« Robert Hart on Advent: Comfort & Easy Chairs | Main | D'Sousa versus the Atheists »
December 11, 2006
Dawn Eden
The New York Times features a brief article about, among other things, Dawn Eden's new book, The Thrill of the Chaste. I suppose the following concluding paragraph is about as good as we can expect from the Times:
Earnest and well intended, “The Thrill of the Chaste” may help conscience-stricken women rein in libido. But heedless reprobates may prefer to wait for the blook of Forksplit — a lusty, foul-mouthed blog by a randy young woman who is as confused as Ms. Eden by the dating game, but makes no secret that she finds “saying yes to a man” less of a struggle.
See Miss Eden's article, "The Young and the Hot-Wired" from the April 2005 issue of Touchstone.
Posted by Russell D. Moore at 10:38 AM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c5ee953ef00d834cdf88a53ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Dawn Eden:
Comments
The sexual revolution continues to play out as the worst thing ever for women. It's been a disaster for men too, by relieving them of responsibility. Apart from that, I'm sure many men think it's been wonderful and wish it long life.
I worry that when the reaction finally sets in it'll be nasty: lurching from one extreme to the opposite.
Posted by: coco | Dec 11, 2006 1:47:35 PM
Perhaps the extreme reactions have already been taking place for some time; some folks hold that revolutionary, anti-Western Islam is partially fueled by sentiment of that sort.
But if you're dreading a pendulum-swing back to Victorian standards...I could live with that, but I wouldn't count on any such thing. I'm trying to think of a historical example of a society that lost its sexual mores and then got them back at all, much less in a more extreme form...
Posted by: Joe Long | Dec 11, 2006 2:06:19 PM
>>>But if you're dreading a pendulum-swing back to Victorian standards. . .<<<
. . .it means you probably don't know much about the REAL Victorians.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Dec 11, 2006 2:54:17 PM
Here's one scenario:
from NY Times 1413.1.6 (2035) editorial Chantal Whitson-Ulema
Dhimmitude: how much tolerance is too much?
It is regrettable that a large section of people of the book in our beloved
United Emirates of America fail to express due respect for Sharia law...
It must be recalled that The Great Bankruptcy was not merely financial: it
was principally moral. The prevailing culture, we must regretably note,
was formed by the misguided followers of Isa (Peace be upon Him)...
Posted by: coco | Dec 11, 2006 3:27:57 PM
Woops, that should be about 1452, not 1413. Anyone know anything about calendars?
Posted by: coco | Dec 11, 2006 5:56:58 PM
My impression, from talking to young Catholic men (as I do, constantly), is that they are not happy with the sexual revolution, and would be willing to chuck it. I know I'm in the minority on this one, but then I talk to a lot of such men (I make absolutely no claim to know what the young secular men are thinking). We know what the men get out of the sexual license: they get sex. But they have also lost by it, and have lost a lot -- and they can be made to see that, without too much trouble.
One of the things that bugs me about our embrace of androgyny is that even folks who reject it find it hard to recover a rich understanding of the many forms that masculinity and femininity take, in life and in our heritage of art that reflects life. Many young men -- quiet tigers, I'll call them -- seem shy, certainly are tongue-tied around girls, do not bruise walls or kick water coolers, but are intensely aggressive nonetheless, and want nothing more than a woman to love and to protect. These men, and there are millions of them, are dead losers by the sexual revolution.
Posted by: Tony Esolen | Dec 11, 2006 7:57:23 PM
>>>We know what the men get out of the sexual license: they get sex.<<<
Actually, they get to think and talk about sex--but it seems that they really aren't getting nearly as much as we poor, old, boring married people do.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Dec 11, 2006 8:13:53 PM
Don't worry folks: if the reaction sets in as in my worst nightmare, no-one will be discussing or adverting to sex. Ignorance shall reign again, the abusers and homo-proselytizers will have a field-day!
Posted by: coco | Dec 11, 2006 8:20:21 PM
I ordered the book back in July. I received it in the mail about three weeks ago. One copy for me and one for my youth pastor. I found the book very honest and encouraging. It falls in line with the Theology of the Body by JPII. We've got to stop looking at each other as objects.
Posted by: Sarah Canatsey | Dec 11, 2006 8:48:53 PM
Another thing men (and some women, too) get from the sexual licence is the deferment of guilt, to which they are already liable as a result of their premature sexualization. The whole dynamic parallels that experienced by women who've had abortions: As long as we maintain the public fig leaf of doctrinaire licentiousness, no one need confront his own immoral choices, no one need admit the pangs of lost innocence or damaged sexuality; on the contrary, everyone is free to repress any residual protestations of conscience by ascribing them to vestigial prudery.
The guilt feeds the license as much as the license feeds the guilt. The effort to maintain the illusion of incorruption drives us toward ever more contorted denials of our own masculinity or femininity, not to mention the sexed nature of humanity more generally, or the orientation of sex toward children.
Posted by: DGP | Dec 11, 2006 9:01:40 PM
In my pagan marriage, I had no rational ground for consternation when my wife tearfully confessed a teenage abortion to me. My dull sentimental consternation sufficed for the time being, along with a kind of cheap absolution I conferred on her. In my ignorance and conceit, I thought perhaps I'd comforted and healed her.
After my conversion, it became increasingly obvious by her comments that her tears had not been ones of repentance, but only gnawing remorse. One night our pious babysitter mentioned her next day's work, which was volunteering at an ultrasound clinic, helping convince young mothers to keep their children. She quipped "I just can't imagine how an abortion must mess up these young girls."
After the sitter departed, my wife made sure to explain to me how "blinkered" this woman was in her outlook on life--based on nothing but that innocent comment; in fact, contrary to every other sweet disposition the lady had exhibited to us and our son. I sat in stunned silence.
To this day, she continues to live with this "fig leaf" (thanks DGP), through an affair, remarriage, and God forbid anything worse. By her life she continues to prove the old babysitter right. Her deferred guilt paints another coat of hardness on her heart with each day.
If it weren't for the gift of guilt--the godly guilt which leads to repentance--I can't imagine any good reason to even get up in the morning. Only through the backbreaking weight of conviction and the furnace of guilt can a person come out into the light of joy.
Posted by: mairnéalach | Dec 11, 2006 11:31:04 PM
>>>Don't worry folks: if the reaction sets in as in my worst nightmare, no-one will be discussing or adverting to sex. Ignorance shall reign again, the abusers and homo-proselytizers will have a field-day!<<<
Are you always rambling, incoherent and paranoid?
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Dec 12, 2006 4:40:18 AM
You forgot abusive. I did say "worst nightmare" not "reliable prophecy".
Posted by: coco | Dec 12, 2006 8:21:29 AM
>>>You forgot abusive. I did say "worst nightmare" not "reliable prophecy".<<<
S'OK. Even paranoids have real enemies.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Dec 12, 2006 8:30:33 AM
Whew! For a minute there I thought you were telling me who my enemies are. I know they're right there behind my laptop screen: but every time I shut it, they disappear!! :)
Seriously, you don't think the sexual revolution will eventually create enough misery to have an adverse reaction that may tend to extremism?
Posted by: coco | Dec 12, 2006 8:41:12 AM
BTW, I have no axe to grind with Victorians. (Think Newman)...that was someone else.
Posted by: coco | Dec 12, 2006 8:44:08 AM
>>>Seriously, you don't think the sexual revolution will eventually create enough misery to have an adverse reaction that may tend to extremism?<<<
As an historian, I observe that sexual mores are cyclical--periods of license are followed by periods of repression, and vice versa. The Restoration followed the Puritan era; the Victorians followed the Regency, and so forth.
But repression is a relative thing. The Victorians were not the prudes they are made out to be by their grandchildren. The Puritans were a pretty lusty bunch, not nearly as dour as they depicted. On the other hand, even during periods of the most extreme license, most people lead orderly, stable lives in love and fidelity with their spouses. Why? Because people are actually hard-wired that way, and because in most places, in most eras, that's the best way to guarantee personal survival.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Dec 12, 2006 8:45:35 AM
My Irish ancestors were regarded as sexually depraved by some Victorians because of the peculiarities of Brehon law, a tendency to sleep naked, etc. Some Brehon laws were more questionable (for a Catholic) than the Victorian reaction to them.
Repression is a relative concept...now, not to be sexually profligate is considered to be repressed. I worry that the cycles are getting a little bit "steeper" nowadays and that what comes next might be as crazy as the present situation.
Posted by: coco | Dec 12, 2006 8:53:50 AM
One new problem is that more libertine sexual mores tended to occur in different places at different times. But with the globalization of popular culture through international presses, radio, TV, the Internet, etc., it is being propagated everywhere at once. The endemic spread of venereal diseases and AIDS has likewise been similarly facilited by global commerce. And I wouldn't put too much stock in humanity's supposed instinct for self-preservation. Beginning with Eve and the apple, and running through concentration camps, WMDs and global epidemics, man has demonstrated a remarkable propensity for mutual and self extermination.
Posted by: James A. Altena | Dec 12, 2006 10:47:16 AM
This may or may not be germane, but I have read numerous commentators note that the reason our libertines also support homosexuality is that they wish to copy the (average, typical) homosexual lifestyle of repeated casual sex (for homosexuals, involving literally hundreds of "partners"). If it's OK for gays, it's OK for them, too. As Andrew Sullivan himself pointed out, the gay goal of legal marriage is not to inhabit the monogamy paradigm, but to "transform" it (his word) into a legal form involving all the benefits of marriage with none of the monogamous commitment. Domestic partnerships provide those legal advantages, too, and you can break up without suing for divorce. Oh, happy day.
Posted by: Dcn. Michael D. Harmon | Dec 12, 2006 11:46:27 AM
>>>The endemic spread of venereal diseases and AIDS has likewise been similarly facilited by global commerce.<<<
Shades of 1492!
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Dec 12, 2006 12:49:28 PM
The trends certainly seem to be accelerating. as early as the first century BC, Roman commentators were deploring the tendency of rich men to have few or no children, nor even to marry. The demographic deluge didn't happen till centuries later.
We, on the other hand, are facing in to demographic meltdown in the 21st cent., say 150 years after the Lambeth conference that overturn millenia of Christian teaching against contraception and helped usher in the sexual revolution.
Posted by: coco | Dec 12, 2006 1:28:25 PM
What did Stuart say a while ago in another thread? "The world is always going to hell. That's what makes it 'the world'."
And the Prince of the world is always there to facilitate it, to smash and burn God's good creation and to murder its denizens. There isn't a time in history when he hasn't been trying to counter, as best he can, the plans of God.
Posted by: Gene Godbold | Dec 12, 2006 2:02:04 PM
Having read the archived comments from the last year, I can see how the "sexual revolution" ties in several issues such as abortion, the pill, how modern feminism (or as a friend of mine calls them "Femi-Nazis")affects young men, and so on. I sometimes wish that someone had clued me in when I was younger about just how dangerous the liberal idea of "women's freedom" is.
I don't think women should be treated like second class citizens or be denied the right to vote, but women should be proud that they are women and not try to be like men.
In my mind, a real woman:
1. Has respect for herself
2. Should not feel she has to "compete" with men
3. Knows what her limits are
4. Knows when to be assertive
5. Can take joy in being a woman
On a similar note, I want to thank those of you who have commented in the past on the topic of contraception. It is this very blog that opened my eyes about the Pill. I had been on the pill for over two years (I started taking it about a month before my wedding) and had no idea until a couple of months ago that it was an abortificient (sp?). I talked to my husband, stopped taking the Pill, did some research, and purchased a book on Natural Family Planning.
I now feel like a weight has been lifted from my shoulders. Ever since I started taking the Pill, I knew there was something not quite right that I just couldn't put my finger on, a little nagging doubt in the back of my mind. Now I realize what was wrong, and I thank you all for the inspiration.
I did find something else out about the Pill that I had never heard before, but should have realized. Putting extra hormones in a woman's body is very dangerous, and can lead to cysts, cancer, permanent infertility, and a host of other problems. This is something that the gynecologist NEVER mentioned. It is very depressing to think of all the women who are only told "Oh, it'll just keep you from getting pregnant" and then find out later that they can never have children, or develop ovarian cancer, or something else just because they didn't want to get pregnant. Okay, I'm getting all worked up again, stepping down from my soapbox now...
Posted by: Isamashii Yuubi | Dec 12, 2006 2:44:34 PM
Ismamashii, it seems to me that the main-stream media has it as rule #1 never to challenge any aspect of the sexual revolution, including the myriad dangers of contraception and abortion, let alone the horrific abuse of basic human rights that the latter constitutes.
The deluge of false propaganda on behalf of embryonic stem cell and the concomitant abuse of embryos is another example.
Posted by: coco | Dec 12, 2006 3:15:09 PM
Further to the above and in relation to Gene's comment, the scripture that speaks to me most on this is: "If they do these things when the wood is green, what shall they do when the wood is dry?"
Posted by: coco | Dec 12, 2006 3:17:19 PM
Tony, that is so true, and today's single women, taught by the 'sexual revolution' even if they reject it, do not see that men are men when they exercise self-control. So those of us who follow Christ find it much harder to find a godly woman to marry than our forebears did, and thus often wait much longer, and have no sex at all, as a result. Coco, you seem bitter. There have always been ungodly men and women, but in the past the bulk of women pushed for civilization, marriage and family. Now they push against these things, and we see the destruction all around us. Women have always had the power in male-female relationships, and they need to start taking responsibility for their choices. (I even wonder if the Biblical rules against female pastors and priests, male headship in the home, etc., are merely counterbalances to the natural tendency of women to rule over men, both in terms of their Genesis 3 desire to do so, and because they hold the power in the relationships between men and women. That is another discussion for another day, though.)
Posted by: Puzzled | Dec 12, 2006 6:13:08 PM
Isamashii,
What has happened to you is no small thing. You are waking up from the power of fear; for it is fear which makes the Pill so alluring. Fear of responsibility, fear of change, fear of pain, fear of death. It is true, they can be terrifying. That is why we may empathize with a captive; but if we are set free by the gospel, we are no longer slaves to these fears. You truly are a daughter of Sarah if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening. Run free, laugh, and enjoy your freedom.
Posted by: mairnéalach | Dec 12, 2006 6:26:05 PM
Puzzled,
I'm far from being bitter. Having searched high and low, I found a Christian lady who has similar views on the disastrous effects of the SR and the imporatnce of Christian faith. In fatc, I couldn't be happier!. I'm just commenting on things as I see them. If I come across as snarly (a neologism I use a lot) it's just that the prevailing idiocies upset me.
Posted by: coco | Dec 12, 2006 9:31:43 PM
James wrote:>>And I wouldn't put too much stock in humanity's supposed instinct for self-preservation. Beginning with Eve and the apple, and running through concentration camps, WMDs and global epidemics, man has demonstrated a remarkable propensity for mutual and self extermination.<<
Glad to see I'm not the only pessimist 'round these parts.:)
As I've said before, there are two political things that worry me about the consequences of the sexual revolution (that is, two things besides the worst, which is the damage to individual human souls through sin). The first is that if a major cultural calamity occurs (such as a complete governmental breakdown, a civil war, or a universal climate catastrophe), we will not have the familial institutions necessary to easily recover. This may lead to much greater loss of life through war and/or starvation.
The second is that the prevalence of sexual license may be serving as an entertaining diversion that distracts us from the signs of such a problem's approach, thus keeping us from possibly preventing it. Marx was on to something about the "opiate of the masses," but it isn't religion. It's all the petty, pleasurable sins that keep most people from living lives of constructive virtue.
As we've discussed in another thread, you can get away with this sort of thing when you're rich. But "when the wood is dry," small peccadilloes can suddenly become huge liabilities. And I think I feel the wood drying.
Posted by: Ethan Cordray | Dec 12, 2006 9:59:03 PM
Puzzled,
That was Chesterton's view. He was a champion of women, as is evident from even a cursory reading of any number of his works; there isn't a trace of the sourness that you'll occasionally find in Lewis, for example. I'm not blaming Lewis for it -- and his portrayal of pure and queenly womanhood in Perelandra is magnificent. But Chesterton finally decided against woman suffrage, because he believed that its proponents were not really interested in women as women, nor were they at all interested in examining any effects that woman suffrage would have upon the family. Anyhow, Chesterton said that woman's power in relationships with men -- their sexual power -- was so profound that our social institutions serve as a kind of counterbalancing force. I am not saying that I agree with Chesterton about the franchise. I do say, though, that the question of the franchise is typically "settled" by asserting that the universal franchise is simply just. The older view -- and I'm not talking about men and women here, in particular -- is that the franchise is at best an instrument, sometimes a blunt instrument, for the securing of justice. If it could be proved that the universal franchise has the perverse effect of producing massive and persistent injustice, then that would be a reason for at least re-examining the wisdom behind it.
Posted by: Tony Esolen | Dec 12, 2006 11:26:15 PM
>>>But Chesterton finally decided against woman suffrage, because he believed that its proponents were not really interested in women as women, nor were they at all interested in examining any effects that woman suffrage would have upon the family. <<<
Not to make any statement one way or the other about it, but when women were finally given the vote in this country, the first president elected was Warren G. Harding.
Just an observation.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Dec 13, 2006 4:59:08 AM
The country seems to have prospered under Harding more than under some more impressive presidents.
Posted by: Judy Warner | Dec 13, 2006 5:26:03 AM
>>>The country seems to have prospered under Harding more than under some more impressive presidents.<<<
Harding's cronies certainly prosperered. Most of the prosperity of the Roaring 20s, however, can be attributed to the grossly underrated Calvin Cooledge, a man who really understood that the least government is the best government.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Dec 13, 2006 7:12:22 AM
Okay, but which would you rather have, a corrupt Harding who did nothing to interfere with the prosperity, or the morass of the highly moral (at least in his own estimation) Jimmy Carter?
Posted by: Judy Warner | Dec 13, 2006 7:17:50 AM
I think Jimmy Carter was a major "gender-gap" beneficiary President; I know he split the votes of some evangelical couples in my parents' generation, and in the cases I know of, the wives voted for Born-Again Jimmy and the husbands against Democrat Jimmy. Unfortunately Democrat Jimmy governed (and just wrote a truly horrible book, apparently).
One could make the case that the requirement to appeal to feminine sensibilities as well as masculine changed the eligibility requirements for all candidates. We could come up with a list of outstanding earlier statesmen who wouldn't have stood a chance...but television and the ensuing development of the Short-Attention Span Voter surely did much more harm.
A compromise, after de-inventing television: only women may be President; only men may vote for the President. A long line of Margaret Thatchers in the White House could set the next century in order quite nicely. (The possibility of Paris Hiltons in the White House during frivolous periods ought to be prevented by the constitutional age requirement...which we could raise a bit now, in fact, considering extended lifespans and all).
Posted by: Joe Long | Dec 13, 2006 8:17:24 AM
Tony wrote:
"My impression, from talking to young Catholic men (as I do, constantly), is that they are not happy with the sexual revolution, and would be willing to chuck it. I know I'm in the minority on this one, but then I talk to a lot of such men (I make absolutely no claim to know what the young secular men are thinking). We know what the men get out of the sexual license: they get sex. But they have also lost by it, and have lost a lot -- and they can be made to see that, without too much trouble.
"One of the things that bugs me about our embrace of androgyny is that even folks who reject it find it hard to recover a rich understanding of the many forms that masculinity and femininity take, in life and in our heritage of art that reflects life. Many young men -- quiet tigers, I'll call them -- seem shy, certainly are tongue-tied around girls, do not bruise walls or kick water coolers, but are intensely aggressive nonetheless, and want nothing more than a woman to love and to protect. These men, and there are millions of them, are dead losers by the sexual revolution."
me: I can't count the number of young Christian women who have come through my office door to bemoan the lack of truly masculine, mature Christian young men. They long for marriage and family; they have no desire to live life alone in the pursuit of the phantom of "career"; they wish to be modest and they wish to be pursued, like the lovely, worthy young ladies they are, not to be the pursuers (they know full well the men they'll get that way are not the mature ones they're looking for). And of course they've been affected by the culture too, and we talk a lot about what it means to be a woman, but they "get it" on the most fundamental levels.
And I have to say that in the places I've taught, they're mostly right. The number of mature young Christian men is very, very low, and I don't see very many seeking that road, either. My heart breaks every day for the God-given dreams that turn to ash. I know far too many of our female graduates who continue in the single life, trying to be cheerful and content -- lovely, desirable young women without the gift of singleness who may, if numerous examples tell me anything, nevertheless never marry.
We need to get your men and my women together, Tony. Surely a little thing like denominational differences can be smoothed away! :)
Posted by: Beth | Dec 13, 2006 10:49:33 AM
Beth,
I don't doubt that their estimation of the situation is correct. There probably are not a lot of mature young Christian men out there at the age of, say, 20. I certainly wasn't (half my life ago). I did get better, but it took the love of a good woman and having children to help me along. It's sad, but a lot of guys only grow up when they are forced by situations to do so. We need to be needed.
Posted by: Gene Godbold | Dec 13, 2006 12:21:09 PM
Coco,
One could make a good case that that line of Jesus' was prophetically directed to the Jews of his time. He was saying that if the Romans will crucify a guy who is innocent of insurrection, what are they likely to do when faced with a bunch of goons who really want to rumble. The answer(s) came in 70 and again in 135 AD. The first band of goons got the Temple destroyed and the second band got evicted from their homeland.
Posted by: Gene Godbold | Dec 13, 2006 12:25:21 PM
>>> there isn't a trace of the sourness that you'll occasionally find in Lewis,<<<
I must be blind then, because really, I've never noticed it, and if I have, I've never minded it, unless you're referring to his prtrayal of Susan in The Last Battle, but I always thought that Jill, Aravis, and Lucy rather more than balanced it out.
>>>"My impression, from talking to young Catholic men (as I do, constantly), is that they are not happy with the sexual revolution, and would be willing to chuck it. <<<
Yes, and unicorns are real. Seriously, where and wherefore are y'all hiding this superabundance of anti-SR young men from the young ladies? Are they all going into the priesthood or something? It seems like most of the young men I've met would like to be dating Paris Hilton *grumble growl snarl fuss* rather than nice, chaste girls who'd actually make good wives and mother.
Ismashii, thank you for your definition of a real woman. I like it:) I would add one more point though-knows that it's ok not have enormous ambitions, no matter what womens' studies professors tell you. Although that could just be happily unambitious little me trying to excuse my lack of grand career plans...
Posted by: luthien | Dec 13, 2006 12:53:54 PM
I know far too many of our female graduates who continue in the single life, trying to be cheerful and content -- lovely, desirable young women without the gift of singleness who may, if numerous examples tell me anything, nevertheless never marry.
Or marry non-Christians. I was moved by Mr. Esolen's description of "quiet tigers," too, but my actual experience has been closer to what you describe. The mission field is a landscape full of such women.
I was one of them, and I think I got one of the quiet tigers. We are fortunate to have found each other and to have done so while there's still a chance for us to have a family. In our case, it was my not-so-subtle encouragement of my fiance that opened the door for us to date. Christian women are taught that it is better to hang back, in the vein of Elisabeth Elliott's Passion and Purity, and I think this is at least part of the problem. I doubt I'm alone in having met good single Christian men, only to find them looking over top of my head towards a "better catch"- usually one more physically beautiful or in some situation that helps coddle their self-esteem (younger, from a different culture where women are more outwardly submissive, etc.). If this results in rejection or incompatible relationship, the man's self-esteem takes another hit, and the cycle repeats.
I believe I read in comments on a previous entry that "we should return to a time where women chose." If women were a little more active in the process, we might draw the men's eyes less towards what seems like the "easy score" and more towards what might actually result in a fruitful marriage.
Posted by: Gina | Dec 13, 2006 1:14:22 PM
Sometimes a lack of ambition is God's way of telling you that you're not (yet) ready for what He wants for you to do.
Also, what could be more ambitious than thinking you can raise children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord? :-)
Posted by: Gene Godbold | Dec 13, 2006 1:29:11 PM
Gene,
Yours is a very good opening of the word. I believe it was Ratzinger/B16 who commented that prophecy is valid for 3 times:
1) For the time it was written
2) For all times
3) At the end times
That makes more sense to me if it's truly divinely inspired.
Posted by: coco | Dec 13, 2006 4:29:35 PM
Random thoughts:
Beth, as long as they also insist that these Christian men be at least 6.5 (even if they themselves are 5.3 as I've seen repeatedly on MySpace) and well-off, they are indeed more likely than others to become 'cat ladies'. We also need to get away from shallowness. Yes, a certain amount of attraction is important, but insisting on a '10' is not very wise. As Dr. and Mrs. Schaeffer would say "in a fallen world, if you demand perfection or nothing, you will always get nothing."
Luthien, hineni.
Basically, we are at church, and you don't notice us because we aren't jerks, and we don't give you the thrill of the threat to your sexual purity that the non-Christian guys give Christian women.
Gina, if they wouldn't take off to the mission field (or marry non-Christian guys), they might be around for me to date.
We no longer have a culture with a universal and understood set of rules for courtship. I like the title of that book _From Front Porch to Backseat_" The peculiar antebellum culture that Mrs. Elliot grew up in does not exist for the majority of Americans, and it doesn't fit the actual pre-WWII social realities, either. People actually claim it is Biblical, but I can't find it in the Bible.
Posted by: Puzzled | Dec 13, 2006 4:35:56 PM
Puzzled, ok, I admit it. I'm stupid (and very, very tired). What does hineni mean?
Gene, you're right. What I meant was that it's ok not to aspire to a high-achieving career, fame, fortune, and a seat in the Senate;) But then what am I supposed to do when I'm graduated in May? I'm going to do an extra year of undergraduate study of literature and probably history as well in France, but beyond that I can't plan for anything because, well, all I really want is to study, be married, and raise a family.
Posted by: luthien | Dec 13, 2006 9:21:35 PM
Just for the record, Puzzled, I'm not referring to young ladies who are looking for perfection (I have a very special message just for the ones who do this), but I think they are not wrong to want to see that a young man is at least walking in the right direction. The young ladies to whom I refer are not nearly so concerned with a man's looks as with his way of life. Does he love the Lord? Does he know what spiritual maturity is and is he pursuing it? And, by the way, they are not thrilled at threats to their sexuality; they want to be respected AND THEY ACT RESPECTFULLY, of themselves and others. (I have a special message for the ones who don't do this, too.)
Of course, there are plenty of women of the type you describe in your posts. But I am talking about the ones who want the right kind of man and are trying to become the right kind of women.
They exist. They sit in my classes and talk to me with remarkable wisdom and great poignancy of the longings of their hearts when we get together over lunch or a coke.
Posted by: Beth | Dec 14, 2006 6:19:33 AM
Dear Luthien,
Be not anxious for rhe morrow, for by so doing you cannot add one cubit to your stature. The evil of the day is sufficient unto itself. We ask God to give us this day our daily bread, and trust Him to take care of the rest. You can't fret your way into finding the man God intends to be yours someday; and, if He intends you to remain single instead, far worse to fret yourself into marrying Mr. Wrong or to resent God for His good pleasure that you remain single. I didn't get married until a year ago, one month shy of age 47; but God provided me the one woman who could be and is a blessing unto me. So trust yourself to Him, and He will care for you in this as well.
Posted by: James A. Altena | Dec 14, 2006 8:55:37 AM
Hineni means "here I am." It's Hebrew.
Posted by: Judy Warner | Dec 14, 2006 9:23:18 AM
Puzzled: I know of at least one good man going to church at home who snagged a woman off the mission field, using eharmony.com. If you've got some frequent flier miles you don't mind using for visits and a webphone account, it's an option. Indirectly, her match led to mine, too.
And as for patience, I'm 34 and my fiance is 39. We both were coming around to the conclusion that it wasn't God's will for us to marry. But, we're glad we were wrong. 37 days of singleness left to go!
Posted by: Gina | Dec 14, 2006 6:27:02 PM
P.S. I don't know many Christian women who are thrilled by badness when they turn to non-Christians. More often they meet a guy who is "perfect, except..." and they're tired of waiting.
Posted by: Gina | Dec 14, 2006 6:29:43 PM
Recent Comments
Bloggers
Popular Threads
Archives
OLD ARCHIVES 2002-2004
From May 2002–December 2004, Mere Comments was published via Blogger.com. Every post is still available at the link above.
Member since 12/2004