Three days ago, Dalrock posted this post, which really isn’t about race at all.

However, about 1/3 of the way into the comments, a sub-thread started to go that way when Blue Dog made this suggestion to me about my site:

One last bit, my $0.02: drop all references to HBD. Big loser. All liability, no asset. Think of it this way – even if it occasionally has a valid point, and I grant that is only on occasion –and different ways need to be found around those taboos, even if at 10X the cost of breaking the taboo.

And in a follow up comment (emphasis mine):

Total dealbreaker. And will be for many, many more the first 30 seconds they understand what it is.

Let’s not beat around the bush. This is code for “it [HBD] is racism.” That’s what they are going to “understand”about it.

And this  ”then it must be understood in the context that some taboos exist for highly valid reasons” is another shot across the bow meaning “any talk of a biological basis for human behavior is just a hairs breath away from all kinds of attrocities, therefore you cannot talk about it all”

I am grateful to Dalrock for hosting this conversation, which in all honesty probably should have been happening over here. It kind of hijacked the thread.

The conversation continued for a bit–a lot of interesting stuff between Laura, Oscar, TFH, and others. And then Novaseeker made this comment:

In the comments thread of our post from a few days ago, reader Von suggests:

The idea of matchmaking is a start in the right direction, but a search of Scripture will show that the Biblical answer is for the parents, in particular the father, to find a spouse for their child.
And there is nothing Biblical about ‘courtship.

On this, I will have to disagree but I want to make the case for it.

I think it is important to try to understand the essence of a words typical use and this is especially true in this case. It helps to be as precise as possible when discussing important issues like this.

When someone suggests there is “nothing biblical” they usually mean it to say that it has no basis in biblical teaching and practice and that it may in some cases actually be incompatible with living biblically. That is a heavy charge, and one to be taken seriously.

I also make the distinction between several things that I wonder if everyone does the same with.

For example, I don’t get the feeling that, in the common use, “biblical” is the opposite of “unbiblical.” Where as ‘biblical” tends to mean “there is sufficient backing in the text for this concept, even if it is not outright labeled that way,” “unbiblical” tends to mean “out of bounds with regard to clear biblical teaching, and without any example.”

This may seem subtle, but the second part is what I call “scriptural vs unscriptural.”

For instance–we are all familiar with the idea that, although the Trinity is never mentioned specifically in the text, it is “biblical” because when  we put together everything the Bible has to say about God’s nature, you find it.

However, the laying on of hands (by the elders) and anointing of oil for the sick reaches the “next” level by being scriptural because we can actually read specific examples of this occurring in the scripture. We can apply all kinds of contextual and cultural cues to it, but if your church does this to the sick, they certainly are not doing anything unbiblical OR unscriptural.

So, it is upon these principles that I say courtship is biblical, and although there may not be perfect examples of it in the scripture, it is based on sound biblical principles.

1. We are to honor our mother and father. The Ten Commandments requires this. It puts no age limit on it. (You don’t stop honoring your mother and father when you turn 18). The concept of “honoring” them, and what that looks like is all over the text. And deferring (at least getting their opinion) to your parents is squarely in the realm of what we are calling courtship here.

2. It is OK to marry someone if you just can’t keep your hands off each other. Pauls admonition to marry rather than burn is why we support short courtship periods.

3. All things being equal, it is better for both parties to be virginal on the wedding day. This is entirely compatible with what we are supporting here. In today’s culture, the earlier you get matched up, the better.

4. There are many verses of the wisdom literature in the text that tell us to guard our reputations by what we do and say publically. Again, limiting the amount of alone time until marriage is a principle that we highly encourage. This is where we get time honored idea of “the appearance of impropriety.”

There are other biblical principles at play here as well. But remember, we are also not married to a super specific format for courtship. Joshua Harris ended up distancing himself from his own, very good attempt to write about this because people made it into a rigid set of rules that everyone must follow.

I am appreciative of Vons comment. Although I remain unconvinced that courtship is unbiblical, it definitely caused me to think about it.

Thoughts?

 On yesterday’s post , Empathologism made this comment:

I’m not nearly as concerned about the mechanics of courtship, whether there is courtship, etc. Its not to say I like the unfettered hookup situation either.

I believe fathers can protect their daughters and should. I believe fathers can inspire right thinking in sons, and should. I’m not feeling deeply about the rest of this specific topic. Ill allow that maybe I’m missing something.

You can lay out the best flirting and dating advice around and still when married the women takes over the home and if the man asserts himself she leaves claiming abuse and if he doesn’t she leaves due to unhappiness. THATS the stuff being taught …built up from 5 years old and up until they are marriage age.

I’m not being flip when I say steer the ship away from trouble, THEN rearrange the deck chairs better.

I wanted to address this particular comment in it’s own post because I believe it is a difference in strategy, rather than one of substance on the particulars.

If one were to look to the right side of this website and scroll all the way to the bottom, you would find 2 years of material about dating/courtship/betrothal/marriage/etc that are more or less compatible with the “red-pill” canon of the “Christian manosphere.”

The way I perceive this problem is analogous to a battlefield with all of the various component commanders and subordinate commanders. Each of those commanders and the units they command fit into the larger OPORD (Operational Order) with left and right limits. Each sub-mission feeds into, off of, or supports other missions in the same movement toward victory.

Of course, in very complex operations, there are different lines of departure for each unit and certain parts of the mission cannot be accomplished without other tasks being completed first. (Think about a logistical or combat engineering unit deploying pontoons before the soldiers can cross the river). I think what Empathologism is arguing is that changing the way we pick spouses (or help people pick them) is step 357 and we are still on step 2. That is a perfectly arguable point, and I am glad he is making it, although I disagree.

Right now, for me the way forward looks more like an all-out assault on the entire opposing force:

Dalrock is doing the heavy lifting when it comes to confronting the Christian churches (all of them) with the biblical understanding of the relationship between lust/romance/sex/marriage/love.

Donal Graeme and Deep Strength are doing their level best to recapture lost Christian masculinity.

Sunshine Thiry, Elspeth and others are teaching young girls (and any wives for that matter) homemaking skills, sweetness, submission, how to be a help meet. and offering support to do better at those things.

Men’s rights activists are attacking the family law structure, including the domestic violence machine, custody lopsidedness, etc.

Even the secular “game” sites have valuable information and intel for Christians.

Rollo Tomassi never runs out of ways to ask the question “how in the world do Christian men ever get laid and make babies?”

HBD sites are also contributing a huge amount of context for all of this.

And that is a tiny, non exhaustive group of sites–just the ones I read regularly. I know there are many more.

I have picked up my rifle and I am taking my part of the fight to the mate selection segment of the battlefield. I realize there are other sites and even TV shows devoted to promoting courtship. The Duggars, Lori Alexander, etc. I am small potatoes compared to those.

But make no mistake about it, our site has at it’s core, “red-pill” written all over it. You could say we are trying to help build a marriage/match making network for red-pill types to find other red-pill types. In other words, nothing we talk about here makes any sense to you if you aren’t already predisposed to this kind of thinking.

Elspeth’s site is perfectly named “Loving in the Ruins.” I have always resonated with it as a title, and that is exactly what we are trying to promote here. Biblical, godly marriages in the ruined society and culture that is smoldering before us. It is not “collapsing.” It has already collapsed.

One question that I think many who come to this site ask themselves is this: What can we do?

It is a good question. It will take wide-scale change before we can start to turn our culture around. That is the work of generations, sadly. When faced with the enormity of these problems, it is easy to throw your hands up in the air and simply give up trying to fix things.

While this is an easy and natural response, the truth is that we are not completely powerless. Whether you are a parent with younger or older children, or none at all, or are a single Christian who is struggling to find a mate in this terrible climate, you still can make a difference.

One way of doing this is acting as in informal matchmaker. I think that Christian men and women need to adopt an attitude that they should always be out to help their fellow Christians marry. When you think about it, it is not out of line with the other charitable works that Christians otherwise engage in. We do all kinds of charity for the homeless and the poor and the hungry and the sick and those in prison. So how hard could it be to keep in mind those who are single, and to notice when we run across someone that might be a fit?

If you are a parent whose children aren’t old enough to be looking at marriage, you can and should still keep an eye on the singles in your church. Meet them and talk with them. Find out more about them. Perhaps you know someone who might be a match for them. And if you don’t, perhaps someone else that you know does. Connect with others in your church and like-minded churches to pass along possible matches.

Networking was historically the primary method that young people met and married. While many of the old networks have long since been torn down, we can still build new ones. The internet, despite the many avenues for sin that it provides, can and should be a powerful tool in this regard. Using it to connect to those who share your faith allows for the creation of networks far vaster than ever before. This is really a necessity, because there is no guarantee that truly devout Christians will be anywhere near each other geographically.

Singles can and should engage in this as well. If you find someone that doesn’t fit or mesh with you, but is otherwise marriageable, don’t simply disconnect from them. Reach out to other Christians you know. Find out who might be a good fit. If you know someone already, introduce them. These connections might prove invaluable later on. After all, if you find a spouse later on, then that couple you helped match up before might have children who could marry your own kids.

We reap what we sow. Even if it doesn’t help you immediately, helping others connect, network and marry will come around to help us in the end.

And so, a call to already married couples: Do you know any singles in your church (or through parachurch organizations) that could use your help? If not, can’t you find any? If the last post’s enormous (for this site) comment thread is an indication–surely they exist. Will you introduce yourself?

To the parents of small children who are preoccupied with raising yours right: Will you also reach out to these currently single, marriage aged folks?

To the singles: Will you get yourself out there–to the older, married people. It is a big step to go to them and tell them “I am preparing myself for marriage, and I don’t know many people my age who are doing the same.

To everyone: Can we use this site (or the internet in general) to build this network?

OK, first a little bragging. I was specifically asked to write this post by the giant of the Christian manosphere, none other than Dalrock himself!

Got that off my chest, let’s continue.

A few days ago, before my entire family was infected by the most wicked plague/flu on Earth, Dalrock sent me a link to this Alpha Game post, at specifically this comment by Kiwi the Greek.

She asks:
A lot of men don’t understand what chaste, traditional women go through because of feminism, since many don’t believe we exist. A great deal of attention is paid to feminist women’s real and perceived grievances, while the anti-feminist women are ignored. Red-pill men bemoan the lack of wife material, while many of us keep our hair, smile sweetly and wait in vain for an approach by any man above gamma. Maybe the good men don’t try because they’re afraid of nuclear rejection or they assume all women are the typical ones described in the manosphere. But my type were taught never to make the first move or act “forward”.

I’m not swayed by money or status, and I’m scared of alphas. I had never seen or heard of nuclear rejection til I read about it here. I know, I know, I’m a special snowflake, but I know half a dozen like me who are still young enough to be desirable. You just have to believe they exist.

I have been thinking about it for several days, as well as talking it over with Mychael. I even asked my 18 year old son how he might respond to this line of questioning.

And the more I thought about it, the more convoluted my researching it became. Just off the top of my head, these posts are all relevant:

How should women respond to men withdrawing from courtship?

Chastiy in the marriage search is uncool…

An attempt to decorate a corpse.

Anything Donal Graeme, Deep Strength, Sunshine, or a whole host of other writers on the related subjects have done. And that’s just the small circle of red-pill reading that I do.

This of course got me overwhelmed, so I went back to the original question. Essentially, the young woman is asking, (I am paraphrasing) “how do I signal to red-pill guys in church that I am sweet, marriage material and I would like to court/get to know you?”

Dalrocks concern is related to the very unappealing idea of becoming an indefinite celibate boyfriend. He suggests that many “good girls” in church want this, which is essentially a status symbol for them-to be engaged/courting, that is. But no man wants to be in that position forever.

So I thought, “is this really a birds and bees question?”

I am going to approach it is as if were. I hope I don’t sound condescending. However, since it is no secret that I came of age in the peak of the secular dating years, (and happily indulged in it) I might be of some help here.

This question, I assume is honest. I assume several things about its origin for the purposes of this discussion. But what strikes me as the most unnerving is that it comes in the context of the completely shattered, unchartered territory of mate selection for young people whos parents (my generation) were a bunch of sex addicts who slept their way through high school boyfriends and girlfriends and have laid waste to anything that resembles sensibility. We Gen-Xers must own that. So, there is almost no way to answer this question that broadly, without making the suggestion that we create an underground courtship secret society with a handshake and letters on our chests. And it may come to that, by the way.

But this young lady needs to learn how to flirt, plain and simple. In my experience, no matter how “alpha” I might have been feeling on a particular day, every single interaction I have ever had with a woman (that turned into anything) started with her signal. Only the most die hard PUAs are interested in cold approaching. And yes, sometimes it is as simple as this: You sense that someone is looking at you. So you look up, scan the room and there she is! That girl was looking at you, then she smiled, giggled and averted her gaze. And that is probably the only signal she is going to give you. If you missed it, strike out. But I get the distinct impression that while she (and her friends) dress modestly, put on a little makeup, do their hair in nice ways, they may not be doing anything else.

Dalrock rightly points out that the guys this young lady is interested in are very likely to miss it. Hence, the armbands or secret handshakes or whatever. I really don’t know.

Mychael suggested a single/mingle group–done appropriately and not as a meat market might be a start. I am not sure how that would look, because the church Alphas would probably cruise it immediately. And back we go to the secret society of courtship dweebs.

And none of this even gets us to the concern about being a long term celibate boyfriend. Of course, we have made it clear on this site that, all things being equal we are in favor of 1. young-ish marriage (especially by todays standards) and 2. short courtship/engagement periods.

How do you signal your willingness to “take it fast” with a look and a giggle? I have no idea.

I wonder what the growing number of young men who read here think about that?

In a recent offline conversation I had with a single male reader, I was confronted with the following:

“You say courtship and you think of a system that helps young people choose spouses so that they have better chances. Young men hear courtship and think of a system where fathers shut them down and they get nothing.”

This was in the larger context of my wondering why there isn’t more interest in this. In fact, this post really could be considered a companion piece to the previous one.

Does courtship conjure up visions of dads with impossible standards, standing on the porch with a shotgun ready to scare off any young man who comes along?

If so, has the word become so contaminated that we need a new word?

I think it has worked pretty well in my own home, with our 18 year old son. We deliberately use words like “ally,” “resource,” and “support” when discussing these things with him. We let him know that we want him to succeed and that we are in his corner.

Thoughts?

In the comments thread of one of our posts, Elspeth makes this observation:

“The reality is that most parents don’t really want to be intimately involved with their adult children’s choice of a mate. They have largely been convinced that it is not their place to do so…”

She was responding to another commenter asking what to do if your parents aren’t both Christian, and not likely to be on board with courtship principles.

Is Elspeth correct about this?

If so, it helps to explain a big part of why Mychael and I often get the looks we get when we bring up the fairly mild version of courtship this website advocates.

Parents are over-the-top obsessed with karate, soccer, grades, SAT scores, gluten and everything else–but they decided that arguably the single most important decision of their life will just work itself out?

I think Elspeth is on to something with this comment. I think maybe most modern parents really do think its “not their place.” In fact, I am starting to get the feeling they think even the slightest amount of guidance in this area of their kids lives is even a little intrusive or “creepy.”

If so, this is going to be a much more uphill battle than I thought.

Because no matter how much people want to pine for the good old days it is hands off on the issues that actually matter.

Four things have been on my mind today while I surf around the alt-right/red pill-osphere.

First, our son has started to receive his first batches of college acceptance letters. He will, as far as we can tell be attending a small, relatively unknown Catholic university in a STEM program (in his case, either BS ChemE or just BS Chem). He is quite focused on chemistry and has a knack for it. We have made it very clear that since we are going to finance at least a part of it, we have some say in 1. where he goes, and 2. what type of degree program we will help pay for.

No big, party schools. It needs to be Christian (preferably not just nominally affiliated). It should be a useful degree (no soft sciences or purely academic pursuits). This has been a year of tremendous growth for him spiritually (when Mychael and I converted to Orthodoxy, he steadfastly stayed with Catholicism–which we have supported every bit of the way) as well as intellectually and morally. He is still committed to a form of courtship when the time comes, and has become very red-pill when it comes to male/female relationships in his own right.

In the context of all this “wonderful” news of our son getting into college is when Sunshine Thiry’s post about it popped up today.

She gives every parent of a potential college student much to think about.

Second–I think about our son and his recent interactions with girls. They have not turned out well for him, and not because he is unattractive, weird or a loser. He is a good student, he has a nice truck, he is good looking, he is an athlete, etc. In my day, he would have had a steady girlfriend by now. However, his eyes have been opened to the truth about the SMP/MMP and he is very choosey.

Just yesterday, we went to the Catholic church with him for mass (to show support–we do not receive communion there) and we just happened to sit next to a family with a young, pretty teenage girl. He easily struck up a conversation with her (a complete stranger–no approach anxiety) during the reccessional. They shared a few jokes, and it was very encouraging to see. Until this point, I only knew of his interactions second hand from him. But I got to see it in action, and I was relieved. He did not engage any further and we walked out to the car. He said she was too young/immature for him. You could tell by her body language she was open for a continuation, but as I said, he just wasn’t interested. I commended him on his ease, his confidence and so forth. He said he learned it from me–which was nice.

It brings me to this: Deep Strength is working on some kind of handbook or primer, from a Christian standpoint here. Won’t you go by and make suggestions? This is a great idea, and needs to be made.

Third- I was thinking about some of my recent comments at Dalrocks, namely in this post. It occurred to me that although the stories I share are well covered territory between Mychael and I, they may not be entirely edifying to the typical young, unmarried man. For that I apologize. In other words, none of it is news to Mychael, but young Christian men might see it as “bragging” or wearing a past sinful history as a sort of street-cred badge of honor. If it is not useful for teaching/learning, it is not necessary.

And related, the fourth point I would make is about real vs fake repentance that commenter “the Deti” makes in that same thread about bad boy types (even the “carnal Christians”) who made good and whether or not they can truly repent. I sure hope so. I was one of them.

If my own son doesn’t see me turning away from all that full stop-then all of what we are trying to teach him here is really with a “wink wink, nudge nudge” and will just perpetuate the problem.