Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
A Confession: I Find Fatherhood Sexy
I’ve been meaning to write this as a column for some time, but the main place I write such things, the New York Post, has my husband as my editor. He, in no uncertain terms, told me he would not publish an op-ed where I called him and other men sexy, and so, here I am at Ricochet doing it, because he may be my husband, but he is not my editor everywhere.
I’ve been following James Van Der Beek and his wife Kimberly on Instagram for some time. I was an avid Dawson’s Creek viewer as a teenager, but I couldn’t stand his character Dawson. I found him sniveling and entitled and spoiled. The series ended up revolving around a love triangle between Dawson, Pacey (played by Joshua Jackson) and Joey (played by Katie Holmes); and I was very much on Team Pacey. How could I not be? He was strong, he was sensitive, he was kind, he was handsome, he was a fighter. That’s the kind of man every woman should want in their teens and early twenties. But it turned out Van Der Beek is the man I want in my adult life.
Van Der Beek is such a heartthrob to me now because I’m a mother, because he reminds me of my husband, who is my ultimate heartthrob. James and his wife Kimberly are parents of four young kids, and expecting their fifth this summer I believe. They revel in their parenthood, posting pictures, videos and Instagram stories (short pictures or videos that disappear in a day) showing the highs and lows of their day to day lives.
This is something I tried to explain to Seth but clearly did not do so well. One of the sexy things about James Van Der Beek is how much he clearly loves his wife, especially when she is in mothering mode:
Sexy doesn’t mean I want to be with this guy; quite the opposite. I love how much he loves his wife.
But the ultimate appeal is Van Der Beek as father:
I mean, really.
This is nothing better than a man being a father. This kind of picture sends women’s hearts fluttering more than beach pictures, more than gym selfies, more than anything. Fatherhood is sexy, and men embracing fatherhood is just about the best thing to most women. It’s evolution: we want to see men taking care of their young, stepping up, stepping in and parenting.
There’s a joke among my friends; what we find sexy about our husbands now that we’re in our 30s. My tops with Seth are playing princess games with our daughter, wrestling with all three kids, cleaning, organizing: that’s what sends my heart aflutter.
This stuff:
Doesn’t do it for me anymore. If that were all the Van Der Beeks posted, I would have left Dawson behind. But when Dawson grew up to be a man, a father, that’s something I can get behind.
Published in General
I have noticed that some of the men who lament that nice guys finish last become too invested in women they really don’t know very well; they seem to think that the fact that they are ready to marry a woman they have only been on a few dates with makes them nice guys. Then, of course, the woman gets scared off, and some of these men end up claiming that women only like jerks. I think I understand why @altergirl used the word “aloof”: some men just get way too serious too early on, and it doesn’t work.
We have already discussed this issue on another thread and resolved whether “niceness” matters and it does not. It, like goodness, is an abstract notion with little to no real implications.
Biological explanations of the issue are far more coherent and observable on the issue of sexual relations than any abstract moral idea.
lol, you sound like CNN saying that they don’t have to talk about something because they have already reported on it. Could you provide a link to the thread this was discussed on? I would be interested. Thank you.
Goodness has very real life implications. It is not an abstract concept; it matters whether the man you marry defends you from an intruder or runs out the door at the first sign of danger. Choosing a good man is a matter of survival.
I recall discussions along these lines here and on other sites as well. The presumption is that men ought to be nice, and women ought to want nice men, yet it sometimes seems they don’t; why?
Dr. Gazipura questions the premise that “nice” is a virtue in the first place. It’s certainly not one of the 4 cardinal virtues: prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance. Those sound like traits of an attractive man.
There was a 5 person discussion, by the end, on a thread I started about the moral importance of marriage. Needless to say, there was no actual observation of the moral precepts around the institution, at least here in the United States. Empirical research on the matters revealed little to any observance.
You are defining goodness right there in the biological manner. Not in a moral manner. The consideration that a man will protect you is a selfish, using that in positive and not normative sense, and biological concern. Its quite interesting that you decided to emphasize it.
Ok, how do you define goodness? I define goodness basically as the strong being willing to protect the weak and sacrifice themselves for those weaker if necessary; this is one reason why I am against abortion. I think men should sacrifice for women and women should sacrifice for children and other women who are weaker than themselves; I also think men should protect men weaker than themselves. I have no idea what biological goodness is; sounds like bs to me, but the way I have defined goodness is morally good, and serves to help the species survive, if that is what you mean by biological goodness. Why would goodness be defined differently in a biological manner than it is in a moral manner?
The psychological and evolutionary explanation is pretty obvious. A human organism seeks to carry on its genetic information. For natural selection this means that the more aggressive males are the one’s most likely to pass on their genetic traits. It also means that females with the traits that seek out aggressive males, over less aggressive males, will be most able to pass on their genetic traits. Hence why there is a strong relationship in sexual research for males that are more aggressive with having more sexual partners when compared to less aggressive males.
Morality, the very concept of “niceness” or goodness, is pointless to natural selection. Natural selection is about passing on your genes through the most efficient means, there are no limits. Morality in the Western sense tends to be Virtue or Deontology Ethics in origin and thus places restraints on human action, there are limits.
Nice as you mentioned in the previous comment was being used as a proxy for aversion to conflict. That was a confusion of cause to effect. Niceness was not causing the effect of aversion but the other way around, being averse to conflict would make one act nice. As to your cardinal virtues do any of those fit in with the not nice men? I don’t think so. To my own opinion they fit far more with being nice or good.
I define moral goodness as imitating and eventually emulating the example God gives to mankind. In such a sense I think Deontology or Virtue Ethics could define it but overall it does not concern itself primarily with the “continuation of the species” as the basis of goodness.
My purpose, telos, as given by God is to first love God with all my heart, mind, and soul and to love my neighbor as I should love myself. That does not say that I should defend survival of the species over all else.
A rather poignant example of biological goodness you claim to ascribe to would be Zod’s speech before the final fight scene in Man of Steel. No action, no matter how extreme that maintains the species is good, as it is for the ultimate good.
God’s very actions when he flooded the world or annihilated Sodom or Gomorrah directly counter that. God was choosing to eliminate the human race, nearly did with the flood at least, and thus value a moral concept like justice over human survival.
Yes, so do I. I believe that Jesus is the example that God has given to mankind; Jesus said that whatsoever we do to the least of our brothers, that we do unto him. Sounds to me like Jesus believed that the strong should protect the weak. I don’t concern myself primarily with the continuation of the species either; I still don’t understand how biological goodness and moral goodness differ from each other. When the strong protect the weak, that is both morally and biologically good.
I am not convinced that there is even such a thing as biological goodness; my bet is that very few people would be willing to sacrifice themselves so that the species can continue. They will do it out of love for another individual, or love for God,or love of country, but nobody dies for evolution.
Ok, let’s start with that. For a Christian, the ultimate example to emulate is Jesus himself. Was Jesus the ultimate “nice guy?” That’s a common way he’s portrayed these days, but consider:
Jesus was funny. Jesus was tough. Jesus said sharp and penetrating things that made people very very uncomfortable.
He loved the little children and they wanted to come to him, but not because he was a little puppy dog. He was a lion!
CS Lewis of course uses the lion Aslan as his christ-figure. Aslan warns the children that he is not a pet; he is dangerous.
Moral goodness turns one’s primary survival and successful profligation and flips it to be secondary (or last) to another’s.
A man’s job is to protect his family, a woman’s job is to allow him into the family.
Christianity’s morality, in many ways, could be seen as the moral means in which to preserve civilization (in the most pragmatic interpretation ever). In order to truly believe that, I must also believe that who inspired it was far and away greater than I, knows the beginning and end of time.
God isn’t just a spiritual being… he became flesh and blood and his words are practical and not just mystical.
So moral goodness has more to it than just mystic high-mindedness, but also an earthy practicality. It takes a good man who is willing to subvert his own survival because he believes it is the right thing to do because he trusts God who says it’s the right thing to do in order to protect his wife and children. It takes a good woman to subvert her needs to do the right thing because she trusts in the God who says it’s the right thing to do. But even God says that the right thing to do has implications that we may not see… we must trust him. The fruit may not be in my lifetime, but in my grandchild’s lifetime.
As to that marriage thread (I’m sorry I missed it), but I don’t think God intended for us to, as a population, put off marriage the way we do. Long term celibacy that encompasses a woman’s most fertile years is not beneficial to anyone and is a direct violation of “be fruitful and multiply”.
There is a lot wrong in our society in the realm of marriage and it is complex, but unmarried women not being virgins at age 24 is more a symptom than the cause.
As if there were no copious record of Jesus being nice.
Oh look I just mentioned 7 examples of Jesus being nice (some of them apply more than once), it follows then that Jesus was acting “nice” way more than those times he was “angry”. The example set by God is to be nice. Its not possible to argue that Jesus was not a “nice” guy. After all wasn’t he mocked for being so meek by the soldiers and masses. In an instant he could have saved himself but didn’t. He restrained himself.
The example set by God differs greatly from “aloofness”.
Yes it is.
I just did.
So did Joseph.
Just ’cause you don’t agree doesn’t mean that our argument is impossible.
Not one of those is an example of Jesus being “nice.”
If you read the Gospels, Jesus tells you why he did all those things.
“That the glory of the Lord may be revealed.”
“It is not right that the children’s bread should be tossed to the dogs.”
That was not so nice, and it is pretty aloof. He wants to be pursued and wanted.
“Woman, what is that to me?”
Jesus is clearly playing hard to get, right there…
It seems to me that you are using “nice” as a synonym for “good.” No one here is denying that Jesus is good or did good things for many people!
The point of my examples was to show that sometimes the right thing to do is not the nice thing to do. Sometimes doing good requires righteous anger, telling uncomfortable truths, or showing tough love. I don’t think we can conclude that the example set by God is to always be nice regardless of circumstances.
Yes those instances are very much examples of Jesus being nice (and I mean nice as in the 7th definition, which is kindness; I didn’t know that nice could mean obsolete).
Even if, as I agree, the motivation (cause) is “The revelation of God’s glory” the effect is kindness/niceness. So it is very much Jesus being kind/nice. Its not my problem if you disagree with logic and the definition of words.
In the first instance Jesus cures a woman’s daughter, who is cursed, against the protestations of his disciples. The only thing the woman has to do is show her faith for crying out loud. Hardly being “aloof”, way more to close to kindness.
In the second instance Jesus obeys his mother’s commands to assist in the creation of more wine. He is doing something which averts confrontation with his mother. That fits very well into the definition of “nice” that you, AG, and JS are arguing against here.
One doesn’t need to argue that Jesus is good/nice/kind all the time. Just that he does that a super-majority of the time. I am willing to bet, and I am not a betting man, that Jesus Christ, the most physical example of God in Christianity, is good/nice/kind way more in the New Testament than he is ever angry or “aloof”, to be more poignant to this discussion.
Jesus restrains himself and acts in a good manner far more than his righteous anger. He is hardly aloof. He is very much different than what the trends are showing in society.
Have any evidence for this? How did ownership of the family come into women’s hands?
The last I checked God doesn’t abide by the rules of the flesh at all. In fact the flesh is usually recounted in the Bible as being weak and the cause of sin. God demands several impractical things to man’s earthly desires. Such as chastity, honesty, and tons of other virtues that are very impractical to many people’s desires. Practicality is not what defines God nor is it probably on God’s priority list. I mean it would have been quite practical for Jesus to just free himself when he was being tried by the Sanhedrin and he didn’t.
Moral goodness as you are arguing right here can be explained along biological terms as well. The man is protecting his female mate and progeny to further his genetic line. This is what I am talking about when moral behavior can be explained away as biologically advantageous behavior. Males with aggressive genetic traits that seek to take and protect mates are far more likely to pass on their line and females with traits to select for such behavior are more likely to pass on their genetic traits as well.
How does one know if its truly out of conscientious moral character or just his lizard brain at work?
Where is “long term celibacy” happening? Did you not read the sources I cited in that thread. There is practically no celibacy or chastity being observed. Marriage is being forestalled but sexual activity is not.
Where did I argue in that thread that a lack of 24 year old virgins was the cause of societal problems?
It’s.
Nature gives woman the primary care of offspring – hello, she carries it for nine months and bears it. God gives the primary care of the family to husbands. The wife is told to submit to him, giving him order of the family. God is always Good.
That isn’t natural as men can impregnate many women and women can care for the offspring in a society that has no husbands and fathers. Those societies don’t get very far.
You misunderstand my point. As I have no idea how to communicate with you, I’ll leave this lack of understanding alone. But this was not what I meant and what I said doesn’t gainsay God’s perfection.
Then we are all dead and the whole point for God creating us in the first place is pointless. He created us to be with him. Jesus died for that cause. Because he is Good. It is a practical cause that goes back to why God made us in the first place.
Nature says we need to survive and propagate.
God says the best way to do that is *this* way. When we follow him, we survive and propagate – if not individually, then the community as a whole does. God blesses our individual obedience especially when it doesn’t result in our individual survival (The beattitudes), but he promises that his plans are there to help us flourish (Jeremiah 29).
Age 24 is long term celibacy. Women should be marrying by 20-22. If that is the goal, I’d bet far more women would wait an additional 4 years to get there. With marrying at around 26-30, women are out of their best fertile years and who wants to wait a decade for sex? 18 year olds don’t.
You do not understand the distinctions being made between Good and Kind vs Nice.
It isn’t nice to tell a woman she is sinning by living with a man who isn’t her husband. Its offensive. It is Kind to tell her so so that she knows to repent. It was Good that Jesus showed her compassion and forgave her.
As Stanko said, nice is non-confrontational, which was never Jesus’ way. But he wasn’t confrontational for the sake of being so. He was confrontational when it served his ultimate purpose, which was being the sacrificial lamb and only Son of God sent to cleanse us from our sins. All of his confrontations served that purpose.
Then perhaps you should use the word “kind” instead of “nice,” as that is less ambiguous. That’s only one of seven definitions, and even that one:
Seems to put the emphasis more on politeness. Then take a look at definintions five and six:
The overall sense of the word has more to do with being respectable, fitting in, and following social norms and conventions. Throw in definition two and it starts to seem even more superficial:
Again, the crux of the debate here is whether the terms “good”, “kind”, and “nice” are equivalent or not.
I think one does need to argue that Jesus was good all the time. Is he not without sin? Or are you taking the position that when he drove the money changers from the temple, because he displayed anger, that action was sinful?
This does not establish the fact that ownership of the family is in the woman’s hands. The family is created when both are joined together in marriage. Neither has claim to it prior.
Oh but you have. I’ll highlight it below.
What then of Elijah or Moses? They were assumed body and soul in Heaven prior to Jesus being crucified. But let’s reverse gears a little and consider that God is practical, as in he has to apply himself in the physical world and His ways can be practiced in the real world. You argued.
Right here you have literally contradicted yourself. One second you are arguing that God’s will is practical and that humans should follow it. Chastity, abstinence, and all the other sexual virtues can be applied to humans successfully. The next second you are arguing that being chaste by 24 isn’t practical. It cannot be implemented, and to add insult to injury you argue that its then justified to act on one’s lust, set a low bar you won’t go far.
Which is it? Is God practical or not? Or do you mean, as I am leaning towards, that you mean God seeks the most convenient solution to issues? If so, you would again be contradicting yourself because Jesus being sacrificed on the cross was not the most practical solution for that. God could have just said the words and our souls would have been healed.
As a side question how do you even know that 20-22 is the optimal age for marriage? Female fertility begins to decline after 30 so a woman marrying at 26 would not be losing “her most fertile years”.
Let’s take a look at history and see whether mankind has been following God’s “practical” will on the matter. Oh yeah that is a big fat resounding no. Ghengis Khan succeeded in passing his genetic material to millions because of his debauchery and evil. Dozens, if not hundreds, of ethnic groups have been annihilated over history by more aggressive, more brutal, neighbors who raped and pillaged. Aggression has far greater explanatory power for the successful propagation of a people or any individual than following the Christian God’s ethical code.
Look at the Christians of North Africa, Levant, Asia Minor, and Persia. They were annihilated by those Sunni Arabs that definitely did not follow the same ethical code. What is your explanation for them. Were they not following the practical rules of God?
Not sure what your thesis is here, that we live in a fallen world where sin and injustice run rampant? No argument there.
Did you not read what I was quoting?
The historical record defeats the assertion that religious obedience to God guarantees survival and propagation. The assertion that the result of God’s will and biological trends of survival, natural selection, are harmonious is false.
Jesus is supposed to be without sin. Our argument is whether the example of manhood, Jesus, was more aloof or kind. Which narrative is actually true? Jesus pushing some money changers from the temple once is outnumbered by numerous moments where Jesus was kind, with selfless motivation in those kind acts.
I don’t disagree that women don’t care for kind men. In fact let’s quit playing coy. The current empirical literature on this subject clearly demonstrates that women have innate attraction to men that God would judge to be bad or evil. As I mentioned before males with traits that allowed for greater aggression, the desire to have relations with multiple females and to kill other competitors without hesitation, would be more likely to pass on their genetic traits than rival males.
Likewise females with genetic traits that allowed for greater procreative capacity and attraction to male aggression would be more likely of passing on their genetic traits than other rival females. This trend has been happening for hundreds of thousands of years, at the least.
The example of God and the example of our genetic heritage are in tension. The example of God does not condone but rather condemns murder, sexual promiscuity, and a host of other vices. But these vices have advantages and we see humans acting in accordance with them.
My point stands that virtue, as understood in the judeo-christian sense of the west, has little to do with explaining human sexual attraction or actions related to sexuality in the real world. They are ideas and they have little application.