I advise anyone clicking through to read Jake Meador's article to read the comments afterwards. They make for a good conversation, but also call into question his assumptions, casting doubt on much of what he wrote.
Maybe I need to Bayesian update after the awful takes Christianity Today has published; I'm genuinely and pleasantly surprised they would pushback at all against singles wanting churches to cater more to them.
Well, for the record, it's not like one of their staff writers suddenly got better, they just gave some space to Lyman Stone who is not on staff (and who Aaron interviewed at one point).
I really enjoy most of Stone's writing (especially as I also take great interest in demographics), but then with some regularity he says or does something deeply annoying.
He was in a back-and-forth conversation about that CT article with the pro-singleness faction. His response included this essay, which includes what I think is a very unnecessary jab at Calvinism ("absurd and mean little theology") that is orthogonal to any point he was trying to make:
I don't know what to call it. Intemperance? What if every Protestant essay in First Things took the form, "Before we get started, Papists, know that you worship Mary as an idol and will burn for it unless you repent. That being said, here is how Christians should think about education policy..."
Re: two-parent “privilege” — we’ve got to work to get that term out of the lexicon, even ironically. It inherently fuels conflict and resentment instead of reflection and motivation.
You need to distinguish between the market for sex and the market for marriage. Guys with lesser credentials are getting laid, but the high-powered women aren’t marrying them.
How common is it really that women have sex with men that they would refuse to entertain a romantic relationship with?
Maybe the world really has changed that much, but I'm not that old and 10-15 years ago I was working at a place with some highly promiscuous men in their 20s that loved to tell stories over happy hour. A time or two I heard a story about a woman refusing to return calls/texts after a one-night-stand, but it was regarded as a humorous and exceptional "man-bites-dog" situation. I don't think I've ever in my life heard about a situation in which a woman was *regularly* having sex with a man that she would never contemplate dating but who was interested in dating her.
My impression as well is that it's not common. According to Louise Perry, it's a revelation to women that men would have separate categories for women they would have some fun with vs. women they would bring home to their mother. And it's a common enough problem of women willing to be "friends with benefits" because they think this will get them a higher chance of getting that friend to marry her. They are too naive (or delusional) to understand the adage, "Why buy the cow when you get the milk for free?"
Yes, I absolutely do think understanding of "why buy the cow?" has faded among young women. I've picked up on this from many sources. Though I also think that a woman dating secular men probably doesn't have much hope of holding out until marriage for sex in a society where premarital sex is customary; she'll just be bypassed. But she absolutely CAN hold out for a committed relationship, which is at least more likely to turn into marriage than an ambiguous sexual relationship is.
Yes, that is something that didn't quite click for me in Perry and you've added some insight: that is, women will put out after only a few dates even though they don't want to but feel the pressure of competition forces them to do so. What didn't click is, don't they know that if they are eliminating men from their pool by not being so easy, those are presumably the type of men they would want to sift out anyway?
I'm trying to mentally model what assumptions would have to be true for this strategy to make sense (assuming that a woman's goal is to attract a lifelong mate rather than a cad). It would seem to be something like 1) he is more likely to date women who will sleep with him - the sooner the better, 2) he is likely to marry whoever sleeps with him first and therefore 3) my best strategy to land a mate is to put out early. Obviously (2) is laughable. Maybe I'm just not being charitable here.
One of the fundamental human weaknesses is elevating short-term thinking over long-term thinking, or pursuing short-term goods over long-term goods. You are trying to figure out what her long-term strategy is when there is no such strategy.
In the short term, she is avoiding being bypassed for dates, etc. In the long term, she is shooting herself in the foot.
Yes, my thoughts exactly. People already have a bias towards short-term thinking, and our society amplifies the problem by denigrating long-term thinking in this area. If a 22-year-old woman starts talking out loud about how to land a husband, she is going to be told by peers and even elders to just have fun. If she's smart, she'll wise up sooner rather than later, but some never do.
I've made the observation that even chaste Christian women tend to lack a strategy for finding a spouse. There is a certain type of Christian girl that passes 30 and STILL doesn't really become proactive or think hard about what could be done to land a good husband. I've personally watched more than one of these women age out of marriageability (or at least the possibility of motherhood) while never changing anything up, just silently suffering, praying, and hoping.
Just so you know, there's women out there with literal harems of men, and vice versa.
That's the hook. The kicker is that there is increasingly a mismatch between whatever women desire in long term partners and what is available to them.
It's impossible to know how common a woman's intentions are. However, there is definitely a "date for fun, then forever " strain of thought that is prevalent in society. A woman's advice to "date them all," but not for marriage, is, certainly widely known.
Yes, I agree with the idea that young people are expected by mainstream society to date with no real eye towards marriage until mid to late 20s. Nothing new there.
What I’m doubting is that a man would ever find himself in a situation where a number of women will have sex with him but none will marry (or enter a committed relationship) with him.
In any casual relationship that includes recurring sex, if either party wants to convert it to a committed relationship, it’s going to be the woman the overwhelming majority of the time. The bad boy that a woman dates/has sex with without expecting to marry is even less interested in marrying her.
I advise anyone clicking through to read Jake Meador's article to read the comments afterwards. They make for a good conversation, but also call into question his assumptions, casting doubt on much of what he wrote.
Maybe I need to Bayesian update after the awful takes Christianity Today has published; I'm genuinely and pleasantly surprised they would pushback at all against singles wanting churches to cater more to them.
Well, for the record, it's not like one of their staff writers suddenly got better, they just gave some space to Lyman Stone who is not on staff (and who Aaron interviewed at one point).
I really enjoy most of Stone's writing (especially as I also take great interest in demographics), but then with some regularity he says or does something deeply annoying.
He was in a back-and-forth conversation about that CT article with the pro-singleness faction. His response included this essay, which includes what I think is a very unnecessary jab at Calvinism ("absurd and mean little theology") that is orthogonal to any point he was trying to make:
https://medium.com/@lymanstone/was-my-ct-article-on-singleness-mean-e1e0e3edaaac
I don't know what to call it. Intemperance? What if every Protestant essay in First Things took the form, "Before we get started, Papists, know that you worship Mary as an idol and will burn for it unless you repent. That being said, here is how Christians should think about education policy..."
lol!
Can't say I read CT at all other than particular articles people share. Thank you for more information so I can continue my Bayesian updating.
Another 'hit the nail on the head' article from Aaron Renn. Keep up the good fight Soldier of Christ!
Re: two-parent “privilege” — we’ve got to work to get that term out of the lexicon, even ironically. It inherently fuels conflict and resentment instead of reflection and motivation.
You need to distinguish between the market for sex and the market for marriage. Guys with lesser credentials are getting laid, but the high-powered women aren’t marrying them.
How common is it really that women have sex with men that they would refuse to entertain a romantic relationship with?
Maybe the world really has changed that much, but I'm not that old and 10-15 years ago I was working at a place with some highly promiscuous men in their 20s that loved to tell stories over happy hour. A time or two I heard a story about a woman refusing to return calls/texts after a one-night-stand, but it was regarded as a humorous and exceptional "man-bites-dog" situation. I don't think I've ever in my life heard about a situation in which a woman was *regularly* having sex with a man that she would never contemplate dating but who was interested in dating her.
My impression as well is that it's not common. According to Louise Perry, it's a revelation to women that men would have separate categories for women they would have some fun with vs. women they would bring home to their mother. And it's a common enough problem of women willing to be "friends with benefits" because they think this will get them a higher chance of getting that friend to marry her. They are too naive (or delusional) to understand the adage, "Why buy the cow when you get the milk for free?"
Yes, I absolutely do think understanding of "why buy the cow?" has faded among young women. I've picked up on this from many sources. Though I also think that a woman dating secular men probably doesn't have much hope of holding out until marriage for sex in a society where premarital sex is customary; she'll just be bypassed. But she absolutely CAN hold out for a committed relationship, which is at least more likely to turn into marriage than an ambiguous sexual relationship is.
Yes, that is something that didn't quite click for me in Perry and you've added some insight: that is, women will put out after only a few dates even though they don't want to but feel the pressure of competition forces them to do so. What didn't click is, don't they know that if they are eliminating men from their pool by not being so easy, those are presumably the type of men they would want to sift out anyway?
I'm trying to mentally model what assumptions would have to be true for this strategy to make sense (assuming that a woman's goal is to attract a lifelong mate rather than a cad). It would seem to be something like 1) he is more likely to date women who will sleep with him - the sooner the better, 2) he is likely to marry whoever sleeps with him first and therefore 3) my best strategy to land a mate is to put out early. Obviously (2) is laughable. Maybe I'm just not being charitable here.
One of the fundamental human weaknesses is elevating short-term thinking over long-term thinking, or pursuing short-term goods over long-term goods. You are trying to figure out what her long-term strategy is when there is no such strategy.
In the short term, she is avoiding being bypassed for dates, etc. In the long term, she is shooting herself in the foot.
Yes, my thoughts exactly. People already have a bias towards short-term thinking, and our society amplifies the problem by denigrating long-term thinking in this area. If a 22-year-old woman starts talking out loud about how to land a husband, she is going to be told by peers and even elders to just have fun. If she's smart, she'll wise up sooner rather than later, but some never do.
I've made the observation that even chaste Christian women tend to lack a strategy for finding a spouse. There is a certain type of Christian girl that passes 30 and STILL doesn't really become proactive or think hard about what could be done to land a good husband. I've personally watched more than one of these women age out of marriageability (or at least the possibility of motherhood) while never changing anything up, just silently suffering, praying, and hoping.
Just so you know, there's women out there with literal harems of men, and vice versa.
That's the hook. The kicker is that there is increasingly a mismatch between whatever women desire in long term partners and what is available to them.
It's impossible to know how common a woman's intentions are. However, there is definitely a "date for fun, then forever " strain of thought that is prevalent in society. A woman's advice to "date them all," but not for marriage, is, certainly widely known.
Yes, I agree with the idea that young people are expected by mainstream society to date with no real eye towards marriage until mid to late 20s. Nothing new there.
What I’m doubting is that a man would ever find himself in a situation where a number of women will have sex with him but none will marry (or enter a committed relationship) with him.
In any casual relationship that includes recurring sex, if either party wants to convert it to a committed relationship, it’s going to be the woman the overwhelming majority of the time. The bad boy that a woman dates/has sex with without expecting to marry is even less interested in marrying her.