Timothy Flanders recently wrote "With Humility, Women Uplift Themselves and Sanctify Men". Under that (laudable) headline, he mentions that state of woman which does nothing for men: virginity. More to the point I question this state's humility.
There are points where virginity is necessary. If everyone around is immature, it is wise to suppress one's desires in that direction. If there are no legally-available and competent partners, likewise. Those suffering from SSA or from worse are also advised toward celibacy. But... these situations share a thread in common. They're abnormal.
There are arguments that celibacy uplifts woman, which arguments would apply to men as well. "Sex is a distraction." And so it is... if that's all you're doing. But in a healthy society, it's not. It's the start of a family. Family is no distraction from life; it is the whole point of life.
Promoting virginity in the face of a hostile world is like promoting killing the soldiers of an invading army. Promoting virginity for its own sake is like promoting murder. This isn't humility, it is selfishness.
BACKDATE 2/1/2020.
AAAAAND POSTSCRIPT 2/11: This post - Flanders now reminds us - is anathema by the Council of Trent. Believe it or not I do take Trent seriously.
If I was to argue celibacy's case in this context, I'd say that although Christianity sequestered some women out of The Dating Pool before their time, at least they didn't sequester them to Conan The Cimmerian. (The nunnery also locked the homosexuals out of view, as did the monastery.) Christianity forced normal single men to struggle that bit harder for the remaining [Christian] womens' attention. These men strive to be good providers for these women, rather than to be the one Alpha who would monopolise all of them.
But I don't know. Flanders hasn't made that case himself, preferring to quote edicts. Maybe there's a Catholic author out there who can argue the point instead of (implicitly) threatening me with terms like "hate" and "assault".
No comments:
Post a Comment