Has the #Metoo movement made men more unsure how to relate with women?

[PetraG]

OK, but comparing our abortion rates to Russia is like comparing our gun violence rates to El Salvador. It is not a source of comfort.

As for the “looking for a virgin” thing, I don’t see how anyone can claim they won’t consider marrying someone who has the same faults they do or has made the same isolated mistakes they have, even serious ones, except in practical matters like someone with bipolar disorder not thinking it is a great plan to marry someone else with the same issue. If someone with a bad credit history insists they won’t marry someone who has ever missed a rent payment, that’s ridiculous. That isn’t being permissive of people who don’t pay rent. It is realistically asking why someone who has never returned a book late would tolerate intolerance for financial irresponsibility from someone who hasn’t managed to be responsible himself. Even so, you’ll find people who have been loose about paying their own bills who don’t want to marry someone who doesn’t have a perfect credit record. (Which raises the question, of course, of how they expect the person with the perfect credit record to want to marry them!)

 

[PetraG]

I find it funny tbh. The common reason for that is that apparently non virgins have this baggage that can ruin a marriage later on. That may be true, but so can watching porn/masturbating. Which is something that they are likely to have struggled with in the past or even in the present.

I don’t see how someone with a porn and masturbation habit can believe he has been chaste. He may be able to argue he is probably free of serious veneral infections (some can be contracted from sources other than sex), but that isn’t the same as being chaste.

 

[PetraG]

Right.

In fact, it used to be a thing for upper class European girls to be carefully chaperoned until marriage and then to have affairs after marriage and for that to be winked at by society (see Madame Bovary, Anna Karenina, Dangerous Liaisons, etc). Virginity at marriage would not have been a guarantee of chastity within marriage in that cultural environment.

There was a time when virginity in marriage had serious political consequences. Because so many positions of power were hereditary, family connections were the political connections. Children born out of wedlock were politically problematic in the upper-class families in a way that is different for children born out of wedlock now. (Women who were not going to be giving birth to heirs to political power and men who were never going to be allowed to marry into powerful families were also seen differently then, too.)

This is why canon law even had laws governing what a “legitimate” child was. It had to do with establishing heredity and dealing with children who may have secretly been the issue of powerful men, including powerful men in the clergy. (Look up the origin of the word “nepotism.”)

 

[Xantippe]

As for the “looking for a virgin” thing, I don’t see how anyone can claim they won’t consider marrying someone who has the same faults they do or has made the same isolated mistakes they have, even serious ones, except in practical matters like someone with bipolar disorder not thinking it is a great plan to marry someone else with the same issue.

You see, it’s not that bad when men do it.

 

[Xantippe]

I don’t see how someone with a porn and masturbation habit can believe he has been chaste.

They tend not to talk about “chastity,” which is a bit of a tell. It’s all about female virginity.

There’s also (as you may have realized) a lot of entitlement in play.

How many times have we read posts from the red pill boys on CAF insisting on an intact hyman for their future bride, but admit in other threads a problem with porn and masturbation?

Yes. I’ve come to think that those two things are just two sides of the same coin for a certain kind of guy.

It’s kind of like the story in the Gospel of the debtor who was forgiven a large sum by his master and whose next move after being forgiven was to go threaten a fellow servant who owed him a much smaller sum (see Matthew 18). It doesn’t give one a lot of confidence in the person’s repentance or gratitude for forgiveness.

 

[PetraG]

You see, it’s not that bad when men do it.

It would have been if they had been trying to marry one of us!!

Women who save themselves for marriage each decide for themselves, but I don’t think many who do so because they value chastity are going to give the time of day to men who want to marry a virgin but didn’t even try to save themselves for their future wife. These days, they are certainly not ignorant of the specter of pornography and the damage that can do to a future marriage.

 

[Xantippe]

Women who save themselves for marriage each decide for themselves, but I don’t think many who do so because they value chastity are going to give the time of day to men who want to marry a virgin but didn’t even try to save themselves for their future wife. These days, they are certainly not ignorant of the specter of pornography and the damage that can do to a future marriage.

Not to mention that there may be (pardon the term) a fetishistic element in their preference for female virginity, more than primarily an interest in virtue.

 

[Xantippe]

Here’s one of my favorite pieces by Dorothy Cummings McLean, on the fetishistic pursuit of virginity:

Seraphic Singles: The White Dress Thing

 

[ConfusedLucy]

The problem is even if you are a chaste virgin you will never live up to this fantasy.

 

[Werbenjagermanjensen]

As for the “looking for a virgin” thing, I don’t see how anyone can claim they won’t consider marrying someone who has the same faults they do or has made the same isolated mistakes they have, even serious ones, except in practical matters like someone with bipolar disorder not thinking it is a great plan to marry someone else with the same issue.

Not all sexual sin is created equal just as not all intemperance is created equal. You wouldn’t suggest that someone who’s had one too many wine coolers once in a while shouldn’t be able to exclude a recovering heroin addict because “they have the same issue.” Someone who’s only had sex inside of a committed relationship may wish to exclude anyone who’s had casual sexual encounters. Someone who’s had casual sexual encounters may wish to exclude anyone who’s had bisexual encounters or encounters with multiple partners. I don’t think there is any need to be “fair” in matters of love - nobody is entitled to your affections - but I don’t even see what you describe as necessarily unfair.

 

[PetraG]

Not all sexual sin is created equal just as not all intemperance is created equal. You wouldn’t suggest that someone who’s had one too many wine coolers once in a while shouldn’t be able to exclude a recovering heroin addict because “they have the same issue.” Someone who’s only had sex inside of a committed relationship may wish to exclude anyone who’s had casual sexual encounters. Someone who’s had casual sexual encounters may wish to exclude anyone who’s had bisexual encounters or encounters with multiple partners. I don’t think there is any need to be “fair” in matters of love - nobody is entitled to your affections - but I don’t even see what you describe as necessarily unfair.

We are talking specifically about people who are not virgins themselves who say they will only marry a virgin.

Are you saying the people they disdain out of hand --not people whose habitual conduct has been far different, but those who are excluded for doing nothing the person disdaining them has not done–have no reason to think they’re dealing with a hypocrite?

No, no one has a right to your affections, but you also don’t get to openly extend a favorable double-standard to yourself and then expect approval, either.

 

[Werbenjagermanjensen]

What seems to be being discussed is men who’ve struggled with porn and masturbation saying they will only marry a virgin. I was simply stating they may view sex outside of marriage as substantially different and thus have the standards they do. It’s only a double standard if they would reject a woman who’s also had a problem with porn and/or masturbation.
Things could also go the opposite way, a woman who’s only had sex with her ex-fiance may view a man who’s had a porn problem as substantially worse off than her in the chastity department.
And there is also, as you mentioned, someone who’s struggled with this or that problem may view dating someone with the same problem as bringing together Bonnie and Clyde.

 

[Xantippe]

We are talking specifically about people who are not virgins themselves who say they will only marry a virgin.

Are you saying the people they disdain out of hand --not people whose habitual conduct has been far different, but those who are excluded for doing nothing the person disdaining them has not done–have no reason to think they’re dealing with a hypocrite?

No, no one has a right to your affections, but you also don’t get to openly extand a favorable double-standard to yourself and then expect approval, either.

Right.

There are some single male CAFers who are very open about having a checkered past themselves and who also believe that women with an identical past are not good enough for them. Bonus points if they insist on a woman under 25 or under 23, no matter what their age.

big eye roll

It just gets sadder the older they get, because it’s only going to get less likely that the virginal 20-year-old of their dreams is going to find them appealing.

Oh, and extra bonus points if they use crude language about women and don’t realize how unappealing that will be to devout, sheltered 20-year-old women and their protective parents.

 

[BoyGenius]

There are a lot of irrelevant correlations,
every single time we want to ask for decent treatment.
which doesn’t lend itself to any sort of argument other than ad hominem.

You just placed the relevance of the correlation: “every single time we want to ask for decent treatmenr”,I believe by “we.” You mean women. Just trying to follow the logic of your statement. Which if true, that proves quite relevant. Because, the Golden Rule applies.

Now, if we look at an unborn child going through all stages of development from zygote to fetal development. It’s ascertainable, and yes we can deduce that is a human being. Even further, as the certain characteristics of a heart beat, the brain develop. And then the hands, eyes, ears, and everything else. That then proves beyond a doubt not only is that a human being, but as well as a human soul (i.e. anima is there.) It’s not how we rule a soul, but know one. How is that? Pretty simply through the hands, eyes, ears, mouth and etc. Thus from the exterior; all expressions a human soul is encountered.

That then means two very Christian proofs that establish the Golden Rule: “what you’ve done to the least, you’ve done for/to me,” And, "Love thy neighbor as you love thy self.
That then transpires to looking at a human being who should be shielded since he or she is helpless to the outside elements, wherefore he or she is sheltered in the woman. Thus, it’s not just saying someone is wrong, but here is why. Here is to reason with tangible obvious evidence beyond a doubt: science and medicine, ethics, morals/norms of society (the Golden Rule), justice, and the law. So that is as Jesus said: “admonish.”

Now for “ad hominem.” Jesus said to the Phariee’s they are wolves, and they serve their father of lies." First, if someone were to embellish the idea of placing their hand in fire, I can tell them that’s very foolish. Someone could take that as “ad hominem.” Why? Because, saying “foolish” makes them think they are stupid. If I question the judgement, mind, and character (i.e. integrity) of some women in the population (those who are pro-choice.) And say it’s a contradiction and unjust. That is not an ad hominem, but a truth of what they are doing. Whether they believe that or not. And as I illustrated before, just because men think of women as some sport or object, doesn’t mean I don’t have the right to tell them that they are wrong, disordered, and derogatory. No less telling someone it’s foolish to put your hand in fire.

Finally, as for referring to men and abortion. I did illustrate upon that, when a man pushes/pressures a woman to get an abortion. I believe that is sexually harassing. Because, it violates the dignity and respect owed to her, to silence the life in her, because of her body, Which gives that child life. And a man who hates that about her body (i.e. the effects of child birth), because all he wanted was sex. Thus does injury to her soul (her person.) For by pressuring her into something that she doesn’t honestly want to do. Even more so, men who support abortion just want sex most often (i.e. failed contraception, unplanned pregnancy.)

 

[Xantippe]

What seems to be being discussed is men who’ve struggled with porn and masturbation saying they will only marry a virgin.

Sometimes it’s not just “have struggled” but have absolutely no control over it and have assimilated some rather nasty ideas about sex and women, which are bound to pop up in their marriages and in their approach toward marital sexuality.

That’s not going to be a very nice surprise to the sheltered virginal bride of their dreams.

Not that there’s no hope for young men with problems with porn and masturbation, but when the rest of us hear that a guy with those issues is set on a virgin bride and especially a very young virgin bride, the suspicion arises that he’s looking for a naive young woman to victimize–somebody who won’t realize how depraved he is and who will put up with things that she shouldn’t put up with.

If that sounds a bit dark, I’ve read a lot of Red Pill “Christian” stuff–they’re big on the idea that women should never be able to say no to anything sexual within marriage, which is not really workable for practicing Catholics.

And there is also, as you mentioned, someone who’s struggled with this or that problem may view dating someone with the same problem as bringing together Bonnie and Clyde.

Right.

 

[BoyGenius]

An extremely flimsy correlation that could be applied to almost all social movements. Also, I and most of the other anti-sexual harassment ladies on CAF are pro-life, so how the heck does that help us?

The topic was not applied to specifically “pro-life ladies.” It was an open forum on the topic of the MeToo movement. And I made a point about among the population of women wherefore there is a contradiction.

Are there contradictions in other groups? Sure. But, I haven’t yet found one that has tailored itself as a political tabloid yet. For in fact Oprah as she delved into the MeToo movement, also began talking about running for President. That then led me to caution. It’s quite obvious that not only is she persuasive and influential. But as well as the political climate. Consider, when Trump was running for President. Many claims of women being sexually harassed. Now, with a MeToo movement (just to be genuine in discussion, I am not arguing against the incentive of the apparent good - to end sexual harassment and get women to speak out more about it.) However, I am looking at the mis-use of the movement being exploited for political gain (and yes, that could be said of Trump too. No doubt in my mind.) But since this topic is about the MeToo movement, I then proceed with the point. And that is, two very obvious flaws (just bear with me by what i mean by this. It’s on the foundation and identity of certain people who go into this movement. And I believe it undermines its’ foundation.) And that compromise comes from women who are pro-choice, and those who use it for political gain simply because the popularity of Trump is low, his appeal to women is less, and while something like calling out sexual harassment and calling it out for the wrong it is, nonetheless may be used to serve a political enterprise (just as Oprah just did.)

 

[PetraG]

What seems to be being discussed is men who’ve struggled with porn and masturbation saying they will only marry a virgin. I was simply stating they may view sex outside of marriage as substantially different and thus have the standards they do. It’s only a double standard if they would reject a woman who’s also had a problem with porn and/or masturbation.

Things could also go the opposite way, a woman who’s only had sex with her ex-fiance may view a man who’s had a porn problem as substantially worse off than her in the chastity department.

And there is also, as you mentioned, someone who’s struggled with this or that problem may view dating someone with the same problem as bringing together Bonnie and Clyde.

A woman who has walked in on her boyfriend to find he’s been having an online session with pornographic images may easily decide she cannot compete with that. It is like a man who doesn’t want to deal with a woman he realizes has filled herself with unrealistic romance novels. I’d say the porn is a lot worse, but maybe it is not, as both actually objectify the fantasy object: it is all about what the “object” can do for the person having the fantasy, and “it” is not remotely possible in real life.

In practical terms the issue is the same: a lover who exists only in fantasy can make it impossible for the one who wants a relationship in real life. It can be far worse than a real former lover with whom a person had a real relationship with its real-life trials and real-life human connections and real-life consequences. The former could be a far bigger obstacle to a happy and holy marriage than the latter.

 

[Lea101]

Yeah. Personally I would rather marry a guy who has slept with a couple of his ex girlfriends rather than a guy who had a porn addiction, if I had to make a choice.

 

[Xantippe]

Yeah. Personally I would rather marry a guy who has slept with a couple of his ex girlfriends rather than a guy who had a porn addiction, if I had to make a choice.

Unfortunately, a lot of women get both…

The nice thing about ex-girlfriends compared to an ongoing porn habit is that at least the girlfriends don’t live with you.

 

[Werbenjagermanjensen]

Yeah, I think that’s a good idea regardless of what you’ve done in the past. Let someone else take that chance.