God’s perfect timing = hamster food?

One of the most difficult explanations to counter in churchly circles is that of “God’s will,” a.k.a., for dating/marriage purposes, “God’s perfect timing.”  See, if God is all-knowing and all-powerful while you’re just a broken, measly human with sinfully compromised reasoning capabilities, then pretty much no explanations, short of outright contradicting Scripture, can disprove “God’s will.”

But is God’s perfect timing just fancy hamster food?  In a recent Boundless article, Candice Watters answers a reader who sounds like a typical Christian beta girl.  Reader writes:

I’ve never had a boyfriend. To love a man with the love God has given me for others is one thing I desire above all else. But I’ve yet remained “invisible.” Is something wrong with me? Every person I know tells me “Oh, you’re the sweetest person I know,” “You’re so loving,” and so forth. From others’ compliments I don’t think I’m hard to get along with, and I think I’m average looking.

I try to get myself involved with different social circles and activities, but I’m invisible. And the guy friends that I’ve thought, Maybe there is something here, end up dating other girls. I’m happy for them, but it makes me wonder what’s wrong with me? What is your suggestion for shaking this feeling of “something-must-be-wrong-with-me” syndrome that I seem to be struggling with?

Now, if Watters were a member of the manosphere, she would probably first congratulate the girl on keeping her virtue intact because everyone knows that even a pretty ugly girl can go out and extract sex from some random dude, so isn’t it a miraculous accomplishment that this girl hasn’t turned into the vilest of slutty slut sluts yet, not that anyone believes truly virtuous girls actually exist.  Then Watters would probably tell Reader to lower her expectations, not to get promoted at work, and become wildly sexually attracted to someone she’s not that attracted to, because 30 is on the horizon and the mewls of the cats are getting louder.  Tough love, you hear.

But that’s not, of course, what Watters does.  Instead, Watters launches her own story of how it was not her chubbiness during her 20s that kept her from finding her husband — it was actually God’s will.  Watters says:

Boy, can I relate to your question! I was sure something was wrong with me. Being overweight in college and for most of my 20s, I was certain that if only I could lose 30 pounds, I’d have a boyfriend. That feeling was intensified by all the “you’re such a great gal; some guy is going to be very lucky to get you,” comments I heard from older, married Christian men. I could almost hear the subtext I assumed went with their complements: “You’re a great gal, though a bit on the chubby side, but you sure are nice and have a pretty face.”

Ugh. The longer I went with failed dieting attempts, the more frustrated and lonely I grew. If all that was keeping me from a good man and a godly marriage was a smaller dress size and if I lacked the self-control to lose weight, then it was my own fault for being single for so long.

Thankfully, there was a lot about that “what’s wrong with me?” way of thinking that wasn’t true. Yes, I was overweight. And I suspect there were guys who may have found me attractive and asked me out if I’d been thinner. Maybe. But even more important in my getting married was God’s timing.

So Watters admits that her weight was likely the reason that men weren’t finding her attractive, but she refuses to accept that that ultimately had anything to do with her finding a boyfriend and getting married.

She then goes on to talk about how each person is God’s special creation, which is par for the course for this sort of advice, but she then discusses how we all have a role to play in getting married.  Among the resonsibilities are “striving for sexual purity; being a good steward of your time, talents, and treasure, as well as of your opportunities and your fertility; seeking out and actively participating in Christian community; and waiting to date someone who is spiritually mature (being equally yoked). In short, you’re called to discipleship (2 Peter 3:18).”  But…losing weight isn’t a part of that, when every woman knows deep down inside that thin women are more attractive to men?

Watters then issues her St. Crispin’s Day speech:

Do you think you’re too fat? Too thin? Too tall? Too short? Too shy? Too outgoing? Too ugly? Too pretty? Too blonde? Too old? Too spiritual? Too something? Or maybe you think you’re not enough. Not funny enough. Not thin enough. Not smart enough. Not spiritual enough. Whatever it is that you think you’ve identified about yourself that’s keeping you single, it’s not the whole picture. There may be some areas where you need to mature, and if you’re persisting in sin, then certainly you must repent and turn away. But it’s possible that it’s simply not time yet. This became clear to me when Steve started dating me before I started shrinking. I talked before about finally losing weight. And though I’m glad for that, I’m equally glad that our relationship took off while I still had weight to lose. Turns out there wasn’t anything wrong with me. It’s simply that before Steve, it was the wrong time.

It’s hard for me to make this kind of thinking jive with reality.  If there is no such thing as a soulmate, and you could conceivably have a decent marriage with any number of men, then how is something the “wrong time”?  Is is not possible that Watters could have found someone else to marry had she been thinner younger?  And that they could have had as good a marriage as Watters currently has with her husband?  Is it truly “not time yet” that keeps people from marrying?  This all comes off as pretty ironic, given Boundless’s consistent drum-beating that men have to get off the Xbox and hurry up and march down the aisle with one of the nice, available single Christian women in their congregations.

I mean, I believe in “God’s timing,” but I also think that God’s timing is often used as hamster food.  If no one is attracted to you, then you’re probably doing something wrong.  This goes for both men and women.  I mean, MAYBE in your case it’s God’s supernatural forces preventing anyone from being attracted to you until it’s “the right time,” but given that there are specific attraction factors for each sex, that tend to work regardless of someone’s character (the proof’s in the unmarried pregnant pastor’s daughters), it’s hard to believe that God’s timing is usually REALLY the reason nobody wants to date you.

But you can’t really bring this up to someone who believes in God’s timing, right?  Because if you say, “Well, it’s probably God’s timing that you can’t lose those 20 pounds,” you’re not going to have any more friends, AND you’re going to lose because the rebuttal to that is just, “Well, MY GOD is bigger than 20 pounds.”  And that settles that.  It’s not your fault.  It’s all in God’s hands.

Have Game and stay out of a stalker journal.

In the dating thread on one of the message boards I read, a board member posted that for some reason, the majority of men she goes on dates with turn out to be hardcore conservatives.  While she, presumably a liberal, claims not to mind this, the most recent man she’s dated is anti-Obama, anti-government, and owns a lot of guns.  He also subjects her to his views but won’t listen to hers.**  After he called for a fourth date, OP declined, citing their views as being too different.

Sir Libertarian didn’t read this as a rejection and instead began calling and leaving Facebook messages stating his belief that they are perfect for each other and that she’ll come around.

OP says that she has been ignoring him but is now afraid that he will start coming to her house, even though he has never been to her house before.  (He happens to know one of her neighbors.)  OP has sent one message to Sir Lib to stop messaging her, but he hasn’t stopped.  OP then asks the board for advice on how to protect herself.

So far there has only been one response***, which was to start keeping a Stalker Journal immediately.  Responder advised OP to (a) keep every single message exchanged between them, (b) to threaten him with going to the authorities if he doesn’t stop, and (c) to go to the authorities if threats don’t work.

It should be obvious to all the regulars around these parts that Sir Lib’s true problem wasn’t that he had conservative beliefs, but that he just wasn’t a sexy alpha.  He had enough rudimentary game to make it to a third date with OP, but not enough game to make his holding of conservative beliefs attractive to OP, or to enact radio silence when OP rejected him.  In bombarding OP with what I presume to be teasing admonitions that she’ll come around, Sir Lib came off as needy, and therefore beta, and therefore scary.  (Men should not be afraid of women complaining that a man didn’t want to be friends/stopped all contact after a breakup.  A woman can curse your existence up and down for such jerkiness, but the more she curses you, the more she is secretly attracted to your alpha non-neediness.  If you ever had a chance with a woman, sometimes falling off the face of the planet is the best way to get her back.)

But all of this is elementary stuff.  I think the more troublesome issue in the above scenario is that OP fears Sir Lib and that she is being advised to keep a Stalker Journal.  This is not to say that stalking is not a real phenomenon or that there are never situations where such action is warranted, but as far as I can tell, Sir Lib hasn’t made threats to OP or written weird or disturbing things to her.  By her own admission, he has never shown up at her house.  Furthermore, OP says that their last date was last week, so it’s not like this has been going on for that long.  But Sir Lib’s beta behavior (and ten bucks says he thinks he’s full of alpha swagger) is enough to inspire fear.

There are some here who consistently pooh-pooh Game and think it’s a big joke, but the above scenario, which I don’t think is an uncommon occurrence, negates that.  Sir Lib, if he doesn’t get it together, could find himself under investigation by the police, and all because he didn’t have Game; well, maybe not Game moves so much as inner Game.  But inner Game is a huge part of having Game at all.  We like to gnash our teeth over alphas getting all the breaks, but I think the above scenario shows how having Game can save your life and reputation.

By the way, in defense of OP – Sir Lib seems to be someone she didn’t know well prior to going out with him.  Since his character was unvetted, it’s natural for her to jump to the worst conclusion in the name of self-preservation.  When it comes to strange men, women are taught to err on the side of caution.  (Not that women err that way too much when the guy is a sexy alpha, BUT.)

**He probably just didn’t listen the right way, not that he didn’t listen at all.

***Since I began writing this post, there have been two more responses, both agreeing wholeheartedly about the Stalker Journal.

Princess fantasies from both sides.

First:  a moment of mourning for the Pats since my dad was from Massachusetts.

Second:  It struck me over the weekend that Christian media is often accusing mainstream media of peddling an unrealistic romantic fantasy for women that causes women to become dissatisfied with the men available to them in real life and to not look for godly standards.  But doesn’t Christian media peddle the exact same unrealistic romantic fantasies (while looking for overly godly standards)?

I mean, you’ve got Christian media on the one hand warning that (essentially) Titanic is bad for you, Reese Witherspoon romcoms are bad for you, romance novels are bad for you, etc.  Unrealistic expectations of beauty, don’t you know that life isn’t a never-ending date?, and (DUN DUN DUN) these people have sex outside of marriage!  Okay, fair enough.

But then that same Christian media turns around and foists Rebecca St. James’s “purity advice,” True Love Waits, Joshua Harris and kissing dating goodbye, and Stasi Eldredge’s Captivating (which includes chapters titled stuff like “Romanced,” “Beauty to Unveil,” “Arousing Adam,” and “Warrior Princesses”) on readers, and we’re supposed to believe that Christian media is peddling wisdom because it’s, like, Christian and stuff.  How is the “Daughter of the King!” industry not setting up women for the exact same problem of an unrealistic romantic fantasy?  You’ve got Rebecca St. James, whose entire adult life has been spent in the entertainment industry where the vast majority of males (and therefore the guys in her social circle) are well above average in looks and have success in a way that the average man will never attain, advising young Christian women on how to find her male peers lacking in romantic worthiness staying pure until they marry The One.  You’ve got True Love Waits telling horny teenagers not to have sex until they’re married, which in this culture may not be for another 15 to 20 years, and expecting that signing a card is going to be a meaningful deterrence in the heat of the moment.  Joshua Harris scared a generation away from dating because some guys in dating didn’t have lofty enough goals.  And then you have people like Stasi Eldredge writing dreamy prose about how God can romantically and emotionally satisfy women.  Here is a quote from Eldredge’s book Captivating:

We long for romance.  We are wired for it; it’s what makes our hearts come alive.  You know that.  Somewhere, deep down inside, you know this.  But what you might never have known is this…

This doesn’t need to wait for a man.

God longs to bring this into your life himself.  … He wants to heal us through his love to become mature women who actually know him.  He wants us to experience verses like, “Therefore I am now going to allure her; I will lead her into the desert and speak tenderly to her” (Hos. 2:14).  And “You have stolen my heart, my sister, my bride” (Song 4:9).  Our hearts are desperate for this.  What would it be like to experience for yourself that the truest thing about his heart toward yours is not disappointment or disapproval but deep, fiery, passionate love?  This is, after all, what a woman was made for.

HOW CAN A NORMAL, FLESH-AND-BLOOD MAN COMPETE WITH GOD FOR A WOMAN’S SWOONS?

[Insert obligatory Fireproof mention here.]

And yet it’s the mainstream media that’s to blame for setting up unrealistic expectations, tsk tsk.

It seems to me that Christian media sets just as high a bar a fantasy for Christian women as the mainstream media does, if not higher just due to the fact that a staunch Christian woman is far more likely to hold out for “God’s best.”  I feel like we are constantly assured that God is going to give us his Best if we just have faith and wait for it.  This especially includes marriage.  Don’t settle for less than God’s Best.  Do you want to have a good, God-honoring marriage?  Then hold out for His Best.  You’re 25?  You have time.  You’re 30?  Keep praying for God’s Best.  35?  Keep trusting God to bring you his Best.  40?  God’s Best doesn’t have a timetable.  45?  Nothing is impossible for God, who is writing your love story.  God will bring his Best to you in his perfect timing.  50?  Sometimes God’s Best doesn’t include a husband, but that doesn’t mean it’s not God’s Best for you.

The main difference I can see between Christian and mainstream romantic fantasies is that the former causes people not to get married at all, and the latter causes break-ups after the wedding.  In Christian terms, it’s better to be forever alone than to get married and then divorce because you’re not happy.  But for every woman who can’t find someone to meet her expectations, another guy has to remain single, so…..

Video: why men and women can’t be friends.

Res ipsa loquitur, but these kids are probably too young to have any familiarity with When Harry Met Sally. Click play and watch the hamsters spin.

 

(BTW, does this mean that only un-fat, generally attractive girls use the library at Utah State?  Are there no fat girls at Utah State?  Or did the filmmakers use size-ism to make their point???  If so, the whole thing is discredited!  Discredited, I sayyyy!)

Feminist sexual dogma, cont.

“The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?” Jer. 17:9 (NIV)

I checked back in on the message board thread that I had posted about earlier, the one from the girl who’d had sex with an alpha on the fourth date, and then he did the disappearing act.  The drama continued, not just in the thread, but she actually obtained a closure of sorts from the guy.

OP’s comments are a sterling example of how a woman’s hamster reacts to an alpha.

She protects him from criticism and only reluctantly accepts his shaming from the hen house:

It’s hard for me to think of this dude as being an asshole, but the more I think about it and read what you all are saying, I realize you’re right.

She wants to hear what he has to say when he finally contacts her:

I guess I’ll let him know that he can call me. I’m just really hurt at this point. But you’re right — I’ll hear him out. At least now I can get the closure that I’ve wanted all along.

and:

I’m just REALLY curious about what he’s going to say. I texted him and told him he could call me after I get off work in a few hours.

Oh, GIRL, this is really not rocket science.  Also, any time a girl wants to hear what a guy has to say even though she swears she has written him off, he was a mistake, she doesn’t care anymore – guess what?  SHE STILL CARES AND STILL HAS HOPE.  Such talk is pure, grade-A hamster talk.

OP gets her “closure” with alpha, but (surprise!) it wasn’t what she wanted to hear:

Alright, so he called about an hour ago. Basically, he apologized for not calling after we had sex. He admitted that he regretted doing it so soon, and that he was sorry for basically ignoring me for almost two weeks. I accepted his apology. And that was that. Honestly, I wish he wouldn’t have called in the first place. Yeah, I got my closure, but it was easier for me to get over it if I could just write him off as a dick. Now he’s not REALLY a dick, since he apologized. Gah. I’m sad now.

OP admits why she took his call:

Thanks everyone. I’m still super bummed (I guess a part of me was hoping he’d want to go out with me again?), but I know I’ll get over it.

OP in response to a commenter who asks if she would have gone out with him again if he had asked:

I would have.

Exactly how alpha was he?

I don’t know. I know I deserve better.

Mark the following as truth:  the only time women claim not to deserve better is when they’re fishing for compliments from other women (or beta orbiters).  Otherwise, women pretty much always deserve better than what they’ve got (or had).  But let’s look at this situation a little more closely:  OP really, really liked alpha and believed that they had a special enough connection that she got naked and had sex with him after four dates.  Then she procured a phone call from him apologizing for his behavior.  Most alphas would not even bother to call.  Actually, the more I think about it, the more it seems like our alpha was possibly a greater beta/lesser alpha – he did, after all, take OP on dates, which is way more than most women can expect from an alpha male these days.

So what, exactly, does OP believe she deserves that is better?  Considering what happened, she got about as good a treatment as she could expect.  Oh, but she wanted to have sex on her terms.

Ay, there’s the rub.

One of the worst LJBF stories I’ve ever read.

It has to be read to be believed.  From a commenter named “Anonymous Male” at Boundless (of course):

Ansley (#2):

In addition to I_choose_to_remain_anonymous’s response, I would like to offer another possible reason that God might choose not to take away your feelings for a certain person even if you asked for it. Here’s my story…

During my senior year of college, I noticed a connection developing with a sister in Christ, someone with whom I served in leadership together in the same on-campus ministry. Knowing that she was still emotionally recovering from a previous failed relationship at that time, though, I decided to hold back on pursuing her for a while. The DTR talk did eventually happen, but I got a polite no along the lines of “thanks for letting me know, but I’m not interested in a relationship right now.”

Despite that, she said that she still wanted to be friends. And since both she and I were still teammates in the same ministry, I thought that it would be uncaring and irresponsible for me to cut off contact with her simply because of the potential awkwardness that could result from the knowledge that there was unilateral interest. So I simply tried my best to continue interacting with her in the same way that I used to before then.

The last semester of that school year, however, would be a stressful one both for her and for me for various reasons. Ironically, this actually allowed the friendship to further deepen despite the mutual recognition that an official relationship was not going to happen. So, as it turned out, having to say goodbye to each other at graduation was not easy (let’s just say tears were shed). It would take my moving out of state for grad school later that summer to provide the distance required to ultimately get over her. Before that, though, she and I did have a chance to exchange quite a few words of blessing for each other on my way out. (To me, that counts as good closure.)

So what’s the point of my story? Based on how things turned out, I wondered if God chose not to take away my feelings for her (even though I asked for that after getting the polite rejection) because the plan was for her and me to be a blessing to each other for a season— no more, and no less.

BICs** and other male readers, DON’T BE THIS GUY.

If you ever want a woman to see you as a man, if you ever want to be attractive to a woman, if you ever want to have sex someday with a woman who has sexual desire for you, DON’T BE THIS GUY.

DON’T.

DON’T.

DON’T.

DON’T.

Don’t think of her as your sister in Christ, at least not if it means putting her on a pedestal.

Don’t hold back on pursuing her because she’s “still emotionally recovering from a failed relationship.”

Don’t think that it’s “uncaring” or “irresponsible” to cut off a friendship with a woman who LJBFs you.

Don’t keep trying to be the same friend afterward.

Don’t man-hamster yourself into thinking your “deeper” friendship means anything when she has completely nixed the possibility of ever having sex with you.

Don’t cry at graduation when you separate.

Don’t “exchange words of blessing” and consider it closure.  (And don’t worry about closure in the first place.)

And DON’T, FOR THE LOVE OF PETE, LOOK BACK ON THIS EXPERIENCE AS A CHANCE TO “BE A BLESSING” TO EACH OTHER AND BELIEVE IT WAS GOD’S DIVINE PLAN FOR YOUR LIFE.

**That’s Brothers-In-Christ.  (The girl version is SICs.)

As a bonus in the department of “things that seem like satirical spoofs but are actually really real,” here’s the (unrelated) video that’s been entertaining me all week:

Makaziville Pre Registration from John Andersen on Vimeo.

Whatever else He has in store for you could be a lot of waiting.

In his post “Boundless Is Their Foolishness,” Dalrock calls out women who treat every goal in their lives like a job – except getting married.  He writes:

When it comes to her real priorities in life, she is all about the plan.  But when it comes down to becoming a wife and mother, she is sitting around waiting for God to deliver a beta provider.  This seems to fit both with the general advice Haley relays from the church, as well as what I hear many Christians discussing.  If I’m understanding the general Christian message to young women correctly, it is:

Don’t worry, God will guide your heart.

A recent Boundless post encapsulates this exact attitude.  In “A Moment of Reflection,” blogger Emma just passed the six-month mark in her ChristianCafe.com membership and has Learned Things.  She says:

The most surprising thing I’ve learned is how I really feel about marriage. Before I started on this journey, I wanted to get married. But I don’t think I realized how much I actually desired it. In a strange way, it was difficult to admit that I want marriage. (Kind of silly, huh?) On the other hand, it was freeing. Going to Jesus, being honest about those desires and laying them before Him continues to be an exercise in faith. I have also been convicted about the fantasy I’ve built up about how meeting my future spouse is going to happen. The picture I’ve had in my head about how my life would turn out has differed vastly from how it’s actually happened. While I’ve had to work on accepting what God is doing with my life in general, the area of dating and marriage is one place where I’ve held on to my own plan tightly. Slowly I’ve become aware of the need to relinquish control.

So that’s where things stand now. I know that there are many more lessons to be learned. And while the journey has been unexpected, I know that I’m right where the Lord wants me to be. I’m looking forward to whatever else He has in store for me.

I think the whole idea behind this way of thinking is that women are too invested in finding a spouse “their way.”  By being too invested in “their way,” they are not open to other (read: GOD’S) ways.  This is unbiblical because it demonstrates closed-mindedness and lack of faith (remember, God is so great that He can accomplish anything He wants however and whenever He wants! so it’s really not up to you and you should therefore stop trying to make it up to you! Let go and let God!), so women must give up “their way” and only be open to “God’s way.”  And however things happen must be “God’s way,” so there’s really no effective way of dissuading a woman from her current method of husband-hunting so long as she’s convinced she is doing it “God’s way.”

Also, I think the other, not-really-acknowledged part of it is that for all the admonishments for young, Christian women to look forward to the day God brings them to the special man God has picked out Just For Them, a lot of young, Christian women just don’t possess the suite of wifely skills that would increase their marital prospects.  Sure, there are hyper-organized young women whose idea of heaven is The Container Store, but there are just as many, if not more, slobby girls out there whose rooms look like hurricanes blew through them.  A lot of girls don’t know the basics of cooking.  A lot of girls don’t clean…much.  They don’t iron, they don’t decorate, they don’t know how to look for bargains or budget, they don’t know how to dress themselves with both dignity and style.  Some of these skills come with time and experience, but a lot of girls can only offer their youth and their love for Jesus.  That’s just not enough when it comes to marriage, but so much churchly advice does these girls wrong by teaching them that Mr. Right will be identifiable by his love for her good heart alone and that he will arrive in God’s Perfect Timing.  So just keep on being frumpy and praying, because God can see your beautiful heart even if those sin-blinded men out there who are probably addicted to porn and as a result can’t see your true beauty can’t.  Is this really the best way to offer hope to unmarried women?

Translation: she’s not hot enough for him.

Boundless, how I hate hate to love love thee.  Thou art truly the gift that keeps giving.  Without thee, this blog would not have nearly as much reason to exist.

John Thomas has a new column up today called “Wondering Eyes,” in which he advises a male reader on what to do about his girlfriend:  namely, that he intellectually recognizes her as quality but his heart’s not in it anymore.  Reader self-castigates this as “pride.”

In his response, Thomas spends a lot of words telling Reader how he needs to have God’s Spirit transform his mind and examine the why of his desire to see what other girls are out there.  (Does it really require examination and prayer to explain a man’s desire for variety?!?!)  Says Thomas:

You’ve got to come to a place where you are grateful, excited and entirely content with the gift of another person in your life.** But where pride is blooming in the heart, there is no room for true gratefulness.

(**Insert manosphere railing against Thomas’s underlying pedestalization of “the gift of another person,” i.e., women.)

But really, Thomas could have saved himself a lot of virtual ink, because the problem is evident in Reader’s first two sentences:

I’ve been dating a wonderful girl. She is witty, intelligent, adventurous, talented, and above all she loves God in a way that I really see as a gift. She has a true passion for Him.

Notice how he NEVER MENTIONS THAT SHE IS GOOD-LOOKING TO HIM.  And he KNOWS she is below his SMV, because later he says:

I’m a good-looking, guitar-playing, God-loving man.

Right on, bro.  Jacob Fink approves.

But more seriously – Where Thomas sees Reader’s problem as an issue of lack of gratefulness, the real issue is a very simple one:  she’s not hot enough for him.  At least Thomas correctly advised Reader to break up with his girlfriend.

ETA:  On further reflection, I’ve also concluded that Thomas is wrong that Reader is immature and is not ready for marriage.  I think, based on Reader’s comments, that he WOULD be ready to move forward toward marriage IF the girl in question met his physical attractiveness requirements.  But she doesn’t, hence Reader’s gut telling him to bail.  And now I’m REALLY hating John Thomas for criticizing this kid for both immaturity as a man and as a believer.

Another example of how feminist sexual dogma lets women down.

I found the following on one of the message boards I like to lurk on.  The typical poster is a lower-to-middle middle-class woman in her 20s or 30s, unmarried, trying to get started in her profession, and desperately wanting love if not in a long-term relationship with a boyfriend.  She tends to be non-religious, or nominally so, and believes in the usual feminist dogma about sex and sexuality.  All of these characteristics come to the fore in this thread, which aptly chronicles how feminist ideas about sex and sexuality just end up hurting women far more than helping them.

In a post entitled “Tell me to freaking get over it. Tell me to let it go.”, OP writes that she went on four dates with an alpha she REALLY REALLY liked, had sex with him on the fourth date, and – surprise, surprise! – now he’s dropped off the face of the planet.  She says:

He hasn’t responded. I know. I KNOW. Drop it. I should get over it. I shouldn’t press for details. It’s pretty obvious that he’s not interested.

I guess I just wanted to vent. I’m cool with rejection; really, I am. I’m used to it. But I wish he would have at least told me he wasn’t interested instead of dropping off the face of the planet.

I’m sad that I rock in every other aspect of my life (well…career-wise, at least), but I can’t do the relationship thing at all. I’m just super bummed and down in the dumps about this. I feel like such a stupid freaking whore.

So she’s cool with rejection and is actually used to being rejected, but super bummed at the same time.  Poor hamster.  Women conditioned to believe in sex equality (or whatever you want to call it) constantly find themselves fighting their natures, as OP is here.

The responses read like a recitation of feminist sisterhood catechisms.

First response:

Totally been there, like 100 times. It sucks, but yeah – you’ve already given yourself the best advice you can: let it go.

“Like 100 times?”?????????

Second response:

I think its typical people sleep together on the 3 or 4 date so you’re not a whore. Don’t feel that way.

Everyone knows you need to go on three or four dates with someone to prevent accusations of whore-dom.  Two dates = WHORE.  Three dates = NOT A WHORE.  Those extra three hours you spent consuming carbs with a guy make all the difference.

Still, OP’s hamster is really torn up:

I just really want to know WHY. I want to know exactly what it is I did wrong so I won’t make the same mistake with the next guy. If there is a next guy.

Thanks to feminism and the sexual revolution, women honestly don’t know why having sex with a very attractive man they’re not married to or even “in a committed relationship with” (whatever that means) generally tends to result in the man’s vanishing.  In the olden days, mothers and grandmothers would warn their daughters about being fast.  But I guess in an age where that kind of advice is the unjust repression of the patriarchy and three dates is enough to qualify as not-a-whore, such male behavior is truly, genuinely baffling to women and is completely inexplicable based on their understanding of reality.  Which, as the regulars of this blog know, is not really reality.

In true feminist fashion, the next three responders blame the man:

You didn’t do anything wrong. You liked a guy, you slept with him. That’s normal. He’s just an ass to act this way. He’s the one that’s done something wrong. I think every girl has been there at least once so don’t be so hard on yourself.

—–

It’s nothing you did. There’s nothing wrong with you.

He’s just an asshole for not responding.

Let it go and don’t beat yourself up over it.

—–

Feel happy that you avoided being stuck with a little coward pansy of a man.

Not that what the guy in this scenario did was right, but these responses just illuminates the cognitive dissonance of feminism.  Women are strong and fierce and independent, except when those dastardly men enter the picture and destroy all that strength, fierceness, and independence.

Another responder tries the hamster:

I’m not trying to encourage or anything but is it possible he’s stuck at work? Something might have come up?

Another man-blamer:

He’s a coward at the end of the day, he should have been straight up with you. Don’t be too hard on yourself. Live and learn.

Finally, on post #17, someone states the obvious:

Guys like a challenge and I’m sure he figures if you did it that fast with him you probably have with other guys and guys are weird about that. THEY can do it but a girl is a whore if she does

I think, though, that the most significant aspect of this thread demonstrating the widespread absorption of feminist doctrine on sex and sexuality is that not a single poster advised OP not to have sex and that she could secure the highest-quality man that she could by withholding.  Instead, thanks to feminist sexuality, women are now tasked with finding a sexy man who will commit to her because she gives him sex.  I’m pretty sure success at a unicorn hunt is more likely.  So what we have on college campuses and in teachers’ lounges and in office cubicles is women who are encouraged to have sex because they want it, but who must somehow try to divine that a sexy man will give them commitment even as the women are giving him sex, and fight all her feelings that she’s being a whore.  What a recipe for happiness and contentment!

When I read stuff like this, it just reminds me that God knew what he was doing when He made rules for sex.

Church is for frumps?

It occurred to me today that maybe part of the problem of getting people to meet and marry within the church is the high incidence of egregious frumpiness.  I’m not saying that this is the reason or even a main reason, but surely it is a not completely insignificant contributing factor.

Seriously, look around the average evangelical McChurch on Sunday morning.  People don’t dress up for church anymore.  In the effort during the past 25 years or so to entice non-churchers into (or back into) the fold, churches ditched just about everything that was traditionally churchy.  Out went the stiff, boring hymns**, and in came “worship choruses” that sound like the worst dreck of soft hits radio and usually feature lyrics addressed to “you” about streams, fountains, skies, and hearts.  This also meant that organs were out, and “praise bands” led by a semi-hip guy (sometimes trendily unshaven) who passionately grimaces while strumming his acoustic guitar were in.  Similarly, pastors stopped wearing suits and ties and started wearing Hawaiian shirts in order to be “accessible,” everyday joes.  Churches started trying to be cutting edge and “not scared of the culture,” injecting movie clips, popular songs, skits, and lots and lots of PowerPoint into sermons.

And, not surprisingly, with churches now acting the part of “cool hangout where, like, you can learn stuff that’s, like, totally important for life – bring your unsaved friends!”, out went the practice of dressing up in Sunday’s best.  Nowadays it’s rare to see a man in a button-down shirt, much less a tie, much much less a suit – and this goes tenfold for younger men.  Women don’t wear dresses, and if they do, they’re not nice dresses but Frump City specials that don’t accentuate anything good about the woman’s body.  In the summer, it’s common to see hideous khaki shorts all over the place, and in the non-summer, jeans galore.

If Christians are representatives of Christ on Earth, shouldn’t we be doing a little better in the looks department?  Yeah, yeah, yeah, God cares more about the work you’re doing for the lost souls of the world than your appearance, and we certainly don’t want to encourage superficiality or materialism, and heaven forbid we even hint at a legalistic dress code, but ugh…when you think about it, most congregations are eyesores.  And yes, some of it is just a widespread cultural thing, with the average American being an eyesore himself, but man, not many people dress with pride for church anymore.  (And part of me wonders if churches would be more effective if their congregations dressed better.)

So, bringing this back around to the mating game – when the majority of young, single people at a church frump it up on Sundays, how are they ever going to catch each other’s eyes?  (It’s not like they’re dressing any better for the young singles group on Wednesdays.)  I guess everyone’s just hoping that this year’s winter retreat is going to be the one where Jimmy finally sees the inner beauty of Sarah’s godly personality.  Or vice versa.

(To find the above photo, all I used was “worship service” as my search term.  This is fairly dressed up by contemporary evangelical standards.)

**Good hymns = Not Boring.  Boring = Most Worship Songs Sung in Churches Today.