mess hall late into the night. Back home we lived only 30 minutes apart, but I didn’t see him again until 11th grade, when we ran into each other at a Halloween party in a Lower Manhattan warehouse.

[…]Under the muted flashes of a strobe light, we shared our first kiss.

She spent her first kiss on a guy she barely knew at a party, with no relationship context.

And this is how they talked:

We stayed in touch for the rest of high school, mostly by text message.

[…]Every time his name popped up on my phone, my heart raced.

Still, we were never more than semiaffiliated, two people who spoke and loved to speak and kissed and loved to kiss and connected and were scared of connecting.

Where is this relationship going? This boy has no job and no savings and no proven record of steady work – and therefore he cannot marry anyone.


Two years after our first kiss, we were exchanging “I’ve missed you” messages again. It was a brisk Friday evening in our first semesters of college when I stepped off a train and into his comfortable arms.

He had texted weeks earlier on Halloween (technically our anniversary) to ask if I would visit. We had not talked since summer, and I was trying to forget him. We had graduated from high school into the same inexpressive void we first entered in costume, where an “I’ve missed you” was as emotive as one got.

Long gaps in between text messages – they have nothing to talk about, and there is no goal. Nevertheless, they are away from their parents, and so she had sex with him, losing her virginity to a man she was not married to.

And then:

Naïvely, I had expected to gain clarity, to finally admit my feelings and ask if he felt the same. But I couldn’t confess, couldn’t probe. Periodically I opened my mouth to ask: “What are we doing? Who am I to you?” He stopped me with a smile, a wink or a handhold, gestures that persuaded me to shut my mouth or risk jeopardizing what we already had.

On the Saturday-night train back to Manhattan, I cried. Back in my dorm room, buried under the covers so my roommates wouldn’t hear, I fell asleep with a wet pillow and puffy eyes.

The next morning I awoke to a string of texts from him: “You get back OK?” “Let’s do it again soon :)”

Yes. She had sex with him because of text messages, Facebook comments and because he “missed her”. Not because he had presented his resume and balance sheet to her father, dated her for many months, bought her an engagement ring, courted her for more months, bought her a wedding ring, then walked down the aisle with her.

Why is this happening?

There’s an interview that goes with it on the radically leftist NPR web site, but I saved a copy of the MP3 file here in case it disappears.

Moderate Christian Rod Dreher comments on the interview:

I wouldn’t have understood the full scope of what this young woman is saying in her essay without the interview, which is short. In the segment, Narin says that men and women in her generation don’t have actual romantic relationships anymore. It’s all casual, non-committal sex. “Nobody knows whether their own feelings are real,” she says.

[..]She tells the interviewer that there’s lots of making out and sex, but nobody wants to be emotionally vulnerable to anybody else.

[…]“Everyone in college uses Tinder,” she said, referring to the wildly popular dating and hook-up app. “You can literally swipe right and find someone just to hang out for the night. There’s no commitments required, and I think that makes committing to someone even harder, because it’s so normal, and so expected even, to not want to commit.”

In a different time, my grandparents, my great grandparents, they might have thought they were missing out on casual sex,” she says. “But since my generation has been saddled down with that, we kind of look to the past and say well, wasn’t that nice. I think both are optimal. I’m a huge feminist, and I think women should be able to do whatever they want to do. If a woman wants to have tons of casual sex, she totally should. But I think that there should be the option. And they shouldn’t be gendered, women and men. But there should be the option of being in a relationship.”

Right. Young women like her who have swallowed radical feminism hook, line and sinker don’t want to “miss out” on casual sex right now, but they want to get married “some day” – after they have a lot of fun traveling and doing exciting, fun things.

But what do they think marriage is?


Look at the lyrics:

You got that 9 to 5
But, baby, so do I
So don’t be thinking I’ll be home and baking apple pies
I never learned to cook

After every fight
Just apologize
And maybe then I’ll let you try and rock my body right
Even if I was wrong
You know I’m never wrong

And know we’ll never see your family more than mine

Even when I’m acting crazy
Tell me everything’s alright

This is what women today understand marriage to be. They expect to be pursuing their own careers, not supporting their husbands and raising children. Most feminists view the roles of wife and mother as demeaning. They aren’t interested in supporting or respecting a man who provides for them – they just want him to say yes to whatever they feel like doing – fun and thrills.

The woman singing expects to win every disagreement because, like the song says, she is never wrong. The lyrics also say that sex is conditional on whether the woman feels happy. When it comes to visiting family and holidays, she lets us know that her family is more important than his. And she is allowed to act crazy, which could involve a whole host of selfish, wasteful, narcissistic behaviors, and he is just supposed to celebrate and maybe pay for it. For the rest of his life.

How do men respond to these radical feminists?

Most men are not interested in committing to, or discussing commitment with, radical feminists. Men will have sex with a radical feminist, (not me, but other men), but they will never commit to them. Why not? If a man’s role is just to please the “huge feminist”, then there is no reason to commit to her. Radical feminists believe that relationships are about their plans and their needs. They are not interested in responsibilities, expectations or obligations to men or to children. But men, even secular men, understand that they must not marry a woman who thinks that relationships should impose no obligations on her. Men play dumb with women to keep the sex coming, but there is no way they would commit to such women.

Now there is one exception to this rule, and that’s young, naive men. If a woman is a “huge feminist” then she might be able to get attention from a doormat man without having to give him sex. Typically, these men have no work experience, no savings, are much younger, and are so desperate for attention that they do what Meghan Trainor says in the song: apologize, grovel, condone craziness and selfishness, etc. Although a woman may think she wants a man like that in the short-term, in the long-term, those men prove unattractive and unsatisfactory.

In order to be masculine, a man needs to be a good moral leader and a good spiritual leader. And that means that he needs to call a woman higher, away from her self-centeredness, so she can serve God and serve other people. He cannot just agree with whatever crazy, emotional thing that she thinks up that is fun, thrilling and bound to fail. A good leader has experience as a provider, protector and leader that he brings to bear on decision-making, and proven ability achieving and leading others to greatness. I think women with low self-esteem will be interested in men who are doormats, but that is not the solution to the commitment problem. A doormat man does not have what it takes to provide and lead a family.

9 thoughts on “Why don’t men talk to women about commitment and marriage any more?”

  1. This is an excellent concise summary of a large swath of Millennial women. The lack of sacrifice that these young woman are told will “empower” them quite often leaves them single and bitter by the time they hit mid-30s. They can’t grasp the fact that a perpetual ME first mindset leaves one empty in the end (similar to a sugar crash). My thoughts are that a generation of this emptiness will lead to the next generation searching for more purpose in their lives… in stark contrast to their elder Millennial know it alls.

    1. Many women have been taught that a relationship with a man should make them happy, like a new pair of shoes or a new handbag, and require no self-sacrifice at all. Needless to say, this attitude is not consistent with building a marriage that lasts through the ordinary difficulties of child-bearing, financial hardship, aging, and so on. They want to build a castle by selfish acts committed moment by moment. They want to reach the happiness of a home and a loving family by choosing alcohol, fun and thrills at each step of the way.

  2. What’s particularly tragic and infuriating is how ignorant the modern evangelical church is about this phenomenon; they look at these trends and assume it doesn’t apply to young people in the church or that their girls aren’t af(in)fected by it.

    Imagine if a pastor extolled men to marry and build families, but have nothing to do with women who has lived this kind of lifestyle. Imagine if he told the men not to reward a woman who squandered her best years with a promise life-time commitment.

    The choice not to marry will be a painful one for a lot of men, but it won’t be a hard decision. The only thing that might entice a man to marry is loneliness and not dying alone, but it’s become clear marriage doesn’t de facto solve either of those.

    1. Almost all the pastors I know take feminism as a given, and then try to shame and bully Christian men into continuing to perform like before feminism destroyed women’s chastity and suitability for marriage.

  3. I agree with your post except for calling surfing a “narcissistic behavior”. I don’t quite follow you on that one.

    1. I just like picking on a friend of mine who loves surfing, ziplining and skydiving. I want her to get a full time job in business and start saving so she can move out. She spends too much money on one-time fun activities but I think that a person can only spend that money if they are working full-time in a good job.

  4. “…we kind of look to the past and say well, wasn’t that nice. I think both are optimal. I’m a huge feminist, and I think women should be able to do whatever they want to do. If a woman wants to have tons of casual sex, she totally should. But I think that there should be the option.”

    It would seem logic is not this woman’s strong point. Much as it enrages a surprising majority of women to hear, the female sex is the moral gatekeeper of society, *especially* regarding sex and marriage. There is no having it both ways, as she would like things to be; the mocked old adage about cows and free milk remains true as ever. The consequences of ‘free love’ take only about twenty seconds of lazy thought to predict. Reality, as Dean Abbott notes (http://www.deanabbott.com/old-fashioned-wisdom-means-embracing-the-real/) does not sleep.

  5. Excellent points.

    I met plenty of non-Christian women even subtly affected by feminism e.g., “If my husband doesn’t meet *my* needs, I have no compunction about cheating on him!”

    In terms of your points about [single] women and sexual laxity:
    Many men, especially ones not with a strong Christian background, basically interpret these women as saying “Use me! Use me!” (and they happily do).
    It used to be said that “[these] men use love to get sex” and “women use sex to get love.” If women devalue sex to make it plentiful and very low cost, well … laws of economics tell us that it would take a lot of sex to get not very much love, if you stuck with this model. Most of these secular men know that cheap/low-cost/free sex is to be had. (I think I would posit that many of these men keep women around, even stringing them along, to keep the available sex coming and for their own convenience.)
    And besides there’s the adage of “why buy the cow when you get the milk for free?” i.e., if one can get all the upsides of marriage by living together (convenient sex, etc.) while reducing the risk of downsides, from the man’s p.o.v., why not?
    Instead, what are women to do? Well, they can change the model — that is to say: they raise their asking price. They can only consider men who are willing to fully commit himself in everything before the women consider giving themselves completely over sexually. You read that right: get married before having sex.
    Sure, the woman might have a drastic drop in the number of men who make themselves available to her but I assure you that the quality of men will drastically rise.
    There’s also a mentality shift from “living together” i.e., “if we don’t drive each other crazy, then maybe we’ll get married” — to “committing to marriage” i.e., “we commit to working things out and giving it our best.”

    On the men’s side of the equation? As a Christian man, I just refused to ask anyone out that reeked of feminism. Sorry — not going to waste my time/energy/money on that.

    In my later dating years, I had a few mature Christian female friends also help with my screening.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s