I know there is a lot of tongue-in-cheek in this post, but it’s still probably good to remind people that Jesus told us that if you want to be the greatest you need to be the servant of others.  Women have probably lived up to this standard for centuries across cultures, and even if it hasn’t been appreciated my a male hierarchy, I believe God sees and cherishes it.  It’d be a shame to advocate a general change in demeanor.  Rather, we should more the recommend that men learn from the service example of women.  There has to be a line drawn somewhere as that is not the same as calling for women to be taken advantage of or trampled over (and given a long history of abuse, a call of “enough is enough” is understandable).  Still, I’d rather see a mostly depraved society of men with Fulton Sheen’s virtuous women than one where women stoop down to the man’s level in a stupid, no-winner battle of the sexes.

Great Truth!

I always thank God for my girlfriend. She makes me aspire to be a better man.

Bravo! Even something like a secret list that a guy has to live up to if they want to be considered for a second date or marriage or not running out the door to a car horn but waiting for them to come to the door. We need to make demands of the men around us. Men need goals and things to aspire to and the good ones know they have to win a woman’s heart and that doesn’t come by using that woman as a concubine. Women need to know that they are more precious and worthy of being treated better than as if they were a strumpet. We need to defy the lies disguised as the hoops they make us jump through and take back our power that was lost by the feminists.

Labeling sexual modesty amongst women as merely “Victorian” in nature historicizes the idea and reduces its import to just a single time period. This is not only historically incorrect, but it is a tactic that proponents of the so-called “sexual revolution” used to convince women to lower their morals and indulge their baser impulses. The fact remains that current modes of female behavior (which could largely be labeled as “promiscuous”) are far more historically isolated than the traditional modes of female behavior (which could be labeled as “modest and chaste”) are. Whether you want to accept it or not, CrinaBnd, men are biologically more predisposed to wanting sex than women are: it’s a biochemical reaction. Now, this is not to say that they can’t control themselves. However, the burden does indeed fall on women to encourage men to control themselves. This is just the way it is. As for Lysistrata, which I have not only read but also taught at the college level, it is a rather bleak portrayal of human weakness: both male and female. The reader (or viewer, if we’re referencing the period in which it was composed) is supposed to ridicule and (in many ways) malign these characters. It is a satire about human weakness. It is not a feminist rallying cry—far from it. People who read it this way are not only being anachronistic, but they’re also missing the entire point of the play.

I never said men were “mindless animals”; I simply pointed out that biochemically, men are wired differently when it comes to sex than women are. This is a natural and God-given difference between the genders. Women and men are not the same and to suggest they are is also “gutter-minded” and “playing into Satan’s hands.” There are of course women who desire sex as much as men, but usually this desire stems from certain psychological or emotional issues (I’m speaking as someone who grew up with a mother who confused sex with love and, as a result, had many sexual partners). This article does not at all “cheapen sex as a bargaining tool”; it explores how our society has cheapened sex and cheapened traditional femininity. Neither sex is encouraged to rise above their natural proclivities or baser desires. In the past, at least, women were encouraged to remain chaste until marriage; there is no longer a widespread encouragement amongst families or, especially, amongst society at large for women to value their virginity or sexuality. And, yes, the traditional role of woman as modest and chaste is *more* of a Western phenomenon, but it existed long before the advent of Puritanism (circa 1500s in England). For examples of this, all one needs to do is read the Bible, and you will see that the expectations for women have always been different from the expectations for men; thus, this social expectation even predates Christ. About Aristophanes’ work: all literature is subject to interpretation, but Lysistrata was definitely NOT the “Sex and the City” of its time. “Sex and the City” revels in the promiscuity of both sexes; it glamorizes it. The play does not. The very fact that it is a satire should tell you this. It’s not merely a comedic look (like Seinfeld, et. al.); it is an exaggerated and largely censorious portrayal of human sexuality, and the promiscuity of men and women.

What a great idea!
    Think of the healthy character building that can take place. Imagine people re-learning that the reasons that they may or may not have wedded and that they have grown beyond sexual intercourse where the"two become one flesh”. This can only be for married christians. Sex and everything that goes with it doesn’t matter to the unGodly.

Ugh, you are also misreading me. I said that women who have sexual desires as strong or stronger than men are usually struggling with a psychological or emotion disorder—this is not scientifically unfounded (it is, however, scientifically unpopular). Of course women like and desire sex: I never said they didn’t. I said the degree to which they did is different to the degree to which men do (this is largely hormonal: i.e. due to the differences between large amounts of testosterone compared to having more estrogen). Moreover, I did not equate desire with promiscuity: I said that women who do not control their desires engage in promiscuity. That’s just a fact. (Just as men who do not control their desires also engage in promiscuity.) As for the play, I’m not sure how to say this without being condescending, but I really have no further interest in discussing literature with you. I think you are intent on misreading me and on misreading Fulwiler. As such, I think we’ve gone as far as we can logically go in our discussion. Peace be with you!

CrinaBnd: Thank you for so perfectly illustrating with your most recent outburst the second-to-last statement I made in my previous comment. Adieu to you!

The gist of Ms. Fulweiler’s article, for me, can be summed up as: “from time immemorial women have been able to have a tremendous impact on society through the parameters they put on their willingness to engage in sexual behavior with men. All the culture of female promiscuity does is harm women, and give them less control over the world around them.”

The literature in the fields of psychology and sociology suggests that women who are willing to be sexually promiscuous in the way that some men are, yes, are nearly always troubled and deprived individuals, with either clinical depression, or a history of fairly severe abuse and/or neglect. Often both.

That any commenters here are put off by the suggestion that emotionally grounded, healthy, and well-balanced women tend not to be inclined toward debauchery after the style of debauched men, indicates the unfortunate degree to which PC notions of “equality as interchangability” have made inroads in our culture.

That healthy women freely and easily distance themselves from men whose behavior and conduct do not measure up is a fact, and this distancing includes sexual distancing. Yet sexual access - or the promise of it, with marriage - is often the prize these very men desire the most. Why should not women leverage that of the male mind into something motivational and positive? To dismiss their doing so as a case of “using sex as a bargaining chip” is a case of reductionism as its most egregious.

Real power for women is not in imitating debauched men; it is in presenting men with the motivation to live up to something higher and nobler within themselves, something that is arduous to achieve, and something which they might not otherwise trouble themselves after, were it not for the women being so choosy about who they care to cast eyes upon.

Jen (if I may be so familiar), great article!  A tribute to you that the the combox back-n-forth is so high-falutin! 
Speaking of which, I think Melissa makes a much more convincing historical and literary case…

CrinaBnd, who ever said anything about sex as a bargaining chip?  I did not gather as much from Ms. Fulwiler’s article.  What she wrote was that men might reconsider their behavior if sex is harder to get.  That first implies that women should first change their behavior (and since you’ve pointed out that women’s desires can be just as strong as men’s then all the more reason).  And what do we mean by good behavior?  That can indeed mean inner conversion for both men and women.  But it’s got to start somewhere, and where that can start is by questioning what is “freedom” and “empowerment” for women, which is what a lot of the Pro-choice, Planned Parenthood debates revolve around.  The larger point at issue here is whether or not women are “freer” and “more equal” for sleeping around, and not whether or not a man has more desire for sex than a woman.  And if good behavior doesn’t happen, and the woman feels uncomfortable, the woman is within her right to kick the guy to the curb if he isn’t shaping up (a man may of course do the same thing, but we’re mostly talking about the women here).  Sex isn’t so much a bargaining chip as it is laying off sex so that both the man and woman may learn detachment.  That and a woman’s dignity is undermined when she thinks she needs “sexual liberation” in order to be “equal to men.”

Isn’t our true power in God? That we are made in His image, that we have, within us all, male and female, the ability to choose right from wrong? Why do men need to be motivated by sex? This is the true ugliness of original sin, the destruction of innocence.

I think Thomas Aquinas pointed out that it is sexual sins that are especially spiritually blinding.  So if our true power is in God and we’re made in His image, which I don’t think anyone is disagreeing with here, people who are behaving promiscuously are not going to see it.  How many people who use contraception, after all, try to justify their own sins by turning against God? 

We have a very distorted idea of what is “good” and what it means to “not hurt anyone” these days.  We see sex as the private purview of the bedroom—so private that it doesn’t “hurt anyone,” because hey, we’re not stealing or murdering anyone are we? ...though Msgr. Charles Pope of the Archdiocese of Washington points out that if you read the Bible, you’ll find that violence and theft come up every time sexual immorality is mentioned—by claiming your “right” to enjoy it, you rob what legitimately belongs to the marriage bed.

Again, the larger point and context of this article is about women’s freedom and supposed “power” as defined by many in secular society as “sexual liberation.”  It’s seen by many mainstream feminists as such.  In the given context, I think it’s fair to say that contrary to the language of “empowerment,” imitating the women on Sex and the City brings no such thing.  In fact, women have often gotten the short end of the stick in this regard.  Ms. Fulwiler isn’t talking about sex as a bargaining chip for power;  she is addressing this so-called “empowerment” directly.

“Sexual liberation” is a lie. There is no such thing.

A wh*re is still a wh*re, she is not “sexually liberated”.

A thief is still a thief. He is not “property liberated”

A liar is still a liar. He is not “truthfully liberated”.

And a murderer is still a murderer. He is not “lifefully liberated”.

Women, obey your men. As the Church is to Christ in all things,
so shall you be unto your men.

Feminism is sister to Satanism.
Simple as that.

Men, rule over your women.
It is both your duty and your responsibility.

This is an interesting article.  I find it amusing that people actually use sex as a weapon, then wonder why we have places like PP.

I agree completely with CrlnaBnd.

It’s a troublesome notion to me that it’s somehow OK or advisable for me to use access to my physical charms to manipulate or encourage someone else’s behavior.  It seems like a power game which demeans both participants.  Also, men’s righteous behavior should be motivated by a desire to please and imitate God, not to get into their wives’ pants more often.

Why not call upon men to withhold sex from women until they get their sexual act together?

I thought I DID.  Read what I wrote in the parentheses, please.  I will concede that I didn’t make it more obvious to you as I clearly should have, but it’s still there.

God calls us to see sex as something higher, something more connected to Himself, than how secular culture sees it. We don’t play the sex-as-power feminist game by taking it and putting our spin on it. We eschew it completely. We see each man and each woman as a person created in the image of God and deserving of equal dignity. Sex isn’t a Wi game or a pleasant pasttime we engage in. It’s something infinitely greater than a goodie we can dangle in front of some man’s eyes in order to get him to play the game our way.

I already acknowledged this, for Pete’s sake.  But the reality is that the secular way of thinking of sex is more pervasive than the orthodox Catholic view.  So how do we go from that to a more Catholic view?  You state the obvious in terms of where we need to go, but not how to get there.  And you have not addressed my point about St. Thomas and sexual immorality producing spiritual blindness. 

So let me spell it out for you again:  you can yell and scream all you want that you’re right (yes, you are, and I agree with you about God and sex), but nobody in the larger culture will listen because of the way the narrative about a woman’s power and where sex fits in has been constructed.  Again, I don’t think Ms. Fulwiler would deny that this is about BOTH men and women being chaste.  But if you want to defeat the mainstream feminist view of sex and the bargaining-chip mentality, you first have to address what it’s getting at, and then pick it apart to show that it is false:  first show them that promiscuity does not empower, and THEN show them why that is.  THAT’S when you bring in the Catholic view of sex, and chastity for both men and women, and why it’s right.

But no, once again, this author buys into the insideous notion that women are responsible for men’s sexual behavior. The really ugly flip side of THAT is that women who don’t fit the Fulwiler/Ladies Against Feminism version of female virtue are asking for it, deserve what they get, are fair game, etc.

You’re jumping a little ahead ahead here.  Ms. Fulwiler did not say that women are responsible for men’s sexual behavior, rather that women should be more responsible for their OWN.  Everybody has a responsibility for their own virtue.  A woman is obviously safe when she encounters a man who takes virtue seriously.  Men who are also finding that sexual promiscuity isn’t satisfying are waking up and smelling the burnt toast.  But I think you’d agree that there are veritable frat boys, yes?  Not to say that all men are, and I never did. 

So, what do we do when we encounter ones who are frat boys, particularly one who can’t give two hoots about what God thinks (or even that He exists), and thinks that the Church is “old fashioned”?  Come on, they exist, and many of them pull that one all the time.  And women who don’t know what the Church teaches and why it is reasonable are an easy target, especially if they have bought into the feminist myth.  Does a woman not have a right to point out that certain kinds of behavior make her feel uncomfortable?  This isn’t about “bargaining,” this is protecting one’s own dignity and standing tall while knowing that there’s a certain pressure that comes from “everybody’s doing it.”  In other words, the guy will either shape up, if he’s really a good soul who care, but up until then, did not see sex the way she does.  This really is more complicated than you think.  And if virtue and caring about her really is the furthest thing from his mind, he’ll bug off after calling her a prude, and she can then move on where she will find a good man who is more virtuous.  Good men obviously exist, too.  But they have to be found.  Sometimes, a good man can be found as a diamond in the rough, and other times, one has to separate the wheat from the chaff.

And yes, this so obviously applies to men, too, wherein a man who does value his virtue and his self-control should kick to the curb a woman who is only interested in sex, and demand that she smarten up and not treat him like a piece of meat (like, big DUH).

“It’s a troublesome notion to me that it’s somehow OK or advisable for me to use access to my physical charms to manipulate or encourage someone else’s behavior.” 

I would not defend any suggestion about sex outside of marriage; this is about how a woman goes about choosing a marriage partner, and I don’t believe that the original author is defending that either. We are not speaking about access *just* to a woman’s physical charms, but to all of her - her love, her devotion, her future, herself.

For example, would anyone say: I am willing to work wherever they pay the highest wage, and I pay no attention to how my employer actually behaves toward me in other areas, or what the workplace atmosphere is like. I don’t refuse to work in atmospheres that are below par, because it’s a troublesome notion to me that it’s somehow OK or advisable for me to use access to my participation in the workplace to manipulate or encourage someone else’s (i.e., my employer’s) behavior. (Is it somehow “immoral” for cream of the crop workers to insist on excellent treatment from their employers? And to refuse to work in places with a lousy reputation for treating their employees?)

When the children I am watching scream and throw things, I don’t put away the cookies I had promised, because it’s a troublesome notion to me that it’s somehow OK or advisable for me to use access to treats to manipulate or encourage someone else’s behavior. (Is it somehow immoral to insist that children behave properly, and punish them when they do not?)

When my neighbor gets drunk and makes a scene at a neighborhood block party, I don’t cross him off the list of people to invite for future events. It’s a troublesome notion to me that it’s somehow OK or advisable for me to use social invitations to manipulate or encourage someone else’s behavior. (Is it somehow immoral to exclude someone who ruins social gatherings until they learn to behave properly at them?)

Answers to Scenarios 1, 2, and 3: No, no and no.

Again, not talking about sinful sexual relationships, but about women’s choosing whom to court and whom to marry.

Hi CrlnaBnd. How obvious can I get about what?  I don’t understand.  In any case, I believe Melissa arguments are more measured and thoughtful, and less hyperbolic than yours.  Most of your arguments are based on hyperbolic distortions of what other people have written.  That to me is less believable, and therefore less convincing.  For example, you wrote about Melissa, “She bases it all on a false premise—that high levels of desire don’t exist in any but psychologically troubled females. You can’t make any kind of case for something that isn’t true.”  In fact, she did not write that. 
She wrote, “There are of course women who desire sex as much as men, but usually this desire stems from certain psychological or emotional issues”.  ‘Usually’ and ‘any but’ do not mean the same thing.
I didn’t find her comments particularly snide or huffy, at least not in any way distinguishable from yours.  And I’m not certain, but I think you may be trying to insinuate that I’m her ‘buddy’ and she sent me in here to defend her position.  Let me be clear:  I do not know Melissa or you from Adam or Eve. I simply found her arguments and tone more compelling and relevant to Jennifer’s article.
Thanks for engaging me personally (truly).

Isn’t it true that males in general are hard-wired to impress females? And that we females are impressed by men’s athletic prowess, virile appearance, and somewhat dominant and agressive behavior, as evidenced by those men who have stylish and expensive wardrobes, good grooming, slick cars?

Royal biographers recount that when the then-thirteen year old Princess Elizabeth of England, watched the then-eighteen-year-old Prince Philip of Greece playing rugby on the lawns of Buckingham Palace, she exclaimed to her governess, “How good he is! How high he can jump!” She fell in love then and there, and as she grew up, never wavered from the plan to marry him. And she did.

Football. Ferraris. “You’re going to love the way you look. I guarantee it.” After shave. Tweed jackets. His successful career. His polished manners. His excellent abs. Or his T-shirt and baseball cap. Whatever floats her boat, depending on who “she” is.

Men fall all over themselves vying for our favorable attention. (I mean the favorable attention of eligible and hot young women) Let’s not make the mistake of giving them our favorable attention for deeds or behaviors that our unworthy of the sort of men we really want in our lives.

“Marion, you’re equating the fullness and beauty of a chaste marriage with treats you award babies with? Sex is a cookie given for good behavior on the part of men? An intimate encounter with one’s spouse is merely an invite on the part of the woman to a pleasant social occasion? Let me guess: you’re single.”

No.

No.

No.

And when you give evidence that you have taken your head out from up where you’ve had it for most of today, I’ll engage you further.

“Put up or shut up. Either grow up and deal, or piss off.”

Lovely.

I don’t take instructions from random strangers on the internet.

I will respond to you, or to others, that seem to be worth my while. Otherwise, not.

I suggest you deal.

Well, if women aren’t interested in sex, why get married? Let them die old maids. Dang if I care to be treated with female condensation. Gals, if you want to rule the world you are on your own as far as I’m concerned.

Linus asked, “Well, if women aren’t interested in sex, why get married? Let them die old maids. Dang if I care to be treated with female condensation. Gals, if you want to rule the world you are on your own as far as I’m concerned.”

Gee, Linus, if your wife got to be 350 pounds, never showered, and had bad breath, would you find her enticing?

Hello?

Well, Linus, if men are choosy about the way in which the women they’re with present themselves, then is it surprising women may not find men enticing for other reasons, for example when they behave in unkind ways to their children?

For example, if her husband screams at and humiliates their children, what woman in her right mind would want to have anything to do with him later when they’re alone, at least unless he apologizes?

Linus, even you ought to get that.

During this Lenten Season, I want make a suggestion , in honoring women: ” The other day I picked up the “Rosary Song” I had scarely looked at it before - and it threw over me a strange , weird sensation. It has followed me like a breath of perfume ever since and I have pinned it to the first page of my best Bible. ” The hours I spent with thee, dear heart, Are as a string of pearls to me ; I count them over, every one apart, My diary ; my rosary.
” Each hour a pearl, each pearl a prayer, to still a heart in absence wrung; I tell each bead unto the end, and there A cross is hung!
” o memories that bless and burn! O barren gain and bitter loss! I kiss each bead, and strive at last to learn to Kiss the cross, ..... To kiss the cross”
let us all reflect , there is only one absolutely unselfish and God - like love. It is a mother’s love . A mother’s love is the best illustration of God’s love . a mother’s love is the best guarantee of God’s love .the God who can create a mother’s heart ! god is love ,and love is the mother - heart of God. Theodore Parker was the first , and so far as I know , the only preacher who, in his public prayers , addressed God as ” the Father and Mother of us all! ” Oh my friend , read your theology beneath the candle - light of a mother ‘s love .Thatbtheology is hard , cold,stern and unbending which cannot find a place in the heart of a mother. oh happy phrase , ” the mother heart of a god! ” And let us thank Kipling , too, for those glorious lines, fit for the monument of a great soul-
Peace to all during this Lenten season

What a wonderful article! You’ve used their own words to destroy the very premise for their argument.

I’ve noticed this truth in my own life as well that the higher I’ve held my standards the better I’ve been treated. The same has also been true in reverse, the more men have respected me the more I’ve striven to be a woman worthy of respect.

To hold someone to that higher standard is a great affirmation of their dignity and worth as a human. One of the most painful things about our society is that people are told they are less than human, that they have no ability to control themselves.

“the higher I’ve held my standards the better I’ve been treated . . . ” and “the more men have respected me the more I’ve striven to be a woman worthy of respect.”

Beautiful, sound common sense.

Your sound sensibility indicates you are a part of a vanishing breed, Christina. But it’s never too late to turn things around.

@ Marion, with all due respect, your comparisons stink.

I dunno about your marriage, but in mine, sexual intimacy cannot in any way be equated with my rewarding my children for good behavior or punishing them for bad.  Last I checked I am not my husband’s mommy and it is not my responsibility to try to make him fit before God.  It would be sinful and presumptuous to insert myself between him and his Creator.

If my neighbor acted a fool at my house, I would not invite him in the future, but that is entirely different than telling him I will only pick up his mail and feed his cat when he’s on vacation if he passes some kind of virtue test.  If I didn’t invite him over again, he would be free to sin as much or as little as he wants at his own home. I just wouldn’t choose to be around it. 

Not sure how or why the concept of personal, individual responsibility for righteousness, as well as the concept of a sexual relationship being unlike any other human relationship, is not being grasped here….?

Gee, Erika, all you’ve succeeded in communicating to me is that if your 16-year-old daughter came home with a Hell’s Angel on probation for a weapons charge, that you would pat her on the head and say, “that’s OK honey, as long as he floats your boat.”

I may be unfairly mischaracterizing what you actually wrote, but now you know what that being mischaracterized by someone who hasn’t taken the time to actually understand, feels like.

I hope you and your future felons-in-law will be happy.

Prostitution and sex slaves are booming places….

BINGO!! A “sex strike” will thus prove PP useless b/c there will be no need for contraceptives and no unplanned pregnancies! Wonderful idea Nubel!!!!

Maybe my reading of the article is flawed, but I saw this less as a “using sex to manipulate your one man” and more of a “raising our standards as a society” article.
That is, if all women made up their minds to only go home with or get married to the good boys.
That doesn’t mean that women don’t want to have sex; it means they will avoid having a one-night stand with the creepy guy at the bar or their sleazy co-worker, and instead bed their dashing husband.
If you married a guy, clearly you already think he was worthy of you and you would like to see other men imitate his behaviour.  And, since you married him, feel free to give him all the loving you and he want. 
And, by that same token, we would encourage our sisters and daughters to find men worthy of them and avoid the frat boys for whom those sisters and daughters are just a notch on the bedpost.
If we women all got together and witheld sex from the creepy and the arrogant, there would be a lot fewer creepy and arrogant men around.
Also, if we’re only having sex with men whose babies we’d be proud to have, Planned Parenthood would probably go out of business.
Of course women desire physical intimacy; to deny it would present a skewed view of human biology.  But if we, as a sex, were to make sure that we only favored good men our bodies, men would need to work harder to get a woman’s favor.

CrnlaBnd, thanks for your reply.

And to reply to your kind adieu to me from yesterday: “Buh-bye.”

Mouse wrote: “If we women all got together and witheld sex from the creepy and the arrogant, there would be a lot fewer creepy and arrogant men around.”

Mouse, I agree with the slight modification that if we withheld even attention and approval from creepy and arrogant men . . . because even creepy and arrogant men know that they won’t getting any where near any woman who finds their behavior repellent . . .

Marion,

“But it’s never too late to turn things around.”

I suppose once the end of the world comes it will be too late ;-)

It was an older man holding me to a higher standard (opening the door for me) that caused me to rethink the standard I held others to. One thing that is sorely needed is the holding of others to a higher standard. I remember thinking it was wrong not to give men what they wanted sexually because it would be causing them pain.

Now I realize that we are all called to sacrifice our desires for others, and in fact men are called to “lay down their lives for their bride as Christ did for the Church.” It was wrong for me to NOT ask them to sacrifice for me, lowering my standards harmed them as men.

I’m glad these feminists are beginning to realize that… (said tongue in cheek ;-P)

Re: Abusive and vulgar language on website

Dear Editor:

Please know that another commenter is habitually using ad hominem attacks along with vulgar and obscene language, the most recent example being (Posted by CrlnaBnd on Thursday, Apr 14, 2011 9:33 AM: excerpts: “. . . if they don’t kiss your big behind and then you gush all over anyone who agrees with you. . . . It’s filthy thinking and whorish behavior . . . You’re a shrew, pure and simple, which would explain why your married life is the hell it is now . . .”

I very much hope that a Catholic website would find this language to be beyond the pale, and would consider banning, or at the very least warning the commenter in question.

Thanks very much.

Yours very truly, etc.

CC: the website.

P.S. I would appreciate other commenters who have been offended at the outrageous and vicious personal attacks offered by CrnlaBnd not only against me, but against others, to drop a quick line to the editor registering our objections.

Just go to the home page and click on the link to the “Contact Us” page; then click on email to Managing Editor.

Maybe we can get him banned from the site.

Thanks. Let’s clean this up.

In return, I promise not to engage him further, no matter what.

Thanks again.

I was wondering how I could “second” your appeal for moderation. That vitriol was uncalled for. Figured the best thing was to ignore her and go back to real discussion.

Oh, and I’m not sure they moderate comments much. Either way, the immature bullying can be ignored. I think most people reading it would realize that it’s not really directed at you.

Thanks, Christina!

Yes, by all means, report a pattern of abusive and vulgar language on the part of a regular commenter to the Managing Editor. And the vitriol is not just directed against me; others have received their share, too. It’s really sad.

Ignoring this sort of thing is OK to a point, but there comes a point, I think, where those in authority really must be asked to step in.

A little trash strewn on the lawn can be overlooked, but when our property becomes the neighborhood dumping ground, well, at a certain point we need to get in touch with the authorities.

Have you all read this book: A Return to Modesty: Discovering the Lost Virtue by Wendy Shalit (http://www.amazon.com/Return-Modesty-Discovering-Lost-Virtue/dp/0684863170). It talks about what you all are discussing: the fact that when women raise the bar and carry themselves w/modesty, then this in turn changes men’s behavior towards women and they treat them w/respect.

One of the most direct lines in the book - and I am paraphrasing here - is that what men get out of women now (the one night stands, the sex w/out commitment, the entitlement mentality that if he paid for dinner then you have to have sex with him) was what men had to go to prostitutes for in a time when values and morals in society were the norm. Now, however, men don’t even have to go to a prostitute for any of this. Men get it for free b/c women are giving it to them because they think that if they do not cave into pressure then they will never have a man by their side.

So, I wonder, who is really hurt by all this “sexual freedom” being preached by feminist? Not men in the least. As a matter of fact, women have made it easy for men to get what they want.

I dare all you women out there to stand up to the challenge and expect respect from our men. Then, once raising the bar, men will have to stand up to the challenge.  And if anyone here knows men, they LOVE a challenge! The quote from Arch. Sheen says it best. I love this quote and shared it with your group when we discussed Wendy’s book.

Sounds like a good book, I’ll check it out. However, would like to address this comment, “So, I wonder, who is really hurt ... Not men in the least.”

Men are being hurt as well. It’s not seen often because the “instant gratification” of sex goes to men far more (women, emotionally connected more to the act are less likely to be pleased with a hookup). However, men are harmed by this philosophy. In “getting what they want” they don’t get what they truly want or need.

As you said men love a challenge. The quote from the NT about women respecting men is actually right on. Men need respect like women need love. By setting up a society where they are not respected and are treated like children they are devalued and harmed spiritually and psychologically.

“Men love a challenge.”

So true. Dad told me this when we had one of our series of “talks” when I was in middle school, and I’ve found, over many years, that, he was right.

From that books description, “In an age when women are embarrassed by sexual inexperience”

A few months ago I was watching a TV show and one of characters mentioned how she decided in highschool to wait for “Mr Right”. Yay, chastity plug on TV!! Right??!! Nope, in the next sentence she says, “well, I never stopped waiting {queue shocked look by other character} I’m scared X will not like me when he finds out I’m still a virgin.”

“Well IF he does get upset then you can both go to a bar and he can pick out the guy to take care of that issue for you.” This is, of course, NOT what was actually said by the woman she was talking to, but what I yelled at the TV. I’ll never understand this “embarrassed by being a virgin” mentality. It’s not like you can get it back after you shag Mr Wrong and you’ll have those memories (and maybe even diseases) for the rest of your life.

@Christina: this is one point she covers alot in her book. You might be able to check it out from your local library. That is what I did. I think you will like her imput. She makes a great correlation between, the decrease in modesty and the increase in pornography and the sexual assault on women prevalent now a days. Even as young as girls in midle school! It is shocking and a big eye opener to say the least.

My theory is that if a man walks away from me b/c I am a virgin and because I refuse to give into the sex before marriage debacle, then that means he was only after me for THAT reason. And it is better he is gone.

Chastity is the best way to secure the man that trully loves you b/c he is willing to pay the sacrifice of waiting out of love. It is a win-win for all.

(PS: my word verification is .... bed21 ... hilarious!!!!)

“the sexual assault on women prevalent now a days”

Rape did not start when the Pill was invented. The vulnerable have always been subject to sexual assault. What’s changed is that people can now come forward and report it with a chance of being taken seriously and the perpetrator being punished rather than the victim being blamed. Society has changed, and for the better.

The Catholic church has been slow to accept this. Well ... that’s why diocese after diocese is having to declare bankruptcy.

The easy elision here between bartering and prostitution and dating and childbearing, the idea that sex has to be some dreadful compromise between him wanting and her not ... good grief, do you not understand that if you want to live your life that way, please feel free to, but there are far less miserable ways about going about it? Love isn’t a transaction. Pleasure and happiness isn’t some consumer choice.

When you’re dealing with other people you love, is that all about cutting deals and suffering, too? When you deal with your parents or your own children, is that all about waiting and submitting and guilt and pain and not doing what you want? Losses and gains?

It’s just a bizarre way to live your life to think that (a) all sex is about bringing a human life into the world and that (b) bringing that life into the world isn’t something to think about or a decision of any kind, it’s just something that happens, (c) sex is only about what you lose.

Steve Jeffers- your 3 points are not Church teaching BUT the Church teaches that sex is reserved for marriage and it is both unitive and procreative…if sex in marriage was only procreative then couples who are infertile because of medical or age issues would not have sex- but sex is for unity reasons as well

Stever wrote: “Love isn’t a transaction. Pleasure and happiness isn’t some consumer choice.”

No, love is none of those things.

The love between a man and a woman - real love - the kind of love between a man and a woman that the Church contemplates - is love unto death. It is labor unto life. It is the loving labor of bringing forth life, and the loving labor of tending life and nurturing life unto one’s own death.

It is a total giving of self - present and future. I am all yours forever. You are all mine. We are one. Our futures are bound up together forever. Our children - yours and mine - will all be ours. That is the promise and the plan. I give you my life, and my capacity to bring forth life. I accept from you your life, and your capacity to bring forth life.

I accept you and what you are, without reservations, without conditions. No matter what the cost, no matter where it leads us.

Nothing will come between either of us and that promise.

Because life can involve a great deal of hard work, that kind of love is a promise to yield up the last drop of its hearts’ blood for the Beloved. As Christ did for us. Love works and works and breaks its back, and keeps working, without counting the cost. Then it comes indoors, falls into bed, and gets up and goes back out the next day to do the same. This kind of love goes down with the ship to give the Beloved a seat on the only remaining lifeboat. While the Beloved begs him to be the one to take that seat, instead, and allow her to swim. Love runs back into a burning building to search for the Beloved, risking her own life.

Love sits by the bedside of the sick Beloved and tends him. Or her. Love sells everything he has to buy the cure for her. As Christ did for us.

Love cares for the children it brought forth when those children are sick, or injured, or well, or when they are cranky and tiresome or charming. Love cares for the children when there is money and fun and sunshine, or when there is no money, and only endless, relentless rain.

That kind of love doesn’t give up. That kind of love doesn’t walk away. That kind of love doesn’t move on. That kind of love is here to stay.

Not everyone is capable of this kind of real, self-giving love. Some never will be capable of it; others will be one day, but aren’t capable of it yet. It requires a well-developed and mature character.

A real man. An adolescent boy is capable of the mere act of copulation and giving and receiving pleasure in doing so. But it is unlikely he is capable of long-haul loving that requires grinding work and sacrifice on behalf of the Beloved, and the children that they bring into the world.

Plenty of grown men and women take pleasure in giving and receiving sexual pleasure. But without the real self-giving promise of forever love, the understanding is that we “love” each other for now. Until whenever. Until one of us basically kicks the other to the curb.

That kind of “until one of us kicks the other to the curb” love, and that kind of pleasure is a cheap imitation of the real deal.

People capable of the real deal are repulsed by cheap imitations. As a man who knows and longs for a draft of cold, clear water from a mountain stream is repulsed by warm, skunked beer. As a prisoner who longs for fresh air and green woods and blue sky is repulsed by a cinder-block courtyard that lets in a mere chink of daylight.

P.S.

I forgot to add: the smart woman who longs for the real deal will evaluate whether the love and the pleasure being offered to her is of the “I am yours and you are mine forever, together” variety, or of the “I love you for today, honey, and hey! the sex is great, but I will kick you to the curb when I am done with you” variety.

The thing that makes it difficult for the woman doing the evaulating is that the second kind of love is a fantastic con artist, an expert at simulating the real deal, with words and promises, and even great sex.

None of that really means anything, however, when it comes down to it. Acts which give the counterfeit lover pleasure only mean that . . .  they give the counterfeit lover pleasure. It’s only acts that the counterfeit lover would be highly unlikely to undertake to do - acts that give him no pleasure - like to *wait* - that enable the woman to be able to separate the counterfeits from the real deals.

Steve also wrote: “When you’re dealing with other people you love, is that all about cutting deals and suffering, too? When you deal with your parents or your own children, is that all about waiting and submitting and guilt and pain and not doing what you want? Losses and gains?”

That sounds like the crie-de-coeur of a man who will, when she hits 40 and begins to get a bit saggy around the edges, and needs more time and attention from him, trade his wife in for a newer model.

That doesn’t necessarily mean that man is a bad person. It just means that man is a shallow person, incapable of real love. Because real love is about real life, which is, at times, difficult and arduous, not just
sunshine and lollipops.

But sunshine and lollipops boys trade in their wives when the going gets tough. And ultimately they themselves end up dying alone and without love, having never really known it.

Marion,

I don’t think we’re speaking the same language or have one common point of reference. I guess we weren’t meant for each other!

In any event, thank you for your reply.

Steve wrote: “I don’t think we’re speaking the same language or have one common point of reference.”

Your remark does not surprise me.

My reply were addressed to you, but was dedicated to true lovers everywhere.

Goodness, she must have read Aristophenes’ “Lysistrata"which btw, is hilarious! Only this sex strike is go stop a war!

Good grief, Marion, you think you can remove your jaw from Steven’s neck long enough to let him speak without you biting him again? He had a point, an in-between, that you missed in the midst of your meditation on Catholic love.

I get the feeling that were this to happen, a lot more than 10% of men would suddenly become bisexual. ‘Lysistrata’ the first female sex strike in cultural history, was from the society of the ancient Athenians, who also happened to tolerate sexual relationships between working men and their teenage boy apprentices/slaves… Coincidence?

Nevertheless, in Lysistrata, none of the men turn to other men. Perhaps the culture had not reached that level of depravity yet. I can’t remember the dates.

1.  if women went on a sex strike….. men would just rape women…. since women are so weak there would be nothing they could do.

not that it will matter much becuase women wont be needed for sex soon….. in other words…. women wont be needed at all…. since sex is all they are good for… as we all know…. we know this becuase men only care about women mostly for sex….. thus showing women are only good for sex evoutionary speaking. 

  (we can make female eggs from male cells now, so sex is the last thing women have left to offer a man.)

2. men are inventing sex robots as we speak….. they should be ready in about 10 years.

these sex robots will look better then the real thing… sound like the real thing…. and be better at sex then a normal women could.

women have no idea that, just like the washing machine…. they are about to be yet again replaced by technology….. but this time, it will be the last straw before men dont need or care about women any more.

women have been replaced in all areas execpt for sex…. we can even creat a female egg out of male cells now… and it can devlop in an artifical womb.

once men replaced women with something better for sex….. thats it…. women lost the last of there uses.

and guess what?... sex robots are only 10 years away….. and then?.... women are in BIG trubble….. try finding a man to put up with your crap once no one needs you for sex any more….. you wont.

so go on your sex strike…..  we will just rape you….. we wont feel bad about it becuase its womens own fault….  men need sex, and if women play that game….  men will just rape women….obviosuly.

but that wont last long…. so dont worry…. no man will pay attention to any women that is not a super model in just 10 years.

once sex bots come out in the year 2023….. women, who are the weaker sex,  will have finaly become totaly usless and replaced by technology.

if women have a sex strike before them…. we Will rape them….. most men will…. and it would be womens own fault.

and we just would invest more money into replacing women with better acting, better looking, better sounding, better preforming sex bots, even faster then we are doing now.

men are the stonger sex…. we rule the world…. we always have, we always will.