Average age of first time sexual experience (data) and what this means for Christians

10 years is a long time to wait!

Readership: Christians
Length: 1,250 words
Reading Time: 5-8 minutes

What have we done to the Institution of Marriage?

The Feminist Life Script (2020 December 17) received some rave reviews in the comments.  There was some discussion about the historical average age of marriage, and other discussion about the age of marriage in a Biblical context or the Hebrew culture of antiquity.  Others very strongly objected to 14-15 year old girls getting married, especially to 30+ year old men.

But all these arguments, though valid, cling to principles, rules, historical trends, or cultural norms, and therefore sidestep the core issue.

So what is the core issue?

What is it that we are most concerned about?

Here’s a list of the possibilities.  (Feel free to add to this list in the comments.)

  • We don’t want our daughters to have sex at “too young” an age.  (Define what is “too young” and why.)
  • We don’t want our daughters to become slores.  (At what point does this happen?)
  • We don’t want our daughters to debase their marriages.
  • We don’t want our daughters to defraud their future husbands.
  • We don’t want our daughters to have an unhappy marriage.  (Does marriage at a certain age determine happiness?)
  • We don’t want our daughters to get pregnant out of wedlock.
  • We don’t want our daughters to undergo a divorce in the future.
  • We are most concerned about not having to worry about what will happen to our daughters.
  • We don’t want to feel shame or embarrassment as a parent.
  • We want to control our daughter’s sexual interests and activities so that they don’t become a statistic.

So how does postponing marriage past the age of 25 provide a solution to any of these concerns?

Yet, that is exactly what is happening.

Another important question (which, sadly, no one brought up) is this:

What is it that God is most concerned about?

For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you should abstain from sexual immorality; that each of you should know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor, not in passion of lust, like the Gentiles who do not know God; that no one should take advantage of and defraud his brother in this matter, because the Lord is the avenger of all such, as we also forewarned you and testified.  For God did not call us to uncleanness, but in holiness.  Therefore he who rejects this does not reject man, but God, who has also given us His Holy Spirit.

1st Thessalonians 4:3-8 (NKJV)

There’s more.  Here’s a short list to consider.

I dare say, and I cannot emphasize it enough, we will not see any improvements in our social conditions (i.e. the MMP) until we begin to prioritize that which is most important to God!

We should be openly and frequently talking to our daughters about the SMP and marriage as soon as they begin to take an interest in such things.

image

Why Wait?

Let’s very briefly review why it’s important for a woman to retain her virginity until marriage.  I’d like to shy people away from only considering this as a “rule”, in favor of taking a hard look at the actual real world consequences of illicit/premarital sex.

The above graph says it all. For an explanation of this phenomenon, here are a few posts of relevance.

You see, it’s not just about “rules”, or even ethics or morality.  There are very good practical reasons why God told us to refrain from sexual immorality!

Let’s think about it…

Wisdom requires us to take an honest look at the facts.

According to the above graph, we are looking at about 2 years of leeway. I interpret this to mean that the average person can only wait about 2 years to have sex. Also of note, Republicans have it easier than Democrats for some reason.

Some reports claim that the average male has sex for the first time at age 16.9, and females lose their virginity slightly older, at 17.4 on the average.  Since these are self-reported statistics, I suspect that these numbers are probably a lot older for males, and younger for females.  I would guess the real numbers are about 15-16 for girls, and 18-19 for guys.  This actually shows up in the graphs shown above.  Of course, race, region, genetics, home environment, and socioeconomic background play into that.  But for now, let’s use that original statistic for the sake of discussion.

According to the estimates from the 2017 U.S. Census Bureau, the average age of first marriage for women was 27.4 years.  For men, it’s slightly older at 29.5 years.  That’s the longest Americans have ever waited to get married.

Now think about that…

27.4 – 17.4 = 10

Exactly 10 years between women’s first sexual experience, and getting married – and that’s on the average!

Pray tell, just exactly what are young women doing during those 10 years???

As the average age of marriage is postponed, that leaves more time for postporniscuity. I doubt that it is a coincidence.

They’ll be doing all the things that we hoped they wouldn’t do, as given in the first bulleted list above.

More important than this, they’ll be destroying all the things that God desires of them, as given in the second bulleted list above.

Concluding Statements

We like to think that Christianity can somehow eliminate human nature.  But that’s not how Christianity works, especially not for hormone ridden adolescents.  We must begin to get serious about the purpose of our faith, and not just dawdle with idle rules and pompous decorum.

It is irresponsible for us as parents to put our daughters into a circumstance where they will be tempted beyond measure to have sex outside of marriage.  In light of the above information, it is entirely reasonable that we should encourage young women to marry, rather than follow the Feminist Life Script, especially those who are at the age where they are about to let the cat out of the bag.

Now as parents, we are tempted to tell ourselves, “No, that won’t happen to MY daughter.  I raised her right.  She won’t be like that!”  Please!  Let’s have pity on our daughters.  Let’s help them find a fitting way to satisfy their desires.

What is a realistic expectation for our daughters?

Can we honestly tell them to wait until marriage to have sex, and at the same time, make marriage an unrealistic, and even an unpreferred option during TEN of their prime SMV/MMV years?

Are there any other alternatives that would be pleasing to God?

Yes, there’s celibacy!  How would your daughter feel about that option?

Related

About Jack

Jack is a world traveling artist, skilled in trading ideas and information, none of which are considered too holy, too nerdy, nor too profane to hijack and twist into useful fashion. Sigma Frame Mindsets and methods for building and maintaining a masculine Frame
This entry was posted in Courtship and Marriage, Cultural Differences, Decision Making, Desire, Discernment, Wisdom, Divorce, Enduring Suffering, International, Models of Failure, Organization and Structure, Purpose, Relationships, Sanctification & Defilement, Society, Statistics Reports, Stewardship, Strategy, Vetting Women. Bookmark the permalink.

72 Responses to Average age of first time sexual experience (data) and what this means for Christians

  1. bee123456 says:

    Early marriage is the best antidote. Maybe the fathers that objected to 15-30 would feel better about 18-22?

    Anecdotal, but I have read and heard a number of teen girls report that they gave up their virginity when away from home; band camp, summer camp, Senior Trip, church sleepover, mission trip, etc.

    Liked by 5 people

    • Lexet Blog says:

      The majority of church men want their daughters to marry after college. They may as well be fighting gravity. The number of families I know who wanted marriage for their kids ASAP, and weren’t concerned about college is fewer than 5. They are the 1%.

      The difference between them and the 99% tends to be that the parents are very involved with their children’s development, as well as faith, whereas the rest couldn’t give a shit about their kids or who they dated.

      The result? Guys can’t find wife material, and women are single at 25 and become very angry. Find a female over 25 in the church who has never been married, and you will see a very bitter woman who is angry with the world. It’s like clockwork, and you can see them all They start going down heretical trails at this point (weak women being preyed upon).

      The only voices in modern Christianity talking about this are voddie baucham and Paul washer (these are calvinists/determinists). Their message is that the guy should be on his feet with a job and house before he even considers marriage. So these fools want men to wait a decade. Brilliant.

      Liked by 5 people

      • Lance says:

        Wrong. They want men to man up sooner. They’re not pushing for late marriages.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Lexet Blog says:

        Their sons delay marriage, and peer group men are “too immature” for marriage.

        Nearly every parent with college age kids wanted their daughters to marry after college. The exceptions prove the rule.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Elspeth says:

        False. Patently so.

        In a message preached THIS fall, Voddie Baucham specifically said that Christian parents of daughters should not expect 20 year old men to be as economically established or spiritually mature as a 40-year old man.

        He did mention basic level expectations that should have. Such as yes, a job. And yes, the ability to handle things should a child be born 9 months after the wedding. But he mostly said that fathers and fathers in law should be prepared to help mold a young man rather than expect him to be ready made. Voddie Baucham is one of the good ones. We need to beware of aligning every man of the cloth simply for not agreeing to all of our pet whims.

        For the record, my husband was 21 years old. (I was 23) when he declared to me that I was no longer going off to work every day, but was going to stay home with our 9 month old. I was 5 months pregnant with twins.

        I haven’t worked for anyone other than him or myself for 25 years. God provided.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Lexet Blog says:

        He must have recently changed his position then. I agree with him.

        The point on child rearing is also incredibly controversial. Most Protestant calvinists are pro birth control. Me standing against it put me at odds with my very large church (before I left it)

        Like

      • Novaseeker says:

        They want men to man up sooner. They’re not pushing for late marriages.

        That would be easier to take seriously if there were a religious mandate for marrying a spouse within 1-2 years of age. Since there isn’t, this is, again, another element of capitulating to the culture.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Lexet Blog says:

        It would also be taken seriously if he can show this is practiced. I live in the Bible Belt. It’s not happening

        Like

      • ikr says:

        Lexet, you are dialed in. Fire for effect.

        Wrong. They want men to man up sooner. They’re not pushing for late marriages.

        Scripturally borderline heretical. Empirically demonstrably false at any family gathering or city-corner church near you. 1 Co 11:9. Je 29:6.

        Paradigm is completely worldly. There is a distinct difference between those who are launching their assessment from the Bible and seeking to understand data from this view, versus those leaning on their own understanding, grasping at what data points support their position while capitulating to the [Romans 1] culture around us.

        Oliver Perry would like a word.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Lexet Blog says:

        Even in the most conservative of churches they wouldn’t dare preach 1cor 11:9. Complementarianism took the church in a heretical direction long ago.

        What’s sad is that most of the families that had a wife at home are raising their daughters to not be stay at home moms- I kid you not.

        This is in ultra conservative Calvinist culture. The parents regret and are bitter about it.

        Liked by 2 people

    • Novaseeker says:

      Anecdotal, but I have read and heard a number of teen girls report that they gave up their virginity when away from home

      It makes sense given that the opportunity to be relatively unsupervised presents itself in these situations, which is always needed for the teens to have sex after all. In earlier eras, there were more unsupervised spaces in ordinary life than there are today, generally speaking, and so that anecdote makes sense. In fact, I am sure that any number of the teens going on these trips look forward to them for precisely this reason (i.e., chance to have sex), while a handful of others probably dread them for the same reason.

      Liked by 2 people

  2. lastmod says:

    Just as bad as the secular leftists “they’re going to do it anyway….so let them get married to a man over thirty…..except my daughter…. you understand”

    This is a bit sick and perverted in my view. ..but I am a United States Citizen living in the early 21sr century….not a prophet of pre hellenistic Judaism nor following gods plan if he didn’t mention it.

    God didn’t mention specifically STD’s…so they must not have existed then.

    To me…..this is a stretch to justify the serialization of children and teens. Disgusting

    Like

  3. cameron232 says:

    From what I’ve noticed, girls raised in a decent home seem to desire a permanent relationship around very late teens, 18-19 – in my mind this seems like a natural time to start courting – preferably to a young man of similar age or not too much older.

    Like

    • cameron232 says:

      Amending my comment to “17 – 19” – what I observed is approximately senior year of high school to sophmore year of college.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. Novaseeker says:

    Indeed, Jack.

    The response of the church to this issue has been to look the other way.

    Essentially the church, and parents, meander between (1) denying that their kids are having sex between puberty and marriage in the late 20s/early 30s and (2) accepting that they do, but minimizing the sinfulness of it, given its ubiquity in the culture, and the fact that most married couples around them fornicated themselves prior to marriage (and in almost all cases prior to fornicating with the person they married, as well). The church therefore either denies that the problem exists, or it chooses to look the other way, quietly, and not say much about what it knows is happening but refuses to discuss. That way, the “doctrine on the books” can remain the same as is, despite the de facto practice — which is looking the other way in the face of mass fornication — and things go on per our regularly scheduled programming.

    The variant of “I advocate 22 instead of 27” is a fallback position, but it’s still a fantasy. Even if it were locked in stone that a child of either sex would marry by 22, which it isn’t, there’s still a LOT of fornicating going on, especially in that 18-22 period. And, in many cases, 22 quickly becomes 25 due to grad school, post-graduate internships and travel and the other fabulousness that mid-2os Americans who are college educated tend to engage in, the higher up the pole the merrier it gets. But either way, whether it’s 22 (rare) or 25 or 27 the issue is the same, and the difference is merely one of degree (pardon the pun). Once they’re loose in this culture, it’s game on, and everyone knows it.

    Liked by 5 people

  5. cameron232 says:

    “Since these are self-reported statistics, I suspect that these numbers are probably a lot older for males…”

    Men exaggerate sexual experience? No way!!! Way!!

    Like

  6. feeriker says:

    I remember Scott having posted something a couple of years or so ago, I believe it was on Dalrock’s blog, to the effect that he and Mychael would be very willing to give assistance to any God-fearing, hardworking, motivated young son-in-law who married his daughter, or to one one of his sons and his bride, to help them get on their feet and get economically viable as a family. This clearly is recognition of the fact that economic self-sufficiency for the young is much harder to obtain today than it was in the past due to the changes (or more accurately, corruption) in our modern economy and that if young family formation IAW God’s ideal is the goal, then it’s going to mean that the young couple’s entire family will have to contribute as a family to help make it happen (gosh, imagine that: families nurturing and caring for their own. Who came up with that heinous idea? /S).

    This, methinks, is one major unstated reason why young family formation in in the modern “Christian” west is so rare. Parents have to be deeply involved not only in raising their children in God’s ways when they’re young, but providing biblically sound wisdom and guidance to them as they enter the world of late adolescence and adulthood, one of the most challenging and terrifying times for young adults as they face the challenges of the “real world” for the first time.

    Unfortunately for these young people, this is also the time when most western (especially American) “Christian” parents, who are deeply wedded to and committed to THE CULTURE’S life script, decide that they’re done raising kids and do everything they can to eject them out of the nest and out of their lives, to sink or swim in the wider world as best they can survive it. Let them make their own way in the world and sort it out for themselves. What God wants for families (as Jack enumerates in the OP) is the farthest thing from the churchian mind. Indeed, it’s doubtful that any of them have ever even read, much less pondered or absorbed any of the relevant verses. Having to do things the Lord’s way is just too risky in terms of having to remove their best foot from the World that is their first love and involves too much work. “I raised’em from birth! Now you want me to mentor’em in adulthood? Are you NUTS?!”

    This goes a long way toward explaining the state of the western “Christian” family today. God appears to have decided that if we’re determined to not do things His way, then He’s going to let us reap the bitter fruits of doing it our way.

    Liked by 5 people

    • Elspeth says:

      I can’t tell you the criticism my husband has taken for declaring that he is still responsible for our girls until they are married. And from really devout parents, no less. It has been pretty startling.

      As to my earlier comment, I should add that I was not pleased with the idea of being fully dependent on my husband at that point. I wrestled with it for years, in fact, and those first 5 or 6 years were pretty lean. But he insisted, and he was right. Why would we leave three kids under 2 with a babysitter when they have a mother to care for them, was his point. I could have disobeyed. I know women who have refused to quit working when their husbands asked. Mine didn’t really ask.

      All that to say: the idea that a very young man cannot handle a family financially is not an absolute truth. And we always managed to live in a decent neighborhood, even than, and of course moved up as his career allowed it over the years. So no. We weren’t living in slums. We rented, and were happy, and had what we needed.

      It’s our materialism that makes it seem impossible.

      Liked by 4 people

      • Lexet Blog says:

        The economy is a completely different world than it was 20 years ago. To your point of people in the church being opposed to being in authority of their daughter in adulthood, it’s get another area of dissonance in modern churchianity, and is why I reject the modern church. It’s practices oppose what’s written in scripture.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Oscar says:

        The economy is a completely different world than it was 20 years ago.

        That’s true of every 20 years. And yet, it’s still possible for a young man to support a family. I showed the math on one way to do that below.

        Liked by 3 people

    • Sharkly says:

      Lamentations 4:3(ERV) Even a wild dog feeds her babies. Even the jackal lets her pups suck at her breast. But the daughter of my people is cruel. She is like the ostrich in the desert that forgets its eggs in the sand.
      Lamentations 4:3(VOICE) Cruelty marks our young women. Even jackals nourish their young, But like the stupid ostrich in the desert, my people don’t care a whit for their own.
      These same foolish women who tear their own houses down with their own hands,(proverbs 14:1) would likely just be evil meddlers, tearing their children’s marriages apart with their same retarded Boomer Feminism, if they stayed involved. I’ve seen that too. My wife’s parents are like Satan’s ambassadors, stoking all her resentments, and constantly trying to get her to divorce and move back into their orbit. People who don’t fear God, are detrimental to a healthy and righteous society, regardless of what they set out to do. The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. Fools who don’t fear God, don’t even have the beginning of wisdom. They can’t help but spread their ruinous foolishness.
      Sirach 13:1 Whoever touches pitch will be defiled, and whoever associates with a proud man will become like him.
      And whoever associates by choice with satanic child-sacrificing Feminist cunt-worshippers will be contaminated with their satanic leaven of patriarchy/family destruction. Feminists consider the traditional Christian family to be a form of female slavery, and they are trying to end it. We have to end them first, before they end our civilization.
      They’re fools! They don’t accept reproof or sensible coaching. They can’t be reasoned with in any way that is actually productive. We are coming due for a civil war, or something, to kill off over 60 million of us to make restitution for the over 60 million innocents we have all allowed Feminists to sacrifice at the altar of their satanic cunt-idolatry since 1973. God, the Creator of those innocents, is not mocked. Unfortunately that’s where I suspect we are at. We need to repent and start tearing down their idols and their strongholds. And like with the Canaanites, we need to destroy them all to purge the land of their wickedness. They won’t even compromise with their own baby to let him live. We need to prepare to fight those whores and their White Knights with a divine mandate giving no quarter to God’s enemies until they are no more. IMHO

      Liked by 3 people

  7. proprietor says:

    It is clear from the comments that people really don’t have any idea what things used to be like. If you read the 19th century novels it is clear.

    Let’s say that you have a 16yo daughter. A man of 25 comes along, they “court” and fall in love (but no kissing), and then the man says that he will marry the girl. So, she is sixteen. Why not? Why make them wait? What difference does it make if she is 16 or 18? None, really. Probably there are reservations today because it would be a little weird to still be going to high school while married, although this sure beats going to high school as an unmarried mother, which happens all the time. But, high school is a relatively recent thing, from after WWII. Before 1940, the majority of Americans did not finish high school.

    If it bothers people, then they can wait until 18. But, that means no hanky-panky of any sort until 18. This business of “it’s OK if a girl is dating (having sex, or at least 2nd/3rd base) at 16, but ABSOLUTELY NOT getting married” is evidence of how corrupt things are today. In 1880, it was OK to get married at 16 but ABSOLUTELY NOT “dating” (having sex) with not even an expectation of marriage.

    Liked by 8 people

    • Lexet Blog says:

      Yep. Boys and girls of the same age being in the same classroom post puberty is a creation of the last 100 years.

      Liked by 1 person

      • proprietor says:

        There are old public schools around here with separate entrances for boys and girls.

        I should say that, one option would be to begin “courting” at age 16, but to postpone marriage until 18, if that suits people. Then, a girl could collect interest from multiple men, and if they are still interested two years later, she could select among them.

        Like

    • Joe2 says:

      So, she is sixteen. Why not? Why make them wait? What difference does it make if she is 16 or 18? None, really.

      New York recently raised the legal age to get married from 14 to 18 and requires 17 year-olds to obtain both parental and judicial approval. The old law which dated back to 1929 allowed younger marriages, but times have changed. It was noted that today marriages at younger ages are often forced or coerced marriages perpetrated by parents and family members. As a result, it condemns young women to a life they did not choose. And attempting to evaluate each marriage application for the purpose of weeding out those that seem to be forced or coerced may not be possible. So it may make a difference based on each family’s situation.

      Like

  8. Oscar says:

    I’m going to post this again, because this idea that it’s impossible for a young man to be ready to support a family keeps popping up.

    An 18-year-old man, fresh out of high school, can start an electrician’s apprenticeship program, assuming he has the aptitude for it. My electrician friends tell me they’re desperate for drug-free people with a clean record and a good work ethic.

    The average electrician’s apprentice makes $17.53 / hour* in the USA (varies by city). Assuming he works full time, that’s $36,462 / year, not counting taxes, or overtime.

    At this point, he’s only 18 years old.

    It takes four years (give or take a year) to become a journeyman electrician, making $25.35 / hour* on average. Assuming he works full time, that’s $52,728 / year, not counting taxes, or overtime. And, electricians I know get a lot of overtime.

    Keep in mind, our hypothetical young man is now 22 years old, making at least $50K / year with zero debt. Here in Missouri, that’s pretty good money.

    If he’s been smart, lived with his parents, and saved up, he’s more than ready to marry a young woman, buy a little starter house, and start a family. Or, if his parents are like Scott, live in the barndominium apartment for a couple more years, and save up even more.

    Let’s keep going.

    In two more years, our enterprising young man can become a master electrician. Now he’s making an average of $31.58 / hour*. That’s $65,686 / year, not counting taxes or overtime.

    And he’s only 26.

    From here, the sky’s the limit. There are companies paying master electricians $55 / hour, which is $114,400 / year, not even counting overtime.

    So, can a young man make a good living today?

    Yes, he can.

    Oh, and by the way, all the electricians I know kept working through the “lockdowns”, because they’re “essential workers”.

    Quit choking on black pills, do the math with your kids, and advise them accordingly.

    *Salary averages from indeed.com.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Elspeth says:

      Everyone wants to know a good [mechanic, plumber, electrician, drywall guy], but they don’t want their sons to be one!

      Liked by 3 people

      • Oscar says:

        If anyone’s going to buck that trend, it’s going to be people like us. I did the cost / benefit analysis with my kids between an electrician’s apprenticeship, a 2-year community college degree in dental hygiene, and a 4-year university degree in sociology.

        The electrician was 1st, with the dental hygienist close behind, and the sociologist a distant third. We need to do the math with our kids.

        Liked by 3 people

      • lastmod says:

        Or their “amazing / gifted / talented / pretty” daughter marrying one

        Liked by 3 people

      • Oscar says:

        Jason,

        I have five daughters. I’d be very happy to give them in marriage to Godly young tradesmen.

        Liked by 2 people

    • lastmod says:

      Osacr…..my father was a Union Carpenter and Joiner. A master craftsman as well. Build furniture. Built the house I grew up in. A carpenters house……well built, some additional ammeneties and things that just made it very unique. He had the concrete professionally poured for the basement…but everything else. He did.

      Despite this. Dad was unemployed at times. Dad did have to take other jobs. Dad wasn’t just focused on money, and how much he made…….he had humility and a passion for what he did. Sure, someone could train to be an electrician……..but is this person any good? Is his work trusted? Is it one-and-done? My dad lamented at the shoddy work many young carpenters did by the time he was retired “Oh…the Union won’t fire me” seems to be the attitude.

      I was trained to be a an elementary school teacher. Did I have a passion for it? Yes. Do I like kids before they become teenagers? I do. Did I like the job??????

      No. And it showed. Sure, okay money. Decent benefits. Hated it. Left it. I was smart in this area. Many are not when it comes to a career. They get stuck, and must do it, even if they hate it.

      I would rather have someone enter a field that doesn’t pay as much, but they love what they do. If the money is there…..well, an added bonus.

      Today I would have never dreamed I would be in property management. I love the work. The challenges. The building I maintain, lead and lease keeps me going………the money is okay. I didn’t know this at 22, 19, or 33 that this career would be a good fit.

      If a young man is soley and only focusing on a career that will make “good money” that isn’t always the best route either. Also Unions are corrupt, political (my fatrher was passed up jobs as younger man because he did not give additional money to the local Democratic Party in Scehenectady,New York.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        Okay. What was your point?

        Like

      • lastmod says:

        The point is……going into the trades doesn’t guarantee wages at “x” amount of time, or work or strikes. Focusing on a career just for money if you don’t like it, in any field isn’t a solution either

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        going into the trades doesn’t guarantee wages at “x” amount of time, or work or strikes.

        I never said that “going into the trades guarantees wages at ‘x’ amount of time, or work or strikes”.

        Focusing on a career just for money if you don’t like it, in any field isn’t a solution either

        I never said that “focusing on a career just for money if you don’t like it, in any field is a solution.”

        Like

  9. bee123456 says:

    Lexet Blog,

    “What’s sad is that most of the families that had a wife at home are raising their daughters to not be stay at home moms- I kid you not.

    This is in ultra conservative Calvinist culture. The parents regret and are bitter about it.”

    Help me understand what you have observed. Do you mean that the mom’s are bitter about having been stay at home moms? Do you mean that husbands are also bitter that their wives stayed home instead of working and adding to their family finances?

    Like

    • lastmod says:

      Bee….my mother went back to work in 1974. Not because of feminism. It was out of necessity. Inflation, oil embargo…cost of living. My dad’s “good wage” could not keep up. By 1979, my mother was full-time and as the 1980’s dawned, I and my older brother became “latch-key” kids. Wake up. Parents at work, get ready for school. Come home. Set table, start dinner. Begin homework. Parents come home. Dinner. Clean up. Off to bed. This was the 1980’s for me as a kid entering middle school and all through high school.

      My mother wished it was different. What choice do most have? Really????? Even so-called Christian families??? Unless dad does indeed have that kind of job (and not every man is going to be an engineer or doctor). Most men today are indeed going to have a wife that works at least part-time at some point. Much of this isn’t “because feminism” most is out of necessity

      Liked by 1 person

      • Lance says:

        For most it’s a choice based on lifestyle. Some get trapped into a lifestyle and then are dependent on that income. I was surprised when I got married because I hadn’t known about my wife being obligated to work because they had paid for a college degree for her, so we’re being careful to not pump up our lifestyle and use the money to pay debts down so we won’t become dependent on her job. I do agree with the line-of-thought that it’s a good thing for the families to help out. One thing taught by a great financial freedom seminar (christian) that I saw a few decades ago was the concept of the family setting up the kids with a small starter home when they get married so they don’t have the housing bills to start with.

        Like

      • lastmod says:

        I don’t know about the rest of the USA during this time (1980’s) but Upstate New York never recovered after 1974………by the end of the decade the smaller factory / plant cities like Schenectady, Amsterdam, Utica, Plattsburgh, Johnstown all shutted up and the “good Union jobs” went away….and never came back. It was a forced hand for many families. Wife had to go to work…husband takes any job and if you don’t take this option….you lose the house and livlihood……….go live on welfare, move to the trailer park, or bad neighborhood in a smaller city…………

        What do you tell a 39 year old man in….let’s say in 1982 with three children…….in Utica, NY when General Electric closes up shop, lays off 20,000 people. What do you tell him “Oh, you should have become an electrical engineer or a doctor / learn to code, easy to retrain at your age……textbook, simple / how come you didn’t save 35% of every pay check for the past ten years / you should start a business and make lots of money…..easy to do”

        If a married couple does indeed have a good or decent marriage……the wife will indeed say “I’ll find something, we’ll get through this, I am here to HELP”

        That’s what happened where I grew up. Everyone in my town was married,…..and wives went to work. As much as I admire Reagan for some of what he did and stood for…….I would get upset at him for this “traditional familiy values” stuff he said at times, because many of his policies encouraged this new model of “latch key” families especially in the rust belt of the Northeast…..and he was the one who made “no-fault divorce” the norm in the USA.

        Like

    • Lexet Blog says:

      The families tended to be well off financially, so I am going to guess the wives weren’t that happy staying home and not doing much.

      What’s interesting is that these families often had homeschool experience but also left that as well for private schools.

      Like

    • Lexet Blog says:

      I’ve also noticed, especially this year, that many women would rather work away from home than be around their families all day.

      Liked by 2 people

  10. Oscar says:

    Not “churchian” approved.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Elspeth says:

      To this point of economic differences between now and 20 years ago. I agree. It’s different. technology, combined with our obsession with college credentials, has changed the game drastically and often in negative ways.

      And yet, we have a married 25-year-old nephew, with 5 kids under the age of 6 (set of twins in there). His wife is at home full time. They kind of fell into this life when she got pregnant when they were 18, and money is tight, but they have what they need and they seem happy enough.

      A young man who went to school with my oldest daughter, is also 25. Typical middle class, WASP kid. Really smart, but also got his high school girlfriend pregnant and married her. He didn’t get to go to college. Responsibilities called. They now have three children under the age of 7. His wife is at home full time. They just bought a decent house in a safe neighborhood. He works in some printing factory. He seems pretty content, as does she.

      Common theme, as I was also knocked up when I got married. My husband has determined that young men can figure things out at breakneck speed when life demands it, and that our refusal to expect anything from them is why they don’t produce anything.

      Are any of these couples (including us) ever going to be in the upper echelons of society?

      Probably not, but that is okay.

      Liked by 4 people

      • Oscar says:

        It amazes me how often people insist that things can’t be done when others are busy doing exactly that which is supposedly impossible.

        Liked by 4 people

      • lastmod says:

        Oscar, you are assuming all have equal intelligence, upbringing, cultural status, a solid marriage, all have good careers, and / or education and a commitment of the wife to push and want this. Just sayin’. Many don’t have this, even in the Christian “bold n biblical” world.

        Like

      • Ame says:

        My husband has determined that young men can figure things out at breakneck speed when life demands it, and that our refusal to expect anything from them is why they don’t produce anything.

        i think this is true of most young people, but they have no incentive to figure things out, no motivation, no reason. if they ever find themselves needing to work to eat, i imagine they’d become quite industrious quite fast.

        i agree that we parents are responsible for our daughters till they marry (that’s me, for us, as their Dad passed away quite a few years ago). but that is very much NOT a popular pov, and, i’m guessing, one that’s thought of as barbaric if it’s thought about at all.

        parents seem to take a hands-off view of parenting once their kid graduates from high school. how tragic and sad.

        a friend i met when i had my first blog many years ago, who i would have loved to have as a Dad, raised four amazing kids with his wife whom he married young, has multiple grandchildren from all four married adult kids. he recently wrote about what it’s like to continue parenting our adult children – the point that we’re to be givers of wisdom and direction when necessary … that our roles don’t end. i thought, when i read that, how tragic that this is something we have to learn nowadays.

        how tragic that we don’t live in a culture where mature-adult wisdom isn’t recognized, honored, and sought after. how tragic we don’t usually have any family support or very little. my parents drop-kicked me out as soon as they possibly could and bragged about doing so; couldn’t get rid of me fast enough. i hated that and always wanted one of those families that were close and continued to be there for each other, so that’s how i raised my daughters. i have three siblings, but i’m the only one whose kids are close to them. so tragic.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Oscar says:

        Jason,

        Oscar, you are assuming all have equal intelligence…

        I never said that “all have equal intelligence”.

        … upbringing…

        I never said that “all have equal upbringing”.

        … cultural status …

        I never said that “all have equal cultural status”.

        …. a solid marriage ….

        I never said that “all have a solid marriage”.

        …. all have good careers …

        I never said that “all have good careers.

        … and / or education ….

        I never said that “all have education”.

        …. and a commitment of the wife to push and want this.

        I never said that “all have a commitment of the wife to push and want” anything.

        You assume that I assume all kinds of crap that never entered my mind.

        Liked by 1 person

  11. thedeti says:

    The graph on “Dawning of Desire” and “average age of sexual awakening makes no sense at all to me. It might make more sense if it showed “average age of first sexual intercourse”.

    For example: I’m GenX. This graph shows “sexual awakening” (Defined as “sudden realisation of sexual feelings and urges” for GenX – average age 16.0 years. That’s absurd on its face. I was there, and we were ALL sexually aware and feeling sexual feelings and urges by age 13. I was feeling them by age 10. A sizable percentage of us (but I’m confident in saying not a majority) had had first sexual intercourse by age 15. My first sexual intercourse was at age 17.

    I don’t get that chart at all.

    Like

  12. thedeti says:

    According to the estimates from the 2017 U.S. Census Bureau, the average age of first marriage for women was 27.4 years. For men, it’s slightly older at 29.5 years.

    This is true. It’s where we are now.

    That’s the longest Americans have ever waited to get married.

    Also true, but note that American men were waiting longer on average to get married before the immediate post-WW II period. For almost 100 years, from 1890 to 1980, for women, average age at first marriage (AAFM) was holding steady at roughly 21.5 years.

    For men, though, AAFM was 26.1 and steadily declined to the 1950s and 60s to age 22.8 (call it 23).

    https://www.infoplease.com/us/family-statistics/median-age-first-marriage-1890-2010

    Women held steady until post-sexual revolution. It was men who changed – mid 20s and declining through the Roaring 20s and Depression 1930s and WW II – Korea 1940s to an all time low in the 1950s and 1960s.

    I’m not a historian, but my suspicion is that most men didn’t have much to get married on until the turn of the 20th century so they waited longer until they proved they could marry. There were also cultural pressures keeping men from marrying, I would guess – young men doing what they wanted, sowing wild oats, using prostitutes. There was not too much enforcement against prostitution, especially the further west you went and the further you got from the East Coast cities. Prostitution was viewed simply as something men wanted and that some women were willing to supply.

    The suffrage movement and WW I probably started pressing men to get married and see women as more “equal”. Alcoholism and drug abuse were enormous problems in post-civil war to pre-WW I America. Heroin, morphine and cocaine were medicines and were subject to abuse, but without any restrictions or illegality. This also resulted in Prohibition from 1919 to 1929, which resulted in a lot of crime.

    There was also a proto feminist movement in the Roaring 20s which also pressured men. It was still the case that if men wanted legitimate sex, they had to get married, and this held steady through the sexual revolution. The depression probably also pressed men and women to get and stay together, because their odds of making it through were better together than apart. And the wartime mobilization produced high taxation but high productivity, with everyone (including young women, including married women) working.

    That productivity with women working and earning their own money while most of the young men were away produced two things: A strengthening of feminist leanings, because women had earned their own money and held their own with few men around; and unprecedented material prosperity even in spite of confiscatory income tax rates. When material prosperity happens, people grow optimistic about their economic prospects, which results in more work, more consumer spending, and more material consumption. It also results in people deciding to risk long term commitments, including marriage, having children, and home purchases. This might help explain in part why men’s AAFM declined to an all time low in the 1950s up to the 1960s. Hugh Hefner and Playboy magazine in 1953 started a small backlash that steadily grew – encouraging men to live the playboy lifestyle: avoid marriage until at least age 30 if you marry at all, avoid fatherhood, womanizing, work to live, and male-oriented material consumption.

    But this was coupled with women’s growing feelings of dissatisfaction and disappointment, with marriage and home life not being all it had cracked up to be, a la Betty Friedan’s “The Problem That Has No Name”. Women wanted to live life on their terms without being tethered to a man’s fortunes. All this started pressing both men and women to start avoiding marriage. Four things really started pushing AAFM up for both in the post war period: The Pill (around 1960), no-fault divorce (1965-70, and had spread to all 50 states by 1985), increasing automation of housekeeping and chores (1950s-1970s), and women entering and continuing full time work (1960s-1980s). They all resulted in the sexual revolution and the societal effects we see today.

    Liked by 2 people

  13. feeriker says:

    The point is……going into the trades doesn’t guarantee wages at “x” amount of time, or work or strikes.

    Exactly.

    I don’t think I need to tell anyone who lives in the real world that the economy has been going from bad to worse over the last year, and all indications are that this trend is not only not going to reverse itself, but will get much, MUCH worse over the next several years. It also won’t matter what job or profession you are trained for or experienced in, or how much training and work experience you’ve had; ALL trades and professions are impacted, unless you’re a government bureau-rat (and even they are taking hits). No, this is not “black pilling,” it is observable REALITY.

    The point? Families –ALL of them, from ALL existing socioeconomic classes– are going to suffer. Not all the time, and not all to the same degree, but EVERY family at some point WILL be negatively affected, more so than has affected any generations in recent memory. In times past, when our society –and thus the family– was more stable and cohesive, this was less traumatic and there was much sharing of the collective burden. Neighbors and families banded together and saw each other through the hard times.

    Today? Never has society been more atomized than it is today. Never have so many families been broken and destroyed. Never has there been such lack of community, with most people not even knowing, let alone being able to rely on their neighbors (or, for those who warm church pews on Sunday morning, the people who have been warming the pew next to them for years). Never have societal institutions been so weak and compromised. Never before have the ladders of economic opportunity been so shattered by Globalism, financialization, state-corporatism, and hyper-regulation. The picture is not only different from 20 years ago, but has dramatically changed from even a year ago. Will Americans (or people of the Western world in general) come together and rediscover their bonds of the past when TSHTF? Anything is possible, but no honest person can truthfully say that current trends give them any cause for optimism.

    For those here who at least pay lip service to family unity, will you help your son, DiL, and grandchildren (or daughter, SiL, and grandchildren) if Greater Depression II throws him out of work and he can’t find other employment to save his life (along with tens of millions of others in the same boat he is in)? Will you help Mom or Dad if their pension fund is eviscerated and they find themselves suddenly penniless? These are the trials we are all almost certainty going to be facing in the very near future, part of the wheat-from-tares separation process.

    Liked by 3 people

  14. Ame says:

    church people don’t necessarily ignore that they’re young teens are having sex … they’re supporting putting their daughters on the pill and silently voting pro-abortion ‘just-in-case.’ they sorta teach them not to have sex outside of marriage/until marriage, but they assume it’s too hard. because they didn’t wait, but they’d never confess that to their kids, so rather than have to risk their kids asking them point-blank, they shuffle around the topic.

    but they don’t want them to get married until after college and career is established.

    i think if we understood the power God gave to sex, it would change how we perceive and teach sex, especially in the church. maybe not. we like to cherry-pick what we think God thinks is important.

    i grew up on a florida beach, and promiscuity was the norm. i realized that it did no good for parents to tell their kids not to do xyz. so i took a different approach … i taught my daughters that they could do whatever they wanted … that it was their choice … that i would not be there when they had to make these choices and that they would have to make them themselves, likely with a lot of pressure. but i did tell them what to expect if they made choice a, and what to expect if they made choice b. there were severe consequences to each. i taught them all through life that they had choices, and what they chose determined their consequences. they learned they liked some consequences and didn’t like others. gratefully, this approach worked really well with both my daughters, but i drilled it into them daily in many ways through all of life’s choices, not just the big ones.

    Liked by 4 people

  15. Raphael Tisserand says:

    It is now incredibly difficult to get married (especially if you’re a man) , there is a hyper-competitive dating market, sexual temptation is everywhere, the delay between sexual maturity and marriage is increasing, engaging in premarital sex is almost a prerequisite for marriage. The Sexual Revolution is a crisis. I have been reading Carl Scnmitt’s writings on States of Exception and the limits of written law. My own conclusion is that the Sexual Revolution is a crisis, one which biblical law isn’t sufficient to deal with. I think that some of the biblical laws on sex need to be suspended until conditions improve. Should men be allowed some kind of sexual activity until they manage to find a suitable wife? Under current conditions finding a good wife can take a long time; you are likely to be in your 30’s by the time that happens. So you have 15+ years of horniness to suffer through until then. Paul suggests that you should get married and stop fighting biology if you can’t handle celibacy. Unfortunately, trying to get married the “right” way in in our current culture means you’ll be fighting biology for a long time. That’s exactly what Paul wanted people to avoid.

    Like

    • Lance says:

      There are no limits to Biblical Law. It is sufficient for everything; it is the wisdom of God. Sin is a destroyer and that way will always lead to more problems than it solves.

      Like

      • Raphael Tisserand says:

        The Bible, as a set of written laws, can’t think, respond to questions, clarify itself, amend its rulings, or antipate and react to emergent crises. Who decides on the exception?

        Like

      • Lance says:

        It’s the foundation for life, for all conduct. We have to take those laws and principles he gave us and apply it to the context of our day. We don’t change it or not do it because of the culture, we just figure out how we apply those principles to our culture and live out a Godly life regardless of what the world says and does, all guided by the Holy Spirit.

        Liked by 1 person

    • redpillboomer says:

      Pretty much going to have to, just the way things have devolved to nowadays. A young man can try to get married relatively early <27, but unless it is an unusual set of circumstances, it’s going to be difficult.

      Like

    • Oscar says:

      My own conclusion is that the Sexual Revolution is a crisis, one which biblical law isn’t sufficient to deal with.

      Wrong. God’s laws are universal and eternal.

      I think that some of the biblical laws on sex need to be suspended until conditions improve.
      ……
      Unfortunately, trying to get married the “right” way in in our current culture means you’ll be fighting biology for a long time. That’s exactly what Paul wanted people to avoid.

      You’ve been listening to the Serpent whispering “has God really said” in your ear. That’s why you’re citing St. Paul while simultaneously contradicting him.

      Greco-Roman culture was far more sexually immoral than ours. It was so grossly immoral, that the Corinthian Christians didn’t even know that it was wrong for them to have sex with the 1,000 prostitutes of the temple of Aphrodite in Corinth. And yet, St. Paul never told the Corinthians that “some of the biblical laws on sex need to be suspended until conditions improve.” Just the opposite.

      1 Cor 6:15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a harlot? Certainly not! 16 Or do you not know that he who is joined to a harlot is one body with her? For “the two,” He says, “shall become one flesh.” 17 But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him.

      18 Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body. 19 Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? 20 For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s.

      You want to break God’s law? No one will stop you. But, if the Corinthians had no excuse, then neither do we.

      Liked by 1 person

  16. Raphael Tisserand says:

    Greco-Roman culture had its own sex of difficulties but at least it was easy to get married. Marriages were arranged or contracted for economic reasons rather than romantic compatibility.

    The nature of our post-Sexual Revolution culture is totally different to the nature of the problems that the biblical authors had to deal with. Wanting to be married but finding that marriage just isn’t an option right now is totally foreign to the biblical lexicon.

    Michel Houellebecq explains the Sexual Revolution thusly:
    “It is interesting to note that the “sexual revolution” was sometimes portrayed as a communal utopia, whereas in fact it was simply another stage in the historical rise of individualism. As the lovely word “household” suggests, the couple and the family would be the last bastion of primitive communism in liberal society. The sexual revolution was to destroy these intermediary communities, the last to separate the individual from the market. The destruction continues to this day”.

    Pascal Bruckner illustrates it with a story:
    “In a commune in California, sometime in the 1960s, about forty boys and girls gathered in accord with the principles
    of the strictest sexual communism: forming an established couple was prohibited, partners were to be rotated, and preference based on aesthetic or cultural criteria was rejected. At the end of a year, some of the members who were obese or ugly found that they were being refused access to other members’ bedrooms and started wandering about on the veranda during the evening, begging for a bed and repeating: who wants me?”

    In the midst of all this the Church leaves us to navigate a deeply broken and evil system while expecting us to live asexual lives until a marriage which may never come. Men weren’t designed to remain virgins well into their 30’s but that might well happen if you live under these conditions.

    Who decides on the exception?

    Like

    • Oscar says:

      The nature of our post-Sexual Revolution culture is totally different to the nature of the problems that the biblical authors had to deal with.

      Have you read Romans 1? Because that chapter pretty much describes the Sexual Revolution. Everyone thinks they have an excuse for why they should be allowed to break God’s moral laws. All our excuses are equally invalid.

      Who decides on the exception?

      I can tell you who doesn’t decide on the exception. We don’t. Again, if you want to break God’s moral law, no one will stop you. But if the Corinthians had no excuse, then neither do we.

      Like

      • Raphael Tisserand says:

        If we don’t then who does? Unfortunately, Deus Absconditus doesn’t deign to help us directly in crises like these. So, who represents God on earth? The Church or the government depending on who you ask.

        Like

      • Raphael Tisserand says:

        Also, worth noting that in Greco-Roman culture women were married early while men were married later in life but were free to sow their wild oats with prostitutes or take advantage of slaves (of either sex). Marriages were in any case either arranged or they were an economic/social contract. That doesn’t resemble our modern dating market at all. There is a book called The First Sexual Revolution which goes into detail on Greco-Roman sexual ethics as well as the Christian ethic which replaced it. Both are totally alien to our current cultural view of sex.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        If we don’t then who does?

        If we don’t, then who does is irrelevant.

        I’m not telling you what to do. If you insist on breaking God’s moral law, that’s between you and God. You can cite whatever excuse you want. You can be like the churchians who cite excuse after excuse for why wives don’t have to submit to their husbands in modern culture, even though God commanded them to (it’s no longer valid in our culture, right?).

        It’s not me you have to convince. They’re not my moral laws. They’re God’s moral laws. It’s Him you have to convince that your excuses are valid.

        Good luck with that.

        Liked by 2 people

    • Novaseeker says:

      Who decides on the exception?

      Not sure what you are asking.

      The church is divided, and there are different approaches to interpreting scripture and the “who gets to decide what it definitively means and requires” question. It has been this way for centuries. So there can never be an answer to your question, even if such an exception were possible (which I do not think it could be), which would be satisfactory to all Christians, because Christians disagree about the issue of scriptural interpretation and who has the authority to do so.

      In any case, as I note above, no morally orthodox Christian will agree that the moral rules regarding sex outside of marriage can be suspended, for any reason. At the same time, for the reason I note above, there are actually plenty of Christians and even entire Christian churches/communities which do not consider sex outside of marriage to be always sinful, for various reasons. I find these reasons to be dubious and incorrect — they mostly involve some variant of your suggestion that different contexts require different moral rules.

      As Oscar has pointed out, sexual immorality is certainly nothing new. And as you have pointed out, it was normative in Greek society in the NT era for men to marry later, but to younger wives. Nevertheless the NT clearly condemns sex outside of marriage, and the Church has also done so from the beginning. It did not condone the “sowing of wild oats” by men prior to later marriage for them — this was the sexual immorality from which Christian converts are instructed by Paul to flee. The reasons for later male marriage were somewhat different, but the fact of later marriage did not justify sowing of the oats by men until the later marriage occurred.

      It’s true that there are issues for men finding spouses today until they are somewhat older. Houllebecq’s critique of the current order is quite on point — sex and relationships became an unmediated and unregulated market, and that is a situation which, regardless of the subject of the market, always favors the strongest hands at the expense of everyone else. The best approach is to try hard to find a spouse when younger if you can. If you can’t, then you are to maintain your celibacy until you find a spouse. Yes, it is hard, because the society is licentious currently, sexuality is constantly blared at us by all media, and women are becoming very picky about marrying in general. But your moral obligations according to orthodox morality for Christians do not change simply because the circumstances in which you live are challenging. The obligations are what they are, plainly put.

      As I say, you can find churches that don’t care much if you have sex outside marriage. Some of them will even say this out loud. Many others won’t say it out loud but won’t criticize you in any way for doing it, even if it is quite open. But you’re not going to get the morally orthodox Christians to openly condone this. Some of them are hypocritical about it and will turn a blind eye to what they know their own kids, for example, must be doing in their 20s, but the churches themselves will at best pretend that it isn’t happening, and will certainly not condone it.

      Liked by 2 people

  17. Raphael Tisserand says:

    “To increase desires to an unbearable level whilst making the fulfillment of them more and more inaccessible: this was the single principle upon which Western society was based”.

    A passage from another of Houellebecq’s
    novels. One of my favourite authors; can you tell?

    Just another fact of life in the wasteland.

    Liked by 1 person

  18. Pingback: 2020 Sigma Frame Performance Report | Σ Frame

  19. Pingback: The Centrality of Sex in Western Culture | Σ Frame

  20. Pingback: The Futility of Justifying the Crash Landing | Σ Frame

  21. Pingback: On the Turning Away | Σ Frame

  22. Pingback: Ethical Issues Surrounding the Christian Conundrum | Σ Frame

  23. Pingback: The Roman Life Script | Σ Frame

  24. Pingback: She don’t need no man! Except… | 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