I recently made a commitment to myself.
Aherm...I don't mean I married myself in this manner :-)
Everyone who says TV is a waste of time is right.
In an increasingly TV-free state, I have time for other things.
And what's more, I can plan better what to do, and when.
And unlike watching TV, which dictates what programmes you watch (if one allows this), you can pick a movie once in a while and watch it online.
I had heard about the film 'Guess who's coming to dinner' a long time ago.
But strangely enough, I had never watched it.
I put that right, finally.
And to my surprise, this film is pure Manosphere Gold!
Honestly, it has so many lessons, I decided to dissect it with a Manosphere scalpel to see what I could find.
Well, to be completely honest, I watched this film already knowing the plot.
Black man meets white girl and wants to marry her in a short space of time.
Hilarity (um, being ironic) ensues at girl's home .
And (importantly for a woman, like me), love conquers all.
In other words, what you fellas would call 'emotional porn'.
Which is 'chick crack' to me :-)
But no!
Au contraire, this film is so much more than that!
At least my hamster says so :-)
The biggest take-away I got from this film was... how so differently men and women view the world.
And for me, the second biggest take-away is...how to be a good wife.
Which is relevant to me, and women my age.
There are two GREAT examples of wifehood in this film.
The two mothers here are exemplary in the way they deal with their husbands in this stressful period.
In this way, this film is somewhat of a 'wife manual' even though it is not intended to be.
But then again, the film was shot in 1967.
Good wives were ten a penny, I think.
Another reason to boycott modern TV and films. The correct 'guides' for us ladies of today are just plain missing in the modern works of Hollywood.
With very few exceptions, a modern day lass who wants to have anything resembling a fulfilling life as a wife would do well to stay away from planet Hollywood and all its produce...
Anyhow, without further ado, for those who have never seen this film, here is a brief summary (with a little detour into politics):
In this film review, I am not so much interested in the racial aspect, although I accept that it is impossible to ignore this component as it is indeed the whole point of the film!
But my perspective is thus:
A white man, albeit 'liberal' is struggling to come to terms with his daughter (23 years old, and in this case she might as well be 15 - this girl is so naïve even I am worried for her :-) meeting and wanting to marry a man she hardly knows. She met him 10 days ago. And she has decided she wants to marry him come what may.
The fact that he is a kind, mature, top doctor who is handsome and quietly confident to boot is one mitigating factor, but the elephant in the room is glaringly obvious - he is black. And in 1967, it wasn't a 'smart' move for a woman in Joanna Drayton's position (i.e. white) to be in.
So Dad is concerned. And especially so as he is being forced to take a decision in a hurry. First it was 24 hours' notice, then this gets whittled down to 4 hours.
He's thinking: "This is not fair and somebody's got to pay for this!"
As his good friend Monsignor Ryan points out to him, he is being made to face his true self. He is well-known as a liberal pro-civil rights kind of guy, and who (as his wife Christina also reminds him) has raised his daughter to see all people as equal, something she literally does when she brings home a black man :-)
The father of Dr. Prentice is equally concerned and ticked off! Here he is, a black man suffering in the era of apartheid, who produces a son who gets to be a doctor at the World Health Organisation headquarters in Geneva.
The last thing he wants to see is his son slapping him in the face figuratively speaking, by marrying a white woman. "How dare he do this to me?", he is thinking.
"I made sacrifices for him, and so did his mother (she refused to buy herself a new coat and would rather wear a worn tattered coat) just so that he could get an education.
And how does he repay us?
He gets with a white girl..."
The mothers have a totally different take on this situation as one would expect.
After the initial shock (in the video above one can see Mrs. Drayton's - interesting trivia that Christina and Joanna Drayton are played by real-life aunt and niece Katharine Hepburn and Katharine Houghton), they are quick to get behind their respective children, as I would expect.
But...apart from one act of defiance by Mrs. Drayton, both mothers take a very dignified path to 'converting' their husbands to the enlightened path of 'lurrrve'.
In this regard, I think...Mrs. Prentice for the win. She gets round Mr. Drayton in an unbelievably (if not a bit 'manipulative') way. Insinuating that Mr. Drayton couldn't remember his own distant past days of youthful passion was perhaps a bit below the belt, so to speak, but it was the comment that he took the most offence at, and which pushed him to make that fine speech he did at the end of the film :-)
"I may not be a young stud anymore. But don't ever tell me I can't remember what it was like..."
I paraphrase here, but I am guessing this is what is going through his mind...
His wife Christina, meanwhile, took the path of least resistance. She just got the old priest (watered down with suitable amounts of whisky no less) to do her dirty work for her.
Classic :-)
Other than the display of clever wifely intervention, I was impressed by what I see as evidence that Manosphere mentality is unbelievably accurate, in this film.
1. When Dr. Prentice calls his father to tell him about the fabulous new girl he met, his father only wants to know...
1. her age, and is suitably impressed with his son that she is 23 (he is 37) - I have isses with this age gap, but then again, I would...I am a little over the age of 23 (aherm!) and ...
2. Is she hot? (Um, I mean...is she pretty?)
John Prentice's father is an upstanding citizen who is at least 60 years old. And all he wants to know about his future daughter-in-law (in the interests of his son's happiness) is ...is she young and pretty.
That should tell me something.
And it did.
Lesson learned.
In many ways, this little point reminds me of a scene in Eddie Murphy's 'Coming to America', another film noted for its hilarity if not for its false premises about the world we live in:-)
Moving on...
I was generally fascinated (but not surprised) by Tilly the black housekeeper's reaction to John.
Now, as background, it is noteworthy to point out that she joined the Drayton household the year before Joanna was born. This means, she would have had a huge part to play in Joanna's upbringing. Joanna would be like a daughter to her.
So any man would be 'the enemy' as far as she was concerned, with respect to Joanna's future happiness.
In addition, she was most likely living proof that life was hard for a black person. So she would not have wanted Joanna, by association with John (or her children by virtue of being half black) to suffer this fate. So even though she was black herself, her maternal instincts for Joanna would have overidden any kind of solidarity she could have had with John.
There was also the possiblility of a kind of 'Stockholm syndrome' that was commonly displayed by black slaves and servants in America's slave trade history, that is perhaps too complicated to go into in an already long post, but which I am sure was a particular ailment of Tilly's.
This would explain the scenes 0:16:25 - 0:16:47 and 0:55:16 - 0:56:20 in the video below.
And to cap it all, she makes the common (female) mistake of projecting: "And you are not even that goodlooking!"
No Tilly, you got it wrong! Even if John had not been handsome, (and erm...dear God he was :-) good looks alone would not have been what drew Joanna to him...
His medical degrees and the confidence arising thereof may have something to do with it though...
The Manosphere for the win, for drumming this point home to both men and women. It certainly removes a lot of stress from the dating game once this simple principle is understood, I think.
Now, the next point I make is perhaps a little unfair...
But this point actually confuses me a little.
I was stunned by Joanna's naïvety. I think even shocked may be the better word to describe it.
On the one hand, whilst I expected a 23 year old woman from 1967 to be somewhat naïve, what surprised me was her seemingly exaggerated child-like and woefully immature state.
Is this a true picture of 1967?
Can the older readers among us confirm this?
This is a sticking point for me. Sure, 23 is young, by today's standards, for marriage.
But in 1967, she was practically an old maid by that age :-)
And yet, I feel Joanna was not a good candidate for marriage. At least not yet.
She had to be 'led' in everything.
Note that her lack of intimacy with John was because of John's restraint, for example, something which her mother, I am sure, particularly liked John for.
She was 'hard work' in the same way a child is.
She saw nothing 'wrong' in inviting John's parents over to dinner even though John himself was reluctant about this (with good reason).
She thought nothing of drastically reducing her 'thinking time' over her impending marriage by deciding to fly out to Geneva with John the same night rather than waiting the previously agreed-upon 2 weeks.
She thought her kids would all end up President of the US, as John informed her father.
In other words, Joanna was really a child still.
And she was lucky to have met John who was mature and confident.
But by jolly, he would have had a hard task 'saving her from herself' their whole married life until she matured a bit...
I think as time went on in the course of this one day in the film, John was beginning to see what he was walking into :-)
Mr. Drayton's speech (from around 1:34:00 to the end) is pure Mansophere mantra.
His reference to his wife's 'lack of reason' stemming from her romantic notions made me chuckle...
Where oh where had I heard that before...
:-)
The full film is below. Well worth a viewing if you have a couple of hours to kill...
54 comments:
Here's a good Manosphere film at a Manosphere point:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sR97_tCve08&feature=player_detailpage#t=120s
Hi, ST,
It is interesting, your take on this. I know the movie, of course, but I haven't thought of it in manosphere terms. I have thought of it traditionally from a civil rights history perspective.
The movie came out the same year Loving v. Virginia was decided, 1967, the case that overturned laws against mixed race marriages in the US. I don't know which came first, the movie or the decision.
The irony, I have found, is that in thinking about it from a women's history perspective, is that the Loving case involved a black woman married to a white man who faced discrimination on those grounds. Yet, in terms of interracial marriages among blacks and whites, the mainstream model is of the Guess Who's Coming to Dinner tale, black male, white female.
You might have mentioned it, but a number of years ago Guess Who (?) came out, a remake of the movie but involving a black woman, Zoe Saldana (black Latina) and Ashton Kutcher. This version was more comedic than this more serious-minded presentation.
typo:
That version was more comedic than this more serious-minded presentation.
Great example Carnivore!
@ ST
Lol, this movie shows some great manosphere perspectives on men,women and marriage.
Yes, Joanna is naive and enthusiastic. Her lack of sexual restraint toward John is the zeal of a woman in love. And shows the romantic nature of a young woman's sense of "invincibility". Ah the innocence of youth, lol. John's restraint showed a man with character and maturity in love.
Still, John has a lot of social power, ambition, prestige, money and backbone. It wont protect her from all of the social backlash, but it will buffer it to a certain degree.
Is someone like Joanne too young to marry? This depends. I used to think that a worldlier or even wiser mentality would be a good thing for a woman to possess before marrying. I've changed my mind on that to a certain degree. If anything, I'm beginning to think that it might be a hinderance.
I have female relatives who were far more girlish marry young and they have great marriages. Perhaps because they weren't set in their ways and grew into their marriages. Perhaps because they've never learned to be wary and hold back. But this requires a strong capable husband who is inspired to be loving, patient, protective and even firm. Otherwise..... no. The uncomfortable truth lost to most men is that marrying someone so sheltered and innocent would require fatherly and husbandly traits in the first year. And such truths have been lost because such sheltered innocence of women has been, for the most part, lost too.
Haven't seen that movie and it was never on my list of movies to watch but I may have to reconsider it.
The black man is Sidney Poitier, possibly the biggest name black actor from that time, except for maybe Sammy Davis Jr.
The mother in law is Katherine Hepburn.
Being able to pick and choose what you watch allows you to choose only those movies that are worth the time, instead of mindless fluff.
The movie industry really went down hill after the 80s and I can't think of a movie beyond 2000 worth watching.
- Tom White
@ Carnivore,
Great film! I need to see it in full :-)
But I took a shortcut and read the plot on Wikipedia.
'Cos I couldn't understand why the woman seemed pleased that her husband had punched her brother! And therefore was going to reward him with dinner on the table when he got home.
Then I read that it was actually she who wanted her husband to demand that dowry from her brother to protect her honour (because afterall it was considered a bit of a disgrace to marry without a dowry). Neither she nor her husband cared about the money - it was purely that she wanted him to 'fight' for her.
This is natural enough! As a woman I completely understand why she did this. And kudos to him for doing this very important thing for her (and I bet he enjoyed punching her brother too lol - from the summary I read, he seemed a nasty character anyway).
And yes, his alpha moment was quickly followed by her complete submission in the form of a public declaration of a reward for him.
In this film, due to decency, it was food...
Another film may well have chosen any of the other 4 Fs...
Yes, we all know which one :-)
@ PVW,
I hadn't heard of the Loving case - thank you for citing it. What a wonderful, dignified couple they were. So sorry to see he died only a few years after this ruling.
Yes I have seen the other movie with Ashton Kutcher and Zoe Saldana. Yes it was definitely funnier than Poitier's version :-)
All the cheesy racial stereotypes were explored to the max lol.
And in this film too (if I remember correctly), the mother was also on the side of the daughter and her boyfriend, and poor Dad was on his own :-)
It's universal, isn't it? Don't mess with the daughter of any Daddy...
I am sure these fathers would have been this way against ANY man, but the fact that they were men of a different race just provided the perfect excuse. In the case of Simon in the film 'Guess who' he was also unemployed, something which was NOT going to endear him to Theresa's father...
:-)
JV,
"Is someone like Joanne too young to marry?"
I had a lot of trouble with this one, JV! This is why I declare that my criticism of Joanna may be a little 'unfair'.
Afterall, her life up to that point was being firmly under the protection of Mum and Dad. She would have had zero opportunity to become 'wordly', so how could I possibly fault her for being the way she was?
I think I agree with you that she is perhaps the perfect wife afterall!
But as you say, for the most of masculine and mature men, as John was. (She wasn't so stupid, was she? She picked the best possible man! And she was astute enough to see beyond his race - so 'thumbs up' to her for that).
"The uncomfortable truth lost to most men is that marrying someone so sheltered and innocent would require fatherly and husbandly traits in the first year."
Hahaha, well said, JV. Although I think in Joanna's case, it would have taken ten years, lol.
I know that many young women of ages past married at much earlier ages than Joanna and did grow into their marriages quite well. But it means they had quite a hard time adjusting to life without Daddy there holding their hands. Also, no matter how loving a man may be, he is still your husband, and not your father, so he cannot be expected to have the same tendernes and love for you that your own father would. This would be an unfair expectation, I think. This husband would need to become a father to his own children first, before he can be expected to know what it is to be a father. I think the same goes for a man expecting his wife to 'mother' him. Unless she is actually a mother, she may not know how to be a mother.
Joanna was at one extreme of the naïvety scale. There are also women who are at the other extreme and have been through the 'hard knocks' of life and are also therefore unsuitable as marriage partners because of this. The classic example is the old Manosphere favourite of the 'former carousel riders'.
And to be honest, if I were a man I would probably choose Joanna over this other type of woman, despite the hard work it would take to navigate Joanna through life :-)
But I guess the best one of all is a happy medium in there somewhere...
"And such truths have been lost because such sheltered innocence of women has been, for the most part, lost too."
And now JV, you tickle my curiosity once again.
Are you implying that a man who is presented with this degree of naïvety by a (girlish) woman will respond in a fatherly manner towards her?
Now I am curious as to what the men think!
Do you all believe that John was so mature and alsmost fatherly towards Joanna because of her extreme naïvety?
Is this another case of 'men are reactive' that I keep going on about?
It would make sense of course, if this were the case. I just don't know if this is indeed the case here.
Thank you for bringing this little nugget to the fore, JV. Interesting angle...
@ Tom White,
Welcome to The Sanctuary Tom!
I am glad you would consider watching this film! I really enjoyed it. And now, I shall also watch again the 2005 version, 'Guess who', thanks to PVW.
I totally agree with you that films from Hollywood these days (with only a few exceptions) are utterly useless. I shall keep watching the old classics because they are much better entertainment.
The same applies to the music industry. Every year, lyrics get worse and worse, vidoes get more and more explicit. The elegance is gone forever. What a crying shame.
@JV: "I used to think that a worldlier or even wiser mentality would be a good thing for a woman to possess before marrying. I've changed my mind on that to a certain degree. If anything, I'm beginning to think that it might be a hinderance. I have female relatives who were far more girlish marry young and they have great marriages. Perhaps because they weren't set in their ways and grew into their marriages. Perhaps because they've never learned to be wary and hold back. But this requires a strong capable husband who is inspired to be loving, patient, protective and even firm. Otherwise..... no. The uncomfortable truth lost to most men is that marrying someone so sheltered and innocent would require fatherly and husbandly traits in the first year. And such truths have been lost because such sheltered innocence of women has been, for the most part, lost too."
Me: This is an interesting take, and it is important to note that the feminist movement pushed to reject that type of marital ideal, because it was presumed to leave women too vulnerable.
The most successful marriages I have seen have not involved women who married at any particular age.
Instead, what was at stake was the extent to which they had lots of experience with men that left them jaded before marriage. Others were not happily married because of experiences in their marriages that left them jaded.
Regarding the successful ones going in, it didn't matter how old they were when they married, numbers of them had been successful in school and work. These were women who married in their 20s or 30s.
But the commonality among them is that they were enthusiastic about their relationships with the men who became their husbands. They felt cared for, respected, etc., and have had no reason to feel otherwise in all the years since then.
PVW,
"Instead, what was at stake was the extent to which they had lots of experience with men that left them jaded before marriage."
Great point PVW.
In other words 'depleted their hourglass device' as described in the post about 'lovable rogues'.
So true.
"But the commonality among them is that they were enthusiastic about their relationships with the men who became their husbands."
In other words, these women were not 'reluctant brides'.
The very worst thing a man can do is marry a reluctant bride.
ST:
In other words, these women were not 'reluctant brides'.
Me: Not reluctant brides, but suspicious, distrustful brides with their guards up eternally, suspicious, looking for the angles.
The same goes for suspicious husbands, who go into their marriages with similar types of attitudes where there has been no basis for distrust, ie., nothing in the woman's history points to any cause for suspicion.
Each brings with it a combative attitude towards the spouse.
It would seem to me that the most traditionalist of men who want submissive wives would want that type of dynamic found in Guess Who is Coming to Dinner, he would want to be the one who has to "raise her" so-to-speak, in transitioning from daughter at home to wife in the household.
She is submissive and respects him because her very youth and having grown up in a partriarchal household.
If anything, I have seen manosphere observations about this. Men in that age range (35 and up) wish they could find the attractive sweet 24 year old, but they believe current societal perspectives (and even the young women themselves) frown on it.
So they believe they are left with the older carousel riders or young carousel riders who are not serious minded about marriage.
@ PVW,
Yup. Agreed!
"...older carousel riders or young carousel riders..."
Dear Lord. This is one reason I feel incredibly sorry for the upstanding marriage-minded men in today's SMP.
If they believe these are the only two choices available to them, then I understand why so many of them are GTOW.
I can't stay it's an appealing task to pick between these two choices of woman.
I think the only way to circumvent this awful situation is to be confident in one's mind that there are better women out there than this. Sure, they are NOT going to be easy to find, but they exist.
But, alas I waste my breath.
For men don't listen to women :-)
And in may ways, perhaps they shouldn't.
So I keep silent on this matter.
"If anything, I have seen manosphere observations about this. Men in that age range (35 and up) wish they could find the attractive sweet 24 year old, but they believe current societal perspectives (and even the young women themselves) frown on it."
Yes. How unfortunate!
Although I daresay, there are young and 'naïve' women in that age group out there. Their naïvety just doesn't approach the levels of Joanna!
But there's a problem...Maybe because there aren't enough John Prentices out there to protect them in the way their Daddies would have, these girls fall prey to men who ruin them before nice Mr. Marriage-minded Man gets to them. And then of course it's all too late by then...
It's a familiar story, this.
And one can't really blame men for this awful state of affairs.
Until a woman is mature enough to take over the reins of her own life, her parents should be in charge. This is the task of parenthood. Especially fatherhood.
This is a reason I don't blame any of the fathers (of the daughters, especially) in the 'Guess who' films. They are looking out for their offspring. They are in charge. Let them do what God decreed them to do.
And any woman who denies or blocks the parental involvement of her child's father is committing a grave sin against both him and the child. Because she leaves that child open to vulnerability and possibly abuse. A father offers a child a certain protection that I think a mother alone is JUST not capable of. In many ways, her role as nurturer in the early years of life should be over past the teens. That's when fatherhood REALLY comes into its own - when the child is older. Both girls and boys REALLY need Dad at this stage.
I would like to think that both the mothers in the Sidney Poitier version would have accepted their husbands' leadership if they had said 'no' to the marriage.
I hold onto that belief because I think it is important in light of what I say above.
@ ST
Do men who encounter women like Joanna become protective or fatherly?
You always ask the tough questions, lol.
I'll tell you what I've been told. Some of my observations. And then where I'm conflicted.
My father straight out told me that this was the case, though virginity was the deciding factor in his long term relationships and his marriage with my mother.
In my own case,I was a virgin when my husband met me.
In high school, one of my boyfriends was a rather wild alpha type. (If you've ever seen Rollo's video of Corey, you'll get the idea.) We were together for 6 month's, but early on when he found out that I was still a virgin, he was respectful of it. It's why I can understand Joanna's naive enthusiasm. In my case, like John, he was the one who put on the brakes.
Similar stories for female relatives who married alpha types. Interestingly, NOT the case for those who married betas or had beta boyfriends. Disasterous heart break, loss of virginity and broken relationships where they were not protected during the relationship.
So, I'm conflicted. On one hand, I would say there's a basis for this theory. On the other hand, how to reconcile this with the stories of frat boy types going through virginal girls with out a second thought. Or for that matter, the mythos of the good and grateful beta who only wishes he could get such a woman and would protect her at all costs.
Yes,I'm conflicted.
Male input required, lol.
@ST and JV…
My natural inclination would be one of protection should I meet a naïve young woman as the one in this movie. However, there are two conundrums with this.
One is life does not happen in a vacuum. A woman such as the heroine in the movie would bring out those same protective instincts in nearly every other man in her social circle, not just me.
One would have to fend off other males wanting to protect her too. Not to mention the players who see her as an ‘opportunity’. Not to mention women who believe all men are bums and try to protect her from getting involved with this noble and honorable man.
That’s a lot of work and a lot of unpleasant situations to navigate. Once established as a couple, I suppose the frequency of them would fade over time (more than 10 days time I might add).
But she had better damn well be worth it.
I have not seen the movie. Does it conveniently side step this? She’s pretty – does she not have any good white men interested in her? How did such a mild mannered and gentlemanly Sidney Poitier fend off his rivals for her affections? Or does the movie start on day 11 of their relationship when she brings him home?
The second conundrum is wondering if she is for real. Women know very well that a helpless, naïve display will draw men in like a magnet. I have been a sucker for this myself on more than one occasion.
Grasshopper
@Grasshopper: She’s pretty – does she not have any good white men interested in her? How did such a mild mannered and gentlemanly Sidney Poitier fend off his rivals for her affections? Or does the movie start on day 11 of their relationship when she brings him home?
Me: It starts at the time she brings them home, there is no indication of what happened prior.
@Grasshopper: The second conundrum is wondering if she is for real. Women know very well that a helpless, naïve display will draw men in like a magnet
Me: Here is the thing, I look at that movie in light of its time period; it was not unusual for movies of its time to present young women in that very fashion.
So for a person looking at the movie from our perspective of 45 years later, it is unusual and surprising, "unreal," because that is not the current tendency in filmmaking.
_____
Further thoughts, as for the racial aspects, I look at it from a different perspective; this type of movie is very much about how black men were seen in society at that time, and what would be the social and cultural position regarding black men like the doctor (middle class, professional, assimilated) in an integrating world.
Is it really about her, or is it about him and how others saw him?
In 1967, the US was not that far away from the Emmet Till story (late 1950s), or the Scottsboro boys (19302), the civil rights movement had been taking place for some time, and the move was to reflect a changing perception of African American men.
See for example, another story from that year, Dean Rusk, Secretary of State under Kennedy and Johnson, from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Rusk
"Rusk offered or planned to offer to resign in the summer of 1967, because "his daughter planned to marry a black classmate at Stanford University, and he could not impose such a political burden on the president" after it became known that his daughter, Peggy, planned to marry Guy Smith,[14] "a black Georgetown grad working at NASA. (Johnson didn't accept it.)"[15] In fact, the Richmond News Leader stated that it found the wedding offensive, further saying that "anything which diminishes [Rusk's] personal acceptability is an affair of state".[1] He decided not to resign after talking first to Robert S. McNamara and Lyndon Johnson.[16]
A year after his daughter's wedding, Rusk was invited to join the faculty of the University of Georgia Law School, only to have his appointment denounced by Roy Harris, an ally of Governor George Wallace and a member of the university's board of regents, who stated that his opposition was because of Peggy Rusk's interracial marriage. The university nonetheless appointed Rusk to the position.[14]"
Hmnn, helpless? Now you've got me wondering how much of Joanna's naiveness and helplessness are our own projections.
If her character peppered her dialogue with occasional swearing, attitude, and cynical wit, would we find her quite so naive and childlike. Or simply determined and a bit optimistic.
JV:
Now you've got me wondering how much of Joanna's naiveness and helplessness are our own projections.
Me: I agree, it is about our projections, because we are looking at it from a manosphere lens which is if anything, anachronistic for the movie of its time.
The naivete in her presentation, her dating experience prior to him or with him, was, if anything, irrelevant.
The closest "art imitates life story" would have been the Dean Rusk one; apparently his daughter was 18 when she married a 22 year old classmate.
They made the front cover of Time magazine; the stories I read about them didn't seem to question that aspect. She met a classmate under normal circumstances, in school, just as she might have met white men to date; she merely met one who was black.
Naive? Not seen that way, but perfectly appropriate for its time, for an 18 year old to marry a 22 year old classmate at Stanford who was working for NASA.
@ PVW
Agreed. It also shows how our views have changed about age and marriage.
I think that your real life analogy is a good one. It would have been perfectly appropriate for an 18 year old woman to marry a 22 year old classmate. And celebrated in that her husband was accomplished and heading for a bright future working for NASA. The only question that would have been raised would have been about race.
Joanna, at 23 would have been considered a bit old to be single. Comparable perhaps to how we view virginity in the secular arena in modern times.
@JV:
perfectly appropriate for an 18 year old woman to marry a 22 year old classmate. And celebrated in that her husband was accomplished and heading for a bright future working for NASA. The only question that would have been raised would have been about race.
Me: Exactly, and that is what her dad got such flack for her marriage! This young man was ideal in all respects, his race made the difference.
And also, I can't forget a current I have seen in the manosphere, resentment of alpha bad boy black male types running off with the best of young white women during their carousel days or otherwise, to the chagrin of more "beta" types who watch from the sidelines.
If anything, a good guy type beta man, black or otherwise, could easily obtain alpha dominance then. There wasn't any perceived shortage of "good girls," there was plenty of them to go around!
@ JV,
I have no doubt as well, that a man who is out to just have a 'good' time will hesitate if he knows a woman is a virgin.
I am reminded of a scene from the film 'American beauty' where the friend of Kevin Spacey's daughter suddenly interrupts him in his seduction of her and declares herself a virgin (she wasn't!). That stopped him in his tracks. Now, of course he was a mature man, a father...he didn't want to hurt a 'good girl'.
A young man might find it harder to do this, but your example of the alpha boyfriend illustrates that this is possible :-)
But virginity aside, Grasshopper implies that men will indeed be protective of a helpless and naïve young woman. Helen Andelin knew this too, apparently, lol.
Grasshopper,
I know PVW already answered your questions about Joanna Drayton, but I just wanted to add that although we know nothing of her past history with men, the audience are definitely given the distinct impression that she really IS that naïve. She is almost like a young puppy!
So yes, she is 'for real' as you put it.
But you bring forth an important disadvantage to Joanna, which is that, yes, she might well be 'flighty' in her affections. John had no competition for her affections in the film, but I wonder with her naïvety whether she may well have been the type to 'follow her feelings'...
Even her mother was surprised at how quickly she had fallen in love with John.
So yes, John would have had to 'cross that bridge' when he arrived at it', so to speak. If down the line, Joanna became smitten with a colleague of his (perhaps a white man?) he would have to be at his most alpha to keep her all to himself, or he would have to game her hard...
Definitely a lot of work...but on reflection, I think she seems worth it.
@ PVW,
So Rusk was for his daughter's marriage?
Interesting! I imagine any father would be superlatively nervous marrying his daughter off at 18...
especially in this case as he knew that the groom would not be to everyone's liking...
@ST:
@ PVW,
So Rusk was for his daughter's marriage?
Interesting! I imagine any father would be superlatively nervous marrying his daughter off at 18...
especially in this case as he knew that the groom would not be to everyone's liking...
Me: But again, in that period, they had a different perspective, not so unusual compared to now.
Check the median first age of marriage in the US:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005061.html
1950-1970, for women, app. 20 years of age; for young men, 22-23 years of age.
2010, 28 for young men, 26 for young women.
Yes, it would have been easier for beta and alpha types with such an abundance of good girls.
Which brings up a conundrum that I haven't been able sort out. Women were a lot more feminine and men more masculine. I think that the alpha beta divide was a lot smaller. And the further back in time that I go, the harder it is for me to divide the two. (Except in extreme examples) In part, because men were more masculine. In part, because narcsisim seems to be the halmark of alpha these days
Carnivore provided a pretty good clip of alpha. In fact, any John Wayne movie is alpha on legs. For that matter, a lot of Spencer Tracy movies are sparkling with alpha dialogue and body language. (The movie Without Love comes to mind. The short clips on you tube are too P.C. Try to watch the movie if you can.) Yet, in both examples of alpha, character shines through. Not cadism or narcissism.
Men and women have both lost something along the way. I don't think that it's just about watered down femininity or masculinity. We've lost something in the quality of our substance.
You want absolutely pure Manosphere 24K gold, try, The Big Country with Greg Peck and Jean Simmons. My favorite non-John Wayne Western and one of the best Westerns ever, IMO. Greg reeks of alpha sauce. Carroll Baker plays the hypergamous bitch to a t. Also has a collection of white knights. It's on youtube in parts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5I8pPettEI
@PVW…
Thank you for providing details on the movie.
I’m glad you mentioned Emmit Till. That is who I was thinking about as I wondered how Sidney Poitier fended off his rivals. In that era if a black man could be murdered for allegedly just whistling at a white girl…
Now a days I would guess almost everyone knows at least one inter racial couple and I suspect most people have dated across racial lines themselves at some time in their lives.
@ST… “…I think she seems worth it…”
I’m undecided. I can see her naivety being a liability at times and something very enjoyable at other times.
Grasshopper
Looks like the version in multiple parts is not complete. Here it is in one piece.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSs3ePozAcM
Also amazing is the emotion conveyed only by looks, without dialogue, in certain scenes. Of course, at that time actors still knew how to act.
@ JV,
"I don't think that it's just about watered down femininity or masculinity."
Isn't it? I thought this was the crux of the problem...
@ PVW,
How interesting that the average age at marriage of women was higher in 1890 than in 1960! Sure, it may simply to do with the law of averages, but still...
@ Carnivore and JV,
Thanks for your movie suggestions! I shall watch them with pleasure. I do like old films. OK, most have been romantic types, like 'Seven brides for seven brothers', and 'The inn of the sixth happiness'...but they really contain good plots, and yes, great acting and lots of alphadom by men, lots of feminine grace by women.
Grasshopper,
I get your indecision :-)
You want to eat your cake and have it :-) which is normal.
But at the end of the day, the choice is as stark as this:
Would you rather the painful work it might take to navigate a 'Joanna' through married life (peppered with your enjoyment and perhaps amusement at her naïvety), or would you rather have the cynicism that comes with someone who is her opposite but who nonetheless might be easier to live with because she knows the world better?
The other complication is of course that there are fewer Joannas than ever...so this choice is not even yours to make, unfortunately :-(
PVW is absolutely right that we are shocked at Joanna's naïvety (at least I was when I saw this film) because we are watching it 45 years later when types like her don't exist in great numbers any more. But I am sure that in 1967, this was the norm for a woman her age...
And now I have decided that this is perhaps an appropriate mindset for a 23 year old afterall!
Times have certainly changed, ain't they, Grasshopper?
@ST… Yes the times have certainly changed.
“…Would you rather the painful work it might take to navigate…”
The former of course. And I agree Joanna types are rare finds these days.
Ideally though, I’d want her to be a ‘Joanna’ in relating to me – but a ‘Janeane Garolfolo’ tough cookie in dealing with the outside world.
All in the same woman. ; - )
Grasshopper
@ Carnivore
I'll check out the movie tonight.
@ ST
Watered down masculinity and femininity are a big part of the problem, but only part of. We've lost substance along the way.
Joanna as a fictional character doesn't show this quality.
It's more than mannerisms. It's a resilliecy, dignity and honor that's missing today. Something core that's developed like a muscle. Something that both men and women possessed. I rarely see it these days, though growing up, many of the older generations still possessed it.
(Bear with me, I'm trying to describe something that I lack the proper vocabulary for)
Noble spirit tempered with competence,resilliency,dignity courage and sense. Whether in a drawing room, or a shack, or whatever life's circumstances threw at them.
The men posessing such traits might not go looking for trouble, but they didn't back down from it.
The women possessing it, kind with a strong core. Steel magnolias.
Again, I lack the right words to describe what I'm trying to convey.
Masculinity doesn't require character or honor to be alpha.
Femininity does not require resilliency inner courage, charity or sense to be a lady.
You can still have very masculine men and very feminine women whose fiat is mannerisims, charm and charisma. Even cruelty.
But they lack substance.
"Ideally though, I’d want her to be a ‘Joanna’ in relating to me – but a ‘Janeane Garolfolo’ tough cookie in dealing with the outside world."
Hahahahaha, Grasshopper!
And I want a man with the looks of Tom Cruise, the confidence of James Bond and the morality of the Dalai Lama...
Where is he, this man?
Hahahahaha!
@ JV,
I think I get what you mean now...
It's a certain 'Je ne sais quoi' which is missing.
That which has no name :-)
@ JV & ST
Then she added a prophecy in which she foretold the approaching end of the divine age and
the coming of a new one, in which the summers would be flowerless, the cows milkless and
women shameless and men strengthless, in which there would be trees without fruit and seas
without fish, when old men would give false judgments and legislators would make unjust
laws, when warriors would betray one another and men would be thieves and there would be
no more virtue in the world. (Babd, Queen of the Tuatha de Danaan)
Sounds familiar? ;-) From at least three millenia ago...
@ ST
YES!
@ Metak
A prophesy that sends shivers up the spine.
I'd heard it as a child. Though my ancestors were Scottish on my mother's side, not Irish.
I'd heard that it was made after winning a bloody war. But didn't know who had made the prophesy.
@ Metak,
Isn't that a biblical quote? It sure sounds familiar, yes :-)
@ Carnivore,
Thanks for that film! I have now watched it, and thoroughly enjoyed it.
The part that really sticks out for me is the confrontation of the two women, when Pat says to Julie: "If he loved me, why would he let me think he was a coward?" And Julie replied, "If you loved him, why would you think it?"
From that point onwards, I was so rooting for Julie to get Jim :-)
She certainly was more deserving of him than Pat, who was only concerned about appearances...
Great film! Thanks!
JV, what's your verdict?
@ST: PVW is absolutely right that we are shocked at Joanna's naïvety (at least I was when I saw this film) because we are watching it 45 years later when types like her don't exist in great numbers any more. But I am sure that in 1967, this was the norm for a woman her age...
And now I have decided that this is perhaps an appropriate mindset for a 23 year old afterall!
Me: Not only is it a matter of there being more young women like Joanna back then, but more people in society expected it.
I look at it this way, popular culture either reflects the reality of target audience or it reflects the reality of the people doing the program, or what those doing the programming think the reality should be.
But today, the mainstream cultural elites see the world differently.
Joannas are out in the world with only themselves to rely upon, and outside of the most traditional families (ie., your South Asian friends in school), we expect it. Joannas of today can't afford to be naive.
So they are on their own to navigate some crazy obstacle courses.
I can only imagine a naive type of Joanna under the protection of her family or a husband. Or if she is absolutely on her own, she should be living a very conservative lifestyle and in a community that is safe, where she is protected--her friends and acquaintances should be upstanding men and women. Otherwise, she would be in serious trouble.
@ST
I like JV's style. ;-) She was saying that we've lost something.. substance.. and I wanted to point out that ancient myths and legends repeatedly emphasize that men fell from a state of spiritual, mental, and moral perfection. We discuss about masculinity and femininity while not knowing who we are and how we became what we're today... we're so caught up in gender experience that it's not even funny any more... fail ;-)
Man is perfect at his origin, a divine being who has degenerated into what we are - R. A. Schwaller de Lubicz
Don't mind me... Nurse will bring me my medications any time now... ;-)
@ PVW,
"Not only is it a matter of there being more young women like Joanna back then, but more people in society expected it."
Agreed. Society gets what society wishes for.
Metak,
"Don't mind me... Nurse will bring me my medications any time now... ;-)"
Hahahahaha!
Closely followed by the men in white coats...
Hahahahahaha!
JV-
"My father straight out told me that this was the case, though virginity was the deciding factor in his long term relationships and his marriage with my mother.
In my own case,I was a virgin when my husband met me.
In high school, one of my boyfriends was a rather wild alpha type. (If you've ever seen Rollo's video of Corey, you'll get the idea.) We were together for 6 month's, but early on when he found out that I was still a virgin, he was respectful of it. It's why I can understand Joanna's naive enthusiasm. In my case, like John, he was the one who put on the brakes.
Similar stories for female relatives who married alpha types. Interestingly, NOT the case for those who married betas or had beta boyfriends. Disasterous heart break, loss of virginity and broken relationships where they were not protected during the relationship.
So, I'm conflicted. On one hand, I would say there's a basis for this theory. On the other hand, how to reconcile this with the stories of frat boy types going through virginal girls with out a second thought. Or for that matter, the mythos of the good and grateful beta who only wishes he could get such a woman and would protect her at all costs.
Yes,I'm conflicted.
Male input required, lol."
when i was younger, i didn't care. most of the girls i was messing with back then WANTED to lose their virginity.
when i was 20 i met an slamming indian chick who just happened to be a virgin. banged her, went to cube for 3 months, by the tmie i can back from cuba she had chosen the carousel.
now, IF i run into a virgin and i wasn't relationsahip minded with her, i'd repsect her virginity if she decided she didn't want to have sex.
make sense? i recently posted about partner count, but can't link it. read and see what you think.
you're welcome.
kisses.
Danny,
I know you are speaking directly to JV here, but I have a question:
"now, IF i run into a virgin and i wasn't relationsahip minded with her, i'd repsect her virginity if she decided she didn't want to have sex."
What if you were relationship-minded with her? Would you be able to do this?
The reason I ask this is, afterall, it's easy to move on from a girl you have no longterm interest in, no?
And as you may remember, one of the complaints a certain Catholic young lady (who shall remain nameless) had about men in general was that they would not accept a period of celibacy with the good girls because they were so used to the easy sex they can get from 'the bad girls'.
Nevermind that she was 'demanding' something which really ought to be earned.
Now...I happen to think she is actualy wrong about men on this. (I happen to also believe that a lot of men would prefer a pleasant slut to an unpleasant virgin, which is why I always say that virginity in of itself is not enough - which seems like I am being extra hard on my own gender and maybe even misogynistic, but I think I am right to stick to my guns here).
Anyhow, I just wanted your opinion on this, and any other man's for that matter.
Will you be so protective of a woman's virginity/naïvety/girlishness if you were interested in her as a longterm prospect? Even if it meant extra hard work on your part?
(I imagine that being celibate with a woman you love can't be easy...)
If so, is there anything the woman can do to help you stick with this plan?
Or is it all down to you and there is nothing she can do to help you?
We laydeez are all ears, gentlemen :-)
i would absolutely stay with her if i were relationship minded. however, i would not MARRY her unless i've had sex with her. this is simply to figure out whether or not we are sexually compatible.
"If so, is there anything the woman can do to help you stick with this plan?"
yes. blowjobs.
don't look at me like that, you asked.
Danny,
Thank you for your answer. I really appreciate it.
However, I blame myself for the second part, lol. I asked for that, I guess :-)
Walked straight into that one!
Seriously though, is that your final answer?
I really really hope that the other men here have a different take on this. This is an important question, methinks...
We ladies know how hard it is for you guys. And we want to know how to help you maintain *some* chastity (if you so wish of course). Because, ultimately, (and I am sorry for stating the blatantly obvious!), a woman cannot be chaste all by herself, can she? She cannot be chaste unless the man she is with is also chaste in some way...
So...Houston we have a problem :-)
Erm, what you suggest is...well, understandable. I get it. And I can't knock it. I do appreciate the vast difference between men and women when it comes to this. Of course I do!
But there must be somethng else a loving, interested girl who is in love with you can do other than that.
Please tell me there is...
Before I shoot myself :-)
"however, i would not MARRY her unless i've had sex with her. this is simply to figure out whether or not we are sexually compatible."
Hm, I have heard this argument before, Danny. As I am sure everyone else has.
But what exactly do you call 'sexual compatibility'?
Explain it to me like I am a 6 year old...
Are we talking 'mechanics' here (pardon the lame expression)? Because if we are, then the counter-argument is that (potentially at least) every man is sexually compatible with every woman. This has to be some sort of law of Nature, no? At least The Church believes so.
If however we are talking about libido/drive, then again, I have the perfect comeback: It is usually clear what someone's sex drive is (at least if you are close enough to them!). You don't need to actually have sex with them to determine this...do you?
Correct me if I am wrong...
This is a hypothetical argument, mind.
It is at least hypothetical that my arguments here hold water, no?
Help, ladies, I am drowning! Need backup...I sense a backlash from the blokes...
:-)
Hi, ST, here is some input.
I understand all you arguments, and I don't have a problem with celibacy before marriage.
However, there are men and women who see it as problematic that a partner might want to wait until marriage for sex. What if the person is frigid, disinterested in sex, has a low sex drive? That would be hell on earth for a partner who has greater needs.
And if she wants to wait, how long will she make him wait? You spoke about this once, celibate friends who dated for years until they married?
So for a man who is used to having his sexual needs fulfilled, he is being told to wait for who knows how long until he might marry her, and if he does, how does he satisfy his needs in the meantime?
It is an act of faith to go into marriage without a sense of whether she will be interested, and this fits into a manosphere theme that once blue pill women get the ring, they act as though their husband's needs are unimportant--they just want to get married, but don't think about what marriage means on a day-to-day basis.
From the point of view of the chaste woman, she is being asked to behave in a sinful manner, and she runs the risk that if she breaks up with him, for whatever reason (and not just sexual incompatibility), she will wonder whether she gave up her virtue (I'm sounding deliberately like a Jane Austen) for nothing, for a cad who only dumped her once he was done with her.
That is why I really believe that for the most chaste who don't believe in sex before marriage, they should be encouraged to get married young. I noted this before, for at least 20 years, the average age of marriage for a young woman was 18 years of age. That for a young man, 22 or so.
Let them have sex as young married couples than to "burn," and I mean the double entrendre!
Yet, that would require relinquishing the conventional wisdom which coincides with the support for premarial sex, that as young men and women don't marry young anymore, we should encourage them to have fulfilling relationships and remain relatively chaste, ie., a low number of sexual partners.
Some further thoughts, if they aren't getting married at a young age, they need to have a short courtship and engagement, with an intensive period discussing not just the key aspects of compatibility for marriage, but to talk about what their sex life will look like, and to explore some physical aspects without full blown intercourse? I don't know what the Catholic Church would say on that, though....(ie., Danny504's idea) I presume it would be a no-no.
As for my Protestant heretical denomination, sexuality issues are just not talked about. The presumption is that people decide upon their best course towards approximating what the most godly behavior is, ie., sex only within long term relationships leading towards marriage.
My former priest married his college girlfriend. They had been dating for years before marrying; if they were getting it on, people might have wondered, or they might have presumed it was going on without even caring.
It was a non-issue when he was called for the position; he had a girlfriend who lived out of town, he was planning on marrying within six months of getting the position.
Eyebrows would have been raised if they were merely living together--there are some standards!
@ST
Next time woman says to me "..I'm a virgin..", my reaction will be "God dammit, ST!" ;-)
---just kidding--- ;-)
I guess it would depend on how much extra work would it take and is it worth it?
Does she appreciate her virginity because it means "something" to her or is she trying to manipulate you and ca$h on it in some way (like that Brasilian woman that sold her virginity..)?
Chastity for the sake of chastity? No, you're not being hard on your own gender.
Sex is the LAW OF THE NATURE.? ;-) Involving Church into sexuality is the worst thing you can do...
But like PVW said it's much easier if you marry young. Unfortunately that usualy means much less fun.. ;-)
I remember watching old documentary on BBC about British woman who survived plane crash and was then taken by some indigenous tribe... the local women were laughing at her because she was 20-something and still virgin. I won't say how those women solved the 'problem' because kids might read this blog... ;-) It's only a matter of perspective... it's valued here but few miles away it's ridiculed...
If so, is there anything the woman can do to help youR stick with this plan?
Hahahhaah. Good one ST! ;-)
This is Houston. What seems to be the problem?
-- Send two chastity belts asap! ;-)
ST-
i have a very high libido. i want sex 2-3-4 times a day. once a day is industry standard for me. some women just don't want sex that often. and that can be problematic for me in a relationship.
if she's not up for sex, i WILL go to porn and make sure she hears me rubbing one out. that drives most women completely insane. pulled this once with the last gf, and she DID NOT take it well.
@ PVW,
Thanks for coming to the rescue!
But, erm... you are not really on my side here, I see.
:-)
Just teasing...
I am glad I am having the chance to have a practice sparring session before more rocks tumble down on my head from the avalanche.
"It is an act of faith to go into marriage without a sense of whether she will be interested, and this fits into a manosphere theme that once blue pill women get the ring, they act as though their husband's needs are unimportant--they just want to get married, but don't think about what marriage means on a day-to-day basis."
Where was it that I read that many women will happily indulge in pre-marital sex, but when it comes to marital sex, things go a bit flat...
I am not being a killjoy here. Far from it.
I am all for sex. Um, indeed I am.
But not counterproductivete sex. What's the point of it all drying up when it should matter the most?
There are married men everywhere being denied sex...and the single ones are getting all they want. That doesn't sound fair somehow...
"Let them have sex as young married couples than to "burn,""
Yes, wise old St. Paul said this, I believe.
But as Metak says below, it's 'no fun' to marry super young. Besides, the EPL rate goes up the younger the age at which a woman marries, according to the gospel of St. Dalrock.
So no, not a preferred option either.
"I don't know what the Catholic Church would say on that, though....(ie., Danny504's idea) I presume it would be a no-no."
Oh yes, a definite no-no indeed! I don't even need to ask Bellita about this one!
"The presumption is that people decide upon their best course towards approximating what the most godly behavior is..."
At the end of the day, each to his own. I am deliberately being obtuse here (I am trolling this thread in other words lol) but I find it a very confusing topic. Yes everyone makes up their own mind, but where are the guidelines?
The Church is the only one that is consistent on this issue...
@ Metak,
Oh no, what have I done?
I swore once that I would never again have a virginity discussion with you, Metak, becase if I remember right, the score was Metak 1, ST 0 last time...
But I am feeling braver today. Or, I just never learn. Whichever it is, here goes, Metak.
"Does she appreciate her virginity because it means "something" to her"
Whilst there are 'accidental' virgins, I can't help but feel that many virgins do feel that their virginity is important, at least, to them. Just a wild guess.
"Sex is the LAW OF THE NATURE..."
Yes, but we also live in social groups. Besides, there are natural penalties for the infringement of this natural law!
"I won't say how those women solved the 'problem' because kids might read this blog..."
The women solved the problem? Oh God, no. What did they do to her?
Whatever it might be, it sounds awful.
"If so, is there anything the woman can do to help youR stick with this plan?"
Hey! That's naughty!
:-)
"This is Houston. What seems to be the problem?
-- Send two chastity belts asap!"
Hahahahahahaha!
Very funny, Metak. I just can't win against you, can I?
Danny,
"i have a very high libido.
Danny, wait right there. You are equating virginity with a low sex drive. I think this is why you and I are talking past each other. This might be the crux of the matter right here.
I don't think this is a fair association at all.
Can I interest you in something the Manosphere has taught me?
Several male Manosphere bloggers and commenters scoff at the idea of women calling their bed partners 'conquests' because they argue that a woman does not need to do anything to get sex. This is true in most cases. I agree with them. Most women (except for the very desperate!) literally only need show up, and sex is guaranteed if they want it. So I agree with these men who say this.
But how does a woman demonstrate 'effort' for her part?
Yes, you guessed it - by her restraint. That has to be the only way for her to show some value.
So to imply that a woman who is chaste, or a downright virgin has a zero or low sex drive takes away her 'effort' in much the same way as a man who has a high number is shamed for his 'effort' by being (absurdly) labelled a 'slut' in the manner a woman might be.
Now, I can only make this argument by totally removing the question of morality from it. Otherwise, it would seem a very twisted kind of logic, lol.
PVW makes a valid point about the risks for a woman if she puts out and she is left 'on the shelf' despite this. This happens a lot, Danny. How can a woman guarantee she does not end up in this position whilst you (not you personally, but men in general) are busy deciding if she is compatible enough for you?
This is not a trick question.
Am I being harsh on men here? This has got to be the absolute point of stalemate between the sexes, isn't it?
I don't think men and women will ever see eye to eye on this issue.
It's a futile war. And I suspect one that men will win at the expense of women. As indeed is the case in the current SMP.
But can anyone come up with a 'better' solution than no-sex-before-marriage that both men and women can be happy with?
Bearing in mind that sex-in-LTR-only still doesn't work for a lot of people - male or female...
Is it ever prudent to re-invent the wheel?
You know I'm on your side ST... but I like to tease first... ;-)
Be brave! I've learned a lot from our "virginity discusions". ;-)
Yes, I'm an as*hole... a grateful as*hole.. ;-)
"Am I being harsh on men here? This has got to be the absolute point of stalemate between the sexes, isn't it?"
Harsh or not, you're right. From what I can see around me, most of those men enjoy sex and casual relationship while women believe it's a "relationship". Once they're done with them they move on and previously "nice girl" doesn't trust men any more... and all those "shields" are raised.. it's a very common pattern unfortunately.
@ST… “…Will you be so protective of a woman's virginity/naïvety/girlishness if you were interested in her as a long term prospect?...”
Even with the best of intentions I’m afraid I would fall from grace on this one. I cannot separate the ‘long term prospect’ part of it and all that means in practical terms with the ‘protective of her virginity’ part of it.
If I’m interested in her long term that means spending a lot of time with her, it means I genuinely like her and feel affection for her and those sentiments being mutual.
Sooner or later I think we’d find ourselves in a situation where we’d be tempted to the point where nature would just take over. It would be mutual affection under the best of long term intentions.
I would also add that a guy who does back off upon finding out you are a virgin may not be backing off out of respect for you. It may be that he is afraid that if he is your first you might get hung up on him and want something in return.
Grasshopper
ST-
your hamster is looking WAAAAAAY too much into this,
it's just sex.
Metak,
"You know I'm on your side ST..."
The only thing scarier than you not agreeing with me, Metak, is...you agreeing with me!
Hahahahaha! You are now spooking me. I feel tempted to ask, 'who kidnapped Metak and took over his username?'
Just teasing you back...lol.
:-)
Metak, on a serious note, what you describe is exactly what is happening! The only solution I can see to this never-ending tale of woe is if women put their foot down and go back to the old values. Which would be painful for both us and men in the shortterm, but I think it could work longterm.
Until someone comes up with a *better* strategy, I will keep beating this old drum, no matter how unrealistic it may be.
Grasshopper,
I appreciate your honesty, mate!
I never said it would be easy, not for the woman, not for the man. And as PVW said, everyone has to find their own limit, so to speak. I daresay, there are many people for whom things work out just great even when they 'fail' at the self-control thing. We are all human afterall.
But for the majority, it is clearly not working, Grasshopper, let's not forget that!
So, back to the drawing board for those for whom it is not working. Granted, this does not apply to everyone.
I am talking general principles.
"I would also add that a guy who does back off upon finding out you are a virgin may not be backing off out of respect for you. It may be that he is afraid that if he is your first you might get hung up on him and want something in return."
And I would respect such a man whatever his reason for walking away. In fact, this is part of 'protecting a woman'. Such a man is in fact demonstrating unusual maturity. The woman who is left confused and hurt may not see it that way, though, lol, if she had been in love with him (and of course women fall in love (emotionally) usually prior to sex, as some men do).
And this is one of many reasons that sex before marriage is indeed a failing strategy for many, despite what the sex pozzies say. That badass hormone known as 'oxytocin' is cramping our style, so to speak!
Not to play victim, but those ageing former carousel riders - how did they get to where they are now?
I wouldn't want younger women to get to that place.
How to avoid that?
Legs crossed, until you hear 'I do'.
No-one died from not having sex in a while.
Au contraire, there are now so many stories of teenage girls committing suicide from having had sex they were later ashamed of.
Amanda Todd, now another kid named Felica Garcia. I am sure there are many more.
Yes, these kids are flooded with hormones. But so were teenagers all through the ages. Why can't they wait a bit like their grandmothers did? Or is it simply because there was no Facebook or i-phones in Grandma's day?
The other really stark difference between these kids and their 40 year old counterparts is that at least the 40 year old is only havng regrets and suicidal thoughts now, in her 40s. The teenagers are already thinking of killing themselves aged 15. How tragic a start to life on the SMP! Or in the case of these two girls, how tragic that they never even got to start the game at all...
Danny,
It's just sex?
Very funny.
You are kidding, right?
Somehow I don't believe you when you say it is just sex...
In light of the above hamster rant, my hamster says not to believe you, lol.
ST: Yes, these kids are flooded with hormones. But so were teenagers all through the ages. Why can't they wait a bit like their grandmothers did?
Me: But that teenager in 1950 (the grandma of the young teenagers today) dated in high school, just as the young ones are doing today, but she got married shortly after she graduated. Remember, the average age of first marriage was 20. Lots of girls married at 17, 18, 19, and for obvious reasons, the teen pregnancy rate was high back then. Married teenagers were having babies.
So the 1950s teenager was dating and might have been on the verge of going "all the way," if she didn't do so already.
However, she did so with her boyfriend/fiance who fully undertook the responsibility of marrying her as he was her first, and especially if she became pregnant.
More women and men had those expectations back then, that if a man slept with a woman who was a virgin, he only did so because he was serious about her. He was going to marry her, and if he didn't want to, her daddy's shotgun would persuade him!
"In light of the above hamster rant, my hamster says not to believe you, lol."
sweetie, that's what the hamster does. sex is a different thing for men than it is for women.
and NO, i'm not going into it.
@ST, further thoughts regarding good girls who join the carousel.
I always wonder, were they good girls who wanted to go on the bad side, or were they good girls who saw the potential for some disincentives in being "good?"
Think of some of what we are saying here, good girls who want to remain virgins until marriage find that they are too serious minded for men who don't feel ready for the kind of relationship the women are likely to want upon having sex.
So they sit things out, dating or not, while they hope to find someone who likes their seriousmindedness.
In the meantime, their friends who join the carousel are getting not just sex, but dates and numbers of them, marriages eventually, because they are a lot more easygoing about dating, sex, and relationships.
Some who don't join the carousel become bitter, as was mentioned before; others modify their views. Perhaps they start to say, "well I'll have sex in a serious dating relationship, I just hope it will work out." Plenty of girls fall into this group. They have sex with boyfriends only, and they keep their number of partners low before marrying.
Girls who don't modify their stance, it seems to me, can easily encourage the nice guys to leave the field, which creates a vaccuum for the ones who have no qualms about getting girls introduced to new possibilities in the carousel.
In later years, folks will then be howling about all the women who joined the carousel and then want to get married to the nice provider types.
As for being understanding of sluts trying to get off the carousel, something which you mentioned recently, I remember reading something recently, that too many nice girls are too understanding of this.
The carousel riders, no matter how they got there, make it much harder for the nice girls to get the relationships they want and for the nice guys to find them.
Think of the perennial manosphere complaint about being in a sexual desert and that the only time they get any attention from women is when the carousel riders get to them. They hate her history, but they feel shamed for their judgmentalism, or they feel they have no choice but to take the carousel riders....
PVW,
"Lots of girls married at 17, 18, 19, and for obvious reasons, the teen pregnancy rate was high back then. Married teenagers were having babies."
This would not be a bad solution at all, if these marriages lasted. But I have seen that in most cases, these 'shotgun' weddings don't lead to good marriages at all. It was done so that the sex would somehow become 'respectable' which I understand is a nobler motive than having no 'shame'. But since the objective for getting married goes deeper than covering up a pregnancy, I don't see the virtue of marriages like this.
I know this sounds incredibly fastidious on my part...
But alas, the Church does frown on marriages like this - the Catholic Church (frustratingly enough) won't marry a couple if they are pregnant. They have to wait a year, forcing them to live out the 'shame' which they may or may not feel.
Which makes me think that perhaps The Church is contradicting itself on this, because as you rightly pointed out, St. Paul did say, 'let them marry', did he not...
Of course, the lack of maturity at a young age is also a perjorating factor, as is the sense of not having 'lived' before joining your life to someone else's.
But if a couple can overcome all of these barriers, then marrying young is indeed the perfect solution, yes!
But not many takers for that option nowadays...PVW, as you know. Even if a woman is ready to marry at age 18, she will have to be looking at the age range of 30+ for a man willing to do the same, which is of course fine if she is happy with that age gap. She almost certainly won't be able to persuade an 18 year old man, for sure...which is perhaps right. He needs to be setting himself up for that role first before jumping into mariage...
"...good girls who want to remain virgins until marriage find that they are too serious minded for men who don't feel ready for the kind of relationship the women are likely to want upon having sex."
I am certain that the relationship (sexual or otherwise) may well be normal when it does start. True frigidity is actually rare, but virgins are often accused of this (or so I hear).
I think there are many sexual myths out there. We should identify these and debunk them lol.
(Just...not on this blog :-D)
Just kidding...is it possible that the fear of the unknown might be rearing its ugly head here?
Whilst it is true that one never knows how a virgin will 'perform', is it not also true that a woman need not be an 'expert' anyway? All she has to do is demonstrate an active 'drive'. The performance will take care of itself, no?
God, Danny is right - I am getting me knickers in a twist over this.
Alright, Danny, you win.
Truce?
:-)
PVW, one last point about 'good girls'. Why are they bitter, really?
Is it because they are missing out on sex - including unmarried sex, or is it because they lack attention from men?
I am not sure which is the more important reason. I suspect it is the latter, but I might well be surprised.
Any good girls want to answer this one?
:-)
Danny,
OK. I back off.
There are always certain topics that men and women will always fight about. This is clearly one of them!
The worst part is, I can really see each side's point of view, as I am sure you can too.
But that doesn't help any sensible solution to materialise out of a vacuum, though...does it...
:-)
@ST:
I agree that this is a sexual myth which should be debunked. The myth is also a proxy for something else; not many are willing to abide by the church's teachings-they think of them as absurd, so women who do so are accused of being frigid and presumed to be abnormal in some fashion.
In addition, the current model about relationships presume that a woman in a relationship would want to express her sexual drives and that her boyfriend should reasonably expect her to fulfill those with him. If she wants him to wait, is it because she doesn't respect his drives and will not want to work with them?
@ST: PVW, one last point about 'good girls'. Why are they bitter, really?
Me: I imagine it is for all sorts of reasons, but I know of the self-righteousness you once spoke of, that they are doing the right thing but the men in their cohort are not.
So the men are with the loose women, including carousel riders they might marry one day, and are not giving them what they believe they deserve, chaste boyfriends and husbands.
Beyond that, numbers of these men demanding premarital sex of these nice girls are nice Catholic boys who want to pull them into sin.
I would imagine getting the wrong type of attention matters for some. While for others, the lack of attention from men would be primary while the lack of sex might very well be secondary.
Wow, great insights. I had to catch up on work so I missed out on the later part of an interesting conversation :(
Post a Comment