Older women, younger men, and cultural reversal.

shocking coincidence

I read another hilarious and insightful post on Takimag.com, which presents a perspective on male female relationships that I think few are aware of, at least consciously, but a particular subculture of heterosexual men cisgender males, toxic and otherwise, react to while failing to fully embrace the implications. Before I get to that, I want to reveal my own biases. I am writing this post while enjoying a chai latte at Indaba Coffee in the Kendall Yards neighborhood of Spokane, Washington. Kendall Yards is a “planned community” within the city limits (you should look it up on any search engine but google—they hate freedom of speech—but do not move here). I have been here multiple times, as I live nearby in a “transitional” neighborhood—in between slovenly and neat neighborhoods. Everyone who hangs out here in KY is relatively attractive, well groomed, mostly heterosexual mostly couples. The older ones appear to be happily married, the younger ones all have little kids, everyone is polite and friendly….I remind you, don’t move here. I choose to hang out here rather than the slovenly side of my neighborhood for a simple reason. I would rather watch attractive, well groomed people than ugly slovenly ones. If you are honest, so would you! Onwards to Taki:

It seems today that men not only want a woman with experience, but prefer that she have more of it. For sheltered millennial men, who lack adult milestones as well as life experience, a woman who has seen the show before might be just what the doctor ordered. In an era of declining maturity, perhaps older men are not as mature, rich, and wise as they used to be. And if they are not, they will have a harder time competing with younger men. If a beautiful middle-aged woman is going to live with an Iron Man-watching man-child, why not go for one who’s 28 and not 48? For women, all things being the same they’ll choose the cuter guy with more stamina in the bedroom.

Every few weeks Internet dating site OkCupid uses the power of anonymized data to share a few truths about the online dating scene and human nature in general. To be sure, these reports are often highly controversial and aren’t going to be showing up in scientific literature any time soon, but they’re generally interesting (and often amusing) reads. The latest report to come out addresses ‘Your Looks And Your Inbox’, charting the number of messages users receive in relation to how attractive other members rate them. For one, men on the site tend to be more generous than women when it comes to rating attractiveness, leading to a nice bell curve with the bulk of ratings falling around ‘average’. But despite their fair ratings, they tend to ignore many of the women they find reasonably attractive and primarily target the most attractive females. Women, on the other hand, are harsh with their ratings. According to the study, they rate a whopping 80% of men on the site as ‘below average’. My first guess was that there was an issue with self-selection here (i.e. unattractive men congregate on the site for whatever reason). But the study includes photos of four pretty normal looking guys who were all rated to be unattractive.

This study, to me, is a great example of long term cause effect. When I was younger, I used to wonder why so many attractive women were willing to be seen with truly hideous men, while very few men of any appearance were with ugly women, despite the cultural advice of a black musical group from Detroit called The Hot Nuts (who played a role in the later popularity of rhythm and blues with white college audiences. Their first album had a picture of the band on the cover, with the leader, Doug Clark “flipping the bird” to the audience. All of the Hot Nuts albums were on the “Gross” label, a subsidiary of Jubilee Records created solely for the band. Even though Jubilee published a line of “party” records with risqué material, the Jubilee name did not appear anywhere on the Gross albums. Doug Clark and the Hot Nuts should NOT be confused with Dick Clark and American Bandstand). Their most famous song was “If you want to be happy for the rest of your life, never make a pretty woman your wife.” I’m sure it’s still on YouTube because Black Lives Matter still trumps feminism.

I chalked up the pretty woman/ugly male (they weren’t really men in full) syndrome to two factors: 1. Women are less superficial than men; 2. They’re more sympathetic than men. Maybe I was wrong on both counts, or as I right but feminism taught the modern woman not to settle for a hippy dippy troll. As the latest pseudoscience from OKCupid shows, women are no longer less superficial nor more sympathetic than men, and finally they appear to have rebelled against whatever cultural zeitgeist rewarded them for going out with ugly males. That’s cause-effect people! I don’t care to speculate where we are headed, but it seems ugly, scruffy males have banded together in social media subgroups, especially on Reddit, called incels i.e. involuntary celibates. They blame women for not wanting sex with them, and have more or less given up the hope of “getting laid”. That language is part of their problem—women still want to be romanced and respected, rather than simply laid, unlike chickens, their eggs are internal. So here’s my advice to the incels: Hey guys, first look in the mirror. If your features are ugly, you can groom or dress better. You can stand straighter. You can look women in the eyes, but don’t overdo it. You can speak more intelligently, you can read books instead of binging on Ironman reruns or getting calluses from playing Call of Duty. Try getting calluses from Working, you will probably shed some pounds. Make yourself more interesting. Evaluate your circle of friends; we become like the people we associate with and the books we read. “Uh, I don’t read.” My friends, that’s the single easiest thing to remedy. Put away the remote and the video game controller for a few weeks, read magazines, books, websites like Takimag.com, Nationalreview.com, take free online courses from Hillsdale.edu (the best college in the US). Get educated, become interesting, become smarter, and your sex life might just surprise you. If you have a man bun, cut it off; if you have a scruffy beard, trim it; if your clothes are dirty or wrinkled, wash and press ‘em, or even better, have them professionally laundered! If you’re ugly, guess what. The women who rated men below average in that OKCupid study approached them anyhow, so stop making excuses.

Changing language as war, part three.

Not war though..

Did you know that the Roman Catholic Church just challenged “gender science”? Did you know that snuffing out the life of a nascent human being within the mother’s womb is “reproductive health” or the older one, “family planning,” and that fertilization of a human egg by human sperm, that is, conception, the beginning of the process which results nine months later in the birth of a new person, isn’t producing a baby but merely a “product of conception.” While we’re at it, let’s not fail to mention that killing over six million Jews, including Gypsies and others, was but a “final solution.”

I hate euphemisms which promote, by attempting to disguise, an ideology that is too heinous or stupid to stand up to questioning! I strongly disagree with the ideologies disguised by the euphemisms above: Non-binary sex identity, aborting nascent humans, racial, ethnic and religious hatred. There are three ways to disagree with an ideology: 1. Separate the ideology from the person espousing it, then “question to pieces” the ideology, preferably in dialogue with the person espousing it; 2. Conflate the ideology with the person espousing it, and attack the person (or your assumption of their motives)–the “ad hominen” attack–rather than questioning the ideology; 3. Ignore any controversy and go on your merry, ignorant or apathetic way. I vote for #1. But I have made one exception. In the two plus years I have been blogging, I have mentioned specific person’s names only in the context of what they said, letting their own words either praise or condemn them.

The exception is Carlos Maza, the homo blogger at Vox, who was unstinting in his efforts to get YouTube to ban and demonetize Steven Crowder, because….Why? Maza whined about Crowder “attacking” him, shaming him, being homophobic, racist, etc. I have been unable to find the Crowder videos wherein he mentioned Maza. The closest I could find was a series called “There are only two sexes: Change my mind.” Crowder set up a table on a college campus and a city corner with that banner, and invited people who disagreed to change his mind. I watched two hours worth, and never once did he attack or insult the person. Rather, his questions challenged their ideas, and some took offense at being challenged. That’s what they called “being attacked.” Lots of people have attacked Maza on YouTube, after YouTube reviewers said the Crowder videos didn’t violate their guidelines. But Maza kept pushing, kept whining, kept threatening YouTube, until YouTube finally agreed to demonetize Crowder’s channel. I went on YouTube today, and searched for “Crowder and Maza”, “Carlos Maza” and other combinations, trying to find the offending videos. What I found was personal attacks on Maza, not for being homosexual, not for being Hispanic, but for being a bully and fascist pretending to be a victim! That’s what so many viewers were angry about. That’s why I singled him out. Carlos, you asked for it, you got it.

Now, back to euphemisms. “Gender science” or “non-binary” = science denial. Every living creature which is both animate and reproduces sexually has only male or female parts. There is no third option. “Reproductive health” and “family planning” (by abortion) = killing the “product of conception.” The “product of conception” = growing human being. Gender = the physical appearance of biological sex. If gender is merely cultural and stereotypical as the trans activists insist, then why does so-called “reassignment surgery” always involve cutting off or sewing on parts of the other sex? The proper description of that surgery should be sexual appearance alteration, NOT gender reassignment or sexual reassignment. Appearance is being changed, nothing is being reassigned because nothing was assigned to begin with. God created the sex.

God creates, man destroys. The “final solution” = killing millions, stealing their possessions, plunging the world into war. That still has to be the king of the euphemisms.

Jonathan Edwards owned slaves.

I didn’t know that, and I am grateful for a blogger who pointed that out to me. While researching the story, I came upon a Q and A by a modern Jonathan Edwards (in the sense of being an influential theologian), John Piper. What follows is the unedited dialogue between pastor John and his sincere questioner:

Pastor John, it appears that 18th century theologian Jonathan Edwards and his wife owned household and farming slaves, perhaps as many as 6 total, and seem to have owned at least one slave at all times, even up until Jonathan’s death (Marsden, 255). How does his slaveholding factor into your evaluation Jonathan Edwards’ theological legacy?

“Instead of trying to explain how it could be, I think the most helpful thing to do at this point would be to just to answer the question: ‘Ok, what effect does this have on you, you lover of Edwards. What difference does that make to you? Does that effect you at all?’ And here are four or five responses or effects that it has on me.

Number one, it warns me not to idolize or idealize any man except Jesus. Something is going to show up and disillusion me if I pick out a dead man or a living man as somebody that I am going to idealize. There is no ideal man, except Jesus. So that is the first thing. It is a warning to measure my admiration carefully.

Number two, it cautions me that if he had blind spots on that issue, he may well have had blind spots on other issues, which means that I am going to now read with some more care. I think our vigilance in reading is heightened when we know that a man has blown it in one area. We say, ‘Well, we have got a fallible man on our hands here. Therefore, we will now read with some special vigilance lest we be sucked in to approving everything that he says on any issue at all.’ So let it have a salutary and cautioning effect on how we read an author, including Edwards.

Third, it makes me marvel that God uses any of us. I have documented numerous of my besetting sins. I came back to Bethlehem and I can go listen to this sermon after my eight-month leave in which I had done a lot of soul searching. And I think in the sermon I gave to the BCS chapel, in Act the Miracle, and one in the church, I tried to describe the most recurrent sins of John Piper. It was a very sobering season for me and I simply have to marvel that, number one, I survived 33 years in pastorate as an imperfect man and that God gives me. I didn’t just survive. I loved it. And the people by and large, I think, loved me. And God did some good and I know those sins better than anybody except maybe Noel. So I am not quick to point my finger at Edwards, but I am quick to marvel that he was used, and I have been used, and I am amazed.

“Number four, Edwards’ failure in that regard teaches me that sanctification has blank spots like knowledge has blind spots. Here is what I mean. We can be making good progress in five areas of our lives and doing badly in a sixth area—a blank area where the Holy Spirit for some reason isn’t exerting all the power that he could and we are resistant and still holding on to some sin. And we can be knowing rightly in five areas, and be mistaken in a sixth area. So what I see in Edwards’ failure here is a reminder that not only does knowledge have blind spots, sanctification has blank spots, and all of us should, there-fore, search our lives, instead of just congratulating ourselves on the four areas of progress. Look at that fifth or sixth area that is still such a mess in our lives and pray and appropriate the gospel and the grace of God to fight it.

And here is one more. Edwards’ failure here makes me pray for light on my life and on my day. What are my blind spots? What are my days, my church’s, blind spots? What is the church blind to today that in 200 years the godly will look back and say, ‘How could they possibly have done that or believed that or let that happen or go that way?’ And so, given how amazingly godly Edwards was, I do not presume that any level of sanctification I attain in this life means there is not something else to be ferreted out. ‘Keep your servant back from presumptuous sins and cleanse me of hidden faults,’ Psalm 19 prays.

“So I hope that the flaws of my greatest teachers—and Jonathan Edwards is about the greatest—will do me good in the end, and I hope we don’t have to hide them in order to realize they can serve us.

My own final thought here was reached quite independently of what pastor John has written: The more perfect someone seems on the outside–their persona–oftentimes the more blind they are to their own flaws. In blinding others, they blind themselves.