First, some disclosures. These are no-brainers, but the ensuing discussion is going to almost certainly create some blowback.
(1) From a Christian standpoint, I accept that men and women alike are called to eschew sexual immorality and to keep sex in the marriage bed.
(2) While the dynamics of the pickup (PUA*) culture are rational, they are not something endorsed by Scripture. Ergo, the man who “plays the field” is in the same spiritual peril as the woman who “hooks up” or engages in sexual relations in a non-marital scenario.
Ok, with those out of the way, here we have an interesting poll which, if true, gives men more reason to be skeptical about marriage.
Susan Walsh has long contended that, as a result of feminism and the allure of “no strings attached sex”, women are gravitating to the Alpha males in such a way that (a) a small percentage of men are having a disproportionate amount of the sex, and (b) as a result of (a), many Alpha males have a “soft harem” fomented in no small part by the hookup culture.
The poll seems to jibe with the dynamics of Game exacerbated by the onslaught of feminism: many women are riding the carousel–in either hookups or serially-monogamous relationships with Alpha males–and then “settling down” with the “nice guys” (Betas), who aren’t as exciting as the Alphas were. The dynamics are so lopsided that, in the college ranks, the male virgins–in raw and percentage terms–outnumber the female virgins.
Those of us guys who were/are in the ranks Christian singles for any significant length of time have seen these types pass through. They often have degrees, they are in their late 20s or early 30s, sometimes–not always–they are divorced (a bad marriage to an Alpha), and are now looking to settle down with a “good Christian guy”.
Like I said, we can rip the men all day about such things as “playing the field” (the Alpha males), delving into pornography, and even, in some cases, dating women for a long time without committing. The Church does a good job of that. I can say for a fact that the men’s leaders are on top of this matter like flies on dung.
At the same time, I don’t see a whole lot of attention given, from the pulpit or even in the publishing house, to women who play the hookup culture, or engage in serial monogamy.
If the poll I have cited is even in the ballpark–and it probably is–then this type of baggage is every bit as insidious for the husbands as the baggage of male porn usage is for the wives. Don’t believe me? Heregoes…
If the lackluster sex isn’t bad enough, the poll found that 66 percent of married women would rather read a book, watch a movie or take a nap than have sex with a spouse.
That should fill men with great confidence about the appreciation their wives have for them.
So where are the ministerial exhortations and admonitions? Where are the “pro-family” leaders? Where are Driscoll and Chandler?
And where are the prominent Christian women leaders who should be exhorting and admonishing the ladies?
___
*PUA is an acronym meaning “PickUp Artist”, and is commonly used in the blogosphere to describe those who pick up women for short-term sexual relationships, hookups, or one-night stands.
And no…this is not about getting ministers to bash the ladies.
We’re talking confronting this just as we confront men over porn, playing the field, etc., and calling people to eschew sexual immorality in the course of bringing attention to the cultural trends that are drawing women in droves.
Wouldn’t they just say that the reason 66% are disinterested is because of things the husbands are, or are not, doing? I’d think that’s what they’d say. Just roll it into a Driscoll harangue.
Many would definitely say that. They’d flog the men, thus ignoring that big elephant in the room.
they’d absolutely say that. they’d be wrong, but they’d say that.
it’s really sorry that women get glossed over and assumed to be ‘virtuous’ when it’s no secret they’re not.
when i was in college in the early 80’s, i knew a girl who slept around. i remember asking her if it didn’t bother her when they talked about sex outside of marriage, especially in church (which is where i met her). she said that no, it didn’t bother her … just like listening to the pastor talk about any sin, it was just another sin to her. ugh.
our greatest strengths are also our greatest weaknesses. women, speaking generally, have the ability to creatively adapt to the worlds their husbands draw them into. unfortunately, when they allow their minds and their bodies to go to biblically prohibited places, they become unsettled, spiking their creative minds to try to find a way to get to those places … ignoring and justifying all the destruction in their path to their illicit goal(s).
which is why reading about sex – romance novels – is bad for women. they get these creative ideas which multiply in their creative brains, and when their husband’s don’t measure up to the fantasy, they become dissatisfied with him. very bad. same thing with sleeping around … no one person can or should have to compete with the compilation of what one chooses to remember as greatness. sick. and wrong. she’ll think it’s unfair of him to expect her to be satisfied with her husband when she has so much to compare him to. she’ll be totally wrong.
=========
“”The iVillage study shows that not all housewives are desperate – surprisingly they are quite content and fulfilled with their predictable sex lives,” said editor Liz Zack in a press release. “Perhaps that’s because sex is not a priority when it comes to personal time. Today’s married women lead such busy lives that they consider rest and relaxation a better self indulgence.””
they don’t stay content with busyness for forever. eventually, she’s gonna want that fantasy fulfilled again. and her husband living in the real world, who could care a less about it, won’t satisfy her. she’ll be looking elsewhere in time.
then … these women gather together to dis men and husbands while flirting with any appealing male that comes their way.
it’s bad bad bad.
much better to wait to have sex for your husband … to work within your marriage … to not have a history of comparables always crouching at the door of her mind. then she’ll be choosing to say *no* to a busy schedule … and planning down time alone with her husband … and having much more fun, and being much more satisfied, doing so.
Biblically, there are no marriage licenses, state permits, or defined ceremonies. Thus a marriage happens when the two flesh become one. Thus a man “marries” every woman that he beds and similarly a woman marries every man. A man may have several wives so taking another is not adultery but a woman may only have one husband so her second and subsequent ones ARE adultery. And a man is committing adultery when he takes a woman who is already someone else’s wife. This is the immutable nature of marriage that the state cannot change no matter what the law says.
Thus, a PUA diminishes himself with every new “wife” he takes and adulterates her in the process since he won’t keep her unto himself.
Just moar patriarchy.
Yep. No question about it. I’d say that provides a good theological framework for why the PUA culture–which includes short-term sexual relationships, one-nighters, hookups, and the like–creates the dilemma that we are describing.
As I said, none of this lets the men off the hook. At the same time, our laws and policies over the past 50 years have created a perfect storm that has jacked up the risks for those who marry, and have made marriage less–not more likely–for both men and women. The products of these socio-political movements have encouraged behaviors–social, sexual, financial–that severely damage one’s marriageability.
The problem is that, in the Church, we see one of two reactions:
Reaction #1: Talibanized Christianity that demands “barefoot and pregnant”, and husbands ruling like tyrants, with the wife being a sex slave who cooks and cleans.
Reaction #2: Lament the cultural disasters and blame it all on the men, demanding that if only men “man up” this would all go away.
In the meantime, this kind of crap only breeds more mistrust between the sexes at one of the worst possible times.
So where are the ministerial exhortations and admonitions? Where are the “pro-family” leaders? Where are Driscoll and Chandler?
And where are the prominent Christian women leaders who should be exhorting and admonishing the ladies?
Then there wouldn’t be any women in the church.
It would appear, given scripture and a general human desire to follow the money, that women in the church have been and continue to be more generous with their husband’s money. Keep the women happy, and the money keeps coming.
Somehow, Jesus still kept the ladies while speaking the truth because he showed an uncommon amount of compassion for women who had been shunned by society because of their ailments, circumstances, or behavior (the bleeding woman, the widow who lost her only son, Mary Magdalene, the adulteress/prostitute).
Speaking from my own experience in trying to talk to women, I don’t want them to never come back. And there’s only so much truth you can say before you need to shut up and let the tiny seeds just planted take root – and trust that God will open their hearts. My job isn’t to browbeat them, but to speak the truth with compassion… and sometimes that means knowing when to stop talking.
But from the pulpit on this subject? When there aren’t any women supporting the pastor’s words to begin with? Its like signing your church’s death certificate.
Not really trying to justify it, but certainly trying to show the humanity behind the lack of action…
I should add the Samaritan woman… that one is especially telling being Jesus didn’t let her get away without admitting her sin, but he was compassionate.
The humanity behind it is quite understandable and is certainly not in question when you are dealing with most congregations.
Such admonitions would tend to cause significant shakeups in many homes, as many have skeletons in their closets. Many of those parents have such baggage, and the women would not be at all terribly thrilled about (a) having such baggage pointed out, and (b) being told that it is as grievous as any of the common sins among the men. Their teenage girls–and college-age girls–aren’t going to enjoy being told that their hookup escapades are putting them at great risk for serious problems later.
The men are used to getting piled on. The women, not so much.
And no, we’re not talking about taking women to the woodshed–far from it–but rather having an honest, Biblical discussion about sins–under the proverbial ban–that need to be taken out of the camp.
Recognizing problems with respect to their root cause, and dealing with them as Christian adults, makes for a healthier Church.
Yes, I understand why a pastor might be intimidated at the prospect of dealing with this head-on. At the same time, this can be done and done rightly.
Personally, if I were a pastor I would preface these subjects by going to Proverbs and pointing out the importance of being willing to receive sound counsel and to seek wisdom, and to point out that we are not here to drag anyone through the mud but rather to deal with fundamental issues in a way that is constructive and which glorifies God and leads to marriages that reflect the faithfulness of Christ with respect to the Church.
Will that approach be universally-received? Of course not. People did not universally receive the teachings of either Jesus or the Apostles, so I am hardly naive to think that my approach would be better-received. It would, however, present things in a way that (a) people inclined to be wise will receive what is said, and (b) those who reject the message will do so in spite of the presentation of it.
That’s the best you can expect when you are dealing with real people.
The churches I have visited recently have no stomach to go near anything that looks confrontational. They prefer to talk about generic “sin” that we all have and need to turn away from even though we can never get rid of it because it is the sort that we didn’t do anything ourselves to get.
That and “bad thoughts”.
Thus, the church is a pointless exercise in performance art without any of the substance.
Much of the church, sadly, has devolved into that. While the desire for ear-tickling is not a new phenomenon, the scope of this is arguably much greater today than it was 2,000 years ago.
The conservative ranks–the very people who “stand for the truth” and proclaim their belief in the inerrancy, reliability, infallibility, etc. of Scripture–are exactly the problem, though.
This is because they often do one of three things:
(a) blame the men for everything (Headship Theology on Steroids);
(b) appeasement by preaching hard about sin in general without getting into the dynamics that apply specifically to the respective sexes and age groups;
(c) ignore the issues altogether and just preach easy-believism.