A Question about Chastity
Posted on 20 May 2010
In this space, in recent days, there has been a discussion of male chastity and chivalry, and the proper respect due to the fairer sex. Some readers, perhaps those of a feminist bent, objected that to expect chastity from males was an insult to women, or a type of oppression. Other readers, perhaps of an opposite opinion which we might call masculinist, objected that the sins of the daughters of Eve were overwhelming, and that I should not restrict my hard words to the men alone. Some readers said I was a racist.
Being a creature crippled by philosophy, who must crawl from one logical and well-established statement to the next, I have not wings of fancy to leap from conclusion to airy conclusion, and in none of these cases can my slow and groping mind see the connection between my argument and the counter-argument presented by my worthy opponents. I simply do not see what the one has to do with the other: the comments do not seem in these cases to be on the same topic as the topic under discussion.
Such convulsions of mutual incomprehension are to be expected in discussions where the axioms of the two sides are so far apart. There is some basic, unspoken assumption I am making that is invisible to my honorable opposition; there is likewise some basic, unspoken assumption my opponents, both feminist and masculinist, make which is invisible to me.
In an earnest effort to unearth this assumption, let me ask a single question. It is my hope that ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
artimaeus will read and answer, but I open the question to the general public, and invite any who wish to weigh in to answer.
Given the nature of the male of the homo sapiens, and the nature of reality, it is likely for him to copulate with a woman to whom he is not married without a feeling of contempt, disesteem, or at least blithe indifference?
I am not asking if it is possible under theoretical circumstances — I am asking if, in your experience (both personal and gleaned from a reading of history) if it is the likely and expected outcome that a young man will enter into the embraces of Eros with a young lady of his acquaintance, promising her nothing, vowing no union of souls, and making no provision for the outcome of a possible pregnancy, if his erotic love will blossom into a deep and abiding and eternal affection, or if it will degenerate into indifference or perhaps contempt.
The question is based on the unspoken assumption that there is no third state of mind between a young man who regards erotic love as sacred and sacrosanct, something he shares only with that one true love who is the summit of all his aspirations, and a young man who regards erotic love as not sacred. If it is not sacred, it is shared indiscriminately, is of less worth or no worth at all, or it has the character of an entertainment, a pastime, an alliance of mutual convenience, or a transaction where each side in the partnership gets gain from the deal.
This assumption, as best I can tell, is both self-evident and is resolutely denied by the Sexual Revolutionaries. It is self evident because there is no third option between the sacred and the desecrated: A or not-A. It is resolutely denied, because the unspoken assumption of the Sexual Revolutionaries does not admit A or not-A. They labels this the ‘Madonna and Whore Complex’.
The whole idea of a “Madonna-whore” complex is a rhetorical trick, an invention, a bit of stale propaganda, whose point is to mock the idea that chastity is admirable in women.
The way the trick works is the accuser pretends that someone who has standards condemns unchaste women as whores in an exaggerated and unrealistic way, and praises chaste women as Madonnas in an exaggerated and unrealistic way. In this way the accuser puts over the notion, without ever actually saying the notion (because it is stupid) that a woman who is chaste most of the time and a little bit pregnant with another man’s baby has not done anything so very wrong.
It is exactly like rebranding socialism as a ‘Third Way’ between socialism and capitalism, calling having standards of decency “the Madonna-Whore complex” is merely an excuse to make have low standards or no standards look like the human and human media via between an unrealistically high standard (Madonna) and an unrealistically low standard (whore). The only problem is that it is an argument, and it is ALWAYS an argument for the low standard (whore).
The reason why the argument has to be rebranding into pop-psych BS language (“complexes” forsooth!) is that saying the conclusion in honest English would make people laugh: Only whores are people; only men who treat women like whores have a human and realistic and egalitarian view.
Indeed, earlier in this discussion one of my interlocutors (I will not embarrass that worthy by repeating the name) argued that a young man raised to have standards of chastity and chivalry would have an unrealistically high esteem for women, and would therefore be naive, Quixotic, and foolish when dealing with real women. My interlocutor did not seem to notice that this implied that expecting women to be chaste, and expecting women to be worthy of high esteem, was unrealistic.
In other words, she was arguing that any given young woman was expected to be a wild child, a party girl, a playboy bunny, a demimonde, an “experienced” girl, a woman who did not reserve the offer of her most intimate favors for her true love, but instead cast them into the gutter of the street for the first passer-by to enjoy, and then, with a handshake and a fond farewell, to stroll on his merry way whistling, never to look back.
In other words, she was arguing that women were whores, and that it is unrealistic and naive to expect otherwise — and in the same breath, made the argument that my attitude toward women was one-dimensional, over-sexualized, and contemptuous.
(I will call my interlocutor “she” not because I think her a woman — on the internet one never knows — but because I think my interlocutor a sexless amoeba creature from the planet Eddore who has no knowledge, and has never heard a rumor, of normal human sexual relations. I use the female pronoun because the Eddorean represents the standard feminist partyline, which merits a distaff pronoun.)
If human sexual relations were an arrangement for the exchange of goods and services, or an alliance between sovereigns for some mutual benefit, or a pastime meant to beguile an idle hour (or, in the case of rapid lovers, an idle five minutes) then all the arguments of the Eddorean would have merit.
When you buy shoes from a shoe store, you go from cobbler to cobbler, and you would look askance at a cobbler who demanded that you take of him his shoes, forsaking all others, and worship him with your feet now and forever. The cobbler who expected the winsome yet barefoot lass creeping shyly into his shop to love his shoes with true love and worship and devotion would indeed be naive. The image is absurd. When we are dealing with procuring goods, you go in, you try on shoes, you get the goods, you fork over the cash, and with a handshake and a fond farewell to the cobbler, you stroll on your merry way whistling, never to look back.
Now, taken in this context, the Eddorean’s advice to the barefoot shoe-buyer is indeed the voice of prudence. If the cobbler has a foot-transmitted disease, it is the better part of wisdom to get a prophylactic from Dr. Scholls. If the cobbler, for some odd reason, also tried to hand you a basket with his baby in it, saddling you with the duty to raise, abandon, kill, or otherwise dispose of the child, indeed it would be wise to take precautions to prevent that basket from being handed to you, when all you want is a pair of shoes.
Again, from the point of view of an Eddorean who either knows nothing of human sexuality, or holds it in contempt, or regards it as an imposition on her boundless Nietzschean freedom, there is no error in regarding the sexual congress with a willing John as nothing more or less than purchasing a pair of pretty shoes. They are not, for the Eddorean, the magic ruby slippers which will carry you in three clicks of the heel to where your home is, that place which is like no other. There is no magic in the Eddorean scheme of things. To speak of true love, or even of lasting love, is either blind naivety, or else it is a metaphor for being a wise and careful shopper, one who does not by mistake get a disease nor pick up a baby in a shopping basket.
As far as I can tell, at this point in the reasoning we must reach an impasse. If love, romance and fornication is nothing more or less than buying a pair of shoes, the Eddorean is right, and all that is required of men and women is ordinary prudence. There is nothing sacred, nothing mysterious, and nothing permanent. The link between the act of sexual reproduction and the outcome of sexual reproduction is severed by prophylactics and by prenatal infanticide, and so the mental link must be severed as well (which in turn requires a certain degree of euphemism, if not downright dishonesty, in speech in the hope that dishonesty in thought will follow). On the other hand, if love, romance and marriage are to be lauded, defended even in adversity, and seen as having intrinsic value independent of their service to our pleasures — in other words, if love is not merely a commodity or a convenience — then love cannot be treated as trivially as buying a pair of shoes.
Here is where the logic becomes implacable. No matter what you or I might will or nill, nothing can at the same time and in the same sense be treated as a sacrament and as a meaningless commercial transaction. You cannot have it both ways. Your partner in marriage, the object of your vow to love and honor and worship with your body at bed and at board, and all your worldly good endow, forsaking all others, is a partner you buy with the purchase of Christ, with your whole being paying all you have. It is a sacred union. Your partner in a shoe store gives you something that gives you some pleasure for a season, and you reciprocate. It is not sacred, and it is not a union.
If a woman gives herself to a man as prudently selected as she selects a pair of shoes, one man among many, then he will esteem her as he esteems a pair of shoes. Oh, to be sure, they might be his favorite shoes, but they are merely something he steps on and thinks not long on, and when he wants no more of them, or when they begin to pinch, he casts them over the threshold.
The Eddorean is making the classical Marxist argument, merely applying its rhetoric not to economics, but to sexual morality. The Marxist wants the material goods of life given to those who crave them, but without payment, and without merit. Marx lusts for the unearned. In this case, the Eddorean pretends that a man can, merely by an act of will, hold a woman in the same esteem as a fiancee, lover, or wife, someone to whom he devotes all he has to offer, agape, while actually offering her only friendship, philos, and an hour of bed-sport (or five minutes), eros.
The Eddorean scoffs at the dichotomy of having a man either be chaste or unchaste. There is a third way, so he claims, between matrimony (sex only inside marriage) and fornication (sex not only inside marriage). The third way, upon examination, is merely a claim or a demand for unearned goods. The Eddorean demands a man hold a whore in the same esteem and respect he offers to a virgin.
But what has the whore done to earn the respect we offer virgins? The reason why we respect virgins is because we respect an act of heroic (or heroinic) self-control. You can offer a whore many things, including gold and friendship, but you cannot offer her respect for something she has not earned and had not done. All that happens when you try is like those pathetic children’s games where everyone who plays gets a trophy, losers and winner both — the flattering trophy soon means nothing.
No, the only logical possible alternative is to heap disrespect on virgins, to call them naive and inexperienced, and to heap disrespect on those to speak respect of them, calling them liars and oppressors or neurotics suffering a “complex.” — Which is indeed what we see in the state of the culture.
All this is the unspoken assumption behind my question. I assume that falling in love is not like buying a pair of shoes. I assume that any woman who sells herself for the price of a pair of shoes will be esteemed as cheaply as a pair of shoes, or a mess of pottage. I assume that esteeming true love and a woman as cheap as shoes at the same level of esteem is merely flattery that cheapens love, and makes it meaningless, and lead to contempt and hatred for women of true self-esteem and truly worthy of esteem. I conclude from these assumptions that a woman who holds herself cheaply is a cheap woman, and that a man cannot for long esteem her more dearly, or that if he does he is deceived. I conclude there is an enmity and contempt between cheap women and women who esteem themselves dearly.
And I conclude that this enmity and contempt is shared by the menfolk.
(By ‘contempt’, I do not mean each man wants to push a grapefruit hemisphere into the face of his lover the next morning — albeit most men of my experience do want to — I mean only that he has the cheerful indifference of a man who walks away from a cobbler in a new pair of shoes, whistling, no doubt grateful for the shoes, but not devout.)
Again, the Eddorean argument is that monogamy, chastity and chivalry in men is a sign of disrespect for women: and that when a man comes chaste to his marriage bed, and expects his bride likewise, he is either a fool or an oppressor, or being condescending, or being a hypocrite, or in some other way robbing a woman of her respect and esteem. The argument is that Hugh Hefner, by paying nymphs to dance around in bunny tails, or Bill Clinton, by squirting his semen into the mouth of an intern young enough to be his daughter, and later using the powers of his office to denigrate her, that these men were honoring the freedom and independence of the women they cheapened, and that theirs was the true respect.
I say respect for women is earned when women act respectably, and such respect has no value unless offered by men who are themselves chaste, and pure until marriage. Eddore says that respect for women comes from treating them cheaply. Between these two views there is no possible reconciliation: one excludes the other. The libertarian attitude of letting each man decide for himself the value he places on his own esteem defaults to the Eddorean position.
So that again is my question. I apologize for taking so many words to ask it, but it requires considerable explanation to explain that water will wet you and fire will burn. I ask any who cares to answer: Is it likely that a youth will hold in high respect and esteem a maid whom he deflowers out of wedlock, when she gives herself to him without asking him to make any vow or sign of permanent devotion in return?
I do not ask what is theoretically possible in Cloudcuckooland, or Utopia, on Tellus Tertius or planet Gethen. Can a man get a woman cheaply without regarding her as cheap?
Which of the two mutually exclusive ways of life, the romantic-matrimonial or the commercial-Eddorean, holds the woman in true respect?
Whores make more demands. They may sell themselves for the price of a pair of shoes — but they want the money.
The aim is not whores but unpaid whores.
In my experience, No, Mr. Wright. But I seem to deal with the ninety while your experience seems to be with the ten. What I see happen is, one of my clumsy young finally gets to seriously date a woman. First time, don’t you know. She lets him know he has gotten “lucky”, and soon he “is a man”. He, of course, is pleased as punch, for he has found “the one” and starts telling me about his plans for the future. Which are shattered when she, bored, tosses him aside for this week’s player. This may happen two or three times before he becomes the chaste gentleman of your dreams, for he has given up and will date no more. I believe it is a truth that First Love is special. I understand your viewpoint. “Taking” a hundred, a thousand women (or more!) as your peers have means treating them as a vending machine. You could not possibly “court” a thousand women. The “Ten” put the lie into the machine and get the can. Again and again and again. How could you possibly respect a group so easily used and tossed aside by you?
As to your first paragraph, well, this is why many of us poke your postulates. The opposite side, the “Masculinist”, would more correctly be covered by those you rail against, the hard core Islamics, hmm? No one here is speaking for burkas or for stoning women who have been raped, “to restore the family honor!”. No, what we are thinking is there has been a dance between Men and Women since the Mind awakened. The Women were unhappy with the dance and with the Feminist movement, asked to lead. Ever the Gentlemen, the Men said, “sure”. Now the dance is faltering. Far fewer dances are taking plan. The dances that are taking place are sterile or close to it. Certainly they are not producing the next generation of dancers at anything close to replacement level. Your solution seems to be “blame the men for being pigs, and let the superior sex, Women, lead”. Pointing out how odd this is, when everyone seems to agree that we went of the rails when we let the Feminists win (No fault divorce, ubiquitous birth control, an end to chaperons, and more all came from the Feminist movement with nary a male hand lifted against them. Certainly no burning crosses or KKK to oppress them….) is not “Masculinist”. You do not ignore or diminish the Islamics in any other venue. That you do so here seems a curious omission. I mean, you have no problem mocking those silly young men who post here and try to equate Charity and Communism…..
Remember: Virgins get thrown into volcanoes because sinners have the majority vote.
That seems to be less his point than what you are reading into it. It would be more correct to say Wright is making the point “[this] is the blame of men”. To ask him to go beyond that would be to ignore the provision of his faith, “first remove the plank from thine own eye…”
No it’s not, why should he include it or any of the other myriad of topics that are beyond the purview of his essay? Again, why do you expect him to speak on things that are not involved in his culture and worldview? Is it because it is easier to yell at others than a mirror?
It was not the point of the post, but it is related and a theme Mr. Wright visits often. As to “Remove the plank from your own eye…”, when he goes from “I have sinned against women” to “Men have sinned against women”, he has left that path. I understand that he would like to help others avoid his mistakes, but the sins he preaches against are the the sins of the majority of men, or even an large minority. They are the sins of a very energetic 5 to 10%.
As to your third point, it was in the purview of this essay. Mr. Wright has written eloquently and recently about playing tricks by manipulating the spectrum under discussion (“The Madonna/Whore complex”). To see him use it here to describe some mild disagreement with the “Feminist Revolution” as “Masculinist”, given that he has shown nothing but contempt for the way the hard core Isamics treat “their women”, is a curious omission.
The only thing I said about the position I characterized as “masculinist” was this “[he] objected that the sins of the daughters of Eve were overwhelming, and that I should not restrict my hard words to the men alone.”
There is no way, reading these words, an honest reader can come to the conclusion that I am speaking about radical Islam, or equating the masculinist position with radical Islam. If there is a connection or an analogy between the two, I cannot see it, and I am not sure what your continued reference to it means. You’ve lost me.
I cannot be chided for omitting or overlooking or not mentioning a connection or an analogy that does not exist.
“Objected that the sins of the daughters of Eve were overwhelming”? I don’t believe anyone posting here said or implied that. Puts a very different spin on “I should not restrict my hard words to the men alone.”. Now, the honest reader might, lacking other context, think about what group of people believe “The sins of the daughters of Eve are overwhelming”. I may be overlooking some groups. The only group that believes and acts on that belief (that I know of) is the hard core Islamics.
Perhaps the honest reader has focused on the wrong point. It happens. Let us look at the term “Masculinist”. The author has said “we might call masculinist”. This implies he has made a new term, which is allowed, but has not defined it much deeper then “that side”. But we can look at the word and the context and get a feel for what it means. It (by spelling and context) would seem to the opposing poll to Feminism. The hard core Feminist believes in divorce on demand for women. The masculinist would seem to believe in divorce on demand for men. The hard core Feminist believes that Rapists are permanently evil and unreformable (shown by their creation of “chemical castration”). The masculinist, it would follow, would believe that a woman who was raped was asking for is and is now permantly soiled, and should be removed from society. The Feminist believes that women can dress however they like, wherever they like, and shouldn’t have to worry about their safty wherever they do such. The masculinist would believe that a woman’s looks must be tightly controlled. I could go on. Now, I don’t think anyone on this board has shown any desire for these “Masculinist” positions, but I do know a group of people who fit that description…..
Again, perhaps I am reading too much into this, but an Author I respect has been writing about controlling the discussion by controlling the end points. Madonna/Whore, Playboy bunny/Burka. Manipulating the endpoints to claim the “magic middle” and make one’s position look like the only reasonable one. His name escapes me, but he’s been a real education…..
“Again, perhaps I am reading too much into this…”
Perhaps? You are making it up out of whole cloth. It is entertaining, at least for you, but otherwise is irrelevant.
Do you really think from a single word ‘masculinist’ which I coined and defined in one sentence (and said what I meant by it), you, like a diligent archeologist reconstructing an entire Brontosaurus from a single toe-bone can make up an paragraph after paragraph of conclusions and opinions, attribute them to me, stuff your words in my mouth, but then accuse me of double dealing when I tell you what I really said?
Why don’t you simply pick up an empty glove, write my name on it, and slap yourself, and then complain that I hit you? It would be about the same.
As an archaeologist, I am deeply offended by this comment, because archaeologists don’t dig dinosaurs.
Okay, I’m not really offended. I’ll stop trolling now.
And go dig up trolls?
Arg! Paleontologists. I accept the correction with good grace.
I believe you are replying to my comment sir, so I will answer here.
Whole clothe? Coined by you? Alas, no. The word was coined, according to Merriam-Webster, in 1918. Defined to mean : an advocate of male superiority or dominance. Second entry on Google, last I checked. The first was Wikipedia, and it used the term as an antonym for Feminism. You seem to have acted out of ignorance, but neither definition is accurate or “nice”. Perhaps having words put in the mouth of “my side” (“that the sins of the daughters of Eve were overwhelming”) has made me oversensitive, but really, is that so surprising in this age of Political Correctness, when labels are weapons (As you have written about at length). Especially when there are men out there who fit that definition, men who have been described here as Enemies of Civilization.
Again, I did not attribute any opinions to you, or accuse you of “double dealing”. I did and do think it a curious omission, that in drawing a line from Man-hating to Woman-hating, you would stop short, to leave the hard core Islamics “off-board”. To borrow from a familiar line, you have been “Red with Pride and Wraith” when dealing with them before. I have been the one “Black with clinkered sin that can not burn again”. You have written before the the choice is not just Playboy Bunny or Burka. It would seem to be a natural component of your essay here. And yet my suggestion has offended you. I can’t figure out why, but I am curious.
You cannot figure out why it might offend good sense (not to mention good manners) to treat my words like a Rorschach-inkblot where you have the right to invent any meanings my words suggest to you? Where you get to argue not against what I said, but against some imaginary position involving Mohammedanism that my position merely reminds you of, or suggests to you?
You cannot figure out why it might offend the rules of logic for you to make up nonsense out of your own imagination, attribute it to me, make up your own definitions for terms I define, attribute them to me, and then spend several days and hundreds of words refusing to admit it when I say I said just what I said instead of saying what you persist in insisting I said or ought to say?
You cannot figure out why it might offend me if you put words in my mouth?
I am afraid this will have to remain one of the world’s great and unanswered mysteries, my friend.
? If I had done so, yes, very rude. Insofar as I was able to find the word in question in the dictionary, and it’s meaning defined therein followed my understanding quite closely, I think I was correct in objecting to being labeled with a word that could be considered slanderous (As Larry Summers showed, to even hint that you do not think Women and Men are equal in all particulars, can be professionally ruinous.). Unless you have decided the Left is correct, and like Humpty Dumpty, words mean what you want them to, neither more nor less. Given that you have written quite well for the opposing viewpoint, and that you pilloried those who tried to turn “niggardly” into a pejorative, I don’t believe this is the case. Also, I did argue against what you said, it was the entirety of my first paragraph of my first post. Again, I did not attribute any position to you as far as Islamics go, other then you hold them in contempt. I did point out that your spectrum was too binary. As written, the Isamics and I would seem to be on the same side, which is, I believe, not the case. Because, again, you put words in my mouth. “The sins of the daughters of Eve were overwhelming”. Didn’t say it, don’t believe it. Followed by a term I was pretty sure was not defined or created by you. I objected, and worked my way to the correct definition. When you claimed I was putting words in your mouth, I checked, and found I was correct, it is a real term, it’s in the dictionary, and it is a term used to describe people who are “an advocate of male superiority or dominance”. Apparently, I, like the Jew, am a despicable creature. When attacked, I defend myself (if I have the quote right). Despite this odd moment, you are a wonder to read, and I shall continue to do so. Thanks again for your time.
“If I had done so, yes, very rude. Insofar as I was able to find the word in question in the dictionary, and it’s meaning defined therein followed my understanding quite closely…”
Except that in the sentence in question, I said what I meant by the term, which I was coining for that purpose. When you found a dictionary definition and asserted (rather than asking) if that is what I meant, I said no. Frankly, I had not been aware that there was such a term. But when I said no, you rejected my answer and continued to insist I meant something I did not mean. And now you say it is wrong of me to define an ambiguous term when I am coining it — even thought I said what I meant by the term in the post.
(quoting me) “The sins of the daughters of Eve were overwhelming”. (you say) Didn’t say it, don’t believe it.
Then what makes you think that comment was directed at you? I referring to the comments where I was upbraided for not placing sufficient blame on the womenfolk for the current condition of the culture.
What you said was “I poke you on this point because you keep pushing the point that “Men are pigs”, without pushing, I don’t know, “Women are snakes” — so you did not use the word “overwhelming” but you did write in several times to request that I should place more blame on women, and suggested that I call them snakes. I politely declined your offer (while making it clear that I do not hold the distaff sex free of blame), and you made the request several more times.
Oddly enough, despite the appearance of a disagreement, as best I can tell we agree about the horrid state of the culture, and I think we agree that the feminist movement had a central role in reducing us to our current level of nauseating corruption. Since you asked me to make a mention of Islam several times, let me here and now oblige you: this article by Mark Steyn points out how the America Pediatric Association has public come out in support of toleration of female genital mutilation, in the name of multiculturalism, and was answered by the overwhelming silence from feminists.
From here:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Nzc0ZDg2ZGQ1YWUzZTJmNTk1MmJmM2U4ZDFiYzMzNzE=
You are welcome for my time. Glad to oblige.
“I did point out that your spectrum was too binary. As written, the Isamics and I would seem to be on the same side, which is, I believe, not the case.”
This is precisely what your error in logic is. You put words into my mouth by saying that I say the only two positions are the blame-only-men position and the blame-only-women position, and then you put words in my mouth by saying that the Mohammedans are in the blame-only-women position, then you complain that I am calling you a Mohammedan. But I did not call you a Mohammedan, nor did I assert that there was a black-and-white only spectrum. All I said was that I blame men for what men do wrong.
Not if he is speaking as a representative of said group. Think of it as saying, “remove the plank from our eyes”. By using ‘we’ instead of a plural you, he is at least including himself in said correction.
Leaving aside how sure we are on the numbers, it nonetheless remains true that what he speaks of is tempting for men not homosexual or asexual. It’s even a demonstrable feature of the hormone testosterone.
Also, I do not believe he was talking only about those who act, but those who encourage the act and portray it positively.
Hi Mr. Wright,
I think that the current culture’s attitude towards chastity can be summed up with this picture:
http://www.jillstanek.com/hos-before-embryos.html
God bless!
Nah, not whores. They object strenuously to the notion a woman should get the price of shoes out of it; it ought to be free for the guy.
So they both got posted after all. . . .
“If love, romance and fornication is nothing more or less than buying a pair of shoes, the Eddorean is right, and all that is required of men and women is ordinary prudence. There is nothing sacred, nothing mysterious, and nothing permanent.”
I think this is probably the best summing-up of that viewpoint I’ve read, though I would add one observation of my own:
Part of the reason this philosophy seems so viable is that it *is* possible for a good many shoe-shoppers, using ordinary prudence supported by modern technology, to seem to have it both ways, at least for a temporary duration. After all, in practice, few people (proportionately, at least) do in fact descend to the worst extreme of buying shoe-set after shoe-set week after week from fifty different cobblers, based purely on the practical observation that those who do tend to get handed (ahem) footernity suits or foot-transmitted diseases. If you are lucky enough to find the one pair of shoes that will suit everything and never wear out, why, the luckier you; in the meantime, why should one have to go barefoot until one does, since there are cobblers willing to sell who make no complaint? “Impermanent” does not have to mean “so short a duration as to be worthless to us both”; “non-mysterious” does not have to mean “so uninteresting as to pall practically before I’ve gotten them home”.
Where this “pragmatically good enough” view falls down, and a point I think worth working into your argument, is that the Eddorean almost never (in my observation) accounts for two truths about human nature:
1) Habitual behaviour produces habitual attitudes and habitual responses. A man who becomes accustomed to changing his shoes whenever they get worn out or boring is not going to have the stamina to endure temporary discomfort in the shoes he wants to keep permanently, should he ever find some.
2) The curve of diminishing psychological returns. As one’s shoe-history expands, each new pair of shoes presents less difference and less novelty than before, holds our interest for a briefer time, is discarded with less pain and less care than before, and makes us more and more desperate for that initial rush of discovery even as it makes us less and less likely to find it.
The Eddorean insistence on the “third way” assumes that a third path (call it Practical Value) can be steered indefinitely between the poles of Sanctity and Disposability, because they fail to recognize that fallen nature and mental entropy will inevitably drag everyone towards Disposability who is not taught continually to fight towards the Sacred.
I have seriously read an article proposing to treat sexual intercourse as a performance — like music — so that since you don’t object to people performing music in groups who have just met and performing in all sort of groups with no fidelity etc. etc., therefore you can’t object to them with sex.
Like there’s Musically Transmitted Diseases, to bring it down to a biological fact even they can’t deny.
There have been some pieces of music I’ve felt sick after hearing and have wanted to throw off like infections…. most reggae songs fall into this category.
I comment at the LiveJournal as “botticelli_s”.
I can only report my own experience. In my younger days, women did not find me unattractive, and I generally had my pick of sexual partners. In every case but one, indifference or contempt was the outcome.
I find myself casting our differences in terms of set logic, thus:
The set of sacramental acts, say you, includes sexual congress.
The set of commercial acts, say you, includes shoe repair and other such services.
But, say I, all those services belong to the set of acts which require material resource and prior, unpleasant labor.
The set of acts which do not require material resource and prior, unpleasant labor is highly limited, but includes sexual congress.
And that is the metric which the unchaste are using. It is not that we* seek to commercialize the sacrament; it is that we seek a bargain in entertainment which you would withhold from us. Shoes are not free; sexual congress is. The poorest and laziest man in the world is still equipped to receive pleasure from a willing doxy.
You wish me to sanctify sexuality. Very well, grant me the common practice of bringing a companion to my bedchamber for the sort of mindless conversation that consists of agreeing with the other no matter what he says. Give me free privileges to take a partner to see explosion-filled action movies about which one need not think. Convince me that this is truly about sex per se sex and not about greedy men getting something for nothing. Show me that the set of actions that are desirable, free, and non-sacramental is not null.
*I say we, but I include myself only in spirit. I have never encountered the unchaste women you describe, despite having the will to tarry with them.
This makes sexual congress one of those few things where the cost can take place after the act. Any pair of strangers can engage in intercourse; it is only afterwards that one must deal with heartbreak, contempt, trying to detach strings that attach themselves naturally…
And then we have some silly people insisting that sex is somehow “free.” It’s no more “free” than buying a pair of shoes with a credit card instead of cash. The same price must be paid; any respectable shoe salesman would be horrified and angry if a customer who paid credit walked away bragging about the free shoes he just obtained.
The unchaste are like some naive individual who’s never seen a credit card, running around purchasing all the “free” goods they can. Meanwhile, credit debt continues to accrue. And that’s not even bringing interest to the table.
Also, I do believe the poster made an error:
I believe that’s technically incorrect. Un-tampered with, sexual congress will RESULT in a need for material resources and unpleasant labor (offspring). In order to avoid this outcome one would require material resources and unpleasant labor beforehand (contraceptives).
In fact, I believe a third set is missing: those which have material resources and post unpleasant labor. For example, theft would fit into the above set. But if caught (likely if you don’t do any planning, use equipment, etc), would result in unpleasant circumstances.
How are you defining “non-sacramental”? By your own example, friendship would fall under this. Also, a scenic walk. Napping. But some might describe these in sacramental terms.
I’d also like to point out that the comparison is a bit unfair; shoes take long and unpleasant labor to create, but the actual moment of exchange significantly less so. Similarly, although the actual act of intercourse may not require any extreme exertion, there’s a good chance both individuals have have lives about as eventful as average, forging their personalities into their current states, including the tendency to sleep with someone they’re not married to. Which, if it’s even possible to do so without causing some sort of damage, I’m guessing would take a lot of “long, unpleasant labor” to reach that state…
Whether we like it or not, women are the ones who always keep the show (or the dance) running, even when they’re subjugated. The correct model for female empowerment and leadership isn’t feminism, though, but matriarchy.
Kind of interesting sidenote: there’s actually a song on the country charts right now that addresses this, at least a little bit. “Little White Church,” by Little Big Town. You can hear the song here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPPJe9qlEcA
Anyhow, it’s a good song. The lead singer is a woman who is telling her man, “No more calling me ‘baby,’ no more lovin’ like crazy, till you take me down, take me down, take me down to the little white church.”
John tells us women are the superior sex, beyond reproach or criticism, then goes on to teach us that we should judge a womans value solely by her chasitity, that we men should buck up our principles and standards and treat women like they deserve to be treated. Again John claims that though feminism is the beginning and end of these issues he claims that men are responsible… I am obviously one of the daft people he reffers to who can not understand the nature of his argument, regardless of how much he dumbs it down for the ignorant masses, like myself.
If women are the superior sex as you claim John then how dare you question their judgement!!! Who are you, lowly man, to criticise the amazing effecaciousness of their decisions??
I jest, and I apologize. John says that women are superior, and I can honestly identify with the desire, the longing for a woman to be something more than just a woman, something supernatural, something sacred.
John tells us men that, though we are inferior, it is our responsability to reclaim these great virtues of old, virtues he himself does not possess by his own admission. It is easy to “use and abuse” other mens daughters when a man is young, and very easy to become upset when it happens to your daughter when that same man is old. I think we are witnessing here John the person, the man, striving for ideals he did not find in his youth, and tunring, like all old and middle aged men from every previous generation, to the self indulgent claims with religion as both his point of refference and his back bone, and lashing out at the evil he sees in the world, when it is really the evil he sees in himself, projecting his own personal shortcomings onto this great society of ours. Of course he is kind enough to then provide us with the answers, the cures to “our” ills. I mean no dispespect John but you sound exactly like all of those avaricious men who came home from World War II and screwed anything that moved, those same men who later in their mature years damned anyone who was having sex. This seems to be a continual theme throughout western society : men acting like whores when they’re young and them blaspheming whores when they are too old to be whores themselves. John of course will calim this is a personal attack and in so doing feel justified to ignore anything else I may say here, though I am only using the data he himself gave us, “an alcoholic tired of being offered free drinks” I believe was the phrase he used.
I may be wrong but I believe it is called hypocracy when a man condems others for behavior he himself engages in.
More to the point I would argue that the facts speak for themselves. John is upset that we keep taking his literal meaning into some far off philosophic place, and so asks us a simple question – will a man respect a woman who gives up the punani for free? paraphrasing of course. The answer is obviously NO, and resoundingly so. That being said I’d like to ask John – how can a man possibly have respect for a woman who does not respect herself? It can’t and shouldn’t be done, as he himself says. Yet he is contrary, saying that men must honor all women as superior, when by their own behavior, and his very definition, they are anything but.
With the birth of feminism women were finally given the same freedoms they believed men had, to cheat and whore and screw anything that moved and when that opportunity came they were not chaste virginal ladies who politely refused while sipping a cup of tea with their little finger poking out. No, they were sex craved vixens who dove headlong into the pool of self indulgent hyper-sexuality. They burned their bras, wet their t-shirts and never looked back. I’ve never heard a feminist say “ohh its all gone so terribly wrong.. We messed up ladies, back to the kitchen!” Women seem to be pretty happy, even if our society is in the shitter because of it.
Of course I hate to point out the obvious, that by John’s own belief set women are superior to us men. And because John is in fact a man he has left himself no room to criticise where we have collectively ended up. I mean if we take John at his word, that women are superior, and we look at the evidence he presents, that feminism has led us to the place we are now, then he can not possibly find fault in where we have ended up, being guided by the strength of the superior sex. And he, as a self procalimed inferior, has no right to question where we’ve ended up, becasue of course we are being guided by the minds and wills of the superior, by the feminine.
I also long for the days when women were ladies and men were gentlemen. I myself vowed chasity til marriage, a feat i am happy to say I failed at miserably. The problem here does not lie with men, the problem lies with women. John himself says this, then turns his arguments inward. No, a man does not respect a whore, but when all women act like whores what is a man to do? Give that sacred virginal respect to a whore? John tells us that under no circumstances can we treat a whole like a lady. Then what? We are left with only one option, as John says there is no middle ground in this battle, we must treat her like a whore, and then move on. A man can only respect a woman to the extent that that woman respects herself.
And trusting John as I do I can say with certainty that he would not decieve me, and so women ARE superior and great. As such John and I, and all the rest of us lowly men can just sit back and relax while they, the superiors, solve this problem, being superior to us and all. I mean really, what could our puny male brains achieve when compared to the greatness of womens achievments, you know, like Feminism
John tells us women are the superior sex,
Yes.
beyond reproach or criticism, then goes on to teach us that we should judge a womans value solely by her chasitity,
No, merely that he is unwilling to criticize women. And where does he say we should judge a womans value solely by her chasitity?
that we men should buck up our principles and standards and treat women like they deserve to be treated.
Exactly. This is the essence of his argument.
think we are witnessing here John the person, the man, striving for ideals he did not find in his youth, and tunring, like all old and middle aged men from every previous generation…..
I hope you don’t think a detailed psychological analysis of both Mr.Wright and Western Civilization from a short essay is reasonably accurate or a legitimate argument.
As such John and I, and all the rest of us lowly men can just sit back and relax while they, the superiors, solve this problem, being superior to us and all….
He never claimed they were intellectual superiors, or immune from mistakes. He never says this, yet you keep repeating the idea. If he did say this, show me where.
John tells us women are the superior sex,
Yes.
beyond reproach or criticism, then goes on to teach us that we should judge a womans value solely by her chasitity,
No, merely that he is unwilling to criticize women. And where does he say we should judge a womans value solely by her chasitity?
that we men should buck up our principles and standards and treat women like they deserve to be treated.
Exactly. This is the essence of his argument.
think we are witnessing here John the person, the man, striving for ideals he did not find in his youth, and tunring, like all old and middle aged men from every previous generation…..
I hope you don’t think a detailed psychological analysis of both Mr.Wright and Western Civilization from a short essay is reasonably accurate or a legitimate argument.
As such John and I, and all the rest of us lowly men can just sit back and relax while they, the superiors, solve this problem, being superior to us and all….
He never claimed they were intellectual superiors, or immune from mistakes. He never says this, yet you keep repeating the idea. If he did say this, show me where.
This website appears to be eating my comment. It says I’ve posted this post, but it does not appear.
“This website appears to be eating my comment. It says I’ve posted this post, but it does not appear.”
There is a delay. Any comments containing certain words are filtered and held for moderation, and, unfortunately, we are discussing a topic that is also the topic of porn ads and spam.
As I read your post, something seemed not right. I did a search for and then some reading about logical fallacies, and I think you hit most of them. Thanks for an illuminating read.
The response directly above was to RMS, not to Mr. Wright.
“I may be wrong but I believe it is called hypocracy when a man condems others for behavior he himself engages in.”
That doesn’t make his advice wrong. Also, hypocrisy is professing beliefs one does not hold. I think it usually also assumes the intent to deceive. By your description, John possesses ideals that he may or may not be able to live up to. I pity the man who holds such low ideals that he has no trouble always living up to them.
“The problem here does not lie with men, the problem lies with women.”
Doesn’t it take two to copulate? Is it unreasonable for John to advise people with whom he has more in common?
>Given the nature of the male of the homo sapiens, and the >nature of reality, it is likely for him to copulate with a >woman to whom he is not married without a feeling of >contempt, disesteem, or at least blithe indifference?
In a word, yes; I am the evidence. I have the highest respect for those ladies who’ve danced the horizontal dance with me, including but not limited to my wife. The attitude you describe exists, but it is not a necessary consequence of pre-marital sex; rather it is a consequence of a culture in which nothing can be admitted to be important, because that would be uncool and insufficiently ironic. Alas, this teenaged attitude is now permitted to persist well into middle age; but the problem is not limited to sex and does not arise from it.
Somewhat tangentially, I must say that, when I see you making assertions about what will inevitably happen, I suspect you speak from introspection, not inspection.
If I may indulge your patience, may I ask you a few personal questions. If you deem these inappropriate, I will retract them.
1. You respect your various paramours, but just not enough to, you know, actually fall in love with them?
2. Your partings with them were always amicable? Any pregnancies were ending with no complications, mess, or prenatal deaths?
3. You keep in touch with them? Do you write letters or send cards to your ex-lovers?
4. Do you go by the house, play with her children, and tell the wee tykes how much you really, really like their mother?
5. You met the families of the young ladies involved, and the Mom and Pop were eagerly and fondly urging you to take your pleasure from their daughter and then move on to greener pastures when the time suited?
6. If you had paid them money for your services, would the respect be about the same? More? Less?
7. If we are talking about a short-term relationship where, afterward, there is no particular fondness or friendship, no camaraderie with the other people in her life, her parents or her children, in what sense are we using the word “respect” to refer to this relationship?
It is, for example, just as much respect as a man pays his wife, with whom he shares his life and everything in it? It is as much respect a a man pays a business partner, whose relationship can be friendly, but does not involve as much intimacy or permanence? it is as much respect as a man pays a shoeshine boy whom he meets from time to time to shine his shoes, but the relation does not extend much beyond a friendly mutual convenience?
I suppose a man can respect his shoeshine boy in the normal sense of the word “respect.” He simply does not hold the shoeshine boy to be very dear to him. The opposite of dear is cheap. The respect for the shoeshine boy is somewhat cheap: if you found out that the shoeshine boy held no very great affection for you, or even harbored resentment, the loss of his association would not wound deeply. With this in mind, would you say that the ladies with whom you dallied in the love-sport are dear and dearly cherished to you, or are they cheap, in that discovering any resentment on their part would not wound you?
As I say, if you wish not to discuss so private a matter with me, I will withdraw the questions.
1. You respect your various paramours, but just not enough to, you know, actually fall in love with them?
Before answering, let me draw a distinction of language which exists in Norwegian (my native tongue) but not in English, or at least not as readily. In Norwegian, one might be ‘forelsket’, which is the dizzy sensation of happiness at seeing one’s lover, constantly thinking of her, having desert-island or hurt-comfort fantasies about her; perhaps the English word would be ‘infatuation’, although the connotations are a bit different. One can also experience ‘kjærlighet’, which is the more long-term sensation of caring for a wife, building a life together, and tenderness taking over from passion. Both words would be translated into English as “being in love”, but I trust you’ll agree they describe different things. With each of my lovers except the last, I experienced the first kind of falling in love, but not the second; and I believe their experience of me was the same, although obviously I cannot be certain of this.
2. Your partings with them were always amicable? Any pregnancies were ending with no complications, mess, or prenatal deaths?
There were no pregnancies, and while the break-up conversation is not my favourite kind, no dishes or curses were hurled. I would feel no trepidation in calling any of them for a chat; with some, I exchange the occasional email.
3. You keep in touch with them? Do you write letters or send cards to your ex-lovers?
4. Do you go by the house, play with her children, and tell the wee tykes how much you really, really like their mother?
You move the goalposts. Your post referred to “a feeling of contempt, disesteem, or at least blithe indifference”. I said that yes, it’s quite possible not to experience this, and now you redefine ‘respect’ to mean “being a husband”. Well, if you had said so at once, and asked “Is it possible to sleep with someone without marrying her, and also be her husband?”, then I would perforce admit that no, such is not possible. But I’m of the opinion that this would be a less interesting question.
5. You met the families of the young ladies involved, and the Mom and Pop were eagerly and fondly urging you to take your pleasure from their daughter and then move on to greener pastures when the time suited?
I did not meet every family, by any means. However, where this encounter did take place, I had the impression that the parents had no objection to their daughters finding a possible life-partner and exploring what life with him would be like, including in bed. I was welcomed at dinner tables. It was understood that nobody was taking advantage of anyone else (although I do not say that such relationships do not exist), but that each was taking pleasure in the other’s company, and that a marriage might or might not come of it, as we found each other suitable or not for the long haul.
6. If you had paid them money for your services, would the respect be about the same? More? Less?
Less; in this case I will grant you the “blithe indifference”.
7. If we are talking about a short-term relationship where, afterward, there is no particular fondness or friendship, no camaraderie with the other people in her life, her parents or her children, in what sense are we using the word “respect” to refer to this relationship?
As explained above, this is not the sort of relationship I speak of, and thus your question is based on false assumptions; I cannot answer it.
No, I am not moving the goalposts, merely seeking clarification. You respect the women, but are not in love with them, even though you were fondly infatuated at the time. You did not want to share your life nor get too deeply involved with theirs, and parted on friendly terms. There were no recriminations. Is this fair, or am I misrepresenting the basic idea of what you said?
The only part of the answer I don’t understand is the part where you equate keeping on good terms with the girl and her family, and playing with her children (presumably by another man) with being a husband. While I admit it would seem odd to become a part of the life and family life of, say, for example, a partner in mixed doubles tennis, I would imagine a sexual partner deserves more.
To deny her that more is not “disrespect” as I have used the term here (meaning indifference, contempt, ill will) but it is somewhat non-intimate. You were not all that very much in love with any of them, not to the point where you were willing to live and die for them. Now, we might opine that a man who loves a woman with all his heart and mind and soul has more “respect” than a man who merely likes them as companions, but that would be moving the goal posts, and I will not ask about that.
The answer does surprise me, because I expected that any woman a man won easily, at low cost to himself, and lost easily, without regret or recrimination, I would think he held cheaply, that is, without much respect. You clearly do not fit this pattern, so I admit my assumptions do not fit your case.
This is indeed a part of what is labeled the ‘Madonna-Whore Complex’, although I admit the name is a bit unfortunate. It is a subset of the fallacy of the excluded middle: You assert that there is no middle ground between the pattern of no sex before marriage followed by lifelong fidelity, and having a new sexual partner every week and of necessity treating them as of no personal consequence. But there does exist an alternative – indeed there are many. One such is a pattern of several relationships lasting for periods of months up to years, with the understanding that one of these relationships will be the last one, and will be formalised by marriage. For a sexual relationship to be stable even on the timescale of months, there has got to be respect; one cannot treat a sexual partner as a used tissue if one expects to be invited back.
Besides that, in this pattern each partner is a candidate for co-parent, and that presumably requires some vetting anyway. It is not the same as sleeping with chance-met strangers. I do note that your phrase, “at low cost to himself”, is not necessarily a good description; a courtship might still be long in this pattern. And while I myself have been lucky in love, not every breakup is amicable. But these problems can be found just as well in your pattern – indeed one might almost argue that the pattern I propose is the same as yours with the exception of when sex is permitted.
Now, you may reasonably object that if this is the ideal, it is being more often honoured in the breach than in the practice, and I might agree with you there – although cultures vary. I describe what I think is the norm in middle-class, college-educated Norwegians. But if we were to judge by the worst rather than the best, I do not think the old abstinence-until-marriage pattern would come out so well either.
“You assert that there is no middle ground between the pattern of no sex before marriage followed by lifelong fidelity, and having a new sexual partner every week and of necessity treating them as of no personal consequence.”
I am not sure where this assertion is made, or, even if it were, where that would have any affect on the argument. A woman who gets friendly companionship, treated as well as a shoeshine boy, is not being treated with loathing or contempt (although that is the likely response) she is merely holding herself for less worth than her true worth, that is, she is being bought cheaply. She does not ask (or does not want) true love, true loyalty, lifelong commitment.
The argument is the same whether she is being treated as “less personal consequence” rather than as “no personal consequence” — the middle ground of merely being a temporary paramour can only be found satisfactory to a woman who, no matter what he emotional self-esteem, objectively esteems herself of less value.
“I am not sure where this assertion is made, or, even if it were, where that would have any affect on the argument. A woman who gets friendly companionship, treated as well as a shoeshine boy, is not being treated with loathing or contempt (although that is the likely response) she is merely holding herself for less worth than her true worth, that is, she is being bought cheaply. She does not ask (or does not want) true love, true loyalty, lifelong commitment.”
Your posts on this subject look very binary to me, but fair enough, asserting a contrast between black and white is not the same as denying that grey exists. I must say I rather object to your “shoeshine boy” analogy, though. A three-minute commercial transaction cannot properly be compared to an intimate relationship developed over many months. Suppose a man and a woman were friends, enjoying each others’ company and conversation; you would not compare this to having your shoes shined, and it seems odd that it should become proper to do so because sex was added to the mix.
Your phrase, “being bought cheaply”, I also find rather objectionable. Indeed, it seems quite at odds with your professed respect for the female sex. A woman is not an object to be bought at a higher or lower price; she is a human who gives affection and love where she chooses. And if she gives it widely, spreading happiness wherever she goes, why, the more honour to her. If we are to take marriage and commitment merely as the price men pay for women to have sex with them, are not all women reduced to the status of whores, and all men to johns? I remind you of the old joke whose punchline is “We’ve already established that; now we’re just haggling over the price.” On this view, you object not to whores as such, but rather to scabs undercutting the union wages! I cannot see this as a proper model for human relations.
True love and commitment are gifts given freely, which enrich the giver as much as the recipient. They should not be considered tokens to be exchanged for sex. Conversely, sex is a great joy, and other things equal it is better to have more of it rather than less. If people take happiness in the joys their bodies can give while they search for love, what is the harm?
“[T]he middle ground of merely being a temporary paramour can only be found satisfactory to a woman who, no matter what he emotional self-esteem, objectively esteems herself of less value.”
You commit the fallacy that-does-not-follow; you assume that all women adhere to your view of human relationships as exchanges of value. But if a woman does not see her sex as a commodity to be exchanged (for commitment or otherwise), the model simply fails; it cannot describe what is occurring in the mind of such a woman. Perhaps she thinks she is giving a gift; perhaps she thinks she is taking advantage of the male; perhaps she enjoys sex as she enjoys conversation; perhaps her thoughts are of something entirely different. But if she does not conceive of herself as a commodity, then she is not “selling herself cheaply”, she is not selling herself at all. Your ‘objective’ becomes suddenly very subjective indeed: It assumes a model of relationships which is, these days, rather rare.
“You commit the fallacy that-does-not-follow; you assume that all women adhere to your view of human relationships as exchanges of value.”
Not at all. My argument is not based on anyone’s adherence to any view, it is based on an objective assessment of fact. One woman will copulate with any man who entertains her for a month; another woman gives herself to any man who pleases her for a week; another with any man who suits her fancy of an hour. A month is more than a week; a week is more than an hour. A woman who can be won for an hour’s effort requires less effort, time, and devotion than a woman who can be won for a month’s worth of effort.
A woman who can only be won by absolute devotion of a man who gives all his life to her, forsaking all others, requires more time, effort, and devotion. She asks for and demands a love with no limits, an endless love, and a devotion that knows know bounds.
To use words like “cheap” and “expensive” does not necessarily imply a monetary or a commercial exchange.
As a matter of logic, woman who asks less from her beloved is objectively cheaper than one who asks more. While I admit that it is possible for a man not to hold a cheap woman in contempt or indifference, when a man esteems highly a woman who is, by any objective standard, holding herself at low esteem, his emotions are false to facts. He has made a wrong assessment of her worth, and she of his. Men who, consciously or subconsciously, recognize the objective nature of the low valuation are the ones who react with indifference or contempt, or, shall we say, a less degree of devotion than a truly devoted man. Contempt or indifference is what it is normal to feel for things of little worth or value.
Suppose you were a prince rather than a man, and several knights and barons came to swear fealty to you, promising to live and die at your command and fight in your wars are good soldiers should. Would you esteem as highly a baron who had made a similar promise to half a dozen other princes? One who changed his lord from year to year? How about a baron who was willing, due to an informal understanding, fight for you, but who could not be bothered to go through the formalities of kneeling an vowing?
Would it be wise for either party in an exchange of feudal loyalties to act in this way? If it is unwise in the case of feudal loyalties, what makes it wise in the case of marital loyalties?
You confuse cost with value. I remind you of the basic premise of trade: For trade to occur, I must value what I give less than what I get, and you likewise; but the respective costs of what we exchange are only lower bounds on their value. To make this clearer, take some numbers. Suppose I own a factory making widgets, with all the inputs amounting to 10 dollars per widget; this is their cost to me. Clearly, I cannot sell my widgets for less than 10 dollars if I expect to be in business next year; however, a widget has no intrinsic value to me other than what I can sell it for, as I’m not a widget-user. You, however, are a widget-user; widgets are inputs to your spimster-factory, and you can pay up to 15 dollars per widget and still make a profit. Clearly, we can reach some accommodation; any price between 10.01 and 14.99 will result in the creation of value: After our exchange, we will both be better off.
Now, if I find a way to improve my factory so that the cost of a widget drops to 8 dollars, then our exchange will create an extra two dollars of value. Observe: A lower cost has led to more value!
Let us now apply this reasoning to human relationships, although I note again – you did not answer this objection – that to do so is to equate women with whores, who sell their sex for favours. To marry a given woman has some particular value for me; over the course of our lives, we will have some amount of joy in each other. She also has some cost; she requires a certain amount of attention, we will have some fights, she has a mother. If the value minus the cost is negative, I should be most unwise to marry her; even a small positive value would not be good, as it’s likely I have better options.
Your assertion, as I understand it, is that if the woman increases her cost, by demanding costly signalling of me at the start of the relationship, her value (gross and net) will also increase because my attitude towards her will necessarily change. This is not unreasonable, within limits. But then you further assert that this costly signalling must be extorted by the denial of sex. That-does-not-follow.
Observe that sex is a joy for both parties. It is not something the woman gives the man; it is a gift they give each other. Perhaps this is our fundamental disconnect: You seem to think that sex is the only thing men want from women, and that women do not want it from men; but that’s just not true.
You assert that if a woman has sex with a man without full commitment, she is selling herself cheaply. Very well, sex with her may be had for less effort, but in what sense is this ‘herself’? Surely she is more than the organ between her legs! If she demands full commitment before giving full commitment back, that is only sensible; if she demands a bit more than two hours’ acquaintance before hopping into bed, that is reasonable in view of the asymmetric risks of sex. But to say that she must demand full commitment in exchange for sex is, in my view, rather degrading.
Our difference seems to turn mainly on the role of sex; we agree that a woman is wise to demand commitment before marriage (and so is a man), we agree that such commitment is best shown by courtship, but we disagree on whether sex may be part of courtship. I do not understand your insistence that a woman agreeing to sex is equivalent to ‘selling herself’, and in fact I find it rather patronising. Certainly there are risks to sex, and they are higher for the woman than the man, but an adult woman can make her own judgements of that.
Well, suppose you were a prince rather than a man, and you decided that not only would you accept the loyalty of a baron who swore you fealty for life, you would also accept only that baron’s loyalty, forsaking all others. If this would be unwise for a feudal prince, what makes it wise for a husband or wife?
On the other hand, suppose you were confronted with a baron who offered you his allegiance for some time, on a trial basis – say, for one war. You would see whether he really had as many men as he claimed, while he tested your behaviour towards your vassals in the exigencies of everyday life; and at war’s end you would part amicably or else swear the full allegiance. Would you really be wise to turn down such an offer? (Bearing in mind, of course, that he might offer a similar deal to your foe.)
“Your assertion, as I understand it, is that if the woman increases her cost, by demanding costly signalling of me at the start of the relationship, her value (gross and net) will also increase because my attitude towards her will necessarily change. This is not unreasonable, within limits. But then you further assert that this costly signalling must be extorted by the denial of sex. That-does-not-follow.”
No, I did not say the attitude of a particular man would change, I said that if all women acting in concert treated the sex act as if it were a precious and important and sacred part of romance and lifelong love, those men not willing to treat the sex act as if it were a precious and important and sacred part of romance and lifelong love would have to seek elsewhere to slake their shallow lusts, or do without.
I am sorry if the metaphor of a mercantile exchange is misleading, because we are not dealing with a woman selling herself to a buyer, we are dealing with a woman giving herself to the utmost depth of her being to a true a faithful lover, giving everything she has of her self, something she does not share with any other man. A lover who is not a virgin does not have that to give: she can disport herself in the love-play with her current paramour, for so long as it amuses her, but she cannot give (to use a mercantile metaphor again) an exclusive contract to him.
As to the difference between the sexes, this is a bit of a blind spot with the modern generation, so I will not argue the point, rather than merely directing your attention to it. I can point at it. If you look, you will see what I am pointing at. If you do not look, you will not see.
Here is a quote from you: “Observe that sex is a joy for both parties. It is not something the woman gives the man; it is a gift they give each other. Perhaps this is our fundamental disconnect: You seem to think that sex is the only thing men want from women, and that women do not want it from men; but that’s just not true.”
Here is a quote from Nimoon: “…there are woman who don’t go looking for men to have sex with, or even relationships, but rather, when presented with one that might just be the one, will try it, hoping for the best.”
Do you see the difference between a fairly common masculine attitude, which your words typify, and a fairly common feminine attitude, which her words typify?
Do you see the difference between a man who treats both sexes as if they have equal polygamous desires, and equal ability to break off a relationship without consequences, and a woman, who treats sex as if it is a component of a permanent relationship even when in a relationship she knows is impermanent?
I am by no means saying all and every woman has this attitude; but I am saying it is the prevalent attitude. The woman I know complain men are not devoted to a permanent relation, that they are immature, that they are not serious. The men I know (including, I am ashamed to say, some Christian men) out of the earshot of the women, say there is no reason to buy a cow if you can have the milk for the asking. Perhaps you know a better quality of man than I do.
“On the other hand, suppose you were confronted with a baron who offered you his allegiance for some time, on a trial basis – say, for one war. You would see whether he really had as many men as he claimed, while he tested your behaviour towards your vassals in the exigencies of everyday life; and at war’s end you would part amicably or else swear the full allegiance. Would you really be wise to turn down such an offer?”
Are you asking whether a brother-in-arms whose loyalty is lukewarm or temporary or conditional should be treated with the same love and respect as a loyal one, whose loyalty is like white fire, is lifelong, is unconditional, as one who is willing to lay down his life for his brother?
For that matter, are you asking whether a wife or husband whose loyalty is lukewarm or temporary or conditional should be treated with the same love and respect as a loyal one, whose loyalty is like white fire, is lifelong, is unconditional, as one who is willing to lay down his life for his spouse?
This is why your answers confuse me. I am not disagreeing with you — I don’t understand your point of view well enough to disagree with it. It seems, at first glance, to be a mere contradiction in terms. The contradiction seems to be between the statement that (1) men can respect and honor women who have done nothing worth of honor or respect and (2) Honorable and respectable behavior is not expected or desired in women.
How can you have it both ways?
Suppose a woman loves a man deeply and profoundly and permanently, and the man returns a shallow and temporary infatuation. His does not treat her with contempt, or even rudeness, and he is friendly and genial about the affair. But he is not really in love with her. He does not really want to meet her family, or be part of her life, or father her children, or see what she will look like when she is old, or stand by her when she is sick, or share in times of poverty all his worldly goods with her, going hungry so that she might eat.
Suppose this same woman has another suitor. This man is a true and faithful lover, who forsakes all other women, loves her so deeply he cannot put it into words, who wants to be part of her life and to devout his life to her, hale or ill, in weal or woe, forever.
The respect the woman pays the first lover if it is the same as the respect she pays the second lover is of no value.
If you give the same amount of love and loyalty to a fair-weather friend or a holiday lover or a lukewarm brother-in-arms that you give to a true, faithful, devout and trusty wife, brother or friend, then your love and your loyalty are false-to-facts.
Valuing the valuable and the less-valuable as if they were of equal value is a paradox.
Perhaps you can clear up my confusion over what you are saying. Is that some assumption I am making that you are not?
I am afraid I was not at my best on Monday, and did not write with my utmost clarity; I am still not entirely recovered from the cold that clogs my brain, but I will have another go anyway.
This is clearly true, yes. But it does not follow that it is a good thing.
Let us perform a thought experiment. We will assume as given that women desire, on average, far more romance, commitment, and affection in their relationships than men do; and conversely, that men desire far more sex. Now let us suppose that woman are very scarce, perhaps one for every ten men; and further that technology prevents the most powerful men from keeping them locked up in harems, as has occasionally happened in history. In this case, by the operation of supply and demand, courtship must necessarily go towards the feminine ideal. Conversely, if it is men who are in short supply, then they will be able to capitalise on their scarcity power and force courtship in their own direction, towards casual flings and little commitment. We can already see this happening at some college campuses: Where the (easily-accessible, same-age, same-class) female/male ratio is 60/40, the hookup/long-term ratio increases accordingly.
So far the free-market economics. But what if women formed a cartel or union, and demanded more commitment as the price of sex? Well, to some extent they do; it is not a good thing for a young woman to acquire the name of ‘slut’. Still it’s true that the effect is less pronounced than it was some decades ago. I think this effect can be traced to the ease of contraception. When intercourse carried a large risk of being pregnant, a woman broke the cartel only at considerable risk to herself. This risk is not of course reduced to zero, but it has gone down by at least an order of magnitude; thus the cartel finds it much harder to enforce its rules – the methods of slut-shaming, gossip, and disapproval still exist, but they have gained no additional force over the years, and the old cost of pregnancy-risk is nearly gone.
I think, perhaps, we can agree on this economic analysis? But where we seem to part is the moral aspect. If the structure of relationships changes because the underlying costs and benefits change, well, what of it? Not in the stars or the mountains is it written that all must be as it was in the days of our fathers. But here you part company with me; you want women to reassert their cartel power, to reform the ranks of their union and crack the whip on men. I do not see why this should be desirable.
Mind you, I do not assert that today’s arrangements are the optimal ones. Massive, enormous changes such as those caused by easy contraception take a long time to settle out, even in a free market; and the sexual ‘market’ operates with a very long cultural and legal lag, and changes on a generational scale. I am almost certain we have not reached the eventual equilibrium, and fairly certain that the equilibrium will be some distance from here in the direction of commitments; the generation that grew up in the sixties overestimated how much the Pill had reduced the cost of sex, and consequently overshot in the direction of male preference. But in any case I do not see a strong moral aspect to this, just the workings-out of individual preferences given costs, benefits, and power.
Well, all right, this is true. You can only give your virginity once, unless of course you’re in an Islamic country and hymen restorations are a routine surgery. And presumably women who only sleep with one man in their whole lives are rarer than those who don’t, so they have scarcity value if nothing else. But I have got to say that to hold this up as the ideal strikes me more as a male sex-fantasy than as female empowerment. A man might certainly want to receive the entirety of a woman’s sexuality as a gift, but why would a woman want to give it? I am reminded of that class of BDSM fantasy where a woman asks to be whipped to prove her devotion. Naturally the male will gladly accept such a gift, but it seems undesirable to hold it up as the ideal.
It appears to me that you have rather an unrealistic view of feudal arrangements, which were commercial contracts. The point I was (too-subtly, perhaps) attempting to make was that feudal systems are a bad analogy for marriage.
I agree with you that a marriage is of greater value than a one-year relationship, and implies greater respect for one’s partner. I do not, however, agree that being someone’s only sexual partner through their lifetime has additional value. This imposes a cost on the partner, a high cost. If I care about them, I ought not to want to impose such a cost.
I note that this of “increasing the value” need not stop at lifetime exclusive sex. For example, one might decide to demonstrate one’s commitment by chopping off the left thumb. This is even more exclusive than being a virgin at marriage! Even a virgin can later commit adultery, but there is only one left thumb on a human body. So a woman who did this should be even more highly valued than one who was a virgin on her wedding night. But I think you would not consider this a good arrangement. And I note that I am not making this up, indeed cutting off a thumb is rather mild compared to some forms of female circumcision practiced on girls who are more-or-less willing and of an age to make decisions – puberty or so. Would you agree that their husbands must value them even more, since they made such a sacrifice to become adults who could marry? You should; but would you also argue that this makes their sacrifice a good thing?
It seems to me that there must exist some optimal level of commitment, some best-possible tradeoff between value and cost. (Incidentally, I had not verbalised my understanding before now, and thus have learned something from our discussion; thank you.) But I do not see why that optimal level should happen to lie at the virginity-at-marriage level which developed in response to economic circumstances which simply do not exist anymore.
Well, there are bound to be exceptions, especially if one’s temperament is easygoing. But that doesn’t make it right, and it certainly doesn’t make it advantageous for most.
For example, in the old days you got your face slapped by the bishop who confirmed you or the knight who knighted you. There were various reasons given for this: teaching you to take a hard blow quietly, making you remember the occasion. But that didn’t make face slapping an honored activity in any other context. Maybe you’d put up with Uncle Bob doing it on every important occasion, but no surprise if you wouldn’t. And if everybody did it on every important first, most people would probably try to avoid doing something new. Even if some people would slap your face very gently. Even if some people would enjoy having their face slapped.
You could put in a long term program of encouraging positive feelings about faceslapping, and it might convince people that they were fine with it. They might learn not to cringe. But it would be a pretty harsh and unfriendly society, and strangers wouldn’t much like to go there.
I like what Rolf said here. I think it might be the best quote of the thread so far. Because I think this accurately describes the Eternal Adolescent in a nutshell: nothing can ever be serious and nothing must ever be serious, so nothing is ever taken seriously, including sexual relations. The Eternal Adolescent has his or her fingers crossed behind his or her back at all times, lest things become too adult and the Eternal Adolescent be forced to actually commit with diligence to a thing.
Therefore, if rampant teen sex is an indicator of teens being asked to grow up too fast, it is moreso an indicator of teens never being asked to grow up at all: because sex is just another “play toy” like their Warcraft game or their texting device, only this “toy” comes with orgasms.
I fear the trend is almost irreversible in an era when the Eternal Adolescent is worshipped as the epitomy of human potential. And no, I am not saying the Eternal Curmudgeon is any better — that is its own type of stupidity. But as Rolf says, when teen thinking is allowed to persist — even fostered to persist — well into a person’s adult lifetime… Little good can come of it.
Hi John, I really like your writing and I’m interested in this post. I’m a Catholic convert and a philosophy student.
I just ended a year and a half ‘relationship’ with, well what you call it, my mistriss?
We had sex every few weeks, we talked, unlike other relationships where I had no intention of spending the rest of my life with this person, I did not feel contempt in the least. Blithe indifference, definitely. But, like the chap above, when all was said and done, when it was ended, there were no abortions (she is barren), no tears, no plates thrown. She was not happy since she had feelings for me, but our arrangement was always made clear (by me), and so there was no false hope or expectations.
There was nothing liberating, exciting, or empowering. The whole thing was base and a simple fulfilment of animal desires.
In all of this I have a great deal of respect for this woman. She is smart, funny, awkward, and fun to be around. I’ve never been mean, nasty, or contemptuous. In the end, she thanked me for the experience, relished it while it lasted, and claims to have learned a lot about herself and others.
So, on the one hand, I want to say that it is entirely possible (though very difficult, this arrangement took a good deal of discipline and careful planning), for a young man to have a sexual liason with a women with absolute no intention whatosever of marrying her, (or even committing to thinking about marrying her!) to have a respectful relationship with said person. On the other hand, I would be lying to myself. I felt constant guilt (all brought on myself via becoming Catholic) at the situation. Though I prided myself on my honesty, I know enough about human nature to know that she liked me, and to know that I was hurting her, whatever her claims otherwise (ha, no, just my mysogynistic ego amirite?!). Finally, I ended it when I found someone who I do hope to spend the rest of my life with, and I hope its more than just picking out my favourite pair of shoes at the store. I have every intention of committing the rest of my life with her, and it was only when I was ready to affirm that and commit to it that I could truly begin to love her.
I have been in the unenviable situation where what was respectful to the woman and what the woman would take as kindness were poles apart. I realized that I had no desire to marry the woman, that she was likely to offer me the status of ‘friend with benefits’, and that I might not have the strength of character to refuse.
Part of the reason we struck up a relationship was that we were both single and bitter virgins, and our friends saw us going out together as killing two birds with one stone, so she took my abrupt ending of the friendship (trying to be just friends still ended up with necking and heavy petting) as quite the slap in the face and she was quite bitter about it.
I would like to think that she eventually realised that my dumping her before we had sex was much better than my dumping her after we had sex, but we have never again been on speaking terms.
The situation convinced me that I had to be callous, but I did act with intentions of honour and respect.
The comments section ought to be a bit wider. Comments seem much longer than they are because of the narrow width.
If you can tell me how to adjust the tags to allow for this, please tell me. It is beyond my meager programming skills.
Newspapers print their material in narrow columns. It is easier to read quickly and not lose track of which line is next. I don’t see any problem with this width of column for comments, but I do see a significant advantage to it’s NOT being a good bit wider. One problem would be it’s being very inconvenient for those who have a sufficiently low screen resolution (though admittedly, that’s a small percentage).
Another blogging/formatting issue: I’m submitting another comment because I used a different email address above than I did for a previous comment where my “gravatar” (icon) appeared. If my gravatar appears for this comment even though I didn’t log in to gravatar.com, this would be a very convenient way (after a one-time setup) for everyone who wants to do so, to have an avatar/icon appear not only on this blog but on all other blogs on the web when they comment. If my gravatar doesn’t appear, I may log in and try one more comment.
If anyone knows some easy way to import the avatar/icon for each of those readers who already set one up in LiveJournal, please explain! (I’d like to help with this issue, but don’t know about this particular detail.)
I want to object to your division of sacred / not-sacred.
First of all, I’m not sure I know what you mean by “sacred”. “Sacred” is a loaded word: it has deep religious connotations and in some case very specific meanings. In the Bible, “sacred” meant “set apart for the sole use of God / the clergy”, e.g. a sacred lamb was one which could only be used for sacrifice, a sacred candle could only be used for lighting the holy candelabra, etc. If this is what you mean than indeed, sex is sacred: We were told by God to use it to the single purpose of procreation, which is a biblical commandment after all (“Be fruitful and multiply”).
However…
This interpretation is contingent upon a person being religious in the first place; a secular man would not use the term in such a way and does not believe in sacredness as a valid descriptor any more than you would use “Kosher” to describe foods or “Clear” to describe a person’s mental state.
If you ask a secular person what “sacred” means, the usual connotation is simply that of something extremely important – perhaps the most important, but still only at the very top of a linear scale, not one part of a binary system. and it is this meaning that allows one to have degrees of “sacredness”. This is not the correct usage of the word; As a secular, My reply would be that I reject the question; “sacred” is a meaningless term for a secular person. If you speak of feelings, and not of religious states, please reframe your question in secular terms. Ask about holding a girl in high esteem; Ask about loving her; feelings have degrees that “sacredness” doesn’t.
Flying to my dictionary:
Sacred
1. devoted or dedicated to a deity or to some religious purpose; consecrated.
2. entitled to veneration or religious respect by association with divinity or divine things; holy.
3. pertaining to or connected with religion (opposed to secular or profane): sacred music; sacred books.
4. reverently dedicated to some person, purpose, or object: a morning hour sacred to study.
5. regarded with reverence: the sacred memory of a dead hero.
6. secured against violation, infringement, etc., as by reverence or sense of right: sacred oaths; sacred rights.
7. properly immune from violence, interference, etc., as a person or office.
A secular person can hold something to be “sacred” by which we mean due reverent esteem or veneration, secured against violation by a sense of right, or properly immune from trespass (that is to say, definition 4, 5, 6, 7) without any cognitive dissonance.
“Given the nature of the male of the homo sapiens, and the nature of reality, it is likely for him to copulate with a woman to whom he is not married without a feeling of contempt, disesteem, or at least blithe indifference?”
I don’t think so. In my yute, the fellows who did that seemed to feel at least one of those either before (because they meant to use the girl) or after (because she had disillusioned him by moving on and treating him with one of those three).
I lucked out by being both naive and oblivious.
Most of these replies are from men. I think that gives a little bit of a one sided view, at least to a certain extent.
As a woman, i was actually surprised and mildly annoyed with some of the things said.
I would answer your question yes, but only with certain people.
Sadly, a huge majority of kids(say teenagers to even early twenties) have a sick and twisted view of what sex is, what sex is about, and what relationships are.
Some of these views are as simple as expectations set down by your peers for you to ‘provide’ in certain situations. Example: I had a cousin who lives within a social environment COMPLETELY opposite my own. Once she told me that (at around 15? maybe 14) if you make out with a guy, letting him feel you up was a given. You were prude otherwise. (this is of course on a very first base basis)
Now does this make her a whore, or is she under circumstances where the men she is around have established this expectation for her to meet? That, you might only want to go as far as a kiss, but in doing so you are expected to give up much much more.
To me, its a combination of both. Kids these days lack a moral foundation, or even the ability to see the difference within these moral choices. The line is blurred way before we are conscious of it through media. Kids are fed sex through tv, music, advertisements, everywhere they look, and parents are afraid to talk to their kids. This creates, i do believe, your “madonna/whore” complex.
If I’m not willing to have sex with a guy, I’m a prude, and no one will want me. If on the other hand I’m willing to go all the way, I’m a whore, and i will never be in a real relationship. this is the sad situation that my cousin, and many other girls in the same social situation are in.
Growing up in a totally different social situation, i myself have never really had to decide between one or the other. I never dated a guy who expected me to give something to him i wasn’t willing or ready to give myself, and i never expected a guy to give anything he wasn’t ready or willing to give. I suppose to some extent i have not given myself to a guy and not expected a relationship out of it, or been in a relationship before giving myself to a guy.
I have though, had sex with a guy the second day after technically meeting him, and i suppose, i had no required him to stay with me afterwords, but hoped for it, as i believe he did, and, thankfully, i am still currently dating that guy, almost a year later.
In conclusion what i suppose i am trying to say is there are woman out these who i do believe don’t exist as either Madonna’s or whores, but rather are not that fond of shopping as a whole, but when in need of shoes, might just after getting to know the sales man well decide to buy a pair of shoes and possibly create a very nice sales/customer relationship with him, expecting and hoping he can make another pair some time again. (I’ve no idea if that fits within that metaphor, so to be frank, there are woman who don’t go looking for men to have sex with, or even relationships, but rather, when presented with one that might just be the one, will try it, hoping for the best)
SO… my answer is yes, if both the man and the woman are looking for something more than just a quickie, sex could lead into a more intimate relationship.
Your answer is very similar to something I have seen many times among the women of my generation and younger, and which I have never seen among the generation older: women have sex in the hopes of getting a firmer or more intimate or more loving relationship with a man, while the man has sex to have sex.
You will excuse me if that sounds bitter, or man-bashing or cynical, but I merely report what I saw. I saw women deceived by their hopes.
Because I have only very rarely seen the opposite situation, that of a man being deceived by his hopes, my conclusion is that it is innate to the sexes.
The reason why I do not see that among the women of my mother’s generation, is that the standards were higher in those days. While more than one reader seems offended that I use the law of supply and demand to analyze this situation, the fact of the matter is that in my father’s time the price for copulation was higher — the man had to marry the woman, or offend both law and custom with a whore. The idea that the man could copulate with a “nice girl” was out of the question. The current society has reversed this custom. In the same way that a buyer or seller, no matter what his personal preference, cannot buy or sell goods far above or far below the going market rate and long stay in business, in just such a way a young “nice girl” of the sick and perverted modern generation is regarded by custom as being not nice if she has standards–as you say, she is dismissed as a prude. A man on the hunt can find her sister, or niece, or neighbor who is willing to sate his lusts for a far less demanding demand.
Hm…
Now, I find this article interesting because I half agree and half disagree with you.
First of all I do respect chastity. I believe it to be a fine sign of self control, a very practical idea for many reasons, and a very romantic idea. I am chaste, and I hope any girl I marry will be chaste. The girl I am interested in romantically is chaste.
Secondly I think you have hit a very good mark when you explained why sexuality is not and should not be the same as a financial contract. It carries emotional baggage, and that emotional baggage is wonderful. Even if you don’t ascribe spiritual aspects to it love is life changing and fulfilling in a way little or nothing else is or can be.
However I do have a disagreement with you. I say up front that I may perfectly well be wrong. You are older, more experienced, and more philosophically knowledgeable than I am or claim to be.
“The question is based on the unspoken assumption that there is no third state of mind between a young man who regards erotic love as sacred and sacrosanct, something he shares only with that one true love who is the summit of all his aspirations, and a young man who regards erotic love as not sacred. If it is not sacred, it is shared indiscriminately, is of less worth or no worth at all, or it has the character of an entertainment, a pastime, an alliance of mutual convenience, or a transaction where each side in the partnership gets gain from the deal.”
Now, I am in the former category. However, I do not see a reason to lessen my respect for a girl because she is a “whore” as you put it in your article. Assuming she is willing to make the same emotional commitment as a virgin. If she is willing to share her life with me now, why should I not give her the same respect as a virgin?
It is not that I do not put a high value to virginity. It is a very admirable quality in a man or a woman. It is that I put a higher value to other aspects of a partner as a person. Intelligence, emotional similarity, and her willingness to commit now, even if she was not saving herself before I knew her.
Note that this is academic for me. I am not in love with a “whore” and I would be offended if you claimed I was. In fact in general I found your article to be a very agreeable piece on how emotions work. I would certainly accept your opinion before I accepted that of the Eddorian you spoke of, going by your description. It is the emphasis on sexual exclusivity before the relationship starts that I found troubling. People change, redeem, and fall. Past sexuality is not an issue for me.
I hope that at no point I offended you, and I tried not to insult you by accident when I disagreed with you. I would be interested in your response.
I like this website given and this has given myself a few sort of desire to succeed for some cause, so keep up the good work.
I would like to add that I dated extensively in the 1970s, but never ever ever had sex. Hence was a virgin to my wedding bed, as was my wife. We have maintained a happy marriage, growing middle-aged together and will celebrate our 32nd anniversary this April. I have never had sex with any other woman, and I’m sure that my wife has been faithful to me. So it can happen, even today, with all the trials and troubles of our world.
Three of my children have followed in my example. Or at least, if they ever strayed from the path of chastity, they have kept it well-hidden. This was in the 1990s and 2000s. So again, it can happen, even today.
The universality of fornication is not yet upon us, though it does advance apace.