Ethical Issues Surrounding the Christian Conundrum

How does preselection, prioritizing sex, and fantasy affect how we approach the mating process?

Readership: Christian Men
Author’s Note: The topic of this post received some input from Jack.
Length: 2,700 words
Reading Time: 9 minutes

Introduction

The Christian Conundrum and the Christian Marriage Dilemma spelled out the difficult situation that Christian men find themselves today. In this post, I want to go over a few assumptions that have been put forth previously, in order to set the stage for the options that have been offered in previous posts listed here.

Without question, the most attractive element of a man is his attractiveness to other women

On the Ethics of Preselection

In a previous post, The Centrality of Sex in Western Culture (2021 February 8), I wrote about how women filter men in regard to their sexual acumen.

Jim also states, quite accurately, that there are almost no men that can balance the alpha and beta roles successfully, either before or after marriage.  The few men who can be both are the rare exceptions, because they must be both in a way that is credible to a specific woman. Women’s definition of credible is weighed heavily towards the sexual authority line of men, while the support/intimacy traits are merely an afterthought. Scoring well in the sexual authority area typically requires that a man has already proved himself to be credible to other specific women (pre-selection), and this necessarily requires a long list of pre-marital sexual conquests.  Moreover, it should be obvious that the man is the first kind of man described above, those for whom women will not impose rules for sex — that means he has broad sexual authority with women generally, and is in control, and therefore is the kind of man they want the dominant monkey sex from, and not the second kind of man who has to trade something (negotiate) for sex.  Thus, the nature of the beast requires that the man’s history should involve “conquests” and not only girlfriends.”

On this point, Christian men who are married or who are looking to be married will ask themselves a practical question. Is having a sexual history (involving fornication/pre-marital sex) the main thing, or the only thing, that takes a man from the second group, and puts him in the first?

It’s a good question. It gets back to the issue of what generates sexual authority.

I think the thing that takes a man from the second group, and puts him into the first, is him showing certain indicators that he is, in reality, in that group. There are a few pertinent indicators.

Pre-Selection — Women know that other women have picked him, so he must have a sexual pull. Examples of preselection are a lurid sexual history, or having a girlfriend or wife. Interestingly (and somewhat shockingly), PUAs have reported that wearing a wedding band, even though they are not married, will increase their lay ratios. Essentially what is happening in that scenario is that if a woman finds a man otherwise attractive herself, the wedding band acts as a “confirmation” that at least one woman found him good enough to commit to, which means that it’s less likely that she is mistaken in her assessment of her attractiveness. Because women get so few bites at the reproductive apple, their sexual selection process has built-in “failsafes” so as to minimize the likelihood of her picking inferior men for mating, and one of the most powerful failsafes is the idea that another woman has already chosen this specific man as her “permanent” (if only for the time being) mate. The strength of this factor increases substantially if the woman can assess the relative attractiveness of the wife, and that the wife is attractive — the more attractive she is, the stronger the effect of preselection.

Assumed Pre-Selection — Women assume that other women have picked him, based on how he carries himself – charisma, confidence, detachment, swagger, outcome independence, proficiency in game, ease with women, he “just gets it“, a certain kind of popularity (not like Duckie popularity), etc. — in other words, the various “indicia” which imply that a man has sexual authority, which all lead her to conclude that he does, even if she doesn’t have actual knowledge of his exploits.

Critically, these things have to be indicators that register in the female psyche as true indicators. For example, if a guy sees a prostitute every week, he is getting regular sex, but that alone is not going to put him into the alpha group, because his overall behavior will generally not reflect that of a sexually confident man who radiates an abundance mentality when it comes to attractive women, which is the overall characteristic that these indicia point towards. A man who has abundant sexual access to attractive women (who are not on his payroll, so to speak), or one who can plausibly fake appearing that he does, is the man who generates the requisite indicia of sexual authority without the woman actually seeing preselection in action. 

One would think that, considering how sex is the central focus of the culture, the litmus test of these indicators, as to whether they truly register with women, would be that the overall impression carries the implicit promise of him being thrilling in bed. But in reality, women generally report subpar experiences in bed with the most highly demanded men, often, yet still seek them out. It appears that the motivation isn’t heightened sexual pleasure, per se (although there is heightened sexual excitement, at least initially for women), but rather the reflection on their own images that being associated with a highly-preselected man involves. The resulting sense of status in the SMP pecking order is deeply satisfying to women, quite apart from the actual quality of any sex that occurs.

Finally, for those men who are looking to “fake” the indicia of having the kind of abundant sexual access to attractive women that drives pre-selection, this raises all of the same issues that the extensive use of Game does, in terms of unsustainability and the like, in addition to the more problematic issue of projecting an artificial persona on an ongoing basis, and the pathology that this creates inside a person.

On the Ethics of Prioritizing Sex

In The Centrality of Sex in Western Culture (2021 February 8), I wrote that Prioritizing Sex upsets the MMP – and Marriage!

The issues surrounding the prioritization of sex, especially within a pre- or extra-marital context is obviously a thorny one for Christians, since such sexual activity is plainly immoral. The problem is that very few relationships today — Christian or otherwise — reach the stage of marriage without sex having occurred, often prominently, in the relationship, and in particular many of the most contented and long-term happy Christian couples have to varying degrees simply flouted the prohibition on pre-marital sex during their mate selection life phase.

That backdrop provides a grim context for Christians who would seek to engage in their own mate selection process while not flouting the sexual mores of Christianity. The context is grim precisely because, in this imbalanced culture, with its overemphasis on sex, we will of course struggle ourselves to find mates if we choose to personally de-prioritize sex.  That goes without saying, or it should. It works to impede getting a woman to want to be with you because many women are both (1) highly skeptical of any man whom she is dating who is not incessantly at least trying to bed her (Is he really interested in me? Is he secretly gay and in denial? All normal guys at least try to get me to have sex, repeatedly…) and/or (2) not interested in marrying someone with whom “they have little sexual chemistry” or with whom “they are not on the same page sexually” and so on.

In this area, I experienced the same thing as Jack did — when I was chaste, women sensed it, did not like it, and backed off. My general lack of interest in pre-marital sex cost me several relationships in my early 20s.  Women want to kick the tires sexually as much as men before they select a man as a mate — again, because sex and sexual satisfaction are at the core of human flourishing today, and, for women specifically, one of the main points of feminism was to increase women’s sexual satisfaction by allowing them to pick mates based on sexual satisfaction, desire, and prowess, rather than economic need and other situational/contextual factors.

This isn’t often spoken of openly, because it doesn’t need to be — women “just get it” about the liberal sexuality contained in feminism, because it is visceral for them. Female sexual desire and its vindication lies at the very heart of the feminist enterprise, full stop, and this is so obvious to women in a visceral sense that it doesn’t need to be stated openly — and men’s cluelessness about it doesn’t change that reality.

The core issue here is that the whole argument for the “Test Drive” is based on the prioritization of sex in the relationship. Given the context that sex is, by far, the most important thing, then it’s imperative that they get this right – at any cost.

If they don’t realize this before marriage, they invariably realize this afterwards. There are so many women who get unhappy in their marriages due to sex, even though they never insisted on having a porn star sex life prior to getting married. Then only later on, they decided that they wanted to have much better sex in their marriages. This can happen by means of comparison with the minority of women in her peer group who are in high sex, high attraction, high satisfaction marriages, and it can also happen by virtue of the popular culture, which is incessantly pumping out images of women in the 35-50 age range (the prime “divorce” age range) being super hot (at least as hot if not moreso than women 10-20 years younger), and having spectacular romantic and (implied) sex lives with fabulously attractive men, many of whom are young and desirable. Because marriage is impermanent in our society, the siren song of “better sex” never really ends, and it can upend a marriage at any time if a woman comes to the conclusion that she can do better — perhaps much better — sexually than her husband while still retaining a goodly amount of his husbandly elements (co-parenting, financial contributions and the like).

Christian morality that is orthodox offers a clear answer to this dilemma — which is to avoid extra marital sex, period, end of story. The fact that such a high percentage of long term happily married Christian couples did not do this, however, indicates that the actual impact of this approach is quite differential. Again, this is one of the areas where it is profitable spiritually to think of things from the perspective of suffering, in that it may very well be God’s will for your romantic/sexual/marital life to fail at this point in history in that it may very well be that by following God’s law in this area your romantic and sexual life is devastated … however, your reward will remain in the hereafter. Here as elsewhere, choices need to be made, with sober eyes as to the costs and benefits, from a temporal and eternal perspective, which can help place the reality of harsh suffering that many will have to endure in this area in the current culture into its proper context.

On the Ethics of Fantasy

As Jack reported earlier, the average age of first time sex is getting lower, and the average age of first time marriage is getting higher. One factor contributing to these trends is the reality that women want and expect rather satisfying sex today. To make matters more difficult, there is an element of fantasy which people find difficult to part with, especially women.

Men have an increased expectations surrounding sex because the sex-soaked culture, as well as pornography stokes their imaginations.

Women have increased expectations surrounding sex because they are able to engage in sexual liaisons with many men of their choice, including, critically, men who are more sexually exciting for women (regardless of the quality of the actual sex with them), both of which create a combination of a mentality of sexual gluttony coupled with an entitlement to the erections of the most sexually exciting men.

There has also been a shift in the viewership of porn. Women under-30 are indeed watching quite a lot of porn now, so porn is changing, and the men involved are changing too. The standard physical attractiveness for porn stars, both male and female, has increased substantially, especially on the male side. Mere nudity is no longer sufficient to arouse desire. Men must be in great shape, have defined muscles, a chiseled jaw, and thicker and longer endowments than the average to even qualify for the set in any porn that is even trying to reach women. This sets women’s expectations for threshold sexual authority in the real world unrealistically high in a way that is similar to how some men can begin to find average girls less interesting visually due to having seen more 7+ girls naked by the time they are 20 than Genghis Khan himself did in a lifetime of historically notorious “seed spreading” activity.

Also, women are no longer interested in what we would call traditional porn, in which the plots are thin or nonexistent, acting is basic and limited, and the perspectives of the activity are all male-centric. Today’s viewers, and particularly the rising component of female viewers, want to see true raw authentic passion on screen in vignettes which have more story context development than “traditional” porn, and those stories are from the female point of view and featuring common female fantasies rather than male ones. All of these changes make porn more appealing to women, obviously, but they also set expectations unreasonably high for women in the same way that I describe above that porn viewing can do for men, just in ways that are particular to women and their specific triggers, which are different from men’s. The eventual result in both cases is an increased level of disappointment with the real thing.

Women are also known to have a penchant for homosexual porn — especially lesbian porn. Lesbian porn is by far the most popular form of porn for women viewers to search for, as indicated in the linked posts above, which is unsurprising given that this is, in fact, a common sexual fantasy for heterosexual women and therefore provides more of a “fantasy escape” for them, because it allows them to indulge in something on a fantasy level most of them never will in real life, and because it also suffers less from obvious “fake” tells that are common in straight porn that is aimed at male viewers and which are off-putting for women viewers, because the younger porn actresses of today are often practiced bisexuals and are not faking the lesbian sex that is taking place in the porn.

The gay male porn is also very attractive to women viewers for several reasons. First, gay porn typically features very physically attractive men — very defined muscles, “manscaped” grooming, masculine behavior types — gay men and women find similar things attractive in men. Second, it allows women to see two men, which stimulates their addiction to choice. Third, it also shows at least one man who is sexually submissive, and who is passionate about being submissive, which allows the woman viewer to alternate back and forth in her mind as she watches the scene, at times identifying with the submissive “female acting” man, and at times identifying with the dominant “masculine acting” man, which allows her to channel her sinful desire to dominate men into a form of sexual arousal and pleasure for herself, even if that primarily expresses itself in non-sexual ways in real life. Fourth, it vindicates women’s arousal and desire at seeing a dominant/masculine man vanquish and dominate an inferior, weaker man who submits to him — it is the ultimate sexualized version of the endgame of “let’s have you and him fight”, which generates arousal in the woman for the man who is dominant, who wins the fight and makes the other man submit to him. Finally, because male sexual activity cannot happen without actual male arousal, which cannot be faked because it is external and visible, as are male orgasms, gay male porn sex also tends to be more genuine in what is portraying because it is basically impossible to fake, which appeals to women more than most of the porn that is aimed at straight men, which comes off as being very obviously fake to women viewers and therefore completely uninteresting and unsexy.

Thus, it is not surprising to see that the porn industry has changed in recent years. Porn has become more appealing to women — different camera angles, scenes constructed from the woman’s perspective, much more attractive men being involved, and playing to female fantasies. Porn wanted more women viewers, so it started making porn that was more appealing to women and younger women have been watching. This is also a part of why younger women are so much more likely to be involved in the OASIS, by the way — it isn’t as “out there” for them as for prior generations of women because they are already consumers of porn themselves, and it is natural for them to view porn as something that can be “constructed” from a point of view of either being appealing to women or to men (as they see in the porn they view themselves), which makes it easier to engage in the construction of a porn fantasy world tailored for male viewing on a personal OnlyFans site, for example, and to see this as normal, mainstream activity. In this regard, it is telling that so many very attractive young female “celebrities-because-hot” types of women, like Bella Thorne or countless women on Instagram, some of them with OnlyFans “add on” sites, as well as former actual legit actresses like Maitland Ward crossing over to porn, see no issue with blurring the line between legit and porn … because in their own experience porn is now legit and mainstream, because it isn’t only something icky that loser men watch, but it’s something they watch and get turned on by themselves.

The worm has turned, gentlemen.

On the Ethics of Admonishment

How can parents offer guidance and admonishment to their teenage children without being a hypocritical bigot?

While I was reading the comments under The Christian Conundrum (2021 March 1) and a few other posts this month, it was fascinating to me how some people insist that even though they themselves did Y to get X, nobody else should do Y, but should do Z … and don’t worry if it doesn’t lead to X because reasons.  I mean I understand the perspective that you should do Z because anything other than Z is immoral, and therefore even if it doesn’t lead to X but rather leads to D (divorce), at least you did Z and not Y.  What I don’t get is the overwhelming reluctance to admit that it was the doing of Y that played a large role in getting X, and that doing Z reduces your chances of X, but that you should do Z anyway and take your lumps, if that is what is in the cards for you.

There is no easy way to address this issue. It’s possible to take the “older and wiser” approach that “if I had to do it over, I would have done it all differently”, but is that really the case? Would these great marriages have even resulted if at all had things been done differently? It strains credulity.

It is therefore tricky as to how to engage in productive admonishment from the perspective of someone who has engaged in immoral acts that led to a happy marriage — that is, where the actual “bad fruits” of these sins are either absent entirely or so outweighed by positive elements that they appear immaterial from a human point of view. In fact, I would go further and say outright that I think it is extremely doubtful that this kind of admonishment can bear good fruit itself in this context, unless it comes from someone who has, in their own lives, experienced the bad results of taking a bad approach. For those who took the accomodationist approach with respect to extramarital sex and were rewarded with great marriages arising from that choice, I honestly do not think admonishing others will be of particular effect, outside of those who are otherwise under substantial influence of you for other reasons (such as children).

Conclusions

This is why, from my own perspective, the proper approach is to focus on the ethical nature of choice Z and the fact that the cookie may crumble in a bad way for you, but that Z is still the only moral choice. That is the fact of the matter. You can be an exception and find a great marriage by following the moral law, but that is highly exceptional in our cultural context. You may manage it, but you may not. You can follow the immoral choice and potentially end up in a better marriage, but you may also end up in a very damaged one and divorced anyway. You may follow the moral law and end up divorced, as happened to many of the participants here. What happens after you marry matters, of course, but a lot of the matter depends on whom you do actually marry, what the baseline connection is, in terms of creating a context in which the “what you do in the marriage” is playing itself out, and that is the point. Which is why I generally come back to the endpoint that you have to personally accept that, either way, God may very well have a life filled with sexual/relationship suffering in mind for you personally, and that you have to cultivate a mindset to accept this suffering with gratitude and love, to embrace it with the joy that comes from knowing that Christ is the man of sorrows par excellence and that he has conquered it, and will save you in the end if you stay with him, through the suffering he wishes you to bear in this life. In the current timeframe, for many Christian men that will be intense sexual and relationship suffering — it is what many of us are being called to do right now by God, without question. The challenge is to accept that with an attitude of grateful love and solidarity with Christ and joy in being able to share his own suffering to a small degree, always knowing that the endless joy of eternity awaits.

Given this context, no wonder American Christianity is struggling mightily with marriage.  The issues are difficult and complex from a human perspective. From a moral perspective, the issue is clear. Humanly abiding by that clarity in this specific temporal context is a path of substantial suffering, and therein lies the rub. Most of us will do anything to avoid that, due to our human desire to avoid suffering. This is the key issue that underlies all of these discussions, it seems to me, and the key reason why there is so much resistance across the board.

Related

This entry was posted in Attraction, Authenticity, Boundaries, Charisma, Choosing a Partner or Spouse, Confidence, Convergence, Courtship and Marriage, Culture Wars, Decision Making, Desire, Passion, Discerning Lies and Deception, Discernment, Wisdom, Divorce, Education, Female Power, Fundamental Frame, Game Theory, Holding Frame, Hypergamy, Influence, Introspection, Male Power, Manosphere, Models of Failure, Moral Agency, Personal Presentation, Persuasion, Purpose, Relationships, Running the Gauntlet, Self-Concept, Sexual Authority, SMV/MMV. Bookmark the permalink.

66 Responses to Ethical Issues Surrounding the Christian Conundrum

  1. Jim says:

    > may very well be God’s will for your romantic/sexual/marital life to fail at this point in history in that it may very well be that by following God’s law in this area your romantic and sexual life is devastated …

    Not God’s will.

    God intends a Christian state and society and Christian families that imposes cooperate-cooperate on men and women. But we don’t have such a society. We have a society of players and bitches. We have sexual anarchy

    And God also intends that his children shall have families that exemplify cooperation between men and women despite the chaos and conflict around them.

    Jesus Christ commanded us: Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.

    If you act in a manner appropriate to a Christian state and society of Christian families that imposes cooperate-cooperate on men and women, you are not being wise as a serpent.

    He may have sent us out as sheep among wolves, but it was not his intent that we get eaten.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Novaseeker says:

      It’s God’s will in the sense that the entirety of history is known to God prior to the beginning of time, and he still created it, knowing everything that would happen. He foresaw it all, including the fall, including human sin, including the present sexual anarchy. Creating this specific world, with this specific timeline, is his will — we are living through his will.

      That doesn’t mean that it’s God’s will for you to sin personally. It means that it may be, in this period of time, his will for you to suffer in order to follow his moral law.

      It may very well be his will that you are eaten for his sake. We are told in the Gospels that we are to expect to suffer because we are Christians. We are also told that those who are persecuted for the sake of Christ are considered blessed by God. We are NOT told that these moral rules and precepts only apply in an ideal case where the entire society is living by God’s laws, and therefore we comply with the moral law because the society doesn’t penalize us in terms of denying us “worldly goods” like marriage, children, intact families, but that in situations where the society does impose such penalties, we can discard the moral law and, for example, threaten our wives with murder (to take the example you yourself use in your main post on this issue) in order to encourage her to comply.

      Liked by 2 people

  2. professorGBFMtm2021 says:

    Ah.remember this?,why I must have been minus 13 or 14 or was it 20,actualy I could have been minus 12!(Realy no easy way to address this issue?),Just because you left &said goodbye,do you think I will sit&cry?,but maybe I’m asking too much?I’d like to thank dal’,roissy,sigmaframe&everybody back at dalrock in daday!But who am I to keep you from being a ho,watching romantic pornography?Theres two meanings in this comment,I hope you appreciate it!Think I would beg a ‘ho on bended knee?Don’t make me laugh!All these tough-guy how dare you non-manly preachers surrounding the long standing christian conundrum!CONCLUSIONS?This is why I never listened to fonzies or the preachers of dating&marriage!No wonder they all failed so mightily in their lies of female decency&gen z is the biggest wave of mgtows,yet!P.S.See why I respond to conundrums the way I do now?”Older&wiser” like europe&japan?John lennon&lloyd price above was’nt right between ’57&’75?

    Like

  3. cameron232 says:

    My mother in law explicitly told my wife to test me out to make sure the equipment functions well. What mothers teach their daughters matters.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. SFC Ton says:

    I never felt comfortable offering advice on this. What is effective is ungodly, what is Godly seems ineffective for most men and the old school NCO in me doesn’t tell a man to do something I didn’t do 1st.

    Liked by 4 people

  5. cameron232 says:

    “The gay male porn is also very attractive to women viewers for several reasons.”

    I’ll tell this story again. My wife’s former BFF (a woman in a Christian mom’s group by the way) told me she likes to watch gay male porn. She also told me she likes to look at the crotch of men’s jeans to see if she can see the bulge. She had no shame telling me these things. Oh yeah, she also tried to start something with me.

    Some more seedy details. She married a heavy metal guitarist who fathered her children. He would get sex-texted by women, they would send him nude photos, mess with him at his concerts, etc. He told her their lucky number as a couple was “18” because she was the 18th girl he slept with (and they were pretty young when they got together). Women can really pick ‘em can’t they?

    Can you guess how it turned out? Happy ending? NOT!! Last year he was arrested by the Sheriff’s department – he had been molesting their daughters for years. Now she is alone in her forties with children and a mortgage (and never had a career) and the humiliation of having been married to and reproduced with an incestuous child molester.

    People are F-d up – hide your daughters – even if they are illiterate – hide them from the world. They’ll tell you she’ll be weird, she’ll rebel, etc. I tell you, you can’t possibly do worse than mainstream society including Christian society is doing.

    “WORSE?!?!? How can things get any worse?!?!? Take a look around you Ellen! We’re at the threshold of Hell!” – Clark W. Griswold Jr

    Liked by 3 people

  6. Scott says:

    While I was reading the comments under The Christian Conundrum (2021 March 1) and a few other posts this month, it was fascinating to me how some people insist that even though they themselves did Y to get X, nobody else should do Y, but should do Z … and don’t worry if it doesn’t lead to X because reasons. I mean I understand the perspective that you should do Z because anything other than Z is immoral, and therefore even if it doesn’t lead to X but rather leads to D (divorce), at least you did Z and not Y. What I don’t get is the overwhelming reluctance to admit that it was the doing of Y that played a large role in getting X, and that doing Z reduces your chances of X, but that you should do Z anyway and take your lumps, if that is what is in the cards for you.

    This is why I offer precisely zero advice to Christian men on how to find a wife. Beats me.

    Liked by 2 people

  7. That backdrop provides a grim context for Christians who would seek to engage in their own mate selection process while not flouting the sexual mores of Christianity. The context is grim precisely because, in this imbalanced culture, with its overemphasis on sex, we will of course struggle ourselves to find mates if we choose to personally de-prioritize sex. That goes without saying, or it should. It works to impede getting a woman to want to be with you because many women are both (1) highly skeptical of any man whom she is dating who is not incessantly at least trying to bed her (Is he really interested in me? Is he secretly gay and in denial? All normal guys at least try to get me to have sex, repeatedly…) and/or (2) not interested in marrying someone with whom “they have little sexual chemistry” or with whom “they are not on the same page sexually” and so on. …

    Christian morality that is orthodox offers a clear answer to this dilemma — which is to avoid extra marital sex, period, end of story. The fact that such a high percentage of long term happily married Christian couples did not do this, however, indicates that the actual impact of this approach is quite differential. Again, this is one of the areas where it is profitable spiritually to think of things from the perspective of suffering, in that it may very well be God’s will for your romantic/sexual/marital life to fail at this point in history in that it may very well be that by following God’s law in this area your romantic and sexual life is devastated … however, your reward will remain in the hereafter. Here as elsewhere, choices need to be made, with sober eyes as to the costs and benefits, from a temporal and eternal perspective, which can help place the reality of harsh suffering that many will have to endure in this area in the current culture into its proper context.

    I disagree and so does science for that matter. It’s selection bias to claim that a high percentage of long term happily married Christian couples did not do this. We know that the majority of men and women who avoid pre-marital sex and do no cohabitate have happier and more successful marriages.

    https://ifstudies.org/blog/counterintuitive-trends-in-the-link-between-premarital-sex-and-marital-stability

    On the contrary, for me at least avoiding women who wanted to have pre-marital sex actually helped significantly as a filter. It got rid of any of the lukewarm Christians.

    Likewise, the suspected benefits of avoiding sex until marriage ensured that sex does not interfere (e.g. giving you ONEitis or blindness to their flaws) with your selection criteria which results in happier marriages. Or so claims the link on analyzing the data which I find to likely be accurate.

    All of this is an issue with frame though. You can frame anything as a negative if you’re thinking of these in terms of the frame of the culture. It’s a bad thing to be a virgin in the eyes of the world but great in God’s terms. If you’re thinking of these as a means of God’s protection for your own well being and marriage they are great things. You want a woman that prioritizes the Bible over the culture.

    Liked by 5 people

    • cameron232 says:

      The data shows that male virgins also have more stable marriages – the effect just isn’t as dramatic as it is with female virgins.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Jack says:

      DS wrote,

      “It’s selection bias to claim that a high percentage of long term happily married Christian couples did not [avoid engaging in premarital sex]. We know that the majority of men and women who avoid pre-marital sex and do no cohabitate have happier and more successful marriages.”

      What is a high percentage, relatively speaking? Well, we know that >65% of Christian women are willing to admit that they had premarital sex. The actual figure is certainly higher. We don’t know the fraction of these who have successful marriages, but we know about 30% end in divorce. 65% > 30%, so this confirms the feminist life script, sticking the landing, etc. being played out by Christian women.
      I think we can agree that avoiding premarital sex leads to better marriages on average, but this is not the majority, nor is it consistently true. Given the above percentages, it is a selection bias to assume so.

      Why do Christian women have the reputation of being whores?

      Christian vs. Non-Christian Women

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

      DS is right about it being an issue of frame though. Do we look at what is, or what it should be?

      Liked by 2 people

      • SFC Ton says:

        Pretty grim becuase we know the other 70% aren’t all high sex, low conflict marriages

        Liked by 1 person

      • @ Jack

        What is a high percentage, relatively speaking? Well, we know that >65% of Christian women are willing to admit that they had premarital sex. The actual figure is certainly higher. We don’t know the fraction of these who have successful marriages, but we know about 30% end in divorce. 65% > 30%, so this confirms the feminist life script, sticking the landing, etc. being played out by Christian women.

        I think we can agree that avoiding premarital sex leads to better marriages on average, but this is not the majority, nor is it consistently true. Given the above percentages, it is a selection bias to assume so.

        I agree although you’re also ignoring the fact that the divorce stats generally get worse the more marital partners a woman has as well. The trends are important regardless if most don’t stick to the ideal.

        However, the main thrust of what I’m saying is stick to and obey what God says in the Bible about marriage and women. It will help you select a wife who actually want to be and likely is a Christian as opposed to getting a lukewarm Christian. You’ll typically end up with vastly different results if your selection criteria selects for the lukewarm Christian women who get blown every which way by whatever is popular in the feminist life scripts.

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        @DS & Jack

        Sex with another man makes a woman a big risk ~ 50% probability of divorce. There are outliers of course – I think manosphere concentrates outliers.

        From the Teachman study:

        “The most salient finding from this analysis is that women whose intimate premarital relationships are limited to their husbands—either premarital sex alone or premarital cohabitation—do not experience an increased risk of divorce.”

        https://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2010/09/sexual-partner-divorce-risk.html

        Liked by 2 people

      • Jack says:

        Cameron,
        This is the key takeaway from Teachman’s study. Unfortunately, Christian women never learned Teachman in Sunday School.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Sharkly says:

        “… women whose intimate premarital relationships are limited to their husbands—either premarital sex alone or premarital cohabitation — do not experience an increased risk of divorce.”

        The way I now see it, and I believe God sees it as well, is that when the sex occurs between a man and a virgin who are in agreement to be wed, they become one flesh and she becomes his wife. Her first sex is a blood sacrament, whether you want to acknowledge it or ignore it. God joins the two together as one, not some church. It makes sense that if you comply with God’s requirements, the union can be blessed by God, whether or not your churchian clergy are cool with that or not. It all makes sense if you view them as just having become married upon sex, as opposed to people somehow being married without sex by the power vested in some dude who calls himself “reverend”.

        Liked by 3 people

    • cameron232 says:

      @DS, the “U” shaped graph shown in the IFS study you linked is also reproduced in this analysis of data. It seems that virginity results in the least risk but there is a “sweet spot” for level of sluttiness/n-count in terms of divorce risk.

      http://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2012/03/promiscuity-data-guest-post.html

      Like

      • Novaseeker says:

        Right. There is that spot where it’s not in the double digits, but also higher than 1-2 where it’s a lower divorce risk than 1-2. The increase in risk isn’t linear, but it pops up a lot from virgin to 1-2 partners, and then forms a lower U of risk between that and double digits, after which it increases linearly. It’s that “U” that is where most of the Christian married couples are.

        Liked by 2 people

      • @ cameron

        @DS, the “U” shaped graph shown in the IFS study you linked is also reproduced in this analysis of data. It seems that virginity results in the least risk but there is a “sweet spot” for level of sluttiness/n-count in terms of divorce risk.

        Yeah the U is particularly interesting but unfortunately we can’t learn much from it except speculation unless there’s more information on the data of the women who had only a couple partners (which there isn’t).

        I would suspect some of it is comparisons, some of it is possibly alpha widowhood into settling when prospects start to look bleak, and some other variations of this. Some aspect of pair bonding and it deteriorating likely plays a role too.

        Liked by 2 people

    • professorGBFMtm2021 says:

      I ,of course agreed with arsenio hall toad, that no marriage license was needed or a preacher ,either but he had to go on about women together women in bed&the prostitute stuff too,thats when he went overboard!Why could’nt he stay in reality,like andy kaufman,jerry lawler&myself,not only in tennesse or hollywood,but all over the cosmos ,right,everybody?

      Like

  8. Quiet Desperation says:

    Years ago in a conversation, I expressed my frustration with my inability to find a suitable wife to an older, married Christian man. He turned the tables on me and said approximately, “Your position is infinitely better than mine. You have a chance, however small, of finding and marrying a loving, loyal Christian wife and having a happy marriage. I have tried for forty years with my wife who is incapable of loyalty, tenderness, or affection. I will continue to suffer in my present situation until one of us dies. You are blessed to be single.”

    As bad as it is to be a man burning with desire for marriage but unable to find a suitable match, the alternatives are infinitely worse. To fornicate or otherwise violate God’s law is to incur the wrath of God, at the peril of one’s soul. The modern day church is a fully feminist institution. Church marriage is feminist. The value of marriage today to the Christian man is that it will drive him to his knees, begging his Maker for relief. It will force him to seek his God.

    Suffering is indeed the unavoidable lot of most Christian men today. But it is infinitely better for us to suffer in obedience to God’s commands than to lose our souls and suffer for eternity.

    Liked by 6 people

    • SFC Ton says:

      How many Christian men who are unmarried are not falling into some version of sexual sin?

      Heck my guess is most married Christian men are struggle/ falling into various sexual sins because wives are generally opposed to sex with their husbands

      Point being, it’s a pretty serious trap for married and unmarried men and it doesn’t appear as if the church cares about either group

      Liked by 6 people

      • feeriker says:

        “Point being, it’s a pretty serious trap for married and unmarried men and it doesn’t appear as if the church cares about either group.”

        It only cares to the extent that men provide an easy target for pastoral ridicule, marginalization, condemnation, and exploitation. As for caring about men’s souls or their emotional and spiritual wellbeing … no, the church doesn’t care at all.

        Liked by 4 people

      • SFC Ton says:

        Escape goats and cash… don’t forget the cash

        Liked by 1 person

      • Lysimachus says:

        I suspect that number is very slim. In order to remain unmarried and avoid sexual sin men have to supress their sex drive for several decades, which is incredibly difficult to do. Most will fall numerous times and perhaps achieve long-lasting repentance when they become older and libido declines. It is far from perfect, but it seems to be the most realistic path for the majority of men who remain unmarried. The churches are probably aware of the problem, but it looks like they only preach “don’t commit sexual sin” occasionaly and are done with it, or adopt “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach (outside of Catholic confessional).

        Liked by 4 people

      • Jack says:

        If we count lustful fantasies and masturbation as sin, then the case is closed. The only remedy is early marriage.
        https://sigmaframe.wordpress.com/2020/12/18/on-the-ethics-of-teenage-marriage/

        Liked by 1 person

      • Sharkly says:

        There are probably more than enough real sexual sins, that we are clearly warned to avoid, that we shouldn’t get too focused on indeterminate sins. BGR seems to think that “Biblical lust” includes the intent to actually take the mate who is not yours. And while I’m not certain, lust certainly is something more than just appreciating God’s handiwork, or admitting to yourself that your sex drive and her sex appeal, “would tap”. Nor do I feel that I have to walk around averting my eyes from anybody more attractive than whatever my threshold is where I might enjoy banging them. And since I’m neither Catholic, nor do I feel that the specific situation of Onan applies outside of levirate marriage, I also find it questionable whether single men should be forbidden from relieving themselves. I think setting up a sexual blockade to keep sex-starved men from relieving themselves just hands Satan and his Feminists more leverage over men, and I don’t see that masturbation is clearly forbidden anywhere in the Bible. The Catholics believe it is, but their best arguments are sketchy. They depend on transferring God’s judgement on Onan, who defrauded his wife by levirate marriage, onto everyone, even those without a wife. And also by forcing the term “self-abuse” to mean masturbation, which is a real stretch.

        The latest research seem to indicate that foregoing sex or masturbation is actually putting your prostate at greater risk for problems, not to mention that it can be both painful and damaging to your nuts. Unless you are using your masturbation to defraud somebody, like Onan did, I don’t see that God has forbidden it. God is not an incompetent author, if He wanted it made clear that masturbation is sinful, He would have stated it clearly. And just having a sex drive and finding women sexually attractive, does not constitute lust.

        Liked by 2 people

  9. Lexet Blog says:

    The question is this: “Is n count/pre selection something n=0 women or n=>0 are seeking?”

    Because it makes a world of difference. Women with partner counts have guilt complexes that complicate the issue. Also, no man should bother with them.

    Liked by 3 people

  10. Scott says:

    “There is no easy way to address this issue. It’s possible to take the “older and wiser” approach that “if I had to do it over, I would have done it all differently”, but is that really the case? Would these great marriages have even resulted if at all had things been done differently? It strains credulity.”

    This scenario is so abstract and unlikely as a possibility it makes my head hurt trying to imagine it. Every LTR I have since my divorce in 2000, had I announced that I was not interested in sex until marriage would have resulted in ghosting the very next day. These are not “sluts” or crazy borderline carousel riding whatevers. In fact, in each one of them, the green light was given in advance of any kind of “pressure” I was putting on it. It’s always been me who taps the brakes for like one or two dates first. I suppose this is attributable to my 1980s rules (three dates THEN sex= now we are boyfriend and girlfriend ) thing.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Lexet Blog says:

      No, they are sluts.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Novaseeker says:

        Well there’s one of the disagreements here.

        There is a significant portion of Christian men, and the viewpoint is reflected in these comboxes (I’m not saying it’s your viewpoint, because I am not sure if it is yours or not), who see this as the critical issue: vetting.

        It seems that no matter how many of us say that vetting doesn’t matter that much, this attitude is persistent in Christian men: there is still some significant pool of women who do not act this way and who play by the old rules, and all you need to do is be patient enough and attractive enough to find one.

        I don’t believe that. Women are women. Christian women are women. In this culture, sex is prioritized. If you run in very outlier circles, yes, you can find an outlier woman who is not like that, but most of the time you’re getting what Scott talks about above, and which I mention in my post, which I experienced, Jack experienced and so on.

        But this is one of those fundamental, threshold disagreements that makes these discussions just spin and spin and spin.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Lexet Blog says:

        I operate from a fixed definition, which would mean that most modern females fall under the definition (which they rightfully are).

        I’m not going to pretend that a woman who opens her Legs after the third date with every boyfriend somehow gets an “it’s ok because the rules of dating procedure were followed”

        Liked by 3 people

      • Scott says:

        “It seems that no matter how many of us say that vetting doesn’t matter that much, this attitude is persistent in Christian men: there is still some significant pool of women who do not act this way and who play by the old rules, and all you need to do is be patient enough and attractive enough to find one.”

        It also makes the term a fairly imprecise and unreliable one in the current situation. If it describes 99% of all women, including the girl you met in college, went out with for a couple years (and of course, had sex with) and then she went on to be in several of these relationships, and then eventually married in her 30s, then what is being sought after is so unbelievably rare, that it makes most of the guys on here like Jason understandably despondent.

        Liked by 4 people

    • thedeti says:

      Seconded. My experience more or less the same but experienced in the 1980s and 90s.

      The complaints to me were that I was not sexually assertive enough. I was not sufficiently forward and aggressive in seeking out sex.

      “You never made moves. You never tried to have sex with me”

      “You made moves and then stopped… Why’d you stop??”

      “Are you gonna f**k me or what?”

      Not sluts. They were just ordinary young women who weren’t even 21 years old yet, in 1986-90. The culture was quite different then, it was not so hookup oriented. Young women want to have sex with men they’re attracted to. And with most of those girls, the relationships ended quite abruptly. Now I know why – because I wasn’t sufficiently forward.

      Something I’ve learned in the last 10 or so years, I didn’t get it before – women take it really personally when a man turns them down, especially when a man leaves freely offered up sex on the table. As a man, when I rejected a woman sexually, I never had any kind of good relationship with her ever again after that. They could barely be polite to me or look me in the eye after that. Women get personally insulted and offended when they get turned down sexually. Don’t even think about changing your mind, because she’ll never ever have anything to do with you again after that.

      Liked by 6 people

      • redpillboomer says:

        “Not sluts. They were just ordinary young women who weren’t even 21 years old yet, in 1986-90. The culture was quite different then, it was not so hookup oriented. Young women want to have sex with men they’re attracted to. And with most of those girls, the relationships ended quite abruptly. Now I know why – because I wasn’t sufficiently forward.”

        My experience was similar. For several years after becoming a Christian, I endeavored to treat the younger women in my church ‘respectfully,’ i.e. righteously. Each one, after expressing interest in me, broke it off after the third or fourth date. I couldn’t understand why? Wasn’t I doing this the ‘right way,’ the Biblical way? Finally I asked one I was particularly fond of and got an honest response from her, “Because you didn’t make a move on me!” Hmm, so hot kissing and some light fondling with all the clothes remaining on, because it didn’t end up being naked sex, it was ‘see ya buddy.’ You got to picture this, young women in church every Sunday, a Bible open in their laps, praising God with their eyes closed and at times hands raised in the air, were not sexually chaste beings. I couldn’t get my head wrapped around it at the time. Of course, now I completely get it; but back then, it was a total disconnect for me.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Jack says:

        Geez…

        “My experience was similar…”^n

        Myself, Deti, NovaSeeker, Scott, now RPB… And we’re all older men!

        Jack’s rule of commenting says that for every guy who leaves a comment, there are 10 others who feel the same way but who don’t bother to comment. I would guess that more than half of our readers have had a similar experience, and never knew what was going on at the time. Only now, decades later, we compare notes and see the pattern.

        Looks like we have been living in a sex-centric culture for decades, and we’ve had our heads in the sand the whole time.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        “Looks like we have been living in a sex-centric culture for decades, and we’ve had our heads in the sand the whole time.”

        I honestly think that most of the preaching, etc., about this issue assumes that all men are at least trying to have sex. It wants to make them think twice about it, to feel guilty about it, to make the girls “want to resist” it and so on, but the “model” they are coming from is that the guy will try to have sex, the woman will rebuff him, and that’s that — all good, because the guy has demonstrated his virility and bona fide interest, the girl has demonstrated her virtue, and the reputation of each sex is intact, in a sense.

        The idea that guys would actually restrict themselves from “making a move” likely was viewed by a lot of these preacher types as either not realistic, or as indicative of a lack of masculinity in the guys concerned — i.e., these are probably gay guys or, if not, at least real weirdos who are socially inept and probably don’t belong dating girls anyway. So they focus instead on what they considered the “normal guys” who they expect to be trying to get into a girl’s panties ASAP regardless of whether they are church attendees or not, and try to focus on that situation — to create an environment where everyone feels bad about what everyone assumes they are doing anyway, and the masculinity/femininity of each party, in a cultural sense, remains fully preserved.

        So the idea that there is any significant number of guys who are “normal” and yet are not trying to “make the moves” on their dates is like telling them that they are the last human left on a planet full of body snatchers — it isn’t something they are going to believe at all.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Jack says:

        “So they focus instead on what they considered the “normal guys” who they expect to be trying to get into a girl’s panties ASAP regardless of whether they are church attendees or not, and try to focus on that situation — to create an environment where everyone feels bad about what everyone assumes they are doing anyway, and the masculinity/femininity of each party, in a cultural sense, remains fully preserved.”

        I know this was the approach that church leaders took in decades past. They focused their message on those guys who were getting in on the action. Focusing on the top tiers of men and women is a wise approach, because that is where stuff is happening. This also added some pressure for them to make the next step of marriage.

        The problem with this approach now is that sex and marriage are not much of an option for the majority of men, and there’s no external pressure to marry. The scant few men who have this option are unlikely to listen. So this message is like preaching to a choir of one.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Sharkly says:

        Not that my experience means anything, or that what happened to me over twenty years ago will happen to others, but…
        Even though I was blue-pilled at the time, I never had any woman I was dating pressure me for sex too much, or dump me for refraining from it. I’m not certain why. I’m not sure if that was because of who I selected to date, or if that was because I made it crystal clear up front that I wouldn’t be immoral. I never encountered that issue. I could have had sex, but nobody dumped me for not having sex with them. Although I wasn’t stingy with the validation, I made it clear even though I wasn’t having sex with them, that I certainly wanted to, and, except for my fear of God, I would have. I also didn’t date recreationally. I wouldn’t date somebody unless I saw them as a person I could conceivably marry. So I wouldn’t have dated somebody I thought didn’t share my morality. I’ve always been pretty up front and forward about what I wanted. I’d ask them if they were a virgin on or before our first date. No sense wasting my time. My foolish error was believing the churchians, that I might get decent mileage out of a “retread” (a recycled virgin) who claimed to be repentant. I should have stuck with real virgins. Not that there are any guarantees either way, but at least my odds would have been far better.

        Anyhow, based upon my own experience, I suspect that if your frame is strong enough, you take your religion seriously enough that everyone knows, you avoid known sluts (women wanting to fornicate), and you make it clear up front that there will be no sexual immorality, perhaps you won’t be dumped for refusing sex before marriage. And if some slut does dump you for not porking her right off, you just dodged a bullet (a woman with inadequate moral self-control).

        Liked by 1 person

      • Sharkly says:

        Satan works by Lies & Excuses™. Don’t believe the lie/excuse that you will be shut out of the marriage market if you don’t fornicate. You’ll only be shut out of the slut/hook-up market.(which is huge now) There are also still some women who want to get married and avoid fornication, and they will accept your not being sexually immoral.

        And they’re not all 327 pound fatties. I suspect the level of self control that it takes to keep yourself a virgin in this adulterous age, is adequate self control to keep one’s “temple” from becoming horribly obese as well. The fatties will tell you Lies & Excuses™ about why they’re disgustingly obese, too. Some people claim they can’t loose weight, but if they fast and pray about it long enough, God will assuredly show them a way to loose weight.

        All is not as hopeless, for living a righteous life, as Satan wants you to believe. The way is just difficult,(it requires enduring self-control) and therefore few will “find” it. (Matthew 7:14)

        Like

    • @ Scott

      This scenario is so abstract and unlikely as a possibility it makes my head hurt trying to imagine it. Every LTR I have since my divorce in 2000, had I announced that I was not interested in sex until marriage would have resulted in ghosting the very next day. These are not “sluts” or crazy borderline carousel riding whatevers. In fact, in each one of them, the green light was given in advance of any kind of “pressure” I was putting on it. It’s always been me who taps the brakes for like one or two dates first. I suppose this is attributable to my 1980s rules (three dates THEN sex= now we are boyfriend and girlfriend ) thing.

      My experience was the opposite in the 2010s. No girl pressured for sex, but I could tell they were attracted and probably want to.

      But that was because I was careful to only ask out women who seemed to be faithfully serving in the Church and at least seemed to actually want to obey what God said in the Bible.

      If you’re just going with the flow of culture and weren’t a serious Christian at the time then I can see how that would probably be the majority experience. I think a decent sized chunk of churchgoers now and then were lukewarm Christians. True Christian men should be seeking out other true Christian women ideally.

      Probably hard, yes I know but at least there are decent indicators of seeing who is actually going above and beyond just going to church on Sunday by living out their faith typically serving in extra capacity, volunteering their time, and an actual daily spiritual life.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Joe2 says:

        My experience was the opposite in the 2010s. No girl pressured for sex, but I could tell they were attracted and probably want to.

        Yes, they may have been attracted, but assuming “they probably wanted to” is a fantasy. I’ve met Christian girls who had several of the indicators you mentioned, such as faithfully serving in the church, etc. yet these girls had some very unusual ideas about sex. For example, one girl said that we’ll have our fun for six months and then start a family. And then what happens? Nothing, no more sex that’s it. Another said that she would never deny me sex, but I shouldn’t expect her to participate because she won’t.

        These girls did not want sex either before marriage or after marriage. It’s best to find out her views about sex as soon as possible rather than proceeding on an assumption and waste time.

        Liked by 1 person

      • @ joe2

        Yes, they may have been attracted, but assuming “they probably wanted to” is a fantasy. I’ve met Christian girls who had several of the indicators you mentioned, such as faithfully serving in the church, etc. yet these girls had some very unusual ideas about sex. For example, one girl said that we’ll have our fun for six months and then start a family. And then what happens? Nothing, no more sex that’s it. Another said that she would never deny me sex, but I shouldn’t expect her to participate because she won’t.

        These girls did not want sex either before marriage or after marriage. It’s best to find out her views about sex as soon as possible rather than proceeding on an assumption and waste time.

        I did not have that experience at all. All of the women I talked to wanted to have sex and wanted to have kids. Before and after.

        I certainly know of some horror stories obviously, but I agree with you that you definitely should be asking about their views on sex (especially what they were taught) and bring up what the Bible says on it.

        Purity culture and other things like that can do some damage to those in the Church for a long time.

        Liked by 1 person

    • professorGBFMtm2021 says:

      DR,SCOTT&NOVA
      Have you ever thought of doing a post on dad-cons,who want their daughters to stay theirs,I.E.”Why I want my daughters to be LESBIANS” by james altucher from businessinsider.com on 05/02/2011!This dos’nt explain much of the last 200 years in western civ,where it began with rich dads wanting to be their daughters ”main squeeze” like ivanaka trump with donald trump for example?I always wondered why dal’ never did such a post.but with the collapse of the whole western civ plus japan on the horizon,is’nt it time for such a post?P.S.I have to tell you, I suspect this of most fathers of daughters?

      Like

  11. professorGBFMtm2021 says:

    FERRIKER,SCOTT&LEX
    Women,government&churches are all about family&children,so how can you say such things?

    Liked by 1 person

  12. Scott says:

    One thing that always struck me as odd is the fantasy issue raised in this post. I mean, who watches Disney princess movies (or p0rn) and concludes, “Yes. That is what my real life should be like.”???

    Liked by 2 people

    • Novaseeker says:

      I agree in theory, but in practice it seems that if boys, for example, are watching porn several times a week or even every day from the time they are 13 or 14 onward, it indeed has a massive impact on how they view a lot of things. That didn’t happen to us, because porn for us, when we were that age, was simply a different thing than it is now. Unlimited hardcore porn of all types being pumped for free onto the smartphones of 13 year old boys is totally new, not something the species encountered before. So it’s quite plausible to me that it is having formative impacts that are not “grokkable” for people of our generation, who would never look at a stack of playboys, or a 1980s porn movie and be influenced by it in anything like the same way.

      Liked by 5 people

  13. Jay says:

    Today, you cannot even marry a virgin and be a virgin yourself and expect to have a traditional (Christian) marriage. I say this because traditional marriage is a social and cultural institution. It cannot exist without social and cultural supports such as enforced monogamy (no sex before marriage) and enforced fidelity (elimination of no-fault divorce, ability to sue for violation of the marriage covenant, etc.). Because these things no longer exist, I would argue that traditional marriage in the modern world is dead right now.

    Modern marriage is just another “long term committed relationship”, which is really a relationship with no term and no commitment.
    Yes, you may have better odds of a marriage being successful if you marry a chaste woman. But it is still not a traditional marriage. The woman (or man) can always change their mind and blow up the marriage. The “anti-culture” we live in is very powerful. You may be willing to take the chance of entering a modern marriage that has such a high possibility of failing (even if you marry a virgin there is still an 18 % chance of divorce ), but I would argue that you have no right to do that to the children that may result from such a union (i.e., have them being raised in a broken home).

    We don’t live in a true Christian culture today. A culture is all those things such as art, philosophy, etc., that point to, and help someone get into heaven So, I think that unless Christians are willing to totally separate from the dominant culture (such as the Amish and other such sects have done), I don’t think Christian marriage is an option today.

    Liked by 2 people

  14. feeriker says:

    If we count lustful fantasies and masturbation as sin…

    … then Heaven will wind up having a total male population of six.

    Liked by 4 people

  15. Eric Francis Silk says:

    Within the last couple decades the evangelical/Reformed world has been a lot of ink spilled over the problem of the increasing delay of marriage, decreasing age of Sexual maturity, sexualized culture, etc. How can we reasonably expect people to wait that long?

    Early marriage is always the proffered “remedy”, as Jack puts it.
    If it’s the only remedy then what happens when early marriage isn’t an option? Some of us aren’t 19 anymore. Maybe if we did things differently then we could have married by now, but we can’t turn back time.

    So what is the remedy for us?

    At least on this blog there has been an effort to figure out solutions, but almost every other pundit and pastor has no solutions.

    If they address that gaping hole in their “early marriage solution” at all then it’s just to offer coping strategies, not solutions. “Tough luck pal. Life isn’t fair. Nobody is promised marriage. Maybe if you pray and read your Bible harder you’ll feel better about it.”

    No solutions. Only cope.

    Nobody should be surprised when people start suggesting that maybe if you can’t achieve an early marriage then you should be given an exemption from some of the rules.

    Like

    • thedeti says:

      “Nobody should be surprised when people start suggesting that maybe if you can’t achieve an early marriage then you should be given an exemption from some of the rules.”

      Today’s Church has given an exemption to women. An entire false theology has been created to give women ( not men) loopholes and exceptions.

      –“They just want to be wives and mothers, and if they can’t get the wife part, women will find a way to get the mother part done, because biology and evolution.”

      –“At least they’re not having abortions.”

      –“Single mothers are heroes.”

      –“The Virgin Mary was a single mother.”

      –“She was a sinner but came back to Church to do it right and seek a family. She is to be praised, heralded, and held up as an example for our young women. It is the men’s job in this Church to build her up, give her whatever she wants, and one of you is required to marry her.”

      –“She is a young faithful woman (as far as we know) who deserves everything she wants. She is a paragon of sweetness and virtue. It is men’s job to give her whatever she wants, and she is justified in getting what she wants by any means necessary, including but not limited to fraud, deceit, subterfuge, subversion, and theft.”

      –“You can’t judge her! How dare you try to judge her! If you judge her, you’re not a real Christian and you’re going to hell!”

      –“You are required to date and marry sluts, unattractive women, mentally ill women, single mothers, and obese women. If you won’t marry these women, you’re not a real Christian and you’re going to hell.”

      –“If you aren’t sexually attracted to him, then he is not The One, and you are justified in leaving him. If you are not sexually attracted to your husband, then he is not The One, and you are justified in divorcing him so you can go find The One. God will release you from your marriage so you can find The One.”

      –“If you aren’t sexually attracted to your husband, he is not Godly and you are justified in not submitting to him.”

      –“Husbands are required to earn their way into the marriage bed. Husbands are required to qualify anew each day for the right to have sex with their wives.”

      –“If she does not want to have sex with you, husband, YOU are the problem. You’re not Godly enough. You aren’t praying enough.”

      –“Wives, submit to your husbands, EXCEPT when: he isn’t going to church, isn’t praying enough, curses sometimes, masturbates, wants sex with you, doesn’t want sex with you, doesn’t go down on you, asks you to go down on him without him going down on you, is in a bad mood, asks you to do something you disagree with, is trying to lead you somewhere you don’t want to go, or he is just doing something you don’t like.”

      –“If you don’t like something your husband is doing, go to the priest or pastor, and tell him/her about it, so the priest/pastor can confront/rebuke your husband and make him do it. The pastor/priest is a marital appellate court who can overrule, modify, or reverse your husband’s decisions. Don’t like it? Just go to the priest/pastor, and s/he’ll take care of it.”

      –“Men are to be servant leaders, meaning they serve their wives and lead the family where the wife wants it to go.”

      That’s today’s American Churchian theology – serves women at men’s expense. Know why? Because women are the ones who usually decide where the family goes to church, usually volunteer and serve, and usually make the tithe/offering decisions. It’s about money.

      Liked by 7 people

      • thedeti says:

        –“God is not concerned with your chastity or sexual purity. He’s more concerned that you return to Him and repent after you’ve sinned in that area”

        –“Having sex before marriage is not a sin because the Ten Commandments forbids only adultery, which is having sex with someone you’re not married to after you’re married. The sexual purity directive applies only to married people”

        –“A woman’s having a baby is the highest moral good attainable on earth. Therefore, however that occurs is good. If she fell pregnant outside marriage and proceeds to give birth to the child, then her having sex is good. Or at least it is not bad. However, it is always, always bad when a man has sex outside marriage. Not only is his conduct bad, HE is bad. He is evil. ”

        –“A woman’s sex drive is good, moral, right, noble, pure, and always used for good and purposeful ends. The only reason women have sex is to have babies. Women just want to be wives and mothers, so anything that gets them there is a moral good.”

        –“A man’s sex drive is evil, immoral, corrupt, ignoble, impure, base, and always used for evil and selfish ends. The only reason men have sex is to satisfy fleshly desires. Men are evil horndogs who just want to get into women’s pants, and corrupt and use women. Men just want to have sex, and we have to restrain them from their immorality and from visiting their immorality on innocent, pure, paragons of sweetness and virtue who want only to become wives and mothers.”

        Churchian sexual morality: Anything women want is good. Anything men want is bad. Anything women do is good. Anything men do is evil. Women’s desires are always for marriage and children; men’s desires are always for unbridled sex everywhere all the time.

        Women are entitled to everything. Men are entitled to work for the privilege of giving it to them at their expense. Women are heralded and praised as selfless heroes with the hardest job in the world. Men are demonized and denigrated as craven cowards and knaves who can’t even be nice to a girl.

        Liked by 6 people

      • Eric Francis Silk says:

        There is some merit to the idea that the Bible only forbids adultery but ironically it’s men that get the better deal if you follow the text. Notice that the biblical definition of adultery doesn’t make any reference to the man’s marital status. Biblically, adultery is when a married woman has sex with someone who isnt her husband, regardless of the man’s marital status. A married man having sex with an unmarried woman wasn’t adultery, but fornication.

        The Old Testament also doesn’t have a concept of male virginity. If a man, again married or not, had sex with a virgin woman then he had to marry her unless her father vetoed it. The violation was deflowering the girl, not the man losing his own virginity. No mention is made of what was to happen if a man slept with a woman who already lost her virginity. In that culture, a woman who wasn’t married or in her father’s house was considered a prostitute. Ll, whether or not she took money. There is no mention of a man having to make a sin offering or any other kind of penalty.
        Both of those double standards were present in the ancient world as well as the Old Testament.

        Once we get to the New Testament, that double standard seems to get closed off. Paul tells the Corinthian church not to patronize prostitutes (again, an “independant young single woman” was considered a prostitute; Paul would have lumped most college girls or Tinder users into that category).

        And then in Revelation we see the concept of virginity applied to men for the first time. Given that it’s the book of Revelation we’re talking about then it’s not easy to interpret. Does that mean that we should apply the virginity concept to men or is it only valid in tbe context of the book’s symbolism.

        Few clear answers. Paul makes things more complicated, as usual.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        A married woman could commit adultery and a man could commit adultery against another man by having sex with that man’s wife.

        Jesus said a man could share in the guilt of a wife’s (resulting) adultery if he put her away without cause.

        Fornication is illicit sex acts. Christians are forbidden from all types of these under the evangelical law/law-of-Christ.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Eric Francis Silk says:

        Right, the idea was that “the wife was the husband’s possession…and adultery constituted a violation of the husband’s exclusive right to her; the wife, as the husband’s possession, had no such right to him” (Jewish Virtual Library)

        So a man having sex with a married woman was committing a crime against the woman’s husband. A married man having sex with someone else was not considered to have committed a crime against his wife.

        Interestingly, I know of no modern churches that still use this standard for adultery. Seems that values can change with culture after all.

        Liked by 2 people

  16. feeriker says:

    –“A woman’s having a baby is the highest moral good attainable on earth. Therefore, however that occurs is good. If she fell pregnant outside marriage and proceeds to give birth to the child, then her having sex is good. Or at least it is not bad. However, it is always, always bad when a man has sex outside marriage. Not only is his conduct bad, HE is bad. He is evil. ”

    I happened to be within earshot last week of a radio playing a certain renowned contemporary Christian music station and two of its regular DJ’s were gushing over “honoring single mothers.” It wasn’t the first time I had heard such from this station. The adulation was absolutely nauseating, but certainly reflective of contemporary churchianity’s attitudes.

    Liked by 5 people

  17. feeriker says:

    –“A woman’s having a baby is the highest moral good attainable on earth. Therefore, however that occurs is good. If she fell pregnant outside marriage and proceeds to give birth to the child, then her having sex is good. Or at least it is not bad. However, it is always, always bad when a man has sex outside marriage. Not only is his conduct bad, HE is bad. He is evil. ”

    I happened to be within earshot last week of a radio playing a certain renowned contemporary Christian music station and two of its regular DJ’s were gushing over “honoring single mothers.” It wasn’t the first time I had heard such from this station. The adulation was absolutely nauseating, but certainly reflective of contemporary churchianity’s attitudes.

    Like

  18. Scott says:

    “honoring single mothers.”

    …is a conflation caused by the inability to make a moral distinction around the cause of the single motherhood.

    All rational and good people can agree that a woman whose husband died or was truly abandoned by an evil man raising children on her own is honorable. But as soon as you hear the story (or hear the man’s side) it generally is less than heroic.

    And if you mention it, you are a horrible judgmental a-hole.

    Liked by 7 people

    • professorGBFMtm2021 says:

      EVERYBODY
      ”YES,I went out to ride last night ride around the ho’ block&rode aroiund town!Everytrime my horn did blow,a new ho came through the door,aim to the bar is how I got my fame!I’m the boogie woogie king”(SAX starts to blare!!)!What was jimmy h. liggins talking about here?Mysterious or well known?More importantly today,what is utahs new bio-dad must pay half of pre-natal care law,is this to increase amont of births,this will get men,contributing to soceity again,right?

      Like

  19. Pingback: Rules and Trust | Σ Frame

  20. Pingback: The Feminine Christian Marriage Quadrilemma | 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