Tag Archives: Men

Commentary

What possible harm can result from premarital sex?

6 Comments

Here’s an article by a Duke University student that talks about the hook-up phenomenon.

Excerpt:

Every weekend, girls across Duke’s campus wake up sad and confused. The previous night’s choices have not left them fulfilled or content. My girlfriends always seem hurt while the guys easily move on to their next fling. Why are the women upset? After all, it was supposed to be just sex-just one of the “responsible social decisions” discussed in The Real Deal. Without an explanation for their emotions, my friends are left feeling used and embarrassed. All I could do is sit with these women while they let painful tears flow.

Our women’s center and sexual health groups failed to tell us the whole truth. They may warn of the physical risks of “unsafe sex” but tend to ignore its emotional toll which also has biological roots. Research suggests that a hormone called oxytocin plays a role in the feelings of attachment and trust that women feel for their sexual partners. Female mammals primarily release oxytocin while giving birth and breast feeding and the hormone facilitates mother-child bonding. Oddly enough, the same hormone is also released during sexual contact causing a sense of attachment. In men, oxytocin’s effects are neutralized by the release of testosterone.

Did you catch that ladies? There is a biological explanation for the way you feel and the way he doesn’t feel.

I had always thought casual sex had different consequences for men and women. Now, based on scientific evidence, I know it does. College women at Duke are suffering emotional pain that’s not only avoidable-but, predictable.

Why weren’t we told this three years ago?

[…]The explanation is a radical feminist agenda that has a foothold in women’s health discussions. As Dr. Miriam Grossman, a psychiatrist at UCLA suggests in her book, Unprotected, “I once assumed campus medicine and psychology had one priority: student well-being. I’m no longer so naive. Radical politics pervades my profession, and common sense has vanished.” To propose that “safe” sexual experimentation may not be emotionally healthy and may be more dangerous for women than men is not politically correct.

Premarital sex hurts women. But it also hurts men.

It’s not like men are going to be happy about transitioning from years of hooking up with no responsibilities to the rigorous demands of a marriage. Premarital sex destroys the ability of women and men to bond, because it trains them to separate out their emotions from sex. It makes no sense to expose yourself emotionally during sex if you’re not married – you run the risk of being crushed by the pain of separation. Do it enough times, and it becomes extremely difficult to allow sex to bond two people together emotionally.

Mentoring

How to communicate requirements to a Christian woman during courtship

44 Comments

Most of you know that what I do for a living is software engineering. I have dual degrees in computer science, and my Masters was focused on software design. So I always approach these relationship problems from an engineering perspective.

I think that at the beginning of any software development project, the most important thing to do is to talk to the customer and to decide what the software is supposed to do. The customer for the relationship is God. He is the one who will be deciding if the relationship is any good or not. My impression of God is that he has lots of requirements for marriage. First, each person in the marriage should have a relationship with Jesus. Second, each person in the relationship should treat one another in a special way. Third, the marriage itself should accomplish certain things in the world.

The requirement that each person have a relationship with Jesus prior to and during the marriage is important, because it is out of this relationship that the people first relate to each other, then to the children, then to their extended families, and then to the world.

I think that it’s the man’s job to take these goals from the customer (God) and to derive a set of requirements for the woman, so that he can communicate his understanding of these goals to her and the relationship can move along more efficiently and effectively. (Obviously these things apply in the reverse as well, but I am writing from the man’s point of view for this entire post, to emphasize the man’s role in leading the relationship)

Here are a few of my requirements just for illustration. Other men will have different requirements, depending on their plan.

  • understands how capitalism relates to marriage/parenting, e.g. – school choice
  • understands how men function as husbands and fathers
  • understands how marriages work and why they succeed or fail
  • can defend belief in Christian theism with arguments and evidence
  • can defend socially conservative positions on abortion and marriage, etc.
  • can answer objections to Christian theism like evil and religious pluralism
  • can stand her ground in the face of incoming criticism and disagreement
  • can shepherd the children through schools and on to graduate degrees

I think that in general, relationships are about the man measuring a woman for marriage/parenting requirements based on current performance and future potential. I think the worst thing for women is to not know where the relationship is going. It would help her if the man can communicate his requirements to her. If she is interested in the man, then she can show him what she can do now, and what she is interested in learning about so that she can build up her capabilities for later. The requirements are tailored to the man’s specific plan for the marriage.

For example, take the requirement to understand how fiscal conservatism enables liberty. Suppose you meet a woman who is a Christian, but has socialist views. You are concerned that she will vote to tax away the family’s money for wasteful government programs. Instead of just glossing over these problems and leading her on because she is pretty, you need to tell her right away where you think she is wrong. I like to give women something to read so that they can learn on their own, then come back and discuss it. That’s how you make progress.

And I think this helps to develop a way to resolve conflicts, too. If I disagree with her, then I give her something to read, and then I try to be extra nice and help her with other things to give her time to read. If she is feeling hurt from a previous bad experience, then I will have to address that, too. The goal is to build her up to be a solid wife and mother. If she is not willing to read anything to grow, then that is important for me to know right away. I think that a man needs to prefer a woman who is open-minded and interested in learning on her own and forming true beliefs about the world.

Now what does this buy the woman? Well, if you gloss over requirements, and only talk about surface things, (e.g. – her appearance), during the courtship, then she knows that there will come a time when you won’t like her any more, because beauty fades! What you are really saying to her when you talk about her appearance is that this is what is most important to you. But how can any woman be as pretty as she was in her youth as time passes? She can never feel safe if the standard is beauty. She knows that this relationship is unstable and has no future.

Instead, I try to give women control of the relationship by giving them a choice. I give her a few small things to do that are related to marriage and parenting. This would include apologetics, theology, economics, etc. What does that say to her? It says to her that she is in control of the relationship, and that I need her. All she has to do to keep me from leaving is to keep trying to learn about marriage and parenting, and to keep trying to work at marriage and parenting as well as she can. And stating those things up front attracts the right kind of woman anyway – the kind that wants to help.

What you are really doing in the courtship is communicating to her what really matters to you about her. If you hand her books to read about why divorce harms children, then she understands that you want children, but you don’t want a divorce. And she understands that you are going to exclude other women who don’t want children, and who do not understand what divorce does to children. That’s the kind of thing that indicates to her that you have a long-term relationship plan, so that she knows that you will still like her more than other women, even after her beauty fades.

I also found that it helps women to have a sense of security when she knows what the man considers to be a deal-breaker. I like to clearly set out for her what I do not want in a relationship. What I’m trying to do is avoid the situation where she cannot feel secure because she doesn’t know what makes her different and special. I like to tell her what it is that makes her different and special, with specific details. And I also want to build her confidence by building up her capabilities for marriage and parenting. So she knows that she is valuable and irreplaceable.

Related posts

Commentary

How feminism made women unsuitable for marriage and parenting

97 Comments

Check out this article about feminism and the hook-up culture, from the Weekly Standard.

Excerpt:

…there’s currently a buyer’s market in women who are up for just about anything with the right kind of cad, what with delayed marriage (the average age for a woman’s first wedding is now 26, compared with 20 in 1960, according to the University of Virginia-based National Marriage Project’s latest report); reliable contraception; and advances in antibiotics (no more worries about what used to be called venereal disease). No-fault divorce, moreover, has pushed the marriage-dissolution rate up to between 40 and 50 percent and swelled the single-female population with “cougars” in their 30s, 40s, 50s, and beyond. On top of it all is the feminist-driven academic and journalistic culture celebrating that yesterday’s “loose” women are today’s “liberated” women, able to proudly “explore their sexuality” without “getting punished for their lust,” as the feminist writer Naomi Wolf put it in the Guardian in December.

Wolf devoted her 1997 book Promiscuities to trying to remove the stigma from .  .  . promiscuity. On the one hand, she decried the double-standard unfairness of labeling a girl who fools around with too many boys a “slut,” and, on the other, she lionized “the Slut” (her capitalization) as the enviable epitome of feminist freedom and feminist transgression against puritanical social norms. Wolf’s point of view is today mainstream. It’s the underlying theme of Eve Ensler’s girls-talk-dirty Vagina Monologues, performed every year on Valentine’s Day on college campuses across the country. A chapter from Promiscuities titled “Sluts” has made so many women’s studies reading lists that term-paper mills sell canned essays purporting to dissect it. A group calling itself the Women’s Direct Action Collective issued a manifesto in 2007 titled Sluts Against Rape insisting that “a woman should have the right to be sexual in any way she chooses” and that easy availability was “a positive assertion of sexual identity.” In other words, if people call you a whore because you, say, fall into bed with someone whose name you can’t quite remember, that’s their problem. Of course, if a man mistakes a woman being “sexual in any way she chooses” for consent to have sex, it’s still rape.

The same feminist academics pooh-pooh concerns about the long-term effects of the hookup culture, arguing that it’s essentially just a harmless college folly, akin to swallowing goldfish, which young women will outgrow after graduation with no lasting scars. As long as they take precautions against disease and pregnancy, the current wisdom goes, it might even be good for you: a sort of rumspringa for the non-Amish in which you get your girls-gone-wild urges out of your system before you settle down to have babies.

[…]Thanks to late marriage, easy divorce, and the well-paying jobs that the feminist revolution has wrought for women, the bars, clubs, sidewalks, and subway straps of nearly every urban center in America overflow every weekend with females, young and not so young, bronzed, blonded, teeth-whitened, and dressed in the maximal cleavage and minimal skirt lengths that used to be associated with streetwalkers but nowadays is standard garb for lawyers and portfolio managers on a girls’ night out. The prelude to the $50,000 wedding these days isn’t just the budget-busting shower—although that’s de rigueur—but the bachelorette party, in which the bride and her BFF’s don their skinnies and spaghetti straps and head to a bar to be hit on, sometimes bride and all, by whatever males are bold enough (the typical accoutrements of the bachelorette party are a $15 “ironic” veil for the bride and a sculpted replica of a male sex organ that’s often brought to the bar).

All this takes place to a basso profundo of feminist cheerleading. Wolf’s op-ed in the Guardian praised the uninhibited sexual “self-expression” of the four female leads in Sex and the City, especially the 40-something Samantha (hitting 50 in the 2008 movie), who, during the six seasons that the series ran, racked up nearly as many sex partners (41) as her three coleads combined—and Carrie, Miranda, and Charlotte were no slouches themselves in the quickie department. “Did not thousands of young women .  .  . breathe a sigh of relief or even liberation watching Samantha down another tequila, unrepentantly ogle the sex god at the end of the bar, and get richer and more beautiful with age, with no STDs or furies pursuing her?,” Wolf gushed.

Urban life, furthermore, turns out to imitate Sex and the City. A survey reported in the New York Daily News around the time of the film’s release revealed that the typical female resident of Manhattan, who marries later on average than almost every other woman in the country, has 20 sex partners during her lifetime. By way of contrast, the median number of lifetime sex partners for all U.S. women ages 15 to 44 is just 3.3, according to the Census Bureau’s latest statistical abstract.

There’s a lot more in the original piece, but the main point is that feminists wanted this to happen, and women today can decide for themselves whether they like the results of feminism. I know one thing for sure – no Christian man wants to marry a woman who engages in recreational sex outside of marriage. It ruins a woman’s capabilities in a host of areas necessary for love, marriage and parenting, not the least of which is trust. A woman has to stop this behavior and put on chastity in order to stand any chance of having a successful marriage, in my opinion.

What do women value in men?

The hook-up culture is bad news for guys like me who are chaste. Hooking-up over and over again is lousy preparation for courtship, marriage and parenting. It ruins a woman’s ability to be romantic, trusting and vulnerable.

But feminism also wrecks a woman’s ability to choose men who are marriage ready. Feminism tells a women that there are no special roles that men should take on – like the roles of provider, protector and moral/spiritual leader. One a woman accepts that men have no marriage-specific roles, then they cease to test men to see if they can perform those marriage-specific roles. Instead, women just choose men on superficial criteria. Instead of looking a a man’s resume or his ability to care for others, she focuses instead on superficial stuff like the clothes he wears or whether her friends think he is funny.

Consider confidence. Confidence is something that women today often say they want. The problem is that an attitude of confidence can be faked when it rests on nothing. All you can see by looking is the attitude, not the reality. A man can be confident about being able to support the costs of raising children and yet this confidence could be completely unwarranted by his education or work history. While a man who is fearful and lacks confidence can in fact be more qualified to be a provider because of his education and work history.

So, a better strategy than trying to measure a man’s confidence with the eyes is to talk to the man. Ask him about his plan and assess whether he has done enough preparation to achieve his goals. Ask for some evidence!

Here are a few more of the criteria that women use to choose men:

  • Being tall
  • Being aloof and disinterested
  • Playing a musical instrument
  • Well-dressed
  • Stylish shoes
  • A deep voice
  • Handsome face

A deep voice? Shouldn’t it matter more what the voice actually says? For both Christian and non-Christian women that I’ve met, the answer is inevitably NO. Many women have children out-of-wedlock (40%), and the children of these single mothers suffer. 70% of divorces are initiated by women, which is also devastating to any children present. Presumably they selected a father for these children using silly criteria as above. It won’t work. And then children are raised without a father, and the cycle repeats itself.

What does such criteria say about women’s goals for relationships? Are they really interested in marriage and parenting? Do they really care if their children have a relationship with God throught faith in Christ?

Related posts