Why can't women simply say "I'm not interested." to men?

[Zzyzx_Road]

You think sensible women don’t worry at all about divorce or bad marriages?

Why, in that case, do so many women bother about college, higher education, and careers and marry and have children in their later 20s or even 30s? It’s almost as if a lot of women are concerned about the risk of divorce and want to make sure that they marry a man that they can actually have a lifelong marriage with and have a good shot of raising a healthy family with.

If women don’t worry about divorce and divorce is so lucrative for women, why don’t we all just get married as soon as we’re legal and just keep getting married and divorced, collecting “cash and prizes” the whole time? (I have to mention here that I got my first serious marriage proposal when I was 19. I didn’t take him up on it, but he must have offered several dozen times.)

Also, come to think of it, I have to mention that to me one of the most mind-blowing things about your guys at Dalrock is how paranoid they are about divorce, but at the same time how much enthusiasm they have for stuff that is demonstrably very high-risk for divorce, namely young brides, little education for women, short courtships and short engagements. It’s like they’ve never read any of the social science regarding divorce, other than the stuff on partner count.

That’s cool coming from someone who thinks a 28% divorce rate among Catholics is something to be celebrated because it’s better than 38% among Protestants and 50% in the general population.

At least you acknowledge that increased premarital sex partner count correlates very well with increased risk of divorce. My counterpoint here is that asking young men and women to remain celibate far beyond the age of majority is a recipe for disaster with respect to future marriage prospects. With every new premarital sex partner comes a reduction in the ability to bond with a future spouse, it’s that simple. If parents are going to wink and nod when their kids get it on, they’re signaling they don’t care about their kids losing the ability to bond with future spouses, hence they deserve whatever negative effects they have coming to them.

When women signal they aren’t getting married anytime soon because of that “career” thing and the perks that come with it, men tend to stop getting ready to be providers because there are fewer women signing up for marriage. Men need a higher purpose in life, marriage is recognized as potentially being that hence many ordinary men are perfectly happy and willing to be draft horses for the potential wife and children in their lives, but what happens when society cuts such men off at the knees? One result is the volume of broken and cynical men populating Dalrock’s commentary. My response is to examine the truth within and pray for these men, yours is to say there’s no truth to anything they say and they belong in the nuthouse. My old alma mater now has 57% women, 43% men in its undergrad enrollment; personally, I think there’s something wrong with that picture and that we haven’t seen the end of this yet.

Hence … do you have any better ideas than “young brides, short courtships, short engagements” for making marriage a deal where men won’t be so nervous about the divorce rate? Or are men still supposed to accept at least 28% odds as the uncertainty price they have to pay?

Anyway, we’ve gone off course of the original thread topic, my apologies for continuing that trend … I’ll consider replies til tonight, then I’m giving up all non-essential Internet for Lent, among other sacrifices.

 

[EasterJoy]

Psychopaths like these teachers (huffingtonpost.com/news/teacher-sex/)? I can posit another theory for those “social taboos.” People way back when really cared about their family legacy (i.e. wealth and property) and who it was going to get passed onto. Since that acquired wealth was mostly at the hands of dad he wasn’t going to pass it onto just anybody especially if he was a dignitary. As a result, daddy’s little girl was locked in a bell tower until an acceptable suitor came along to prevent her from tarnishing the family name. Once upon a time people actually cared about their namesakes.

After reading this thread, I am really thankful to have a wife that doesn’t go around with a chip on her shoulder against all men. I don’t know how a guy could find any joy in marrying a woman that looks at men like potential criminals. If men did the same to women we’d be called sexist, chauvinist, etc. I guess “do unto others” only applies to some Christians…

Where on Earth did you get this from? You think guys have some conspiracy going on to make nuns out you? I’ve heard it all now…I really have.

And, FYI, none of the women that put me in the “brother zone” ever offered or tried to find me anybody. There goes that theory out the door.

Do you think some feminist taught me all this? The people who taught me that if women could read men’s minds, they’d all wear burkas? My brothers. The people who told me that they all hoped I’d become a nun so nobody would get me? My male friends from college. The people who told me they could not date someone like me because they couldn’t stand to have a girlfriend who was so much better in school than they were? Once again: a male friend.

I’m glad you found your wife. You only have to find the one. After that, the fewer women who are after you, the better.

As for those guys who are still looking, complaining gets you nowhere. If you don’t like it that women do not like to be approached socially by total strangers, too bad for you. You are not entitled to a position of trust. That is a gift, not something you can demand. If she is too picky to give you the look that you deserve, well, that is her loss. Keep moving and don’t get bitter about it. It will pucker up your face and ruin your day for nothing.

 

[EasterJoy]

Ted Bundy is a very interesting example.

I was just reading the Wikipedia entry earlier for this thread, and his name came up during the investigation, but he was initially discarded because the police believed that this law student with no prior criminal record couldn’t possibly be the prolific serial rapist and killer they were looking for. I guess that was early days in the understanding of serial killers.

“King County police, finally armed with a detailed description of their suspect as well as his car, posted fliers throughout the Seattle area. A composite sketch was printed in regional newspapers and broadcast on local television stations. Elizabeth Kloepfer, Ann Rule, a DES employee, and a UW psychology professor all recognized the profile, the sketch, and the car, and reported Ted Bundy as a possible suspect; but detectives—who were receiving up to 200 tips per day—thought it unlikely that a clean-cut law student with no adult criminal record could be the perpetrator.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Bundy

Some psychopaths lack all charm, but some know how to act the part of a normal person. They are on the far extreme of the guys women fear.

More common is the cynical fellow who “means no harm” but is willing to “bend the rules” to get a woman to “put out,” because the Evil One has him so enslaved to his lust that he has come to believe that indulging it is a physical need. (Isn’t that the great lie of our times?) He does not see what he is planning as somewhere between caddish behavior to attempted date rape. He sees it as “the way things are now” and rationalizes that “girls who aren’t careful really want to be wild, if you just give them a bit of encouragement.”

A woman only has to run into ONE guy like that, even peripherally, to become very wary. She, meanwhile, has been conditioned by the Evil One, just as the guy. She has been taught to believe that the only attractive clothing is sexually-alluring clothing. If the cad were to say that she is sending out mixed signals at best, he’d be making a fair criticism.

Yet how do the women do who dress modestly? For some reason, the fellows who say they want a nice woman have a hard time seeing them in a crowd. One of the sexy women walks by, and before you can snap your fingers, his tongue is hanging out and he is ignoring Miss Modest, because, well, we all do a second take when we see someone or something meant to allure. And how do the men who try to seem like nice guys, harmless guys? Yes, the Evil One has poisoned women against them, too.

I met my husband through friends who set us up. I knew they thought the world of him, because I had heard of him before the idea of setting us up came up. It did make a big difference.

 

[Xantippe]

More common is the cynical fellow who “means no harm” but is willing to “bend the rules” to get a woman to “put out,” because the Evil One has him so enslaved to his lust that he has come to believe that indulging it is a physical need. (Isn’t that the great lie of our times?) He does not see what he is planning as somewhere between caddish behavior to attempted date rape. He sees it as “the way things are now” and rationalizes that “girls who aren’t careful really want to be wild, if you just give them a bit of encouragement.”

A woman only has to run into ONE guy like that, even peripherally, to become very wary.

Right. You only need to meet one of those to become very wary of anybody who shares common features with him.

 

[underacloud]

EasterJoy;12759575:

More common is the cynical fellow who “means no harm” but is willing to “bend the rules” to get a woman to “put out,” because the Evil One has him so enslaved to his lust that he has come to believe that indulging it is a physical need. (Isn’t that the great lie of our times?) He does not see what he is planning as somewhere between caddish behavior to attempted date rape. He sees it as “the way things are now” and rationalizes that “girls who aren’t careful really want to be wild, if you just give them a bit of encouragement.”

A woman only has to run into ONE guy like that, even peripherally, to become very wary.

Right. You only need to meet one of those to become very wary of anybody who shares common features with him.

PS note to all men - if you hang around with other men who act like this, or see women in this light, you can rightly expect women to be wary of you too. Whether you like it or not, a woman’s impression of your friends will tell her a lot about your own character.

There is a saying: “You are the company you keep.”

 

[Xantippe]

That’s cool coming from someone who thinks a 28% divorce rate among Catholics is something to be celebrated because it’s better than 38% among Protestants and 50% in the general population.

**Beating the general population and Protestants by that much is worth celebrating. Catholics ought to be proud of that.

And presumably, you can improve the number even more for yourself personally by having other demographic and practical stuff in your favor: a 25±year-old bride, a bride with a college education (or equivalent), a bride that shares your personal finance philosophy and basic plans about family size and dealing with extended family, being financially stable, a courtship of reasonable length, an engagement of reasonable length, good marriage prep, getting married in the Church, etc., etc.

There are all sorts of ways to stack the deck in your favor. **

At least you acknowledge that increased premarital sex partner count correlates very well with increased risk of divorce.

**All things being equal.

But it’s not the only factor in divorce, which is how it tends to get treated at Dalrock.
**

My counterpoint here is that asking young men and women to remain celibate far beyond the age of majority is a recipe for disaster with respect to future marriage prospects.

**So, if it’s such a disaster, why is it that older couples are less likely to divorce than young couples?

(I got married just before turning 23, so I actually don’t have any personal interest in pushing later marriage. It’s just that the social science on this is pretty clear.)**

 

[Xantippe]

**This is a continuation of my previous reply to Zzyzx Road

I’ll put him in normal font and me in bold.**

With every new premarital sex partner comes a reduction in the ability to bond with a future spouse, it’s that simple.

**My suspicion is that the number of sexual partners adds up quickly early on, but slows down a lot later, so that it’s kind of stupid of the Dalrock guys to treat a 27-year-old woman as untouchable when she probably acquired the vast majority of her partner count (if any) by her early 20s. (However, it’s true that the later ones are more likely to be more serious.)

It’s also cruel and unfair to women that have found chastity a major encumbrance in dating and have found themselves getting older without having ever enjoyed the carousel o’ fun that the Dalrock guys believe is the universal female privilege. To give an example, I was in college 20 years ago when there wasn’t any college dating, either, and the sum total of my undergraduate dating career was (and this was all off-campus guys–on campus guys apparently couldn’t see me at all) 1) one coffee date 2) one month of seeing a guy and 3) half a year of seeing another guy (that was the guy that wanted to marry me when I was 19). Woohoo! Not much of a carousel, is it? After #3, there were about two years of nothing and then I met #4, my future husband. The Dalrock guys would have penalized me for those two years, assuming Lord knows what kind of debauchery, even though they were spent quite blamelessly.
**

If parents are going to wink and nod when their kids get it on, they’re signaling they don’t care about their kids losing the ability to bond with future spouses, hence they deserve whatever negative effects they have coming to them.

**Is there really such a huge problem with older spouses not bonding? How does that fit with the disastrous divorce data for very early marriage?
**

When women signal they aren’t getting married anytime soon because of that “career” thing and the perks that come with it, men tend to stop getting ready to be providers because there are fewer women signing up for marriage.

**In practice, career women are quite likely to marry, be good mothers, and have highly functional families. I see this every day in my social circle.

It’s poor women (who don’t have education or careers) that have problems with having successful marriages and stable families. **

Men need a higher purpose in life, marriage is recognized as potentially being that hence many ordinary men are perfectly happy and willing to be draft horses for the potential wife and children in their lives, but what happens when society cuts such men off at the knees?

**The problem is, a $10 an hour guy can barely feed himself, let alone a wife and multiple children.

That’s the guy that’s not getting married (although he may well have children).

Your middle class/upper middle class guy can and does get married to somebody very like himself and winds up with a very functional home.

Our circle is upper middle class, and in our social milieu, divorce is freakishly uncommon.**

One result is the volume of broken and cynical men populating Dalrock’s commentary. My response is to examine the truth within and pray for these men, yours is to say there’s no truth to anything they say and they belong in the nuthouse.

**I didn’t say that.

I do think that the gospel according to Dalrock is illogical and not well supported by the social science on marriage.
**

My old alma mater now has 57% women, 43% men in its undergrad enrollment; personally, I think there’s something wrong with that picture and that we haven’t seen the end of this yet.

**A big part of the picture is that while there are good-paying jobs for men that don’t require college, pretty much all well-paid women’s work requires a BA or more (teacher, nurse, physician’s assistant, occupational therapist, physical therapist, psychologist, etc.).

Also, it’s very difficult for women without a BA and without a career to marry a guy who makes a good living. These days, high-earning men do not marry women who only have high school diplomas and (even worse) women with just a high school diploma will have a very hard time getting married at all.
**

Hence … do you have any better ideas than “young brides, short courtships, short engagements” for making marriage a deal where men won’t be so nervous about the divorce rate? Or are men still supposed to accept at least 28% odds as the uncertainty price they have to pay?

**I’m about to say some un-PC things. I’ll admit in advance that lots of people break these “rules” and do just fine, but if you are actually terrified by the risk of divorce, here’s the best advice I can muster:

Very young brides are dangerous. Think of what you were like at 18 or 19 and imagine marrying somebody with your maturity level and decision-making ability at that age. Does that sound like a good idea? It’s really not. Why not look at women with a little bit more of a track record? They’ve managed to get through college, they’ve managed to work and support themselves for a couple of years and they understand the value of a dollar, they’re hopefully moving in the right direction with their finances, etc., etc.
**

**Short courtships are dangerous. People who have super short courtships often make unpleasant discoveries about their new spouses’ mental health, substance abuse issues, finances, ability to maintain employment, and personalities. Why not give it time to figure out who you are marrying? (I have to admit to having broken this rule, but the older I get, the luckier I realize I was.)

Super short engagements are also dangerous. I am pretty sure that a lot of the Catholic advantage with regard to divorce comes out of the 6 month engagement period that is demanded for Catholic weddings.
**

 

[Xantippe]

Wow, I needed a third section!

This is also to Zzyzx Road:

My (uncharitable) suspicion is that the young bride/short courtship/short engagement policy favored at Dalrock is not so much a well-reasoned anti-divorce preventative (because all three of those things contribute hugely to divorce), although it masquerades as such, but is driven by the all-too-human preference for pretty young girls and not wanting to be abstinent a moment longer than necessary. While understandable, those two motives need a good cold shower to keep them from getting nice young men into trouble.

I’ll also add that marriage contains many inherent risks that make divorce look relatively tame: the risk of miscarriage, the risk of stillbirth, the risk of serious pregnancy complications, the risk of having a disabled child that will require lifelong care, etc. There are also things that are near certainties when you have children. Once you have children, even under the happiest of circumstances, you have to be prepared to lose 90% of your disposable income and 90% of your leisure time. I suspect that a lot of the whining at Dalrock is caused by that last fact–parenthood is very emotionally taxing and expensive, and very few people are prepared to deal with the sudden loss of financial freedom and unstructured free time that it entails. I’m sure it’s very easy to blame wives (or husbands) for how hard and expensive it is when it just is hard and expensive to have a family–that is the nature of the beast.

 

[DarkLight]

More common is the cynical fellow who “means no harm” but is willing to “bend the rules” to get a woman to “put out,” because the Evil One has him so enslaved to his lust that he has come to believe that indulging it is a physical need. (Isn’t that the great lie of our times?) He does not see what he is planning as somewhere between caddish behavior to attempted date rape. He sees it as “the way things are now” and rationalizes that “girls who aren’t careful really want to be wild, if you just give them a bit of encouragement.”

It’s not always coming from men either. An entirely chaste woman who doesn’t follow all the rules can very well find other women see her as a tease at best and as promiscuous at worst. And this is probably more true in more conservative circles; a woman who does violate the rules may find that there are repercussions in her own social circle. (There are still circles where I won’t admit I quite enjoyed going to the bar with male friends twice a week - despite the fact that nothing more was going on than a bunch of grad students talking shop.)

My (uncharitable) suspicion is that the young bride/short courtship/short engagement policy favored at Dalrock is not so much a well-reasoned anti-divorce preventative (because all three of those things contribute hugely to divorce), although it masquerades as such, but is driven by the all-too-human preference for pretty young girls and not wanting to be abstinent a moment longer than necessary. While understandable, those two motives need a good cold shower to keep them from getting nice young men into trouble.

You were more charitable than I would have been.

The sort of men that frequent such places tend, as a group, to want women who will comply with their wishes, provide sex on demand, and not have goals that might conflict with what the man wants to do. And it’s easier to get that sort of compliance from a young woman, especially if she’s been whisked off into marriage without much time to really think it over. Unfortunately very often the woman wises up after a time to the fact that she’s not being treated as an equal partner and decides to leave.

 

[Xantippe]

You were more charitable than I would have been.

The sort of men that frequent such places tend, as a group, to want women who will comply with their wishes, provide sex on demand, and not have goals that might conflict with what the man wants to do. And it’s easier to get that sort of compliance from a young woman, especially if she’s been whisked off into marriage without much time to really think it over. Unfortunately very often the woman wises up after a time to the fact that she’s not being treated as an equal partner and decides to leave.

Unfortunately or fortunately? Hard to say.

I think you’re correct that there’s 1) the belief that a young women is more pliable (as well as more desirable) but also 2) the very real possibility that a very young woman will eventually grow up and wise up (or try to reclaim the youth she never had). (One of my cousins robbed the cradle–he was her youth pastor. 20+ years later and after a large family of homeschooled children, his wife bolted and has since reunited with a high school sweetheart.)

So, it is a very risky move to marry a very young woman, as is reflected by the divorce stats for that age range.

 

[flyonthewall86]

Do you think some feminist taught me all this? The people who taught me that if women could read men’s minds, they’d all wear burkas? My brothers. The people who told me that they all hoped I’d become a nun so nobody would get me? My male friends from college. The people who told me they could not date someone like me because they couldn’t stand to have a girlfriend who was so much better in school than they were? Once again: a male friend.

I’m glad you found your wife. You only have to find the one. After that, the fewer women who are after you, the better.

As for those guys who are still looking, complaining gets you nowhere. If you don’t like it that women do not like to be approached socially by total strangers, too bad for you. You are not entitled to a position of trust. That is a gift, not something you can demand. If she is too picky to give you the look that you deserve, well, that is her loss. Keep moving and don’t get bitter about it. It will pucker up your face and ruin your day for nothing.

So you extrapolate what the few guys in your life said to be representative of all men. First off, women are no more “noble” than men in the sexual thoughts department. **Have you been reading this 50 Shades of Grey hysteria that women are flocking to see in the movies and dragging their boyfriends/husbands to see? ** If men did the same we’d be chewed out like there is no tomorrow and shouted at from the mount for objectification. I think people need to stop running to the Middle East burka analogies every time the issue of sexuality comes up with regards to men in the western world. Seriously. The only thing this reference shows is that one needs to go to an extreme to cover up for the weaknesses in their argument.

If your male college friends told you they wanted you to become a nun then you had some pretty messed up friends. I have never thought that about any female friend and I never would. As far as the guys who couldn’t handle you getting better grades, again with the anecdotal claims. If you choose these men to be your male role-models that’s your business but don’t extrapolate their misrepresentation of masculinity to the rest of us. We’re individuals just like women are and its this thinking that we’re not that is uncharitable. It would be just as uncharitable to assume all women are jealous and scheming or Lizzy Borden types.

 

[Xantippe]

So you extrapolate what the few guys in your life said to be representative of all men. First off, women are no more “noble” than men in the sexual thoughts department. **Have you been reading this 50 Shades of Grey hysteria that women are flocking to see in the movies and dragging their boyfriends/husbands to see? ** If men did the same we’d be chewed out like there is no tomorrow and shouted at from the mount for objectification. I think people need to stop running to the Middle East burka analogies every time the issue of sexuality comes up with regards to men in the western world. Seriously. The only thing this reference shows is that one needs to go to an extreme to cover up for the weaknesses in their argument.

If your male college friends told you they wanted you to become a nun then you had some pretty messed up friends. I have never thought that about any female friend and I never would. As far as the guys who couldn’t handle you getting better grades, again with the anecdotal claims. If you choose these men to be your male role-models that’s your business but don’t extrapolate their misrepresentation of masculinity to the rest of us. We’re individuals just like women are and its this thinking that we’re not that is uncharitable. It would be just as uncharitable to assume all women are jealous and scheming or Lizzy Borden types.

Not to over comment on this thread, but it’s not exactly bizarre for a serious Catholic woman to be encouraged by friends to consider becoming a nun.

 

[Sarcelle]

So you extrapolate what the few guys in your life said to be representative of all men. First off, women are no more “noble” than men in the sexual thoughts department. **Have you been reading this 50 Shades of Grey hysteria that women are flocking to see in the movies and dragging their boyfriends/husbands to see? ** If men did the same we’d be chewed out like there is no tomorrow and shouted at from the mount for objectification. I think people need to stop running to the Middle East burka analogies every time the issue of sexuality comes up with regards to men in the western world. Seriously. The only thing this reference shows is that one needs to go to an extreme to cover up for the weaknesses in their argument.

If your male college friends told you they wanted you to become a nun then you had some pretty messed up friends. I have never thought that about any female friend and I never would. As far as the guys who couldn’t handle you getting better grades, again with the anecdotal claims. If you choose these men to be your male role-models that’s your business but don’t extrapolate their misrepresentation of masculinity to the rest of us. We’re individuals just like women are and its this thinking that we’re not that is uncharitable. It would be just as uncharitable to assume all women are jealous and scheming or Lizzy Borden types.

You should also be telling this to men. Men are just as likely to consider all women as the same.

 

[AnneElizabeth]

…

The sort of men that frequent such places tend, as a group, to want women who will comply with their wishes, provide sex on demand, and not have goals that might conflict with what the man wants to do. …

Would this not be the mentality that pornography teaches?

 

[AnneElizabeth]

Not to over comment on this thread, but it’s not exactly bizarre for a serious Catholic woman to be encouraged by friends to consider becoming a nun.

Yeah, what’s wrong with wanting to serve God as a nun?! Is that something shameful now?

 

[Xantippe]

Would this not be the mentality that pornography teaches?

Yes, and that’s what makes it so very peculiar that Dalrock is purportedly a Christian site and his commentors are largely self-described Christians. What they want from women is so obviously just a lightly Christianized version of the pornographic promise: barely legal women, physical perfection, total sexual availability, minimal demands on the man for anything, and so forth. In this vision, women don’t have legitimate needs, worries, or sufferings, and children are (quite oddly for an ostensibly “traditional” Christianity) barely visible at all.

And yet, there are quite a number of CAF posters that are regulars at Dalrock.

 

[DarkLight]

Would this not be the mentality that pornography teaches?

It’s been noted before that you can find very similar attitudes among both those who promote sexual license, and among certain branches of Christianity. The mere dressing of marriage does little to combat the fundamental disrespect for women. In some ways the Christianized version is more dangerous because it fancies itself as doing more than simply gratifying desire.

In both cases the woman is objectified; the difference is that in the Christianized version she is “owned” by one man rather than being free for all.

 

[AnneElizabeth]

Yes, and that’s what makes it so very peculiar that Dalrock is purportedly a Christian site and his commentors are largely self-described Christians. What they want from women is so obviously just a lightly Christianized version of the pornographic promise: barely legal women, physical perfection, total sexual availability, minimal demands on the man for anything, and so forth. In this vision, women don’t have legitimate needs, worries, or sufferings, and children are (quite oddly for an ostensibly “traditional” Christianity) barely visible at all.

And yet, there are quite a number of CAF posters that are regulars at Dalrock.

I’m not going to bash a man’s desire for sex. Some of what you posted above I feel might be wrapped up into a man’s sexual desire and I don’t wish to bash that at all, but I do wish to address to the men that they should be taught at a very young age to be able to pin point lust, recognize it in oneself and know the why of why it is very evil and not to be a participant in it. Its taught in the proverbs.

I can’t really comment any more on that whole "dalrock’ thing… I don’t’ know much about it, and sadly its probably a pocket of people who are being trapped by* some* evil thoughts and lures. (The devil mixes truth with lies… so not all of what a movement is about is wrong) Happens to us all, and how lucky are we are when there are no ‘movements’ being started to push our mistaken beliefs. There are a lot of them these days and a soul must be diligent in asking Christ for His direction and pray to watch out for the pitfalls. The internet and social media has made it easy to get these movements started. There have been so many of them, and they cause destruction among the masses. They do not promote peace in Christ.

I’m actually a proponent of couples marrying early. I don’t believe in the whole ‘make sure you are economically sound or that you know yourself’ mindset… I have to believe that these things are cultural, and that yes, it may be that its better for those in that culture to marry economically sound and to be older and know themselves, but however, its not true in all circumstances and certainly not for all cultures. I just think our culture here in the states is particularly very entwined with materialism and that causes a lot of problems in marriage that was not there before. I think because of our culture, we do not fully mature until much later, which is causing problems. I would say that if people began to be self sufficient and family orientated, that might change… but the family itself must be healthy- that is, they must be God-fearing.

I don’t have any problems with a man’s desire to marry a woman and have sex with her, hope she is beautiful, hope that she will be receptive to what he wants to do, love him, take care of him, help him- talking about sexual and non sexual here. I can understand the lure of porn to men, but I just wish that man men realize that as soon as they agree to use porn, they have agreed to think of woman as their possessions and objects to use, that women* become* a nothing that are only good as long as they are beautiful and horny for them. When they do that, they give free reign to those thoughts and it clouds their mind set and woman can pick up on it. I think this is why we have such problems. Men excuse their lust thinking its normal, and women can’t bond with a man who thinks that way. Its just impossible for a woman to excuse a man’s lechery and still have an ounce self respect- and self respect is what makes them beautiful and alluring in the first place!!!

I’ve said it before, and I will say it again, I believe that 99% of the worlds problems today are because of this mindset. Lust clouds the soul big time- and that goes for men and women, not just to men. But because God put men in charge as the natural leaders according to the abilities he gave them which women don’t possess naturally, its a major problem that causes a weakening of the fabric of society.

… and it all starts with men agreeing not to see women as objects for gratification. Looking at porn is a YES to that statement. You have agreed to see women as such and thus you WILL believe as such.

 

[AnneElizabeth]

Just wanted to say also that some women also sometimes have high demands on men. We ought not be looking to men to be God. Its not wrong to* hope* for near perfection or hope for something that is great, but it is misguided to expect it- that goes for either sex.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

(…)

If your male college friends told you they wanted you to become a nun then you had some pretty messed up friends. I have never thought that about any female friend and I never would. (…)

That’s a rather strong stance on something that is a legitimate vocation for a woman.

Not to over comment on this thread, but it’s not exactly bizarre for a serious Catholic woman to be encouraged by friends to consider becoming a nun.

Yeah, what’s wrong with wanting to serve God as a nun?! Is that something shameful now?

I, too, am curious why a Catholic man would find this objectionable. Perhaps you’ve shown your hand.