On the Ethics of Teenage Marriage

Taking a wider Frame of view is wise, and perhaps necessary.

Readership: Christians

Our Concept of Appropriateness is not so much Ethical, as it is Mythical

Yesterday’s post, The Feminist Life Script (2020 December 17), brought up some sensitive issues about what age a female is ready for marriage.

On the issue of determining the proper age for marriage, one has to be careful about the cultural assumptions, going both ways.

In our culture, it is surely true that teenagers, including female teenagers, are not socially and culturally raised to be ready to be married in their later teen years (15-18), which is probably why so many of the marriages that occur in this age range in our culture do not succeed. The families of origin, and the entire culture, do not foster a readiness for this emotionally and psychologically at these ages, currently, and so trying to force young marriage into that context is a bit, well, forced.  In fact, there are some quite powerful social norms that work against this possibility.

At the same time, however, one must be very careful to avoid using absolute terms like “perversion” and the like when referring to the natural attraction, in a purely physical sense, that a heterosexual male feels for a post-pubescent female, regardless of her age. One can say that this is “culturally inappropriate”, and that is true — and it is certainly true that we actively enforce this standard in our culture.

From a wider viewpoint, the standards held by western culture are not universal globally, and this is not merely a matter of “advanced societies”, either, as we can see from looking at Japan’s cultural assumptions in this specific area, which are notably and markedly different from our own.

So it is a very different matter to claim that this is “perverse”, given that perversion is something that is inherently unnatural, inherently deformed. From a Biblical viewpoint, Feminism itself is a true perversion, as it inverts the male-female hierarchy, and such is the present norm, yet we do not view it as such.

Thus, the naturally occurring male physical attraction to post-pubescent females is not perverse, it is merely culturally inappropriate and forbidden, properly, in a culture where humans of that age are socialized as children and are not prepared, by their families or their culture, for relationships of that type with older people.

Surely, St. Joseph himself was not a “pervert” for presumably being attracted enough to the almost certainly mid-teenaged Mary to become betrothed to her, despite being much older than she was. It was a naturally occurring attraction which, in that context, was not culturally inappropriate.  It had nothing to do with perversion, one way or another.

The distinction is important, because it is absolutely defamatory to claim that men who are in any way attracted to post-pubescent females who are under the current “legal age” in our culture are therefore “perverse” or “pedophiles”. Nothing could be further from the truth. These are natural and normal male attractions that we put a box around precisely because of the cultural climate we live in, and the fact that this climate, and the families living in it, are not preparing their offspring of this age to be married at this age, full stop. Not perversion, just culture.

Charlie and Eunice Johns (Newspaper article)

Western Culture is the Present Setting of our Life Stories

Which brings us to a more fundamental point.

At some level we are all compromised. There are compromises we choose to live with, based on the culture we live in, and where we personally draw the line in terms of compromises with it that we can live with while being faithful and still active members of this culture.

Marriage is one such area, because it markedly differs with past practice from hundreds of years ago, which suggests that it is not related to the faith, as such. The acceptable marital age has moved up, but rather due to cultural exigencies.  Christians adapted to these changes in their habits of the whens and hows as they managed the business of marrying off their daughters (and sons).

While it’s a mistake, in my view, to suppose that the faith mandates marriage at the earliest possible physical age (there’s no reason to think that this is the case), it seems the exact opposite mistake is to suppose that it mandates withholding marriage from our sons and daughters until a certain age, again, as a matter of faith.

Among traditional Romani (Gypsies), children are to be married in brokered marriages as soon as puberty starts. In this photo, the 14-year-old daughter of the “King of the Gypsies,” Florin Cioaba, is to be married to a 15-year-old boy.

It comes down to how much we are of the world, how compromised we are with it, how different we are willing to be from it.  Each of us makes our own decisions in these areas. I say that not to point fingers — I am personally no sort of “ultra” in these regards, not at all. But I do think we need to realize that we are all compromised by the culture, and we should resist the temptation to baptize or otherwise bless/sanctify our own reasoned compromises with the culture in which we live, rather than seeing them as just that — personal compromises that we personally judge as being appropriate, based on the culture in which we live and its broader standards.  How that fits into our own personal approach to living in the world, but not of it, is necessarily ensconced within the particular time and place of our culture, including all of the norms of said culture.

It is, it seems to me, a matter of drawing lines for pragmatic reasons, and although these lines will be intensely personal and practical, we should see them as such and not baptize them as something more than they are.


This entry was posted in Child Development, Convergence, Courtship and Marriage, Cultural Differences, Decision Making, Discernment, Wisdom, Education, Feminism, Introspection, Organization and Structure, Purpose, Relationships, Stewardship, Strategy. Bookmark the permalink.

35 Responses to On the Ethics of Teenage Marriage

  1. thedeti says:


    Yesterday in another comment, you drew the distinction between a man’s internal experience of sexual attraction to a post pubescent, preadult girl; and on the other hand, the cultural expectations imposed upon men to restrain their acting on that attraction.

    That distinction cannot be overemphasized. But our culture has blended them together, to men’s detriment. And some of this is a function of women’s inability to comprehend just how incredibly strong the male sex drive is.

    It is not perverse or sick or criminal for men to experience sexual attraction, internally, mentally, emotionally, and physically, to postpubescent girls who have not yet attained age 18. It is perfectly natural. We as men literally cannot help it. We can’t control that attraction, we can’t restrain it, and we can’t stop ourselves from experiencing it internally. As every man here knows, it first manifests in us during and after puberty, and usually lasts at least another 40 years after that. Men notice and experience sexual attraction to attractive girls and women multiple times a day, every day.

    This is a good thing because it produces much of men’s drive, ambition, achievement, assertiveness, and necessary aggression. If we weren’t so damn thirsty all the time, we’d probably have little to nothing to do with women, no reproduction would happen, and the human race would die off.

    What has happened is that the cultural expectations on men to restrain their acting on their sexual attraction (especially to girls and very young women, women who may be decades younger than they are) has produced a lot of dysfunction in men. This is because the demand that men restrain their actionsto conform to law and cultural expectations has pervasively bled over and morphed into the concept that the inherent male internal inchoate experience of sexual attraction to such women must also be restrained, controlled, and even eliminated. Indeed, our churches adhere to this, and bleed it over further into male sexual attraction in general, even to “age appropriate” women, even to their own wives. The concept is that men should be and are required by God to restrain, temper, and control their internal feelings, emotions, and experiences of sexual attraction.

    This is simply unrealistic, because this internal male experience is inherent to masculinity. The internal male experience of sexual attraction to sexually attractive people is literally the sine qua non of maleness, of masculinity. You literally can’t be a man without it. And every man experiences this. Product liability law has the concept of designing defects out of products, so as to make an otherwise defective and dangerous product safe and nondefective. Some products, such as cigarettes, are inherently dangerous because they burn and they contain carcinogens. They inhere to the product and cannot be designed out.

    Analogizing: You can’t design inherent internal experiences of sexual attraction out of men. It can’t be done. The experience of sexual attraction to post pubescent sexually attractive girls who have not yet attained legal adult status inheres in men, is the essence of physical masculinity, and it is designed into every man. If you remove it (if you could remove it), what you would have left is not a man, is not masculine. It is something other than a man. The efforts to get men to control and restrain the experience of sexual attraction have resulted in “defective” pseudo-men, men who are not fully masculine. It is a tragedy, really, and it needs to be talked about more.

    Liked by 2 people

    • thedeti says:

      I wish I knew how to express this in fewer words.


      • feeriker says:

        Good thing you didn’t, because some concepts just don’t lend themselves to brevity. Well stated!

        Liked by 2 people

      • Sharkly says:

        Sometimes when an explanation is too complex, like Ptolemy’s planetary epicycles to explain away the apparent retrograde motion of the planets while assuming that the earth is the stationary center of the universe, the complexity is due to the explanation being wrong. the planets can move with mathematical precision along their elliptical orbits once you realize that earth too is an orbiting planet. Once you get it all figured out stuff is much simpler and concrete. NASA still uses Johannes Kepler’s three laws of planetary motion published in the 1610s as their sole source of equations for their computations to intercept comets with space probes, and Etc. Any possible alteration of that motion attributable to another theory such as quantum physics has either been nonexistent or negligible to this point. Ptolemy was wrong with his incredibly complex system of motion. And Copernicus was also slightly wrong with his oversimplified assumption that all orbits were circular and constant in velocity. Occam’s razor is often a guide towards truth.

        “The experience of sexual attraction to post pubescent sexually attractive girls who have not yet attained legal adult status inheres in men, is the essence of physical masculinity, and it is designed into every man. If you remove it (if you could remove it), what you would have left is not a man, is not masculine. It is something other than a man. The efforts to get men to control and restrain the experience of sexual attraction have resulted in “defective” pseudo-men, men who are not fully masculine. It is a tragedy, really, and it needs to be talked about more.”

        Job 1:8(NASB) The LORD said to Satan, “Have you considered My servant Job? For there is no one like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, fearing God and turning away from evil.”
        Apparently, if you fear God like Job and consequently flee from evil like Job did, then you can realize mastery over your sexuality like Job did.
        Job 31:1(AMP) I have made a covenant (agreement) with my eyes; How then could I gaze [lustfully] at a virgin?
        Job 31:9(NET) If my heart has been enticed by a woman, and I have lain in wait at my neighbor’s door, 10 then let my wife turn the millstone for another man, and may other men have sexual relations with her. 11 For I would have committed a shameful act, an iniquity to be judged. 12 For it is a fire that devours even to Destruction, and it would uproot all my harvest.

        Our potential to sin comes when our unmet fleshly desires fail to be countered by self-discipline which comes from an overriding grave fear of God.
        1 Corinthians 7:5(NLT) Do not deprive each other of sexual relations, unless you both agree to refrain from sexual intimacy for a limited time so you can give yourselves more completely to prayer. Afterward, you should come together again so that Satan won’t be able to tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

        Although Job still had a sex drive, he fully controlled it, he gained mastery over it, it did not gain mastery over him. I think you would be hard pressed to find a better example of correct masculinity than, “what man would God choose as the best man to show Satan the error of his ways”. Perhaps Jesus Christ is a better yet less attainable pattern for us.

        My point being: Men can control themselves, when their fear and understanding of God is correct. They do not lose their masculinity by exercising mastery over it. By successfully mastering our fleshly lusts we become more like God.(Who is masculine)
        “I hold that to need nothing is divine, and the less a man needs the nearer does he approach divinity.” ~Socrates

        Also note that even in the depths of Job’s humiliation, he didn’t hearken to his wife’s foolish advice, but instead corrected her for it. He was a true paragon of righteous living, recorded for us.
        While our fleshly needs are real, we need to rule over them. However in this Feminist age the most pressing problem is that we need to repress women’s immodesty, whoring, and unfaithful defrauding behavior so that men and women aren’t both thrown into the trap of Satan, due to their insufficiently developed self-control. The problem is exacerbated by a massive deception. Today’s women are hideously evil defiling whores, and yet today’s men are being almost exclusively faulted for the resulting sexual sins and destruction of the patriarchal family, while women ditch all responsibility for their wicked behavior.

        Liked by 2 people

    • feeriker says:

      And some of this is a function of women’s refusal to accept just how incredibly strong the male sex drive is.

      FIFY. Women are not at all ignorant of the strength of our sex drives, they simply cannot abide the idea that the unattractive 80 percent of men possess such a drive, which they see as a repulsive threat. Thus the ceaseless efforts by Feminism, Inc. and their five-percenter male slaves to criminalize every aspect of male sexuality (except, of course, as manifested by the upper 20 percent of the male population).

      Liked by 1 person

    • thedeti says:

      I think most people have figured out that the inherent inchoate male sexual attraction experience cannot be removed. So, instead of removing it, it has been chiseled upon, hammered upon, beaten upon, bent, twisted, and deformed so that it no longer has its original shape, dimensions, and characteristics. And as such, it no longer works properly.

      I can’t even describe now what it looks like or does – only that it no longer appears or functions as it should.


  2. feeriker says:

    It comes down to how much we [CHRISTIANS] are of the world, how compromised we are with it, how different we are willing to be from it.

    I think that, based on our regular discussions and writings, all of us Christian manospherians know where the bulk of those in the West who claim to be Christians stand on this issue. The chaotic mess that is the Christian family today, a creature that differs little, if at all, from the secular family, is testament to this stand.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. cameron232 says:

    Some (including some women) are now saying that women’s sex drives are just as strong as men’s. Just directed only towards the highest men (the women who claim the sex drive thing leave this 2nd part out). SOme say you can tell this by how women behave, particulary when social shame is removed. Since I’m not a woman, I can’t confirm or deny.


    • Novaseeker says:

      They are, or rather more accurately they are situationally.

      So in the presence of a triggering man, yes, they can be very strong. In situations of “normal” stimuli, generally not as strong, on average. (** — see below.)

      Also, one must take into account the monthly fluctuation in female libido in women who are pre-menopausal. The fertile phase generally features higher libido in women, and also has interesting effects like changing the kinds of men women are attracted to, and even influencing sartorial choice.

      ** — It is important to remember that this is “on average”. There are women with high libidos, and there are marriages where the libido of the wife is stronger than the libido of the husband (although in a good number of these cases there are non-neutral reasons for this like either a medical condition or a lack of attraction on his part, or perhaps suppressed homosexuality in some cases). But, some women do have a quite high libido, higher than average for women certainly and rivaling the libido of a healthy, average man.

      The key difference, though, remains selectivity. Women are sexually more selective even when they have higher libidos. Many women who fall under the “slut” category and who are not such primarily for psycho-emotional reasons (daddy issues, etc.) have higher than average libidos for women, but they are still selective about how that desire is deployed in a way that men typically are not, without prior constraints of character or morals.

      Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        I think the thing that men are observing is that women don’t need to “get in the mood” that the planets don’t have to align properly for a woman to eagerly have sex with an “alpha” male.

        I like to use the word “discriminating” – a woman’s sex drive (romantic/sexual attraction) is more discriminating.

        One question. Are women’s sex drives driven by opportunity? In other words, the woman who eagerly initiates sex with a beta male. Is she conciously doing this to manipulate/get him or is her sex drive placed into high gear by the opportunity (for landing an acceptable beta male).


    • thedeti says:

      In addition to Nova’s excellent comment:

      Another key difference between the male sex drive and the female sex drive, or libido, is how and when they operate.

      In men the sex drive/libido is nearly constant. A man is always ready for sex, anytime, day or night. Doesn’t matter what else is going on – if an opportunity for sex presents itself, he’s got his “gun” ready in 10 seconds. And I’m not exaggerating. As far as mental and emotional processing, attractive women, sex, and sexual thoughts preoccupy him and pervade his every thought. The only time for men that it’s not about sex is during the refractory period, when he literally cannot have sex.

      It’s all about sex, all the time. And again – I’m not exaggerating. That’s true even currently. I’m a 52 year old man. My office is not 30 feet away from two attractive secretaries who, were I not a married man, I would happily have sex with, pretty much right now or any other time they were so inclined. And so would most of the other men in this office.

      In women the sex drive/libido is dormant until something arouses it. But once aroused, her sex drive/libido approaches that of men. Or at least it appears that way to this interested observer. When her sexual appetite has been sated, it then drops off and returns to a dormant state.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. Oscar says:

    Surely, St. Joseph himself was not a “pervert” for presumably being attracted enough to the almost certainly mid-teenaged Mary to become betrothed to her, despite being much older than she was. ~ Novaseeker

    There’s a big problem with that statement.

    The idea that Joseph was “much older than” Mary comes from apocryphal gospels like “The Protoevangelium of James”. But, the Protoevangelium, and other apocryphal gospels, also claim that Joseph never touched Mary sexually, that she remained a virgin her whole life, and that he didn’t want to marry her because of his advanced age.

    And the priest said to Joseph, You have been chosen by lot to take into your keeping the virgin of the Lord. But Joseph refused, saying: I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl. I am afraid lest I become a laughing-stock to the sons of Israel. ~ The Protoevangelium of James


    So, if you believe the non-canonical sources that state that Joseph was “much older than” Mary, then you also have to believe those non-canonical sources when they state that Joseph didn’t want to marry her in the first place, and feared becoming a laughing stock, precisely because of the age difference between them.

    So, which is it? Are the non-canonical sources accurate, and therefore Joseph didn’t want to marry her in the first place, and feared becoming a laughing stock, because of their age difference (which makes your argument false)? Or, are the non-canonical sources inaccurate (which also makes your argument false)?


  5. redpillboomer says:

    “They are, or rather more accurately they are situationally.”
    “So in the presence of a triggering man, yes, they can be very strong. In situations of “normal” stimuli, generally not as strong, on average.”

    I saw this in an educational program I participated in that had several twentysomething females in it. Nearly all the men, young and middle age that were single (possibly a married dude or two as well), were interested in two of them in particular, probably 8-8.5-9s depending on the man’s viewpoint. I saw these two turn down the one’s interested in them and willing to ‘shoot their shot’ with them. From my vantage point I thought the young women were rejecting some pretty decent guys. They both ending up with a couple of the ‘Casanova Players,’ like immediately when the player started interacting. One of the women, for reasons unknown to me, confided that she slept with him their first night out. He actually did nothing to initiate the action, other than inviting her over to his apartment. According to her, scouts honor-she told me this, she got naked and climbed into his bed and awaited him while he was preoccupied for a short bit checking scores on ESPN.

    BINGO…”So in the presence of a triggering man, yes, they can be very strong. In situations of “normal” stimuli, generally not as strong, on average.”


    • redpillboomer says:

      P.S. I was her performance coach during the program, that’s why I believe she shared the incident with me.


  6. lastmod says:

    Again……will ANY man in this ‘sphere who is “red pilled and christian” allow a 30, 35, or 40 year old man to “look at” his 14, 15, 16, 20 year old daughter and find her attractive…..or is their a difference between “looking at” or “looking at”

    Like “How are you doing?” v “How you doin’?”

    If I had a teenage daughter, and some man in my church at that age or whatever was “checking her out” I would be a bit perturbed…..or would “I” have to “understand” this is part of God’s plan, and the man cannot help it and I should be preparing my daughter to get married soon anyway”

    Again…..it sound like “men should be doing this, marrying women half their age…..part of God’s divine plan…..but NOT my daughter……you understand. Any man who does that is creepy, strange and needs a ‘talking to’ by the “real men” of the church.”


    • Jack says:

      It seems to me that NovaSeeker’s post above has addressed your question.
      What you are essentially asking is whether there are any men here who would be willing to buck against the western cultural norms just for the legalistic ћә11 of it. The answer is no, because this would not be something that a responsible and loving parent would do. As NovaSeeker wrote, under the present circumstances, it is a matter of how much (or how little) one is willing to compromise with the culture in which we live, in order to attain redemption and sanctification in one’s present life. Instead, you are trying to correlate this compromise with the appropriateness of the ages of men and women in marriage, but there is no such correlation. In other words, your Frame is incongruent, and it comes across as disingenuous and opprobrious. This is why you are not getting a direct answer from anyone.
      Finding a spouse (or any other decision in life) should not be approached as a matter of logical principle, which is essentially legalism, but as a discovery of what God might have in store for one’s life. If you want to interpret this as some kind of inappropriate justification for 40 year old men marrying teenage girls, then you have missed the point.
      BTW, I want to thank you for illustrating the differences between these two Frames, and how clinging to the wrong Frame is foolish and unproductive. As a gesture of my appreciation, I’ve taken you off moderation! Welcome to Σ Frame!


      • lastmod says:

        I have no effing idea what you mean by this reply. Wrong Frame? How is looking at a girl who is not of age….checking her out as a thirty forty of fifty year old man “normal”????


      • Sharkly says:

        C’mon Lastmod, Lighten up, its Christmas.


  7. Honora says:

    Adverse maternal and fetal outcomes are more common among women under the age of 19.


    • info says:

      True. But that’s lumping in those that are below 15. And many of those who are of low socioeconomic status that would elevate rates of malnutrition and obesity into the study.

      Those factors may not have been taken into account.


  8. cameron232 says:

    I said this on the other thread. I agree that it is normal for a man to be attracted to youthful beauty when it occurs in a biologically mature female.

    But there’s also IMO a responsibility (to God and to himself) for a Christian man to have internally-imposed restrictions on what’s “in his heart.” When I say “look at” I realize you can’t help notice an attractive girl particuarly when they are right in front of you and are half-dressed. Our workplace is hiring lots of 22 year olds (an younger interns) and the standard outfit for them is skin-tight pants (made out of business suit gray cloth) and tiny low cut shirts. You can’t not notice this. Some times, they come to you and you can’t call them out on how they dress – you’ll get fired.

    You can however, not continue to look, not think inappropriate thoughts (“the first look is not a sin”). I think you owe this to God, to your spouse, to yourself. Not every man will keep the standard perfectly but there’s a lot of value in acknowledging the standard.

    I realize a lot of this is beside the point – that biological attraction to mature femininity isn’t perverse and pathological.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Novaseeker says:

      You can however, not continue to look, not think inappropriate thoughts (“the first look is not a sin”). I think you owe this to God, to your spouse, to yourself. Not every man will keep the standard perfectly but there’s a lot of value in acknowledging the standard.

      I realize a lot of this is beside the point – that biological attraction to mature femininity isn’t perverse and pathological.


      There’s no question that looking on any woman with lustful desire tends toward the idolization of sex and sexual desire, and is therefore a sin in thought (as we say in the typical sins of confession — there are sins of deed, word and thought alike). Noticing is one thing, dwelling on, fixating on, taking titillation in, are all another. One is not a sin, the other is. This is the same as the difference between temptation, which is universal, and succumbing to temptation, which is not inevitable and which begins, in every case, with a sin in thinking, in entertaining the thought of the sin, of how enticing it is, of how alluring it is, and so on. This is already the territory of sin, no question.

      What I am criticizing is the idea that the noticing of post-pubescent female beauty is perverse and abnormal, precisely because this consists of the lie that “normal” men are simply not presented with any such temptation at all, just as normal men are not generally presented with any temptation in respect of homosexuality (at least of the male kind). This is what is incorrect, and what I am taking issue with. The attraction is there, and it forms the basis of the temptation. What one does with that, including with one’s mind, is of course a matter of the will, and is therefore in the realm of moral agency, and therefore, potentially, of sin.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Lexet Blog says:

      The fact employers can’t reign in dress codes is a big problem. And then they wonder why they have to deal with so many harassment suits.

      I know plenty of attorneys who only hire support staff older than 30 for a reason- this and not having to deal with maternity leave and having to find replacements

      Liked by 1 person

  9. Sharkly says:

    “the first look is not a sin”
    Better make it a good one then!
    Manmade religious regulations just lead to silly implementation.
    Is that the first time you stare at her boobs each day, or each time she enters the room, or what?
    Do you get both a first look at her tits and then a first look at her ass when she turns around?

    The problem is you’re trying to regulate the demand instead of supply. It is the evil temptress that’s the main problem, not the man with the natural male sex drive. While every man should control himself sexually, nobody should be allowed to intentionally allure people in a world where leering has been made a thought crime.

    The following story did not just happen at my work tonight, any similarity to actual people or events is strictly coincidental:
    So this this little Asian chick with a recent boobjob is wearing a pushup bra and a super tight top that is slit down too far and she’s walking up to me with her chest pushed out and then comes up and leans over my desk directly in front of me while flirting with me, and that’s all OK with everybody. If anything was wrong, it must have been with Sharkly. And last night she was wearing a super tight Christmas sweater with a string of Christmas lights embroidered over her disproportionate gravity-defying boobs that actually had brightly flashing LED lights to grab everybody’s attention and make them focus on her chest. But there ain’t nothing wrong with that either, am I right?

    Now if I were to try to be like a woman, here’s what I’d do. I’d get my already prodigious shlong surgically tripled in size then buy some pushup underwear that would really make my donkey-dick stick way out, then I’d buy some tight pants that had a spandex crotch and were either cut or unbuttoned to where the top third of my dick was showing, and mind you, these pants would have flashing LED lights around the crotch, and then I’d walk with my hips thrust forward, and go up to seated women and stick it all directly in their face, and be ready to call HR on any fat chicks that gave me “unwanted” attention. Those F**Kin’ deviant obese women! Can you believe them chunkys pervin’ on me like that? One stood up and left, but I bet she just stood up to get to look further down my pants. I bet she was undressing me in her dirty mind. Those nasty unfuckable fat women are incorrigible! All they think about is sex, sex, sex! I’m up here Baby! Quit ogling my privates. They’re called my privates for a reason! Keep your dirty female eyeballs off of my dick. You make me feel like I’m just a big sausage to you. I can’t help it I’m made this way! Boo hoo hoo Waaaaaa I just wanted to be able to wear these pants because they make me feel pretty, and now I can’t stop crying because of these evil women who can’t stop staring and make their dirty comments about me. I don’t know if I can go on working in such a hostile sexist environment. /S The mental anguish I’ve suffered just imagining that has got to be worth a couple million dollars. LOL If men behaved like women … the jokes just write themselves.

    Liked by 3 people

    • cameron232 says:

      A man’s wife isn’t at fault for other women dressing and acting like sluts. A man shouldn’t cheat on her, even in his heart.

      Yeah, I know, very beta.


      • feeriker says:

        Coming from the lips of some churchian franchise CEO (maybe not “soon,” but at some point in the foreseeable future):

        A message about how young women in the congregation who dress/act like slores are doing God’s work, because they’re keeping Christian men’s lusts “within the family of Christ.”

        Seriously, as far off the rails as things have already gone, is something like this really too farfetched become reality?

        Liked by 2 people

      • Lexet Blog says:

        One of the reasons I refuse to attend churches with a sizable youth group is because the way women dress at church these days. If the congregation is not safe from these types of distractions, what’s the point?

        The standard for acceptable female clothing is a race to the bottom. What women wouldn’t wear to college just over a decade ago is now acceptable for church

        Liked by 3 people

      • Sharkly says:

        I was just joking to make a point. See my comment about Job above:
        Yes, men should resist and flee from temptation. And not mainly for their wife’s sake but for their own and God’s sake. TBH my wife deserves to be cheated on. But I keep myself pure because I fear God, and don’t want to destroy my salvation.
        While it may seem difficult to understand, in psalm 51 after king David has been confronted about committing adultery with Bathsheba and killing her husband Uriah, David says to God:
        Psalm 51:4 4 Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest.

        David, the man after God’s own heart, doesn’t make mention of sinning against Uriah, or Bathsheba’s father, all his other wives and children, or the whole kingdom. He says that his sin is against God only. But, God is the worst possible entity that you could sin against. If you know Him well, you know that.

        Far worse than looking at a woman twice, and not averting your eyes from that goddess whom you deem yourself too foul and unworthy to look upon, is the seduction of the immodest temptress who does the satanic work of devils, by intentionally tempting men. The patriarchy used to know that, and enforce standards of modesty. [Reeeeee! insert Taliban/burqa name-calling here] In our world of “sexual Harassments” Jordan Peterson reminds us that lipstick and rouge are designed to redden a woman’s face exactly like how many women’s lips and cheeks become flushed during heightened sexual arousal, that women are in fact trying to trigger a natural sexual response and attraction in men by covertly signaling sexual readiness, and yet then blame the men that they don’t want to mate with, for responding as designed. Women aren’t as innocent as they claim.

        You can hear Psalm 51 as it was, long ago, beautifully set to music in Latin:

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        “The patriarchy used to know that, and enforce standards of modesty.”

        Sharkly, in a lot of tradtional cultures the married and/or older women enforce standards of modesty – in part to keep their men away from younger and/or unmarried women and vice versa.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Sharkly says:

        Every man, woman, servant, and child is an active contributor to God’s holy patriarchy, when it is governing them as designed. (e.g. Titus 2:1-9)

        Liked by 2 people

  10. cameron232 says:

    From a recent piece from Edward Dutton on the psychology of QAnon (the partial truth in the “Satanic pedophile conspiracy” stuff:

    “Pedophilia and psychopathic personality may be comorbid, because they are both manifestations of developmental instability, resulting from elevated mutational load.”


    “Those who are high in psychopathic personality are, in evolutionary terms, adapted to a chaotic, unstable environment in which cooperating with people is futile, because such acts might never be reciprocated; you must, therefore, “live fast, die young” and opt to pass on your genes as quickly as possible. This militates in favor of having as much sex as you can with as many fertile (and thus young) females as possible. This is known as a fast Life History Strategy.79 Having sex with underage, though fertile, girls—“ephebophilia”—would simply be an extreme manifestation of this sexual strategy.”


    Incidentally, studies have shown that women are attracted to psychopathic personality traits. Not always the archetypal psychopath, maybe subclinical psychopathy, maybe elevated levels of these traits. Even women trained in psychology who should be able to spot these things (female staff in prisons who are seduced by violent prisoners).

    No wonder women weren’t allowed to choose in the good old days.


  11. Elspeth says:

    This post, and one preceding it was bothering me and I couldn’t figure out why. My dad was 27 to my mom’s 17 when they got married, so I don’t have any inherent bias against women marrying at what our generation refers to as an exceptionally young age.

    I do think, however, that it is foolish to refuse to acknowledge that we live in a culture that undermines the ability for a young woman, even a well-raised one, to stick through the ups and downs of a marriage at the age of 16. There’s a reason why most marriages with teen brides fail miserably. But I remembered now why this bugged me so much.

    We have a family friend, a n old, old family friend who is not among the WASP-y neighbors and school parents we see more regularly now because of our kids. This is an old-school working class dad, who shared with us what he told his daughters way back when they were about 12 and entering junior high (roughly paraphrased and kind of crude):

    “From the time a boy is about 12, he has a hard [expletive] and he’s looking for somewhere to stick it. By the time you reach high school he’ll say anything he thinks you need to hear to get you to give him what he wants, and if your guard is not up, you’ll feed him exactly what he needs to say to sway you. Your job is to remember my voice and prioritize what I’m telling you because if you let him in, there’s a 100% chance it’s gonna end in heartache and regret.” He said a lot more, with humorous flair, but you get the gist

    Which brings me to my dilemma with all of this. Even accounting for the relatively new phenomena of coed education and youth groups, if our friend was right, then the ideal of a man reaching 30 and then marrying a late teens aged girl means that he has waited a minimum of 15 years from his “awakening” to get married. That’s a long time for a man.

    This system sucks, and it’s neither godly nor ideal, but the reality is that we have to accept that self-control as a fruit of the spirit applies to sexual self-control as well. When we start down this road of “you can’t expect Christians to exercise self-control because they’re human and the sex drive is beyond the scope of controlling”, that’s a dangerous road.

    Every generation of believers has a particular set of challenges to their faith that they must overcome, and frankly, in the West (whether due to wars or economic hardships or whatever), there have been numerous seasons of time when marriage was hard to come by. However, the absence of easily accessible, reliable birth control meant that most average people either controlled themselves or operated with extreme caution and discretion if they didn’t. We also live in a comfortable, decadent age where we are able to mentally indulge things that other generations didn’t dwell on as much because large swaths of their energy was dedicated to survival.

    What is happening now is happening because the church embraced birth control, lax standards for divorce, and other cultural narratives. It’s not because people are wholly incapable of stopping themselves when it comes to sexual expression. Just because something required forethought and effort doesn’t mean it can’t be done.

    Hurriedly marrying off an immature, publicly schooled, culturally indoctrinated girl so she can make some man’s life a living hell is really not a godly answer to a spiritual issue.

    The church returning to Truth is the real answer.

    Liked by 3 people

  12. lastmod says:

    My mom was 19 and my father 28 when they married. It wasn’t because my dad was looking for some nubile, hot woman to be his wife. My father was about as incel as me…..and had he not met my mother, he would have probably never married and spent his life building furniture, reading, and camping and rebuilding cars from the 1950’s.

    My mother was in a foreign country….young, pretty but at a time when birth control was still not common or easy to get……..people did have to be more cautious or show restraint back then.

    My dad was pumping gas at a gas / service station……..part time gig while he was in journeyman school, and being a farm hand. According to the man-o-sphere….my father was a waste of time. He didn’t own a home, didn’t have an “amazing career” nor did he have savings and wasn’t some ladies man. In those days (1964) a man at his age who was not married was: lazy, a player, had some deformity, or severe intellectual lacking (social or otherwise) and could be viewed as “gay” or just irresponsible. He just was not classically handsome, nor someone who had the personality to be the life of the party.

    My mother pulled up in a rented car. He said hello. Filled the tank….commented on her beautiful British accent. Mom blushed. Dad asked for her address….where she was staying…….it went from there. Nine months later they were married.

    No Game. No Frame. No pick-up-lines……no hidden meanings of female secret language…….it just happened.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Pingback: The Christian Marriage Dilemma | Σ Frame

  14. Pingback: God’s Concept of Justice | Σ Frame

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s