Radical feminism and morality

[sw85]

I will leave Luna to answer on that one.

Well, I’d like an answer from someone. I would hope the Catholic Church is not so far gone that one now gets derided for sexism (or whatever “male privilege” is supposed to be a reference to) for pointing out the fact that women are a worthy object (i.e., recipient) of men’s sexual desire, attraction, and affection. If this isn’t what is meant when feminists complain about men treating women like “sex objects,” then they ought to be more clear about what they mean. And if it is what they mean, then they ought to be clear why it’s bad for a woman to be treated as a “sex object,” when she objectively is one. If the complaint is that women ought to be treated as no more than a “sex object,” well, that’s a valid complaint, but they ought to be clear how celebrating the virtue of chastity does that.

Not when it was about hypocrisy and the sin/crime was only in getting caught. Shame was heavily attached to the woman.

The sinwasn’t only in getting caught. Sin is an objective fact. Perhaps you mean the social consequences accrued to those who were caught. But that’s true of every form of wrongdoing. I guess what I’m saying is that guilt is only partially distinct from shame, and that it’s right and proper to feel shame when one is actually guilty.

If your complaint is that men are not likewise punished for sexual transgressions, well, sure. (Although the nature of the punishment is and must be different, because the virtue of chastity is expressed differently in men and women. There’s already some evidence that this is the case. I have known at least one unchaste man who got a reputation as someone only good for a good time, and thereby found himself excluded from the romantic affections of virtuous women. This isn’t much of a punishment, though, because so few women nowadays are fully virtuous; nevertheless, my friend was sensible enough to be aware of his situation and to bitterly regret it). But that’s an argument for heaping shame on men, not refraining from heaping it on women. The modern tendency to demand that we celebrate women’s sexual sins (in order to achieve equality, or whatever) is an objectively bad thing, not a good one – it compounds the sins of the flesh with the sin of scandal.

 

[dramaqueen]

Not to add fuel to the fire but I get upset every time it is suggested that a girl should save herself for marriage and. I don’t think anything is wrong with that. In fact I encourage it strongly but what gets me upset is that no one talks about guy saving himself for marriage as well. Last I check it applies for both but the church conveniently stresses only for woman. My all time favorite statistic is that 80% of rape cases could be avoided by a girl I say 100 % of rape cases could be avoided if we start teaching boys not to lust. Stop talking in terms of decency and moral as only a woman thing it applies to both or have the commandment 6 and 10 changed to refer only to woman and I was not copied on it. Can somebody send me the memo about the changes pls because I don’t want to be angry anymore?

 

[Portrait]

OK, but sin ought to be covered up (in the sense of “kept private”), not advertised. Surely you don’t think taking sins once rightly regarded as something discrete and shameful and making them publicly celebrated is an improvement on things?

Dear sw85,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Jolly good point.

Many liberal thinkers are obssessed with the notion that prior to the 1960’s men allegedly claimed to have higher moral standards than was actually the case. Whilst there may have been the postulation of moral standards by some who failed themselves to conform to the conduct which they demanded of others, this was by no means as common as some liberals would argue and the vast majority of respectable people were not hypocrites to the core. In any event, hypocrisy and Pharisaism have always been present in every generation and always will be, owing to man’s fallen estate. You only have to read our Lord’s stern reproof of the abominable hypocrisy of the Scribes and Pharisees in St. Matthew’s Gospel (chap. 23) to see the gravity of this sin, even among the duly appointed exponents of religion. Hypocrisy is, of course, always unacceptable and Catholics of all people should resolve never to wear a cloak of pretence as regards their moral standards.

However, the fact is that many of the social problems with which we are beset today were caused by the revolution in morals that shook the 1960’s, as my fellow Catholic, edwest2, has correctly stated on these boards many times. The so called social reforms of that decade of decadence such as legalising abortion and homosexual vice, liberalising divorce, enabling the distribution of contraceptives etc., were said by some misguided men (e.g. Roy Jenkins, here in the UK) to embody a ‘civilised society’. This was the age when brevity became the soul of fashion and seductive garments like the mini-skirt emerged on the scene, which contributed in no small way to the immoral objectification of women. We should be under no illusions, dear friends, the 1960’s was incontrovertibly a decade of liberation that was both vulgar and brash, full stop. Alleged intolerance and religous bigotry were triumphantly consigned to the dustbin of history. Those good and decent men who warned that freedom was being confused with anti-social licence were dismissed as hide-bound reactionaries or hysterical alarmists. However, one need look no further than the vulgarity and numerous social ills that now plague our Western world, to know who was right. Yes, most God-fearing people would, to some extent, like to put back the clock and return to the previous days and ways of the pre-sixties. Whilst that period was not perfect by any means, it was surely jolly better than the times in which our lot is now cast.

As Bartolome Casas brought to our notice earlier, the godless spirit of the Sixties infiltrated the Catholic Church to such an extent that many Catholics today have embraced some of the sexual and social mores of the 60’s, even if they are in denial regarding this. However, is not this what is to expected from those who insists that we must adapt to the culture of the day and move with the times, regardless of how morally depraved the culture and those times may be? As Catholics we must provide a robust Christian counter-culture that will transform the godless world in our midst and elevate it to the wholesome standards of our most holy religion. We have disgracefully allowed ourselves to be seduced by the spirit of our degenerate age with its many distracting and demoralizing elements. Jolly shame on us, I say! Methinks that Casas has sounded a very important note indeed. We Catholics are, so to speak, supposed to be the moral disinfectant of world - “You are the salt of the earth; but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trodden under foot by men” (S. Matt. 5: 13).

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I’ve said it before and I’m saying it again: valuing a woman for her virginity, purity, or innocence, or even for what you perceive as such is still valuing her for her sexuality, not for who she is as a person. And I know it may come as a shock to some, but a woman is so much more than her sexual experiences, or lack thereof.
Things like the linked article give me the creeps. The whole “I want a woman who projects innocence” or “society used to value virginal women and we should again” thing strikes me as an underhanded way of saying “this is what I want sexually from a woman”.

True enough.
To be honest I have always found the Catholic preoccupation with the virginity of the Virgin Mary a bit creepy (why does it matter whether she had an intact hymen throughout her life or not?). Although that’s just a personal feeling:shrug:

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Promoting marriage and virginity doesn’t necessarily raise the status of women.
And did the Catholic Church ever actually say that men and women were equal in dignity, worth, etc. prior to the 20th century?

Dear friend,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your response to my post.

By her entering into holy wedlock a woman humbly receives the divinely ordained role of motherhood and it is by acceptance of this, her proper sphere, that she fulfills her true destiny. That, dear friend, is a truly dignified position in the eyes of Almighty God, irrespective of what aberrant radical femenism may say to the contrary.

To prize and safeguard virginity prior to marriage is surely to foster chastity, which is something wholly positive given our wounded nature from Original Sin. Without chastity, men become like animals that copulate when in heat. Animals are sex driven by instinct, but men and women are endowed with the gift of reason and can choose when and with whom to be intimate. Thus, desirous of chastity, men and women can freely remain virgins until their special wedding night. Protecting virginity and cultivating and clinging to chastity sparates them from the animal kingdom and ennobles them. Modern femenism has actually degraded women by reducing carnal copulation to a mere physical act from which sensual pleasure is derived.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

I notice you did not actually answer my question or address my main point.

 

[sedonaman]

…We need to stop looking at women as sex objects-period. It doesn’t matter if you’re watching porn or looking for a woman who “projects purity and innocence”. Its time we look at women as people.

Women would go a long way to achieving this goal if they stopped dressing and acting like sex objects. One need not go far to see examples of this. Just look at a typical TV commercial – some woman is invariably dressed and acting like one. And that’s only one example.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Ah yes, another thread condemning modern mores and exalting the 1950s/Good Old Days

I think were way ahead of the 50s in many ways just due to the fact that we got rid of Jim Crow and ended the Cold War (without destroying the world).

Do you like changing the topic? Just wondering.

Peace,
Ed

I am discussing your long standing pattern of behavior of which this thread is a prime example. How is that not on topic?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by Luna Lovecraft
The best example of male privilege I’ve read in years.

Wow. Just wow.

Pardon? With respect to what?

I think she is saying that you appear to take your privileges as a man so much for granted that it doesn’t even occur to you why people who are treated differently (i.e. women) would object:shrug:

I assumed you weren’t serious when I first read it though.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I was waiting for someone to ask this. Based on your spelling of “favour” I presume you are in Britain somewhere, but my comments are based on my observations in the U.S.

All life is a trade-off; every gain incurs a cost. My observation has been that women [as a group] want “equality,” but are unwilling to pay the price. Where I used to live, they griped about not having equality before the law [a law BTW that actually favored women], so we got equality before the law, and lo and behold, the next gripe became “equality was not equal”! They wanted to be more equal. On the job, they want equal pay for equal work, but while “equal pay” is collected, somehow “equal work” never materializes. About 20 years ago, there was a woman anchor on a national New York TV show, undoubtedly making beaucoup $$$. During their divorce hearings, her husband [over 50] sued for spousal support since he stayed home and kept their house. Her reaction was, “Can’t he get a job?” She wanted to be paid like a man, but didn’t want to pay like a man. A woman employee was having an affair with the boss. While I was in a corner doing my job and minding my own business, she was working to have her undesirable tasks dumped off onto me.

Then there is the petticoat syndrome. The last refuge of every female is her petticoat. Finally cornered, she immediately, if not sooner, hides behind it. Give a woman a low performance rating, and she cries “sexual harassment.” The current example of the use of the petticoat is Nancy Pelosi’s attempt during the law student episode. Can there be a better example of this syndrome than the law student’s own use of her petticoat herself? Yes, there can. There is Mizz Iron Petticoat herself: Gloria Allred who arrives on the scene of every sexually “oppressed” female with her legal briefs full of petticoats and quickly takes command of the media spin.

'Nuff said.

You sound bitter, and are generalizing *at best *when it comes to women.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Well, I’d like an answer from someone. I would hope the Catholic Church is not so far gone that one now gets derided for sexism (or whatever “male privilege” is supposed to be a reference to) for pointing out the fact that women are a worthy object (i.e., recipient) of men’s sexual desire, attraction, and affection. If this isn’t what is meant when feminists complain about men treating women like “sex objects,” then they ought to be more clear about what they mean. And if it is what they mean, then they ought to be clear why it’s bad for a woman to be treated as a “sex object,” when she objectively is one. If the complaint is that women ought to be treated as no more than a “sex object,” well, that’s a valid complaint, but they ought to be clear how celebrating the virtue of chastity does that.

The sinwasn’t only in getting caught. Sin is an objective fact. Perhaps you mean the social consequences accrued to those who were caught. But that’s true of every form of wrongdoing. I guess what I’m saying is that guilt is only partially distinct from shame, and that it’s right and proper to feel shame when one is actually guilty.

If your complaint is that men are not likewise punished for sexual transgressions, well, sure. (Although the nature of the punishment is and must be different, because the virtue of chastity is expressed differently in men and women. There’s already some evidence that this is the case. I have known at least one unchaste man who got a reputation as someone only good for a good time, and thereby found himself excluded from the romantic affections of virtuous women. This isn’t much of a punishment, though, because so few women nowadays are fully virtuous; nevertheless, my friend was sensible enough to be aware of his situation and to bitterly regret it). But that’s an argument for heaping shame on men, not refraining from heaping it on women. The modern tendency to demand that we celebrate women’s sexual sins (in order to achieve equality, or whatever) is an objectively bad thing, not a good one – it compounds the sins of the flesh with the sin of scandal.

The problem is that women have traditonally been treated as sex objects (and had their worth determined based on that) even in Catholic society. Whereas men were treated as sexual actors.

In other words, sexuality is something a man has, but a woman’s sexuality is what she is. At least according to this standard.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Well, I’d like an answer from someone. I would hope the Catholic Church is not so far gone that one now gets derided for sexism (or whatever “male privilege” is supposed to be a reference to) for pointing out the fact that women are a worthy object (i.e., recipient) of men’s sexual desire, attraction, and affection. If this isn’t what is meant when feminists complain about men treating women like “sex objects,” then they ought to be more clear about what they mean. And if it is what they mean, then they ought to be clear why it’s bad for a woman to be treated as a “sex object,” when she objectively is one. If the complaint is that women ought to be treated as no more than a “sex object,” well, that’s a valid complaint, but they ought to be clear how celebrating the virtue of chastity does that.

The sinwasn’t only in getting caught. Sin is an objective fact. Perhaps you mean the social consequences accrued to those who were caught. But that’s true of every form of wrongdoing. I guess what I’m saying is that guilt is only partially distinct from shame, and that it’s right and proper to feel shame when one is actually guilty.

If your complaint is that men are not likewise punished for sexual transgressions, well, sure. (Although the nature of the punishment is and must be different, because the virtue of chastity is expressed differently in men and women. There’s already some evidence that this is the case. I have known at least one unchaste man who got a reputation as someone only good for a good time, and thereby found himself excluded from the romantic affections of virtuous women. This isn’t much of a punishment, though, because so few women nowadays are fully virtuous; nevertheless, my friend was sensible enough to be aware of his situation and to bitterly regret it). But that’s an argument for heaping shame on men, not refraining from heaping it on women. The modern tendency to demand that we celebrate women’s sexual sins (in order to achieve equality, or whatever) is an objectively bad thing, not a good one – it compounds the sins of the flesh with the sin of scandal.

Taking it for granted that women will (and perhaps should) be judged according to a different (and traditonally much harsher) standard when it comes to sexual conduct seems like almost the very embodiment of male privilege.

I am a man, so I would benefit if we returned to the old Double Standard (which was the norm in the era Edwest longs for). But I am not going to pretend that would be fair.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Women would go a long way to achieving this goal if they stopped dressing and acting like sex objects. One need not go far to see examples of this. Just look at a typical TV commercial – some woman is invariably dressed and acting like one. And that’s only one example.

As sw85 points out, women have always been treated as sex objects.

 

[sw85]

Not to add fuel to the fire but I get upset every time it is suggested that a girl should save herself for marriage and. I don’t think anything is wrong with that. In fact I encourage it strongly but what gets me upset is that no one talks about guy saving himself for marriage as well. Last I check it applies for both but the church conveniently stresses only for woman. My all time favorite statistic is that 80% of rape cases could be avoided by a girl I say 100 % of rape cases could be avoided if we start teaching boys not to lust. Stop talking in terms of decency and moral as only a woman thing it applies to both or have the commandment 6 and 10 changed to refer only to woman and I was not copied on it. Can somebody send me the memo about the changes pls because I don’t want to be angry anymore?

Well, for one thing, chastity comes more easily to women than it does men. There is plenty of scientific backing for this. Women are wired not to actively desire sex at levels similar to those of men until after they’ve *started *having sex – this is an evolutionary program aimed at ensuring (a) that women will not be ruled by hormones when picking a mate who must care for them and their children, and (b) that, having chosen (wisely, because free of hormonal rule) a suitable spouse, they will come to desire him and thereby have many, many children with him.

I think this explains why some non-virgin women get into the same pattern of really bad relationships – with punks, drug dealers, abusers, etc. Everyone around them, even the women themselves, know these relationships are bad and that they shouldn’t be getting involved in them. But those women’s ability to make rational decisions on the basis of this knowledge is attenuated by their sexual desire for these kinds of men – a desire aroused by the changes to the brain caused by the loss of virginity in the first place. (That’s just a speculation, I have no idea if it has scientific backing.)

At any rate, if chastity comes more easily for women, isn’t the burden of chastity therefore on them? They have less excuse for slipping up, unlike men who are ruled by their sex drive pretty much from puberty. The obvious analogy would be to courage. Men are expected to be courageous because they are physically stronger. A man who resorts to shrieking hysterics when attacked is a coward; a woman who does the same thing is not a coward. That’s because men have less of an excuse for such behavior than women, being, by nature, better equipped to confront dangers and threats.

The corollary of this is that, since it takes two to tango (hah!), if all women did what came naturally to them – which is to say, remain chaste – it follows that all men (who aren’t rapists, at least) would have to be chaste by default. So in that sense, at least, the “double standard” can be understood as rational.

None of this is to say that men shouldn’t exercise sexual self-control. They should, precisely because they can and because it’s good to do so. (And it’s not near so hard as most men say it is. If I can kick sexual self-indulgence cold-turkey, anyone can!) It’s just that men and women differ sexually, and chastity is a virtue relating to sex, so it follows it’s going to have different implications for men and women. If it does, it follows we should recognize and act on those differences accordingly.

Just food for thought!

 

[Portrait]

True enough.
To be honest I have always found the Catholic preoccupation with the virginity of the Virgin Mary a bit creepy (why does it matter whether she had an intact hymen throughout her life or not?). Although that’s just a personal feeling:shrug:

Dear friend,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Perhaps I can help you to understand why the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is of great importance to Catholics.

For our Redemption to be real the Incarnation of Christ also had to be real, and for the Incarnation to be real Jesus had to have taken human flesh from his mother. If this is true ( and Catholics believe that it is) - that Jesus took his sinless human nature from His mother - then it follows that His mother could not be just any good married women. In such a case it would have been assumed that the holy Child was conceived by carnal copulation and the birth would not be a “sign” (cf. Isaiah 7: 14). If Christ took His human nature from Mary, then she could also not be just any ordinary young girl who had not yet had carnal relations. If Jesus Christ took His human nature from His mother, then He was clearly half Mary, so to speak. Now if Jesus’ human nature was from Mary, then her virginity had to be of an extraordinary kind. In fact, not only did her purity have to be extraordinary, it had to be unique in the history of mankind.

Thus, to summarize, Jesus was the sinless Son of God who took His sinless human nature from His mother. For that human nature to be really human and really sinless its human source (i.e. Mary) must have been uniquely pure. This is surely a simple, logical and modest claim.

The doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of the Virgin Mary is not only a “Catholic pre-occupation”, dear friend. It is shared by many High-Anglicans and several of the major figures of the Reforamtion expressed their belief if the doctrine, including Luther, Calvin and Zwingli.

Trust that is of some help.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[sw85]

Dear sw85,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Jolly good point.

“The spirit of our degenerate age”… I love it! Someone’s been reading my posts.

True enough.
To be honest I have always found the Catholic preoccupation with the virginity of the Virgin Mary a bit creepy (why does it matter whether she had an intact hymen throughout her life or not?). Although that’s just a personal feeling:shrug:

The state of her hymen has nothing to do with it. I don’t think there’s much creepy about it provided you have a proper understanding of why Mary’s virginity was necessary. Sex is profane. (Profane is not the same thing as “bad,” it just means "not worthy of being in the presence of the sacred.) Mary, having born Christ within her, was in a sense a kind of tabernacle. A tabernacle must be ritually pure. Therefore Mary had to be ritually pure, which is to say, free of profanity, at least with respect to the aspect of her being which most fully characterizes her as the mother of God – i.e., her sexuality. (Other profane things, such as laughter or evacuation of the bowels, have no bearing on her being the mother of God).

I think she is saying that you appear to take your privileges as a man so much for granted that it doesn’t even occur to you why people who are treated differently (i.e. women) would object:shrug:

I assumed you weren’t serious when I first read it though.

I can understand why they would object. I just don’t think understanding it has any bearing on whether or not it matters. As I mention in my previous post, if the capacity for chastity really does differ by nature (and it does – this is simple, scientific truth), it follows that women should be treated differently than men. It’s no different, really, than expecting men to be more courageous than woman, because they are by nature better equipped to handle physical dangers and threats.

So I can understand because, after all, duty is an imposition and a restraint on the freedom of one’s will. That doesn’t mean one shouldn’t do it though. I don’t think it’s “unfair” that men should be expected to be more courageous. Unequal, certainly, but the sexes are not equal (which is to say, exactly the same). One may as well complain that reality is unfair!

The problem is that women have traditonally been treated as sex objects (and had their worth determined based on that) even in Catholic society. Whereas men were treated as sexual actors.

In other words, sexuality is something a man has, but a woman’s sexuality is what she is. At least according to this standard.

Is there any evidence for this claim? Sexuality, it seems to me, has always been understood as vocational. Husbandhood, an explicitly sexual institution, is something men are rather than do.

If the basis for this claim is simply that women are held to different standards re: chastity, I don’t buy it. As I said above, there is at least one good hypothetical reason for this.

I mean is there really no reason whatosever to see men as sexually active and women sexually passive? Their physiologies themselves speak to this.

Taking it for granted that women will (and perhaps should) be judged according to a different (and traditonally much harsher) standard when it comes to sexual conduct seems like almost the very embodiment of male privilege.

I am a man, so I would benefit if we returned to the old Double Standard (which was the norm in the era Edwest longs for). But I am not going to pretend that would be fair.

I don’t take it for granted, though. I recognize it as rational and natural and therefore good. It’s not a privilege for men any more than it’s a privilege for women that men are expected to shoulder the burden of courage and physical sacrifice.

Does it benefit me (and would it benefit you)? I suppose in some respects it does. In others, it doesn’t. It would be beneficial for me to sleep around, if you understand “beneficial” in the loose sense that I would enjoy it; seems to me if all I want to do is have sex (as feminists claim), something like feminism and a severing of womanhood from the virtue of chastity is precisely the kind of thing I’d want to encourage. But I don’t, so I don’t.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

**Well, for one thing, chastity comes more easily to women than it does men. There is plenty of scientific backing for this. Women are wired not to actively desire sex at levels similar to those of men until after they’ve *started ***having sex – this is an evolutionary program aimed at ensuring (a) that women will not be ruled by hormones when picking a mate who must care for them and their children, and (b) that, having chosen (wisely, because free of hormonal rule) a suitable spouse, they will come to desire him and thereby have many, many children with him.

I think this explains why some non-virgin women get into the same pattern of really bad relationships – with punks, drug dealers, abusers, etc. Everyone around them, even the women themselves, know these relationships are bad and that they shouldn’t be getting involved in them. But those women’s ability to make rational decisions on the basis of this knowledge is attenuated by their sexual desire for these kinds of men – a desire aroused by the changes to the brain caused by the loss of virginity in the first place. (That’s just a speculation, I have no idea if it has scientific backing.)

At any rate, if chastity comes more easily for women, isn’t the burden of chastity therefore on them? They have less excuse for slipping up, unlike men who are ruled by their sex drive pretty much from puberty. The obvious analogy would be to courage. Men are expected to be courageous because they are physically stronger. A man who resorts to shrieking hysterics when attacked is a coward; a woman who does the same thing is not a coward. That’s because men have less of an excuse for such behavior than women, being, by nature, better equipped to confront dangers and threats.

The corollary of this is that, since it takes two to tango (hah!), if all women did what came naturally to them – which is to say, remain chaste – it follows that all men (who aren’t rapists, at least) would have to be chaste by default. So in that sense, at least, the “double standard” can be understood as rational.

None of this is to say that men shouldn’t exercise sexual self-control. They should, precisely because they can and because it’s good to do so. (And it’s not near so hard as most men say it is. If I can kick sexual self-indulgence cold-turkey, anyone can!) It’s just that men and women differ sexually, and chastity is a virtue relating to sex, so it follows it’s going to have different implications for men and women. If it does, it follows we should recognize and act on those differences accordingly.

Just food for thought!

There should be a Facepalm Emoticon for the forum because I really feel like using it right now.

sw85 I have misjudged you.
I was operating under the assumption that you took male privilege and the old Double Standard (where women are judged far more harshly for sexual misbehavior than men) for granted, I didn’t know that you were an outright fan of such things.

I had no idea that you considered women (effective) cowards either.

Why is the Double Standard bad?
Well it encourages men (who traditionally have power over women, sometimes the power of life and death) to abuse their power and other resources to obtain sexual favors from women. Knowing that their sexual partners and/or victims will be punished severely, but not them, if they are caught.

Taken to its extreme (as it is in places like Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan) this trend essentially makes rape legal for men. Because raped women can’t go to the authorities without facing even more punishment from the authorities and society at large.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Well, for one thing, chastity comes more easily to women than it does men. There is plenty of scientific backing for this. Women are wired not to actively desire sex at levels similar to those of men until after they’ve *started *having sex – this is an evolutionary program aimed at ensuring (a) that women will not be ruled by hormones when picking a mate who must care for them and their children, and (b) that, having chosen (wisely, because free of hormonal rule) a suitable spouse, they will come to desire him and thereby have many, many children with him.

I think this explains why some non-virgin women get into the same pattern of really bad relationships – with punks, drug dealers, abusers, etc. Everyone around them, even the women themselves, know these relationships are bad and that they shouldn’t be getting involved in them. But those women’s ability to make rational decisions on the basis of this knowledge is attenuated by their sexual desire for these kinds of men – a desire aroused by the changes to the brain caused by the loss of virginity in the first place. (That’s just a speculation, I have no idea if it has scientific backing.)

At any rate, if chastity comes more easily for women, isn’t the burden of chastity therefore on them? They have less excuse for slipping up, unlike men who are ruled by their sex drive pretty much from puberty. The obvious analogy would be to courage. Men are expected to be courageous because they are physically stronger. A man who resorts to shrieking hysterics when attacked is a coward; a woman who does the same thing is not a coward. That’s because men have less of an excuse for such behavior than women, being, by nature, better equipped to confront dangers and threats.

The corollary of this is that, since it takes two to tango (hah!), if all women did what came naturally to them – which is to say, remain chaste – it follows that all men (who aren’t rapists, at least) would have to be chaste by default. So in that sense, at least, the “double standard” can be understood as rational.

None of this is to say that men shouldn’t exercise sexual self-control. They should, precisely because they can and because it’s good to do so. (And it’s not near so hard as most men say it is. If I can kick sexual self-indulgence cold-turkey, anyone can!) It’s just that men and women differ sexually, and chastity is a virtue relating to sex, so it follows it’s going to have different implications for men and women. If it does, it follows we should recognize and act on those differences accordingly.

Just food for thought!

That is essentially the standard that they have in places like Saudi Arabia.
It doesn’t work.

Both because some women have high sex drives and actually like sex (a novel idea I know) and more importantly; because when all the burden to remain chaste is on women (because that’s regarded as their natural state) and men still have power and authority, the men act horribly.

I have friends and family living in Jordan (a relatively liberal part of the Middle East) Saudi men (who often visit the country as tourists) are not known for their virtue there. They are known for mistreating the Jordanian women they come into contact with, especially if those women are service workers (such as hotel employees). Rape is relatively common in these situations.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Dear friend,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Perhaps I can help you to understand why the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is of great importance to Catholics.

For our Redemption to be real the Incarnation of Christ also had to be real, and for the Incarnation to be real Jesus had to have taken human flesh from his mother. If this is true ( and Catholics believe that it is) - that Jesus took his sinless human nature from His mother - then it follows that His mother could not be just any good married women. In such a case it would have been assumed that the holy Child was conceived by carnal copulation and the birth would not be a “sign” (cf. Isaiah 7: 14). If Christ took His human nature from Mary, then she could also not be just any ordinary young girl who had not yet had carnal relations. If Jesus Christ took His human nature from His mother, then He was clearly half Mary, so to speak. Now if Jesus’ human nature was from Mary, then her virginity had to be of an extraordinary kind. In fact, not only did her purity have to be extraordinary, it had to be unique in the history of mankind.

**Thus, to summarize, Jesus was the sinless Son of God who took His sinless human nature from His mother. For that human nature to be really human and really sinless its human source (i.e. Mary) must have been uniquely pure. This is surely a simple, logical and modest claim. **

The doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of the Virgin Mary is not only a “Catholic pre-occupation”, dear friend. It is shared by many High-Anglicans and several of the major figures of the Reforamtion expressed their belief if the doctrine, including Luther, Calvin and Zwingli.

Trust that is of some help.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

That claim is in no way modest.
Making claims about divinity and the nature of Man are by definition not modest.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

“The spirit of our degenerate age”… I love it! Someone’s been reading my posts.

The state of her hymen has nothing to do with it. I don’t think there’s much creepy about it provided you have a proper understanding of why Mary’s virginity was necessary. Sex is profane. (Profane is not the same thing as “bad,” it just means "not worthy of being in the presence of the sacred.) Mary, having born Christ within her, was in a sense a kind of tabernacle. A tabernacle must be ritually pure. Therefore Mary had to be ritually pure, which is to say, free of profanity, at least with respect to the aspect of her being which most fully characterizes her as the mother of God – i.e., her sexuality. (Other profane things, such as laughter or evacuation of the bowels, have no bearing on her being the mother of God).

I can understand why they would object. I just don’t think understanding it has any bearing on whether or not it matters. As I mention in my previous post, if the capacity for chastity really does differ by nature (and it does – this is simple, scientific truth), it follows that women should be treated differently than men. It’s no different, really, than expecting men to be more courageous than woman, because they are by nature better equipped to handle physical dangers and threats.

So I can understand because, after all, duty is an imposition and a restraint on the freedom of one’s will. That doesn’t mean one shouldn’t do it though. I don’t think it’s “unfair” that men should be expected to be more courageous. Unequal, certainly,** but the sexes are not equal** (which is to say, exactly the same). One may as well complain that reality is unfair!

Is there any evidence for this claim? Sexuality, it seems to me, has always been understood as vocational. Husbandhood, an explicitly sexual institution, is something men are rather than do.

If the basis for this claim is simply that women are held to different standards re: chastity, I don’t buy it. As I said above, there is at least one good hypothetical reason for this.

I mean is there really no reason whatosever to see men as sexually active and women sexually passive? Their physiologies themselves speak to this.

I don’t take it for granted, though. I recognize it as rational and natural and therefore good. It’s not a privilege for men any more than it’s a privilege for women that men are expected to shoulder the burden of courage and physical sacrifice.

Does it benefit me (and would it benefit you)? I suppose in some respects it does. In others, it doesn’t. It would be beneficial for me to sleep around, if you understand “beneficial” in the loose sense that I would enjoy it; seems to me if all I want to do is have sex (as feminists claim), something like feminism and a severing of womanhood from the virtue of chastity is precisely the kind of thing I’d want to encourage. But I don’t, so I don’t.

I appreciate your candor.
Most Catholics today (even those labelling themselves Traditionalists) claim that the Church has always taught that sex is good and that men and women are equal.
Your honesty is refreshing.

 

[sw85]

There should be a Facepalm Emoticon for the forum because I really feel like using it right now.

sw85 I have misjudged you.
I was operating under the assumption that you took male privilege and the old Double Standard (where women are judged far more harshly for sexual misbehavior than men) for granted, I didn’t know that you were an outright fan of such things.

Well, if by “double standard” you mean “two different standards for two different situations,” then it’s just reasonable, no?

I had no idea that you considered women (effective) cowards either.

I said explicitly that a woman who screams and shrinks from her attacker is not a coward, so I don’t know where you’re coming from here. We have different standards with respect to courage for men and women. That standard arises from the respective natures of men and women. No one thinks this distinction in standards is unfair. QED. The same logic applies re: chastity.

It’s easy to caricature arguments instead of engage with them, I know, but at least try. I have pointed out that women are wired differently with respect to sex drive than men, and that this difference means they are better suited to live chastely than men – i.e., it comes to them more easily. Do you deny any of these things? If so, why? If not, on what grounds do you claim the “double standard” (i.e., the recognition that distinctions exist and that society ought to take them into consideration in forming its general attitudes) is bad?

Why is the Double Standard bad?
Well it encourages men (who traditionally have power over women, sometimes the power of life and death) to abuse their power and other resources to obtain sexual favors from women. Knowing that their sexual partners and/or victims will be punished severely, but not them, if they are caught.

Taken to its extreme (as it is in places like Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan) this trend essentially makes rape legal for men. Because raped women can’t go to the authorities without facing even more punishment from the authorities and society at large.

Everything which is rational and sound is capable of being abused. Nazis and Soviets were murderers obsessed with biology and psychology; does it follow that biology and psychology are false?

The question should not be “does it lead to good things?” For so long as the masses of men are sinners, everything will lead to bad things. The question should be “is it true; does it accord with reality?” I argue it does. And society should predicate itself on truth, not comfortable falsehoods.

At any rate, nothing in the principle itself requires such abuses. (That’s why they’re called “abuses.”) Much of early American society seems to have been patriarchal without being particularly vile, for instance. In fact I’ve explicitly acknowledged men have a duty to control their sexual appetites, too. I do it myself. All I’m saying is that, when you take into consideration the fact that chastity comes more easily to women, it makes sense to expect women to be more chaste.