A defense of the double standard

Feminists like to complain that women are generally held to a standard of chastity not expected of men. They call this the “double standard.” They don’t like it.

But let’s consider the circumstances. We employ different standards for evaluating behaviors all the time. We evaluate 12-year-olds on the middle school swim team according to a different standard than we do those applying for the Olympic swim team, and no one imagines this is a bad thing. On the other hand, we can easily imagine a situation in which different standards would be monstrously uncool; for instance, different standards of prosecutorial evidence based on the wealth of the defendant would simply be evil. So there is an obvious requirement here that double standards correspond to objective reality in some way.

But doesn’t the sexual double standard? Men are biologically programmed to desire sex at a pretty constant level from puberty onward, with only a modest decline over the long term. Women, by contrast, are pretty much wired for chastity. Sexual desire, for them, follows arousal, instead of arousal following desire; they have disproportionately high rates of anorgasmia and other forms of sexual dysfunction, and these problems are less amenable to medical treatment than in men; and their desires are more subject to cultural and social influence than are those of men. I’ve read before that this is an evolutionary adaptation relating to mate selection: women don’t desire sex until after they’ve selected a worthy mate, allowing them to make that selection free of the burden of overweening sexual desire.

Since chastity comes more easily to women than men, and since the vast majority of men aren’t in fact rapists, why shouldn’t women be expected to bear the burden of chastity? It’s easier to police half the population’s sexual behaviors than the entire population’s, no?

Of course, men shouldn’t be let totally of the hook. Women are not leaders, by nature, so we owe it to them to cultivate a society that urges them to jealously guard their honor and not forfeit it to their douchebag prom date the first chance they get. Otherwise, such a standard would indeed be unreasonable. We might enforce this by attaching strong consequences to men who offend against chastity, either by expecting them to honor the implicit commitment they’ve made with their body (i.e., shotgun wedding!) or by attaching disrepute to them for their indiscretions.* But, given such a social order, it’s perfectly reasonable to expect women to bear the burden of chastity, just as we expect men, who are by nature more physically capable, to bear the burden of physical defense of the polity (i.e., military service), another double standard no one objects to.

At the end of the day, though, we know feminists are lying: it’s not the double standard they object to but the object of the double standard, which is chastity. They wouldn’t like a society in which men and women equally bore the yoke of high standards of chastity, either. And the more honest feminists are willing to admit this. And this makes sense, when you think about it; after all, it was never a feminist ambition to achieve equality by ennobling men, but to achieve it by degrading women — to make them clones and replicas of men. Could any society but this one have produced near-ubiquitous porn, Girls Gone Wild, and people like Tucker Max (before his apostasy from perpetual brohood)? If I were a sex-obsessed cad, it seems to me feminism and sexual liberalism, with its emphasis on the impersonality, instrumentality, and interchangeability of one’s sex partners and the meat market method of acquiring them, is exactly the kind of thing I’d want to encourage.

*Believe it or not, this happens, anyway. A kind-hearted but boyishly good-looking male friend of mine in college slept around considerably his first year and acquired a reputation as someone only good for a good time. He didn’t suffer too much — there was always someone willing to put out for him — but the good girls avoided him, and he knew it.

88 thoughts on “A defense of the double standard

  1. Women are the gatekeepers of sex. Period. Wishing it weren’t so doesn’t change the fact, it only clouds the thinking.

    Historically and biologically, they have always had more to lose from making poor coupling decisions; e.g., being saddled with an untimely pregnancy and no support, or being branded (more or less correctly) a slut. The advent of universal birth control only appears to correct for the former consequence, while in actuality more unmarried women than ever are birthing bastards. And as for the latter, it is just human nature for both men and women to look down on loose women… and all the hysterical bleating in the world isn’t gonna change that.

  2. I’d never heard of Tucker Max and after a few seconds ‘googling’ for information, I don’t intend to be any the wiser.

    Without double standards in countless respects, civilized life is impossible.

  3. different standards of prosecutorial evidence based on the wealth of the defendant would simply be evil.

    Depending on what you mean by this, it seems wrong to me. First, it has been normal forever for more evidence to be required to convict a member of the elite. Today, we operationalize this through a system of differential lawyer quality, with the rich getting better lawyers, better expert witnesses, etc. In the past, it has been things like not admitting the testimony of the lower classes against a member of the upper class, etc. Also, of course, the “quality” of the person on trial is inevitably going to color the judgement of the decision-maker, whether judge or jury. So, you are making a very strong claim here: a claim that the way we currently and have always done something is in error, and actually that it is intrinsically evil.

    The rich have more to lose from prosecution, and bad guys have more to gain from falsely accusing (or blackmailing via a threat of false accusation) the rich. Plus, of course, the rich are, on average, better than the poor, and our Bayesian priors should recognize this. Though, a posteriori, I think Claus Von Bulow was guilty, it seems clear that, a priori, it is less likely that he was guilty than that some petty criminal murdered his (the petty criminal’s) wife. So, the system of requiring more evidence when the accused is rich seems likely the right way to go, to me.

    So, I agree with you but more so. “Double standards” should be ubiquitous.

  4. The sexual double standard is a human tradition and a bad one. If that god you’ve been praying to okayed this essay, Proph, then I think you have the wrong god….

    • A human tradition dating to when exactly?

      Do you deny that natural reason cannot ascertain why there ought to be a double standard? Do you believe that women are not the natural gatekeepers of sexual relations? Or that they are, on average, both better able to do so, and stand to lose more if they fail?

      Whatever god happened to have created such a disparity deserves, it seems, both “the blame” as well as our prayers.

    • The sexual double standard (fornication is okay for men, wrong for women) is common in various societies, as seen in “Boys will be boys,” “sow his wild oats,” etc. But it is wrong because God says so. If your god says something different, you’ve got the wrong god.

      • I don’t know that any traditionalist thinks it’s OK for men, though (again, the ones who are all-about-fornication are the ones promoting policies that suck for women, anyway). As I said, men should not escape social censure (and, at least sometimes, don’t) — if they did, it would be impossible to maintain such expectations of women, anyway. That doesn’t change the fact that women are naturally equipped for chastity and that this informs our social expectations of them.

      • All these things that contributors to this particular discussion have been saying — you’d be ready to say them, just so, in the presence of Our Lady? Or (should you happen to have them) in the presence of your nubile daughters?

        Seraphim Rose used to refer to the “savor of Orthodoxy” or the “fragrance of Orthodoxy.” Is anyone particularly detecting that, or let us say the fragrance of traditional Christianity, just now?

      • Men bear the brunt of the social responsibility, and rightly so, to put themselves in harm’s way in defense of others, especially loved ones. They are equipped by nature to do so. This is not to say that a woman might not have to or be able to, but the general expectation is much lower. Do you suppose this double standard would offend Our Lady?

      • All these things that contributors to this particular discussion have been saying — you’d be ready to say them, just so, in the presence of Our Lady? Or (should you happen to have them) in the presence of your nubile daughters?

        Not sure exactly what you’re objecting to, but I don’t see anything that I wouldn’t say to a teenage daughter.

        Do you really think it’s inconsistent with “traditional Christianity” to have a double standard?

      • If Our Lady would be offended by the statement, it would only be because it is false (I cannot imagine her being offended by truth, being the mother of truth itself). And if it’s false, we’re owed an argument as to why.

    • This is proof by assertion, I guess. No reasoning. No trying to sketch a logical argument. It is “I possess the truth and everyone has to listen to me, even God”.

      • Imnobody’s remark put into my mouth, “It is “’ possess the truth and everyone has to listen to me, even God’” — is the sort of thing I expect to hear from secularists. It would be presumptuous of me to try to make an argument for male as well as female chastity (in a nominally Christian forum!) if the witness of the sacred Scriptures and Church tradition are not convincing. I was trying to remind readers of the standard that I would have thought they already recognized if they are Christians.

        If the intention is to talk about a double standard for human law codes — exclusively — in a secular society, that could be made clearer. If that is the issue, proceed with your discussion. This is then an attempt to make a case for a “double standard” on the basis of “reason”? But I wonder if that is the discussion that the men at this blog need to be having. Would it be more profitable for us to consider, rather, the contribution that our own words, acts, and thoughts make to the deplorable state of things that we see around us in the modern states? Are you perhaps wanting the state to put its house in order when your own inner household is disordered? Of course I realize that we cannot wait to act outwardly until we are utterly pure within; nothing outward would ever get done.

        But my (mostly unanswered) questions are accumulating. Perhaps I have already said/asked enough.

      • It never appeared to me that Proph was making a “case for a “double standard” on the basis of “reason”, but neither did it occur to me that this discussion has no basis in a Christian understanding of things. My perspective of Dale James Nelson’s remarks is that he is applying his own airtight logic to the discussion which amounts to a debilitating prejudice, e.g., Proph is suggesting there is a sexual double standard for women and men? it must be because he is wanting to excuse his own and/or other men’s sexual sins.

        But this excludes the possibility that men (and women) may seek out and be helped by these discussions in order to understand better the natural order of things as God created them (taking into consideration, of course, the fallen state of things due to man’s sin), and as He intended them to be understood based on the human reason (limited though it be) He has endowed us with. It may help us to be wise as serpents, innocent as doves by helping us to think rightly of human nature as we observe it, all while still desiring and maintaining the highest degree of personal integrity in sexual matters possible. Perhaps for those with an intuition toward spiritual and unseen things, such as apparently Fr. Seraphim Rose had or at least acquired at some point, these discussions seem fruitless, and perhaps even misdirected. But for those without a mystic bent, they can be (and I believe in many cases have been) redemptive.

        To think on these matters need not also go along with excusing oneself in matters of sin.

      • I agree, Buckyinky.

        I get criticized by many women for openly stating such things, as they know that faux-asexual woman are taken more seriously, but it’s important to know what’s going on in women’s heads if you want to discuss why God’s design for marriage is the superior one. Otherwise the arguments don’t make any sense and the experiments don’t pan out.

        God knows what we girls are thinking, after all. We don’t fool Him and He didn’t make any mistakes in our design. He said that our desire would be for our husbands and he would rule over us, and this was simply true. The problem begins when women decide to “trade up” one husband for another, or claim a man as a husband who hasn’t returned the commitment, or decide that her current husband isn’t her actual husband because now she’s found her real soul mate, or whatever other nonsense they come up with. The way we are is part of His purpose and it suits us well in our traditional roles, but causes havoc when society is structured in a way that doesn’t suit our nature.

        It’s highly uncharitable to treat women like men and then complain when we don’t measure up, but it’s also uncharitable to pretend like women aren’t they way we actually are because you think our true nature is shameful or distasteful. There’s nothing wrong with women that has to be fixed, covered up, or medicated away. It is sin that is the problem, that is the perversion of our nature, not our nature itself.

        I didn’t mean to turn this into a rant, but I feel very passionately about this. I don’t have to be uninterested in sex in order to be chaste, I can be noble even if I’m fallible, and chastity is there to protect me from my fallen nature so that I can join Christ in Heaven. That’s the ultimate purpose of it, not any utilitarian goal. The latter follows from the former, and is mere proof of the truth of the divine law of chastity, as sin leads to death. Chastity is good for women because it gives us firm rules to adhere to — to cling to our religion, as they say — when our flesh is weak. Because we do get weak, both in and outside of marriage.

        It’s about protecting our dignity as children of God and temples to the Lord, regardless of our own emotional confusion, and it’s an unequivocal good for that reason alone.

    • He’s behind the times; Larry Auster was raging about this sort of thing several weeks (months?) ago, around the time Laura Wood published the e-mail she got from the former Marine forever renouncing his affiliation with that group.

      • Well I was talking about the double-standard of ickiness regarding MM displays (lunch-rejecting and revolting) and FF displays (meh), which, tho’ I didn’t read everything from Larry and Laura, I don’t recall coming up…

  5. At the end of the day, though, we know feminists are lying: it’s not the double standard they object to but the object of the double standard, which is chastity.

    Or as Dawn Eden put it regarding the feminist trope of virgin-whore dichotomy: She’d believe such a thing existed if the sympathies of those proposing it weren’t entirely on the side of the whore.

  6. Feminists who complain about the double standard really should be addressing their complaints to Mother Nature rather than to the patriarchal family and traditional society. It is not the traditional patriarchy that gave women a hymen but no equivalent physical evidence of virginity to men. It is not the patriarchy which placed the burden of pregnancy and childbirth on women, making it to their advantage to refrain from sex until they have a husband committed to supporting them and their children. It is not the patriarchy that made women’s bodies more susceptible to the damage inflicted by STDs then men’s.

    It is also not the patriarchy which gave women the corresponding advantage over men in the certain knowledge of who their children are.

    • The idea that one can always tell whether a woman is a virgin or not is a truly outdated idea! The hymen doesn’t cover the entire vagina, otherwise women wouldn’t be able to have periods until they’d lost their virginity! The hymen isn’t a barrier, with it stretching rather than ‘breaking’ upon a woman losing her virginity.
      Yet, for some reason, the idea that ‘the first time’ is always painful for women and that it is normal for all girls to bleed is still perpetuated.
      Historically, women’s desire for intercourse has been ignored, with a woman’s first sexual experience often being her first rape or something that a woman did not do for herself but as something that she had to do for men. Because historically, first sex for women was not with someone they were in love with or attracted to, we can also know that for some women who had bleeding at first intercourse through history, it was because they were not aroused, were scared, and often sex was everything from only out of obligation to barely consensual to completely nonconsensual and by force.
      However, first time sex for women should not be this way! If a woman is with someone they are attracted to and comfortable with, first time sex should not be the ordeal that it is often made out to be.
      I Personally, I did not bleed at all when I lost my virginity. There is no way that my partner would have known I was a virgin if I hadn’t have told him and I feel lucky to have a partner that is well enough informed about the female body to know that it is perfectly normal for a virgin not to bleed! Although I am not denying that some women do bleed, (In her 1998 study, Dr. Sara Patterson-Brown found that 37% of the women in her study did bleed upon first intercourse) for many women i’ve spoken to it has been hardly noticeable, and certainly not painful!
      Furthermore, girls often ‘break’ their hymens prior to losing their virginity – from gymnastics, horse-riding, tampon insertion- the list goes on! And does this mean they’re not really ‘virgins’- of course not!
      Thus, I would argue that the idea that female virginity is ‘detectable’ whilst male virginity is not, is simply a myth perpetuated by society rather than biology or ‘mother nature’.
      But even if female virginity were more detectable than that of males, I don’t believe that then indicates that there is more onus on women to be chaste. I really don’t think that God sees sin any differently based solely on gender! I think you’re all forgetting Galatians 3:28; ‘There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.’
      Jesus was clearly against OT rituals and traditions. He had close followers who were formerly prostitutes! He stopped the adulterous woman from being stoned! Jesus clearly did not condemn women more harshly for their sexual misconduct than men! I would suggest you learn from his example.

  7. Do you think you can convince women who aren’t religious that chastity is a good thing? I was wondering what sorts of arguments are worth making to all the women of today who hate religion.

    • The feminist movement, in the name of solidarity, in fact destroyed the ancient conspiracy of women to protect our children and marriages. Not that long ago it was women who imposed the double standard. Fully aware that our ability to refrain from sexual temptation was stronger than that of men, we all agreed to respect each other’s marriage. Any woman who did not comply, who made it clear she was available to married men, came under harsh social punishment. This can be made to sound ugly and petty. In fact, it was a form of social understanding that we all owe something to each other. A good society and culture makes it easier to do the good, not harder.

      This system not only made life easier and safer for most people, it also preserved the true joy and pleasure of marriage. What woman feels her best when she imagines she is competing with the impossible images promoted by the culture today.

    • Probably, but it deserves its own post, not a quick treatment in a combox. To get you started, consider the prudential argument advanced in the comments above. Also consider the natural law approach, which is after all not explicitly religious (in that it doesn’t depend on revelation).

  8. women don’t desire sex until after they’ve selected a worthy mate, allowing them to make that selection free of the burden of overweening sexual desire

    That isn’t generally correct. Women’s sexual desire changes over their menstrual cycle, with those at peak fertility inclined to be more sexually aggressive and to choose more masculine-looking men. During those times they tend to go “mate hunting”, and that’s also when most men are cuckolded (the reason why such betrayal so often results in pregnancy). In other words, she first feels desire, then makes a selection.

    Women who do not feel desire for the man they are supposed to have sex with (or any man they can get, as they’re perhaps aiming too high) usually don’t bother having sex at all, which can lead to frigidity (including after they are married) and the habit of eating large quantities of cupcakes or adopting 18 cats. (The Pill can change this by suppressing her fertility and altering her mate-preferences, which can backfire when she stops ingesting the chemicals.) It is not that women are less interested in sex, but that they are more choosy about which men they will have sex with. Most women prefer to have no sex than sex with someone they don’t think is worthy.

    The idea that women are “wired for chastity” goes completely against natural or traditional wisdom, which generally assumes the opposite: that women can be absolutely rabid in pursuit of sex, and that their sexuality must be more tightly policed for that reason. Women are wired for monogamy, but generally of the serial variety, rather than true chastity. They’re not interested in having four mates at the same time, but might “move up” rapidly through four mates in quick succession.

    The double-standard was an acknowledgement of the fact that it’s so much more difficult to control women’s sexual urges than men’s, so efforts should be concentrated on them. The men will generally just follow along and do whatever the women want, so addressing them is rather pointless. It’s dangerous to imply that women are more inclined to chastity, as that gives the impression that unchaste behavior is usually the man’s fault, and women are seen as helpless victims who have been “taken advantage of”. I know that’s not your intent, but that’s where the argument leads.

    But it is wrong because God says so. If your god says something different, you’ve got the wrong god.

    Indeed. There’s no double-standard in Christianity, much as men like to think there is. Natural Law does not trump Divine Law. But I think he was only addressing natural law here, or what would be most efficient, when natural inclinations and urges are taken into account.

    Sorry for the long comment, but I think we have to be careful with such things, or we might promote the wrong policy due to a faulty premise.

    • Alte is correct. Thanks to synchronicity, I checked out Touchstone on the train home this evening for the first time in a few days, and for some reason this link caught my eye: Confessions of a Lustful Christian Woman. It’s worth a read. I certainly learned something from it.

      A long-time playboy and artist of Laguna Beach once calmly told me, “Women are just as sexually dominant as men,” he paused, “Maybe even more.”

      His opinion is not an anomaly, though it may strike you as odd. Five hundred years ago, these words could have been uttered by a priest.

      In the Middle Ages, priests informed the laity that women were naturally more lustful, insatiable, and visually stimulated. Can you imagine that? Women were the horny ones. Men, the celibate priests taught, were the naturally spiritual and rational ones.

      How times have changed. In our Christian subculture men are the visually stimulated, carnal ones. “Women give sex to get love” (Every Woman’s Battle). Shaunti and Jeff Feldhahn explain in For Men Only, “Your Body (no matter how much of a stud you are) does not by itself turn on her body” (P. 133).

      Personally, I beg to disagree. A man’s body can turn a woman on… ask any woman about how she feels in Abercrombie and Fitch stores.

      • Thanks, Kristor. It’s hard to admit that sort of thing as a Christian woman, as men prefer for you to feign indifference and will think you’re just a raging slut. One of the reasons that so many women are horrified by Game is that those guys point this out (that women usually initiate sexual encounters) and it feels like they’re airing our collective dirty laundry in public. How can you continue to play hard to get, if he knows you were asking for it?

        There’s actually a silent epidemic of female pornography addiction going on and female masturbation is ubiquitous, but everyone (present company excluded) just pretends to not notice or laughs it off, so that they don’t have to address female sexuality in its true state. This isn’t really doing women any favors, if we want them to live chaste lives and get to Heaven. How many women refuse to have sex with their husbands and then go fantasize over romance novels instead? The husband is then left with the false impression that she doesn’t like sex, but enjoys reading, when she’s actually committing adultery in her mind.

        Women are excellent at post hoc rationalization, to the point where they can convince themselves of their own blamelessness after sinning. This is a necessary survival trait for someone commanded to obedience, but it can have unfortunate consequences. If we want women’s behavior to improve, we have to beat those rationalizations dead as a doornail and make them completely aware of and accountable for their behavior. A lot of the protections put in place for women are predicated on the idea that we’re “naturally virtuous”, so if anything bad happens to us, it’s not really our fault because some wicked man must be at fault. But this is treating women like children, and we can see the insane results of that policy all around us.

        The men of times past were very aware of the reality of women’s sexuality, which is why sex-segregation was so strictly enforced. They generally assumed that women wanted to have sex with any attractive man she was alone with (a complete exaggeration, as women are quite selective), so they were carefully observed and chaperoned. Women who were caught alone with a man were considered “loose”, even if nothing concrete had occurred. They sometimes acted like women were foaming at the mouth and completely incapable of receiving Grace or acting in a noble manner.

        This is why polygamy doesn’t work very well. It’s hard to keep watch over more than one woman at a time, so paternity was always questionable and men spent so much time policing their wives that they had little energy to devote to anything else. Societies didn’t start to get really civilized until men realized that they’re better off sticking to one woman at a time, and making sure that the children they were providing for were actually theirs.

        Look at all of the seductresses in the Bible. Men were always being warned to be on the watch for women in heat. Priests used to rail about this stuff; some of the sermons being outright obscene or misogynistic. The saints’ writings on women’s “intrinsic evil” has been fodder for the feminists for a while now, and a lot of it will leave you cringing. Also, it seems to assume that men are “naturally chaste”, which is simply the same error in the opposite direction.

        In the Victorian era, this was completely turned on its head, as the “angel in the home” meme spread, and men romanticized their own creation. They completely separated the women from the men, and the women were chaste because they lacked the occasion to sin, and the men eventually became confused that the women had no desire to sin. But this was folly, as the results of sexual liberation have definitively proven.

        Sorry, another long rant. This subject gets me worked up. LOL

    • The double-standard was an acknowledgement of the fact that it’s so much more difficult to control women’s sexual urges than men’s, so efforts should be concentrated on them. The men will generally just follow along and do whatever the women want, so addressing them is rather pointless.

      I would not disagree with this. “Wired for chastity” may be not be the best way of putting it, but there is absolutely no doubt that women are less horny than men (NSFW,NSFFV). This fact alone makes them more capable, on average, than men to “Say No.” Of course, when they say “Yes” to their sweetheart, they really really mean it, and it would be a rare and heroically virtuous young man who wouldn’t go along.

      • Yes, less horny, perhaps. Or at least, our desire is more channeled to specific men. Then again, women get turned on by watching Animal Planet or seeing men beat each other senseless, so I think the jury’s still out on that one.

    • I don’t deny that women can be voraciously appetitive when a narrow confluence of circumstances allow it (e.g., the presence of the right man, biological factors, etc.). As you point out, female desire tends to be particular where male desire is undifferentiated; men desire sex, women desire “sex with” (when they desire sex at all); and so on. I don’t think that disproves anything I’ve said, though, and actually probably strengthens it. Women are not by nature captivated by the same kinds of passions that men are, or at least it takes more to get them to that point of equivalency with men.

      I recall reading an evolutionary psych study not long ago showing that sexual activity with a partner actually activates dormant areas of the brain in women associated with desire (or maybe the reverse, that it degrades areas of the brain associated with sexual self-control; in either case, the result is the same: in women, sexual desire increases markedly after sexual activity has begun). I wish I still had it handy, as it’s what I had in mind in writing this post. It explains a lot about the behavior of those women we all know who keep winding up in bad relationships, who, in fact, *know* they’re in bad relationships, but can’t seem to break free of them. It’s simply because their minds and bodies both have bonded to those worthless men. It’s a bond that was meant to be reserved for their husband, not their junior high prom date.

      At any rate, I’m not trying to establish different ethical standards here. The call to chastity as a duty accrues to us merely as sexual beings, not as beings of either sex in particular. I’m simply saying that (a) men and women are different with respect to sexuality, and (b) we can’t reasonably argue that this difference shouldn’t inform our social expectations of relations between the sexes.

      Even if I’ve gotten things exactly backwards (and it seems to me that, while that’s possible, the argument is counterintuitive; if it’s difficult to police women’s sexuality, that’s an argument to police men’s, instead), the case for the double standard is still there.

      • It would be an argument for policing men’s instead, as women are more complicated on an individual level, except for matters of efficiency at the community level. For two reasons:

        1) Interest. Men profit more from chastity than women do (in the short term, which is what humans generally base their decisions on) because they are less sure of their paternity than women are of their maternity. That’s been changing with DNA testing, but we’re not yet at the point where every man is certain that the children he is investing so much in are actually his own. As it’s best to assign a task to the people most invested in getting it done, and done properly, men seem to be the preferred policers of chastity.

        We know that this is true from history, as patriarchies tend to have strong chastity mores, and the more women get to run things, the less chaste the residents become. In fact, chastity seems to be the first thing that women throw overboard when they come to power, as we can see now all over the war.

        2) Convenience. As a practical matter, sex-segregation seems to be the easiest way to promote chastity. Co-ed college dorms being the opposite approach to convents. If you keep people physically separated, then they usually can’t have sex with each other.

        Because women tend to stay close to the home because of their mothering duties, it’s easier to keep account of what they’re doing and with whom they spend their time. Try keeping tabs on a man. They go off to war, to college, to work, on missions, etc. They’re constantly all over the place. How can a woman keep track of her husband and sons? Isn’t it easier to keep track of daughters and a wife?

        Obviously, the fact that a lot of women now essentially live like men complicates the efficiency of this approach, but it still seems better than the alternative, especially with business travel reaching ever-more-draconian levels. My husband is in and out of here for weeks at a time, and I’m sometimes not even sure which country or state he is in, much less what he’s up to and who he’s with.

        Does this mean that women aren’t involved in policing chastity? No, but that they will get more profit from their efforts if they focus on other women, rather than on men.

      • All over the “world”, of course.

        To your final point:

        I disagree that there’s a case for the double standard. There’s a case for focusing our efforts on women first because it’s more efficient and there are only so many hours in the day, but not for ignoring unchaste behavior on the part of men if we see it in one of our Christian brothers. Men shouldn’t be “let off the hook” at all, as that’s not how our religion works. Chastity is a gift, not a burden, and we want it for everyone. Chastity is true sexual liberation.

        The chastity of men matters as much to God as the chastity of women, so we should take it just as seriously as He does. This isn’t something we can just ignore, as men are really hurting themselves with this. We are concerned for men, too. We love them, too. We care about each person, not just about society in the aggregate.

        As traditionalists, we have to be on guard for the habit toward orthopraxy and away from orthodoxy. We have to be careful that we don’t focus so much on positive output that we neglect the quality of the input. That’s tempting, but it’s a kind of reactionary liberation theology. Even if we could get society to appear absolutely chaste, if the individual Christians were suffering from lust in their minds, we would still have failed.

        We’re also not Muslims, where the women are pressured to behave while the men run wild. That’s not the way Islam is supposed to be either, but their societies have clearly succumbed to the double standard, and that’s what comes out of it. This is a standard that leads to its own demise because a society built on hypocrisy cannot prosper.

        This is what bothers me about that argument.

  9. Oh, and one more disagreement. Men take equal or higher risks with promiscuity. Yes, women can become pregnant (many of them want to, in fact), but men can get arrested, assaulted, or even murdered for their indiscretion. That hasn’t generally been the case for Western women, today or in the past. It isn’t generally the case for Western men today, unlike in the past, because of the sexual revolution.

    • Dear Alte, you have got several good points…
      However, the tone of your writing about God’s likes and dislikes sounds as if you would 100% know the mind of God.

      If you were born, as other millions of people are, on a remote island with no books to indoctrinate you, your belief would be different.

      You think you know God’s will and mind, you play with words as “our nature” and “our perverted nature” , “weak flesh” and religious vocabulary written thousands of years ago. You blame other women who cannot have a decent life with their husbands that they invent “nonsense” only to “trade up” men ( have you ever TRULY known why they choose to leave ?), then, because all wisdom and righteousness is yours, you will land right into Heaven!

      Good luck with that !!!

      • Thanks for your comment Aryanna. It gave me the occasion to go back and revisit how I enjoyed reading Alte’s thoughts back when she wrote them, and how they’re still good a couple years later.

      • “If you were born, as other millions of people are, on a remote island with no books to indoctrinate you, your belief would be different.”

        Yeah, Alte, if you were an unlettered ignoramus you wouldn’t be saying these things. She’s got you there.

      • However, the tone of your writing about God’s likes and dislikes sounds as if you would 100% know the mind of God.

        It’s almost a guarantee that when someone starts out like that, that the “conclusion” is going to be post-modernist bilge-water of this sort: “There are no right (or wrong) answers … therefore, my assertions, which are contrary to the knowledge gained from common human experience of hundreds of years standing, are more “correct” that any old-fashioned understandings grounded in that shared experience, which is, after all, “out-moded” and thus wrong.

  10. I won’t put much credit in evolutionary speculations. They can not even explain animal behavior.
    They ASSUME that animal behavior is understandable through natural selection. But it is unproven, if indeed it can be proven.

    Extrapolations to human behavior are entirely unjustified and I find this a very non-reactionary approach. Reactionaries must eschew the Evolutionary language since it would lead to very non-reactionary conclusions in a short order.

    • Natural law and “evolutionary speculation” aren’t necessarily the same thing. You don’t have to believe in evolution to acknowledge that men and women are physiologically different, and that our behavioral tendencies reflect those differences. This is simply an aspect of complementarianism, which is a highly reactionary approach.

    • Why Alte? I think your opinions are very insightful. I don’t agree 100% with them but I am learning a lot from you.

      Why are you leaving us, Alte? Please come back to the topic. Come back…… LOL

  11. “Sorry, another long rant. This subject gets me worked up. LOL”

    I bet Hubby is happy about that, then, Alte!

    The getting worked up part , I mean. 😉

    Kathy

    PS. Good job here. Well said.

  12. “Women, by contrast, are pretty much wired for chastity. etc etc”

    This is the Muslim view — women are capable of sexual self-control, men aren’t, therefore the burden of maintaining sexual morality falls on them. Which entails burkas, being blamed for rape, etc. It’s also the feminist view, which demonizes male sexuality.

    The historical Christian view is close to the opposite. Read some of the earlier Fathers and they are adamant that women are something akin to sexual demons, and it is left to the man (who is hopefully a virtuous Christian) to strengthen his powers of chastity and resist female temptation. St. Gregory of Nazianzus’s opinion may be taken as representative: “Fierce is the dragon and cunning the asp; but women have the malice of both.” This, in fact, was the reigning view for over a thousand years, and arguably only perished in the Victorian era.

    There is also something undoubtedly creepy about discussing the female sex drive in such a clinical and reductionist way, which is perhaps not evidence that it’s ‘wrong’ so much as that it’s unhealthy. You haven’t indulged in much of this, but with the direction this conversation is headed it’s only a matter of time before people start bringing up Roissy (aka Heartiste) and friends, and that’s when the bitterness and creepiness really begins. Let’s also remember that the woman in flesh and blood, the particular woman, is not equivalent to ‘women’ as represented in evopsych literature (which I think you misread).

    Finally, if chastity really is something that is inherently easier for women, then why worry about feminism? It can’t erode a biological fact. But if the expectation of female chastity is the result of a social regime which has furnished taboos to guard against the excesses of female sexuality and to maintain monogamous value, then feminism could mean the end of society as we know it, and the beginning of a new polygamous era in what Roissy, in his typically reductionist vocabulary, terms the ‘sexual marketplace’.

    • I see that you mention Islam. And you’re right — they have the opposite opinion than the Christians traditionally held (the Victorian Age being an anomaly). Both seem inherently wrong to me. In each case, one sex’s nature is being idealized and the other demonized. However, in either case women end up being the ones most heavily policed and punished, so that seems to be a universal trend.

      I’ve also never been called “creepy” or “bitter” before, so that’s a first. I don’t happen to live in my mother’s basement, but I do occasionally sleep in her guest bedroom.

      • I’m responding to Proph. My comments weren’t directed at you, so you can take back that ‘first’.

        Interesting observation re: idealization and demonization. Perhaps Paglia’s gender dialectic of Apollonian/Dionysian comes into play there — different historical and cultural approaches to confronting the Dionysian nature of femininity. The medieval Christians challenged Dionysian femininity by opposing it to Apollonian masculinity, while the Victorians and Muslims preferred to project Apollonian ideals onto Dionysian female nature, thus resolving the conflict through a synthesis.

        I have no idea if that’s true, btw, it’s just a tentative thought experiment.

      • Well alright, I’ll take it back, but it was so much more funny this way.

        It is interesting how both paths lead to the same result, as “it works best this way” seems to always win out in the end.

  13. Finally, if chastity really is something that is inherently easier for women, then why worry about feminism? It can’t erode a biological fact. But if the expectation of female chastity is the result of a social regime which has furnished taboos to guard against the excesses of female sexuality and to maintain monogamous value, then feminism could mean the end of society as we know it, and the beginning of a new polygamous era in what Roissy, in his typically reductionist vocabulary, terms the ‘sexual marketplace’.

    I think this is a false dichotomy: one can say it is easier (not inherently so but only on average) for women to live chastely (this is simply undeniable, a significant number of women never masturbate, more do so only rarely, for example), and without denying that one can also say that society benefits from a tight web of social convention (taboo) to guard against female sexual excesses because they are so dangerous if left unchecked. Unchastity among females, whose gametes are so precious (several orders of magnitude more scarce than the males’), is simply a much bigger problem for societies than male unchastity.

  14. In our post-modern culture, we equate innocence with ignorance or weakness. Innocence is an embarrassment—something you want to lose as soon as possible. Being innocent means you’re naïve or lacking in street smarts.

    I read an article about how these days, college girls spend their spring break undergoing horrifying hazing rituals that in one way or another, require them to overcome their squeamishness about sex. Girls who were interviewed said —over and over—that they did these things, not because they enjoyed it, but to prove that they were tough and “could take it.”

    There are still societies—though they are quickly disappearing—where innocence is admired and respected. It doesn’t represent a lack or a shortcoming. Even the gods are described as “innocent.”

    When you’re in the presence of young women from these cultures, you can really appreciate what a rare, exquisite thing innocence is, and wish we hadn’t lost it here.

  15. The infamous “double standard” exists because women, in general, both demand it exist and enforce its existence – most women consider a virginal man to be “weird” and “defective” and sexually unappealing (unless he’s really good-looking), and make no apologies about letting everyone know their opinions on the matter.

    Generally, it’s not *men* who make excuses for cads, it’s women – consider Clinton: men did not (and do not) respect him for his sexual incontinence, most despise him for it; but women!

  16. Pingback: Linkage is Good for You: Week of March 25, 2012

  17. “The infamous “double standard” exists because women, in general, both demand it exist and enforce its existence – most women consider a virginal man to be “weird” and “defective” and sexually unappealing (unless he’s really good-looking), and make no apologies about letting everyone know their opinions on the matter.”

    No, no they don’t..Real Christian women (that is those who love God and obey his commandments) do not want to marry the male version of a slut.

    This is a furphy spread by promiscuous men (who have spread IT around.),in order to salve their consciences; and it’s quite happily accepted by the many Godless sluts willing to put out.

    Double standards are a man made invention.

    You would do well to remember that God does not play favourites here. Fornication is a sin for both men and women. And isn’t that what really matters here? We all have to die one day and face our creator.

    Men and women should remain chaste.

    Unfortunately in today’s world there are a great deal of people both male and female who do not give a toss about God and continue on their debauched road to hell.

    I find it rather curious how even people of a religious persuasion cite humanistic reasons such as this one below, for instance as a reason for justifying male unchastity.

    “Unchastity among females, whose gametes are so precious (several orders of magnitude more scarce than the males’), is simply a much bigger problem for societies than male unchastity.”

    Yes, women are the gatekeepers, but don’t think for one minute that a man who is opening a few gates is not going to end up in the same place as the slut who sleeps around. It’s offending God, that we should be more worried about not upsetting society!

    If more people obeyed God’s laws and prayed we would not be in the mess that we are now in. It’s really very simple.

    In other words put God before man.(woman)

    The solution to the ills of this sick world lies not in the secular but a return to God and prayer. All other evils such as feminism, fornication, materialism etc will then evaporate. Parents should be inculcating good Christian morals in their children. Not an easy task today, but certainly a necessary one.

    We have to foster the love of God, love for his Church, and the realization that man, if he continues to live without God in this mad and tragic world, will perish.

    • – “most women consider a virginal man to be “weird” and “defective” and sexually unappealing ”

      – “No, no they don’t..Real Christian women do not want to marry the male version of a slut.”

      Sorry, but you are twisting the argument to deny it. This is the “straw man” fallacy. Between a male virgin and a male slut, there is a space of men who are not virgins neither sluts. Nobody said “Christian women love male sluts”. The guy said “Christian women don’t love virginal men”.

      Another fallacy is the “Real Christian women”. This is the “no true Scotsman” fallacy ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman )

      For the Christian men, it is a double bind. You choose to obey God or you choose to have female companionship. You can’t have both. I chose the first one during twenty years and no Christian woman would touch me with a six-feet pole. I suffered a lot. When I chose the latter, Christian women didn’t value my virginity.

      I have a friend. He is younger than me. One of the most Christian guys I’ve ever met. Honest, hard-working, not bad-looking, virgin and devoted to God. Christian women don’t touch him with a six-feet pole. The guy would like to build a family but Christian women consider him boring (they are very busy chasing the bad boys).

      Of course, the solution is to obey God (by both sexes), but you can’t hide reality giving a rosy picture of Christian women who only exists in your imagination.

  18. The guy said “Christian women don’t love virginal men”.

    Actually, ilion7 didn’t even say that. He simply said

    most women consider a virginal man to be “weird” and “defective” and sexually unappealing

    Which, alas, is probably true. It may be true for most Christian women as well. I hope not, but it is possible. Your anecdotes are far from encouraging! But aside from that, your remarks, imnobody, are rather spot on. That’s at least three logical fallacies thrown together in a relatively short space. katmandutu saw “most women” and somehow confused that with “Christian women” or “Real® Christian women” or perhaps even “me”. (It is an unfortunate, albeit common, error for some folks to read qualified general statments such as “much/most group x do such-n-such” and then vociferously object, noting that they are a member of group x and do not do such-n-such or that they know many members of groups x who do not do so.) I mean, it is great that some women value virginity in men. I’m certain my daughters, those at least who are old enough to understand it, do value it as well. But none of that changes the fact that “most women” are behaving in a very different way, and it is no stretch to impute that behavior to the thinking (or lack thereof) that causes such behavior.

  19. I said the following

    “Unfortunately in today’s world there are a great deal of people both male and female who do not give a toss about God and continue on their debauched road to hell.”

    Let me put it another way . There are not too many men or women around who do not believe in no sex before marriage.

    Many Christians are of the same opinion. Sadly, these are not true Christians. Okay people make mistakes, but promiscuity is not a mistake but a choice.

    I was brought up as a Catholic. I married as a virgin at 19 (my then husband was also a virgin) I never wanted to marry a man with “experience” Was never interested in bad boys. I know other decent women who thought as I did, too.

    Sex is not rocket science. 😉

    This idea that decent women want an experienced (sexually) man is a social construct. A slut on the carousel is not interested in love, just slutting it up, as are her partners, so experience may matter to her, as variety will matter to the promiscuous man.

    What else is there for a slut?

    And the Christian women chasing the bad boys are Christians in name only. They are superficial and shallow. Going against the laws of God

    Today one has sex before one falls in love, it would seem.

    Like I said ,most people, even supposed practicing Christians do not care about God.

    This is the real crux of the matter.

    Without recourse to God, things will not improve anytime soon.

    This is why I we must teach our children from the cradle and inculcate good moral Christian values in them.

    The world has become a very wicked and Godless place.

    • None of which anyone here disagrees with, but also none of which adds up to a legitimate objection to ilion7’s assertion that “most women consider a virginal man to be “weird” and “defective” and sexually unappealing.” By your own admission, katmandutu, you are an outlier; i.e., not “most women”.

      • Yeah, I’m so used to seeing people either:
        1) not *read* what I wrote and disputing it on that basis;
        2) “disputing” what I wrote by showing how correct it is, after all;
        that anymore I rarely even waste my time trying to help them see their error — you can’t show someone what he will not see.

  20. I don’t know why it insists on calling me ‘ilion7’ — I clearly called myself ‘Ilion’ when I made both posts.

  21. Another thing that plays into this whole “double standard” issue, and which I wish people would understand — especially young men who desire to live in a Godly way — is this:

    Women — all women, including “good Christian women” — want the right of refusal; that is, they want the right to say “No” to a man’s desire to engage in sexual activities with them.

    Now, of course, in any remotely civilized culture (and our overly-sexualized post-Christian modern culture seems to just make the cut on being remotely civilized) all persons have the right to decline when importuned. At the same time, humans being humans — which is to say, being both sinners and perverse – a right unexercised seems to most to be unreal or nonexistent.

    So, to put the problem directly: unless a woman actually gets the chance to turn down a man’s desire to engage in sexual activities, how can she know (in that emotive conflation of knowing or thinking with “feeling” that is so popular in our time) that she has the right of refusal?

    Thus, most women – including most “good Christian women” – will subtly, and not-so-subtly, let a man know that he had *better* “put the moves on her”, or else. And most men, being wimps, allow themselves to be so pushed (*). Of course, when it comes down to it, few women do actually say “No”.

    (*) Which, of course, leads not only to the immediate problem of serial promiscuity we see these days, but also leads to the longer-term problem of marriage to an inappropriate partner, or marriages between persons who could be appropriate one to the other, but who do not respect one another nor respect the sexual bond.

  22. For the sake of completeness (even if only for my own archival and retrieval purposes), a yawning chasm appears to be forming between (for lack of a better term) traditionalist conservatives and (for lack of a better term) manosphere conservatives* originating apparently with this mildly wrong Betty Duffy post from 2/02. Aparently Darwin Catholic weighed on or about 2/20 in withThe Unmanly Bitterness of the Manosphere mildly praising Duffy’s article.

    Sex realist blogger and veritable treasure trove of relevant divorce and demographic data and analysis, Dalrock, chimes in with Rules of the road for fornication on or about 3/30.

    Darwin slaps back with How To Marry a Nice Girl. Compare and contrast this with Dalrock’s own Interviewing a Prospective Wife part I and part II.

    Dalrock posts today What, Me Worry? a fine rejoinder, which I hope at least brings the two parties (sects?) somewhat closer together…

    As fate would have it, it seems to me that the Orthosphere represents, as it does on several usually divisive issues, both of these views.

    On the one hand, the case of traditionalist conservatives, as typified by Darwin here (and he is one of many), is the Bible and tradition are clear: Do not fornicate. If you do, you’ll go to hell. It’s bad. Of course its bad for society… because it’s bad for everyone. Stop it. We traditionalist will live by tradition and we’ll not fornicate.

    On the other hand you have the sex realist conservatives who say, to the effect, good for you. We absolutely agree… and the human race has developed a time tested cultural antidote for promiscuity: Patriarchy. So shut up with your blather about the 10 Commandments. Human nature is unchanged since the Garden of Eden, and yet we haven’t always had these (epidemic, civilization killing) rates of promiscuity and bastardy. What changed? The sexual revolution. That’s what! So you cannot be agnostic about the sexual revolution and its seemingly innocuous fruits (e.g., later marriage, lower fertility, wage equality, etc.), for they are bound at the hip with the evil. After all, Japan didn’t need the law of Moses to advance. Unaided human reason can apprehend certain truths, and acting in accordance with the truth tends to advance any civilization, independent of color or creed.

    Sure, it is possible that a chaste Christian woman can wait until 28 to marry, erm… discern her vocation… and find a worthy man, and by the way happen to complete a post-baccalaureate degree and work a few years advancing in a “career”. But for every one of them, 49 other women will do the same and not be so chaste (in sex realist terms “ride the c*ck carousel). And even for the hypothetical chaste woman, she has wasted nearly half of her optimally fertile life chasing things that are unlikely to make her long term happy.

    And that is to say nothing of the marriage market. Why buy the cow-n-all that…

    So what I would like to ask of Darwin and of Dalrock (figuratively), and concretely of others who tend to share their respective views: Is there not a lot of common ground here? Are there not many principles that we can agree on? Isn’t the divorce rate way too high? Isn’t no fault divorce patently idiotic even on purely worldly terms? Isn’t it usually better for people to marry early than fall into sin? And aren’t there way too many young people falling into sin? Isn’t it usually better for the husband to outrank his wife in educational and professional attainment? Hasn’t college, as it has evolved almost everywhere, turned into a very expensive extended adolescence that is more often than not harmful to moral and social formation? Hasn’t college, for all but the best equipped, long ago reached it’s own natural point of diminishing economic returns? Isn’t it obvious that each additional woman in the workforce depresses the average wage, making it harder and harder for the average man to provide for a family on a single income? Are not the so-called gains of feminism poisoned fruit?

    What ought to be the correct, i.e., orthosheric, response to feminism and the various aspects of the sexual revolution?

    ——————————-
    (*) HBDers, people who see a scientific basis for race and believe it has important rational contributions, currently studiously and irrationally ignored, for matters of public policy are often called (and call themselves) race-realists. Hence, I suggest the proper term for “manosphere” authors, who see sex differences as having major social impact and the current regime of ignoring or trying to eliminate them as insane, is “sex realists”.

    • Where in the Bible does it state that it’s a negative thing for a woman to be educated or have equal pay in the workforce?
      Jesus was revolutionary in his treatment of women, so I am rather dubious as to how you can use Christianity to rally against women’s rights! Jesus was clearly a feminist (someone who believes in the equality of men and women) so I’m a bit confused as to how you can be so against feminism.
      Rather than going along with the status quo, Jesus went against ancient beliefs and practices that were taken for granted during the time that he was alive. Although these interactions do not appear to be radical to us as modern readers, the fact that Jesus even spoke to women was unheard of, with the rabbinic teaching prominent in Jesus’ day teaching that “One is not so much as to greet a woman.” That Jesus had female followers was also highly unusual, with women not being thought of as worthy to learn from rabbis. But we see that Martha did , with her learning from his teaching. He violates yet another rabbinic law, which said, “Let the words of the Law [Torah] be burned rather than taught to women. . . . If a man teaches his daughter the law, it is as though he taught her lechery.”
      Jesus had followers who had previously been prostitutes and spoke to a woman who had several husbands, and wasn’t even married to the man she was currently living with! If Jesus (the son of God) did not judge but rather love these women, the you can surely refrain from talking of women in such derogatory terms as ‘riding the c*ck carousel’.
      I’m also unsure as to why your whole post focuses upon female ‘promiscuity’ with you failing to mention male sexual immorality whatsoever. Are you expecting men to wait until they’re 28 and married to have sex or not? Do you believe that sexual immorality is only a sin for women? Because if so I feel that your theology is somewhat distorted! I doubt that God is looking at people’s genders when he sees our sin!

      I am also rather dubious regarding the idea that it’s better to simply marry early than to have pre-marital sex. To me it seems ridiculous to marry someone who might not be ‘the one’ just so you can have sex WITHIN a marriage. Surely that is just treating marriage ( something which I see as an important sacrament which is performed in front of God) as a means to having morally permissible sex. When it should rather be about spending the rest of your life with someone you love.
      I am also unsure as to the benefit of a husband ‘outranking’ his wife both educationally and professionally, and how this is at all Biblical? Surely men would want wives who want to engage in philosophical and political debate, or do you just want someone to cook your dinner and tie your shoelaces?

      • “Where in the Bible does it state that it’s a negative thing for a woman to be educated or have equal pay in the workforce?”

        *Sigh*

        Luisa, where does it say in the Bible that these are positive things?

        You see that this mode of objection is not exactly rock solid, right? I mean, your impulse upon reading the above counter-argument was undoubtedly to reject it as asinine, and for very good reason. Just because the Bible doesn’t explicitly state that a given x is bad or a given y is good, doesn’t necessarily mean that it endorses the one, or repudiates the other.

        Same thing with your assertion to the effect that ‘Jesus was nice to women at a time when it wasn’t in vogue to be nice to women, therefore(!), Jesus was a feminist.’ Herein you are (on the bad example of books feminists have written, I’m sure) proof texting. Which is not *necessarily* a bad thing, but often it is.

        Context, Luisa, context – the old saying “a text taken out of context is a pretext” applies here.

        And etc. …

      • “I am also unsure as to the benefit of a husband ‘outranking’ his wife both educationally and professionally, and how this is at all Biblical? Surely men would want wives who want to engage in philosophical and political debate, or do you just want someone to cook your dinner and tie your shoelaces?”

        I can tie my own shoelaces and cook my own dinner and if I wanted to marry someone who I can engage in philosophical and political debate with, I would marry a man. Most men have male friends who they talk about politics and philosophy with.

        As for Christ, He also had a lot to say about usurers/money-changers. Does that make Him a Bolshevik? He also had a lot of invective against the Jews. Does that make Him a Nazi anti-semite? Trying to place Christ into a political “ism” is ridiculous since Christ was a not a political figure and more importantly, He was a very complex (and yet balanced) individual who came for one thing. He didn’t come to start a political revolution and He stayed out of politics (“Rend unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s).

        Yes, He did raise the status of women, slaves, and exposed infants and gave them a humanity that they didn’t have before (and deserved). The Mediterraneans (especially the Semites) treated women poorly (and to an extent still do) and the only group that treated women fairly, believe it or not, were the Germanic barbarians.

        Regardless, we do not hold to the values of the Rabbis or the Jews or even that of the heathen (albeit noble ones) Romans. We hold to the values of the West, and in the West, women are not chattel but we’re not going to pretend that they’re equal to men in every single way. Equal in humanity yes, but in everything else? No.

      • @Svar

        Yes, He did raise the status of women…

        I am suspicious that this oft-repeated phrase is rife with feminist overemphasis. It seems odd to me that the understanding of the humanity dignity of women got a much-needed facelift after Christ but that the human dignity of men was always so well grasped by humanity that it bears no need for mention.

  23. What ought to be the correct, i.e., orthosheric, response to feminism and the various aspects of the sexual revolution?

    And… because no one else is reading… I’ll suggest an answer: Feminism is to be rejected root and branch, and I believe this is the correct traditionalist view. That it happens to be the conclusion reached by, shall we say, less than savory voices is immaterial. Aside from localized goods that have no doubt benefited particular individuals, from the large number, society wide, point of view, there are no gains that were worth the destruction that it has wrought, and continues to wreck. Feminism, because of its frontal and so far successful attack on the natural family, far exceeds the danger of generic political liberalism (imagine if JS Mill or Paine were the only enemy), socialism, militant Islam, antinomian libertarianism, every other modern -ism you can think up. There is no making peace with it, no acceding to a carefully selected subset of the so-called gains… Traditionalists everywhere, wake the hell up!

    • I don’t think rejecting something qualifies as a response. A response is doing something, or at least being for something. And that is the problem with the manosphere, they aren’t FOR anything.

      Actually, the manosphere is also against marriage. No, I’m not talking about marriage 2.0, that ridiculous government license, as though marriage had anything to do with the government. I’m talking about marriage 1.0 which just means a commitment to form a family. Since the manosphere opposes this, they will be gone in a generation. Traditionalists are for marriage.

      • As far as I can see, the “manosphere” or “sex realists” or “Roissy groupies” or whatever one wants to call them aren’t complaining about feminism nor the so-called sexual revolution in terms of “this is a terrible social change which is destroying our ability even to have a social future”, but rather in terms of “Damn! Where’s mine? We were promised free *****, and lots of it, with no further commitments past the ends of our *****, and I’m really pissed that I haven’t been getting as much action with hot! babes as I know I deserve.

        As Franklin says, these people are against marriage. Period.

        And the ones who claim to be for marriage really mean something like “Someone is supposed to be keeping aside a reserve of ‘good women’ (who had better be hot! babes) for me to choose from if I happen to be ‘ready to settle down’ at about 40 or so. In the meantime, it’s Par-tay Time!

      • Franklin, Ilion, I don’t disagree that some within the so-called manosphere are simply looking to take advantage this way… and are indeed taking advantage simply because of the un-leveled playing field that feminism has brought to us–a field which, sadly, dramatically favors alphas at the expense of everyone else.

        But that is by no means the sum total of the manosphere. What do you do with Athol Kay, Elusive Wapiti, Vox Day? Heck, I’d even put Traditional Christianity (note its presence on the Orthosphere’s blogroll) well within the confines of the “manosphere”, or as I’d prefer, “sex realist” community.

        Furthermore such analysis and dismissal ignores Roissy’s own admission on numerous occasions that it’s better for society if guys like him were fewer and farther between–a grudging confession that traditional sexual morality and sex roles are good and effectual, whether one is a religious believer or not. He basically says: “Something is broken; that something is the girls; it’d be better for all of us, if someone fixed it; but, what the hell, it’s working out well for my penis; sorry betas, virtual reality is improving all the time”. Guys like him exist and get away with what they do because the gatekeepers of sex, women, aren’t doing their jobs, and furthermore, almost nobody in the wider culture even seems to think it’s their job anymore. And he himself, without irony, articulates this better than nearly any traditionalist conservative I have read.

      • I don’t think rejecting something qualifies as a response

        Well a full rejection of feminism is a full acceptance of patriarchy by default: bastardry is stigamatized, sluts are shamed and left unmarried or married to lower status men, women are not “empowered” to compete with male breadwinners, women are socialized to value marriage, child-bearing, and respect of their husbands, cads are studiously avoided rather than pursued, virginity is prized, marriage is for life. Basically men man up, and women woman up.

      • Bohemund,

        I wish the manosphere would stop calling cads “alphas”. In scientific terms, they are actually omegas.

        Athol Kay and Elusive Wapiti are somewhere between the manosphere and traditionalists. I don’t know Vox Day. So yes, some don’t fit neatly into categories. I don’t either, since I am not Christian. Roissy is a smart hedonist. He can do his thing, but I don’t see any way he and traditionalists could work together.

        There are options besides feminism and patriarchy. You can have anarchy with no order. (See your nearest third world country.) You can have harems, eunuchs, and slaves. But patriarchy absolutely depends on marriage and can’t exist without it.

        To answer your original question, the correct response to feminism is to be for marriage and patriarchy. This means being anti-feminism, anti-liberal, anti-MGTOW, and anti- just about every aspect of modern culture. I simply consider everyone who is pro-marriage to be on my side and everyone else to be on some other side.

      • Well I’d basically equate feminism and anarchy. It leads, inexorably, to polygamy. This is already the default reality in the African American community here. I can’t remember where I read it, but there was some journalist or sociologist interviewing some tribal African dude who had like (I’m not exaggerating) 80 wives. The westerner asked him, “So how many children do you have?” The old dude said wryly, “In this country men do not have children?” That is, in a nutshell, what a lack of patriarchy is. And what of the 79 dudes that didn’t get wives? Indeed these societies are matriarchal, and the feminist anthropologists cannot keep themselves from slobbering over the exquisite beauty of it all… and yet these places are objectively hell holes. And the western world is not supposed to put two and two together…

      • And btw, I do not agree that cad is a synonym for alpha. An alpha is simply a high status male. Period. He could have a harem if he wished it, but he need not have it to qualify as an alpha. Being an alpha or working hard to obtain alpha attributes is probably a good thing, all else equal. That certainly doesn’t mean being a cad is a good thing. Indeed it is unequivocally evil. And if cads had less success, there’d probably be a lot less of ’em. If women were in the market for dads instead of cads, then more men would adopt the frame of a suitable future dad. Unfortunately, too few women are in that market, college-n-career-n-all that….

  24. Pingback: Leave the Dead to Bury the Dead « The Orthosphere

  25. If a woman may be permitted to weigh in, we must find a way to highlight all the misery associated with feminism. I recently asked a thirty something couple if there was any hope of children. The wife laughed, ( I guess you could call it a laugh) and said ” He won’t even let me have a dog.”

    I think many women in their thirties and up are very unhappy and confused. They do not understand why they are so unhappy. The poor girls have been intensely ‘programmed’ since early childhood. We must give them permission to admit that this is not working for anyone.It is so sad.

  26. Pingback: Women on Top: The Decline of the Double Standard « Women in Contemporary Relationships

  27. What are you people even talking about? What is the “double standard” that’s getting bandied about here? In an Orthodox worldview, aren’t men and women supposed to adhere to the same standard of sexual morality and chastity?

  28. What are you people even talking about? What is the “double standard” that’s getting bandied about here?

    Though almost no one — man or woman, Christian or anti-Christian — wants to admit it, the “double standard” consists of the fact that, outside the standard that God demands, women hold men to a different sexual standard than men hold women. Men don’t like it when *their* woman “has experience”; whereas women are almost never interested in any man who “has no experience”.

  29. Wow. Okay so I just had to reply after seeing all these comments.

    Women may be the “keepers of chastity” but it’s extremely hard when men keep pushing themselves in their face! I’m not a robot for goodness sakes. It should be a two way street in where both women AND men are held to the same high standard! It’s extremely frustrating for a woman who is totally alone in all of this, trying to stay “chaste,” but no one is helping her. And she knows that if either of them slip up she, not him, will be blamed by basically everyone.

    Also men don’t have to have the same responsibilities as women do when everything goes south. At most they have to pay child support and only some women get that. Whereas women have to suffer the consequences of either murdering a future child (fun choice), or painfully bringing this bastard child into the world and suffering consequences for their entire life.

    At times like this I am so thankful for pro-choice advocates. I hope I’ll never ever have to use any option like that, but I’m glad it exists. It takes two to tango, but unfortunately only the woman gets the blame. Such is life.

  30. I think a double standard of sexes is only possible if there is a double standard of religions or ethnicities, that is, there are subjugated groups of people whose daughters don’t have a chastity we have to respect.

Comment

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s