A blog for Christian men "going their own way."

Friday, November 7, 2008

Women Who Diss Christian Men As Being Weak

MLV's most recent post is a must read. It's a stark commentary on what men of faith face from their religious sisters when it comes to mate selection. He writes ...
... Women adore authentic men, even if they are authentically awful. This means they want to be dominated and controlled by men. Their emotional attachment to bad men is far more fulfilling and satisfying than they can ever admit. If they step away and realize how badly they are being treated, it is a cause for shame and embarassment.
MLV goes on to note ...
What does this mean for ordinary decent Christian men? It means if you have been taught from an early age that being a "nice guy" and being hyper religious is a way to win a good wife, you are being fed a load of nonsense. Women have ZERO interest in good and gentle men. They have huge interest in powerful, successful and sometimes abusive men. I see very few exceptions to the rule.
Perhaps this isn't true for all religious women, but unfortunately, it's true for too many of them. Even when people recognize this as a problem, it all too typical for them to suggest that we need to "restore" masculinity in our churches (as if faithful, Christian men have somehow lost something valuable that worldly men retain).

Uh, no. The problem is not the Christian men. The problem is the women. When they chase bad bays and invest themselves in destructive relationships, they are only demonstrating that they are not marriage material. These women are guilty of the doing the following to their faithful brethren:
  1. Dismissing humility as insecurity.
  2. Dismissing gentleness as ineffectuality.
  3. Dismissing prudence as cowardice.
  4. Dismissing peaceableness as indecisiveness.
  5. Dismissing long-suffering as defenselessness.
  6. Dismissing kindness as obsequiousness.
  7. Dismissing tender-hardheartedness as effeminacy.
These qualities are commanded by God for men (Eph. 4:2, 32; Titus 3:2; Prov. 24:3). These qualities are not optional. To reject these qualities or to water them down in the name of a worldly, Fight Club style masculinity is to rebel against the Creator. It's all too easily for men to sell out to make themselves appealing to women or to be respected by other guys. My fellow men, don't sell out. Christianity will always appear to be weak and stupid to those headed for destruction (1 Cor. 1:18). There are many men who are not afraid of pain or death, but who are nonetheless afraid of shame. Don't be afraid of shame (Matt. 5:11). It is the Devil's tool to make us conform to the status quo. Show your strength by refusing to give in to the false visions of manhood put out by others. Let the sinners call you a sissy for following the Prince of Peace. Remember that there will be a correction to that nonsense (Rom. 12:9; Luke 18:7; 2 Thess. 1:8).

For those godly men who have been rejected by religious women, take heart. You dodged the bullet. The chaff was separated from the wheat. You were spared being unequally yoked with women who merely had the form of godliness (2 Tim. 3:5). Here's the point: These women failed to trust in God. If they had trusted God, they would have not sought false security in the arms of ungodly men. They would have not embraced false masculinity.

I believe the shallowness of these women is worse than the shallowness of men. Why is this? When a man seeks out physically attractive women, it only becomes a problem when he places a premium on external beauty to the extent that spiritual considerations are compromised. On the other hand, when a woman chases ungodly men with certain endemic traits, she is outright repudiating when the Lord expects men to be. Let's face it: A man can go to heaven without such a woman. He can go to heaven even if all women are like this.

In short, when it comes to the temptation to be like the men of the world, don't take the blue pill, guys.

48 comments:

Amir Larijani said...

Actually, MLV makes a very astute observation, and this is not restricted to the religious/Christian realm. In fact, Vox Day has even hammered this point: women don't want "nice" guys.

When given a choice between the nice guy who is attentive in church and delivers meals to old ladies in nursing homes, and the punk rocker who will crash the headboard at her expense, women will opt for the latter.

Of course, it is also true that, given the choice between the nice gal who is faithful in church and has average looks, and the drop-dead hottie who only comes to church when it's volleyball season, the guys will generally opt for the latter.

There's plenty of finger-pointing to go around. MLV is right about his observations, and there are gals who will make reverse observations as well.

Anonymous said...

You're right Amir, when it comes to putting looks ahead of character, it is a two way street.

And I don't buy the whole "I'm nice and I get rejected therefore I get rejected because I'm nice" theory in this post either. It's true that there are some people (of both sexes) that come on too strong with the niceness thing, and that drives people away. But I think a lot of the nice people who get rejected aren't rejected because of the fact that they're nice, but that they get rejected, despite the fact that they're nice. Good looking nice people don't get rejected nearly as much, so their niceness doesn't seem to be a problem for them.

As for worst case scenarios "chasing bad boys", there are some women who are into that, but since we're talking about church women, let's just say that the taboos about winding up with a less than "godly" husband are enough to preserve enough "decent" women available for marriage by the time a guy reaches 35. And most of those women will eventually opt for a "nice guy" (whether he's attractive or not), or keep waiting for a "nice guy" who's also attractive and interesting. I think it's the latter group that's got the goats of most of the guys here.

imjustagirl said...

It's not about being bad, it's about confidence.

Anonymous said...

Since when is acting like an ass a sign of "confidence"? The only confidence a man ever needs is that which affirms his own self worth over what any woman thinks of him.

imjustagirl said...

What I was saying is that a guy doesn't have to act like an ass (and shouldn't). Just ordinary confidence will do, thank you very much.

Is confidence a guarantee that the girl you like will like you back? No. Are there girls out there who are impressed by guys who act like asses? Yes, just as there are guys who are impressed by women who act like b----es.

The point is that too many "nice" guys look at that minority of women who are in relationships with jerks and falsely generalize that "women just want to be jerked around".

The fact is that neither sex wants a lapdog, but at the same time, nor do most people appreciate being abused. Both sexes will wait to find someone balanced.

Anonymous said...

Don't even bother. These guys can only see things in extremes. The worst case scenario masochist chasing after bad boys who act like asses. That's what women want. Oh yeah.

Anakin Niceguy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anakin Niceguy said...

Anonymous 9:06 writes ...

And most of those women will eventually opt for a "nice guy" (whether he's attractive or not), or keep waiting for a "nice guy" who's also attractive and interesting. I think it's the latter group that's got the goats of most of the guys here.

Yeah and I'm the one who holds up the book of a Marriage Mandator and cries a jag about how the opposite sex won't do their part to be desirable and marry me. But seriously, the point of my post is not that women who chase bad guys need to date me. It was: it is no good to sacrifice Biblical manhood to attract women who chase bad guys.

many_luxury_vacations said...

Thanks for the plug, Anakin.

I think it is interesting that my real-life observations are met with such hostility and condemnation.

Not all women are seeking abuse; not all men are seeking virginal barbie doll clones.

The axiom remains true in secular life and Christian life: A good girl likes nothing better than a bad boy. Women are supposed to guard themselves against those "practiced in the small arts of popularity", and seek out good men. Men are supposed to control their aggression, and not be promiscuous.

I don't condemn women or men, I simply report what I see in my own life. Most women aren't looking for goodness and decency, but rather an income-producer with a great deal of arrogance.

I had a long back-and-forth discussion two years ago with the most popular proponent of the Marriage Mandate (we all know who I'm talking about here). She simply didn't care about values or living a Christian life, it was 100% about income and attractiveness. If that meant accepting an obnoxious personality or a somewhat "mixed" moral character, that was more than OK with her.

The message for Christian men? Be on guard; there aren't too many good women out there.

Triton said...

Yes, just as there are guys who are impressed by women who act like b----es.

There are? I've never met one.

I think a better comparison would be "Yes, just as there are guys who are impressed by women who dress and act like sluts".

I can't imagine any man outside of the BDSM scene actually being impressed by a woman's shrewishness.

The Learner said...

I think a better comparison would be "Yes, just as there are guys who are impressed by women who dress and act like sluts".

When I read imjustagirl's comment I could think of many examples of men I know being attracted to "bitches". But now that you say that Triton, it is true that the vast majority of those women who come to mind were quite slutty as well. I think also that women are more likely to be bitchy to other women while behaving differently around men (I see that with my students all the time).

The axiom remains true in secular life and Christian life: A good girl likes nothing better than a bad boy.

True about some women, but I don't think it is the majority that y'all seem to believe it is. I think maybe part of that is that sometimes women are not good at discerning a good guy from a bad one. What seems obvious to you as a man observing from the outside may not be that obvious to her.

Christina said...

It was: it is no good to sacrifice Biblical manhood to attract women who chase bad guys.

That is a good point, Anakin.

Your post didn't really come across as such from the female pov...

Girls really don't go for the "bad guy" on purpose, like Learner said. At least not the majority in Christian circles.

There are other issues that go with the typical "nice" guy that are difficult to overcome...like shyness, quietude, not willing to face a fight to tell us we're wrong about something.

At least from all the Christian girls I know that are my friends and have opined on their inability to find a guy that's decent and can handle them, there issue is they can't find a strong, Christian guy who will tell them that they are wrong when they are wrong. No one is willing to go up against their opinions or challenge them intellectually and would rather avoid the fight than be in an equal or dominant position with them.

And with the stereotypical "nice" guy, that's what you picture.

I've dated all three - bad, nice, and balanced. The bad was abusive. The nice was neglectful and sometimes just as abusive. The balanced has so much more to offer me. And you know, if you met him, you'd think he's a bad boy (I thought he was when I met him for the first time...prejudiced?) but I've rarely met men so GOOD.

Anonymous said...

Christina is hilarious. Is she a parody figure? With her come-hither, laying on the bed pose, and her comments about how a bad boy (even in appearance) is rare but "GOOD", she proves the point.

Too many "Christinas" out there are looking for the secular ideal of a man; about 60% nice guy and 40% jerk. They follow secular cues in what they think a mix of good and bad really is. Most of them work through boyfriend after boyfriend and never figure out what is best for them.

If there is a God in His Heaven, he will protect good and decent men from the likes the many "Christinas" out there.

Mordecai Lament said...

Well, lets see. I guess if you want to classify me, classify me as a blend of geek/nerd and tough guy all in one. Don't know what you call that. One leads to another. It's called tech support. Yes, it's not glamorous. But it keeps food on my table. For now. Yeah, I know. Phone Monkey doesn't pick up chicks. The chick probably isn't worth having if she's offended. (Yeah. I said it. My give a care is broken this week and probably won't be repaired for a while. Go talk to someone who does care.)

As to Christina, I'm going to take her at her word. She understands the feminine mind better than I do. Further, the explanation is somewhat rational... though I'd question how the whole "I fell for the wrong guy" thing works, but I'm fairly picky on who I date, to the point where I've really only wanted to date one particular girl who has expressed mutual interest. That's a much longer story, though, that I really don't want to get into. (Sorry, Christina if it sounds like I'm talking out of both sides of my mouth. I get what you're saying... sorta.)

Anonymous said...

What I was saying is that a guy doesn't have to act like an ass (and shouldn't). Just ordinary confidence will do, thank you very much.

Confidence, like beauty, is of relative measure. Is it confident enough that a man who sticks to his principles no matter what someone else's opinions of him might be? I would say so.

The fact is that neither sex wants a lapdog, but at the same time, nor do most people appreciate being abused. Both sexes will wait to find someone balanced.

Usually this epiphany comes after spending their most youthful and thus most desireable years chasing after those same bad boys. Nice guys are only good for paying the caterer after the party is over. Need evidence? Just go to any singles website, and read profile after profile. Most of these are from forty-plus women who pour out their tales of woe, and basically say that the time has come to market themselves out to someone who will justify their bad decisions in chasing after the drug-dealers, abusers, and other sorts of pond scum.

The solution? Men should stop seeking the approval of women and hold to their principles. They should stop setting their self-worth upon their success with women. If a man cannot be accepted as he is without playing some idiotic role as defined by women, they pretty much cease to be men, in my book.

Amir Larijani said...

Anonymous says:

Christina is hilarious. Is she a parody figure? With her come-hither, laying on the bed pose, and her comments about how a bad boy (even in appearance) is rare but "GOOD", she proves the point.

Actually, she suggested that--by initial appearances, he would otherwise seem "bad". I would even suggest that such a quality probably kept them from getting together even sooner.

Too many "Christinas" out there are looking for the secular ideal of a man; about 60% nice guy and 40% jerk.

Actually, as one of those in whom Christina was interested--the killer in our case was the ZIP code differential--that isn't true. She was, in fact, looking for a Christian guy with a proverbial pair between his legs. That's the difference between a "good" guy and what Paul Coughlin rightly calls a "Christian Nice Guy".

The larger problem is that the Church has actively undermined masculinity, and now we have a whole mother lode of wussified men in the Church who won't stand up for anything.

On the other hand, you would be right to suggest that there are women who are more interested in the "bad" guys than in the good Christian guys.

Christina, on the other hand, is not in that camp.

They follow secular cues in what they think a mix of good and bad really is. Most of them work through boyfriend after boyfriend and never figure out what is best for them.

I know a few of them. One of them--after dissing the good Christian guys in the Church--"settled" for a guy of dubious character. I laugh my butt off every time she complains.

If there is a God in His Heaven, he will protect good and decent men from the likes the many "Christinas" out there.

Well, Christina is hard-headed, but I would not rank her anywhere near the divas that you are describing. In fact, she's more of a radical anti-feminist.

Christina said...

ML...

lol. I think I understand what your saying.

It is hard to understand falling for a "bad guy".

As one who successfully did so (once and never again), let me explain some things in that particular scenario.

First of all, I was brand new to a new school and town without my family (freshman in college).

Second of all, the people I knew prior to arriving were involved in the Christian Groups arena of the college campus and when I attempted to hook up with them in an effort to get connected, I was blown off. Doesn't bode well for aligning myself with the "nice" (preferrably "good") Christian guys.

I was new, so I didn't really know much except that several girls in the Math lab usually made fun of him mercilessly, but he was the first one to "invite" me to a Christian event on campus. He was a bit boorish...at first. I was just "nice" because that's kinda what shy, nice girls do in uncomfy situations - they're quiet and nice.

Eventually, he started to be NICE. I saw a different side of him that few other people ever saw. And even those still close to him admit that I saw a side of him no one else ever did see.

When he knows how to be deceptive, use words to his advantage (english major), genuinely is in love, and showered me with pretty things (I put a stop to that with the subsequent two boyfriends that followed) Its kinda hard not to fall for being "special" to someone like that.

Its really actually quite easy...why? Because girls really like to be needed. And he did need me...in a way that i saw as quite obvious. So I "kinda" fell. He was my first boyfriend, so that undoubtedly didn't help me, either...and my best friend in high school had a similar abusive streak, so I simply was used to it and not quite sure how to identify it.

My aunt (a police officer) tipped my mother off. My mother told me. I started noticing the tell tale clues - isolating me from my friends that disliked him, making me feel that i could never find anyone who would love me like he did (actually, he said that), and using pretty gifts to manipulate me and take advantage of my easily triggered guilt complex, and being overly possessive of everything about me (grabbing my hand and saying "mine" was the more mild instance of that).

So yeah...I finally broke it off.

And I will never ever ever do that again. And I haven't ever done that again.

Since, I've dated 2 guys with good reputations that I had some foreknowledge of and input from other people I trust before dating. Though one still ended up a bit on the abusive side, it wasn't nearly so blatant and insidious...more like a lack of consideration than anything else on his side.

I'm aware its still hard to understand...but I think that the tell tale thing here is not that I dated a "bad boy" but that I only dated ONE and he was the FIRST. I learned from the experience and walked away with MANY lessons that I've implented in the last two relationships.

Now...as for Anonymous's little take on my current relationship with a "bad boy part good".

First of all, he's ALL good. There's not ONE ounce of bad in him.

As Amir said, it was appearance. And it was all prejudice. He flirted relentlessly with me - I thought he was a player. He rode a bike - I thought he would be abusive. He drank alcohol and tried to get me to drink more - ummm trying to take advantage of me? I was attracted, yes - but there was no chance in hell I was gonna date a guy like what I had perceived in my head.

ALL of those were reasons why it took EIGHTEEN MONTHS before I EVER gave him a shot at a date. EIGHTEEN MONTHS in which his ex-cubemate joined my team at work and discovered that I knew him...and told me what a great guy he was. Eighteen months in which my 2nd ex-boyfriend joined his team and told me how nice, intelligent, and a little wacky he was. Eighteen months of going to several other get togethers in which he always took care of me and never took advantage of me - and I got to see how he interacted with others.

I learned what his reptuation was, that he was a christian, that he was well respected and well liked. In short, I found out he wasn't the bad guy I thought he was. Oh...and he is an INCREDIBLE nerd...

So I went on a date with him. And another. And another. And he was nothing short of honorable with me.

So yeah...say what you will, Anon, but your arugments are constantly NOT gonna hold water because you seriously have no idea who I am.

Anonymous said...

Christina,

You desperately need to be loved and needed. You are very turned on by a strong man, regardless of his values, and you still seem not to trust your own instincts. You run on feelings, not logic.

Listing a long line of loser boyfriends doesn't show wisdom. You may have a good heart, but your head is all popular culture.

You've already proven you can be sold by an immoral manipulator, but if a strong Christian man tried to take the lead with you, you'd resist with all your strength.

I think 99% of us have you figured out completely. You aren't complicated in the slightest.

With respect,
Anon

Christina said...

Anon,

Do you have me figured?

So I was manipulated by the first guy that ever gave me the time of day. Eighteen years old, never dated, never had a good christian guy pay me any nevermind.

Those eighteen months I spent actively involved in a church and attending a bible study religiously. There were guys there lookin and none of them looked my way even though I gave them friendly smiles. After one or two times of trying to get their attention (and the pastor trying to get their attention), I would just hunker down to what I was good at and participated in the bible study.

I've dated 3 guys...that's hardly a "string".

First was a REALLY bad idea. A mistake I never repeated.

The second was a REALLY nice guy. Bad decisions on both our parts and being taken advantage of led to some abusive gestures that coulda been avoided if I'd played more with my head.

Third, I'm marrying him in 6 weeks. Hardly a "string". Each one I learned lessons.

And FYI, I trust my feelings a lot less than you seem to think. I've said it so many times...I'm the most frustratingly hormonal girl out there but I desire organization and reason. Because of that, I have to struggle daily to keep my feelings ruled by logic. And because I know my feelings play such a big role in my decisions, I strive to get all the facts and logic taken care of way before the feelings have had the oppurtunity to get involved.

After the first boyfriend, that's exactly what I did. Here's the facts, this is what I know of him, he's got a good reputation. Wish I'd known then what I know now - that guys with no or very few guy friends probably have a reason for it...

its funny, cuz I could say the same exact thing about you guys and the string of bad apples you've dated (anakin, mlv, amir, and ew), but I won't. Because I understand that things aren't always what they seem and deception can be a strong hindrance to finding someone good and decent without making some mistakes - some more costly than others.

You've already proven you can be sold by an immoral manipulator, but if a strong Christian man tried to take the lead with you, you'd resist with all your strength.

Yes...like I clearly did with Amir...

Who, FYI, is the ONLY strong Christian man who has ever tried to take the lead with me besides the one I'm about to marry.

Amir Larijani said...

Christina says:
[Amir]...Who, FYI, is the ONLY strong Christian man who has ever tried to take the lead with me besides the one I'm about to marry.

Zip code is a bitch. LOL

KnightWatch said...

Bah. I don't think it's about the "nice guy" at all. It's about meek men in general. Even though "the meek shall inherit the Earth", in today's culture meek men are yesterday's news, especially in church.

Fortunately, there are a few women like Sabine Barnhart who believe that A Meek Man Is a Noble Man

I am here to tell you that I like the word "meek." I say meek men are very attractive and endearing. They hold a quiet power within themselves that resonates to the outside. They stay calm during a storm and don’t panic when the waters get rough. Meek men are prepared for anything that comes their way to protect the ones they care about the most.

Regretfully my gender looks at men in a different way. Some women are very attracted to the outward power of a man. If he doesn’t have a certain status he is not considered as a possible mate. Sometimes women are also attracted to bullies. The more obnoxious the man, the more she is drawn to his barbaric traits. It is a sad statement about my gender. Outward power is deceitful and lures the prideful into unrecognized slavery.

I find meek men far more interesting. One of the reasons they may not be recognized as good leaders is because we have forgotten the decent traits of such a man. He is not loud or boisterous like his opposites. He tends to use his skills and brilliance in a quiet way that draws loyalty from those around him, but overlooked by the ones who are not looking beyond the obvious.


A very good article.

As for male "confidence"? I believe more than half the women these days mistake narcissistic qualities in a man for what they "think" is confidence.

Anonymous said...

All this talk about "bad boys"...

Sorry Christina, but enigmatic Christian guys who are possessive and like head games hardly qualify as "bad boys". Immature, perhaps, but not at all in a league with guys who commit crimes, do drugs, get girls pregnant and dump them, etc., etc. -- let's reserve the term "bad boys" the ones who make the other 50% of the contribution towards the "nanny state".

And to you so-called "nice guys" out there licking your wounds? Just because you are Christian, "meek", quietly staying outta trouble, that hardly warrants you a free crying towel. It is quite possible to be all of those things, while underneath the surface are a lot of unrealistic expectations. ML complains that chicks don't want tech support guys, a claim I find highly dubious alongside his admission of being "fairly picky". Fine to be what you want (actualizing the full potential of your self-confessed nerd/geek persona), and hold out for what you want, but sooner or later, you gotta take responsibility when one doesn't add up to the other.

For both sexes, really: whoever said it was enough to just be "nice"? In our individualistic society where orginality is over-emphasized, there are too many people out there complaining "I just want someone to like me the way I am". The gender roles of more traditional societies ensured that people cultivated the qualities that would be appealing to the opposite sex. Now we have masses of people reinventing the wheel into ill-formed oddities as they try to "find themselves", creating selves that are pleasing to no one but themselves.

The Learner said...

Sorry Christina, but enigmatic Christian guys who are possessive and like head games hardly qualify as "bad boys". Immature, perhaps, but not at all in a league with guys who commit crimes, do drugs, get girls pregnant and dump them, etc., etc. -- let's reserve the term "bad boys" the ones who make the other 50% of the contribution towards the "nanny state".

Anakin/MLV,

Is anonymous' definition of a "bad boy" what you were thinking of?

Christina said...

Is anonymous' definition of a "bad boy" what you were thinking of?

If that's the case, not myself and none of my friends would ever consider dating such a guy.

Anonymous said...

Is anonymous' definition of a "bad boy" what you were thinking of?

Although the question was not directed to me, I think anon(12:11pm) comes here to play the devil's advocate so she can get feedback on her term paper.


The gender roles of more traditional societies ensured that people cultivated the qualities that would be appealing to the opposite sex.

So, is this *approval* that you (and your omega female companions) prefer a more traditional society, married before you were 21 along with the other baggage? I didn't think so! ROFL

Anonymous said...

How you define "bad boy" is everything, as far as this blog is concerned, because it reveals the red herrings on which most of its complaints are based.

In this particular post, Anakin repeats one of his pet themes about "godly men who have been rejected by religious women" who have sought "false security in the arms of ungodly men" -- as if the single "nice guys" in the church are suffering a shortage of never married women in the church who haven't been occupied by "bad boys" and destructive relationships! If you don't want a woman who's damaged goods, then fine, there are plenty of never married, never common-lawed, childless women in our churches under the age of 40 (like the ones who frequent this blog), who have never been with a "bad boy" and would be embarrassed to even be seen with one because they see them as losers.

The real issue is that among never married Christians over a certain age a "bad boy" or "bad girl" is an exaggerated and misleading term for another chaste peer who has the added cache of that extra bit of charisma that attracts members of the opposite sex, many of whom possibly end up feeling that the person "led them on". Also applies to same sex peers with more charisma who unfairly seem to get away with being gamesy, snarky, cavalier, etc. yet have no problem attracting the opposite sex. But such is the competitive arena of mate-finding, whether in a Christian context or not.

So please, enough sensational talk about welfare dependent single moms knocked up by ex-cons and outlaw bikers when really those true bad boys and girls are a minority in our churches and really don't affect the romantic prospects of the childless never married, academically inclined 40- virgins who regularly rant on this blog.

Anonymous said...

[...]and really don't affect the romantic prospects of the childless never married, academically inclined 40- virgins who regularly rant on this blog.

Does that include you?

Anonymous said...

Yes.

The Learner said...

It's like reading someone talking to themselves...am I the only one who gets confused with all the anonymous comments?

childless never married, academically inclined 40- virgins

You say that like it's a bad thing...

Anonymous said...

"childless never married, academically inclined 40- virgins...You say that like it's a bad thing"

It's not necessarily a bad thing to be a childless never married, academically inclined 40 year old virgin. I just doubt Anakin's suggestion that the rejection experiences of church going men that position really come mostly from women "chasing bad boys". It's more a matter of aging church going virgins of both sexes rejecting each other. But people here don't want to talk about that. It's more titilating to point the finger at nanny state baby mamas and gold digging divorcees.

The Learner said...

Anonymous,

As someone who fits the discription I just found your statement amusing....but, I am pretty easily amused.

I don't see where the rejection experiences of church going men that position really come mostly from women "chasing bad boys is a claim made in this post. I thought that it was good that Anakin said that not all church women are like that.

The Learner said...

Anakin,

When a man seeks out physically attractive women, it only becomes a problem when he places a premium on external beauty to the extent that spiritual considerations are compromised.

While I think that people have a right to have preferences (physical and otherwise) for what they are looking for in a mate, I disagree that the above only becomes a problem when a man puts physical beauty above spirituality. (It certainly is a problem for godly women who are not conventionally attractive who want to marry!) Just like the scenario you describe where men may think that they need to be a "bad boy" to attract a woman and that might lead men to aspire toward ungodly ways of being, women could also get caught up in ungodly ways such as vanity, materialism, pride, destructive habits, immodesty, competitiveness, etc.

Amir Larijani said...

Anonymous says:
It's not necessarily a bad thing to be a childless never married, academically inclined 40 year old virgin. I just doubt Anakin's suggestion that the rejection experiences of church going men that position really come mostly from women "chasing bad boys". It's more a matter of aging church going virgins of both sexes rejecting each other. But people here don't want to talk about that. It's more titilating to point the finger at nanny state baby mamas and gold digging divorcees.

I know one who is in her late 40s, academically and professionally gifted and is still single.

Here is the scenario.

She did exactly what her parents taught her to do: she went to college, majored in accounting, became a CPA, and worked her way up the career ladder. Today, she is a partner at a CPA firm, very wealthy, owns two homes, and is active in the church, playing in the orchestra and even leading women's Bible studies from time to time.

Why isn't she married?

How is she going to be able to submit to the leadership of a man who (1) does not know at least as much as she does about finances, and (2) is not at least as assertive personally as she is professionally?

Remember: men want a help-meet, not a competitor. She's a VERY competitive type.

As for her appearance, she had average looks. (I didn't know her in her younger days.) But, she has allowed that to deteriorate over the last few years. Probably depression-related.

I can also name another person who is now in her 50s and is still single. I can tell you EXACTLY why she is still single: she took absolutely no care of herself.

I felt sorry for her, though, because a lot of that was probably a depression spiral. It sucks when you're the church pianist your whole life--like she is--and you end up playing the piano at everyone else's wedding, while wishing that you could be the bride and not the pianist.

Why wouldn't I pursue her?

(1) She's old enough to be my mom, at 17 years my senior. (Sorry ladies, but the dynamic is different when it's the woman who has that age advantage.)

(2) I am not remotely attracted to her.

Call me any name in the book, but even the pastor--still a friend of mine--was understanding of that. He said, "Ya know, Amir, if I were you I wouldn't go there either. I just wish there were an easy answer to this."

Anonymous said...

The biggest thing most Christian girls could do to get a nice Christian guy is don't be fat and don't be a nag. For the entire marriage. That would be enough for me.

Amir Larijani said...

Anonymous says:The biggest thing most Christian girls could do to get a nice Christian guy is don't be fat and don't be a nag. For the entire marriage. That would be enough for me.

I'll take it you're a different "Anonymous" than the other "Anonymous" monikers who blog here. It could also be that "Anonymous" has multiple personalities, but I digress...

Seriously, nagging is part of married life. Husbands do it. Wives do it. A certain amount of it is normal. Even in good marriages.

As for weight, most couples I know take care of themselves, although some weight gain is normal. (The "I got fat and happy" line is common.) I only know a handful of couples who are super-fit, and that is only because they are fanatical about exercise.

I don't expect her to do that. Quite frankly, when/if I get married, I don't even expect me to keep doing that.

Priorities change. Husbands and wives often have to sacrifice elements of who they were in their single life for the good of the marriage.

That 3 hours a day in the gym could certainly intrude on home life. Ergo, cutting back versus tending to wife and/or kids ought to be a no-brainer.

You accept the covenant, you accept covenant responsibilities.

Ditto for her.

Now does that excuse people to completely disregard basic fitness? Not by a long shot.

On the other hand, I've seen a fair share of super-fit couples get divorced. Too much time in the gym and not enough in the Scriptures.

andtheoldladysaid... said...

Amir,

If you wait until your forties to find a wife, well, this is what you'll be left with.

As for single professional women in their forties letting themselves go, who says it's "depression"? Maybe they've decided they'd rather eat out with their girlfriends in the great restaurants affored to them by their "lifestyle choices".

Amir Larijani said...

andtheoldladysaid...:
If you wait until your forties to find a wife, well, this is what you'll be left with.

LOL. You have once again stuck your foot in your mouth. At the time, I was 27, and she was 44 at the time. She looked much older than that.

So please, continue to make an ass of yourself and make gratuitous assumptions about me. You are only providing great entertainment, at your own expense.

Amir Larijani said...

andtheoldladysaid... says:

As for single professional women in their forties letting themselves go, who says it's "depression"? Maybe they've decided they'd rather eat out with their girlfriends in the great restaurants affored to them by their "lifestyle choices".

That might have some validity, except--in the case I am describing--she doesn't frequent many restaurants, and has recently re-taken up running to get her weight down (she used to be a very avid distance runner who once completed a marathon).

In her case, I really felt bad for her because--like I said--she did everything she was taught. She looks at her experience in bittersweet terms: her life is hardly a waste--she's always been active in church--although she wishes she had not been so hypercompetitive as an accountant in her early post-collegiate life.

As a libertarian, I'm all for the rights of people to pursue their own happiness in life. On the other hand, one thing we don't do a good job teaching young people is that time is almost never on your side.

Moreover, as I've often said: men want a help-meet, not a competitor. Ergo, pursuing professions that reward you for being controlling, supercompetitive, and cutthroat, can be detrimental to one's marital prospects, if she wishes to secure a good Christian man. (Not saying the chances are zero, just that they get diminished.)

I know a lawyer who is in the same position as the accountant. Like the accountant, her life is hardly a waste either--again, lots of church involvement, Christian life experience, etc.--but she spent her prime childbearing years working very long hours building a legal career.

She wishes she hadn't done that. She'd love to trade her wealth to have some of her youth back, with a husband and kids.

Again, a bittersweet scenario, where she did exactly what she was taught.

andtheoldlady said...

"If you wait until your forties to find a wife, well, this is what you'll be left with.

LOL. You have once again stuck your foot in your mouth. At the time, I was 27, and she was 44 at the time. She looked much older than that."

No dice. You were speaking in the present tense.

Amir Larijani said...

Andtheoldladysaid...:

My apologies then.

On the other hand, you don't know jack about me, and cannot speak with respect to my experiences.

It's not like I said when I was a teen, "Ya know...I'm gonna wait to get married."

I didn't get a youth experience in church--due to my Iranian heritage, and my dad being Muslim, I didn't get to go to church. I started attending, however, when I began college.

Trouble is, I attended a college where the boy-girl ratio was 5:1. I majored in engineering, where the ratio was 10:1.

Out of college, I pursued almost anyone--within the context of church or parachurch work--within striking distance who was remotely compatible. It simply hasn't worked out.

I say that out of zero bitterness, as I look back on most of those relationship failures as Providential.

One gal went bipolar.
One had a catastrophic bulimic meltdown.
One ditched me--then another guy in the same church--before chasing an inmate and finally settling on a nonbeliever.
One gal refuses--for reasons known only to her--to ever marry.
One eventually died of cancer, largely because of the very stubbornness that doomed her with me.

I say that just to point out that, for some of us, that's just the breaks.

As I told Anonymous, people have varying reasons for protracted singleness. Some of those reasons are not within our control. Some, in fact, can be quite Providential in retrospect.

At any rate, I haven't "waited" to get married; I simply haven't found one to marry.

A guy on my engineering design team in college found himself in the same boat. He's a year my senior, and his experiences were much like mine. This year, he got married. After long years of looking to no avail, he found one.

And he made a very good catch.

I told Alpha Romeo (the bride's phonetic initials) that she needs to thank every gal who shot Echo Romeo down over the years.

She smiled, cried, and high-fived me.

andtheoldlady said...

"My apologies then.

On the other hand, you don't know jack about me, and cannot speak with respect to my experiences."

Apology accepted. And my "if you wait 'til you're in your 40's to find a wife" was meant to be tongue in cheek, so my apologies if that upset you. My point is that when it comes to never-married people of both sexes in their 40's, what's left over is pretty much slim pickin's. You should be glad that I didn't give you a run down of the aging bachelors in my church!

But seriously, if we are honest, among those virginal 40 somethings, there tends to be more women with something going for them than their male counterparts 9yes, yes, I know you're the exception, engineer and all). Here's one theory:

Among average to less than average looking women who are capable of supporting themselves (ie. most), and particularly among those who do so very well, many will opt not to marry at all rather than marry an average or less than average looking guy that they are not attracted to. Whereas, in the past when women had less options for self-support, they would marry for support regardless as to whether or not they felt any attraction to him.

On the other hand, male sexuality is such that a man who is less than average in terms of attractiveness (let's say that's an aggregate of looks, personality, intelligence, resourcefulness), is still likely to feel some attraction to less than average looking women. This is because men tend to have wider, more accommodating "love maps" than women, who are by nature more discriminating. For this reason, there will always be more spinsters than bachelors, but especially so when women have more access to employment.

For those remaining bachelors (who may or may not have much going for them) surrounded by surplus aging women who aren't that interested them (part of that also has to do with perimenopause), it would especially seem that women are awfully picky.

Amir Larijani said...

Andtheoldladysays says:
Among average to less than average looking women who are capable of supporting themselves (ie. most), and particularly among those who do so very well, many will opt not to marry at all rather than marry an average or less than average looking guy that they are not attracted to. Whereas, in the past when women had less options for self-support, they would marry for support regardless as to whether or not they felt any attraction to him.

I won't say that's not possible, but most of the women I know in that bracket have wanted to marry.

Most of what hurt them was being hypercompetitive on the professional front in their early postcollegiate years.

One of the points I have made--many times--on my own blog is that, if you wish to have a husband and kids, time is not on your side. If you pick a career like law or medicine--in which, after education, residencies, and so forth--you often don't get established until you are in your 30s. By that point, your fertility is already going south.

Making matters worse, some professions (law, for example) tend to reward--handsomely--people for exuding the very qualities (manipulating people and situations, always having to be right no matter if you are wrong, being overly competitive) that would be detrimental to a marriage.

As I've long-said: men want a help-meet, not a competitor. Even a pretty well-educated guy like me would have second thoughts about dating a lawyer. After all, 99% of lawyers give the other 1% a bad name...

Combined with aging, it just gets more difficult for a woman in some of those professions to find a guy.

And if you are in one of those careers--like you said--all the guys are going to appear at or below average. If you are an established CPA, attorney, or physician, for example, a guy like me--an IT professional with an engineering degree and an MBA who is in excellent physical condition--might look "below average".

On the other hand, male sexuality is such that a man who is less than average in terms of attractiveness (let's say that's an aggregate of looks, personality, intelligence, resourcefulness), is still likely to feel some attraction to less than average looking women. This is because men tend to have wider, more accommodating "love maps" than women, who are by nature more discriminating. For this reason, there will always be more spinsters than bachelors, but especially so when women have more access to employment.

I would definitely agree with that, as it is a huge myth--that men are only looking for super-hottie types. In fact, men--with some exceptions--have a wide variety to which they are attracted.

For those remaining bachelors (who may or may not have much going for them) surrounded by surplus aging women who aren't that interested them (part of that also has to do with perimenopause), it would especially seem that women are awfully picky.

There might be some truth to that. Another side of that coin is this: I've long-contended that, as we get older, we tend to get more risk-averse. That is because as we get older we have more to lose if a marriage goes to crap.

Ergo, what some women may have found worth the commitment 10 years ago, they might not deem worth that risk now.

(The same is true for the men, by the way.)

I'm not saying that's all good or bad. It just is.

andtheoldlady said...

"I won't say that's not possible, but most of the women I know in that bracket have wanted to marry."

They may have wanted to marry, but at each point along the way, with the options available to them (however limited they might have been), they said "no thanks". And I think that's what offends so many of the guys who might have otherwise "settled" for these gals - that they'd rather be alone than settle for someone they don't love.

"Most of what hurt them was being hypercompetitive on the professional front in their early postcollegiate years."

I don't think that's "most" of it. This is:

"And if you are in one of those careers--like you said--all the guys are going to appear at or below average."

"If you are an established CPA, attorney, or physician, for example, a guy like me--an IT professional with an engineering degree and an MBA who is in excellent physical condition--might look "below average""

I think that's a myth. Most high-end female professionals I've met have been quite prepared to "marry down", but not too far down. There's been some research that says that women with means place more priority on looks, as if to say "I've got enough money, I just want romance".

"It is a huge myth--that men are only looking for super-hottie types. In fact, men--with some exceptions--have a wide variety to which they are attracted."

Speaking of high-end female professionals, their male counterparts have more options because wealth is valued more by women than men, which the men can (to some extent, depending a lot on their own attractiveness) use as leverage to find the most attractive (and possibly) partners. So it does reduce their pool of available suitors.

"I'm not saying that's all good or bad. It just is."

Ditto.

Amir Larijani said...

Speaking of high-end female professionals, their male counterparts have more options because wealth is valued more by women than men, which the men can (to some extent, depending a lot on their own attractiveness) use as leverage to find the most attractive (and possibly) partners. So it does reduce their pool of available suitors.

On the other hand, being on the high-end and finding a suitable mate definitely has its challenges.

Some of the men in that category are finding out that, when the money starts drying up, that trophy wife might just find another trophy case.

I think that's a myth. Most high-end female professionals I've met have been quite prepared to "marry down", but not too far down. There's been some research that says that women with means place more priority on looks, as if to say "I've got enough money, I just want romance".

Actually, I'd submit that high-end professionals (men and women alike) place a greater emphasis on looks for any number of reasons:

(a) they want to be comparable with others in their social circles;

(b) they feel that, with their achievement and status, they are entitled to better than average;

(c) being a high achiever often comes through being a perfectionist, and many--men and women alike--in that category have such expectations in any potential mate.

Making matters worse, as we get older, we tend to impose what we have learned about the world on the people we meet.

If you had asked me in my 20s what I would want in a mate, I would have said--other things being equal--that I wanted a serious Christian.

While that is still true, I have more understanding about how that unfolds in a person's life now than I did then.

If one is not careful, one can develop an overly-critical spirit through which one imposes unfair judgments on potential mates, to his or her detriment.

I doubt that the high-end folks of whom I am speaking fall into any of the aforementioned categories.

The accountant is not holding out for a super-hot male; she would like for a man to be remotely interested. Ditto for the lawyer. I would not consider either of them snobby about that by any measure.

Trouble is, their achievement--fairly or unfairly--makes them more difficult to marry. That they have allowed their looks to deteriorate has not helped them. Any reasonable man would have a hard time visualizing how the Ephesians 5 dynamic plays out in that house.

As for the church pianist, she chases after every single man--to the point of stalking them--who enters the church building. She's what I would consider a tragic case. Her parents have much to do with that. Apron strings were way too tight.

Today, she's in her mid-50s, and is in bad health. She started letting it slide in her 20s--I once saw some pictures of her from those days in old church yearbooks--and now it has burned her.

andtheoldlady said...

"On the other hand, being on the high-end and finding a suitable mate definitely has its challenges.

Some of the men in that category are finding out that, when the money starts drying up, that trophy wife might just find another trophy case."

I doubt that the serial golddigger phenomenon described in the article is common among the professionals, per se. It's more a problem of the "super-rich", as the article calls them. And they are a different breed altogether -- the rich you see, are not like you and me -- which is why no one should make any generalization about gender based on the lives of the rich and famous crap you see on TV. The "super-rich" guy knows that the love of a "trophy wife" is conditional upon his continued success. And he's not risk adverse about it, because he estimates highly his own abilities, and can afford to pay the alimony -- and probably will when he swaps the aging trophy wife for a younger one. Anyways, I'm not losing sleep over either of them -- they deserve each other!

"Actually, I'd submit that high-end professionals (men and women alike) place a greater emphasis on looks for any number of reasons...I doubt that the high-end folks of whom I am speaking fall into any of the aforementioned categories. The accountant is not holding out for a super-hot male; she would like for a man to be remotely interested. Ditto for the lawyer."

I wasn't suggesting that they are holding out for super-hotties. But I doubt that they would be satisfied with a guy who's merely "remotely interested", either. They are likely wanting a guy to be "intelligent enough" and "attractive enough", BUT...just because a guy measures up on those two variables, it doesn't mean that the woman's going to be interested in him. I would reckon that they have been exercising some degree of selectivity, even as their options decrease over time as they lose their looks. There's probably some much older, plumper aspergers-type who would have them, but they wouldn't go for that (and who would blame them?).

As for the pianist, she sounds like a nutjob.

jehu2006 said...

that pins christian men in a corner. if things break down in our society and if law does not prevail, we all may see some strange things. These 'bad boys' may discover that their heads will explode when hit with bullets. there will not be an option to marry such men if they have no skull. im sure, to such women, who we will call shannon wrench of the dalls oregon, christian men will be 'all ears' to their requirements of marriage. Many christian men will be wearing the ears of the great thousands of 'bad boys' they had to sley to gain their rights for breeding.

Anonymous said...

I have a different kind of story - a Christian woman who controls her husband in all ways! She made him go to church and turn into a Christian or she would leave him (and he would not be able to see his 2 kids). She gives him an allowance and if he is good and doesn't spend all his money, she gives him money to buy pizza for his lunch on Friday. If he stps on the way home to pick something up at the store, she will put money back into 'his kitty' Mind you - this is a grown adult working man! She won't do his laundry or make his lunch in the morning. He is allowed to smoke but only because he is miserable when he tries to quit. Years ago, he used to ride his motorcycle to our house and complain about her but she made his sell his bike and won't let him leave his house without her knowing where he is. She is in full control and he doesn't have any balls! Literally - he had to have a vasectomy - she didn't want a tubal ligation - no discussion about it.
I know this isn't the Christian way.

Anonymous said...

Christian men are very possessive over Christian wives and girlfriends because of this. These bad, non-Christian men are luring their wives away.

And also, men, including Christian ones, never chase the bad girls at all, when they get involved with bad girls, they abuse them. Bad girls easily attract abusive men that they chase. Bad girls chase, good girls don't. Instead, men chase the good girls because men are the ones supposed to be chasing women only while women are supposed to be open to being chased and pursued.