Taking the house.

7 Sep

I was thinking about the thread that will never die, which made me think about the following exchange from Ocean’s Eleven.  Danny Ocean has just been released from prison, and instead of commencing a morally upright new beginning, he tracks down his old partner Rusty to help him mastermind a robbery of  three prominent Las Vegas casinos.  Rusty, however, thinks this is a huge mistake.  Danny is determined, though, and turns on his powers of persuasion.

RUSTY:  I need a reason.  And don’t say money.  Why do this?

DANNY:  Why not do it?  Because yesterday I walked out of the joint wearing my entire wardrobe and you’re colddecking Teen Beat cover boys.  Because the house always wins.  You play long enough, never changing stakes, the house takes you.  Unless, when that special hand comes around, you bet big.  And then you take the house.

It occurred to me that this is the mating strategy that Rebecca St. James followed.  As is well-known, she was very vocal about her virginity and her intention not to have sex until she was married.  She became the poster child of True Love Waits, cut a purity crusade anthem called “Wait for Me,” wrote the foreword to IKDG, and in general became an evangelical darling.  Which was great and all, but no one could have predicted that Rebecca would go on to spend something like 16 or 17 years publicly waiting.  Even among Christians, I think, there’s a point at which admiration turns to UM, WHAT’S YOUR PROBLEM?, especially for someone who has beauty, wealth, and access to presumably high-quality men.

But instead of cashing in her chips and getting out of the game with a respectable profit, Rebecca bet big on 7-Card Spinster and took the house.  She waited, and waited, and waited…and ended up with a Beefcake Missionary who now has the good fortune of being in a band with a mainstream hit single, and who is both good-looking and gentlemanly enough to have old college acquaintances looking him up and vouching for his gentlemanly beefcakiness.  Were there really NO other godly men Rebecca could have loved and who were willing to marry her in the last 17 years?

I expect that as a result of waiting and winning, Rebecca will continue to be a role model and inspiration to many single Christian women around the world, as she is now living proof that waiting and trusting in God brings big rewards…eventually.  My question is this, though:  is this a strategy that single Christian women at large should follow?  I ask this because I feel that it IS the strategy that single Christian women are being encouraged to follow:  don’t settle, don’t compromise, trust in God’s perfect timing, and He will answer the cries of your heart with more love than you can possibly imagine.  You are His dear, precious daughter whom He loves passionately!  Which is true, and yet…

…most churches have plenty of single women in attendance and few, if any, Jacob Finks in attendance.

So where does this leave most single church girls?  Holding all of their chips, waiting for that special hand to come around, hoping that they’ll be the one to beat the odds?  Or beating themselves up in the belief that if only they were more spiritual and “together,” God would finally send them the man of their dreams?

It’s just hard to see any other strategy catching any kind of fire, for a couple of reasons.  One, American culture is all about going for the brass ring, shooting for the moon, believing that you’re the exception that can defy the odds.  Two, this mindset colors everything we do, including dating and marriage.  Churches these days are all about God wanting The Best For Us.  God’s Best.  God’s Blessings.  Showering, Raining Down, Covering You, Wrapping You In His Arms, etc.  It’s not that most churches are preaching prosperity gospel (at least, I don’t think they are), but it’s not an uninfluential mindset.  Third, most young women are taught that they “deserve” a “great guy.”  It’s all over the place in the media.  Single female characters on TV and film who are looking for love are consistently told by friends that they “deserve” someone great (someone who’s going to be worth all of your own greatness, someone who will appreciate you just as you are, someone who won’t treat you like crap like the last jerkface you dated…).  Anyone who disagrees with this probably is a misogynist.  What young women want to hear that God’s Best for them might include a husband who’s mediocre-looking, bad at sex, and only wants to watch sports on TV?

Still, would it really be better to tell women to cash out early and forget about waiting for the special hand to bet big on?  That’s horribly unromantic.   Most women wouldn’t go for that, and most men would be offended and/or devastated if they suspected that their wives didn’t think the husbands were the best they could get but the wives just didn’t want to wait around forever.

So where does a single woman find the sweet spot between waiting for her “great guy” and settling for what’s available because the “great guy” is never going to come and find her?

DON’T TURN THE COMMENTS INTO A WOMAN-BASHING SESSION.  THERE ARE PLENTY OF OTHER PLACES TO DO THAT.

Advertisements

107 Responses to “Taking the house.”

  1. Toz September 7, 2011 at 8:41 am #

    “Still, would it really be better to tell women to cash out early and forget about waiting for the special hand to bet big on? That’s horribly unromantic.”

    Since when is romance a virtue?

    “most men would be offended and/or devastated if they suspected that their wives didn’t think the husbands were the best they could get”

    You’re projecting, Haley. That’s what would devastate women. Speaking as a married man, I really don’t care what my wife could have gotten. I only care that she’s here and now with me and that she loves me. I would venture to guess that most men think the same way.

    IMO, most women would do much better off getting married fairly early. Most women are going to regret things either way, so why not go the route that will mature them earlier and faster?

  2. Joseph Dantes September 7, 2011 at 8:46 am #

    Why bash? This is a woman talking solid sense, and original sense too, which is rare.

    Ultimately, the proliferation of pretty nonsense is the fault of nobody but men, who alone possessed the potential for intellectual clarity and dominance necessary to prevent its rise, as a group.

  3. y81 September 7, 2011 at 9:00 am #

    I’m not sure why this question is harder for Christian women than for anyone else. Everyone has to decide whom to marry and when. Although one could imagine large numbers of non-Christian women thinking, “O, it doesn’t really matter, we’ll just get divorced if it doesn’t work out,” I don’t think most women (or men, for that matter) actually do think that way.

    My advice would generally be not to settle and not to marry anyone who doesn’t really melt your butter. Having sex on a regular basis with someone who doesn’t provoke extreme physical desire seems like a really unpleasant activity, even more unpleasant than not having sex at all.

  4. Will S. September 7, 2011 at 9:00 am #

    I second Toz’ observations, that romance, really, is overvalued in importance, and that once a man has won a woman’s heart, he couldn’t care less about the potential suitors she could have gotten with.

    Otherwise, excellent observation, Haley, about a very real dilemma for evangelical young women.

  5. Toz September 7, 2011 at 9:24 am #

    Thx Will.

    “What young women want to hear that God’s Best for them might include a husband who’s mediocre-looking, bad at sex, and only wants to watch sports on TV?”

    This is the main problem here. Here’s what I would dub Christian Women’s Entitlement Syndrome. At least when it’s a secular woman, she can’t articulate exactly why she “deserves” the perfect man. For a Christian woman, it’s couched in terms that sounds more Godly, but just as flawed. She essentially feels it’s moral to want something as long as it sounds Godly.

    As a parent, I can tell you that my kids want lots of things. My daughters want pretty dresses, candy, whatever toy that another kid is playing with. It’s my duty many times to tell them no. Why? Because I know better and what they want now is not necessarily going to make them better people. Sometimes not having the prettiest dress can teach you things about making do without the best things. Sometimes not eating candy can get you to eat stuff that’s actually good for you. Sometimes letting another kid play with your toy can teach you patience.

    There are a whole host of reasons why God wouldn’t necessarily want you to have “the best”. Setting aside our desires for God’s is exactly what Christianity is about. And honestly, I think Christian women need to grow up see their desires for the “perfect man” for what they are. Idols. Earlier on you let that go, the better it will be for your soul.

  6. modernguy September 7, 2011 at 10:28 am #

    For most people, trying to take the house on one hand is going to make them broke losers. Gamblers who profit play small advantages over the long term. If you don’t know how to play the game to win and go in thinking you’re going to get lucky holding out for a royal flush, you’re setting yourself up for a big disappointment.

  7. Mark Slater September 7, 2011 at 10:44 am #

    “…and that once a man has won a woman’s heart, he couldn’t care less about…”

    Will S.: Yes, that is the key, WINNING A WOMAN’S HEART. It is the difference between bringing a deer down in the field and hitting one on the highway with your car.

    Every man wants to pursue that special girl. I think it would bother me significantly if I understood that my woman merely glommed on to me believing she was “cashing out as soon as she can” rather than me capturing her heart.

  8. MW September 7, 2011 at 10:52 am #

    “Churches these days are all about God wanting The Best For Us. God’s Best. God’s Blessings. Showering, Raining Down, Covering You, Wrapping You In His Arms, etc. It’s not that most churches are preaching prosperity gospel (at least, I don’t think they are), but it’s not an uninfluential mindset.”

    Astute point. It’s the gospel of (female) emotional prosperity and self actualisation. Very little to nothing about preaching “Christ crucified: a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles”. I don’t know if it’s idolatry, but it’s sliding inexorably in that direction.

    “Third, most young women are taught that they “deserve” a “great guy.” ” And what do young men deserve? A great girl? No it’s usuaI to say that men must learn to build character through hardship perseverance and sacrifice. Virtues in and of themselves, but the double standard is glaring. Personally, I don’t deserve anything before God; he blesses me as I need to be blessed.

  9. jandy September 7, 2011 at 11:05 am #

    Its hard to believe I would agree with anyone on this blog, but I’m with Toz on this one. I’m “slightly” older than your average reader, but if that in itself doesn’t make me obsolete, :p then let me add, my current fiance and I started like this. I wasn’t sure he was the “best” that I could get, but he was kind, smart , with good values, and treated me well. Only after I stopped looking for what I was told I “deserved” did I realize how fantastic he actually was. Is every moment constant bliss and sexual excitement? No ( and it isnt for anyone, no matter what they claim) but he’s kind, sweet, manly, decisive, and everything else I could want. Another thing, everyone says I’m the better looking of the two of us, objectively, that’s true, but his character has made him the handsomest man in the world to me. Find the right person with the right inner qualities, you will be amazed how beautiful /handsome they will become :)

  10. OhioStater September 7, 2011 at 11:10 am #

    I once had a blackjack dealer tell me, “cash out when you’re up and go buy yourself dinner”. Prospect theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prospect_theory) says we get less pleasure from gains than we do from losses, suggesting hypergamous women are immune from the thinking “I married Mr Right, and what now?” If she thinks “what now” then he wasn’t Mr. Right.

    Ultimately the lesson of Rebecca St. James is Mr Good Enough is just as good as Mr Right.

  11. Jennifer September 7, 2011 at 11:27 am #

    Wanting perfection is poison, but wanting a good guy and the right one for you is NOT the same as a petty desire for toys or pretty dresses. Mark, that’s correct, but Haley’s point was that if a man did NOT win a woman’s heart, if she “settled” and saw it as such, it’d be an ugly insult and a blow.

    This is a great article. I’d say the solution is in-between: having reality all the way is the way to go. In other words, don’t expect perfection, but never imagine that you can settle for any guy just because he’s a good guy. And be sure to GET OUT in the world; Rebecca’s circumstances of waiting so long are pretty rare for someone so exposed.

    Now, I’ll give you guys a rich example of women waiting for perfection, while staying at home and never out of Daddy’s sight, so they’re completely unexposed to the world (and opportunities) in general: the Botkin girls of the sickly sweet and legalistic group, the “Vision Forum”. These girls are 25 and 23, and not just staying at home; they’re obeying their father like children, calling themselves his princesses and living out HIS dreams. People like this expect any potential suitors to be heavily screened by Daddy first, and to add to this armor-heavy nonsense, both the Botkin girls and their father see themselves as princesses. When they were little, Daddy gave them not a doll house, but a doll ESTATE, complete with servants, so that by his own admission they could learn how to manage their households in the future. These girls wrote a long article about why many young women may not be married yet, listing several faults, but of course never attributed any of them to themselves; when addressing the question of why THEY are not married, they simply answered, “It’s not God’s will yet.” Hence they labor away at fulfilling Daddy’s dreams, and no interested man gets near Daddy’s royal merchandise without his explicit approval (some less severe men than him require suitors to write essays and/or answer about 150 questions). The men who do marry them must be they, and their children’s, “prophets, priests and kings”. The world will rest on their husbands’ shoulders, men who must be of extraordinary vision, unweakening leadership, the identities of their entire families, and of course soldiers who can conquer the world for God.

    The Botkin girls are gorgeous, intelligent, poised young women. And they’re shutting themselves away and restraining their exposure and talents; they’re waiting for men they expect to shoulder weights that NO man should have to shoulder, and no man gets near anyway without Daddy. Being prime idols of the homeschooling patriarchal movement and with all their attractive features, there could be countless men wanting the Botkin girls already. There could be over thirty suitors who approached their father, whose names they may never know because he thought they didn’t reach the holy priest, visionary prophet and spiritual king standards. Never before has there been a more extreme example of women with unrealistic expectations, ideas of self-induced royalty, and completely unhealthy shut-offs from the general world and all potential mates it holds.

  12. Will S. September 7, 2011 at 11:55 am #

    @ Jennifer: Hard for for me to believe, but I for once agree with everything you’ve said here. I’ve read about the Botkins and their situation, and I’ve also heard of others whose fathers seem quite similar in their perfectionist checklists for potential suitors, and I find it quite sad, that the fathers will let the perfect be the enemy of the good, so to speak. I’m inclined to feel sorry for them, and to actually blame the fathers more than the daughters, not because I automatically pedestalize women (I certainly don’t), but because children are very much products of their upbringing, and it is hard to escape one’s parental programming; these daughters were taught by their fathers that they’re princesses, so being good, loving, obedient daughters, they’ve taken that to heart, internalized it completely, and now reflect back their fathers’ mindsets. True, it will be their own fault if they die as old maids, but their fathers share much of the blame, too. And yes, some men who might have made good husbands and fathers for them, may lose out too, though I hope such go on to find women who aren’t so perfectionist, and have happy lives with them.

  13. Jennifer September 7, 2011 at 12:24 pm #

    You got it in one, Will; their father has much to answer for. But being able to quote extensive Scripture, look at history, analyze anything to any healthy degree, I’m amazed that these girls have not by now learned better. It’s faulty to limit women the way they have; it’s faulty to expect men to shoulder SO much inhuman responsibility. Incidentally, when they pedestalize men this way, I find myself being more critical than I usually would of the men they uplift so extremely: when I read the ridiculous vows that their brother and his wife took at their wedding, both repeating how they “received permission” to marry, I recall looking at their brother, the new “lord and head” of his bride, and noting his receding hairline, his toothy smile, his amature height, and thinking, “Give me a freakin’ break. She’s treating HIM like Jesus on Earth?”

    The more we pedestalize people, the more clanging their faults become once we wake up to the fact that they’re human. And why would anyone want to pedestalize ANY mere human this way? Christian marriage is tough enough without adding such ludicrous expectations for the husband, and the wife’s regard for him and behavior. When the older Botkin daughter was born, after a dangerous birth, her father held his hand over her ovaries and prayed for her have millions of descendents. How’s that weird dream looking, Pa?

    The Botkin wedding: http://visionarydaughters.com/2011/05/david-and-nadias-wedding

  14. hayley September 7, 2011 at 12:49 pm #

    in answer to your question, aunt haley – i am a woman and i have no clue.

  15. Will S. September 7, 2011 at 1:19 pm #

    @ Jennifer: “Received permission”? Sheesh. Whatever happened to having one’s parents and future father-in-law’s “blessings”, and leaving it at that? Holding a hand over their baby girl’s ovaries (!), praying for millions of descendents, yet still having her wait, all this time later, for Mr. Perfect… They must really think they are like the Genesis patriarchs and matriarchs, and that even if she has to wait till she’s as old as Sarah was, that like Sarah, she’ll be able to conceive… Lunacy! Cultic self-deception behaviour, self-aggrandizing, posturing…

    Well, I wish them well – same as I wish Rebecca St. James and Jacob Fink well. In all cases, I hope that each of them will not idolize their spouse as perfect, but see them as fellow imperfect poor sinners, just like themselves and the rest of us, fumbling as we all are towards orthodoxy…

  16. Toz September 7, 2011 at 1:55 pm #

    My pastor once told me something that I thought was pretty insightful. Dating has it all backwards. The basis of dating is that you find someone you like and assume you can then love them.

    But love doesn’t work that way. When you love someone you start finding things to like about them. In other words, love comes first, like comes second. All parents know this. You love your children because they’re your children. Only after they develop can you really like them in any sense.

    Dating screws this all up by saying that you can’t/shouldn’t/won’t love someone until you like them first. That’s simply not true. This lie is the real root of the behavior and dilemma you see in this post. Christian women look for “God’s best” because those attributes (height, alpha-ness, etc) are what they like, believing that those things will be the basis of their love. Obviously, that’s not true. Love is a virtue. It’s something that you need to foster and get better at.

    The solution to this dilemma is to love more. Marriage is a great place to learn that. Hence, get married earlier. It’s good for you.

  17. Purple Tortoise September 7, 2011 at 2:22 pm #

    Very astute analysis, Haley. Are you still trying to draw an inside card on 7-card spinster?

  18. Josh September 7, 2011 at 2:36 pm #

    Well, if your church is teaching you that you have to be godly and pure so that Jesus will reward you with your Mr. Perfect, than that’s just bad theology. Sadly, churches often preach what people want to hear, because people go to the churches that preach what they want.

    If churches are honest, then they could say something like this. “You are God’s child, and God loves and provides for you. God’s plan for your life may include marriage. If it does, you will marry another imperfect sinner like yourself. You are commanded to love and minister to one another.” Now, if the church were really honest, it would also have a few words about husbands as the head of the household, that they should cherish their wives, and that wives should submit to their husbands.

    Now, that isn’t really advice on dating, because the Bible pretty silent about dating, or soulmates, or alpha beefcake. My non-Biblical advice is to Christian women is this:

    1. You have physical beauty and spiritual beauty. Physical beauty is a rapidly decreasing asset, try to maintain it as best you can. Mostly, this means figure, skin, face, and hair. Spiritual beauty can grow, and should be cultivated. Don’t roll your eyes at either kind. The soft, nurturing touch of a kind woman is perhaps more rare in this world than tight curves in a black cocktail dress.

    2. Find a Christian man you can trust and would willingly submit to, then see if he finds you attractive, and could love you. These are the basic requirements, and everything else, including tingles and butterflies, is optional. Conversely, if you get tingles from a guy that you wouldn’t trust with your purse for five minutes, stay far, far away.

    3. If #2 isn’t happening for you, you may be too prideful. Your pool of suitors is defined by those who are attracted to you, not those you find attractive. Either work on #1 to raise your attractiveness (but time is not on your side), or seek honest counsel from preferably older, married acquaintances who aren’t afraid of offending you.

    4. Pray. The church can be misguided about a lot of things, but not here. Finding a husband should not be a form of idolatry. It shouldn’t consume your life and happiness. Put God at the center – easier said than done, I know. At the very least, you’ll look less desperate.

  19. Jennifer September 7, 2011 at 3:17 pm #

    Well Toz, dating opens the door. What else are we going to do? Randomly pick a good guy?

  20. Jennifer September 7, 2011 at 3:45 pm #

    “They must really think they are like the Genesis patriarchs and matriarchs, and that even if she has to wait till she’s as old as Sarah was, that like Sarah, she’ll be able to conceive… Lunacy! Cultic self-deception behaviour, self-aggrandizing, posturing…”

    Nailed it again; they precisely see themselves as the people in the Bible. The Vision Forum quotes the Mosaic laws to justify holding grown daughters home, and the Botkin father (as well as many others) believe in something called generational planning, in which the family fathers draw a chart of their current and then imagined male descendents’ dates of marriage, death, number of male children, and so on from one generation to the next. These folks are not completely different in many beliefs from the polygamous Mormons, with their grand visions of their future as rulers. As for posturizing, again that’s precisely what they do; even supposedly candid photos look like they were tailored to be part of the grand homeschooling dominion tale.

    I wish them well too, and I want those girls to break away little by little; maybe a long time single (with possiblly fewer children) will wake them up a bit. Part of me wants them single for a long time; the other part wants them away from their father with better men. Your words about us all stumbling toward spiritual accuracy are sound; we are indeed, and because of this we need to be both aspiring to holiness and possessing of strong clear thinking.

  21. Langobard September 7, 2011 at 5:30 pm #

    So where does a single woman find the sweet spot between waiting for her “great guy” and settling for what’s available because the “great guy” is never going to come and find her?

    DON’T TURN THE COMMENTS INTO A WOMAN-BASHING SESSION. THERE ARE PLENTY OF OTHER PLACES TO DO THAT.

    I agree.

    Men do the same thing as well – i.e.: waiting, and dreaming, for their “great girl” to come into their life – and then “settle” for what comes along when the ‘hot girl’ is probably not going to be likely forthcoming.

    In other words, males also have a (degree) of hypergamy, and we should stop mercilessly picking on women for theirs, since it is a component of human nature.

  22. Julie September 7, 2011 at 6:35 pm #

    From my thirty-something married perspective, I would say that women should not “settle” however, they should really strive to look for the positives in the men around them. Flashiness and charisma and cockiness might cause your heart to flutter…for a while. But what’s really amazing is when you give that quieter and probably less confident guy a chance, end up falling in love with him to your surprise, and end up in the marriage of your dreams. Women…you might think there are few men to choose from, few you could love. In actuality, there are far more quality men around you than you think–men who are strong, who will love you with their whole heart, men who will make fantastic fathers. You will not find them if you overlook them because they don’t make you swoon at first meeting.

  23. The Man Who Was . . . September 7, 2011 at 6:42 pm #

    In other words, males also have a (degree) of hypergamy, and we should stop mercilessly picking on women for theirs, since it is a component of human nature.

    What I don’t like about the woman bashing is that it lumps the situation of all women together. The situation of the lower beta woman (SMV) is not much better than the situation of the beta male (SMV). The don’t get asked out or showered with attention and some are more than a little desperate.

    On the whole though female hypergamy really is the main problem. Most men are not holding out for supermodels, while a huge number of women in the church do think they are entitled to Christian George Clooney.

    What does confuse the issue a bit is young men’s often correct assessment that their SMV will be going up as they head towards their 30s. Many of them may overestimate by how how much.

  24. James A Donald September 7, 2011 at 6:47 pm #

    Realistically, a woman is not going to marry mister right. Most women get married when they get older and their standards start slipping, and they wind up marrying Mr Good enough.

    Reality is, that whatever man woman married past the age of twenty four, she could have married a substantially better man between eighteen and twenty two. If a woman gets married past twenty four, twenty six, she probably regrets the fish that got away, which regrets are likely to lead her to adultery and divorce.

  25. The Man Who Was . . . September 7, 2011 at 6:49 pm #

    These are the basic requirements, and everything else, including tingles and butterflies, is optional.

    Pretty good advice. However, there must be at least some sexual attraction to the man or the marriage will not be a good one. A good moral Christian woman might be able to grin and bear it, but why would anyone think that was a good outcome? Attraction can grow, but there must be a seed.

  26. Langobard September 7, 2011 at 6:53 pm #

    …In actuality, there are far more quality men around you than you think–men who are strong, who will love you with their whole heart, men who will make fantastic fathers. …

    Ahhhhh yes….

    When you think about it Julie, isn’t this the ultimate reason for picking a quality mate – and ultimately for our whole existence – how good of a father or mother a person will be to the next generation of Christians…?

    Everything else is, ultimately, narcissistic sophistry.

  27. Langobard September 7, 2011 at 7:04 pm #

    On the whole though female hypergamy really is the main problem. Most men are not holding out for supermodels, while a huge number of women in the church do think they are entitled to Christian George Clooney. @Man Who Was

    Man – on your first point, I would say that female hypergamy is the main challenge – rather than strictly the main ‘problem’ – that all budding relationships often face and endure, especially in the latter-day American empire.

    In other words, hypergamy itself is not necessarily bad, just how the extreme (and often ridiculous) forms of it are often recklessly encouraged by our (highly) irresponsible “culture” and lame-stream media.

    (*I mean, think about it for a moment: if our mom’s weren’t to a fair degree hypergamous, would they have met and wed our awesome fathers, and bore such highly intelligent prodigies as the illustrious commentators on this blog?? ;})

  28. Langobard September 7, 2011 at 7:17 pm #

    On the whole though female hypergamy really is the main problem. Most men are not holding out for supermodels, while a huge number of women in the church do think they are entitled to Christian George Clooney. @Man Who Was

    Man – on your first point…

    As to your second point Man, although most men don’t ‘hold out’ per se for supermodels, it is still virtually every man’s desire to have a woman who is as physically and genetically beautiful as he can possibly get – whilst it is virtually every woman’s desire to have a man as socially dominant and masculine as she can possibly get. Again, if this weren’t the case, many of us ‘cool kids’ wouldn’t be here today…

    *And, as I commented on this topic a few threads back: not every man has to be ‘super-alpha’ to be masculine and (positively) dominant – nor does every woman have to look like an ancient Greek goddess (no human beings are ‘gods’ and ‘goddesses’ anyway, but that’s another point however) to qualify as “hot” or beautiful. All he or she has to, respectively, be is as masculine and assertive as he can reasonably be – and all she has to to is be as feminine and sweet as can reasonably be expected. (**Staying in good physical shape will work absolute wonders for both an aspiring strong masculine man and a feminine, lovely woman.)

  29. Kathy September 7, 2011 at 7:33 pm #

    “When you think about it Julie, isn’t this the ultimate reason for picking a quality mate – and ultimately for our whole existence – how good of a father or mother a person will be to the next generation of Christians…?

    Everything else is, ultimately, narcissistic sophistry.”

    I disagree, Langobard.

    I married my husband because I loved him and wanted sex and companionship.. He was really keen on having kids. I was really keen for his sake.. In other words I was just not that maternal.. However when the kids came along, of course it all changed.

    I just wasn’t “driven” like some women are.

    My husband wanted a girl, and I wanted to give him one. I was overjoyed at the birth of our firstborn, a daughter, the little girl that he had always wanted. I will never forget the look of awe and love on his faith as he cradled her in his arms, not saying a word. tears rolling down his cheeks. A moment I will always cherish.This was also a turning point in his life.. He came back to the Church having been estranged from God for many years..

    Anyhow I digress.

    I fell in love with HIM.. Never once did it cross my mind whether or not he would be a good father (Of course he is, as I found out later) Call it selfish if you like. Narcissistic..

    If I had not fallen in love then I most certainly would not have married
    .
    As a Catholic, I believe sex is for unitve and procreative purposes, as stated in the Catholic Catechism. Simply, a man and a woman fall in love and get married. Out of that love a child is born.

    If a couple do not love one another nor share interests, what will they do once the kids have grown and left home? What will sustain them, if not love?

    Think about that.

    Many couples do indeed separate once the kids have grown, because there is nothing left between them.

  30. Jennifer September 7, 2011 at 7:35 pm #

    Wonderfully put Julie!

    “Reality is, that whatever man woman married past the age of twenty four, she could have married a substantially better man between eighteen and twenty two”

    That’s not necessarily true, and not all guys are good FOR her (or she for them). It’s best not to say things like that lest we cause women who did not marry then to obsess over what might have been.

    “not every man has to be ‘super-alpha’ to be masculine and (positively) dominant”

    Boy is that true; it’d be ridiculous to expect anything else. What guys need are some healthy alpha traits, not to all be super-alphas.

  31. Daya September 7, 2011 at 7:37 pm #

    I appreciate Josh’s comment above, with logical and practical advice.

    I was reviewing the women I know over the past year who are in their 30’s and have recently married, and what characterized them all is a strong quality of humility. They are invested in their career but do not appear to obtain their purpose in life from it. The men they have married are in their late 30s and seem to have grown into themselves – strong and confident but also in a humble manner. No pedastalizing, no rigidity or awkwardness or hidden psychiatric disorders (my recent godly dating disaster).

    I am very happy everything worked out for Ms. St. James. But she has high exposure and a high SMV – options most Christian women just don’t have. This is the Christian idol-like method mentality – if it works for the godly celebrity, it will work for everyone. This is crap. “Bible celebrities” like Abraham and David definitely weren’t doing everything perfect and demanding “perfect” back from God. Doing things perfect may be wise but not a guarantee to get what you want.

    I decided the Christian version of “Sex in the City” lifestyle is anti-marriage and feeds into negative female traits, including hypergamy. My recent friends marrying are not in the Christian party scene in my city, and the men they married match them well, even in looks. No settling necessary, just good character.

  32. The Man Who Was . . . September 7, 2011 at 7:38 pm #

    it is still virtually every man’s desire to have a woman who is as physically and genetically beautiful as he can possibly get – whilst it is virtually every woman’s desire to have a man as socially dominant and masculine as she can possibly get.

    We all try to get the most attractive partners. Men are just much more willing to settle. Women will tend to either jump on the (alpha male) carousel or sit things out completely if they can’t get the best. It is that unwillingness to settle that causes all the problems.

    how the extreme (and often ridiculous) forms of it are often recklessly encouraged by our (highly) irresponsible “culture” and lame-stream media.

    While media and the example of celebrities are important, one has to remember that it is material factors (birth control, women becoming financially independant) more than media messages that are at the root of these things. Hypergamy worked fine when it was pushing back against strong material constraints. Now not so much.

  33. Jennifer September 7, 2011 at 7:42 pm #

    I’m glad you know women like that, Daya. I wouldn’t obsess over smv either.

  34. Langobard September 7, 2011 at 7:47 pm #

    Anyhow I digress.

    I fell in love with HIM.. Never once did it cross my mind whether or not he would be a good father (Of course he is, as I found out later) Call it selfish if you like. Narcissistic..

    If I had not fallen in love then I most certainly would not have married
    .
    As a Catholic, I believe sex is for unitve and procreative purposes, as stated in the Catholic Catechism. Simply, a man and a woman fall in love and get married. Out of that love a child is born.

    If a couple do not love one another nor share interests, what will they do once the kids have grown and left home? What will sustain them, if not love?

    I of course agree with all you say here Julie – and I feel that it is out of a strong bond between husband and wife, not in spite of it, that healthy happy children of the next generation will best flourish.

  35. Kathy September 7, 2011 at 7:50 pm #

    Name’s Kathy Langobard ;)

  36. Langobard September 7, 2011 at 8:09 pm #

    We all try to get the most attractive partners. Men are just much more willing to settle. Women will tend to either jump on the (alpha male) carousel or sit things out completely if they can’t get the best. It is that unwillingness to settle that causes all the problems. @Man

    Let’s face it though – a lot of these men “settling” are merely “settling” for an (in their opinion) “average” girl until “something better” comes along (i.e. “hot” – however defined by their particular sub-culture).

    In other words, men are more willing to “string along” a woman – a woman he is at least a few smv points higher that is – for, um “companionship” (wink wink) until his dream girl shows up. If she doesn’t, then he’ll stay – often happily – with whoever will have him.

    This is where women fundamentally differ from men, as you so correctly state, in that many, if not most of them will “sit things out completely” if they don’t get (what they often mistakingly) perceive as the “best” – at least in today’s rotten day and age.

    However let’s never overlook the “kissing cousin” to unrestrained female hypergamy – that of unchecked male polygamy. And, this male desire often has to be just that: a desire, not necessarily ‘acted’ upon, to have it’s corrosive social effects to share it’s very necessary symbiotic function with the ‘hated’ female hypergamy.

    Essentially, all the men, both fair and foul, looking to “score” – or at least “impress” their friends (and more importantly, themselves) with how many women they can “get” – is an enormous reason why so, sooooooo many women, both “average” and objectively beautiful, overestimate their SMV, and why so many of them, as you say, show a ‘stoic’ willingness to ‘sit it out’ and delay marriage and child-bearing well past their best reproductive years.

    It’s a classic ‘plague on both your houses’…

  37. Langobard September 7, 2011 at 8:13 pm #

    Name’s Kathy Langobard ;)

    Oops, sorry Kathy – I mistakingly thought I was responding to Julie’s original comment.

    “my bad”…

  38. The Man Who Was . . . September 7, 2011 at 8:21 pm #

    Let’s face it though – a lot of these men “settling” are merely “settling” for an (in their opinion) “average” girl until “something better” comes along (i.e. “hot” – however defined by their particular sub-culture).

    No.

    You’re confusing slumming with settling. Men will do both, but they aren’t the same.

  39. lifeinlonglegs September 7, 2011 at 8:27 pm #

    “beating themselves up in the belief that if only they were more spiritual and “together,” God would finally send them the man of their dreams?”

    this belief results from false theology that our Lord is somehow a withholding God… or worse, that he’s some kind of husband genie and we have to rub the lamp just right to get him to grant our greatest wish. ha!

    God has perfect timing – it’s probably more akin to heeding His voice as we hear it, even when it isn’t saying the same thing as our own voice would. Our opinions and ideas are not God’s – and his are better. But we don’t bother to acknowledge that beyond giving it lip service.

  40. Jennifer September 7, 2011 at 8:37 pm #

    Beautiful, Long Legs :P

  41. Langobard September 7, 2011 at 8:48 pm #

    I appreciate Josh’s comment above, with logical and practical advice.

    I was reviewing the women I know over the past year who are in their 30′s and have recently married, and what characterized them all is a strong quality of humility. @Daya

    “Humility” is certainly a lost (and almost completely) forgotten virtue – even (and sadly) amongst Christians – who are commanded to embody it.

    I am very happy everything worked out for Ms. St. James. But she has high exposure and a high SMV – options most Christian women just don’t have. This is the Christian idol-like method mentality – if it works for the godly celebrity, it will work for everyone. This is crap. “Bible celebrities” like Abraham and David definitely weren’t doing everything perfect and demanding “perfect” back from God. Doing things perfect may be wise but not a guarantee to get what you want.

    I decided the Christian version of “Sex in the City” lifestyle is anti-marriage and feeds into negative female traits, including hypergamy. My recent friends marrying are not in the Christian party scene in my city, and the men they married match them well, even in looks. No settling necessary, just good character. @Daya

    Really, so perfectly and beautifully said, Daya, and I agree and second what Jennifer says:

    I’m glad you know women like that, Daya. I wouldn’t obsess over smv either.

    Character WILL ALWAYS TRUMP all the other classical attraction triggers in a person. Again, not that these initial attractors aren’t important in human beings (we obviously see that they are), but they certainly ‘diminish with age’ – both the chronological age of the individual man and woman and, just as importantly, the ‘age’ or what stage a man and woman are together in their particular relationship. (And *both* are just as noxious and tiring in a long-term relationship: be it a haughty, aloof indifference in an aging “beautiful” woman – or worse: a smarmy, wise-ass “cocky” attiude in an [often posturing and wannabe] aging “alpha” man.)

    …I wouldn’t obsess over smv either.

    In light of the realities stated above, We need to coin another useful dating/mating paradigm for Christians here in the Christosphere:

    SMV = Spiritual Market Value

  42. Langobard September 7, 2011 at 8:56 pm #

    No.

    You’re confusing slumming with settling. Men will do both, but they aren’t the same. @Man

    “Slumming” is even worse and more disgusting than “settling” – and not because of the objective qualities of the woman the guy is “settling” with, but because the guy in question is manipulative and deceitful, and is using the girl in question, which is way more shameful than a willingness to not “settle” on the part of the average women.

    *Still wonder why a lot of these “plain janes” women don’t end up settling down with average men, their SMV peers, in the first place…?

  43. The Man Who Was . . . September 7, 2011 at 9:05 pm #

    but because the guy in question is manipulative and deceitful, and is using the girl in question, which is way more shameful than a willingness to not “settle” on the part of the average women.

    Nah, you’re lapsing from your usual very high intellectual standards into male shaming language. There is nothing necessarily manipulative and deceitful about it, and the hypergamous girl is just as much at fault in these situations as the guy. That doesn’t make it right, but you’ve completely misdiagnosed the illness.

  44. Langobard September 7, 2011 at 10:09 pm #

    Nah, you’re lapsing from your usual very high intellectual standards into male shaming language. There is nothing necessarily manipulative and deceitful about it, and the hypergamous girl is just as much at fault in these situations as the guy. That doesn’t make it right, but you’ve completely misdiagnosed the illness. @Man Who Was

    Well, thanks for the compliment on my ‘usual very high intellectual standards’… :)

    Seriously, though Man, I did not necessarily mean it as male shaming language with what I said, for I wholeheartedly agree that the hypergamous girl is, often, just as much at fault as the guy in these situations. However, with one imortant caveat: in so far as the male is the pursuer (yes and I agree that the female is the ‘chooser’) he often, again in these cases, if not outright lies to get what he wants from a woman – that of “casual’, ‘no-strings’ ‘free” sex (no such thing, of course) he often certainly and carefully omits what his (typically short-term) plans are. What’s the old saying – ‘…ask me no questions, and I’ll tell you no lies…’ (or something to that effect).

    This is of course the heart of male polygamy – without which much of (modern-day degenerate, I again agree) female hypergamy would not be able to symbiotically exist. One is as inseperable as the other, for these women are giving themselves to men (as you rightfully called it, the “alpha carousal”) not to other women, or inanimate objects.

    Almost every “PUA” and/or manosphere blog, with the overall exception of Christian ones and ‘MGTOW’, advocate some or all of this promiscuous lifestyle that yes, I as a Christian wholeheartedly disagree with (like the ‘keep two in the kitty’ jargon), but can respectand understand the feelings of men such as yourself who may differ, since I know what total $#!+ feminism, and a weak-willed, Gnostic religious hierarchy (both Protestant and Catholic) has wrought on the average Western Man.

  45. Langobard September 7, 2011 at 10:20 pm #

    – and not because of the objective qualities of the woman the guy is “settling” with…

    Correction: meant to say “and not because of the objective qualities of the woman the guy is “slumming” with…”

  46. Jennifer September 7, 2011 at 10:36 pm #

    Well-said Lango. Someone elsewhere said that a girl’s asshole alpha boyfriend was behaving in a normal way; I said that it may be biologically natural to fornicate, but it shouldn’t be encouraged and certainly treating women like dirt shouldn’t be so either. I said that the real red pill, the ones Christians need, acknowledges both the instincts we have from sin and the instincts that are healthy, and to differentiate between what we need to suppress and what we need to embrace. As for whipped betas? I said it just shows how damn pathetic our culture’s gotten. In the past, I think men really had a better balance: the warriors who fought for their countries also wrote beautiful letters of love to their wives. Now, we have people thinking that men must be either the passionate letter-writers or the warriors, or worse, the DESERTERS (the paradox of women wanting losers); there’s no in-between..Feminism was what threw it off balance: it demanded that men, who had been trained to have natural strength from childhood, suffocate this strength and pander instead, becoming supplicating. Hence, the “nice guy” hated image came up. And men began to retaliate by going too far in the other direction, that of assholes, because the loose women were rewarding them for it; women who were not always stupid, but simply hungering for male strength in such a great way that they learned to embrace poor imitations of it.

  47. The Man Who Was . . . September 7, 2011 at 10:48 pm #

    I wasn’t defending fornication. I just don’t think that girls getting deceived and manipulated is the major problem with it, though that is a somewhat minor issue:

    1. Quite often the guy will flat out say: “I’m not looking for a serious relationship” or “I’m not looking for a girlfriend.”

    2. Quite often the sex happens so quickly that there is no question of the girl having any illusions about implied commitment.

    3. Quite often talking about commitment before sex will make it harder for the man to get the girl into bed.

    We have learned that female concern about commitment before sex was largely an artifact of the days before birth control when a girl had to be sure that the man would support any children that might be born.

    ————————————————————————

    The main problems as I see them with fornication in Western societies are:

    1. It tends to make women less fit for marriage.
    2. It gives rise to a grotesque inequalities in the mating market.
    3. It encourages a nasty competitive spirit in the mating market.

    I’d also add that it tends to cheapen sex by turning it into a pure commodity. And then there is the problem of some men at times implying more commitment than they really mean to give.

  48. Jennifer September 7, 2011 at 11:22 pm #

    Well, female concern about commitment, for girls realistic about their deeper needs is often a real concern before sex too. I really don’t care about inequalities in the SMP, but I agree hugely about making sex a commodity and BOTH sexes unfit for marriage; I have no interest in the leavings of a player who finally learned to zip his pants and settle down, anymore than “beta” guys are interested in the shallow women who snubbed them during their alpha-carousel years.

  49. Langobard September 7, 2011 at 11:43 pm #

    Well-said Lango. Someone elsewhere said that a girl’s asshole alpha boyfriend was behaving in a normal way; I said that it may be biologically natural to fornicate, but it shouldn’t be encouraged and certainly treating women like dirt shouldn’t be so either. I said that the real red pill, the ones Christians need, acknowledges both the instincts we have from sin and the instincts that are healthy, and to differentiate between what we need to suppress and what we need to embrace.

    Very well said yourself there Jen (as usual for you).

    And oh sooo true – in that just because something is deemed or demonstrated to be a “natural” human impulse, *does not mean* (or at least should not mean) that we should embrace it ‘whole-hog’, since there are a lot of ‘natural’ impulses in the darker side of human nature that are extrodinarily unpleasant, one’s that no sane civilization would of all encourage, impulses that would make life, literally miserable… “nasty, short and brutish” – as it has happened many times before in history, and will happen again, especially during the Tribulation, which will be a Hobbesian, hell-on-earth (in 3-D technocolor) for the overwhelming majority of the human species. But I digress, and that is a topic for another conversation.

    Perhaps, though, it is really nasty times like these where those vaunted “alpha” traits will, out of necessity, have to come to fruition, where the truly good men, most especially men of good character, will rise to the occasion and defend their wives, children, family, and even eachother (the essence of a Christian). This will certainly test who are the ‘real’ men – and who are the phony, degenerate ‘poseurs’ who are ‘playing alpha’ in order to use and manipulate others for their own (selfish and narcissistic) ends.

    “Alpha” (the real stuff, not the pua dirtbag or the posturing keyboard ‘warrior’ variety) in a [sic] civilized man, and in a real civilization (like We use to have), is something that should, rather MUST, be used in an as-needed and temporary basis – sort of like a ‘break glass when needed’ when everything else you’ve tried has failed, and you’re resorting to your emergency plan – and, even more importantly, when the Lord wills it (read almost any story from the Old Testament to see evidence of this). Oh yes, God will give all men a more than ample ‘opportunities’ to see who are real men – and not just sociopaths.

  50. Langobard September 7, 2011 at 11:57 pm #

    The main problems as I see them with fornication in Western societies are:

    1. It tends to make women less fit for marriage.
    2. It gives rise to a grotesque inequalities in the mating market.
    3. It encourages a nasty competitive spirit in the mating market.

    I’d also add that it tends to cheapen sex by turning it into a pure commodity. And then there is the problem of some men at times implying more commitment than they really mean to give. @Man Who Was

    Brilliantly said bro, I completely concur that turning sex into a ‘commodity’ is what ultimately cheapened it so coarsely in our national life over the past 40-50 years – for both women AND MEN. Most importantly – and curiously enough many manosphere ‘game’ advocates even recognize this unfortunate truth – is the fact that the human body becomes increasingly desensitized to the pair-bonding mechanism, a very bio-chemical process that is the emotional glue of intimacy, with each further and successivly less-meaningful physical encounter with a differant ‘partner’. (Even though it may affect women somewhat slightly worse, it is still nonetheless detrimental to a man as well.)

  51. Jennifer September 8, 2011 at 12:17 am #

    Wonderfully said Lango, and thanks :) As I said elsewhere, in the past, I think men really had a better balance: the warriors who fought for their countries also wrote beautiful letters of love to their wives. Now, we have people thinking that men must be either the passionate letter-writers or the warriors, or worse, the DESERTERS (the paradox of women wanting losers); there’s no in-between. And so many women are stupid enough to feed guys this lie. Feminism was what threw it off balance: it demanded that men, who had been trained to have natural strength from childhood, suffocate this strength and pander instead, becoming supplicating. Hence, the “nice guy” hated image came up. And men began to retaliate by going too far in the other direction, that of assholes, because the loose women were rewarding them for it; women who were not always stupid, but simply hungering for male strength in such a great way that they learned to embrace poor imitations of it

  52. AnonymousDog September 8, 2011 at 8:15 am #

    Haley,
    I think men are also often advised to just wait for the “perfect hand” to come along and then “bet big”. Isn’t that what is meant by “It will happen when it’s meant to happen”? I think that people hand out this sort of non-advice when they have no decent advice to offer but won’t admit it.

    I’d say it would only work for those in a situation where they are constantly exposed to new people all the time. For anyone not in such a situation, it’s a losing strategy.

    Where’s the Sweet Spot? Men AND women need to get out and make the appropriate efforts to FIND someone, not just wait.

  53. Svar September 8, 2011 at 9:23 am #

    @ Life in Long Legs and Jennifer

    Church of Christ, per chance?

  54. y81 September 8, 2011 at 10:49 am #

    “Men AND women need to get out and make the appropriate efforts to FIND someone, not just wait.”

    O, Anonymous Dog, you are so right, but Haley usually explains/complains that there’s no place to meet people in Los Angeles, her friends don’t know any decent guys, she doesn’t want to meet the people in her apartment complex, the guys online are losers, and besides, in the movies, guys just appear, you don’t have to make an effort.

    When I wanted to get married, I told all my friends, called up all the girls I knew (whether or not I had any romantic interest in them), signed up for some activities etc. And it worked, albeit in somewhat unexpected fashion. God is good.

  55. terri September 8, 2011 at 10:58 am #

    My question is this, though: is this a strategy that single Christian women at large should follow?

    No. Of course, the problem plaguing most American women is that they don’t realize that they are not Rebecca St. James and the older they get, the fewer prospects they have. This whole “wait until you’re older” to marry meme doesn’t serve the average woman all that well. Particularly in this current cultural climate.

    I second Toz’ observations, that romance, really, is overvalued in importance, and that once a man has won a woman’s heart, he couldn’t care less about the potential suitors she could have gotten with.

    I agree with you Will, but whenever Haley even whispers that maybe, just maybe, holding out for “the one you can’t imagine life without” is a failed strategy, she gets hammered for advising women to settle with men they aren’t all that attracted to and whom they’ll eventually divorce and put through the grinder of family court.

    It’s darned if you do, and darned if you don’t.

  56. Will S. September 8, 2011 at 12:04 pm #

    @ terri: Yeah, I’ve noticed. I think attraction can grow over time; what’s most important is (a) there isn’t repulsion to start, and (b) there’s at least a little attraction, upon which to build.

  57. Kathy September 8, 2011 at 12:55 pm #

    “@ terri: Yeah, I’ve noticed. I think attraction can grow over time; what’s most important is (a) there isn’t repulsion to start, and (b) there’s at least a little attraction, upon which to build.”

    This may have worked a hundred years ago when people (women) were less selfish and had less options. However in this modern age of entitlement many women buy into the feminist BS and so down the track there are the marriages that do indeed end in divorce for the woman who “settled” just to have children.(I know of a couple of instances)

    She finds herself dwelling on the one that got away, or what might have been, what can still be.( it becomes bigger than Ben-Hur) Not focusing on the marriage and working at it.

    Nothing the guy can do is right. He’s “on a hiding to nothing!”..

    Eventually she announces to the astonished husband that she is leaving “to find herself”

    Then we have those who are suffering from the ” I want to find my soul mate meme.” (shakes head)

    The end result is the same.

  58. terri September 8, 2011 at 1:27 pm #

    “This may have worked a hundred years ago when people (women) were less selfish and had less options.”

    I agree with you wholeheartedly on that note, Kathy as well as much of the rest of your comment. I’d expand it just a bit and add that women had less experience also. The problem with many women (and some men) in marriages is that there are too many others to compare their spouse to.

  59. terri September 8, 2011 at 1:30 pm #

    Ooops. I hit submit before I was finished, Kathy. Now, as I was saying…

    Nevertheless, in the context of a Christian marriage, the parties involved need to have enough integrity and commitment to the tenets of their faith (not to mention their Savior) to push aside the whispers of discontent that try to creep in and tell them that there is something more or someone more for them than the person they’ve taken vows with, made babies with, and built a family with.

    Life isn’t perfect, and churches need to press that point home rather than trying so hard not to be judgmental.

  60. Blissex September 8, 2011 at 1:38 pm #

    «I ask this because I feel that it IS the strategy that single Christian women are being encouraged to follow: don’t settle, don’t compromise, trust in God’s perfect timing, and He will answer the cries of your heart with more love than you can possibly imagine. You are His dear, precious daughter whom He loves passionately!»

    This is nothing more than prosperity theology applied to gina tingle, and prosperity theology is just worship of the golden calf.

  61. Jennifer September 8, 2011 at 1:45 pm #

    Please leave the tingle stuff out of this; it’s just ugly. And Haley mentioned the hyperbole of this message, but it’s not entirely untrue.

  62. Kathy September 8, 2011 at 1:49 pm #

    “Nevertheless, in the context of a Christian marriage, the parties involved need to have enough integrity and commitment to the tenets of their faith (not to mention their Savior) to push aside the whispers of discontent that try to creep in and tell them that there is something more or someone more for them than the person they’ve taken vows with, made babies with, and built a family with”

    I agree totally Terri…Prayer and my Christian faith has sustained me in times of trial in my marriage. All couples DO go through hard times at some stage..

    Too easy for people to walk away when the going gets tough.

    Unfortunately Satan’s hamster is very active (love that term Haley) and one’s faith must be exceedingly strong to resist temptation.

  63. Blissex September 8, 2011 at 2:06 pm #

    «churches need to press that point home rather than trying so hard not to be judgmental.»

    Perhaps churches know that many or most of their customers and donors are female, and “judgemental” is not something that goes down well with that demographic. Besides remember the story of that sinful woman.

  64. Jennifer September 8, 2011 at 2:13 pm #

    It’s our culture that’s all-inclusive, not merely women. Who incidentally can very judgemental..

  65. terri September 8, 2011 at 2:20 pm #

    Please leave the tingle stuff out of this; it’s just ugly.

    As much as I agree with you about the way this phenom is expressed, Jennifer, Blissex has a point. It really is just putting a religious stamp on a woman’s desire to feel swept off her feet and get the well…tingles (LOL) from a guy to feel him worthy of being even considered for a husband.

    The thing is though, many men in this corner of the ‘net have pretty much agreed that without that x-factor in the chemistry department, a woman should not marry a guy because he won’t make her happy which in turn means he’ll find himself sleeping on the couch on his way to finding a bachelor pad close enough to the family home so he can (hopefully) see his kids from time to time.

    And so, we’re back at square one. What’s a girl to do?

    I say cut herself off from most forms of popular media and remain chaste. Then she just might have a chance of seeing the potential for great happiness with an average Joe who’ll love her the way she wants to be loved, even if he isn’t a “Jacob Fink”.

    I am so thankful I am not in the position to have to worry about such things. It’s a jungle out there. And apparently in here (meaning the church), too.

  66. Lily September 8, 2011 at 4:05 pm #

    “Reality is, that whatever man woman married past the age of twenty four, she could have married a substantially better man between eighteen and twenty two.”
    I don’t know about any of the other women here, but when I was these ages, *none* of the boys I knew would have wanted to get married. There is a difference between my generation and the one 10+ years older though who were more likely to get married younger.

    You could say go for older men but IME the majority of these were more interested in going after a younger woman for status or physical than primary intent to marry her. Not all obviously, but the majority.

    That said the majority of people I know who got married before 30 did so with someone they met a lot younger. But first job young. As in 21/22+. 18-22 is a real exception.

    And I’m not convinced on the ‘substantially’ better either. Unless you grew up in circles you have an amazing social network pre 22 (as your social circles increase, your opportunities do too (though of course your competition does too).

  67. Jennifer September 8, 2011 at 6:21 pm #

    “The thing is though, many men in this corner of the ‘net have pretty much agreed that without that x-factor in the chemistry department, a woman should not marry a guy because he won’t make her happy”

    And they’re right; a woman should never be shallow enough to dump a man when the sparks go down, but she also shouldn’t “settle”. Telling women to strain at finding a husband makes them restless the same way that the media does; trust in God and realistic expectations are BOTH important.

  68. Jennifer September 8, 2011 at 9:08 pm #

    Fact is, it’s true that we need to be the best we can be. But it’s also true that we need, actively need, to be loved for who and what we are. If women do nothing but settle, with no love or attraction, their husbands are getting short-changed and not being loved for themselves, which men need too. Both men and women should never buy into the entitlement thing, but what we can forget is that women get such strong messages about God loving them and deserving good men (which is true) because of the culture’s influx of, “Be hot! Be sexy! Be thin! This is what guys want! It’s the only way to be!” But the ultimate irony is that when churches OVERDO this message, women get the same entitlement issues that the hot and sexy models have. And in fact, other than as*hole gamers, most men don’t go around thinking they need a supermodel and can constantly upgrade. Men and women need to adapt to reality, and the reality is that there are many good, but no perfect, mates. The reality is also that each of us need love, and settling for someone when there is no love, one way or another, or treating someone like a fix up project, is a deeply losing road. Lord help our youth.

  69. Jennifer September 8, 2011 at 9:10 pm #

    “I say cut herself off from most forms of popular media and remain chaste. Then she just might have a chance of seeing the potential for great happiness with an average Joe who’ll love her the way she wants to be loved, even if he isn’t a “Jacob Fink”.”

    Lovely :)

    “It really is just putting a religious stamp on a woman’s desire to feel swept off her feet and get the well…tingles (LOL) from a guy to feel him worthy of being even considered for a husband.

    The thing is though, many men in this corner of the ‘net have pretty much agreed that
    without that x-factor in the chemistry department, a woman should not marry a guy because he won’t make her happy which in turn means he’ll find himself sleeping on the couch”.

    True!

  70. Langobard September 8, 2011 at 11:54 pm #

    I’d also add that it tends to cheapen sex by turning it into a pure commodity. And then there is the problem of some men at times implying more commitment than they really mean to give. @Man Who Was

    Great article from Susan Walsh on this very topic –

    Price Discrimination in Sex | Hooking Up Smart

    Well, female concern about commitment, for girls realistic about their deeper needs is often a real concern before sex too. I really don’t care about inequalities in the SMP, but I agree hugely about making sex a commodity and BOTH sexes unfit for marriage; I have no interest in the leavings of a player who finally learned to zip his pants and settle down, anymore than “beta” guys are interested in the shallow women who snubbed them during their alpha-carousel years. @Jennifer

    Yes Jen, yes – it *really does* make both sexes increasingly unfit for a sincere, committed marriage – no matter what some in the Evo-Psych crowd may say (regarding men of course).

  71. Langobard September 8, 2011 at 11:59 pm #

    …Feminism was what threw it off balance: it demanded that men, who had been trained to have natural strength from childhood, suffocate this strength and pander instead, becoming supplicating. Hence, the “nice guy” hated image came up. And men began to retaliate by going too far in the other direction, that of assholes, because the loose women were rewarding them for it; women who were not always stupid, but simply hungering for male strength in such a great way that they learned to embrace poor imitations of it

    Possibly one of the most intelligently cogent and concise statements that I have ever read on this most poorly understood matter.

  72. Langobard September 9, 2011 at 12:00 am #

    ^ ^ ^
    Jennifer’s comment, of course.

  73. Jennifer September 9, 2011 at 1:03 am #

    Thank you so much!! :)

  74. anonymous x September 9, 2011 at 3:20 pm #

    Taking the house, eh? I tried that way back when, the trouble was I selected poorly as often happens to many of us and it blew up in my face. With the result that I’m just a bit reluctant to “bet the house” again.

    As an introvert in his early 50’s, it’s even more difficult to find decent women to go out with, let alone have a relationship with whether I’m searching online or offline. I’m a Catholic who participates in some parish activities, but I’m not any more impressed with the women I run into there. I’m not hung up on celibacy nor do I have to have sex right away, but … it’s just tough out there.

    Even through my frustration, I still agree that it’s important to set expectations realistically enough to be able to love wholeheartedly. Without that, any success in relationships will be temporary at best and that’s not much improvement.

  75. Chris Beaver September 10, 2011 at 3:20 pm #

    Whoever it was up there that said the Botkin girls are gorgeous should be slapped in the face.

    “Gorgeous?” Seriously? What is WRONG with you?

    If female homo sapiens like that are “gorgeous” that tells you exactly how FUCKED up the United States is.

    http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2008/03/07/obesity-to-blame-for-game/

    To find the guilty, you need only look into a mirror.

  76. terri September 10, 2011 at 4:45 pm #

    I wasn’t the one who said the Botkin sisters were “gorgeous”, but they are clearly not unattractive young women:

    http://visionarydaughters.com/about-the-botkin-sisters

  77. Langobard September 10, 2011 at 5:12 pm #

    Whoever it was up there that said the Botkin girls are gorgeous should be slapped in the face.

    “Gorgeous?” Seriously? What is WRONG with you?
    ___

    By your typical modern-day American standards, the Botkin sisters hardly qualify as “obese”.

    And I fully agree with Terri: in that the ladies may not qualify as “gorgeous” (at least by airbrushed Madison Ave standards, that is) – but they are clearly attractive women (they seem to have a good inner-self worth that radiates through their eyes, and countenance.)

    *Geesh – the ‘manosphere’ is becoming waaayyy too picky lately.

  78. Sharon September 10, 2011 at 5:27 pm #

    I think they both look really pretty, as well. It’s hard to determine what guys really find attractive sometimes. Perhaps that’s why there are so many articles out there on the subject that all contradict each other.

  79. Jennifer September 10, 2011 at 5:31 pm #

    Chris, I find your words repulsive and you purely asinine. Most would consider the Botkin girls at least 7’s; never mind the fact that they’re nowhere near unattractive, and FAT? Who bit your backside and inflated your brain? The fact that you subscribe to Roissy tells me much, but not even that’s enough to describe the insane idea that they’re anywhere near overweight. And frankly, I don’t subscribe to you, society, or anyone else’s standard of beauty; I’ll find whoever the hell I want attractive. The US has gotten messed up on both ends of the spectrum, and your attitude is a good example.

  80. Langobard September 10, 2011 at 5:36 pm #

    I think they both look really pretty, as well. It’s hard to determine what guys really find attractive sometimes. …

    Sharon – like I’ve mentioned before, it’s a male version of hypergamy (of sorts), in that many men upset with runaway female hypergamy – where ‘average’ women expect the “best” from men… and I suppose a lot of these fellas think they should ‘return the favor’ and demand ‘perfection’ from the ladies.

  81. Dr. Anonymous September 10, 2011 at 8:19 pm #

    And frankly, I don’t subscribe to you, society, or anyone else’s standard of beauty; I’ll find whoever the hell I want attractive.

    While I am doubtless impressed at your apparent newfound discovery of free will, you have to distinguish between beauty and (sexual) attractiveness. You’re not attracted to women, and, hence, your opinion about whether any girl is attractive is almost worthless. When a woman judges another female’s looks, she will typically assess them on aesthetic grounds alone and then usually just assume that sexual attraction has the same foundation. She’s wrong, for the very same reason a pretty boy doesn’t inspire lust in a girl. One thing I’ve noticed: guys tend to assume that girls prefer the metro look (due to their own preference for feminine traits clouding that judgment); girls, on the other hand, often seem to think that guys find a certain sort of less-feminine appearance hot (which I can’t describe precisely — if I had to put a finger on it, I’d say they mostly get it wrong on the kind of cheekbone/jawline structure we like).

    Anyway, those girls look moderately attractive — above average, maybe — to me in today’s America; they’d just be average at best, I suspect, if obesity weren’t diluting the “market”.

  82. Jennifer September 10, 2011 at 11:36 pm #

    Dr. Anon, I didn’t and don’t care what men find attractive with my comment, though incidentally their tastes range quite widely. I find those women lovely; period. Whether any guys get hard looking at them here, I don’t care nor do I want to know.

  83. Jennifer September 11, 2011 at 12:20 am #

    However, your explanation about male attraction is interesting; that would explain why some found a ridiculously sluttish woman more attractive than the wholesomely gorgeous Elizabeth Taylor. Pathetic, really, what our biological minds draw us to sometimes (for women as well, look at the pigs THEY go to). Incidentally, one way or another, I know from the Botkin’s figures that if they dressed in loose clothes and flashed themselves in makeup and tightness, men would trip over themselves as blindly as if they’d spotted nymphs. Thank God those two women will never do that.

  84. Dr. Anonymous September 11, 2011 at 2:53 am #

    Jennifer,

    In your first sentence, I think you’re trying to say that you’re indifferent toward the opinions of various men re: the sisters’ level of attractiveness. (The wording, on the other hand, lends itself more to the interpretation that you don’t care whether we are intellectually attracted to the very comment itself.) You missed my point.

    I don’t take issue with your assessment of the girls’ looks. What I (and probably other guys) object to is this apparent conviction of yours that your own opinion about a female’s sexual attractiveness should, somehow, truly matter, at least moreso than any man’s, (specifically to the extent of being grounds to dismiss the judgments of all those bearing a Y-chromosome). Quite simply put: your individual opinion about their attractiveness must acknowledge — and in fact depend on — precisely just how much men are actually attracted to them. You (presumably) aren’t sexually attracted to the girls. Your only basis for disputing a guy’s perspective on her looks would have to be almost entirely limited to some argument entailing that he’s self-deceived about his own turn-ons.

    You find the sisters “lovely”. That, while fantastic, has little to do with your refusal to accept the legitimacy of male sexual interests. Your relationship to the Botkins is influenced by factors far-removed from reproductive compatibility. (On that note, please recognize that I speak of sexual attraction in its broad, literal sense, i.e., as including both short- and long-term interests conducive to reproduction. Your talk of erections, which I agree is inappropriate, pertains only to a narrow conception of sexuality.)

    I wonder where it is that you get these prescriptive notions of attraction from. The biological nature of sexual attraction, while perhaps initially unsettling for those raised with a Romantic view of Nature, makes (for the most part) perfect sense. Sexual availability (explicitly manifesting as sluttiness) will arouse men; signs of loyalty, fertility, nurturing, etc. (virginity, docility) will inspire commitment and investment from them. At the other end, girls looks for signs of genetic compatibility/immunity-boosting (testosterone, square jaw, masculinity, “pigs”) when ovulating; yet they prefer signs of a provider (“beta-tendencies”: affection, lower aggression, softer facial features) other times. Oh no!

    You most likely are opposed to the over-emphasis of short-term attractors at the expense of long-term ones; and as a result you’re condemning the short-term agenda as evil per se. I agree that we ought to practice self-discipline in order to control lust and that the social, public discouragement of “lower” urges is an effective method for mutual enforcement; however, this requires that we first accept the fact these “bestial” forces are indeed powerful, and common, yet normal (and not inherently wrong).

  85. Will S. September 11, 2011 at 4:13 am #

    Agree with Dr. Anonymous here. While our biological urges, like everything else about us, are tainted with sin, they nevertheless are natural, and are the means by which the Lord gave us the ability to reproduce. So, even if some things about what men or women find attractive in the opposite sex seem puzzling, even unfortunate, they nevertheless are what we have to work with.

  86. Jennifer September 11, 2011 at 8:04 am #

    “You most likely are opposed to the over-emphasis of short-term attractors at the expense of long-term ones; and as a result you’re condemning the short-term agenda as evil per se”

    Mm, no; I do find basing sexual choices on short-term stuff stupid, but in this case I’m even speaking of biologically rooted instincts: to me, a woman dressed like a whore on a biological level says, “Dirty, AIDS, STDS, much semen deposited!”

    “(testosterone, square jaw, masculinity, “pigs”)”

    No, there is nothing piglike about what you just described; I think you know well that’s not what i consider a pig. I am, as it happens, turned off by instinct in every way by male sluts; intellectually they say, “Fool. Unstable. Ugly.” Biologically they say, “Loose. unclean, dipping wherever it can, extremely low quality.”

    Very interesting discussion.

  87. lifeinlonglegs September 11, 2011 at 8:05 am #

    not Church of Christ, nope. :)

  88. Blissex September 11, 2011 at 9:41 am #

    I am very disappointed that “Jennifer” and others reacted to the “tingles” aspect of my comment, which is mostly irrelevant.

    The real problem is with the «if only they were more spiritual and “together,” God would finally send them the man of their dreams?» attitude that is a variant of prosperity theology.

    I would go as far as saying that kind of attitude is pretty bad (or at least disrespectful of the deity). One thing is to believe in God’s occasional Providence and his choice to sometimes answer deserving prayers, another to think that your creator owes you comfortable wealth and/or an alpha husband, and you should just wait for them to be delivered to you in exchange for your worship.

    Trying to sell your soul to God in exchange for worldly advantage such as a sexy, rich husband does not seem to me much better than selling it to the other side. Especially considering the free will aspect of the husband.

    But prosperity theology is indeed very popular for that reason, so I can see the attraction of applying it to winning the dating prize.

  89. Dr. Anonymous September 11, 2011 at 3:44 pm #

    Jennifer,

    God kicked us out of the Garden. Deal with it.

  90. Jennifer September 11, 2011 at 5:14 pm #

    LOL I’m well-aware of that, and WHY.

  91. Blissex September 12, 2011 at 4:42 am #

    «and WHY»

    Doesn’t that involve a woman cheating her beta husband with a bad boy snake and then leading him into perdition as the bad boy snake scammed and dumped her?

    Genesis does not say, but probably after that she nagged her beta husband for the the rest of his (long) life for being a pushover and not taking control and stopping her, and it was all his fault because she would not have fallen for temptation with the bad boy snake if he had made her feel more excited.

    :-)

  92. Jennifer September 12, 2011 at 10:25 am #

    No, has to do with an alpha who turns out to be wimpy and blames his wife for everything.

  93. Dr. Anonymous September 12, 2011 at 1:32 pm #

    I do find basing sexual choices on short-term stuff stupid, but in this case I’m even speaking of biologically rooted instincts: to me, a woman dressed like a whore on a biological level says, “Dirty, AIDS, STDS, much semen deposited!”

    Jennifer,

    Is a man not supposed to make a sexual choice (viz., to have sex immediately) based on the instant and intense arousal he gets from his wife when he comes home and finds her lying naked on the bed? What if she dresses provocatively — like a slut — in the privacy of their bedroom? Would his erection indicate an impotent will? Is he lacking in virtue if he finds himself more turned-on than when she curls up on the bed wearing a Snuggie? Just curious.

    Blissex & Jennifer,

    Permit me to share my take. I think the story actually surrounds two sinners who were both too busy proudly defending their egos, blaming each other and complaining about their punitive predicament to recognize and repent for their roles in corrupting a beautiful gift from the Lord God. Afterward, that same Lord — although under no obligation to do so (in fact, they still owed Him!) — miraculously returned to save them from themselves. (I know; pretty awesome.) Tragically, however, the majority of their descendants, still too busy w/their own little plans and problems (but just, y’know, trying “innocently” to “fix” a world that was, somehow, strangely enough, unbearably cruel and unjust, though only, of course, cuz someone else broke it), didn’t really recognize Him and, actually, considered Him quite a nuisance, as He notoriously seemed to get in the way of their little schemes. Well, at least, that; and because Eve was a woman.

  94. Jennifer September 12, 2011 at 1:44 pm #

    Anon, I think you know perfectly well what I mean; I find that question silly. If a husband decides to have sex with his wife, it’s because she’s his wife, not just a woman who happens to be in his house dressed provocatively.

    Because Eve was a woman what?

  95. Dr. Anonymous September 12, 2011 at 3:35 pm #

    So you expect his libido to distinguish between a naked woman and a naked wife? Remember that you expressed disgust for even just the biological instinct. You realize sexual arousal is largely visual for men, right? I doubt even the greatest saints have that degree of virtuous control over their instinctive urges. Thomas Aquinas did have to chase a prostitute out of his home w/a torch once in order to secure his chastity from temptation…

    Don’t worry about the last sentence; supposed to be tongue-in-cheek.

  96. Kathy September 12, 2011 at 4:31 pm #

    I really cannot undersatnd your point here Dr Anonymous. We all know men are more “visual” than women. Jennifer’s disgust is for the biological instinct without anything else… In other words pure lust just for self gratification.. Of course that kind of thing would be a turn off for most women.. No one is denying that men are easily visually aroused, least of all Jennifer.

    Men are not animals however, and can and do control themselves.. Of course a man must be attracted to a woman, sexually,but that attraction will most certainly wane, if she is found wanting in other areas. Lack of common interests, selfishness, short tempered flirty with other men, etc.

    There is nothing wrong with initial sexual attraction, it’s the base like lustful qualities that some men/ women exude with no accompanying depth of character that place them on the same level as animals who act upon instinct alone, that is the problem.

    In any event this is a Christian blog, and relationships entail so much more than biological urges..

    Methinks you are up to a bit of mischief here, Dr Anonymous. :D

  97. Jennifer September 12, 2011 at 7:10 pm #

    Thank you Kathy, that sums up my thoughts perfectly.

  98. Dr. Anonymous September 12, 2011 at 10:00 pm #

    Hey, no mischief over here, unless interpreting people literally is an offense. Youthinks inaccurately; Dr. Anonymous is a saint. A saint, dammit. You see, Jennifer emphasized the following:

    [I]n this case I’m even speaking of biologically rooted instincts: to me, a woman dressed like a whore on a biological level says, “Dirty, AIDS, STDS, much semen deposited!”
    […]
    I am, as it happens, turned off by instinct in every way by male sluts; intellectually they say, “Fool. Unstable. Ugly.” Biologically they say, “Loose. unclean, dipping wherever it can, extremely low quality.”

    She is not merely saying that she’s disgusted by a man who strictly follows his bio-instincts alone w/out any control whatsoever. (If so, she’s a poor communicator.) Jennifer clearly is expressing a problem she has at the fact a man’s instincts naturally orient him toward arousal at “sluttiness” in general, without context, instead of that which is chaste and innocent. She’s disturbed that our bodies on a biological level never seem to react “morally” even when our minds are in the right place. The libido doesn’t line up perfectly w/Christian ethics; there’s a virtue-threatening disparity between mind and body. A guy “should”, I guess, feel repulsed if he sees a porno (sluts!), yet as everyone knows, he’s actually turned-on, and Jennifer won’t seem to let that slide. It kinda sounds like she pines for guys who are made horny solely at the sight of their own chaste wives (and I suppose other women too, so long as they don’t happen to be sluts), that is, the same way she’s (allegedly) attracted to “dad”-behavior and repulsed by “cad”-conduct. If she indeed only gets tingles from nice guys and tastes a hint of vomit upon witnessing a studly player, well, then I’m shocked and impressed by her graceful bodily blessing. Nevertheless, for those of us of the masculine-persuasion, those things are basically subconscious. We’re excited before our intellect even has the chance to classify the perception under its ‘SLUT!’ concept.

  99. Dr. Anonymous September 12, 2011 at 10:02 pm #

    Chris, I find your words repulsive and you purely asinine.
    […]
    [T]hat would explain why some found a ridiculously sluttish woman more attractive than the wholesomely gorgeous Elizabeth Taylor. Pathetic, really, what our biological minds draw us to sometimes (for women as well, look at the pigs THEY go to). Incidentally, one way or another, I know from the Botkin’s figures that if they dressed in loose clothes and flashed themselves in makeup and tightness, men would trip over themselves as blindly as if they’d spotted nymphs.

    The above quotes bitterly highlight some disapproval and complaint over the uncontrollable elements of attraction per se. This whole tangent began because she refused to accept the opinions of any men who don’t think the “lovely” Botkins sisters are very hot. If Jennifer has never meant to imply any problem with that, then maybe this is a big miscommunication. But my point is simple. Men must learn to deal with the reality that women can’t help but be drawn in the short-term to behavior that is less-than-Christian; and women have got to accept the fact that men are uncontrollably prone to lust after general sluttiness. The human body won’t somehow individually discriminate between good and bad cases upon sensation of a baseline attractor. My libido is gonna kick in whenever it becomes aware of a nice female figure revealing a lot of skin, whether that figure is of my wife or some chick I met 3 seconds ago. A dude’s brain only gets as specific as ‘Hot-Female-Body-[rating]’ as soon as it catches an image or sensation that subconsciously signals a sex opportunity.

  100. Will S. September 13, 2011 at 2:39 am #

    Dr. Anon, don’t forget, though, that our sexuality, like everything else about us, has been tainted with sin, such that even though we were created, in such a way, that our attractions would have been free from sin, as Adam’s attraction to Eve was, nevertheless, our nature itself became tainted, so that, yeah, we can find ourselves sexually attracted toward (which means, biologically, want to make the mother of our children) women who clearly aren’t good role models for motherhood, like porn models / actresses / strippers.

    But you’re right that any woman displaying sufficient skin is going to arouse us, whether indeed it is our beloved, or any other one; God didn’t make us to only be attracted to the one we either are with or are supposed to get with. Mighta made things easier if so; imagine that; no attraction towards anyone but The One… But sin ruined things, anyway, and that wasn’t God’s fault, but ours in Adam and Eve…

  101. Dr. Anonymous September 13, 2011 at 4:41 am #

    Will S,

    Not a lot of disagreement w/you there. It is most definitely not a lack of understanding, or even sympathy, that motivates my intended clarification of the subject. Jennifer’s complaints are ultimately, I think, informed by a fundamental contempt for sin and its corrosive effects. There’s an undeniable part of our souls that realizes humanity shouldn’t be the way it is and longs for this ambiguously-defined Ideal. But few ever manage to definitively identify the true qualities of Eden down to its details (and end up reinventing what God intended w/what they intend alone). The “best” is now the enemy of the good, in a manner of speaking. We can’t get up if we don’t stop crying about the pain and instead own up to the fact we arrogantly and freely chose to jump into this shithole ourselves.

    Re: the consequences of Original Sin, which I think had to be a sin of pride, I view the corruption less as, say, an “essential” transformation, but as merely (maybe entirely) a case of re-direction/re-structuring/re-prioritization of internal powers and relations. It seems to me that our bodies actually survived the Fall mostly unharmed, not in fact bearing the greater blame that they’re often hastily implicated with. (They appear to popular choice as primary suspects.) However, it was, after all, really our spirits which were critically crippled, being the more accountable power and thus ultimately the most blameworthy. Initially, the intellect became blinded, and afterward the disoriented soul — but only w/permission from the will — sought retreat with the body its intellect stumbled into and declared pretty in tact (i.e., the same body from which it once commanded respect w/bona fide, tried-and-true authority, it then suddenly relied on w/pitiful dependence).

    The result? A re-orientation of the whole person, which continued to spiral out of control w/further downward momentum. The body naturally grew to resent this new burden and responsibility, while losing respect for its pathetic dead-weight and eventually taking charge itself (arguably, though, as just a desperate plea for its ordained commander-in-chief to wake up and re-establish its authority). Tragically, though, the soul, blind and impotent, stripped of confidence and initiative, figured it’d just be easier to “maintain the peace” in fear of the body’s increasingly irrational requests (which strangely resembled tests — shitty ones…); and so now the second-in-command, the follower, whips around its dispirited higher-up according to flaky whims, typically for some rationalization of its own agenda, hardly at all for its proper function — enlightenment.

    Now it’s probably important (for any hope of reconciliation) to note that neither the body nor the soul is inherently bad. In fact, both are by nature quite good. The destructive role-reversal is what caused them to sinfully go their own ways, inevitably assuming competition over complementarity before ending w/the final divorce that left a gaping void at the center of everyone’s being (and prevented the mind from making any direct contact w/basically all its organs, yet still, of course, entitled to its resources).

    Sound familiar? Possibly like, say, oh I dunno, any socio-political movements you’ve heard of recently?

    (Well, that was fun. Uh, so, yeah, where was I again?)

  102. Will S. September 13, 2011 at 5:03 am #

    Gee, you’ve given this even more thought than I, lol. I’ll have to think about this. Cheers.

  103. Chris September 13, 2011 at 11:04 pm #

    I think this is turning into another thread that will not die.

    I’m going to suggest that female ideas of what is attractive to men is like their ideas of what is fashionable. Most guys don’t have a clue about fashion. We don’t know what is forward: we like things that flatter women and make them look attractive… we are visual.

    And when it comes to why we find certain women desirable and others not… each man is slightly different. For which you should rejoice, because somewhere there is a person who will find the Botkin girls totally desirable (and that will hopefully be mutual). The most sensible advice I have read here comes from Grerp and Terri and it applies to both men and women — we can’t do much about our faces, but we can be fit.

    In summary, each man has a personal ideal woman. But it varies. And the older you get, the less beauty matters… as I say to the boys, beauty fades but ugliness goes to the bone . Look for women of strong characther, for that will be seen in their face over time.

  104. Jennifer September 13, 2011 at 11:26 pm #

    Awesome, Chris :) I do hope that once the Botkins find a mutual bond, their father won’t stand in the way.

  105. Elisa Diane October 13, 2011 at 6:39 pm #

    I don’t think anyone settles for what’s available. We fall in love and in lust all the time, and when we find that one perfect one, we get married. If it doesn’t happen, we remain single. That’s how it is for most people (I think). It sucks being single, but I actually HAVE tried the “settling for what’s available” option, and I seriously couldn’t even be intimate with the person. I just couldn’t fake attraction. Therefore, he and I fell apart very quickly.

  106. Elisa Diane October 13, 2011 at 6:41 pm #

    (Well, I shouldn’t say we fall in LOVE all the time, but we fall in lust and in partial romances with people who we like partially.)

  107. Will S. October 13, 2011 at 8:08 pm #

    “When we find that perfect one” No such thing, save Christ. If that truly is your thinking, you’ll wait a loooooong time… Prepare for a future full of cats and Ben & Jerry’s!

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s