A woman looking for love today gets to choose among different sets of rules.
There's the now generally accepted "honesty" rule: anything goes, as long as both parties are frank about what they want. Only--who could have guessed?--it often turns out that the female party wants more than the male party does. So women end up painfully trying to cultivate a "Zenlike form of nonattachment" to accommodate themselves to male time horizons, relationship styles, and physical desires.
There are "the Rules" and similar schemes for manipulating men to get what you want, by playing hard to get.
And there's the no-sex-till-you're-married option. Which, especially as it's usually attempted today, is difficult to actually do. And even if you manage it, it's hard to mesh chastity with finding a husband, because courtship patterns at present are defined by the two options above (but especially by the first).
Jane Austen heroines follow rules that have some elements of all three options—while avoiding the problems of each. Some of her rules obviously need some updating before they can work in the 21st century. But the underlying principles are sound.
- Comment (54)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
Comments:
Dec '10
Re: Follow the Real, Original "Rules" (Not for Manipulating Men--for Preserving Women's Freedom to Find Love)
Relevant Magazine had an interesting article last year discussing the rise in premarital sex in our culture. One point made that really struck me was the delay between adulthood and marriage compared to previous times. As one person was quoted as saying:
I suppose the only options are to go back to younger marriages (which has its own difficulties) or accept premarital sex as the social norm. It seems like a choice between bad and worse decisions to me.
Re: Follow the Real, Original "Rules" (Not for Manipulating Men--for Preserving Women's Freedom to Find Love)
If you think those are the only choices, you haven't read Austen!
The King Prawn: Relevant Magazine had an interesting article last year discussing the rise in premarital sex in our culture. One point made that really struck me was the delay between adulthood and marriage compared to previous times. As one person was quoted as saying:
I suppose the only options are to go back to younger marriages (which has its own difficulties) or accept premarital sex as the social norm. It seems like a choice between bad and worse decisions to me. · 0 minutes ago
Dec '10
Re: Follow the Real, Original "Rules" (Not for Manipulating Men--for Preserving Women's Freedom to Find Love)
Elizabeth Kantor: If you think those are the only choices, you haven't read Austen!
Right you are!
The question that I have is how can we reverse the trend when 80% of young, unmarried people with a faith conviction against premarital sex are doing it anyway? If the more timeless principles are losing out to the culture then what hope has Austen against the tide?
May '11
Re: Follow the Real, Original "Rules" (Not for Manipulating Men--for Preserving Women's Freedom to Find Love)
When I was in Uganda a few years ago I met a beautiful young waitress who was 21 but said she was already too old to ever marry. The only option for any girl who is not married by age 18 is to become someone's mistress. Our tour guide assured us that that was true.
Sep '10
Re: Follow the Real, Original "Rules" (Not for Manipulating Men--for Preserving Women's Freedom to Find Love)
Feminist myths and female fantasies, along with with feminist realities and female realities, combine in a toxic soup that leaves women and men unable to bond properly in today's society.
Marriage is a social construct. It is not a romantic construct. Romance is fleeting. We all would love for this romantic marriage thing but it doesn't exist. Women desire long-term relationships - it's in their DNA. Men are perpetually tempted, but know it is better for society that there be long-term relationships, and eventually derive pleasure from them and can be capable of controlling themselves if society supports them.
But today's society is a smorgasbord of arrangements and morality. The laws are antiquated, the desires are unrealistic, and women's fantasies are indulged perpetually.
This says it better than anything I have seen.
Mar '11
Re: Follow the Real, Original "Rules" (Not for Manipulating Men--for Preserving Women's Freedom to Find Love)
Speak for yourself. I am in a passionate, romantic marriage that has lasted half my life (and counting).
I am well aware that my situation is uncommon. But I assure you that it *does* exist.
Mar '11
Re: Follow the Real, Original "Rules" (Not for Manipulating Men--for Preserving Women's Freedom to Find Love)
The King Prawn
The question that I have is how can we reverse the trend when 80% of young, unmarried people with a faith conviction against premarital sex are doing it anyway?
We start by bringing back the concept of shame.
Our society is as Proverbs puts it: "This is the way of an adulterous woman: She eats and wipes her mouth, And says, 'I have done no wrong.'"
If we can be embarassed about our failings, then we have the chance to improve.
Nov '11
Re: Follow the Real, Original "Rules" (Not for Manipulating Men--for Preserving Women's Freedom to Find Love)
iWc . . . We start by bringing back the concept of shame.
Our society is as Proverbs puts it: "This is the way of an adulterous woman: She eats and wipes her mouth, And says, 'I have done no wrong.'"
Well, I suppose shame has utility in an otherwise well-ordered society . . . but if we are going to slather it around, how about laddling a big portion onto the heads of men, whose conduct is perhaps even more shameful because they are the ones who more often seek solely to satisfy their baser inclinations by taking advantage of women's higher hopes for a loving enduring relationship.
In the present circumstances, shame is inadequate because it operates to discourage bad behavior only if social practices are generally sound.
Yes, it is a challenging environment. One is not optimistic about relations between men and women generally.
However, that does not mean that individuals, good men and women, by developing and using common sense about such things, can't take charge of their own situations . . . and find each other if they figure out who to look for. Young women and men do not have to surrender themselves to cynicism and hedonism and loneliness.
Sep '10
Re: Follow the Real, Original "Rules" (Not for Manipulating Men--for Preserving Women's Freedom to Find Love)
iWc
Speak for yourself. I am in a passionate, romantic marriage that has lasted half my life (and counting).
I am well aware that my situation is uncommon. But I assure you that it *does* exist. · 14 minutes ago
Forgive me if I take your words literally, but I do not speak for myself, that would be meaningless. Of course there are exceptions. People also win the lottery, although betting on scratch-offs isn't an advisable way of amassing wealth, is it? I'm saying that the expectation that such a thing like romantic marriage is attainable is probably more contributive to divorces than anything else and it's better to operate without the expectation. I'm guessing you haven't read my link since it doesn't apply to you personally.
Dec '10
Re: Follow the Real, Original "Rules" (Not for Manipulating Men--for Preserving Women's Freedom to Find Love)
Quid pro quo. Women, by being freed from the misogyny of our old society, have lost all bargaining power with men. It's a trite saying, but why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free? Now it is completely up to the men to do what is right, and that is a recipe for failure. Men have no self interest motivation for doing right by women, so they don't.
Sep '10
Re: Follow the Real, Original "Rules" (Not for Manipulating Men--for Preserving Women's Freedom to Find Love)
Astonishing
iWc . . . We start by bringing back the concept of shame.
Our society is as Proverbs puts it: "This is the way of an adulterous woman: She eats and wipes her mouth, And says, 'I have done no wrong.'"
Well, I suppose shame has utility in an otherwise well-ordered society . . . but if we are going to slather it around, how about laddling a big portion onto the heads ofmen, whose conduct is perhaps even more shameful because they are the ones who more often seek solely to satisfy their baser inclinations by taking advantage of women's higher hopes for a loving enduring relationship.
Astonishing...there is a much bigger picture and blaming men (as though that hasn't been done to death) is not the answer, in fact, it in many ways misses and aggravates the fundamental problem. You are smart. Take some time to read my link above.
Nov '11
Re: Follow the Real, Original "Rules" (Not for Manipulating Men--for Preserving Women's Freedom to Find Love)
Franco
Astonishing
iWc . . . We start by bringing back the concept of shame.
. . .
. . if we are going to slather [shame] around, how about laddling a big portion onto the heads ofmen, whose conduct is perhaps even more shameful because they are the ones who more often seek solely to satisfy their baser inclinations by taking advantage of women's higher hopes for a loving enduring relationship.
Astonishing...there is a much bigger picture and blaming men . . . is not the answer, in fact, it in many ways misses and aggravates the fundamental problem. You are smart. Take some time to read my link above.
I did skim your link, and was already somewhat familiar with the argument about devalueing masculinitiy, which makes some good points (although is somewhat self-contradictory with its unmasculine whinyness). Really I think blaming either men or woman, trying to shame either, is a futile exercise. My comment above was pushback against any suggestion that shaming women could solve things.
One wants a truce in the battle of the sexes . . . but if that's never possible, then perhaps the eternal competition could be placed on a friendlier footing.
(Thanks for noticing I'm smart . . . you and my mom!)
Nov '10
Re: Follow the Real, Original "Rules" (Not for Manipulating Men--for Preserving Women's Freedom to Find Love)
The King Prawn
The question that I have is how can we reverse the trend when 80% of young, unmarried people with a faith conviction against premarital sex are doing it anyway?
It would seem the problem, at least in part, is in the weakness of that conviction, for one reason or another.
Re: Follow the Real, Original "Rules" (Not for Manipulating Men--for Preserving Women's Freedom to Find Love)
Jane Austen is NOT about girls marrying as teenagers. Nearly all her heroines marry in their twenties!
Re: Follow the Real, Original "Rules" (Not for Manipulating Men--for Preserving Women's Freedom to Find Love)
Maybe it would be easier for those religious young people today to stick to their principles if they had the tools that Jane Austen heroines had. Jane Austen heroines don't rush into physical relationships, but that's a lot easier for them b/c they're conducting their whole love lives on more prudent lines, based on other timeless principles about, for example, male and female psychology, what really makes a happy marriage, &c.
The King Prawn
Elizabeth Kantor: If you think those are the only choices, you haven't read Austen!
Right you are!
The question that I have is how can we reverse the trend when 80% of young, unmarried people with a faith conviction against premarital sex are doing it anyway? If the more timeless principles are losing out to the culture then what hope has Austen against the tide? · 4 hours ago
Re: Follow the Real, Original "Rules" (Not for Manipulating Men--for Preserving Women's Freedom to Find Love)
So what's your plan? Stand on the street corner with a sign that says "Repent, ye harlots! Proverbs 30:20"?
iWc
The King Prawn
The question that I have is how can we reverse the trend when 80% of young, unmarried people with a faith conviction against premarital sex are doing it anyway?
We start by bringing back the concept of shame.
Our society is as Proverbs puts it: "This is the way of an adulterous woman: She eats and wipes her mouth, And says, 'I have done no wrong.'"
If we can be embarassed about our failings, then we have the chance to improve. · 2 hours ago
S
Re: Follow the Real, Original "Rules" (Not for Manipulating Men--for Preserving Women's Freedom to Find Love)
Okay, we can all in our different ways--our diagnoses of the problem won't exactly agree--go on at great length about how the world is going to hell in a hand basket.
What I'm trying to do is propose a solution for at least some of the problems between men and women today.
But the solution I'm proposing does depend on its being believable that people can have happy marriages, and that passion and marriage are not incompatible. iWc above claims to have that kind of marriage--and so does a much larger percentage of the population than has ever had a winning lottery ticket. It seems like a pretty believable claim.
In contrast, do you really think anybody is motivated to avoid temptations by knowing that it's better for society at large?
Franco: Men are perpetually tempted, but know it is better for society that there be long-term relationships, and eventually derive pleasure from them and can be capable of controlling themselves if society supports them.
. · 3 hours ago
Re: Follow the Real, Original "Rules" (Not for Manipulating Men--for Preserving Women's Freedom to Find Love)
There's no doubt that unrealistic expectations and Romanticism do contribute to divorce, and to a lot of unhappiness generally. But Jane Austen is not about breaking all the rules to pursue your grand passion, or finding your soul mate, or thinking somebody you just met is "The One." She's about finding love that's both passionate and prudent. I suggest we adopt her happy medium instead of racing back & forth between Romantic excess and puritanical despair,
Franco
I'm saying that the expectation that such a thing like romantic marriage is attainable is probably more contributive to divorces than anything else and it's better to operate without the expectation. I'm guessing you haven't read my link since it doesn't apply to you personally. · 2 hours ago
Re: Follow the Real, Original "Rules" (Not for Manipulating Men--for Preserving Women's Freedom to Find Love)
Yes! That's what the book is for--helping them do exactly that.
Astonishing
Yes, it is a challenging environment. One is not optimistic about relations between men and womengenerally.
However, that does not mean that individuals, good men and women, by developing and using common sense about such things, can't take charge of their own situations . . . and find each otherif they figure out who to look for. Young women and men do not have to surrender themselves to cynicism and hedonism and loneliness. · 2 hours ago
Re: Follow the Real, Original "Rules" (Not for Manipulating Men--for Preserving Women's Freedom to Find Love)
Anne Elliot, in Jane Austen's Persuasion: "God forbid that I should undervalue the warm and faithful feelings of any of my fellow-creatures! I should deserve utter contempt if I dared to suppose that true attachment and constancy were known only by woman."
Astonishing
I did skim your link, and was already somewhat familiar with the argument about devalueing masculinitiy, which makes some good points (although is somewhat self-contradictory with its unmasculine whinyness). Really I think blaming either men or woman, trying to shame either, is a futile exercise. My comment above was pushback against any suggestion that shaming women could solve things.
One wants a truce in the battle of the sexes . . . but if that'sneverpossible, then perhaps the eternal competition could be placed on a friendlier footing.
(Thanks for noticing I'm smart . . . you and my mom!) · 59 minutes ago