As for her pointers to the ladies to “Up Your Girl Game”:

1. Achieve and maintain physical fitness.
2. Dress to flatter your body shape and use makeup to enhance your features.
3. Aim for a vibe in your appearance that says “girlfriend” rather than hookup.
4. Cultivate a friendly demeanor and pleasant personality.
5. Recognize that guys will care about your sexual history, and behave accordingly.
6. Indicate interest in a relationship to filter out cads and attract like-minded guys.

The only one I would take slight issue with is #2. I would recommend that a gal dresses casually to professionally. If she has “features”, trust me: the guys are going to notice no matter how suggestively–or not–that she dresses. We’ll notice because, well, that’s what guys do.

To her credit, Walsh does balance #2 with #3. I would summarize it like this: while it is okay to dress attractively, there is also a fine line between that and dressing like a slut. I recommend taking good care of yourself, dressing modestly–but not trashily–and being affable (#4).

#5 and 6 are huge. Listen up, ladies: Any woman–no matter her attractiveness–can get laid. Go to any frat party, and–without much effort–you’ll have at least one ride.

But here’s the thing: the men–even the good guys among us–don’t have it quite as easy. (Even the most successful PUAs–think Roissy–strike out about 70% of the time.) A good guy has to work very hard just to get a woman who is interested in him for anything.

We also know that, if you have had a substantial number of partners–the studies I’ve seen indicate that more than 5 is where things start getting bad–your chances of being good marriage material start dropping like a paratrooper with a faulty chute and no reserve.

The men know this.

This is why Christian guys–generally a forgiving lot–aren’t going to be enamored with the prospect of dating a Sigma Chi Gangbang Champion. While everyone–even a virgin–is going to have some sexual baggage (in our pornified society, it’s darn-near impossible NOT to), the guys are looking for a “keeper”.

Call me what you want to call me, but a high number of partners does not say “keeper”.

So ladies, in this marathon called life, please think twice before you drink of the sex-positive cup that the feministas are handing you.

The naked truth is this: they are a pathetic, miserable herd of rabid jackals who wish to make you as miserable as they are.

(HT: Vox Day at Alpha Game)

BEIJING — Feminists are concerned that some Chinese women in their late 20s who are doing well in their careers but are labeled “leftover women” for not having married yet, may be their own worst enemies.

Yep.

“They are still living in a traditional mindset and values, even though there’s no way that those can solve their problem,” said Feng Yuan, a feminist and head of Beijing’s Anti-Domestic Violence Network, in a telephone interview. Other feminists agreed with her.

What is missing is a stronger awareness of the dynamics of gender, said Ms. Feng. “If they don’t gain gender consciousness then they can only rely on luck to solve their problem,” she said, meaning they can only hope to solve the problem if they meet a man who earns more than they do.

The other side of the coin is this: in China, thanks to the stupid “one child per family” law–compounded by the emphasis on having a male over a female, which incentivizes abortion–there are far more available men than there are available women. This is probably also contributing to the extra choosiness by the women, which–in turn–works against them as well as the men.

MrsLarijani and I noticed the same thing at her alma mater (Covenant College). A couple days before we got married, her college had a singles forum. Both sexes were well-represented (very much unlike my alma mater). Almost all of them were between ages 18-22. Almost all the women were at least moderately attractive. Every one of them wanted to be married. And yet there was little or no intentional pursuit going on.

I’ll bet I could have randomly paired each guy with a gal–tearing a page from Sun Myung Moon–and everyone who wanted to be married could have been married, and this would have resolved some of the anxiety on both sides.

One of the moderators–a graduate who was himself in extended singleness–did, to his credit, point out that the male students had a unique opportunity that they could not reasonably expect outside of college: a deluge of women. I gave him an earful afterward and told him to keep telling the guys that: it won’t get any easier.

“Shengnu,” or “leftover woman,” a term applied to China’s well-educated, unmarried women, has long been hurtful for those labeled in that way.

Recently, some have started to push back by swapping it for another word that is pronounced identically but is written differently in Chinese, and has a far more positive meaning: “shengnu,” or “victorious woman,” as I write in my Female Factor Letter today. (Some prefer to render that as “successful.”)

Yet despite the hurt, some women seem unaware that wanting a man to earn more, even when they themselves are equally well-educated and capable, may be working against them.

Zhou Wen, 27 and unmarried, is a secretary at an American marketing company in Beijing. She explained that it’s widely thought a man should earn more than a woman for the match to be right.

“Why aren’t girls prepared to marry a man who earns less? Because income represents your ability,” she said in a telephone interview.

“If you earn less it means you have less ability and no one wants to marry someone with less ability,” she said.

Why not be financially equal, sharing the rent and other living expenses?

“Most people think that equality isn’t just a question of 50-50 on bills,” she said.

“Male-female equality is about making men and women equal and if I contribute 50 percent of everything that doesn’t mean I’m equal,” she said. “Men should respect women, respect their ideas and ways of thinking, and not be the kind of person who says ‘everything a woman says is nonsense,’” she said. That said, she added: “I’m not opposed to going 50-50.”

I would not be so hard on the Chinese women in this case. While hypergamy is nothing new, there’s a lot more cultural emphasis on it over there. Compounding matters, these women are doing exactly what they have been pressed to do by their parents and society. Combine that with the poverty from which many families are now emerging, it’s easy to see how the women over there can get sucked into a proverbial death spiral.

Having said that, parents–on both sides of the Pacific–need to look long and hard at what they are teaching their children.

The fertility clock is not something invented by men. It is biological and it is what it is. Fact is, it peaks at about age 28.

If you graduate from college at age 22, your optimal fertility window is 6 years.

If you have not met your husband, that means you now have 6 optimal years during which to find a man, date, get serious about getting married, get hitched, and start working on having children.

During that time, if you date a guy and it doesn’t work out, you are back to square one.

After that 6-year period, you enter the sub-optimal phase, during which your best childbearing years are over, and your biological clock is in the 2-minute warning. Making matters worse, if you’re not careful, your peak attractiveness might also start slipping, and this could be a problem when you are competing with younger women for the same pool of men.

(Don’t start hating on me for saying that, because I didn’t create the reality; I’m just reporting it.)

Oh, and hypergamy doesn’t make this any easier.

Now I realize that a feminist can read this and conclude that I am against women getting an education and a career. In fact I have said nothing of the sort.

At the same time, going that route is going to require a level of prudence, planning, and purposeful action that cannot be taken for granted.

And society is behind the curve dealing with this problem.

China has the problem in spades, but it’s not exactly rosy over here either.

This is why young girls dress sexy … because their momma’s do.

Ladies, save the sexy for your husband … and then flaunt it all you want to his heart’s desire. But with middle school boys? Please dress a bit more modestly.

The teacher–RR, who was also my tennis coach–was quite liberal, but, to his credit, was fair in his presentation to the class. He was a secular Jew who, while not Christian, grudgingly appreciated the benefits that Christians brought to the table. Neither myself, nor any other Christians in the class, ever had a problem with him.

In fact, get this, folks: RR referred to anal sex as “sodomy” and, while conceding to conventional wisdom–which, at the time, dictated that one in ten people were gay–he seemed to think of that lifestyle as an aberration. (In fact, most of the teachers–even the most liberal, tolerant folks who were high up in the local teacher union–were of that mindset. While they harbored no hatred of gays, they did not look at the lifestyle as one to be embraced or promoted, either.)

The year was 1983, and the United States was a different country. Reagan was President; the Cold War was hot; the Moral Majority had its high water mark of relevance; and, while Americans were not on board with Jerry Falwell, the American people had no desire to ditch the Judeo-Christian consensus that made America–and Western Civilization–exceptional. Americans weren’t all Bible-believing Christians; they did, however–sometimes grudgingly–accept that the Christian consensus that informed our understanding of law and justice, even with its faults in execution, was a good thing.

Back then, gay “marriage” was on no one’s radar.

Sadly, the year was 1983, and the decline–while under the radar–was already in progress.

The same decline that has destroyed Europe had not quite come full-circle in the United States. But the wheels were turning.

Abortion had been legal for ten years; the process that led to its legalization had been in play for longer than that. The Kinsey reports of the 1940s were a culmination of the synthesis of Darwinian thought presented as science, Nihilist rejection of objective truth, academic hatred of all things Christian, and outright fraud.

But, over time, Kinsey’s key mantras were absorbed into the mainstream: the academy, the justice system, the news media, the entertainment sector, and–before long–most sectors of government.

Making matters worse, key sectors of the Church were already in the process of succumbing to European skepticism. This process began in Europe with the Enlightenment, then accelerated with the advent of Biblical liberalism, whose adherents promoted “Higher Criticism”. By the mid-1940s, the same Germany and France that gave us Luther and Calvin, and the same England that had given us Wilberforce, Spurgeon, Tyndale, and Edwards, was all but dead.

While the Europeanization of America had been going on since the late 1800s, this process accelerated after World War II. American seminaries welcomed European scholars, and sent their best students to study in European seminaries. Those great students would go on to become pastors, scholars, authors, and professors who would pass on that liberalism to their students.

This is why mainline Protestants in the 1960s, sadly, were making “care packages” for Communist soldiers in North Vietnam, all while our men were fighting valiantly–and dying–to liberate people from a brutality that was rooted in the godlessness of Communism.

This is why the Church was caught flat-footed by the onslaught of feminism and the ensuing Sexual Revolution.

This is why the response of the Church has been largely reactionary: opposition to agendas rather than a promotion of a better agenda rooted in Creation and Redemption. If the Church teaches a sexuality that consists of, “Don’t have sex until you get married; it’s better when you wait…” or “If you wait until marriage, you will be a better flower in the garden…” or “The men will appreciate you better if you wait until marriage…”, then that is proof-positive that they are being reactionary.

Otherwise well-intentioned efforts–such as the True Love Waits initiatives–reflect a Church that is in reactionary mode. As a result, the Church is failing in its role of salt and light. They first are caught flat-footed, and their response is proving to be years late and many dollars short.

Hugh Hefner started Playboy in 1953; he called himself Kinsey’s pamphleteer. This marked the advent of modern pornography, which added rocket fuel to the fire of the Sexual Revolution. A pornography industry that was once relegated to the seedy sectors of American society is now part of our mainstream. While I have never seen their movies, I know who Jenna Jameson and Ron Jeremy are. But they wouldn’t be mainstream without Linda Lovelace and Harry Reems. (That Bob Woodward would use the title of their signature movie as a code name for a Watergate informant speaks volumes to the impact that pornography was already having on our mainstream.)

During this time, the sexual revolution was in full swing, and homosexuals were gaining an unprecedented level of acceptance. The Church’s response: the liberals began the process of blessing homosexuality; the conservative response was mostly reactionary, providing Biblical exposition as to why homosexuality is a sin.

On abortion, the Church was sleeping at the wheel. While the Catholics were fighting it–even as they were decimated by the Griswold v. Connecticut decision–the Protestant world was all over the map, and didn’t have a clue what they were up against. When Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton came down in 1973, even the Southern Baptist Convention was ambivalent if not supportive of it. In fact, it would not be until after 1993 that The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary would bring in an ethics professor who opposed abortion.

During that time, conservatives embarked on campaigns against gay rights. In spite of these efforts, court decisions and corporate-political-academic tides have not only ramrodded homosexuality down our throats, they have managed to capture public opinion by pointing to social and economic inequities–that our liberal establishment has spent decades creating–in order to promote the cause of gay “marriage”.

On pornography, the reaction was similar: the Church mounted spirited campaigns against pornography. The Supreme Court punted on the issue of obscenity and established a “community standard”. That led to a plethora of anti-porn efforts in local circles. All of that was rendered moot with the advent of the World Wide Web.

When public schools began promoting promiscuity-based sex education, the reaction of conservatives was to bring in abstinence-based sex education. (Again, reactionary.)

While I have no qualms with the conservative viewpoints regarding pornography, homosexuality, and abortion–I oppose abortion, sodomy, and pornography–the problem is not the viewpoints, but rather the reactionary presentation of sexuality as a whole. (On sex education, I oppose all government involvement in this. That is the responsibility of parents.)

What Christians have failed to grasp is that the Sexual Revolution is not simply about sex. If it were just that, the “revolution” would have been over as soon as AIDS came to fruition in the 1980s. Roe v. Wade would have fallen during the Reagan years.

No, the Sexual Revolution was–and still is–merely one front in the larger attack against God’s created order. It is rooted in a denial of a God who Created everything; it is rooted in the denial of the primacy of Man over other created things; it is rooted in the denial of Man’s fallenness; it is rooted in the denial of Man’s need for a Messiah.

While Jerry Falwell was absolutely correct about the sinfulness of homosexuality, I think he missed it when he categorized it as one of our great “National Sins”. Ditto for pornography.

While we must rightly call homosexuality for what it is–just as we must call adultery for what it is, just as we must call lustful intent for what it is, just as we must rightly call covetousness for what it is–the societal recognition of these things is not the problem; it is a symptom.

Rejection of God’s Natural Law–and the implications of that–has led us to where we are today.

From here, it will get worse before it gets better. The Christian consensus that made America exceptional is eroding, and that erosion has accelerated from a slow, arduous process to a very rapid process.

Will we go the way of Europe, or will we experience a reclamation? Will we face the hard truths about our failings and act diligently on that truth, or will we continue to live in denial, providing–at best–reactionary answers to problems that require addressing the ugly roots?

I am not hopeful for the short-term. I believe we will probably see at least one post-Christian generation, during which we will witness an era of barbarism that would make the worst of our atrocities against the Indians pale in comparison. Legalized abortion is the tip of the iceberg, and that is fomenting a culture of death that has yet to come to full fruition. But it will, and the results will be ugly.

In the long-term, I am hopeful. Jesus said that not even the gates of Hell would prevail against the Church. Not even all the blunders of the Vatican of old could extinguish the Gospel; God raised up reformers like Luther, Calvin, and their contemporaries. Fallen men they were, but they were instruments of deliverance nonetheless.

Every dog has its day, and that is true of the godless. They will revel in their short-term victories, just as their predecessors–from Nero to Stalin–did.

And yet the Church–bloodied as She may be–is still in the fight. And while Her enemy will make that path ugly and nasty and dark, Her light will overcome that darkness.

But just as Jesus–when confronted by the Pharisees on various matters–responded by pointing to the roots (in some cases Natural Law), the Church must be forceful in doing this.

Whether you are a young earth Creationist or someone who accepts that the earth and universe could be much older, Creation is a big deal. Connecting sexuality with marriage, rooted in Creation–as Scripture does–is a big deal.

That’s because it never was “all about sex,” but rather about a God who makes and keeps His promises.

I’m old enough to remember when AIDS first hit the national scene. It had started out as a virulent illness largely confined to the male homosexual community, intravenous drug users, and those who slept with people in those groups. Early in the game, some hemophiliacs, organ transplant recipients, and others who relied on blood transfusions, were infected via a contaminated blood supply. But by the late 1980s, we turned the tide against that. But not before Ryan White–and tennis great Arthur Ashe–succumbed from tainted transfusions.

Back then, if you tested HIV-positive, it was tantamount to a death sentence. The only drug that had shown any promise was AZT, which was a crapshoot.

Today, HIV/AIDS is still largely restricted to the male homosexual community, intravenous drug users, and those who sleep with people in those groups. If you keep your pants zipped until you get married, eschew intravenous drug use, and neither you nor your spouse enter the marriage with HIV, and you each remain faithful, your chances of getting HIV/AIDS are infinitesimal.

It is the same with any other sexually-transmitted disease. HPV, syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, herpes, the list goes on.

On the bright side, HIV/AIDS is not necessarily a death sentence anymore. The treatments are more effective; the protease inhibitors developed in the mid-1990s sparked the development of new generations of drugs that are making HIV/AIDS a more containable condition, much like diabetes. While there has been huge talk of a vaccine, I wouldn’t hold my breath: HIV is not like the flu; it is as elusive as the common cold, only deadlier. Development of a vaccine–or even a cure–is probably many years down the road, perhaps decades.

On the downside, HIV/AIDS is merely the devil we know. If science develops a cure for HIV/AIDS–just we developed a cure for most strains of syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia–we still will have plenty of devils we don’t know.

The new strain of gonorrhea should be troubling. This is because–due to the misuse of antibiotics–even the development of a cure for these new bacterial strains will be problematic.

And that does not account for the new viruses we will see emerging.

Ultimately, we need to face the reality: the counterculturalists of the 1960s and 1970s were wrong. “Free love” is too expensive.

Before the sexual revolution, a smaller amount of women were engaging in the bulk of the promiscuity, and the female virgins outnumbered the male virgins across the board.

Today, it is the other way around, even though the women have more to lose: their bodies are more receptive to various STDs than the men’s bodies are. (Back in the day, I warned my CPC clients: “You have a greater chance of getting HIV from a man, than a man would have of getting HIV from you if the roles were reversed. And if you get HIV, your life as you know it–is over.” I said that because, back then, HIV was a virtual death sentence.)

The hookup culture has given women carte blanche to engage in sexual behavior that now carries far less societal stigma than it did 30 years ago. The men, sadly, have also taken the Red Pill. If you’re a man and have the audacity and no morals, it’s easy to get laid. If you’re a woman and want to “hook up,” that scene is easier today than it ever has been.

That said, the Law of Sowing and Reaping shall not be up for repeal. And as long as we insist on a society where our moral understanding is not informed by the Christian consensus that served America well–before we absorbed European post-Christian skepticism–we will continue to reap the whirlwind.

And yet, there are colleges with entire education tracks–early childhood education–designed to prepare students for jobs with such economic limitations.

Making matters worse, we have a government that encourages this. Here’s a real-life example of how this has played out. Names have been changed to protect the guilty.

Let’s say that our federal government has $1 million in grant money available for initiatives in “early childhood education”.

Let’s say we have a university: BSU. The initials “BS” can mean whatever the reader wishes.

BSU decides to compete for the grant, proposing the development of an early childhood education center–i.e. a state licensed “preschool”–that will be staffed with faculty, highly-experienced teachers, and students. This will allow students to gain work experience as they work toward teacher certification, and will allow for a high-quality competitor to traditional day care and preschool centers.

BSU receives the grant, and spends the $1 million to build the complex, hire the director, train staff, and ensure that the facilities comply with state licensing requirements. The workers are supposedly the best of the best: they have a minimum of 5 years of experience, and they are paid $12 per hour.

The center at BSU opens on April 1. Their rates average about $50 per week more than the average preschool in the area.

After a month of being open, the number of children enrolled: ZERO!

So let’s get this straight, folks: We, the taxpayers, have provided $1 million in funding to a college, so they can hire overpaid workers and staff, price their services out of the market, and encourage students to accrue a mountain of debt as they enter a profession that–after 5 years of experience–they will pull down $12 per hour if they get a really good break. Making matters worse, they have NO CHILDREN ENROLLED after being open for a month.

When you consider that this is what college education–with few exceptions (such as the STEM fields)–has devolved into, the reality becomes all the more sobering.

Her OWN stem cells, that is.

Then, once a baby is in the home, there are the constant milestones conversations: when did baby roll over? sit up? walk? run? talk? potty train? eat certain foods? dress themself? clean up their own room? etc.

Once baby is kindergarten age, there are a whole host of other issues parents must decide how soon to introduce to their child. Sex is a big hot-topic – when and what and how much to you teach your kids? News. Tragedies. Hunger. That Uncle’s male friend is not, ummm, just a ‘friend.’

There are some things, though, that we have to share with our kids that we really don’t want to. Some things we’d rather hide away and ignore as if they never existed. Family Secrets. Due to a plethora of circumstances, I’ve had to share some of those with my girls lately. Sigh.

Knowledge, once received, cannot be undone … just as words spoken cannot be taken back … just as actions done cannot be undone.

Whether they live in your home or not, whether they’re yours or not, children are watching, listening, imitating, and continuously learning from you. Be the kind of man or woman that God can point out to a child and say, “Look at him/her … try to be like them.”