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

[PseuTonym]

So if Plato or Aristotle had been preached to by the apostle to the gentiles, I think it quite plausible they would have converted.

I have no opinion about whether or not they would have converted. However, it seems that you understand and believe in the conceptual difference that you for some reason gave the label “not valid.” After all, I didn’t claim that there’s a distinction between the religious content, but merely a distinction of the time periods. “After the coming of Christ” includes a more extensive range of time.

 

[Estevao]

I have no opinion about whether or not they would have converted. However, it seems that you understand and believe in the conceptual difference that you for some reason gave the label “not valid.” After all, I didn’t claim that there’s a distinction between the religious content, but merely a distinction of the time periods. “After the coming of Christ” includes a more extensive range of time.

I obviously misread you and blurted out my usual talking points. Good point.

 

[starshiptrooper]

I assure you, when consent is enthusiastic, “YES!” or “MORE!” will often come out even more often than every two minutes. WAY more often, in fact.

I remember we had this conversation with another younger male poster (SST?) who wanted to know how he could possibly be sure that a woman was consenting, and a number of us were reassuring him that yes, enthusiastic consent is fairly clear. And of course the better you know somebody (for example, having been married to them for a long time), the clearer it gets.

Actually we were discussing unreasonableness of “affirmative consent”. The only way it would be clearly established for legal purposes is if you had a written contract with witnesses and a blood sample. I was the one who pointed out that the only realistic way of ensuring that the lady is clearly consenting during the deed is whether or not she is moaning like a porn star.

Heck, we see that on CAF a lot. How many guys do we have come on here who, having been unchaste themselves, refuse to consider any woman who has ever committed a sexual sin?

Historically if you married a woman with a reputation for promiscuous behavior, you were taking the risk of breaking your back in a mine, on a farm, or at a factory for the next 20 years for kids who were not yours. The only way to get a reasonable facsimile of certainty of the kid’s paternity was to marry a woman with a good reputation.

Everything could be solved by making extramarital sex legally considered to be probably rape. This would leave the male rakes scared righteous and leave the whores with no one to carry out their evil with.

It either is or is not rape. There is no such thing as “probably rape” in the legal sense of the term. I would be rebelling against your government on principle. :nunchuk:

 

[DarkLight]

It either is or is not rape. There is no such thing as “probably rape” in the legal sense of the term. I would be rebelling against your government on principle.

I’m with you on this one. Plus I’m not of the belief that only men can be violent. Women can rape men, and an idea of “probably rape” would bias the system even more against male victims.

 

[Xantippe]

I was the one who pointed out that the only realistic way of ensuring that the lady is clearly consenting during the deed is whether or not she is moaning like a porn star.Historically if you married a woman with a reputation for promiscuous behavior, you were taking the risk of breaking your back in a mine, on a farm, or at a factory for the next 20 years for kids who were not yours. The only way to get a reasonable facsimile of certainty of the kid’s paternity was to marry a woman with a good reputation.It either is or is not rape.

Moaning could be pain, of course, so I’d be careful about that one.

It really isn’t that weird or uncommon for a woman to be verbal about encouragement and approval in an intimate moment if things are going well. Dead silence could signal a lack of enthusiastic consent–and perhaps a lack of consciousness.

In earlier times, venereal diseases were often incurable and could (as today) lead to the very serious consequences for unborn babies. Here’s a piece on congenital syphilis, which is what happens when an unborn baby is infected with syphilis.

medlineplus.gov/ency/article/001344.htm

If you have the time sometime, look up “pregnant herpes,” “pregnant gonorrhea,” “pregnant chlamydia,” etc.

It really was not the case that male premarital or extramarital unchastity had no consequences for virgin brides in past times, especially pre-antibiotics.

 

[starshiptrooper]

I’m with you on this one. Plus I’m not of the belief that only men can be violent. Women can rape men, and an idea of “probably rape” would bias the system even more against male victims.

Clearer thinking than I anticipated.

Moaning could be pain, of course, so I’d be careful about that one.

Rather complicated by the fact that plenty of women apparently have a bit of a masochistic streak judging by the sales of 50 Shades of Gray.

It really isn’t that weird or uncommon for a woman to be verbal about encouragement and approval in an intimate moment if things are going well. Dead silence could signal a lack of enthusiastic consent–and perhaps a lack of consciousness.

Never said otherwise.

In earlier times, venereal diseases were often incurable and could (as today) lead to the very serious consequences for unborn babies. Here’s a piece on congenital syphilis, which is what happens when an unborn baby is infected with syphilis.

medlineplus.gov/ency/article/001344.htm

If you have the time sometime, look up “pregnant herpes,” “pregnant gonorrhea,” “pregnant chlamydia,” etc.

It really was not the case that male premarital or extramarital unchastity had no consequences for virgin brides in past times, especially pre-antibiotics.

The difference is that you can ask your partner to get tested for stds and nobody has a problem with it. If I ask for a paternity test, people would scream, “Muh soggy knee!” so fast it would make your head spin assuming it is not outright banned like certain countries.

Besides there is evolutionary psych argument to be made for it as well given that only 2 types of men could successfully reproduce. Don Juans and men who had a preference for women with a good reputation.

 

[rcwitness]

Yes, the topics above are very important to discuss.

But…I don’t consider these things “modern feminism”.

What, exactly, is “modern feminism”?
It has “teachings”?
What about it’s “teachings” don’t you agree with?

Good questions. And should we assume these topics haven’t come from Christianity in the first place? My view of feminism is mixed. I think issues such as the ones in the OP are good, but there are negative ones that seem to be related to Feminism. Maybe some negative ones are “it’s my body, I can do what I want and don’t need my husband’s (or Church) approval” or “A career is more appealing than being a mother” or “A single mother is better than husband and wife”

 

[DarkLight]

Good questions. And should we assume these topics haven’t come from Christianity in the first place? My view of feminism is mixed. I think issues such as the ones in the OP are good, but there are negative ones that seem to be related to Feminism. Maybe some negative ones are “it’s my body, I can do what I want and don’t need my husband’s (or Church) approval” or “A career is more appealing than being a mother” or “A single mother is better than husband and wife”

I think what we’re saying isn’t necessarily that these topics can’t come from Christianity, but that for many of us these are topics that, growing up primarily in a conservative Christian environment, weren’t discussed as part of Christianity. We had to look outside our Christian circles to find them discussed - often even for the reason that they were “feminist” and therefore bad.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Clearer thinking than I anticipated.Rather complicated by the fact that plenty of women apparently have a bit of a masochistic streak judging by the sales of 50 Shades of Gray.Never said otherwise.The difference is that you can ask your partner to get tested for stds and nobody has a problem with it. If I ask for a paternity test, people would scream, “Muh soggy knee!” so fast it would make your head spin assuming it is not outright banned like certain countries.

This makes no sense. First, you were talking about historically. Historically, STD testing wasn’t a thing either. Second, you can and should ask your partner to get tested at the beginning of your sexual relationship. But after months, years, or even marriage? The request would go over about as well as…well, paternity testing.

 

[Xantippe]

Starshiptrooper,

I think masochism is really not something that one ought to assume, particularly as there not infrequently is pain (and not the nice kind) associated with intercourse.

Sexual tastes are something to talk about and discover, not to assume that one knows without asking.

Anybody who can’t talk about sex shouldn’t be having sex.

**Starshiptrooper **said:

“The difference is that you can ask your partner to get tested for stds and nobody has a problem with it. If I ask for a paternity test, people would scream, “Muh soggy knee!” so fast it would make your head spin assuming it is not outright banned like certain countries.”

Me: A couple issues. First off, we were discussing pre-sexual revolution times. You were describing why men “with a past” still had a preference for virgin brides, and then I described why men “with a past” would be physically dangerous to those virgin brides and their future children in pre-antibiotics days. (They still are, but to a lesser degree.)

It’s a non-sequitur to mention STD testing if we’re talking about pre-20th century.

However, if we are switching to talking about contemporary life, I do have to mention that STD testing and paternity testing are pretty distinct in their role in modern relationships. STD testing is common at the beginning of relationships. It’s rather less socially acceptable to out-of-the-blue ask your spouse for an STD test five years into your marriage–unless you have evidence of infidelity. It just isn’t part of a happy, functioning long-term relationship, for grandma to be asking grandpa for a new STD test every year. That would be weird! (I have to add here that STD testing is a routine part of standard prenatal care for pregnant women. I believe that it’s actually state law in my state.)

**Starshiptrooper **said:

“Besides there is evolutionary psych argument to be made for it as well given that only 2 types of men could successfully reproduce. Don Juans and men who had a preference for women with a good reputation.”

Me: And now we switch back to the mists of time, where we have no historic record to back us up.

First off, I think that list is incomplete, unless you count warlords, slave owners and polygamists as Don Juans. I guess there’s an argument to be made for that, but I feel like the modus operandi of a Don Juan is fairly distinct from that of a warlord, slave owner, or polygamist. (I realize that those three are potentially overlapping categories–see, for example, Muhammad.)

Secondly, I’m not sure how well the evolutionary psych argument for Don Juans holds up, given that (as I’ve described upthread), the Don Juan is potentially very dangerous to his prospective bride and their future children, and especially so in the absence of modern medicine. Having sex with a guy whose STDs may kill or blind your unborn children is a heck of an evo psych strategy. (We could say that our distant ancestors didn’t know about the effects of herpes and other STDs on unborn children, but I suspect they figured it out pretty darn fast.)

Thirdly, in the modern era, it is rather obvious that men successfully reproduce who are neither Don Juans nor fussy about virginity, in fact that’s more the rule than the exception.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Starshiptrooper,

I think masochism is really not something that one ought to assume, particularly as there not infrequently is pain (and not the nice kind) associated with intercourse.

Not to mention the disconnect between fantasy and reality that exists for both genders. I wouldn’t assume that a man is actually looking to act out everything he seeks out in porn.

 

[Walking_Home]

Xantippe:

Starshiptrooper,

I think masochism is really not something that one ought to assume, particularly as there not infrequently is pain (and not the nice kind) associated with intercourse.

Not to mention the disconnect between fantasy and reality that exists for both genders.** I wouldn’t assume that a man is actually looking to act out everything he seeks out in porn.**

---

Considering what porn does to the mind – Yes, I am concerned that some will “act” out what they see in porn.

endsexualexploitation.org/publichealth/

catholicnewsagency.com/news/porn-leaves-men-dissatisfied-with-real-relationships-study-finds-66828/

 

[starshiptrooper]

Starshiptrooper,

I think masochism is really not something that one ought to assume, particularly as there not infrequently is pain (and not the nice kind) associated with intercourse.

Sexual tastes are something to talk about and discover, not to assume that one knows without asking.

Anybody who can’t talk about sex shouldn’t be having sex.

You and I know plenty of people have sex without having a thorough conversation about their kinks first.

A couple issues. First off, we were discussing pre-sexual revolution times. You were describing why men “with a past” still had a preference for virgin brides, and then I described why men “with a past” would be physically dangerous to those virgin brides and their future children in pre-antibiotics days. (They still are, but to a lesser degree.)

That is not mutually exclusive. How many fathers would let Daddy’s Little Princess go off with some cad?

It’s a non-sequitur to mention STD testing if we’re talking about pre-20th century.

Not every std has easily perceptible symptoms but some most certainly do. Short of a DNA test, you can never really be sure who the father is.

However, if we are switching to talking about contemporary life, I do have to mention that STD testing and paternity testing are pretty distinct in their role in modern relationships. STD testing is common at the beginning of relationships. It’s rather less socially acceptable to out-of-the-blue ask your spouse for an STD test five years into your marriage–unless you have evidence of infidelity. It just isn’t part of a happy, functioning long-term relationship, for grandma to be asking grandpa for a new STD test every year. That would be weird! (I have to add here that STD testing is a routine part of standard prenatal care for pregnant women. I believe that it’s actually state law in my state.)

Slight difference again. You theoretically only require one test for stds. Every kid could be a justified paternity test.

First off, I think that list is incomplete, unless you count warlords, slave owners and polygamists as Don Juans. I guess there’s an argument to be made for that, but I feel like the modus operandi of a Don Juan is fairly distinct from that of a warlord, slave owner, or polygamist. (I realize that those three are potentially overlapping categories–see, for example, Muhammad.)

You either slept with many women or put everything in one basket so to speak. In the latter case, you had to be sure about your investment.

Secondly, I’m not sure how well the evolutionary psych argument for Don Juans holds up, given that (as I’ve described upthread), the Don Juan is potentially very dangerous to his prospective bride and their future children, and especially so in the absence of modern medicine. Having sex with a guy whose STDs may kill or blind your unborn children is a heck of an evo psych strategy. (We could say that our distant ancestors didn’t know about the effects of herpes and other STDs on unborn children, but I suspect they figured it out pretty darn fast.)

There were and are plenty of women willing to sleep with scumbags and degenerates. You and I both know it. There were and are also plenty of men willing to sleep around without giving a damn about the consequences of their actions. Other animals use this is a strategy as well, quantity over quality. For a man that can work because your investment in reproduction is a lot less.

Thirdly, in the modern era, it is rather obvious that men successfully reproduce who are neither Don Juans nor fussy about virginity, in fact that’s more the rule than the exception.

Plenty of explanations for that, a lack of options and years of feminist social engineering are bound to have some effect. Plenty of those men are also raising men’s children either willingly or unwillingly.

Would you please use the quoting function? Your formatting makes it really difficult to read your replies.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

You theoretically only require one test for stds. Every kid could be a justified paternity test.

Not really. STD tests don’t detect diseases acquired after the test. The only way to be 100% sure of your health is to have your partner take them regularly.

And the request would be every bit as hurtful and offensive as asking for a paternity test.

I’m not really sure you’re interested in discussing lifelong functional marriages so much as the worst animal behavior theoretically possible.

 

[DarkLight]

I’m not really sure you’re interested in discussing lifelong functional marriages so much as the worst animal behavior theoretically possible.

Let’s try to keep this from turning into another thread on how awful it is to try to have a traditional marriage with a woman who isn’t perfect in every way.

 

[Xantippe]

You and I know plenty of people have sex without having a thorough conversation about their kinks first.

…and that’s a really bad idea for everybody.

I realize there’s a Hollywood model where nobody talks but stuff just happens magically perfectly without the exchange of any words as the music swells–but good marital sex is often much chattier, or is the product of a lot of previous conversations. (I do not know this for a fact, but I keep hearing that that Hollywood no-talk model is found in an even more extreme form in pornography.)

The thing is, if we don’t talk to each other–how do we learn anything or get better?

And that’s another thing one can learn from feminists.

(By the way, I have to mention that manosphere guys often have BIZARRE ideas about how female sexuality works.)

 

[DarkLight]

…and that’s a really bad idea for everybody.

I realize there’s a Hollywood model where nobody talks but stuff just happens magically perfectly without the exchange of any words as the music swells–but good marital sex is often much chattier, or is the product of a lot of previous conversations. (I do not know this for a fact, but I keep hearing that that Hollywood no-talk model is found in an even more extreme form in pornography.)

The thing is, if we don’t talk to each other–how do we learn anything or get better?

And that’s another thing one can learn from feminists.

(By the way, I have to mention that manosphere guys often have BIZARRE ideas about how female sexuality works.)

Heck, this kind of talk happens before marriage too.

I’m having the “physical contact” talk with my current boyfriend as we’re planning a meet-up. Not about sex per se, but the “what level of physical contact are each of us personally comfortable with given the circumstances.” And I expect that’s something that’ll be repeated as things progress, assuming they do.

 

[Xantippe]

Heck, this kind of talk happens before marriage too.

I’m having the “physical contact” talk with my current boyfriend as we’re planning a meet-up. Not about sex per se, but the “what level of physical contact are each of us personally comfortable with given the circumstances.” And I expect that’s something that’ll be repeated as things progress, assuming they do.

Yes!

There’s a very sensible book entitled “How Far Can we Go?: A Catholic Guide to Sex and Dating” that I recommend having a good skim of. I haven’t read the whole thing, but the initial chapters are very sensible and practical. They make some excellent points about pacing and how 14-year-olds ought to get different chastity advice than 20-something engaged professionals, which a lot of people forget.

Another point the authors make (if I remember correctly) is that it’s important to consider, where are we? Does this level of physical intimacy accurately reflect the truth about our relationship?

(It has TERRIBLE cover art, though.)

 

[EnglishTeacher]

"pensmama87:

That’s one of the things I really do like about Catholicism in particular - the various gifts and personalities at work in the saints, the fact that there is an explicit acknowledgement that there are different vocations for every person, different charisms, spiritualities, etc. We’re not expected to all be the same to give glory to God. That is very much at odds with the message in some Protestant Christian circles.

Definitely. Where I grew up the ideal was for a man to be a pastor or missionary, and for his wife to be a stay-at-home mother (which often really meant “unpaid church helper”).

Read this article: Women and the Protestant Reformation “Luther and the Reformers went to war against the evangelical counsels as ideals and as the core of a vowed, religious life. Every woman—it was assumed—was meant for marriage, children, and homemaking . . . .”

It expands on your observations above and gives the historical background for it in a way that I have not come across before. Very relevant to the discussion at hand.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

Not to mention the disconnect between fantasy and reality that exists for both genders. I wouldn’t assume that a man is actually looking to act out everything he seeks out in porn.

Maybe not but if it’s the only or main source about how sex works then that might be their expectation. One documentary I watched revealed that the most viewed videos tend to include rough and violent acts towards the women and when asked men said that the women involved were totally into it, no clue that the women might be trafficked or told how to act.