wordpress analytics

The moral context to pursue romantic love and sex.

One of the central themes of the Dalrock blog has to do with what he identifies as the “elevation of romantic love” over marriage. He puts it this way in the post “Lovestruck:”

“Instead of seeing marriage as the moral context to pursue romantic love and sex, romantic love is now seen as the moral place to experience sex and marriage. This inversion is subtle enough that no one seems to have noticed, but if you look for it you will see it everywhere.”

This idea has been reiterated and quoted over several years of his blogging in quite a few posts. It is probably one of the most profound truths revealed and explored in the Christian manosphere.

My purpose in writing here on the topic is to offer an analysis of it theologically, and then try to figure how to share it with a hurting world of Christians who are divorced, (either the initiators or the victims) single mothers, shut out fathers, broken families and to do so in a way that is more likely to be heard. I will come back to that.

First, every Christian subscribes to a theology. They may not articulate it clearly but their actions can tell you pretty much all you need to know about the systematic approach to their spiritual life they take.

For example, most Christians—be they Catholic, Orthodox, or some form of Protestant appear to subscribe to some level of God actively participating and guiding the events in their daily lives. When informed of a person who has become ill, their immediate response it to pray. If you conducted a “Family Feud” style survey of 100 random Christians, and asked them “what do you pray for in this situation” the number one answer would be, ding ding ding ding!!! “for the person to get better.”

When they go on a trip, they pray for safe travels. They pray for their pastor to have an accurate recollection of what he studied before his sermon. And on it goes.

This tells us that most Christians believe that God is actively causing things to happen. The extreme version of this is Calvinism. I went to such a seminary after growing up in the distinctly free-will theology of the restoration movement (the Church of Christ).

I do not wish to debate here Gods absolute sovereignty over the free will of man, but it is a subject that intersects with Dalrocks thesis.

If you say “marriage is the moral context to pursue romantic love and sex” you are making a case for at least some kind of determinism that flies in the face of our “looking for the one and only” drenched romantic culture. I would like to explore this a little.

Recently, a FB friend of mine and Mychaels posted a meme that read something like “If you can love the wrong person so much, imagine how much you could love the right person.” This post is all over social media and is generally posted by what the manosphere calls “carousel riders,” or single moms who detonated their marriages to the fathers of their children. Occasionally a single man will post something similar.

Second, I happen to agree with Dalrock and my first instinct was to reply “the ‘right’ person is the one you married,” which I did but eventually took it down. Not really interested in starting fights over such things with people I barely know.

But isn’t that the point? If one is a pure Calvinist, one would be arguing that once married you have obeyed what is known in reform theology as Gods “decreed” will. (That is, the marriage was ordained to happen way back in eternity somewhere). Staying married and making it work (and pursuing romantic love and sex) would be obeying His “moral” will. The distinction between Gods moral and decreed wills are necessary in this type of theology to explain how people are able to do evil, while still maintaining a coherent theology of His sovereignty. I am hoping Dalrock will comment on this part.

In my own experience with divorce (which I did not initiate) I have had to grapple with this. There were no kids to go through the “meat grinder” of divorce, which seemed to make it less obnoxious. But a grave sin occurred regardless and this mystery still causes me to humble myself in His presence regularly. At the time, however, I subscribed to the idea that “romantic love is the moral place to experience sex and marriage.” The romantic love preceded the marriage, and therefore marriage was the logical next step. This is how the vast majority of Christian conceptualize it—even so called “conservatives.”

So getting back to my point about talking to a broken world about this. There appears to be no way to do so without causing great weeping and gnashing of teeth. I have not yet been able to ask the question “what were the circumstances under which you became a single mother?” without tremendous backlash—no matter how much of a loving place it comes from. If the answer is that we just speak the Truth to those who need it, and deal with however they respond to it, than that is fine. But I have to believe that God has a plan for getting this message to  His flock in a way that calls them to repentance instead the usual pure hatred and labelling of us as “judgmental.”




How are these three things related?

Now that we have taken a detour down race-relations lane, lets return to something a little more pleasant.

I have been trying to work through a few ideas that seem to run together, or are related in a way that I can’t quite get my finger on. I am hoping a discussion with our readers will bring a little clarity to it. So far, readers have not let me down in that regard.

Here are the items that I think are related, but I am not sure how:

1. Our culture (American) seems to have accepted the idea that in-laws are just not going to get along. Not with each other, or with you.

2. Our culture also seems to embrace the idea that our children are always our children, taking it to the extent that their choice of spouse needs to know they will always play a secondary role to us, long after they are married.

3. Our culture has gone “all in” for dating, a system for mate selection that essentially lets young singles loose to find a spouse with absolutely no parental involvement. It has been this way for about a century.

Let me give a couple of examples. The idea of in-law relationships as a punch line has been around for as long as I can remember. I even recall Warner Brothers cartoons (which were made way before I was born–they were reruns when I was watching them) with jokes about new cars with secluded, sound proof waaaaay back seats for the mother in law, so you didn’t have to listen to her.

Here is a good example:

The Wold of Tomorrow! (According to Tex Avery and MGM in the 1950s) from Kyle McArdle on Vimeo.

Recently, a friend of ours posted this article to facebook which essentially reinforces the obnoxious mother in law meme and celebrates it. The writer makes a disclaimer at the end about being “mostly” hyperbole, but the point is not lost on the reader.

Here is an excerpt:

I pray for his future wife, that she’ll be worthy of my sweet ball of Minecraft-loving awesomeness, but I think I need to start praying not only for her worthiness, but for her stamina, with me as a mother-in-law. I am going to be this girl’s worst nightmare…maybe just in my head, but it might leak out. I might be horrible. 

I used to think I’d take her out for pedicures and bonding time, but now I know that I’ll lure her away from him, wait till she’s knee-deep in soapy warm water, then strand her at the salon with cucumbers on her eyes while I head back to my sweet, sweet man-boy. I am Gollum, and he is my precioussss. 

I realize most of our readers are not Orthodox Christians, but I recently was in a conversation with Fr Joseph Gleason, of the Facebook page “Ask an Orthodox Priest” about honoring parents. It was in the context of courtship. Here are his words:

There may be some exceptions (e.g. when both parents are utterly opposed to the Christian Faith). But before considering exceptions, we should begin by considering the godly ideal.

What is the *best* approach that a faithful Christian person should take, in regard to obedience to one’s faithful Christian parents?

Neither Scripture nor the Fathers tell us that there is some magical age where honoring and obeying one’s parents becomes optional.

Rather, God explicitly blesses those adults who remain obedient to their parents, even into adulthood. For example, consider the Rechabites. As adults, they determined how they would live, and how they would eat, in obedience to their father. And God blesses them for this.

If we honor our parents, we should not seek for exceptions. And as parents ourselves, we need to live in such a godly manner that our children have no cause to seek for exceptions.

The ideal is for one’s parents to be actively engaged in seeking a spouse for the child, and for the child to be patiently awaiting the parents’ blessing of a marriage partner. When two people begin their marriage in an act of open rebellion against their parents’ wishes, it is something to be grieved.

A godly marriage is the joining together of two families. It is an occasion which should manifest unity and rejoicing throughout both families. When a newlywed husband and wife embrace one another, it should be done in such a way that it manifests honor and obedience to both sets of parents.

I must admit, this priest makes me proud to be Orthodox. Where else can you find current clergy who talks like that? This post is a couple of weeks old–it is not some obscure canonical or Catechismic writing. But I digress…

I realize there are several scripture references that can be applied here. I know about “leaving and cleaving.” I know about honoring our parents. Those are fantastic starting points, but how to apply them, exactly?

So readers–are points 1, 2 and 3 at the start of my post related? I think they are, but as I mentioned, I can’t quite get my finger on how. What are your thoughts?


Does racial preference have a legitimate role in your search?

Three days ago, Dalrock posted this post, which really isn’t about race at all.

However, about 1/3 of the way into the comments, a sub-thread started to go that way when Blue Dog made this suggestion to me about my site:

One last bit, my $0.02: drop all references to HBD. Big loser. All liability, no asset. Think of it this way – even if it occasionally has a valid point, and I grant that is only on occasion –and different ways need to be found around those taboos, even if at 10X the cost of breaking the taboo.

And in a follow up comment (emphasis mine):

Total dealbreaker. And will be for many, many more the first 30 seconds they understand what it is.

Let’s not beat around the bush. This is code for “it [HBD] is racism.” That’s what they are going to “understand”about it.

And this  ”then it must be understood in the context that some taboos exist for highly valid reasons” is another shot across the bow meaning “any talk of a biological basis for human behavior is just a hairs breath away from all kinds of attrocities, therefore you cannot talk about it all”

I am grateful to Dalrock for hosting this conversation, which in all honesty probably should have been happening over here. It kind of hijacked the thread.

The conversation continued for a bit–a lot of interesting stuff between Laura, Oscar, TFH, and others. And then Novaseeker made this comment:

Race is a proxy for culture, often. That is, there are distinct “cultures” (one can call them subcultures if you like) which exist among people of different racial groups, even in a multiracial country like the US. Usually it’s very hard to cross these cultural lines without issues arising as a result of having done that — either in the relationship itself or with the extended family. Compatibility is often an issue.

Among the elite class, things are, again, different. Although the elite class is overwhelmingly white, it is also the case that the non-whites in that elite class share more cultural characteristics with the white elites than either does with members of their own race who are non-elites. And also much more in common with each other than the non-elites of each race will often have in common, culturally. So it’s actually not terribly uncommon for non-white elites to be in mixed-race relationships with white elites today — they are culturally compatible even though they are of different races, because they share the same elite cultural worldview, values, priorities, characteristics and so on. The total number of such relationships is not large (the elite is still overwhelmingly white), but it isn’t uncommon to see one of the relatively few non-white elites together with a white elite in a relationship. These are then peddled by the same elite class as being “interracial relationships” which, while of course technically true, really sweeps under the rug the reality that there is a shared culture there which is not the case in other SES groups, where race is indeed acting as a cultural proxy in a way it does not do in this elite set.

Here when I am speaking of “elites” I mean people who are basically HYS or their equivalent.

Nailed it.

Elspeth, Dalrock, Myself and Innocent Bystander in Boston continue to discuss the actual data points and the rough math that (almost all people) use to hash out this rubric of using “race as a proxy for culture.” I would take this to the next logical step, arguing that culture is then a proxy for collective behavior, and likely in-law compatibility/cultural conflict within the family.

The conversation contiued again, with Lyn87 and others chiming in. Then I got up this morning, and Eidolon (who is in an interracial marriage) had posted this comment last night:

My point would be that, while I don’t see anything morally wrong with interracial marriages (being in one myself) I also don’t think it’s a moral requirement to be equally open to marriage with people of any race. Some people may have little attachment to their racial group, while others may feel very attached to it, and people may have different feelings about different racial groups. I don’t see any reason why a person shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate in their relationship choices based on race, if they can discriminate based on hair color, eye color, height, weight, and a thousand other things that typically have less impact on how well two people and their families can relate to each other.

I would say that if you ask God for a good spouse, and He wants to give you one who’s not the same race as you, race would be a silly reason to reject His gift. But that’s a very specific situation, and it’d be hard to say for sure that someone had done that. And, of course, we reject His gifts all the time for all kinds of reasons, so there’s nothing uniquely bad about it.

I’d also say that Jesus felt affection for His own nation, as pointed out above. Many people seem to be down on national or ethnic pride (at least for white people) ostensibly because universal charity is better. That’s true, but we should make sure we’ve reached one level before we deride it for not being as high as another level; love for one’s country or one’s people is a far better thing than individual selfishness, as long as it isn’t taken to the extreme of hating others for not being of that group. There seems to be a prevalent feeling today that (white) people are bad if they feel any group kinship or love for the group that they come from, just because some people who felt a lot of that feeling did bad things. That doesn’t make the feeling itself evil. We should be as open to others as we can, but group kinship is a mostly positive phenomenon.

Short version: I’d understand just fine if a black family strongly preferred that their kids marry other black people. Would you tell them they were racist for feeling that way? I certainly wouldn’t.

Readers–if I had a FAQ page and the question of considering race as a factor in your marriage search was included, Eidolons comment would be the “Official Courtship Pledge” position. That is how perfect it is.

So what does that mean for participants here? Not much really. If this very common sense position is too extreme for you, I wish you luck in your search, but you probably won’t fit in here. I doubt I will lose many readers over a strategy that everyone on Earth has used for 10,000 years.

Want to use race as part of your screening process? Welcome, brother. Don’t want to? Welcome sister.

But here is where it does matter. If you want to come on here and characterize any of my readers or their comments as “racist” (or imply it) you better be ready to defend it. Since the term has been completely destroyed by overuse, the burden of proof is on you–and the bar for proving it is VERY HIGH.

One thing I have picked up from my readings around this part of the internet — the “manosphere” if you will is the lost masculine trait of accountability. If you are one of the people who has rendered the word racist meaningless because of overuse, own it. It’s your fault the word doesn’t have any weight now.

Because from my perspective, the over use of the word racism is a far greater threat to society than racism itself.



Head coverings as a way to signal modesty

Yesterday, on our longest running thread ever, BradA made this comment about women wearing head coverings in church:

I thought only a single Scripture noted that Dale, though I could be missing it there. It would not be sufficient to build doctrine if it is only a single reference as I recall. It would take some more consideration even if it were more to make sure we were properly dividing the Word there to push it harder. The core truths seem generally woven throughout more than a single place and are usually wider than even a couple of places, even if some lend support by inference.

I am convinced Scriptural truth can be adapted to the culture, but I would agree that we need to be VERY watchful when doing that

Here is the passage he was referring to:

1 Corinthians 11:2-16New King James Version (NKJV)

Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you. But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. 10 For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. 12 For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God.

13 Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? 15 But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her[a] for a covering. 16 But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.

Unambiguous. Very strongly worded, as my husband says.

The thread was following the question by a single woman reader at another blog who asked how she and her chaste friends could signal honorable intentions to possible marriage minded men at church. There has been a LOT of discussion about that over the last 2 days.

Now, Scott and I are committed Orthodox Christians, but we are not here to tell anyone that head coverings are somehow a mandatory part of participation at the Courtship Pledge. Only about 1/2 of the Orthodox people we know and a tiny fraction of Catholics still do this.

But I bet if that handful of girls showed up one Sunday with these on their heads…


…they would send a loud and clear message about who they are. NOT that they are perfect, virginal, ladies in waiting–but that they recognize they are sinful, humble creatures who have shown up to demonstrate humility in the presence of their God.

AND many of the church PUAs might just turn around and walk out, thinking “not going to get laid in here.”

Just a suggestion. Won’t save the planet, but its a start.


Is courtship biblical?


In the comments thread of our post from a few days ago, reader Von suggests:

The idea of matchmaking is a start in the right direction, but a search of Scripture will show that the Biblical answer is for the parents, in particular the father, to find a spouse for their child.
And there is nothing Biblical about ‘courtship.

On this, I will have to disagree but I want to make the case for it.

I think it is important to try to understand the essence of a words typical use and this is especially true in this case. It helps to be as precise as possible when discussing important issues like this.

When someone suggests there is “nothing biblical” they usually mean it to say that it has no basis in biblical teaching and practice and that it may in some cases actually be incompatible with living biblically. That is a heavy charge, and one to be taken seriously.

I also make the distinction between several things that I wonder if everyone does the same with.

For example, I don’t get the feeling that, in the common use, “biblical” is the opposite of “unbiblical.” Where as ‘biblical” tends to mean “there is sufficient backing in the text for this concept, even if it is not outright labeled that way,” “unbiblical” tends to mean “out of bounds with regard to clear biblical teaching, and without any example.”

This may seem subtle, but the second part is what I call “scriptural vs unscriptural.”

For instance–we are all familiar with the idea that, although the Trinity is never mentioned specifically in the text, it is “biblical” because when  we put together everything the Bible has to say about God’s nature, you find it.

However, the laying on of hands (by the elders) and anointing of oil for the sick reaches the “next” level by being scriptural because we can actually read specific examples of this occurring in the scripture. We can apply all kinds of contextual and cultural cues to it, but if your church does this to the sick, they certainly are not doing anything unbiblical OR unscriptural.

So, it is upon these principles that I say courtship is biblical, and although there may not be perfect examples of it in the scripture, it is based on sound biblical principles.

1. We are to honor our mother and father. The Ten Commandments requires this. It puts no age limit on it. (You don’t stop honoring your mother and father when you turn 18). The concept of “honoring” them, and what that looks like is all over the text. And deferring (at least getting their opinion) to your parents is squarely in the realm of what we are calling courtship here.

2. It is OK to marry someone if you just can’t keep your hands off each other. Pauls admonition to marry rather than burn is why we support short courtship periods.

3. All things being equal, it is better for both parties to be virginal on the wedding day. This is entirely compatible with what we are supporting here. In today’s culture, the earlier you get matched up, the better.

4. There are many verses of the wisdom literature in the text that tell us to guard our reputations by what we do and say publically. Again, limiting the amount of alone time until marriage is a principle that we highly encourage. This is where we get time honored idea of “the appearance of impropriety.”

There are other biblical principles at play here as well. But remember, we are also not married to a super specific format for courtship. Joshua Harris ended up distancing himself from his own, very good attempt to write about this because people made it into a rigid set of rules that everyone must follow.

I am appreciative of Vons comment. Although I remain unconvinced that courtship is unbiblical, it definitely caused me to think about it.


The left and right limits of this line of effort.


 On yesterday’s post , Empathologism made this comment:

I’m not nearly as concerned about the mechanics of courtship, whether there is courtship, etc. Its not to say I like the unfettered hookup situation either.

I believe fathers can protect their daughters and should. I believe fathers can inspire right thinking in sons, and should. I’m not feeling deeply about the rest of this specific topic. Ill allow that maybe I’m missing something.

You can lay out the best flirting and dating advice around and still when married the women takes over the home and if the man asserts himself she leaves claiming abuse and if he doesn’t she leaves due to unhappiness. THATS the stuff being taught …built up from 5 years old and up until they are marriage age.

I’m not being flip when I say steer the ship away from trouble, THEN rearrange the deck chairs better.

I wanted to address this particular comment in it’s own post because I believe it is a difference in strategy, rather than one of substance on the particulars.

If one were to look to the right side of this website and scroll all the way to the bottom, you would find 2 years of material about dating/courtship/betrothal/marriage/etc that are more or less compatible with the “red-pill” canon of the “Christian manosphere.”

The way I perceive this problem is analogous to a battlefield with all of the various component commanders and subordinate commanders. Each of those commanders and the units they command fit into the larger OPORD (Operational Order) with left and right limits. Each sub-mission feeds into, off of, or supports other missions in the same movement toward victory.

Of course, in very complex operations, there are different lines of departure for each unit and certain parts of the mission cannot be accomplished without other tasks being completed first. (Think about a logistical or combat engineering unit deploying pontoons before the soldiers can cross the river). I think what Empathologism is arguing is that changing the way we pick spouses (or help people pick them) is step 357 and we are still on step 2. That is a perfectly arguable point, and I am glad he is making it, although I disagree.

Right now, for me the way forward looks more like an all-out assault on the entire opposing force:

Dalrock is doing the heavy lifting when it comes to confronting the Christian churches (all of them) with the biblical understanding of the relationship between lust/romance/sex/marriage/love.

Donal Graeme and Deep Strength are doing their level best to recapture lost Christian masculinity.

Sunshine Thiry, Elspeth and others are teaching young girls (and any wives for that matter) homemaking skills, sweetness, submission, how to be a help meet. and offering support to do better at those things.

Men’s rights activists are attacking the family law structure, including the domestic violence machine, custody lopsidedness, etc.

Even the secular “game” sites have valuable information and intel for Christians.

Rollo Tomassi never runs out of ways to ask the question “how in the world do Christian men ever get laid and make babies?”

HBD sites are also contributing a huge amount of context for all of this.

And that is a tiny, non exhaustive group of sites–just the ones I read regularly. I know there are many more.

I have picked up my rifle and I am taking my part of the fight to the mate selection segment of the battlefield. I realize there are other sites and even TV shows devoted to promoting courtship. The Duggars, Lori Alexander, etc. I am small potatoes compared to those.

But make no mistake about it, our site has at it’s core, “red-pill” written all over it. You could say we are trying to help build a marriage/match making network for red-pill types to find other red-pill types. In other words, nothing we talk about here makes any sense to you if you aren’t already predisposed to this kind of thinking.

Elspeth’s site is perfectly named “Loving in the Ruins.” I have always resonated with it as a title, and that is exactly what we are trying to promote here. Biblical, godly marriages in the ruined society and culture that is smoldering before us. It is not “collapsing.” It has already collapsed.

Getting the Ball Rolling: Networking

One question that I think many who come to this site ask themselves is this: What can we do?

It is a good question. It will take wide-scale change before we can start to turn our culture around. That is the work of generations, sadly. When faced with the enormity of these problems, it is easy to throw your hands up in the air and simply give up trying to fix things.

While this is an easy and natural response, the truth is that we are not completely powerless. Whether you are a parent with younger or older children, or none at all, or are a single Christian who is struggling to find a mate in this terrible climate, you still can make a difference.

One way of doing this is acting as in informal matchmaker. I think that Christian men and women need to adopt an attitude that they should always be out to help their fellow Christians marry. When you think about it, it is not out of line with the other charitable works that Christians otherwise engage in. We do all kinds of charity for the homeless and the poor and the hungry and the sick and those in prison. So how hard could it be to keep in mind those who are single, and to notice when we run across someone that might be a fit?

If you are a parent whose children aren’t old enough to be looking at marriage, you can and should still keep an eye on the singles in your church. Meet them and talk with them. Find out more about them. Perhaps you know someone who might be a match for them. And if you don’t, perhaps someone else that you know does. Connect with others in your church and like-minded churches to pass along possible matches.

Networking was historically the primary method that young people met and married. While many of the old networks have long since been torn down, we can still build new ones. The internet, despite the many avenues for sin that it provides, can and should be a powerful tool in this regard. Using it to connect to those who share your faith allows for the creation of networks far vaster than ever before. This is really a necessity, because there is no guarantee that truly devout Christians will be anywhere near each other geographically.

Singles can and should engage in this as well. If you find someone that doesn’t fit or mesh with you, but is otherwise marriageable, don’t simply disconnect from them. Reach out to other Christians you know. Find out who might be a good fit. If you know someone already, introduce them. These connections might prove invaluable later on. After all, if you find a spouse later on, then that couple you helped match up before might have children who could marry your own kids.

We reap what we sow. Even if it doesn’t help you immediately, helping others connect, network and marry will come around to help us in the end.

And so, a call to already married couples: Do you know any singles in your church (or through parachurch organizations) that could use your help? If not, can’t you find any? If the last post’s enormous (for this site) comment thread is an indication–surely they exist. Will you introduce yourself?

To the parents of small children who are preoccupied with raising yours right: Will you also reach out to these currently single, marriage aged folks?

To the singles: Will you get yourself out there–to the older, married people. It is a big step to go to them and tell them “I am preparing myself for marriage, and I don’t know many people my age who are doing the same.

To everyone: Can we use this site (or the internet in general) to build this network?

How to send the right signal to the red-pill guys in church

OK, first a little bragging. I was specifically asked to write this post by the giant of the Christian manosphere, none other than Dalrock himself!

Got that off my chest, let’s continue.

A few days ago, before my entire family was infected by the most wicked plague/flu on Earth, Dalrock sent me a link to this Alpha Game post, at specifically this comment by Kiwi the Greek.

She asks:
A lot of men don’t understand what chaste, traditional women go through because of feminism, since many don’t believe we exist. A great deal of attention is paid to feminist women’s real and perceived grievances, while the anti-feminist women are ignored. Red-pill men bemoan the lack of wife material, while many of us keep our hair, smile sweetly and wait in vain for an approach by any man above gamma. Maybe the good men don’t try because they’re afraid of nuclear rejection or they assume all women are the typical ones described in the manosphere. But my type were taught never to make the first move or act “forward”.

I’m not swayed by money or status, and I’m scared of alphas. I had never seen or heard of nuclear rejection til I read about it here. I know, I know, I’m a special snowflake, but I know half a dozen like me who are still young enough to be desirable. You just have to believe they exist.

I have been thinking about it for several days, as well as talking it over with Mychael. I even asked my 18 year old son how he might respond to this line of questioning.

And the more I thought about it, the more convoluted my researching it became. Just off the top of my head, these posts are all relevant:

How should women respond to men withdrawing from courtship?

Chastiy in the marriage search is uncool…

An attempt to decorate a corpse.

Anything Donal Graeme, Deep Strength, Sunshine, or a whole host of other writers on the related subjects have done. And that’s just the small circle of red-pill reading that I do.

This of course got me overwhelmed, so I went back to the original question. Essentially, the young woman is asking, (I am paraphrasing) “how do I signal to red-pill guys in church that I am sweet, marriage material and I would like to court/get to know you?”

Dalrocks concern is related to the very unappealing idea of becoming an indefinite celibate boyfriend. He suggests that many “good girls” in church want this, which is essentially a status symbol for them-to be engaged/courting, that is. But no man wants to be in that position forever.

So I thought, “is this really a birds and bees question?”

I am going to approach it is as if were. I hope I don’t sound condescending. However, since it is no secret that I came of age in the peak of the secular dating years, (and happily indulged in it) I might be of some help here.

This question, I assume is honest. I assume several things about its origin for the purposes of this discussion. But what strikes me as the most unnerving is that it comes in the context of the completely shattered, unchartered territory of mate selection for young people whos parents (my generation) were a bunch of sex addicts who slept their way through high school boyfriends and girlfriends and have laid waste to anything that resembles sensibility. We Gen-Xers must own that. So, there is almost no way to answer this question that broadly, without making the suggestion that we create an underground courtship secret society with a handshake and letters on our chests. And it may come to that, by the way.

But this young lady needs to learn how to flirt, plain and simple. In my experience, no matter how “alpha” I might have been feeling on a particular day, every single interaction I have ever had with a woman (that turned into anything) started with her signal. Only the most die hard PUAs are interested in cold approaching. And yes, sometimes it is as simple as this: You sense that someone is looking at you. So you look up, scan the room and there she is! That girl was looking at you, then she smiled, giggled and averted her gaze. And that is probably the only signal she is going to give you. If you missed it, strike out. But I get the distinct impression that while she (and her friends) dress modestly, put on a little makeup, do their hair in nice ways, they may not be doing anything else.

Dalrock rightly points out that the guys this young lady is interested in are very likely to miss it. Hence, the armbands or secret handshakes or whatever. I really don’t know.

Mychael suggested a single/mingle group–done appropriately and not as a meat market might be a start. I am not sure how that would look, because the church Alphas would probably cruise it immediately. And back we go to the secret society of courtship dweebs.

And none of this even gets us to the concern about being a long term celibate boyfriend. Of course, we have made it clear on this site that, all things being equal we are in favor of 1. young-ish marriage (especially by todays standards) and 2. short courtship/engagement periods.

How do you signal your willingness to “take it fast” with a look and a giggle? I have no idea.

I wonder what the growing number of young men who read here think about that?


Does the word “courtship” have too much baggage?

In a recent offline conversation I had with a single male reader, I was confronted with the following:

“You say courtship and you think of a system that helps young people choose spouses so that they have better chances. Young men hear courtship and think of a system where fathers shut them down and they get nothing.”

This was in the larger context of my wondering why there isn’t more interest in this. In fact, this post really could be considered a companion piece to the previous one.

Does courtship conjure up visions of dads with impossible standards, standing on the porch with a shotgun ready to scare off any young man who comes along?

If so, has the word become so contaminated that we need a new word?

I think it has worked pretty well in my own home, with our 18 year old son. We deliberately use words like “ally,” “resource,” and “support” when discussing these things with him. We let him know that we want him to succeed and that we are in his corner.


Not their place?

In the comments thread of one of our posts, Elspeth makes this observation:

“The reality is that most parents don’t really want to be intimately involved with their adult children’s choice of a mate. They have largely been convinced that it is not their place to do so…”

She was responding to another commenter asking what to do if your parents aren’t both Christian, and not likely to be on board with courtship principles.

Is Elspeth correct about this?

If so, it helps to explain a big part of why Mychael and I often get the looks we get when we bring up the fairly mild version of courtship this website advocates.

Parents are over-the-top obsessed with karate, soccer, grades, SAT scores, gluten and everything else–but they decided that arguably the single most important decision of their life will just work itself out?

I think Elspeth is on to something with this comment. I think maybe most modern parents really do think its “not their place.” In fact, I am starting to get the feeling they think even the slightest amount of guidance in this area of their kids lives is even a little intrusive or “creepy.”

If so, this is going to be a much more uphill battle than I thought.

Because no matter how much people want to pine for the good old days it is hands off on the issues that actually matter.

wordpress analytics