Ughhh I can’t even with this article. So many generalizations and oversimplifications …Having suffered at the hands of a man who felt I owed that damn “marriage debt” every freaking day, I can say with assuredness that he certainly “casually (and I dare say overtly) dismissed the idea that [I] need to feel safe and secure in the[] relationship.” I felt anything but!!! So unsafe, so insecure, manipulated, and used. So I had to leave and I don’t regret it for one second. It’s an AWFUL feeling as a woman to feel like a constant receptacle who must appease a man’s needs.
Toxic and narcissistic have to do with treatment of someone—not work performed or money earned. Do manly work but don’t be an oppressive prick. What is so hard about that??? Women are not in charge of everything—have you seen our government? I’m sorry but this really hit a nerve especially since not everyone is plugged into the same headlines. I don’t often hear the refrain “men don’t need sex” in my sphere. Here’s my oversimplification of things: People need to get off the damn internet and just treat each other with kindness. No offense, Steve, again, this just hit a raw nerve with me.
I can certainly appreciate that. And I didn’t mean to imply that there’s no man who has no consideration of his wife’s needs. Only that I never see it broadcast in that way by average everyday men. Yeah, I’m sure the hideous misogynists of the world like Andrew Tate probably say exactly those kinds of things. What bothers me is How acceptable this sentiment has become.
And whether people who know how to get off-line like it or not, the younger generations do almost everything there. Including the vast majority of their dating. Very few people seem meet each other through conventional means these days.
There seems to be a society wide callous disregard for men, for who and what they are, for what their needs consist of, etc.
I suspect it’s all downstream from the feminist notion that men and women are essentially the same, just in different bodies. Frankly, that’s the only thing that explains why women are the chief proponents of transgenderism even as men are invading women only sports and spaces. If they admit that this is wrong because men have natural physical advantages and sexual access to the women on their teams, then they are admitting the lie of “anything you can do I can do better.”
Understanding the complementarity of the sexes means understanding the complementarity of their differences in biology and psychology. We have equal dignity, but we are not the same. We are not well suited to all the same roles and tasks.
And our needs in relationship mirror each other, but are in fact quite different.
I think the fact that so many women object even in principle to the idea of the marital debt when it is laid out explicitly in both scripture and theology as a mutual duty owed by each spouse equally to the other is telling. If men and women truly had comparable libidos we wouldn’t see such one-sided objection to this concept.
So what happens practically speaking is that any notion of sexual obligation is stomped out as something old-fashioned and oppressive, while men are asked to earn more and do more progressively over time as their needs are belittled and kicked aside.
It isn’t just about the biological fact of sex, but the connection and bond it creates. The nervous system regulation. The feeling of wellness and belonging and closeness. It isn’t purely mechanical or hedonic.
I have no doubt that things were overleveraged in men’s favor in the past, but they are equally over leverage in women’s favor now. Again, these are generalizations because I’m talking about societal trends. Clearly there are many individual exceptions.
Wow, this is definitely one of your better articles. You bring up some excellent and important points. I think we're reaching a crisis of manhood — women have kind of done an end-run around men leaving them without existential purpose in society.
The sex drive in men doesn't have an on/off switch, I sure wish it did. I think we would be a lot more productive and less distracted if such a thing existed. It doesn't matter how nice or holy a guy thinks of himself, that itch is always there. No amount of lecturing or scolding from the self anointed apologist class will ever change that. Recently I did stumble across an obscure YouTube channel called "The Uncharted Catholic Man", where the host talks about living out his faith and using NFP with all it's frustrations and the toll it takes on both him and his wife. He seems honest and realistic, while also maintaining a sense of humor and poke a little fun at some of the less humorful people in the Church. And I think you know who they are lol.
It's one of those areas where the society is in between norms, which is a uncomfortable place to be -- a dysfunctional one for many people.
The "old norm" of lifetime monogamous marriage doesn't fit very well a society organized entirely around individual self-actualization, empowerment and "living my truth". It simply doesn't fit, which is why it's under so much pressure.
The trouble is ... there is no new norm to replace it. Not yet anyway. In part because the social order around sexuality has not yet settled, even now, ~50-60 years after the sexual revolution. Things are still coming along that have substantial perturbing impacts, such as the rise of photo-video oriented social media like Instagram, the rise of photo-video and filter-driven swipe dating apps, the push toward monetization of the mass online attention made available by social media through the rise of platforms like OnlyFans and Patreon and so on. We're now living through the rise of AI boyfriends (and girlfriends, of course), and the increasing rumbling in chattering class publications, memoirs and even popular women's fiction (see eg Miranda July) in favor of "consensual non-monogamy", yet another attempt to renegotiate and modify the "rules" of the inherited sexual/relationship structure which will serve to destabilize the existing one.
The point: things remain in substantial flux. And the flux all tends to affect the power between the sexes in relationships and sex, and when that is in flux it is hard for a new set of norms to emerge -- the conditions on which those new norms would be based are too unstable.
So, because the environment has changed from the "old" one, the system that went with the old one no longer suits very well -- not without substantial modifications that, 50+ years in, haven't really stabilized the situation. This is because the underlying environment is still in flux -- no new model can emerge (including a stabilized modification of the old one) because the environment around sexuality, sexual and relational power between the sexes remains in tremendous flux, primarily due to technology-driven social changes that are greatly impactful in all of these areas.
In short -- we are not at the end of the road yet. Buckle up. I feel bad for my son's generation (he's in his middle 20s now) ... although they know the situation is broken systemically, and so almost all of them are proactively seeking individual solutions (if they are seeking any at all, and many are not).
Very true. It's kind of a hybrid where there's the underlying evolutionary motives but the expression of them (how people act on them) has been substantially modified due to the rise of reproductive technologies, the rise of the knowledge economy, and the rise of social media and the related developments since ~2010. So we are in this odd stew where there are underlying long-standing motives in play, yet the technological changes have dramatically modified how those motives are lived out ... and as you say, no time to adapt on the level of motives or social order. The social order can adapt faster than underlying motives, but even it has no chance to adapt when the technological environment keeps changing at a breakneck pace in ways that impact all of this.
Ughhh I can’t even with this article. So many generalizations and oversimplifications …Having suffered at the hands of a man who felt I owed that damn “marriage debt” every freaking day, I can say with assuredness that he certainly “casually (and I dare say overtly) dismissed the idea that [I] need to feel safe and secure in the[] relationship.” I felt anything but!!! So unsafe, so insecure, manipulated, and used. So I had to leave and I don’t regret it for one second. It’s an AWFUL feeling as a woman to feel like a constant receptacle who must appease a man’s needs.
Toxic and narcissistic have to do with treatment of someone—not work performed or money earned. Do manly work but don’t be an oppressive prick. What is so hard about that??? Women are not in charge of everything—have you seen our government? I’m sorry but this really hit a nerve especially since not everyone is plugged into the same headlines. I don’t often hear the refrain “men don’t need sex” in my sphere. Here’s my oversimplification of things: People need to get off the damn internet and just treat each other with kindness. No offense, Steve, again, this just hit a raw nerve with me.
I can certainly appreciate that. And I didn’t mean to imply that there’s no man who has no consideration of his wife’s needs. Only that I never see it broadcast in that way by average everyday men. Yeah, I’m sure the hideous misogynists of the world like Andrew Tate probably say exactly those kinds of things. What bothers me is How acceptable this sentiment has become.
And whether people who know how to get off-line like it or not, the younger generations do almost everything there. Including the vast majority of their dating. Very few people seem meet each other through conventional means these days.
There seems to be a society wide callous disregard for men, for who and what they are, for what their needs consist of, etc.
I suspect it’s all downstream from the feminist notion that men and women are essentially the same, just in different bodies. Frankly, that’s the only thing that explains why women are the chief proponents of transgenderism even as men are invading women only sports and spaces. If they admit that this is wrong because men have natural physical advantages and sexual access to the women on their teams, then they are admitting the lie of “anything you can do I can do better.”
Understanding the complementarity of the sexes means understanding the complementarity of their differences in biology and psychology. We have equal dignity, but we are not the same. We are not well suited to all the same roles and tasks.
And our needs in relationship mirror each other, but are in fact quite different.
I think the fact that so many women object even in principle to the idea of the marital debt when it is laid out explicitly in both scripture and theology as a mutual duty owed by each spouse equally to the other is telling. If men and women truly had comparable libidos we wouldn’t see such one-sided objection to this concept.
So what happens practically speaking is that any notion of sexual obligation is stomped out as something old-fashioned and oppressive, while men are asked to earn more and do more progressively over time as their needs are belittled and kicked aside.
It isn’t just about the biological fact of sex, but the connection and bond it creates. The nervous system regulation. The feeling of wellness and belonging and closeness. It isn’t purely mechanical or hedonic.
I have no doubt that things were overleveraged in men’s favor in the past, but they are equally over leverage in women’s favor now. Again, these are generalizations because I’m talking about societal trends. Clearly there are many individual exceptions.
Wow, this is definitely one of your better articles. You bring up some excellent and important points. I think we're reaching a crisis of manhood — women have kind of done an end-run around men leaving them without existential purpose in society.
The sex drive in men doesn't have an on/off switch, I sure wish it did. I think we would be a lot more productive and less distracted if such a thing existed. It doesn't matter how nice or holy a guy thinks of himself, that itch is always there. No amount of lecturing or scolding from the self anointed apologist class will ever change that. Recently I did stumble across an obscure YouTube channel called "The Uncharted Catholic Man", where the host talks about living out his faith and using NFP with all it's frustrations and the toll it takes on both him and his wife. He seems honest and realistic, while also maintaining a sense of humor and poke a little fun at some of the less humorful people in the Church. And I think you know who they are lol.
You might enjoy his interview with Kevinnontradcath on YouTube.
I will check it out, thank you Thomas. Hope you're hanging in there and doing well.
It's one of those areas where the society is in between norms, which is a uncomfortable place to be -- a dysfunctional one for many people.
The "old norm" of lifetime monogamous marriage doesn't fit very well a society organized entirely around individual self-actualization, empowerment and "living my truth". It simply doesn't fit, which is why it's under so much pressure.
The trouble is ... there is no new norm to replace it. Not yet anyway. In part because the social order around sexuality has not yet settled, even now, ~50-60 years after the sexual revolution. Things are still coming along that have substantial perturbing impacts, such as the rise of photo-video oriented social media like Instagram, the rise of photo-video and filter-driven swipe dating apps, the push toward monetization of the mass online attention made available by social media through the rise of platforms like OnlyFans and Patreon and so on. We're now living through the rise of AI boyfriends (and girlfriends, of course), and the increasing rumbling in chattering class publications, memoirs and even popular women's fiction (see eg Miranda July) in favor of "consensual non-monogamy", yet another attempt to renegotiate and modify the "rules" of the inherited sexual/relationship structure which will serve to destabilize the existing one.
The point: things remain in substantial flux. And the flux all tends to affect the power between the sexes in relationships and sex, and when that is in flux it is hard for a new set of norms to emerge -- the conditions on which those new norms would be based are too unstable.
So, because the environment has changed from the "old" one, the system that went with the old one no longer suits very well -- not without substantial modifications that, 50+ years in, haven't really stabilized the situation. This is because the underlying environment is still in flux -- no new model can emerge (including a stabilized modification of the old one) because the environment around sexuality, sexual and relational power between the sexes remains in tremendous flux, primarily due to technology-driven social changes that are greatly impactful in all of these areas.
In short -- we are not at the end of the road yet. Buckle up. I feel bad for my son's generation (he's in his middle 20s now) ... although they know the situation is broken systemically, and so almost all of them are proactively seeking individual solutions (if they are seeking any at all, and many are not).
And yet, ten thousand years or more of evolution doesn't just change overnight because we modernized almost that fast.
Very true. It's kind of a hybrid where there's the underlying evolutionary motives but the expression of them (how people act on them) has been substantially modified due to the rise of reproductive technologies, the rise of the knowledge economy, and the rise of social media and the related developments since ~2010. So we are in this odd stew where there are underlying long-standing motives in play, yet the technological changes have dramatically modified how those motives are lived out ... and as you say, no time to adapt on the level of motives or social order. The social order can adapt faster than underlying motives, but even it has no chance to adapt when the technological environment keeps changing at a breakneck pace in ways that impact all of this.