Modern Dating: Chill Out, It’s Not That Hard

Bethany gives her best yenta advice and Lyndsey regrets recording this podcast

Subscribe to LadyBrains in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.

Please Support Our Sponsor!

Care/of

Use Code: ladybrains

There are 28 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Patrick McClure Coolidge

    You want to put pressure on men to take relationships seriously? Quit having sex early in the relationship. Wait until you are married, if you can. But at the very least stop the casual sex (no this is not directed at the LB women in particular, but to women in general). Start being the gatekeepers of sex again, instead of willing doormats. 

    • #1
    • June 16, 2018, at 5:30 AM PDT
    • 3 likes
  2. Full Size Tabby Member

    I think having a friend set up a date can be very successful for establishing a good relationship. For the same reason an arranged marriage has a good potential for success. A good friend or relative who knows you is likely to be better at identifying a good potential match for your nature, characteristics, and interests than you are yourself. I encourage anyone who knows two people they think should get together, introduce them to each other!

    • #2
    • June 16, 2018, at 12:49 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  3. Could Be Anyone Member

    Patrick McClure (View Comment):

    You want to put pressure on men to take relationships seriously? Quit having sex early in the relationship. Wait until you are married, if you can. But at the very least stop the casual sex (no this is not directed at the LB women in particular, but to women in general). Start being the gatekeepers of sex again, instead of willing doormats.

    Why can’t men control their impulses? Why must women be the sole gate keepers of sex?

    • #3
    • June 17, 2018, at 4:03 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  4. Full Size Tabby Member

    Could Be Anyone (View Comment):

    Patrick McClure (View Comment):

    You want to put pressure on men to take relationships seriously? Quit having sex early in the relationship. Wait until you are married, if you can. But at the very least stop the casual sex (no this is not directed at the LB women in particular, but to women in general). Start being the gatekeepers of sex again, instead of willing doormats.

    Why can’t men control their impulses? Why must women be the sole gate keepers of sex?

    They don’t have to be. But since the cost of a sex transaction (physical and psychological) is higher for women than for men, it is more strongly in the self-interest of women to act as the control agent. Therefore, effective control is more likely to occur if the woman exerts her power to stop the sex act. 

    • #4
    • June 18, 2018, at 10:22 AM PDT
    • Like
  5. Could Be Anyone Member

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):
    They don’t have to be. But since the cost of a sex transaction (physical and psychological) is higher for women than for men, it is more strongly in the self-interest of women to act as the control agent. Therefore, effective control is more likely to occur if the woman exerts her power to stop the sex act. 

    Patrick McClure (View Comment):

    You want to put pressure on men to take relationships seriously? Quit having sex early in the relationship. Wait until you are married, if you can. But at the very least stop the casual sex (no this is not directed at the LB women in particular, but to women in general). Start being the gatekeepers of sex again, instead of willing doormats.

    I don’t disagree that current empirical research on the matter indicates greater harm to women than men resulting from extra-marital sexual relations. But it takes two to tango. As Patrick implicitly argued, men are demanding sexual relations and women are supplying it (although let’s be honest, it goes both ways). If you were to, by some miracle, have all women stop supplying sex until marriage do you really think that men would quit demanding it?

    You and I both know that it would not stop that demand, nor would it somehow “put pressure on men take relationships seriously”. It would simply raise the cost of sexual relations. Marriage would be the bar for sex rather than a couple drinks at the bar or a few dates. Cost of course matters but it doesn’t change why or how one views the importance of a romantic relationship, it only changes how the cost is measured for sex vs other substitutes.

    If one truly wants men and women to take romantic relationships seriously then one would need to advocate to men and women to take them seriously for reasons that are not cost based, like the inherent value of every individual; that every person is not some means to an end but rather an end in themselves.

    • #5
    • June 18, 2018, at 11:46 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  6. Erin Inactive

    I mentioned both of these things in a tweet to @bethanymandel and @lyndsey, but now I can expand on it/explain, hopefully for the good of the community here.

    #1: It’s Hard to Meet People:

    Online dating anything, has really sucked the fun out of meeting people and cultivating relationships. We have a bunch of people who now sit home, swipe their phones for hours on end, receive unwanted verbal and photographic messages of things I cannot repeat, then complain that “it’s so hard to meet a good man”. I call “bull”. I’m married, and if I were single, I would not have difficulty meeting someone, and I am fairly anti-social and not that attractive! Go be social! Don’t sit around at home! Have a friend going to an event? Tag along! Active? Join a sports league, a gym, a running or hiking club. Volunteer, go to Church, and yes, allow friends like Bethany to set you up. There are so many opportunities to meet people, you just need to put the phone down and get out of the house.

    #2: Living Together Before Marriage:

    I’ve been married for almost seven years, but… I truly regret not getting married sooner! We both “knew” immediately because we had been friends since we were 12. I moved into his parents’ house in Atlanta the day after I graduated college, with the intent of getting my own place as soon as I got a job (with the notion that the job market was better than Albany, NY in 2004). Unfortunately, life is complicated – I did get an apartment, but he came with me because of several family things that went on at the time. We were officially engaged, but after a cross-country move, lost jobs, a major surgery, and several deaths in the family, seven years flew by. We finally had a small ceremony on the beach in Florida (it was awesome), but we should have just done it. I think it would’ve been a happier seven years, we would have been taken more seriously from our families, Church, the bank, etc. Now we are 36, and trying to have kids hasn’t been easy because “tic-tock”. To make a long story short, I do not recommend living together beforehand, because the more you drag your feet, the less likely you are to get married!

    Further, if you spend that length of time living together, what happens if you break up? We just had a friend in this situation. It was good she got out of a toxic relationship, but now she’s so upset that she’s almost 40 and not married with kids. I feel bad, and I hope it was a learning experience for her… so now I can refer her to #1, then #2 of this when she decides she’s ready to date again.

    • #6
    • June 18, 2018, at 2:42 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  7. Patrick McClure Coolidge

    Could Be Anyone (View Comment):

    Patrick McClure (View Comment):

    You want to put pressure on men to take relationships seriously? Quit having sex early in the relationship. Wait until you are married, if you can. But at the very least stop the casual sex (no this is not directed at the LB women in particular, but to women in general). Start being the gatekeepers of sex again, instead of willing doormats.

    Why can’t men control their impulses? Why must women be the sole gate keepers of sex?

    We can. Many still do act as gatekeepers. But most don’t. 

    However, the question asked in the podcast was what can women do to pressure men to take a relationship seriously. As the question specifically asked what can WOMEN do I answered with what WOMEN can do. Saying a MAN should control his impulses does not address what a WOMAN can do.

    As to being gatekeepers, there are much greater consequences to women who engage in promiscuous sex than men. From pregnancy to STDs that sterilize or disfigure when not caught early, women suffer disproportionately. Most men, in the past, were gatekeepers also. This has ended, as there is no longer the social stigma of being a cad or roué, narrowing your chances of becoming married, and most STDs can be cured. If we as a society want to re-establish men as gate-keepers also, we need to start somewhere. As women have greater biological consequences from promiscuous sex, it seems logical that those with the most to lose shoulder the responsibility to begin the change. 

     

    • #7
    • June 19, 2018, at 5:14 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  8. Stad Thatcher

    Could Be Anyone (View Comment):
    Why can’t men control their impulses? Why must women be the sole gate keepers of sex?

    Women don’t have to be the sole gatekeepers, but they should assume they are in case they do date men who cannot control their impulses.

    It’s also possible a man who cannot control his impulses will learn something from a gatekeeper woman, and reform his behavior to please said woman – if he’s serious about her.

    • #8
    • June 19, 2018, at 9:35 AM PDT
    • Like
  9. Stad Thatcher

    ErinGoBoro (View Comment):
    . . . and yes, allow friends like Bethany to set you up.

    LOL every single woman my friends set me up with ended up with us together being a disaster! Therefore, it depends on how much you trust the judgment of your friends (I’m sure Bethany’s instincts are sound).

    OTOH, always have your friends meet that someone who you think is a long term possibility. They can be more objective, and might see or sense things about the person you don’t because you’re infatuated.

    Likewise, meet the other person’s friends. That way, you’ll get an idea of what kind of people your potential sweetie has chosen to associate with.

    • #9
    • June 19, 2018, at 9:43 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  10. Full Size Tabby Member

    Stad (View Comment):

    ErinGoBoro (View Comment):
    . . . and yes, allow friends like Bethany to set you up.

    LOL every single woman my friends set me up with ended up with us together being a disaster! Therefore, it depends on how much you trust the judgment of your friends (I’m sure Bethany’s instincts are sound).

    OTOH, always have your friends meet that someone who you think is a long term possibility. They can be more objective, and might see or sense things about the person you don’t because you’re infatuated.

    Likewise, meet the other person’s friends. That way, you’ll get an idea of what kind of people your potential sweetie has chosen to associate with.

    This is going back 38 years, but a large part of my assurance that the now Mrs. Tabby was right for me was the feedback from friends and family (my mother said if I didn’t marry her, my mother would disown me and adopt my then-girlfriend; my family and her family got together for social occasions while I was 1000 miles away at school). All the guys from my long-term Bible study group also confirmed her rightness for me.

    • #10
    • June 19, 2018, at 9:56 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  11. Full Size Tabby Member

    ErinGoBoro (View Comment):

    I mentioned both of these things in a tweet to @bethanymandel and @lyndsey, but now I can expand on it/explain, hopefully for the good of the community here.

    #1: It’s Hard to Meet People:

    Online dating anything, has really sucked the fun out of meeting people and cultivating relationships. We have a bunch of people who now sit home, swipe their phones for hours on end, receive unwanted verbal and photographic messages of things I cannot repeat, then complain that “it’s so hard to meet a good man”. I call “bull”. I’m married, and if I were single, I would not have difficulty meeting someone, and I am fairly anti-social and not that attractive! Go be social! Don’t sit around at home! Have a friend going to an event? Tag along! Active? Join a sports league, a gym, a running or hiking club. Volunteer, go to Church, and yes, allow friends like Bethany to set you up. There are so many opportunities to meet people, you just need to put the phone down and get out of the house.

     

    I was intrigued that both of our children met their spouses “in real life,” not involving anything on-line (despite being Millennials aged 30 and 33, they have virtually no on-line presence). 

    Our daughter and her husband met when their respective nerdy social groups (she’s a mathematician who hung out with physicists; he’s a nuclear engineer) ran into each other at the bar both groups frequented. 

    Our son and daughter-in-law met at work (they are both engineers), but our clueless son was very slow to pick up on the clues that she was interested. Some of the ensuing antics reminded me of junior high, with friends conducting surveillance and passing information back and forth between their respective groups of friends. 

    • #11
    • June 19, 2018, at 10:07 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  12. Could Be Anyone Member

    Patrick McClure (View Comment):

    Could Be Anyone (View Comment):

    Patrick McClure (View Comment):

    You want to put pressure on men to take relationships seriously? Quit having sex early in the relationship. Wait until you are married, if you can. But at the very least stop the casual sex (no this is not directed at the LB women in particular, but to women in general). Start being the gatekeepers of sex again, instead of willing doormats.

    Why can’t men control their impulses? Why must women be the sole gate keepers of sex?

    We can. Many still do act as gatekeepers. But most don’t.

    How do you define sexual gate keeper? Is it being virgin? Having 2 sexual partners or how about 4? Current National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) Data indicates that the median number of sexual partners for a male are 6 and 4 for a female. Those estimates are quite conservative compared against those that calculate the “moral majority” baby boomer median of sexual partners as 11 compared to the 8 for millennials. The same NSFG data also shows that a supermajority of both males and females lose their virginity by the end of high school through beginning of college. Neither sex is acting like a gatekeeper on aggregate. There is no “many”.

    However, the question asked in the podcast was what can women do to pressure men to take a relationship seriously.

    I made sure to listen again and at the 21 minute mark Lyndsey asked what society can do, not what women can do, to make men “settle down” earlier. Hence my original reaction since you did not respond to her question. 

    As the question specifically asked what can WOMEN do I answered with what WOMEN can do. Saying a MAN should control his impulses does not address what a WOMAN can do.

    As I illustrated with my response to Tabby you are only going to actually resolve the issue by arguing that both sexes on aggregate need to reform their behavior. It’s not easy of course because sex is such a powerful urge/act and is foundational to our species. Treating other people as means to one’s pleasure only desensitizes people and creates a warped view of relationships. It chips away at social attachment.

    As to being gatekeepers, there are much greater consequences to women who engage in promiscuous sex than men. From pregnancy to STDs that sterilize or disfigure when not caught early, women suffer disproportionately.

    I already mentioned in my response to Tabby that there is research supporting that assertion but at the same time sexual promiscuity decreases the likelihood of a stable relationship with the opposite sex and research has also been indicating that men suffer greater then women psychologically in their elder years if not married, some allege it to be related to greater rates of suicide among older blue collar white men (coincedentally the cohort most likely to be promiscuous according to the data). It could be that the costs express themselves at different stages of life. Violent delights have violent ends.

    Most men, in the past, were gatekeepers also. This has ended, as there is no longer the social stigma of being a cad or roué, narrowing your chances of becoming married, and most STDs can be cured.

    As I mentioned before this does not match with the data. There is a reason why scum like JFK could become president and practically act like a pimp with interns. It didn’t matter. At best it was only word tribute from vice to virtue. There was no stigma.

    If we as a society want to re-establish men as gate-keepers also, we need to start somewhere. As women have greater biological consequences from promiscuous sex, it seems logical that those with the most to lose shoulder the responsibility to begin the change.

    Both sexes have a lot to lose by being promiscuous. The logical step would be to encourage both to show restraint, as both sexes can and do initiate sex, and to live more chastely. As mentioned before with Tabby, even if you could get every woman to not act towards sex it would not solve the issue for men because the act takes two. You have to solve both.

    To answer Lyndsey’s question though to my knowledge the only consistent institutions that teach that marriage is an important contract, as well as other important considerations for relationships, are religious institutions and even then that differs across denomination and location.

    If you want men (or women) to take marriage seriously then you would need to see either a revival in attendance (which historical data indicates church attendance, 40% attend weekly in the USA, has not changed for close to 100 years; only affiliation status has) for said religious institutions or you need to create some institutions which emphasize the importance of marriage and being honest in relationships.

    The reason I don’t mention in marriage itself is that roughly 50% of current marriages end in divorce within 20 years. Marriage as a practical example is failing quite spectacularly, which probably explains some aversion to it.

    • #12
    • June 19, 2018, at 12:00 PM PDT
    • Like
  13. Stad Thatcher

    Could Be Anyone (View Comment):
    The reason I don’t mention in marriage itself is that roughly 50% of current marriages end in divorce within 20 years. Marriage as a practical example is failing quite spectacularly, which probably explains some aversion to it.

    I seem to remember reading an article about why the “50%” number is misleading, that marriage is still thriving in spite of what is broadcast by the [leftist] MSM and academia. Too bad I’m such a lazy SOB I can’t provide the link to you . . .

    • #13
    • June 19, 2018, at 12:38 PM PDT
    • Like
  14. Stad Thatcher

    Could Be Anyone (View Comment):
    How do you define sexual gate keeper? Is it being virgin? Having 2 sexual partners or how about 4? Current National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) Data indicates that the median number of sexual partners for a male are 6 and 4 for a female.

    I don’t think virginity has anything to do with it. A “gatekeeper” female is a woman who makes a potential male long-term relationship partner “work for it”. By “it”, I mean the woman is most likely thinking marriage, but she may decide to have sex with the man for a multitude of reasons, all with the long-term goal in mind.

    Or she may not. A gatekeeper is in control of her sexuality, and she can choose to sleep with someone or not. While I agree the number of previous sexual partners may have an impact on a relationship, a man who knows a woman is “picky” might accept her having a dozen or more sexual partners before he proposes. It all depends on the individuals involved . . .

    • #14
    • June 19, 2018, at 1:01 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  15. Patrick McClure Coolidge

    Could Be Anyone (View Comment):
    ……. The reason I don’t mention in marriage itself is that roughly 50% of current marriages end in divorce within 20 years. Marriage as a practical example is failing quite spectacularly, which probably explains some aversion to it.

    I think we are violently in agreement over the need for things to change. I can’t go back and listen to the podcast here at work, but I don’t doubt your recent listen is more accurate than my memory is now, and was when I wrote it. But I do still believe that as women have more to lose from casual sex, they are the logical choice to advise to begin a change in current sexual mores.

    As to how I define being a gatekeeper? Being sure that the person you want to have sex with is worthy of the intimacy of having sex with you. And not having sex with them because it is a social expectation or something to do to pass the time. It does not matter if a person has had only one sexual partner or many partners, he or she can always decide to improve their sexual behavior and not sleep with someone. My ideal is that both would be virgins at marriage, but I realize the ideal and reality will vary widely. But the ideal being tough to achieve does not mean we should abandon it.

    • #15
    • June 19, 2018, at 1:11 PM PDT
    • Like
  16. Could Be Anyone Member

    Stad (View Comment):
    I seem to remember reading an article about why the “50%” number is misleading, that marriage is still thriving in spite of what is broadcast by the [leftist] MSM and academia. Too bad I’m such a lazy SOB I can’t provide the link to you . . .

    As I mentioned it happens within 20 years. It also differs across ethnic group. Whites and Hispanics are at 53%, Asians were at 64%, and Blacks were at around 40%. But the NSFG is not some partisan source and it uses rather large sample sizes (60,000 is a massive sample size for a study).

    Stad (View Comment):

    I don’t think virginity has anything to do with it. A “gatekeeper” female is a woman who makes a potential male long-term relationship partner “work for it”. By “it”, I mean the woman is most likely thinking marriage, but she may decide to have sex with the man for a multitude of reasons, all with the long-term goal in mind.

    Yet by your definition virginity does have something to do with it now. Maintaining chastity till after marriage makes marriage the cost, as you are arguing from a cost analysis logic. You are making the cost of sex just a subjective calculation for the woman, since you assume the man must desire the sex.

    Or she may not. A gatekeeper is in control of her sexuality, and she can choose to sleep with someone or not.

    Then women are already gatekeepers by that logic. Women are already choosing who they are having sex with so what is the issue? Are you assuming that women were not exercising decision making before?

    While I agree the number of previous sexual partners may have an impact on a relationship, a man who knows a woman is “picky” might accept her having a dozen or more sexual partners before he proposes. It all depends on the individuals involved . . .

    If it truly depends on the individual, thus subjective, why have any notion of a standard (objectives) for sexual gatekeeper. Either there are standards of moral conduct to sex or not and they apply to all people or not.

     

    • #16
    • June 19, 2018, at 2:47 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  17. Could Be Anyone Member

    Patrick McClure (View Comment):

    I think we are violently in agreement over the need for things to change. I can’t go back and listen to the podcast here at work, but I don’t doubt your recent listen is more accurate than my memory is now, and was when I wrote it. But I do still believe that as women have more to lose from casual sex, they are the logical choice to advise to begin a change in current sexual mores.

    We disagree then over whether having women start it or having both sexes start it. Any immoral (or unwanted) act that takes two people to occur requires resolving both parties motivations to it. Starting by arguing that women should take up the role of sexual gatekeeper simply because they suffer the short term costs does nothing to resolve the faults of men and it strikes me has ineffective and unjust.

    As to how I define being a gatekeeper? Being sure that the person you want to have sex with is worthy of the intimacy of having sex with you.

    What then is the cost to be extracted for said sexual intimacy? What is worthiness? Is a high enough salary all that is required? Or a good character? Or being 6’0” at least? Should physical characteristics be in the rubric? Or should only more non physical characteristics be considered?

    And not having sex with them because it is a social expectation or something to do to pass the time.

    Empirical research on the matter has shown that most are doing it to out of self oriented needs (one example being hook-ups, a majority of those engaging in them are seeking a long term relationship from it; a paradoxical intent in my opinion), not social expectation or to “pass the time”.

    It does not matter if a person has had only one sexual partner or many partners, he or she can always decide to improve their sexual behavior and not sleep with someone.

    What is the likelihood that someone who partakes in the act of sex will then abstain from it later on? Looking at the data I think (which shows a strong super majority of adults have had sexual relations within the past year; indicating that people are not adjusting their behavior) your abstract assertion has very little application to what is actually happening.

    My ideal is that both would be virgins at marriage, but I realize the ideal and reality will vary widely. But the ideal being tough to achieve does not mean we should abandon it.

    If very few people are actually reaching the ideal perhaps the ideal should be changed. Why argue for a moral system if only a tiny minority is following it in practice? It strikes me as a relic, assuming charitably that it was followed before then, or as some post hoc rationalization for fidelity in marriage.

    • #17
    • June 19, 2018, at 3:08 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  18. kylez Member
    kylez Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Patrick McClure (View Comment):

    You want to put pressure on men to take relationships seriously? Quit having sex early in the relationship. Wait until you are married, if you can. But at the very least stop the casual sex (no this is not directed at the LB women in particular, but to women in general). Start being the gatekeepers of sex again, instead of willing doormats.

    Even the comment about making out on the first date is weird. Who starts that? I wouldn’t dream (well maybe dream) of trying to get a woman to make out on a first date.

    • #18
    • June 20, 2018, at 12:33 AM PDT
    • Like
  19. kylez Member
    kylez Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Could Be Anyone (View Comment):

    Patrick McClure (View Comment):

    You want to put pressure on men to take relationships seriously? Quit having sex early in the relationship. Wait until you are married, if you can. But at the very least stop the casual sex (no this is not directed at the LB women in particular, but to women in general). Start being the gatekeepers of sex again, instead of willing doormats.

    Why can’t men control their impulses? Why must women be the sole gate keepers of sex?

    Female gatekeeping leads to the controlling of male impulses. That’s the point.

    • #19
    • June 20, 2018, at 12:37 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  20. kylez Member
    kylez Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    #2: Living Together Before Marriage:

    To me the biggest sign of how much this has affected the culture is how common it is for conservatives and even religious people to do it. 

    • #20
    • June 20, 2018, at 12:55 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  21. kylez Member
    kylez Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    “demand” is a really strong word. If any man “demands” sex, that should be an obvious sign for the woman to never see him again. 

    • #21
    • June 20, 2018, at 1:02 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  22. Could Be Anyone Member

    kylez (View Comment):
    Female gatekeeping leads to the controlling of male impulses. That’s the point.

    A one sided strategy of preventing sex is not going to improve the situation. Telling only women to control their sexual desires does not address the fact that sex takes two to tango. It takes the affirmation of both parties. By arguing that women must be the ones to show control you are treating men like children. If man’s urge for sex is truly so strong then he is a creature of lust and no raising of cost will make him understand or act in a manner of love.

    If people want to see men and women practice the virtues in marriage and romantic relationships then they need to demand that men and women abide by said virtues. Nothing else is going to get the job done.

    kylez (View Comment):
    “demand” is a really strong word. If any man “demands” sex, that should be an obvious sign for the woman to never see him again.

    No one has mentioned demand in that formulation.

    • #22
    • June 20, 2018, at 7:10 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  23. Patrick McClure Coolidge

    Could Be Anyone (View Comment):
    If very few people are actually reaching the ideal perhaps the ideal should be changed.

    This is where we have our greatest disagreement, I think. Changing ideals to suit circumstances means they are not ideals. They are simply suggestions. 

    Could Be Anyone (View Comment):
    Starting by arguing that women should take up the role of sexual gatekeeper simply because they suffer the short term costs does nothing to resolve the faults of men and it strikes me has ineffective and unjust.

     

    This argument never makes sense to me. It is like saying that the person who has the most expensive car shouldn’t take any more precautions than the person with a beater. Not taking extra precautions when you have more to lose, because it is unjust that you have to do so, is cutting off your nose to spite your face. Your loss, while bad for society in general, will not immediately affect me in the same way it will you. Saying it is unjust that you have to take extra pre-cautions is just another way of saying life is not fair. And it isn’t. And women taking up the short term costs does help resolve the faults of men. Most people, male and female, will try to live up or down to their societal expectations. If women were more careful about sex, more men would realize they also need to be more careful. I’m not sure where it comes from, but the phrase “be the change you want to see” is just another way of saying this. 

    • #23
    • June 20, 2018, at 7:24 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  24. Could Be Anyone Member

    Patrick McClure (View Comment):

    Could Be Anyone (View Comment):
    If very few people are actually reaching the ideal perhaps the ideal should be changed.

    This is where we have our greatest disagreement, I think. Changing ideals to suit circumstances means they are not ideals. They are simply suggestions.

    They are already being treated like guidelines. Nice things to say but not live by. Besides as I already mentioned it may be that these ideals were never attainable, history is rife with promiscuity. Perhaps they were the wrong ideals to set from the start and thus were not the true ideals. Ideals are meant to be challenging but attainable. Chastity seems to be too demanding as an ideal.

    This argument never makes sense to me. It is like saying that the person who has the most expensive car shouldn’t take any more precautions than the person with a beater. Not taking extra precautions when you have more to lose, because it is unjust that you have to do so, is cutting off your nose to spite your face. Your loss, while bad for society in general, will not immediately affect me in the same way it will you. Saying it is unjust that you have to take extra pre-cautions is just another way of saying life is not fair. And it isn’t.

    It is unjust to ask only women to be virtuous but not men. Virtue is never forced from the exterior (your example of having women be gatekeepers to force men to appear virtuous) but comes from the interior, it is internally motivated. It also ignores the fact that both women and men look for sex. Your cost analysis doesn’t even apply really because there is plenty of “pre-cautions” (condoms, the pill, etc..) that exist for sex so that the greatest costs, like a child in the womb, don’t happen.

    And women taking up the short term costs does help resolve the faults of men. Most people, male and female, will try to live up or down to their societal expectations.

    And what if there are no “societal expectations”? What if its neutral on the matter (which it is)? People are free to act however they like.

    If women were more careful about sex, more men would realize they also need to be more careful. I’m not sure where it comes from, but the phrase “be the change you want to see” is just another way of saying this.

    You must think very little of men. Why have any standards at all if men can’t even attain them. Set low bar you won’t get far.

    • #24
    • June 20, 2018, at 7:46 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  25. Patrick McClure Coolidge

    Could Be Anyone (View Comment):

    kylez (View Comment):
    “demand” is a really strong word. If any man “demands” sex, that should be an obvious sign for the woman to never see him again. 

    No one has mentioned demand in that formulation.

    Could Be Anyone (View Comment):

    I don’t disagree that current empirical research on the matter indicates greater harm to women than men resulting from extra-marital sexual relations. But it takes two to tango. As Patrick implicitly argued, men are demanding sexual relations and women are supplying it (although let’s be honest, it goes both ways). If you were to, by some miracle, have all women stop supplying sex until marriage do you really think that men would quit demanding it?

    You and I both know that it would not stop that demand, nor would it somehow “put pressure on men take relationships seriously”.

    I forgot that you said I implied men are demanding sex. I made no such implication. Most men ask, some demand. That has been what I have learned. You then broadened it by saying I implied men demand sex. When I address the need for women to again become gatekeepers, I am speaking to the need for women to say “no” when asked to have sex. Because it is in their best interest to do so. But you seem to be saying women should not have to have any agency in their own sex lives. I do not see how it is unjust to advise a woman that she needs to control her interactions with others in a manner that is to her benefit. Advising a woman that the man they are interacting with should shoulder the responsibility for her benefit is not in her interest. 

    • #25
    • June 20, 2018, at 7:46 AM PDT
    • Like
  26. Could Be Anyone Member

    Patrick McClure (View Comment):
    I forgot that you said I implied men are demanding sex. I made no such implication. Most men ask, some demand. That has been what I have learned. You then broadened it by saying I implied men demand sex. When I address the need for women to again become gatekeepers, I am speaking to the need for women to say “no” when asked to have sex. Because it is in their best interest to do so. But you seem to be saying women should not have to have any agency in their own sex lives. 

    1. Are you even reading what I have been typing?
    2. You have been using “demand” in the economic sense. Which is how I have been using it. I never typed the notion of demand in a way that could logically be read as caveman men raping women being what you want.
    3. Where have I argued that women have no agency? These quotes of myself from this thread amply show that I believe BOTH sexes need to exert moral agency on the matter.

    Could Be Anyone (View Comment):
    It is unjust to ask only women to be virtuous but not men. Virtue is never forced from the exterior (your example of having women be gatekeepers to force men to appear virtuous) but comes from the interior, it is internally motivated. It also ignores the fact that both women and men look for sex.

    Could Be Anyone (View Comment):

    Telling only women to control their sexual desires does not address the fact that sex takes two to tango. It takes the affirmation of both parties. By arguing that women must be the ones to show control you are treating men like children. If man’s urge for sex is truly so strong then he is a creature of lust and no raising of cost will make him understand or act in a manner of love.

    If people want to see men and women practice the virtues in marriage and romantic relationships then they need to demand that men and women abide by said virtues. Nothing else is going to get the job done.

    Could Be Anyone (View Comment):
    We disagree then over whether having women start it or having both sexes start it. Any immoral (or unwanted) act that takes two people to occur requires resolving both parties motivations to it. Starting by arguing that women should take up the role of sexual gatekeeper simply because they suffer the short term costs does nothing to resolve the faults of men and it strikes me has ineffective and unjust.

    Could Be Anyone (View Comment):
    If one truly wants men and women to take romantic relationships seriously then one would need to advocate to men and women to take them seriously for reasons that are not cost based, like the inherent value of every individual; that every person is not some means to an end but rather an end in themselves.

     

    I do not see how it is unjust to advise a woman that she needs to control her interactions with others in a manner that is to her benefit. Advising a woman that the man they are interacting with should shoulder the responsibility for her benefit is not in her interest. 

    Again this does not solve the issue. Telling only women to take sex seriously is NEVER going to get men to take sex seriously, it will only alter their cost analysis. Is it really that hard to ask men to control themselves? If it is I don’t understand why you believe virginity is even an ideal because it would therefore be so opposite to men’s desires for sex that it would be unattainable.

    • #26
    • June 20, 2018, at 9:52 AM PDT
    • Like
  27. Patrick McClure Coolidge

    Could Be Anyone (View Comment):
    Is it really that hard to ask men to control themselves?

    I have never said we should not. Indeed I have agreed with you that men must also have moral agency. I think we may be reading each other’s positions as absolutes. You are reading my position as only women should be responsible for sexual standards being imposed and I am reading your position as no woman should be warned that she needs to be careful because the man should behave better. I will continue to advise all of my adult and soon to be adult kids that each person is responsible for their own actions and behaviors and should not be sexually promiscuous. But I will also continue to advise my daughters that they have more to lose from casual sex. I guess I am having a hard time understanding why this seems controversial to you. 

    • #27
    • June 20, 2018, at 11:22 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  28. kylez Member
    kylez Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    I took “demand” from #5. 

    I think we can all agree that boys and girls should be taught restraint. However, the significance of the female gatekeeping is that she is being pursued, he usually is the one who asked her out. The gatekeeping lets her know where his intentions lie.

    • #28
    • June 20, 2018, at 12:21 PM PDT
    • 2 likes