Reverencing, Ravishing and Rollo

Rollo Tomassi runs “The Rational Male” blog and his “Red Pill” teachings have become very popular in the manosphere (He also has a couple of books).  He attacks the falsehoods of feminism primarily from a sociological and psychological perspective as opposed to the way I attack feminism on this blog primarily from a theological perspective and only secondarily from a psychological and sociological perspective.

He recently sent in a comment on my post “How a husband can enjoy sex that is grudgingly given by his wife”. Rather than just post a comment to him there, I felt my response to Rollo warranted its own post because I think it would be beneficial for my readers to see where Rollo and I agree and disagree on how men can tackle feminism in their marriages.

Rollo’s Statement

“While I might not endorse overt Dread for Christian men… http://therationalmale.com/2012/03/27/dread-games/

I would advise they become more aware of the opportunities that passive Dread represents in their marriages: http://therationalmale.com/2013/05/13/soft-dread/

Most Beta Christian men (which is to say 90%+) will proactively try to diffuse the sexual anxiety and tension necessary to inspire the ‘desired’ sex you describe here. They believe the pro-feminine lie that rapport, comfort and familiarity is what leads to sexual desire so they make every attempt to convince their wives that they have no need to worry or feel insecure that any other woman would want them sexually, much less appreciate them for being ‘good christian men’.

What they fail to grasp is that passionate sex inspired by genuine desire is the result of insecurity, anxiety and sexual tension. Most Christian men are conditioned to bypass this phase in seducing their wives, thinking that comfort and security are what will prompt her to being more sexual, but in doing so they kill the vibe before it can build. Comfort and rapport are post-orgasm, oxytocin effects, but Christian men believe they are prerequisites for sex. For the most part they are deathly afraid to embrace and exaggerate the uncertainty, spontaneity, anxiety and tension women need to feel sexual urgency.

You make sex another chore for a woman when you negotiate for her desire. Genuine desire cannot be negotiated. If you find yourself in a sexless (or passionless sex) relationship with your wife you need to embrace using soft dread situations to prompt her imagination. A woman’s imaginings are the best tool in you seduction toolbox, learn how to inspire them.

Make your wife unintentionally uncomfortable. Sexuality is spontaneous chemical reaction between two parties, not a process of negotiation. By its very nature passionate, desired sex is a result of being uncomfortable, uncertain and urgent. It might be an uncomfortable truth to most Christian men, but the best, most memorable, married sex you have won’t be the result of a pre-planned “Date Night” where you stage manage every event and nuance in advance; it will be the rough, hard-core, make-up sex you never thought you’d have after a near breakup inspired by the anxiety of the thought of never having you around anymore. “

My Response to Rollo

I have read many articles on your blog and I do find some truth about male/female interactions in what you say there.  You and I would agree there are many lies propagated by feminism, some of them psychological and others sociological.  Your blog is proof that that you need not be a Christian or even crack open a Bible to see feminism is a poisonous ideology.

The Biblical purposes of Marriage

But for me as a Christian, I have to look at marriage from a Biblical point of view.  If I truly believe the Bible is the Word of God, then I embrace him as my creator and designer.  He designed man, he designed woman and he designed marriage.

The spiritual purpose of marriage in God’s design (from a Biblical point of view) was for it to be a symbol of the relationship of God to his people. The temporal (earthly) reasons for marriage would include companionship, procreation, provision, protection and pleasure.

In this design he made man to be a symbol of himself and man plays out this symbol by leading her, protecting her, providing for her, teaching her and disciplining her. In this same design woman plays the part of humanity in how we are to depend on God for his leadership, his protection, his provision, his teaching and his discipline.   This is why a woman’s submission to her husband is so emphasized throughout Scripture, because it is symbolic of the submission that humanity is to have toward God.

Should Christian wives fear their husbands?

You talk about “dread” and I read your posts on that subject. In the Christian faith we have a similar concept when it comes to God that we are to “fear” him. This is not some sort of scary fear (like God is a monster), but it is a reverent fear.

This is why the Bible tells women to submit to their husbands “as unto the Lord” (Ephesians 5:22) – literally a wife is to submit to her husband as she would unto God himself. She is commanded by God to “see that she reverence her husband” (Ephesians 5:33).  The English word “reverence” in that passage is a translation of the Greek word “Phobeo” which literally means “to fear or be afraid” or “to reverence, venerate, to treat with deference or reverential obedience”.  In fact most of the time that Greek word “Phobeo” is translated as “fear” throughout the New Testament.

So should a wife Biblically speaking have a little healthy fear or dread of her husband?

Absolutely!

Today most Christian wives have ZERO fear or dread of their husbands even though the Bible commands them to. In fact I would argue that in most Christian marriages men are the ones who fear their wives.  

Men show their wives they are either afraid to lose them (be alone) or afraid of the prospect of divorce and the financial or child custody repercussions that it may bring.

Should men flirt with other women to invoke dread in their wives?

From a Christian perspective, I don’t agree with a man flirting with other women in order to invoke fear (or dread) in his wife. I actually believe that is dangerous because when men flirt or talk inappropriately to other women it leaves open a doorway to possible affairs.

However I think there is a grave difference between a man casually talking to a woman and flirting with her.  Some wives are so jealously possessive of their husbands that if they say two words to another women they get “the look”.  This ought not to be the case .

Also as I have stated many times on this blog a man should never be made to feel ashamed of his God given wiring to desire to look at beautiful women around him(whether in person, on TV or online).

The rules I teach to my teenage sons and the advice I give to other men is “glance, don’t gawk”. To gawk is to be rude not only to the women you are with, but also to the woman you are gawking at. To glance is to do what God wired every man’s brain to do and there is no shame in taking pleasure from tasteful glances of beautiful women.

The “there’s the door” method of invoking fear in one’s wife

I do think there are other ways to invoke a healthy or “soft dread” in a woman from a Biblical perspective.  One of these methods is the “there’s the door” method. If a wife feels her husband is afraid to lose her or that he is afraid of what she would do to him in a divorce (financial and child custody repercussions) then she will never have that reverence (fear) for her husband that God commands women to have in Ephesians 5:33.

So when a woman acts out in rebellion toward her husband and tries to act as if she does not need her husband or that other men would treat her better the Christian husband should tell his wife “there’s the door”.  Will some women be foolish enough to walk out that door? Yes.  But the moment a man allows his wife to put him in a position of fearing her, rather than her fearing him the relationship has just changed from the design God intended it to be.

Meeting your wife’s needs versus her wants

From the perspective of sexuality and getting your wife to desire sex with you I advise Christian men to demonstrate to their wives by their actions that there is a direct correlation between a wife reverencing and ravishing her husband and her getting some of her wants met. And I emphasize “some”.

As Christian husbands we are required by God to provide our women with food, clothing, shelter and sex. These provisions along with our leadership, protection, teaching and discipline of our wives is what the love of a Christian husband looks like. We are also required to know our wives (talk with them) and give them proper honor as our helpmeet.

The only Biblical ways a husband is released from these requirements and may put his wife away (divorce her) is if she abandons him, physically abuses him, physically denies him the act of sex or if she has sex with another man.

But while we are required to know our wives and talk to them, that does not mean we need to spend every bit of our free time in conversation with them. We do not need to hang on every word our wife says. While we are required to give them food, clothing and shelter – that food does not have be the fancy food she wants, that clothing does not have to be the fancy clothing she wants and that house does not have to be the fancy house she wants.

Connect reverencing and ravishing with her wants being met

Reverencing was a concept we already talked about from Ephesians 5:33.  A wife ravishing her husband has to do with her being sexually intoxicating to her husband based on Proverbs 5:19 “let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love” and Christian wives have the wife in the Song of Songs as an excellent example of how a woman can show physical love to her husband.

So rather than a man pursing his wife by buying her flowers, taking her on dates and weekend getaways, buying her jewelry or just giving her more of his time he shows his wife that after and only after she does the right things – then these things come. 

And I don’t just mean she just rocks his world one night, and then he lavishes her with all these things.  No – she sees that in order to get “some” of her wants met she must FIRST reverence her husband outside the bedroom and she must ravish him inside the bedroom and this becomes the pattern of her behavior toward her husband.  If either the reverence or ravishing goes down, he pulls back on these other things so she understands the correlation.

But even if a woman does reverence and ravish her husband as she should the husband must make his wife realize that this is never a way to control him.  Some women are devious and they actually reverence and ravish their husbands in a manipulative way to get what they want or control all his time.  This is something a Christian husband cannot allow his wife to do.

Grace and Mercy in Christian marriage

I wanted to say something about the Christian concepts of grace and mercy and how they apply to us as Christian husbands. For us as Christian husbands in our representation of God in his relationship with his people we also need to show grace and mercy toward our wives.  This means sometimes we show them grace by giving them things they have not earned by their behavior and other times we show them mercy by not bringing the discipline on them that their behavior merits.

Conclusion

So Rollo – I think you and I agree on many of the problems, we just differ a bit on the solutions to those problems.  But I do think where you and I agree is that a man must not run around trying to earn his wife’s reference and ravishing but rather he should constantly be showing her through various actions that her having her wants met(as opposed to needs) is directly related to how well she serves him as her husband.

From a Christian perspective a wife ought to be reverencing and ravishing her husband simply because God commands it.  But it also helps to show that there is a correlation in the here and now when she does.

Advertisements

Was polygamy a sin in the Old Testament that God overlooked?

Was polygamy a sin God overlooked in the Old Testament but he finally got rid of in the New Testament?  A broader question might be “Does God regulate and authorize behavior he thinks is sinful?”

If you have read many posts on this blog – you will know that I believe based on the Word of God(the whole Bible, not just the New Testament) that God never regulates or authorizes something he believes to be sinful, and therefore polygamy was not(and I would still argue today it is still not sinful when practiced Biblically).

Ever since I was a young man I have always been fascinated by three subjects – theology, history and human nature.  Specifically I wanted to understand what parts of our human nature(and even more specifically our male and female natures) are by the design of God, and which ones come from our sin nature corrupting of the God’s original design.

So question that needs answering is – “Is man’s natural instinct to be drawn to multiple women a corruption of his nature or part of his original design by God? ”

Most Pastors and theologians since the time Augustine(who brought Christian asceticism into the Church) have promoted a belief that this is part of man’s sinful nature, and not the nature he was originally designed with in the garden of Eden.  They argue that man was originally made by God with a monogamous nature, and only because of sin did polygamy enter the picture.

I have held this position on Biblical polygamy for 20 years(and no I am not a practicing polygamist) .  It always bothered me when I was a young man growing up in Baptist Churches(which I still love and attend ) when the Pastor would come to a passage about polygamy and say something like “This was a sin God overlooked in ancient times, but he finally got rid of it in the New Testament”.  This just bugged me! Since when does the God of the Bible regulate and authorize a behavior he believes to be sinful?  I have always believed that the God of the Bible can never authorize or regulate sinful behavior and I always will.

Recently I had a little debate about this issue in another forum with a Christian woman when we were discussing the subject of men looking at women.  Her name was Lucy.  This is part of the conversation where switch to the topic of polygamy:

Lucy started by quoting a statement I am made:

“men are naturally polygynous as God designed them.” Can you please provide verse and chapter for us? It seems to me that if that were true, anything but polygamy would be cruel for men and that decans, pastors, etc, should not have to be the husband of only one wife.”

This was my response:

Lucy – I would be happy to respond with Bible passages that support the concept that men are naturally polygynous as designed by God.

God allows and regulates polygamy in Moses law

If a man takes a second wife, he cannot deny the first wife food, clothing or sex. He must continue being a husband to her as well, even if he has more romantic attachment to his second wife.

“If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.” – Exodus 21:10-11

A man could not take his wife’s sister as a rival wife while his wife lived:
“Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time.” – Leviticus 18:18

If a man had two wives, and he did was not romantically attracted to or did not get along with one as good as the other, he still had to acknowledge the rights of her son if he was firstborn:

“15 If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated:

16 Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn:

17 But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.” – Deuteronomy 21:15-17

Leah was blessed by God for giving her husband one of her hand maids as a wife:

“9 When Leah saw that she had left bearing, she took Zilpah her maid, and gave her Jacob to wife…17 And God hearkened unto Leah, and she conceived, and bare Jacob the fifth son.

18 And Leah said, God hath given me my hire, because I have given my maiden to my husband: and she called his name Issachar.
Genesis 30:9 & 17-18

Lucy – many Christians because this does not meet with their preconceived notion that God always intended for men to be in monogamous marriages will say that that God only “allowed polygamy, but it was still sinful”.

The God of the Bible does NOT all sin – EVER. What he allows, he approves of – to say anything less is to question the holiness of God.

Now does God sometimes change his laws?

Yes. For instance God allowed the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve to marry(what we would call incest) and this practice was not condemned until later in the Mosaic law.

There was no sin Jacob marrying two sisters(Leah and Rachel) even though he was tricked. God had not yet forbid a man from marrying sisters.

God never condemned polygamy, but rather he regulated it which means he approved of it.

Some will try to point to Deuteronomy 17:15-17 where God says that a King shall not “multiply wives to himself” to say God was condemning polygamy. The problem with that interpretation is that the same man – Moses that wrote that wrote regulations on polygamy! So he certainly was not contradicting himself. Instead what he was saying is that king is not to “horde wives” – much in the way King Solomon did with having 1000 wives! King Solomon abused the concept of polygamy and his heart was indeed lead astray.

As to your point that it would be cruel then to make men have only one wife – you are right that it does make things difficult for polygynous men living a world that has now confined men to monogamous marriage.

However even in Biblical times not all men were able to marry more than one wife, and many did not have any wife at all.  This is because male slaves and servants could only have a wife if their master allowed them to. Also poor men often did not marry because fathers would not give their daughters to a man that could not pay a bride price and could not care for their daughters. This left many women that needed husbands and this is why wealthier men had many wives.

So while most men are polygynous in their nature, that does not mean all men should were able to act on that polygynous nature by taking multiple wives.

Lucy replied:

“I’m so disappointed to hear you’re back in the Old T. You have mistaken an allowance in ancient times for “men are designed that way,” but the Bible presents monogamy as God’s ideal for marriage.

“For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife [not wives], and they will become one flesh [not fleshes]” (Genesis 2:24). While Genesis 2:24 is describing what marriage is, rather than how many people are involved, the consistent use of the singularis used.

In the New Testament, 1 Timothy 3:2, 12 and Titus 1:6 give “the husband of one wife” in a list of qualifications for spiritual leadership.

While these qualifications are specifically for positions of spiritual leadership, they should apply equally to all Christians. Should not all Christians be “above reproach…temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money” (1 Timothy 3:2-4)? If we are called to be holy (1 Peter 1:16), and if these standards are holy for elders and deacons, then they are holy for all.

Also, note how Ephesians 5:22-33 speaks of the relationship between husbands and wives. “Husband” is always singular. “Wife” is always singular.

In the above verse, If polygamy were allowable,the entire illustration of Christ’s relationship with His body (the church) and the husband-wife relationship falls apart.

Even going back to Adam and Eve, polygamy was not God’s original intent. God seems to have allowed polygamy to solve a problem in brutal times, but it is not the ideal. I can certainly find no proof God designed men that way.

This was my response to Lucy:

Lucy, as Christians we can sometimes be disappointed or surprised by what our fellow brethren believe. I am always disappointed when I find my Christian brethren believing God tossed the Old Testament in the garbage can when he gave us the New Testament and that is not the case at all.

You are absolutely right that Biblically speaking we are no longer under the Law, but under grace- Praise God!

“For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.” – Romans 6:14 (KJV)

But what “law” is Paul speaking of? He is speaking of the cleanliness law, civil law, the sacrificial law, the priestly law that Moses gave to Israel as a theocracy.  The Scriptures tell us in Hebrews 8:13 that the old covenant has been replaced with the New – praise God!

In Galatians 3:24-25 the Apostle Paul tells us that the law (the sacrificial part of the law, the civil and the priestly law) was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ – but now that Christ is come we are no longer under that school master – again praise God!

That means we don’t have to stone people who commit adultery, or stone rebellious kids.  We don’t have to make sacrifices to cover our sins.  We don’t have to follow the cleanliness laws anymore.  We don’t have to stay away from certain meats, or practice the festivals.

But this does not mean that God’s moral law – contained with the Law of Moses is also obsolete. For instance while Moses law may prescribe death for someone committing murder – we are not required anymore to do that – as that is part of the civil laws of Israel that have been made obsolete.  But is murder still sin? Is it still a violation of God’s moral law? Yes.

Paul said this about the moral law contained in Moses Law:

“Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.” Romans 3:31(KJV)

“What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet…Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.” – Romans 7:7 & 12

Over 350 times Jesus or his Apostles quote from the Old Testament – we don’t have New Testament without the Old Testament. We can learn many things about the character of God, as well as us as his creations through the Old Testament.  I hope and pray you and other believers will find a greater appreciation for the Old Testament as it is just as much the Word of God as the New Testament is.

Now on to the issue of polygamy – or to be more specific polygyny (a man having more than one wife).  Lucy you are absolutely right that God says they will become “one flesh” (Genesis 2:24).  He does not say “one fleshes” as you correctly point out. You know why? Because a man has an individual marriage with each one of his wives.  If a man and all his wives were one together that would be something called “Polyamory” where multiple live together and sleep with one another.  Wives could sleep with wives, or sleep with their husband.  In fact you could have several men, and several women in a polymorous relationship.  But that is NOT what polygyny is.

Polygyny is where a man has more than one marriage. He has several marriages.  But he has a separate and distinct relationship with each of his wives, and God points out in Exodus 21:10-11 he has a separate and distinct duty to provide food, clothing and to become ONE FLESH (have sex) with each of his wives.

Apparently God who inspired Moses to write about marriage being one flesh, and speaking of a husband and wife in the singular – saw no contradiction between that and a man having more than one wife.

Is the “husband of one wife” requirement (I Timothy 3:2, 12 and Titus 1:6) for a Pastor speaking of monogamy or divorce? I would argue based the qualifications of widows who could be supported by (and became servants of) the church that Paul was speaking of a Pastor or Deacon not having been divorced from his first wife:

“Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man.” – I Timothy 5:9 (KJV)

But let’s say you were right (which I don’t think you are), that Paul was forbidding polygamy by Pastors and Deacons.  If he was, then by forbidding it to Pastors and Deacons, he was acknowledging that Christians were actively practicing polygamy.  Why when he wrote so much about marriage and divorce, and he even forbid believers from marrying non-believers, why did he not just go ahead and tell believers “you cannot marry more one wife anymore(as God had previously allowed you too)”?”

As to Ephesians 5, I love that God designed marriage to a model of his relationship with his people.  In the Old Testament he pictures himself as a husband to his wife Israel, and in the New Testament he pictures marriage as the relationship between Christ and his Church. Beautiful!

However I respectfully disagree with you that polygyny destroys this beautiful model of Christ and his Church. In the New Testament the Church is often referred to in the singular, but other times it is referred to in the plural (churches).    Just as God referred to Israel as his wife (singular), he also referred to Israel as his wives (plural) when speaking of Israel and Judah in the book of Ezekiel:

“Son of man, there were two women, the daughters of one mother…And the names of them were Aholah the elder, and Aholibah her sister: and THEY were mine, and THEY bare sons and daughters. Thus were their names; Samaria is Aholah, and Jerusalem Aholibah.”  – Ezekial 23:2 & 4

In the same way while Christ often refers to his Church in the singular in the New Testament, he also refers to his Church in the plural much the same way God referred to Israel and Judah when he speaks of the 7 Churches in the book of Revelation.  He speaks to all but one of their unfaithfulness in different areas.  It appears that Christ has a separate and distinct relationship with each of his churches – does this somehow hurt the concept of Christ and his Church being a model for marriage – I think not.

When Christ speaks to his Church in the singular, it is in much the same way that a man with many wives would speak to his family (including all his wives) which is also what the Church is compared to in this passage:

“But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”  – I Timothy 3:15

I say all this to say, from the OT to NT the concept of a man being married to more than one wife, and having a distinct relationship with each of his wives does not break the model of what God intended marriage to be. A man can be one flesh with each of his wives, as God is one with each of his churches.

As far as your assertion that God creating only one man and one woman (Adam and Eve) in the garden means that was his model for marriage, are you then saying that brothers and sisters marrying was his model for marriage? Because Adam and Eve’s children had to marry one another.  The fact is that God could have created two sets of couples so that incest would not have to occur just as he could have created more wives for Adam. He chose not to. But again I draw your attention to the fact that the same God who created Adam and Eve also gave Moses commands allowing men to take more than one wife – if that were a violation of his model he would not have allowed it.

I hope this helps clarify my position.

 

Why would my husband marry me, yet still look at other women?

Many married women(especially young married women) wonder how their husbands can be attracted  to other women.   The reason is that most women are naturally monogamous in their sexual nature as God designed them to be, while men are naturally polygynous as God designed them.

I am thankful that God has used this ministry not only to encourage Christian wives about meeting their husband’s sexual needs – but it is also encouraging  to see women learning to respect how God designed man’s sexual nature very differently from their own.

I respond privately to emails like this all the time, but this woman unfortunately sent me a comment with no email address asking for help – so I hope she sees this post (and if she has any private questions – makes sure she includes her email that I can respond to).

She named herself “AdviceMePlease” and she wrote:

“I am glad I stumbled on this website. I learned some good points from your article how to respect my husband. My husband like it mentioned, is a visual creature too. I was unaware of guys being visual and it bothered me for a long time when he looked at other girls, or kept repeatedly watching the YouTube videos of his favorite actresses. I always wondered why he married me if he is into other women. (Silly me!) my question/problem is he keeps talking about the women he is impressed all the time with me and it makes me feel less. An intern at his work- there were days I had to hear first thing in the morning about her after we wake up, or first thing after he comes from work. Our pediatrician is very friendly with us and mostly him, and lately I hear about her atleast once a day. I tried not to get jealous but I am beginning to see that my husband likes girls who are funny, independent. He likes Asians alot :-p.”

This is my response to this Christian wife and other wives who may face this issue:

I am glad that you came to accept the visual and polygynous nature of your husband and the fact that is a natural and normal thing for him to look at and be attracted to other women.

But let me be clear – there is a difference between a man being visually wired and attracted to multiple women, and a man being flirtatious or promiscuous. I am not saying your husband is either of the last things I said – but I want to draw a very clear line there just so you know.  If you think he is being flirtatious, then you have every right as his wife to respectfully talk to him about that.  If you believe he is putting himself in positions with a woman at work(like working late all the time) or spending way too much alone time with her – then as his wife you have a right to be concerned and address that with him.

But if your only issue is that your husband looks at other women and is attracted to other women this is how I would address the issue with him. Tell your hubby how much you love him and respect him. Admit to him that you used to be bothered by the fact that he was attracted to other women and wondered why he married you if he was attracted to other women.

Then you realized that God made him different as man then you as a woman. You now understand how he can be attracted to other women, but still be attracted to you and he gives you something he is not giving any other woman – his love! But while you understand his nature, and understand he might talk about different women with the guys(which is totally normal), you would appreciate it if he did not talk about other women he is attracted to around you. It’s not that you think he is wrong for thinking they are beautiful, it is just that you as a woman don’t need to hear about other women he thinks are pretty.

I have had to have this conversation with some my male relatives when they talked about women around their young wives and the light bulb came on and they realized why they probably should not do that. Now some women are fine with this to a point – my wife is fine with me saying that I like certain actresses, but I would not tell her if I thought a woman at work was beautiful as that might make her worry(when she really has nothing to worry about).

I will close with this admonition to men that I have stated elsewhere on this site.  It is ok for you to look at and be attracted to women other than your wife.  While some women are ok with you talking about other women, many women are not.

Whatisgawking

It is not ok to gawk at women or do things that make your wife/mom/sister or other women around you uncomfortable.  It’s not ok to talk about women you think are hot or beautiful around your wife/mom/sister or other women who might be bothered by this.  Be a gentlemen, be discreet – keep the guy talk with the guys, and keep the looking to discreet glances.

 Picture Sources:

Photo #1 – Young man looking at young woman

Source: Courtney Carmody at https://www.flickr.com/photos/calamity_photography/4696806650/
Used under Creativecommons license 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/

Photo #2 Older man looking at younger woman

Source: Fernando Coelho at https://www.flickr.com/photos/fernando_pc/7475293196/in/photolist-coyQes-638Yew-91fesx-JL9tU-4gNPg5-ccC611-bBVUk9-2dSBge-7CMS2B-dfiwJ-757hu8-81hK5f-deRLgk-5fZ3jt-gBahp-sEkxt-58oiXu-9t2EEB-bcqwBK-89Hsfx-gRHKK5-5fBfZd-5SAcxf-eit8Kp-iuBrUp-598VGv-oppDcJ-emDEJY-79SHWi-dfP72b-6C7qS1-8a3mZ1-qLUSE4-7GwEqC-8aCsdj-7ZRFTU-qX6pSE-qLUSgP-5SRxc5-8FJXCK-2dSCuV-bUUaqf-6neeDc-73NTs6-c9gzi7-c9gyY3-c9gyk9-iGV3Rn-87zscr-c9gAjA

Used under Creativecommons license 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/

Why do older men go out with younger women?

Bodycrimes made this comment in reply on a post she wrote about Older men and Younger women:

“Except that women aren’t making that sacrifice at all. Women who are university educated are now the most likely to get married and have families. Professional and educated men do not marry uneducated women. The worst thing a woman who aspires to a middle class or above life could do is to fail to get an education and career.”

Are there studies that on the surface would seem to support what she said? Yes.

This study sited at the HuffingtonPost would be one that seems to confirm her opinion:

“According to a new study by NYU sociologists Paula England and Jonathan Bearak, prepared for the Council on Contemporary Families, college-educated women are now as likely to get married as their less-educated peers — even if the weddings happen in a somewhat older age range. These findings contradict the previously prevailing idea that women who pursued higher education were more likely to delay finding a mate past some stereotypical “marriageable age” while studying and building demanding careers.”

However as you dig deeper into the study, you note the disparity between races on this issue.

“In terms of race, the delayed marriage boost that college education produces is far more pronounced for black women than for white women. While “black women have lower odds of ever marrying than white women … getting a college education raises ultimate marriage rates by the 30s and 40s much more substantially for blacks than whites.” Black women who don’t complete high school are far less likely to get married than any other group.”

Because there is a complete breakdown of the nuclear family in the black community of the United States, where almost 70% of black children are born out of wedlock Black women need that extra education to give them that leg up. But in other racial groups, especially with whites, where the out of wedlock birth rate is more around 30%, a woman having a college education does not have as high an impact on her marriageability or getting into the middle class.

This study cited by the Huffington Post also shows that these same college educated women, while having a better chance of getting married (and as I pointed out this is more in the black community than in other racial communities) also marry much later.

What they don’t report is that these women who marry later in life often have a lot more fertility issues and this is one of the contributing factors to declining birth rates in most western nations (including the US).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/12/college-educated-women-and-marriage_n_1421792.html

But is a higher education all positive for women? Not really according to this study cited at Bloomberg.com:

“Women who have come out on top in the job market may not find similar success in the marriage market… Aversion to wives earning more than husbands could be leading to fewer weddings and more divorces, according to a National Bureau of Economic Research working paper… couples where a wife earns more are less satisfied with their marriage and are more likely to divorce”

http://go.bloomberg.com/political-capital/2013-05-15/higher-paid-women-less-married-more-divorced/

The higher educated a woman is, and the more she makes directly lessens her chances of getting married and even if she does get married her chances of divorce are much higher.

The study cited in the HuffingtonPost and the one at Bloomberg.com are not contradictory when you look at the racial factor. There is truly a marriage crisis in the Black community, to deny so would be to deny what every government and private study shows us. Does poverty have some affect? Yes. But even in other racial communities where poverty exists marriage rates are much higher than in lower income black areas.

If you remove the racial factor, for whites especially, a woman having a higher education makes her LESS likely to get married, and when she does get married she will have a much higher chance of divorce.

That may not sit well with my feminist and egalitarian friends, but it is the truth.