Things I learned from feminism I wish I'd learned from Christianity

[DarkLight]

The point isn’t how early or how late one’s ‘supposed’ to start doing this or that. As far as I’m concerned, people are free to lock lips on their first date and hug the living breath out of each other if that’s how they really feel and it’s chaste, but if they won’t even hold hands for the first month they know each other, that’s fine too. The whole point was about classifying a man as a potential abuser for even trying. This is why I chose a slow pace to avoid derailing the discussion with examples a more sensitive or less touchy-feely person could find objectionable.

And speaking of Western countries this century, thankfully we have not yet arrived at a stage where leaning in for a kiss (gently, giving the option to avoid) or trying to hold someone’s hand on a date without first explicitly asking for verbal consent is going to net a man a harassment citation (or brand him a potential rapist).

The other thing to catch is there’s a pretty wide range of reactions between “this person is an abuser and a potential rapist” and “this person is a great person I should spend more time with.”

So for example, someone could be at a level where the lack of boundaries isn’t so far that I think they’re going to be physically or sexually abusive, but where I wouldn’t consider them a sufficiently good prospect for marriage to continue dating due to that issue.

 

[Xantippe]

One, if you do not threaten, coerce, use force, or indicate that you’re willing to do so, you are not responsible for someone else’s fear. That fear may very well be irrational. I personally have a lot of irrational fears, and sometimes, I act on them. But, the blame does not lie with the source of my fear.

Two, there is a vast ocean of grey between “paralyzed with terror” and “enthusiastic consent”, and leaving it to someone else to figure out what you are, when you may not know yourself, is irresponsible from a personal safety standpoint and unfair as a potential partner. You seem very quick to label anything shy of full, affirmative, ongoing, enthusiasm as assault or rape. That’s not helpful to young people entering the dating world or to real victims of these crimes.

Three, I can think of several reasons why true consent may not look like your idea of enthusiasm. I say ‘your idea’ because the notion is so vague and so open to individual interpretation that each individual’s idea is the best you can hope for - unlike just saying ‘no’. Just a few:

-Serious cultural differences in sex. For instance, an American and a Japanese person likely have very different ideas of what “enthusiasm” looks like (look up sexual customs around the world and you’ll see what I mean by cultural differences). Both understand ‘no’.

-A severely ill person may truly want sex, but be unable to show anything resembling ‘enthusiasm’. They can still say ‘no’.

-A very inexperienced or painfully shy person may very much want to continue, but could be very unsure of what to do or how. He/she may be literally trembling from nerves. Displays of nervousness are ambiguous, ‘no’ is not.

-The one I’m surprised you haven’t made allowances for are issues like autism. Some people truly have an impossible time reading others, and/or expressing their own thoughts or feelings appropriately through cues. Enthusiasm is variable, but everyone, even people with Autism, understands ‘no’.

I’m sure there are a million other reasons or circumstances that I haven’t thought of; those are just the ones off the top of my head.

While we’re discussing boundaries, I would say that anyone who isn’t confident in their ability to say ‘no’ in the absence of threats/coercion/violence/whatever really, really doesn’t need to be dating or looking for romance. That’s just not a person who is ready to form a relationship with someone else.

I think it’s wise to look for enthusiastic consent and pause if it isn’t there.

Checking to make sure that a romantic partner is not paralyzed by fear is also a good idea. That’s a good place to stop!

I have taught visiting Japanese students and had to read up on Japanese-American cultural differences and have some concern about that example.

In fact, I just found the following, which is very alarming in this context:

japan-guide.com/forum/quereadisplay.html?0+109915

A quick quote: “There is a trend among Japanese people that many people on this forum have enlightened, with multiple topics. Japanese people are used to never say “no”, or, at least, always appear to agree. Then they do the contrary.”

So, in dealing with Japanese, an American needs to be particularly sure that there is actual agreement before charging ahead (whatever the activity might be).

In the case of the severely ill person, I think the well party ought to make sure that there’s at least a yes.

It’s possible to ask the shy person if they want to continue and get a yes. Proceeding without asking when the person is trembling from nerves strikes me as a terrible idea.

 

[chevalier]

Chevalier, you are describing yourself having boundaries. That’s great!

It’s normal, just like everyone else.

Other people (including women) get to have boundaries, too.

Would never have dawned upon me. Where I live we believe women are legally property of men and consent is legally irrelevant. We also eat babies (except on Fridays).

I have to say, though, that I’m concerned that you know so many crazy ladies.

Did I give a number?

This may be a cultural issue, though. Bear in mind that I am of WASP extraction, so the degree of emotional expressiveness you describe as an everyday thing is only found in crazy people in my culture-of-origin.

WASPs, blacks, Italians, Irish folks, Slavs. (They all taste like chicken.) One day one freaks out and the other says to chill, the other day the roles are inverted on a different subject or in a different aspect of life. I would never describe WASPs as emotionless or inexpressive overall. In some ways, on some days, maybe. In other ways, on other days, you guys get so expressive I get a headache from just standing nearby, and stoic is the last word that’d come to my mind.

In other words, it’s just different emotions that are expressed versus repressed in each group. Or even particular expressions of the same emotion.

Trust me, there are very few hysterics Chez Xantippe.

I’ve yet to meet a truly stoic WASP with perfectly controlled or contained expression. I’ll tell you when that day comes.

 

[chevalier]

Checking to make sure that a romantic partner is not paralyzed by fear is also a good idea. That’s a good place to stop!

That’s extreme. And not healthy at all. And yes, I know some things are different on y’all’s side of the pond…

So, in dealing with Japanese, an American needs to be particularly sure that there is actual agreement before charging ahead (whatever the activity might be).

Or do you mean the Japanese could react like that? I still doubt.

In the case of the severely ill person, I think the well party ought to make sure that there’s at least a yes.

You need to know someone’s ill first. And you can’t really presume infinite possibilities of particularly weird diseases with no obvious symptoms in place but just something that could hypothetically trigger if you tried to hold someone’s hand or something.

I’m not an MD, but I’ve never heard of a disease locking a chatty girl in place, paralysing her and disabling her voice strings the moment you begin to lean in for a kiss slowly, and unlocking her to just her normal state the moment you withdraw.

It’s possible to ask the shy person if they want to continue and get a yes. Proceeding without asking when the person is trembling from nerves strikes me as a terrible idea.

If you see she’s *extremely *trembling, then yes, you pause and hold and ask. If she’s just trembling, then that’s pretty normal if she’s actually returning the kiss.

People who return kisses they don’t want are not people savoir-vivre books or criminal laws should be written with in mind.

 

[Xantippe]

The other thing to catch is there’s a pretty wide range of reactions between “this person is an abuser and a potential rapist” and “this person is a great person I should spend more time with.”

So for example, someone could be at a level where the lack of boundaries isn’t so far that I think they’re going to be physically or sexually abusive, but where I wouldn’t consider them a sufficiently good prospect for marriage to continue dating due to that issue.

Right.

This is not some sort of US kid athletics where everybody gets a participation trophy–people are looking for someone to marry.

You only get to marry once (if all goes well), so it’s not a huge insult to another person to decide that you do not wish to fill your spouse quota with them.

There are 3 billion people in exactly the same boat–it’s not being singled out unfairly to be deemed not a good match for any particular individual.

A quick note to Chevalier:

You’re a little surprised that we’re talking about hot-and-heavy stuff with regard to Catholic-Catholic dating, but a) I think the discussion was about dating in general rather than uber-Catholic dating and b) there are all different kinds of Catholics. Part of the dating process, unfortunately, is figuring out what kind of Catholic one is dealing with–people don’t come with labels.

I have to admit to being more approving of physical expressions of affection during serious courtship, assuming feet stay on the floor, clothes stay on, hands stay off bathing suit areas, everybody is fully in control of themselves, etc. So I guess I’m simultaneously more positive about smooching, but also believe in being more careful about making sure that smooching or other physical contact is welcome.

 

[DarkLight]

I would say that a dating partner not having their own health boundaries is also a red flag.

No one has infinite energy. Everyone has needs. And there’s a tendency when those needs aren’t being met for things to go wrong. Often the person, feeling like they can’t talk about what they need, ends up withdrawn or irritable instead - feeling somehow frustrated or resentful or neglected, but not actually articulating their own needs and desires. Or if they can suppress that, they simply burn out.

It’s much better to have a partner who can tell you what’s going on and what they need.

 

[chevalier]

You’re a little surprised that we’re talking about hot-and-heavy stuff with regard to Catholic-Catholic dating, but a) I think the discussion was about dating in general rather than uber-Catholic dating

Then you don’t even know what uber-Catholic dating looks like.

I have to admit to being more approving of physical expressions of affection during serious courtship, assuming feet stay on the floor, clothes stay on, hands stay off bathing suit areas, everybody is fully in control of themselves, etc.

I have to admit to being approving of that in friendship, you know. Not that friends in particular have much business kissing each other on the lips of all places, for example, but still. Anyway, I’m not particularly restrictive about those things as long as they aren’t sexual in tone so that a reasonable person could mistake them for foreplay.

So I guess I’m simultaneously more positive about smooching, but also believe in being more careful about making sure that smooching or other physical contact is welcome.

I’m not particularly into the business of making 200% sure it’s welcome right at this moment if it’s already known to be welcome in general. Granted, Smoocher has to show a minimum of emotional intelligence, but Smoochee also has to accept that once or twice a decade he or she will be smooched when his or her internal ying and yang aren’t perfectly aligned about being smooched (which is not a violation of personal whatever).

Say, waking me up before 11 a.m. for any reason under the sun is third-degree-murder territory, but were it my lawfully wedded better half (or special friend, assuming she had any legitimate business being there) trying to kiss me, I would not feel violated in my sexual rights, only in most of my other rights, starting from and ending with my constitutional right to ignore all communication prior to 1 p.m. (my clients generally apologize when they feel they need to violate this particular boundary).

 

[chevalier]

No one has infinite energy. Everyone has needs. And there’s a tendency when those needs aren’t being met for things to go wrong. Often the person, feeling like they can’t talk about what they need, ends up withdrawn or irritable instead - feeling somehow frustrated or resentful or neglected, but not actually articulating their own needs and desires. Or if they can suppress that, they simply burn out.

Great. Now you know how feminism makes men feel.

 

[Xantippe]

In other words, it’s just different emotions that are expressed versus repressed in each group. Or even particular expressions of the same emotion.

I’ve yet to meet a truly stoic WASP with perfectly controlled or contained expression. I’ll tell you when that day comes.

That’s more or less true–as I’ve mentioned more than once on CAF, it’s been a learning experience for me to discover that the emotional dial can contain other emotions than CALM and BERSERKER RAGE, those being the two approved emotions in my family-of-origin (with berserker rage being primarily the privilege of senior members of the family).

However, I just don’t relate at all to what you describe of your lady friends–I don’t know anybody who acts like that, and if I did, we wouldn’t be friends. (It does remind me a bit of my husband’s Warsaw grandma, though–she drove everybody nuts.)

One thing does jump out at me, though–although you may not notice it, there may be a similarity between your lady friends and your own personal style. You’re also very idiosyncratic and have a lot of unusual personal rules and like spontaneity. Isn’t that more or less what you don’t like in these women? I suspect that if you were less idiosyncratic, had fewer complicated personal rules and were less focused on spontaneity, that you could meet women who were less idiosyncratic, had fewer complicated fewer rules, and were less focused on spontaneity.

 

[Xantippe]

That’s extreme. And not healthy at all. And yes, I know some things are different on y’all’s side of the pond…

Or do you mean the Japanese could react like that? I still doubt.

You need to know someone’s ill first. And you can’t really presume infinite possibilities of particularly weird diseases with no obvious symptoms in place but just something that could hypothetically trigger if you tried to hold someone’s hand or something.

I’m not an MD, but I’ve never heard of a disease locking a chatty girl in place, paralysing her and disabling her voice strings the moment you begin to lean in for a kiss slowly, and unlocking her to just her normal state the moment you withdraw.

If you see she’s *extremely *trembling, then yes, you pause and hold and ask. If she’s just trembling, then that’s pretty normal if she’s actually returning the kiss.

People who return kisses they don’t want are not people savoir-vivre books or criminal laws should be written with in mind.

I think BlueEyedLady was talking about sex, not handholding.

 

[Xantippe]

Then you don’t even know what uber-Catholic dating looks like.

I suppose uber-Catholic dating involves marriage by proxy?

 

[DarkLight]

Great. Now you know how feminism makes men feel.

I have to say I’m a little skeptical sometimes? I mean, I get the concept…but there’s also some situation where I feel like, if you’re used to things being one way, then having them be another way feels off.

Like, I’d have to dig them up, but there’s some interesting studies on classrooms. Men tend to talk more than girls. But when they take steps to even that out, the men tend to perceive the women as dominating the conversation - even when statistical analysis shows that the men are still speaking more often.

Similarly, I’ve dealt with a lot of men who consider any rejection from a woman, or hint that she’s not appreciative of their advances, to be a sign that she’s a “feminist *****” or a “man-hater” or somesuch. Not because she actually is one, but because they have an idea in their minds of how things are supposed to work.

 

[Xantippe]

I have to say I’m a little skeptical sometimes? I mean, I get the concept…but there’s also some situation where I feel like, if you’re used to things being one way, then having them be another way feels off.

Like, I’d have to dig them up, but there’s some interesting studies on classrooms. Men tend to talk more than girls. But when they take steps to even that out, the men tend to perceive the women as dominating the conversation - even when statistical analysis shows that the men are still speaking more often.

Similarly, I’ve dealt with a lot of men who consider any rejection from a woman, or hint that she’s not appreciative of their advances, to be a sign that she’s a “feminist *****” or a “man-hater” or somesuch. Not because she actually is one, but because they have an idea in their minds of how things are supposed to work.

Speaking of people getting burnt out, there is a widespread belief among conservative Christians (including among Catholics on this board) that marital duty involves sex on demand, with no right of refusal.

That seems like a recipe for burnout to me and for marital sex becoming a chore, but I’ve never been able to talk anybody out of it.

 

[starshiptrooper]

I have to admit to being more approving of physical expressions of affection during serious courtship, assuming feet stay on the floor, clothes stay on, hands stay off bathing suit areas, everybody is fully in control of themselves, etc. So I guess I’m simultaneously more positive about smooching, but also believe in being more careful about making sure that smooching or other physical contact is welcome.

The first time one of my ex-girlfriends and I kissed, she actually pulled me in because I was too dang shy to make the first move. I think it was a reasonable assumption on her part that I was okay with kissing. She was my girlfriend. Short of being in severe physical pain or it being obviously a bad time (sharpening my work knife, intense involvement with some other task), I never had a problem kissing her.

 

[DarkLight]

The first time one of my ex-girlfriends and I kissed, she actually pulled me in because I was too dang shy to make the first move. I think it was a reasonable assumption on her part that I was okay with kissing. She was my girlfriend. Short of being in severe physical pain or it being obviously a bad time (sharpening my work knife, intense involvement with some other task), I never had a problem kissing her.

And that’s ok! Consent doesn’t have to be verbal. It sounds like you were getting pretty clear “go ahead” signals.

 

[Xantippe]

My other worry: if women follow that approach, they’re going to expect to be in total control of whatever happens, down to air temperature and speed of wind preferalby, as well as interpreting any sign of humanity as a sign of abusive mentality. That’s going to hurt them in the long run, because it will impair their ability to interact (let alone bond) with a fellow human being that happens to be male (and possibly female as well, if it projects).

I’m not really talking about cutting men some slack. I apologize for being a little too direct perhaps, but I’m talking about not turning actively paranoid in viewing men.

Then no dating or no dating outside a certain circle or whatever. And reasonable precautions. But not paranoia or living like a victim (and, unfortunately, getting sucked into and excited by it, as many people are wont to do).

It’s a bit like Islam. Yes, Muslims have higher rates of violence, and it’s hard to call Islam a religion of peace. I would of course not encourage dating Muslim men. But, not every passer-by of Middle-Eastern extraction is a potential terrorist or should be treated as such. Except on the gender front things get more extreme because we aren’t even talking about holding people responsible for quirks in their religion but about classifying any sign of emotion as potentially high criminal tendencies (toward serious violent crime no less) based on their sex.

And for the record, a woman conditioning herself at a young age to favour emotionless men is a sure road to ACoD for her children because she’s likely to marry an emotionally unavailable (or absent) man, if not actually a professional player.

Turning off and away a whole lot of good and safe young guys who will be offended by being treated like juvenile delinquents is another disadvantage, as well as producing more jerks who hate women because of experiencing rash judgement and contemptuous treatment from them (along with irrational fears and accusations), which will shape their image of women for years to come, because of their being at a formative stage right now. It would be better for everybody to skip meeting them at all. And yes, I have some personal experience in this regard. Well, not this exactly but similar. Suffice to say I know how jerks are made, from ridicule and humiliation to actual false accusations of violence. It ain’t pretty, it takes a great deal of psych work to fix, and some parts of it can never heal.

The above is not something I’m saying in order to ask for compassion for men, at all. Rather, the point is that jerks hurt women and that women make jerks. Male jerks also make jerks of women, and eventually the jerk cycle perpetuates itself. But it starts from somewhere. Rash judgemement, paranoia, irrational fear etc. is a good candidate.

Hence my advice is not to neglect safety at all, but to seriously cut down on exposing innocent people to emotional abuse inherent in treating them like dangerous animals or criminal element. (Ironically, that sort treatment does reflect one or two items on your warning list. (Quite potentially turning every human being who dates into an abuser.))

(Along with the feminist nonsense that a man lives to affirm a woman no matter if what she does or says makes any objective sense whatsoever, which is unfortunately something that women are prone to absorbing eventually, with time, if they keep exposing themselves to that mentality.)

Here’s what I’m talking about:

Let’s say that repeated boundary testing is making me feel uncomfortable about a particular individual (be it a date, a platonic male friend or a female friend).

My instincts are screaming at me that I feel unsafe and disrespected with this person, whereas I feel safe and respected with 90-99% of other people.

Why do I have to spend time alone with this one person, versus the other 90-99% that I feel safe and respected with and whose company I actually enjoy?

And in what way is that paranoia?

And to be clear, this wouldn’t be announced with some loud, dramatic flourish. I would just spend no time alone with them anymore (if at all avoidable) and as little time with them and other people as possible.

(Fortunately, being a long-married gal, it’s more like 99.9% nowadays. I just don’t normally find myself spending time with people I don’t trust at this point in my life.)

 

[Lea101]

I have to say I’m a little skeptical sometimes? I mean, I get the concept…but there’s also some situation where I feel like, if you’re used to things being one way, then having them be another way feels off.

Like, I’d have to dig them up, but there’s some interesting studies on classrooms. Men tend to talk more than girls. But when they take steps to even that out, the men tend to perceive the women as dominating the conversation - even when statistical analysis shows that the men are still speaking more often.

Similarly, I’ve dealt with a lot of men who consider any rejection from a woman, or hint that she’s not appreciative of their advances, to be a sign that she’s a “feminist *****” or a “man-hater” or somesuch. Not because she actually is one, but because they have an idea in their minds of how things are supposed to work.

That’s actually one point I have forgotten. I have heard of that study too. I’ll be a little egalitarian today and it says it goes both ways (in different contexts). Sometimes the culprit isn’t feminism or MRAs or anything but it’s pain old pride.

Like I said a while back, humans are pretty stupid.

 

[SuperLuigi]

I’ve been on the original reddit site were the term originated. It…really does follow the idea that all women conform to a (rather insulting) stereotype and are out to get men unless properly tamed and bullied into submission.

If you have some sites that actually prove me wrong, feel free.

I’ve already mentioned several people on social media. Are you even going to listen them?

Because if you are not, respectfully, don’t waste my time.

 

[SuperLuigi]

There are lots of different ways to destroy the nuclear family/destroy tradition/undermine Christianity.

Yes, but I can’t help but notice how a lot of accounts on here are only interested in those that pose a more remote threat that operates in more right-leaning political spheres and are PERCEIVED to involve straight, white men.

Here are some of them that Red Pill guys are susceptible to:

–believing that a version of marriage without any civil dimension is going to work or be respected, rather than just being seen as a shack-up
–having harsh and un-Catholic ideas of total wifely obedience
–having a hyper-Protestant ideal family structure in which the husband is God Emperor/Pope of his family, rather than the domestic church being part of the Universal Church
–being negative and entitled toward women
–rarely being happy in their church communities/parishes
–not valuing celibacy
–worshiping “alphas”/denigrating “betas”/wanting to be alphas while believing themselves to be betas
–not valuing domestic work
–feeling entitled about refusing to contribute at home
–not valuing the education of girls
–wanting women to marry young (VERY young) while discouraging young men from marrying (which as you can see creates certain mathematical difficulties)
–having a very obvious double sexual double standard for men and women
–wanting to marry virgins (if they ever marry), but to screw around until then
–feeling entitled to porn

In all of my interactions and identification of the red pill, I have never known anyone within that sphere to act like that.

The list exists and may even qualify as being scandalous to a degree, but I’m not seeing the behavioral trends in large numbers.

I would point out is that most of the red-pill atheists and skeptics I know will debate some of the above religious merits, like going to Church, but are not insidiously trying to destroy and undermine the Church like radical feminists and Islamists are behind closed doors that are now being jarred open.

The skeptical community is pretty open about how the feel about the religious dimension. Of course, their argument in this regard is flawed.

But the problem I have, Xantippe, is that you are stuck on repeat. You keep on referencing this list and don’t seem interested in anyone or any source I’ve brought up. It is quite easier to criticize men’s rights activists and red-pill people in general than say to criticize feminists or Islam, even here on CAF.

So if you really are so terribly concerned with women being treated as slaves and all of the things you just mentioned, your time would be better spent on the major threats. Not on a few people who come up with a list that basically no one I’ve seen is following or trying to follow.

I get it’s risking social capital and being called names like racist and all that, but if you stand for anything remotely Catholic, that’s all coming down the pike anyways.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Similarly, I’ve dealt with a lot of men who consider any rejection from a woman, or hint that she’s not appreciative of their advances, to be a sign that she’s a “feminist *****” or a “man-hater” or somesuch. Not because she actually is one, but because they have an idea in their minds of how things are supposed to work.

Probably just another excuse. Another great way to fail at dating.