This totally wouldn’t be an extension of the PCCP mindset. Not at all!

Also, does ChristianMingle support the theory that a woman’s “no” doesn’t really mean “no?”

Maybe they are also patriarchal? Incidentally, this seems to be a problem on other dating sites as well. Check out the Instagram account Bye Felipe for some truly disturbing posts. I guess the Christian sites aren’t much better.

Hey, Joe. #ByeFelipe

I met my new wife on CM. It is a tool to meet others who OBSTENSIBLY share like interests and beliefs. I met some very, very nice people on CM. The ladies I met had ALL had at least one experience of going out with a CM member of the “User/Taker” orientation. I think it is a mistake to assume that CM is going to uphold some high level of spiritually correct administration. They are NOT a non-profit. I do think they will make an effort to respond to some gross misbehavior. A high degree of caveat emptor is appropriate with regard to the statements of CM members. We all want to put our best foot forward. Some of us use considerable latitude in describing what we feel are our “good” points. I found that if I put my “deal breakers” very, very clearly in my profile, I seemed to have fewer fruitless dialogs. CM is a tool that can und up hurting you if you do not carefully control how YOU use the tool. It can possibly give you a high degree of UNWARRANTED confidence in someone you really do not know at all other than what you have seemingly learned thru written correspondence and/or phone calls. Proceed with the utmost caution!

You should be careful about all dating sites, including the Christian ones. There are lots of nutty men and women out there.

I saw a profile on one site with a picture of Mary Kay Letourneau with the caption “Likes Younger Men”.

Look what kind of man this woman met on Christian Mingle.
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/02/victim-of-christianmingle-rapist-suing-her-attacker-and-his-mother-after-facebook-harassment/

I saw this and had a huge giggle. My parents met way before the Internet, but their names are Linda and Joe. Unrelated, I know, but personally funny. 😉

I found Joe’s comments demeaning, insulting and last but not least…threatening. He sounds very, very angry at women in particular. I think was very wise to leave ChristianMingle if for no other reason, to stop this diatribe.

Gram3 wrote:

And YRR is, at its core, about creating the illusion of significance for people who feel otherwise insignificant. It is all about creating a false identity as a Biblical Man rather than a true identity of In Christ.

“Former brewery-wagon driver saved from obscurity by his beloved Nazis.”
— Leon Uris, Armageddon: a Novel of Berlin, description of a (fictional) death-camp commandant

Abi Miah wrote:

2. She offered him “graven images?” WHat is that supposed to mean? I can’t even tell what it’s referring to: maybe commentaries instead of special revelation

Probably the word “equality”.

@ dee:
The guy really does sound deranged. I wonder if the people who run this site have any clue about what harrassment and abuse really are? My guess is not only that they don’t, but that they don’t care about finding out.

Haven’t commented on here in a while, but yes, it is common among the TGC and “Biblical man-womanhood council crowd to tell single women this. My previous roommate who is a TGC blogger wrote about this a few years ago and said it encourages men to have to confidence to ask the next woman out. In other words, stroke their ego.

Joe sounds like the typical cage stage YRR male SBTS student. Unless you agree in lockstep, they cannot stop themselves. Note the multiple comments he thinks is proving his superior spiritual knowledge with ( bizarre) declarations in spite of NO response. It is as if they are actually trying to prove something to themselves by parroting what they have been taught.

I just get mental images of this escalating in person with no good ending in sight.

Christina wrote:

My previous roommate who is a TGC blogger wrote about this a few years ago and said it encourages men to have to confidence to ask the next woman out. In other words, stroke their ego.

Hearing the word no would do these spoiled little boys alot of good. Being told no helped me and didnt shatter my poor fragile male ego. For such manly men they sure can be easily damaged.

I am not really suprised that CM was less than helpful. When it comes down to it, they are a business and aren’t going to do much that upsets the flow of gravy. What will get them to act responsibly is members resigning, esp female members, because they do not actually protect members. Money talks, right now the cash is flowing so they arent looking to “fix” what they see is working.

original Mitch wrote:

I have continually asked myself what are the actual socialogical contexts that made YRR so popular at this point in time.

Don’t get me started. (wink)

“I could play with your head for hours” is a huge red flag–he sounds controlling and thinks he’s superior

You know, when the comp teachers; i.e. Grudem, Piper, etc. lay out this type of doctrine, they try to make it seem so spiritual, honorable, and beneficial for all concerned.

But when you hear it all jumbled together in a meaningless manner in Joe’s comments, you can easily see how rotten the fruit of that teaching is. It has, in at least one person, produced an arrogant, pompous attitude and he’s proud of it! He’s using a little knowledge as a weapon to wound a total stranger and apparently thinks she deserves it.

Talk about rotten fruit…

@ Stan: Village peeps are famous for that speech/talk. I was a member there at one point. Glad I have had some time to distance myself and realize TVC isn’t the end all be all to Christianity.

@ Will M:
Just like boys find identity in the YRR movement, women find identity in gender roles. Back in the wild blogging days there was a site that tried so hard to bring comps/egals together to find common ground. What always shocked me were the professional, successful and educated women who were strident comps. After a while, you catch on that they might have issues with being more successful than their husband but he can be THE success as the spiritual leader (if she makes it so) That way, she did not marry below herself.

No matter how you shake out comp doctrine, it always ends up making women submissive BUT responsible for the outcomes. Think about it. That is a sort of covert “power” and some women like that. The man cannot be the leader unless she plays her role.

You might be surprised at how many powerful comp couples there are in evangelicalism where the wife was like General Patton backstage and running the show. The women get something from it: Identity, fake piousness, power, etc. It is a game of manipulation tactics for both of them whether it is with the audience or each other.

Will M wrote:

“Submission in marriage bears witness to our risen Lord who reigns supreme.”

I just wish they had to explain silliness like this in person to a group who actually practice mutual submission. They need to be expected to explain what this looks like in real life, for starters.

Lydia wrote:

The women get something from it: Identity, fake piousness, power, etc. It is a game of manipulation tactics for both of them whether it is with the audience or each other.

Very true observation. My impression of the comps (not all) is that its all about power. So, often times the guy is the big up front boss, while the woman is behind trying to manipulate situations so that she can control things. To me, this seems very contrary to what Jesus was teaching

Gram3 wrote:

There is also a reaction against the shallow Christianity or fake Christianity or legalistic Christianity of their parents. Or an over-reaction to the secularism and disordered families in which they grew up. They are looking for guarantees and the perfect system to bring order to their observed chaos.

This is why they need systematics. The Bible does not answer questions with a lot of easy lists of this is how you do things. So they have got to put the Bible in its proper order and with its proper relationships (Hodge).

@ Christina:

Isn’t one of their lines that we all need to call out our brothers’ sins? Some dudes shouldn’t have confidence because they’re creeps with nothing to offer. But, the gospel-centered single woman should pretend that every man’s a stud?

nmgirl wrote:

where did ole Joe get the part

There is an anti-woman movement that I’m sure promotes this stuff. I can’t remember the name of it. But many of the members of this/these groups are men burnt by divorce.

Mara wrote:

nmgirl wrote:
where did ole Joe get the part
There is an anti-woman movement that I’m sure promotes this stuff. I can’t remember the name of it. But many of the members of this/these groups are men burnt by divorce.

It’s called the Men’s Rights Movement (MRA) or The Manosphere.
With overlap with the Pick Up Artists (PUAs) on how to USE women sexually.

And I agree; these sound like guys who’ve been burned BAD by women in their life and are hell-bent for revenge against anything without a Y chromosome and testicles.

Will M wrote:

“Submission in marriage bears witness to our risen Lord who reigns supreme.” Really?

The Great Chain of Being, boots stamping on their inferiors’ faces from God at the top all the way down.

Will M wrote:

Lydia wrote:

The women get something from it: Identity, fake piousness, power, etc. It is a game of manipulation tactics for both of them whether it is with the audience or each other.

Very true observation. My impression of the comps (not all) is that its all about power.

And when you reduce anything to Power Struggle, there are only two possible end states: My boot stamping on your face or your boot stamping on mine. And the only way to avoid the latter is to make sure of the former, FOREVER.

We’ve seen the results over and over in news items and history books.

original Mitch wrote:

Do you think this is more sociological than theological?

Definitely. Gram nailed it well.

Secular blogs and sites are all over this. There are posts after posts with numerous examples of men who assault women in real life or who stalk them on dating sites/in e-mails if they rebuff the man (even if the woman lets them down very gently and super politely).

A lot of men cannot handle rejection. Lots of them do feel deeply entitled and owed female attention, dates, flirting.

Their reluctance to take a “no” is one common red flag that the guy is a controller or abuser or maybe a wack job – so many blogs and books on domestic violence will tell you that.

(Also, I’ve read that the the flip side of that can be a warning sign, too: guys who are overly charming, sweet, who push the women too fast to get serious or exclusive in dating, can be abusers.)

I also told the story on here before about on another site. Someone had a woman friend who was against complementarianism – she was a Christian feminist (or whatever label she gave to herself, I don’t remember).

She met “Bob The Christian” on some dating site. I think the guy identified as Christian on the site, but did not admit to being a gender comp.

The guy assured her he was all about women’s lib when she brought up how she supported equality for women, etc.

Flash forward several more months, they get married, he admits to her like several months into the marriage that he’s actually big on gender comp and expects her to obey him.

He became so unbearable to live with, that the lady divorced him.

This guy led her on. Pretended to be something he was not on a dating site. I thought Christians were supposed to be opposed to deception, but he was deceiving this lady.

So, maybe in a way it’s good that Joe let his true colors through? Maybe better to find out up front he’s a sexist and a crack pot than date and date him or marry him and find out later?

I am also wondering why Christians keep badgering Christian singles to only marry other Christians when I’m guessing there’s probably some perfectly nice, good looking, loving atheist guy out there who would treat the Christian Lindas of the world ten times better?

Yes, I’ve heard of the “equally yoked” thing, but really, with guys like “Wacko Joe” on Christian dating sites, what is the point again?

If “Larry the Atheist” is going to treat me with kindness and respect, I’d be more willing to date or marry Atheist Larry than Wacko Christian Joe.

@ Daisy:

By the way.
It’s my understanding based on earlier news reports I read over a year ago that the guy in that story, the rapist guy – he was intentionally using Christian dating sites specifically to find targets (victims). The story I linked you all to above did not convey that bit of information.

That link I gave made it sound like he just happened to meet his target via that Christian site, when it later was revealed he was specifically using Christian dating sites as his hunting ground. I don’t know or recall if the guy hated Christian women or what and that’s why he used Christian sites, or what.

He was not on “secular” sites like Yahoo personals or Plenty of Fish, or whatever Non-Christians use.

It was either that same guy or another I read about – who used Christian dating sites to select victims – one woman victim was interviewed about the guy. She said he was convincing.

He would talk to her in private dating site e-mail exchanges about his favorite Bible verses, his “love for the Lord,” and he’d use other Christian bingo and Christianese in his communications with her. His profile had Christian-sounding references and things on it.

He sounded like a genuine Christian guy, from what she conveyed.

Alan House wrote:

I found that if I put my “deal breakers” very, very clearly in my profile, I seemed to have fewer fruitless dialogs.

Sorry I am not trying to dominate the thread here with all the replies, but I just remembered something else about this.

A lot of men do not bother to read a woman’s profile. The majority who have contacted me when I was active on them were saying stuff that gave away the fact that they were not reading my profile.
A lot of men only go by the photo. If they think you are cute, they contact you. Most don’t bother to read your profile.

Not all dating sites operate like eHarmony, where you get taken screen by screen through an intro, where you each have to see a “deal breakers” list.

Heck, even my time on eHarmony revealed that men only like to look at photos, they don’t actually read what women write.

Annnnd. If you do state on your profile the color red is a deal breaker for you, and you refuse to date men who were the color red, you will still get men who love the color red who contact you anyway.

Either because they didn’t bother to read your preferences and deal breakers, or, they read it and are very angry you don’t like red.

They will message you to argue all day about how wrong you are to not want to date men who wear red t-shirts.

Some men on dating sites take your dislikes as a personal affront and will send nasty, hateful messages yelling at you for not liking red or Happy Days reruns or whatever.

You cannot win on dating sites when you’re a woman no matter what you do or what you like.

dee wrote:

it encourages men to have to confidence to ask the next woman out.
Wait! Aren’t these guys supposed to be *real* men-leaders, etc.?

What? They haven’t kissed dating good-bye? Heaven forbid.

Stan made the point I was just about to make — what guy needs to waste time and money on an ‘obligatory date?’

Daisy wrote:

A lot of men do not bother to read a woman’s profile.

That doesn’t surprise me, given that the quintessential app for men seeking men is all about the [increasingly explicit] photos. I refuse to stereotype a gender completely, but there does seem to be a frequently encountered commonality here…

Abi Miah wrote:

2. She offered him “graven images?” WHat is that supposed to mean? I can’t even tell what it’s referring to: maybe commentaries instead of special revelation

I wondered if he was talking about the “scholarly resources” she said she could recommend for him to read?

Lydia wrote:

Then I remembered that if we are dealing with a personality disorder it is really dumb to try and find reason and/or meaning in what they say. :o)

Yes, this.

I was reading a book about emotionally abusive people, and the psychologist or whomever who wrote it said over and over, don’t try to make sense of the stuff these people tell you. It will never make sense.

They have inner problems they need to deal with, but in the meantime, they handle their inner problems by screaming like nuts at those around them, and often, what they yell or say doesn’t make sense. It’s not meant to.

The book author said stop wasting your energy and effort at trying to understand people who act like this, trying to understand what they are saying. It will only wear you out.

Sharon wrote:

“I could play with your head for hours” is a huge red flag–he sounds controlling and thinks he’s superior

That is not a red flag. That is a fire alarm. Exit the building immediately!

Lydia wrote:

They need to be expected to explain what this looks like in real life, for starters.

Another thing that bugs me about the undue emphasis on the “marriage (or submission in marriage) represents Christ (or Christ’s relationship to God or the church or whatevever” stuff is that it leaves singles out in the cold.

I accepted Christ as a kid but remain single as an adult. I guess people like me don’t count? that’s the message I get in all the Rah Rah Marriage stuff that John Piper and other Christian pump out.

BeenThereDoneThat wrote:

Do you mean the Men’s Rights Activists or MRAs? Now there’s a group with Special Snowflake Syndrome.

There is actually a group that, IIRC, is more severe than them, that MRAs laugh at.

I think they are known as MGTOW. (Men going their own way). These are guys that try to cut off any and all contact with women.

Adherence to their view comes in stages, and I forget what all of them are, but one, like step 3 or 4 or whatever it is, is having no contact with women – don’t marry one, don’t date one, don’t sleep with one.

I was just skimming a page about them and what they believe a few days ago. It’s peculiar and sad stuff.

This guy sounds a lot like a schizophrenic former friend of mine. My friend’s (very sad) descent into mental illness was also marked by really disjointed theological musings, weird anger and resentment towards women in general and obsessive behaviour over really small points of contention. (There were also stalking issues, to the point where the pastors in my church had lookouts to stop him from approaching me in service whenever he decided to “pop by” and “give a word” about all the “Jezebels”. He never wanted to speak to men either, only women, and could be very harrassing. The men who talked with him always tried to pray with him and welcome him, but with reasonable boundaries. He refused and still tried to speak with me, or a couple of other women that he was also fixated on.) I guess, reading these emails, I’m getting a very familliar sense. I am not an expert, but I would put money on this CM guy having mental illness. I don’t have any experience with CM, but it seems like there will always be a few nutters that slip through the cracks. CM’s responsibility then would be to tighten up security and blocking mechanisms.

@ Ken P.:
That is a scream!

Daisy wrote:

I would think an older guy would know better and be more mature. But maybe some of the older gender comp guys are that full of themselves.

Definitely true. I could name names ~~ men in my neck of the woods.
Daisy wrote:

I accepted Christ as a kid but remain single as an adult. I guess people like me don’t count? that’s the message I get in all the Rah Rah Marriage stuff that John Piper and other Christian pump out.

Jesus remained single. I’d say he counted ~~ not simply because he was a man, either! Piper et al focus on trivial personal interpretations and completely miss the crucial things. They even stress certain things Paul said and completely ignore other things he said in order to drive home their doctrines.

Daisy wrote:

I don’t know it matters much how careful the women use the dating site.

I do not disagree.

I’m totally using this for my fantasy fanfic, “Complementarians of Gor.”

(Two people will get this.)

So much has been said already, I don’t know what more I can add….except, how about some instruction from Lori Alexander’s blog, “Always Learning.” When I want some Patriarchal entertainment, I go to her blog. Here’s an article entitled, “Let Him Lead You Courageously.” But the real hoot is in the comment section. You can find lots of similar articles like this one on her blog all making us of, as Gram likes to say, the “clobber” verses.
http://lorialexander.blogspot.com/2015/10/let-him-lead-you-courageously.html

If the ‘complement’ of wifely submission is husbandly love, if that is where a first date will lead if it goes on to end up in marriage, then surely if a woman says ‘no’ to a date, the loving thing to do is to except it? This is the negation of any idea of male entitlement. Start how you mean to go on.

A marriage is freely entered into by both parties, and rumour has it that in some circumstances they may even have fallen in love with each other! You cannot compel anyone to love you (in this sense). You can ask for a date, but asking by its very nature entails the right to say no. I don’t think I ever asked my wife for a date, we drifted into going out with each other. It just kind of happened. Didn’t read any evangelical books on it either! (I wasn’t alone in this either.)

In my day …. the advice was not to pair off too quickly but to get to know a variety of ‘potential others’ in a group setting. Get to know girls in general rather than one specific specimin. As far as it goes, I think this was good advice. It pre-dates the internet (I’m not divulging by how long!), but I wonder if the answer to the potential for abuse on dating sites is to try to enable singles to meet each other as part of normal church life. Do something upstream. The church is not a dating agency, but maybe it lets singles down in this regard?

Daisy wrote:

This guy led her on. Pretended to be something he was not on a dating site. I thought Christians were supposed to be opposed to deception, but he was deceiving this lady.

Now where did he learn that?

Maybe from his YRR pastor who told the search committee that he wasn’t a Calvinist?

@ Lydia:
@ Sarah Fegredo:

Precisely. But why would anyone want to rob the rebbetzin of her position and who would want to rob the community of the good she provides for them all? I don’t buy into the idea that this is all manipulation nor the idea that that it must be stamped out of existence. Using the rebbetzin in the iconic sense of having a wider application in society.

It is a temptation to resent that mode of gender role functioning if one such as I have had to go fight all the battles for herself, but resentment is not a good enough reason to adopt some comprehensive and generic disavowal of a life style that can work quite well for a lot of people.

If you look at some old edition of that how to dress for success book you will note that lots of rules were suggested but then there was the section that said that ‘in the south’ you will find women CEOs and owners who inherited the business from husband or father and who still look and act like we would today denigrate as phony and manipulative and which some would object to based on how traditionally feminine some of these women were dressing at work. Those women were not manipulated or persecuted. They were capable and ran the business well, but they sure looked ‘gender role’ on the surface. And they did get where they were by being in a ‘gender role’ (daughter or wife) situation with either (pattern A) some strong man who passed the business on to them or else (pattern B) some semi-incompetent man who needed them to hold it all together. Think Susanna Wesley for an example of the latter.

IMO, this may be one reason that there has been a female backlash to some of the stated social and political goals which can be loosely associated with the ‘women’s movement.’ By backlash remember that the proposed constitutional amendment did not get ratified. People do not want to give up their power, and some women would be giving up their designated (not manipulated) power by hurling themselves into the fracas of ‘each for himself and devil take the hindmost. ‘ I am firmly in the position that we need all sorts of opportunities for all people-not just women-and we need to hesitate before deciding that ‘I did it my way’ is the only correct and just and god-pleasing way to function.

This guy is obviously full of himself and she can respond a few ways here. Personally I would just respond and piss him off. I know it sounds a bit childish but from what I can see he is acting like a manchild. So rather than have a debate I would find papers or positions that strong feminist have written about and I would fill his message box with as much feministic garb as I could. I would continue to respond not even reading his responses. Trust me, it would infuriate him and I have no doubt he would give up. Now if he blocked me well then the only response he would get is delete delete delete!!!!!if I were her I wouldn’t spend one second reading his ridiculous rants. He can’t do much accept block and message and hopefully she didn’t give any personal ways for him to contact her. This guy is a moron and a control freak. You get control freaks by taking control of how you respond and don’t give them Amy power it’s what they thrive off of.

Daisy wrote:

is having no contact with women – don’t marry one, don’t date one, don’t sleep with one.

They sound like first grade boys who think that all girls have cooties.

marquis wrote:

We will be meeting with our,attorney today and soon after it will all begin and as Dee works with us, this story will soon be told.

Hope all goes well. Please tell your son he has a lot of supporters here.

Serving Kids In Japan wrote:

Or, since marriage is held in such high esteem, and treated like the be-all-and-end-all of Christian existence, he might have figured that the end justifies the means. After all, what’s a little deception compared to the Greater Good of Matrimony (and finally not being looked at as a loser by fellow complementarian men)?

Salvation by Marriage Alone.

Once you have A Wife(TM), you are finally allowed to sit with the grown-ups at the grown-ups’ table.

Christina wrote:

My previous roommate who is a TGC blogger wrote about this a few years ago and said it encourages men to have to confidence to ask the next woman out.

By the same token, a woman who refuses a “courtesy date” encourages other women to have the confidence to listen to their gut reaction.

@ Will M:

That article made me very sad. Sad to know how readily people, male and female, accept what they are told without investigating it: 1. for its Biblical accuracy (in the context of the whole Scripture) and 2. for its historical integrity (has this been the traditional, orthodox teaching of the church).

So many young, well meaning Bible students/disciples and followers buy-in wholesale to what the trendy-leader-du-jour tells them because the leader is thought to speak “ex cathedra,” or at least as close to it as possible in a Protestant setting.

Thank you all for your amazing support and prayers.Nancy2 wrote:

@ marquis:
May God bless your family, your son in particular, with the strength and focus that you need.

As soon as you said that you did not want to argue, gave me your opinion, and offered me Graven images, I smelled narcicissm.

…Wut?

My cousin met a guy online, I’m pretty sure on CM. He stole $3000 from my grandmother and roped my cousin into helping him. (And yes, it’s her fault that she helped him. I’m not saying any of this to absolve her of responsibility. Unfortunately her background is really troubled so it’s just a bad situation all around.)

I’m signed up with eHarmony at the moment and thankfully haven’t any of these communicating-with-fruitcakes experiences yet. I’ve definitely seen a few profiles that were obvious fruitcakes but I didn’t message those people. I block (or at least don’t message) anyone who has complementarian codewords (like “servant leader”) in their profile. Not all of those people looked like outright fruitcakes, but I’m decidedly not looking for someone who sees me as unequal in the relationship like that so sorry, no dice, comp guys. You might be perfectly nice people but it just doesn’t work with my core beliefs.

And yeah, telling a woman to give a guy a “courtesy date” just because he asked, is pretty much the same as telling her that she’s obligated say yes to any guy who asks her out.

okrapod wrote:

And then …. he buys her a hamburger?

That is just such a romantic thought … 🙂

Gram3 wrote:

As for Colin Hansen, the plain fact is that “complementarianism” teaches universal female deference. Therefore, within that ethic, what Hansen said is reasonable and a female owes the male a courtesy because he is male and she is female. In any sane world, it is ridiculous, but Hansen is somebody because of YRR. And YRR is, at its core, about creating the illusion of significance for people who feel otherwise insignificant. It is all about creating a false identity as a Biblical Man rather than a true identity of In Christ.

I would suggest that if a woman feels she owes a man a “courtesy ” date, the date should be chaperoned by the woman’s father, or another “Biblical Man” in her life such as a brother, an uncle, or her pastor. Said chaperone should bring a shotgun and dominate the conversation by talking about how special the woman is and what a ridiculously hefty bride price she should bring! Blech.

Nancy2 wrote:

Nancy2

Gram3 wrote:
As for Colin Hansen, the plain fact is that “complementarianism” teaches universal female deference. Therefore, within that ethic, what Hansen said is reasonable and a female owes the male a courtesy because he is male and she is female

Good idea Nancy2

Cause basically Colin Hansen is saying that women aren’t allowed to have deal breakers. Being female means having no boundaries of her own. But, of course, all these men want pristine virgins when they marry. So obviously someone else is going to have to guard the patriarchy approved boundaries for women.

@ Marie:

Praise God, Marie. Thanks for letting us know.

Ken wrote:

(Point 1) If the ‘complement’ of wifely submission is husbandly love, if that is where a first date will lead if it goes on to end up in marriage, then surely if a woman says ‘no’ to a date, the loving thing to do is to except it? This is the negation of any idea of male entitlement.

(Point 2) The church is not a dating agency, but maybe it lets singles down in this regard?

(Point 1.)
A woman is free to turn down a man for any reason should he ask her for a date. That you seem to think a man entitled to a date regardless of the reason does hint of a male entitlement attitude.

It’s not my duty as a woman to stroke the male ego or make them feel good about themselves, but lots of them, especially Christian gender complementarians, act as though that is one of a woman’s only purposes in life – it is condescending.

Men need to be taught to handle rejection well. We now have 2 – 3 very public cases (two in the USA, one in UK I think it was) of young male virgins who killed wome (or in the UK case, tried to) because they felt entitled to female company / sex / dating could not hit it off with women.

Nobody likes to be rejected. Dating is not easy for men or for women – another point lost on a lot of men (especially some gender comps and secular MRA groups).

They think dating is easy peasy for women. It’s not. Yet, most women manage not to stalk or kill people who turn them down for relationships and dates – unlike most men in real life or these dating sites who get nasty or bonkers if a woman politely turns them down.

(Point 2.)
No, churches do not help singles marry, leaving us to go to night clubs or use dating sites, places which are filled with weirdos or stalkers.

Could churches act as vehicles to help marriage minded singles get married (eg, by fixing up willing singles, and holding more social events for singles to meet)?

Yes, but many American churches balk at this, their standard reply: “But church is only for worship, nothing else, and fixing up singles would turn church into a meat market!!”
(All of this is actually a lie, because churches often meet the needs of married couples who have children)

So, I as a single, have to hope on bumping into a normal guy by chance, or join dating sites and put up with what Linda did with Joe on Christian Mingle.

Churches are of no practical help to adult singles in helping us get married.

Churches are of no help in what would you term it, philosophical/ theoretical help, because they frequently tell marriage-desiring singles stuff promised to keep us single such as,
“Don’t look for a spouse, don’t date! Just trust the Lord! Be content in Jesus! Be content in your singleness, and that is when you will meet Mr or Ms Right.”

Somehow, magically, a spouse will appear according to this superstitious outlook, but this approach does not work for most singles.

@ lydia:

Yeah, that was something else I thought of last night but didn’t comment on.

I did wonder if Linda mentioned on her profile if she is of egal leanings, or rejects gender comp.

Doing so could be like waving a red flag in front of a bull, to some gender comp men who are itching to pick a fight, or who take it as a personal insult if they find a woman who doesn’t share those views.

On the other hand, as I was saying above, most men don’t even bother to read a woman’s profile anyway – they only care about your profile photos, something I find very demeaning and sexist.

They don’t care about me as a person or my hobbies or opinions, only what I looked like. -That was my experience on dating sites.

I could tell from the questions and comments men would send me that they weren’t bothering to read my profile information.

I would state up front what my favorite movies were or what have you, and the first question they’d send me in private was “So what is your favorite movie?”

Serving Kids In Japan wrote:

Or, since marriage is held in such high esteem, and treated like the be-all-and-end-all of Christian existence, he might have figured that the end justifies the means. After all, what’s a little deception compared to the Greater Good of Matrimony (and finally not being looked at as a loser by fellow complementarian men)?

This sounds a little similar to something Ken was saying above in his post – that ultimately, how a guy treats a woman or handles rejection in dating doesn’t really matter, that a woman should go ahead and say Yes to every date she’s asked out on because surely the guy has a great motive – to marry her and serve her in marriage.

One other thing I want to say about that: some men out there are deceivers.
I’ve already cited examples of guys who flat out lied to women on Christian dating sites, and one guy who was such a convincing Christian online, Christian women met him for dates via a Christian dating site, and he raped them.

My safety and well-being as a woman -a human being- is a billion times more important than getting married, sparing a man’s ego, or sparing a man’s feelings, or living up to some stupid gender role rules and expectations cooked up by John Piper, Wayne Grudem, or Mark Driscoll.

I’m not going to put myself in a position to be verbally abused, stalked, physically harmed or sexually assaulted, and all to spare the feelings of some chump with a fragile ego on a dating site.

And the conflicting message here – I thought Biblical Men, according to CBMW gender comp types, were supposed to be tough, He-Man types, so why would a woman turning them down for a date be so wounding?

I thought in this view, it is women who are the overly emotional, dainty little flowers who cannot cope?

Gram3 wrote:

Hansen is somebody because of YRR

Indeed! Collin Hansen’s name first popped onto the New Calvinist screen in 2006 when he was an associate editor at Christianity Today and posted an article entitled “Young, Restless, Reformed: Calvinism is making a comeback—and shaking up the church.” That was my first glimpse inside the New Calvinist movement. The article was fairly unbiased – Hansen was just reporting what he observed. With his name now on the radar and a YRR market eager to buy, he followed in 2008 with his book “Young, Restless, Reformed: A Journalist’s Journey with the New Calvinists.” At that point, he appeared to have been drawn into the movement lock, stock & barrel … as Dee notes, he eventually ended up on staff at The Gospel Coalition (= The Calvinist Coalition). He is definitely mingling with the reformed who’s who now … and with that comes a macho, authoritarian view of women as subordinate.

Through a glass darkly wrote:

By the same token, a woman who refuses a “courtesy date” encourages other women to have the confidence to listen to their gut reaction.

Excellent point.

Gavin DeBecker gets into this in his book “The Gift of Fear.”Society often encourages women to stuff their impulses and intuition down, and all to spare the feelings of a man they are suspicious of.

Some women end up getting assaulted because women are taught to ignore their gut and to place a man’s ego and feelings above her own safety.

Then some Christians come along and pour this stuff on ten times thicker, and pressure Christian women with it even more, under Gender Comp and Biblical Gender Roles teachings.

Women are set up to be easy targets or willing victims in these teachings and values.

Men like Colin Hansen don’t get how dangerous going out and dating can be for women.

The following link is sort of relevant to the conversation.
Especially if rapists are using Christian dating sites to find fresh meat.

http://imgur.com/gallery/Pijjv

@ Marie:

I hope you continue to recover well.

Also, hugs for the other lady up thread who is having problems of her own.

Marie wrote:

I am recovering very well and happy to report that the cancer was confined to the uterus, I had a complete hysterectomy and the removed lymph nodes showed no further spread.

Great news!

Mara wrote:

But, of course, all these men want pristine virgins when they marry

Some may.

As a 40 something pristine virgin, I can tell you that some Christian men do not want a virgin, which is also a bummer.

A lot of them state on certain Christian dating sites that they want a woman who has “sexual experience.” Which counts me out. (I was even noticing this back when I was on these sites in my mid 30s.)

I don’t know how so-called Christian men (assuming they take the Bible and Christian ethics seriously) expect a never-married Christian woman (who has taken the Bible and sexual ethics seriously) to have sexual experience.

I’m being penalized by these men for actually having followed the Christian faith in the area of sexual morality… and I don’t get that at all.

I was engaged, so I’ve been in a long term, serious relationship, but I told my ex there would be no nooky, so there was no nooky.

So I don’t know if they are using the “prefer someone with sexual experience” to weed out women who’ve never been in a serious relationship or what the deal is.

Maybe in the olden days, men wanted to date or marry virgins, but that is no longer the case. There are even secular editorials warning men to avoid virgins, to only date/ marry non-virgins.

Way off the topic, if I EVER was forced to get married again, literally forced ( something has to happen to the present Mrs KD and she’s going to outlive me) but if a shotgun is involved, and I got to, literally got to, I’d fly to Vegas and get Elvis to do the ceremony….

The complementarian agenda is big in organizations like Cru. It’s grown a lot. I remember being on a Cru retreat to Lacrosse, Wisconsin and being in the guys time. Guys were asking questions about having their girlfriends in college submit to them in preparation of marriage. Totally shocked me. I have more concerns about this today then back then, because well…I was a kool aid drinker.

Linda to Joe Response

Linda’s response to Joe (identified as paragraph 2) is over the top, way off base and inappropriate. The purpose of Christian dating sites are for dating and not for trying to convince the other person their views are incorrect. Linda then added insult with the arrogant phrase “if you are truly seeking.” Linda should have simply ended her response after the second sentence. Any response from Joe should have been deleted and not read.

Joe2 wrote:

Linda’s response to Joe (identified as paragraph 2) is over the top, way off base and inappropriate.

In what way was her response any of those things? Was she not free to respond as she deemed appropriate?

@ Daisy:

That’s unfortunate. 🙁 I got plenty of matches for quite a while, though it does eventually become more infrequent because there’s only a finite number of people in a given area, I guess. (Though I didn’t message all of them, obviously.) But it does still send me people even now. I don’t get a whole lot of messages but I figure having it available is better than nothing.

Thankfully I haven’t seen the raunchy jokes/toilet humor thing at all. There have been a few odd things but they were more amusing than disturbing/gross like that. My favorite was the violinist whose entire profile was one long philosophical rambling about…well, actually I still don’t really even know what it was about. It was very weird.

I did go on one date with a guy who seemed like a nice enough person, but he could only talk in Christianese, and church/religion/my personal relationship with Jesus was the ONLY thing he wanted to talk about. Then he asked me in an email after one lunch meetup what I thought of him in terms of what I want in my future husband. I told him I didn’t know him well enough to answer that question and it petered out after that (obviously).

@ Nancy2:
She said she read over his introduction. Maybe she did not realize at first what his views on patriarchy were. Lots of women in my most recent former church have no idea whatsoever what lies behind the teaching they are given. Regardless, I think Linda is free to respond with her beliefs and why she thinks that she and Joe are incompatible. It’s a lot kinder to be honest when your objection is grounded in core beliefs than to lead someone on, IMO. And just maybe she might get him to think about some things which he has not heard before. That happened with me with a few people at said most recent former church. That said, I’ve never participated in an online dating “service” before and do not know the unwritten rules. Obviously. 🙂

I met my wife and got married the old fashioned way – without the presence of the internet, so I cannot identify by experience.

This guy is clearly disturbed. A lot of disturbed people have strong feelings about spiritual issues – all over the map.

@ Joe2:
What about Joe’s 4 unanswered messages to Linda? Don’t you think they were off base and over the top?

As to Collin Hansen, here is another example of a person saying something that makes them sound like someone has removed their brain from their head, but they are still talking.

You only reach opinions like that by thinking about something too much and buying into a community as a matter of first priority.

Things that are absurd on their face.

Then, your opinions are not so much influenced by logic, as by the group’s position.

Examples:

1) A girl should go out with a man who asks as a courtesy.

2) A person cannot leave a church. If there is a discipline proceeding going on, the person must stay. So, the person is not allowed to leave, and then he is excommunicated, so he can be told to leave. A co-elder at my church remarked that this sounds like, “You are not breaking up with me. I am breaking up with you.”

3) Because Paul wrote in I Tim 3 that the elders of church should be men…, the church should add a list of 100 additional things that women cannot do.

4) When Jesus first spoke in the synagogue, he was actually advocating for a socialist economic society. That is the great salvation that he offers.

5) Jesus fed the 5000 because the boy who willingly surrendered his meager lunch of loves and fish actually encouraged the others in attendance to share their lunches which they had brought.

6) Eating cottage cheese causes weight gain. Haven’t you notice only obese people eat that.

7) I am going to marry that person, warts and all, and then after we’re married, I will cause that person to change to be the person I really want.

8) Drinking will help my depression.

9) Communism is really benevolent and works, but so far the right people haven’t been in charge whenever it’s been tried.

10) The way to end discrimination on the basis of race is to sanction discrimination on the basis of race.

11) I am with the government and I am here to help.

12) I will respect you in the morning.

13) But the real estate agent told me …

Etc.

This is one of the best things I have ever read about singleness in my entire life, and this is just as pertinent to Christians as it is to Non-Christians:

All dating advice is as terrible as the people who give it by Oliver Burkeman
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/oliver-burkeman-column/2015/feb/11/all-dating-advice-is-as-terrible-as-the-people-who-give-it

This Burkeman guy should have a statue erected in his honor for having written that page.

It should be required reading – to the congregation – from the pulpit after every “How to have a great marriage sermon” that Reformed, Baptist, and evangelical preachers like to give every four weeks.

Gram3 wrote:

In what way was her response any of those things? Was she not free to respond as she deemed appropriate?

I sort of touched on this topic in my post higher above Joe2’s here,

http://thewartburgwatch.com/2015/10/07/christianmingle-where-egalitarian-linda-met-patriarchal-joe-and-couldnt-get-rid-of-him/comment-page-1/#comment-223026

In my time on dating sites, I learned not to get into long winded or knock down, drag out fights about theology.

However, I sometimes came across men who got their underwear in a twist when I politely and briefly just let them know on these dating sites, after having glanced at their profile and saw what they believed, I would not feel comfortable dating a guy from their theological bent or denomination.

I do agree with Joe2 to a degree that dating sites are not about debating theology, that’s not their purpose. Of course, Linda is a 50-something adult and can choose to behave however she wants.

I just learned not to get into big debates with men over stuff like that on dating sites, or to explain why I felt their beliefs were wrong to them, because if you did not keep it short and sweet with them…

The nuts or rude ones would want to message you back and fight with you all day long about this stuff.

I’ve disagreed with Joe2 on a few topics before on older threads, but on this topic, I agree partially with some of what he was saying. I think where I get some of where he’s coming from on this.

Daisy wrote:

I do agree with Joe2 to a degree that dating sites are not about debating theology, that’s not their purpose. Of course, Linda is a 50-something adult and can choose to behave however she wants.

No, I don’t think that is their purpose, either. I don’t think people should troll sites for other purposes regardless of POV. However, it seems that somehow Joe made it known that he has strong views in this area. I honestly cannot see how Linda is wrong or inappropriate for saying that those differences make all the difference or for suggesting further reading for Joe’s edification. I do not think that it is appropriate second-guess Linda’s reasons when she was the one involved, just like I usually get in trouble for saying that people should not come to TWW complaining about the topics discussed here. Basically, I think Joe2 is mistaken to assume that a woman is out of line for defending her beliefs against the accusations by those of Joe’s persuasion who believe that women are deceived who do not agree with them. It, IMO, is a rancid form of presuppositionalism.

Joe2 wrote:

She did respond as appropriate when she wrote, “I don’t think we are compatible” and “Peace to you and good luck in your search!” Nothing further needs to be written. Linda doesn’t need to defend her beliefs or criticize Joe’s beliefs.

I actually pretty much agree with you on this, Joe2. I explained why above. (My reasoning may be a little different from yours, though.)

OTOH, as I’ve also mentioned, a lot of ladies, even if you do let the guy down short, sweet, and polite (as you are advocating they do), the flakes, creeps, nuts, or argumentative ones will write back all whiny and demanding.

I used to give men the polite, short brush off if I was not interested in them, and they would still write back and insult me, or be like, “But Whyyyyyy? Whyyyyy won’t you even give me a chance???? Whyyyy?”

(Other single women I’ve seen on other sites have said they have experienced that as well.)

When you’re a woman on a dating site, you cannot win with some guys, no matter what you do or how you reply to them.

Even totally ignoring a guy’s wink or message on a dating site can result in a nasty comment from them. They will write and tell you horrible stuff for not replying at all.

Gram3 wrote:

Back in the old days, we could go out for a Coke and possibly a movie and no big deal. I never, ever heard of DTR discussions until the last ten years. Now, it seems that guys are reticent to even ask a girl out because it is freighted with a presumption of marriage on her part.

Add to that are the series of blog posts I’ve seen churned out by some Christian groups (some may be the YRR type guys) the last few years telling single men to “be intentional” about dating.

To a point, I’m sympathetic with what they’re getting at, because a lot of young men today sort of keep young ladies hanging on.

These guys will pal around with a girl – do stuff that in past decades was considered dating – which strings the girl on (at least if the girl is confused about the man’s intent).

A lot of women (and teen girls) get confused by this. They cannot tell if the guy hanging out with them on casual get-togethers, or calling them on the phone to chat, has romantic intent and wants to be BF/GF, or marry some day, or if they are just buddies, or what.

So I do understand why some of these TGC guys and others are telling men in their blog posts to “intentionally date a woman,” or “date with intent,” but some of their advice pages about this issue are sprinkled with weird or sexist tips to men.

There seems to be this immense pressure to marry singles off, these groups teach singles to associate dating with Old Testament betrothal.

They seem to be teaching singles that if a guy takes a girl out for a Coke and a movie, they are now engaged and need to set a wedding date soon. This even seeps into singles in my age group (people over 35).

This sort of teaching paralyzes a lot of singles with fear or confusion.

Muff Potter wrote:

We knew as individuals that we are not at the axis vector of the world and that others matter.
Grown people didn’t throw tantrums on airline flights, and grown people didn’t make too much of a coke and a movie. Sigh…

Well that pretty much sums it up.

@ Gram3:

I kind of get your perspective too, but I have a verbally abusive sister.

Joe the dating site guy in the OP in some ways resembles my sister.

I learned from reading a book by an expert on verbally abusive relationships that verbal abusers are irrational.

The author instructed victims of verbal abuse (like me, or wives) to stop trying to explain one’s self or position to an abuser, and stop trying to understand what the abuser is saying/writing.

She said, you will never understand them because they are irrational.
You explaining why you believe what you do is always going to fall on deaf ears with these types of people. They don’t really care why you believe what you do because they are looking for excuses to blow up at you.

If you are possibly dealing with a sane, rational, non-hostile person, I can maybe see the value in doing what Linda did.

However, to be safe and avoid this stuff, I’ve found it’s easier to either not reply to these guys at all, or keep the, “I’m sorry we’re not a match” replies very short, and don’t go into details or argue world views with them and explain why you think they are wrong.

I’ve stopped doing this stuff with my sister, too. Taking her on, explaining my reasoning, only prolongs her screaming matches.

I no longer try to justify myself or choices or views to my sister because it is pointless. I suspect it’s the same with the Joe’s of the world.

I do think there is a time and place to be bold, confront people (for years I was a codependent and kept my mouth shut), speak your views and defend them.

However, I also am coming to realize that dis-engaging can be the wiser course of action, if you may be dealing with a crack pot who has a temper problem.

Through a glass darkly wrote:

And in her book, “Predators,” Anna Salter shows that Christian women are often particularly targeted because of the pressure to “not offend.”

I can believe it.

Certain secular or Christian expectations for women and girls leave them easy prey for dishonest men or criminals.

I’ve only read a few sample chapters from the Salter book that were made available on a book site. What I read curled my hair.
I don’t know if I could make it through the whole book. I have thought of getting a copy and reading it eventually.

Lydia wrote:

Intentional dating? If I thought I had to have considered every date as a potential husband that would have taken a lot of the fun out of the whole experience and focused on all his faults and his on mine. Sheesh!

I saw a good dating site commercial a few months ago that dealt with this a little.

The commercial showed a couple who met via an eHarmony type site, which is heavily marketed towards getting married soon. On this very first date, the guy was proposing marriage to the woman already. She looked terrified. (Or maybe the genders were reversed, I don’t remember)

Then they showed a couple who met on one of those casual hook up sites, and the guy meeting the lady for the first time, and he was already wanting to take her back to his place to do the horizontal rumba. The lady looked terrified.

About the Intentional Dating stuff. I’m not sure how to explain it. It may be easier to just give you some actual examples of pages that talk about it.

If you go to a search engine and look for the phrase “intentional dating” you’ll get several posts by Christians about it.

Here is one:
Intentional Dating
http://www.theporchdallas.com/how-to-date-intentionally/

There may be one or two good points on pages like that one (though I don’t agree with the “man is the leader” stuff), but Christians have managed to make dating so complicated, and that is reflected on that page.

Lydia wrote:

Daisy wrote:
However, I also am coming to realize that dis-engaging can be the wiser course of action, if you may be dealing with a crack pot who has a temper problem.
I thought Linda disengaged with her response.

She did, but Joe turned out to be Crazy Stalker material.

@ Lydia:

I skimmed over message 2 at the top of this post (screen shot at the top of the page, Linda to Joe) a moment ago.

I can see where a person with a certain personality type, if receiving that response, would get agitated by it, and be tempted to fire back a response.

Which is exactly what Joe did. She was challenging his beliefs (albeit very politely), so he felt the need to defend his views.

I had a similar deal on a dating site with a guy from Denomination X who wanted to bicker with me all day about why I did not agree with Denom X or want to date guys from Denom X.

I refused to get sucked in or go into detail with him about why I did not dig Denom X, I did not tell him Demon X is wrong, I just said, “I disagree with X,” so he didn’t have much fodder to shoot back with and bicker over.

Too many couples I know not only had an obligatory date, they ended up with an obligatory marriage, because their ‘leadership’ encouraged them to marry so-and-so. Right now, I can think of 4 couples right off the bat that I (sinfully, I guess) considered mismatched — they just didn’t seem to go together because the woman was a lot better looking than the guy. I had considered that kind of a sign of integrity on the girl’s part, that she wasn’t attracted only by looks. But all 4 of those couples are now divorced, with the same story. “We got married because pastor-leader-group told us we were right for each other, and that love would grow.” So now, looking back with plain glasses rather than the rose-colored ones I looked through 30 years ago, if the girl is drop-dead gorgeous and the guy is not (or vice-versa) I wonder if it’ll last. Not that I’d go to someone and say, “Hey, your boyfriend looks like he’s been chasing parked cars and you’re gorgeous — what’s up with that?” But it seems that in the real life, people are often matched up in many ways — intellect, social strata, grooming, appearance, taste. Maybe that doesn’t seem fair, but looking around, that’s what I see.

Now — the obligatory date might not be such a big deal IF these people didn’t see having a cup of coffee as a marriage proposal. If you could get past that idea, going out for a cup of coffee with someone you aren’t physically attracted to might end up as a nice friendship. Unless he’s Joe and you’re Linda.

Daisy wrote:

They seem to be teaching singles that if a guy takes a girl out for a Coke and a movie, they are now engaged and need to set a wedding date soon. This even seeps into singles in my age group (people over 35).

This sort of teaching paralyzes a lot of singles with fear or confusion.

Because it’s scary. If just saying “Hi!” to someone means you ARE committed to marry her, you’re going to make damn sure she’s The One before you even say “Hi!”. You can see where that can lead.

And I was on the receiving end of that once. Around 45 years ago when I was attending Mass at the local Newman Center, I had the misfortune to cross paths with a young woman who was on the full rebound from her father’s death and was definitely NOT thinking straight. I said “Hi!”, she immediately glommed onto me like she was setting the date and picking the kids’ names. I had to run and hide for a couple months; I don’t know what happened to her. So I have SOME idea what Christian women are facing in a world of Salvation by Marriage Alone.

It’s perfectly normal to be slightly nervous when asking someone for a date, but it doesn’t require any “courage”- that’s absurd. This “courage” doesn’t entitle anyone to a reward. It’s hard to tell whether Collin Hansen is advocating that women are OBLIGATED to grant a first date out of courtesy; Anyway, such a view actually has a negative effect on both parties. If you’re a man in this environment, how do you know whether a woman really wants to spend time with you or just being polite? Seems like it would contribute to an awkward climate.

@ Anonymous:

When Jesus first spoke in the synagogue, he was actually advocating for a socialist economic society. That is the great salvation that he offers.

And its polar opposite corollary, the Fall story is actually about the great battle of the ages between Satanic Marxism and godly Hebraic homeschooling. (Real teaching from Vision Forum.)

Hester wrote:

@ Anonymous:

When Jesus first spoke in the synagogue, he was actually advocating for a socialist economic society. That is the great salvation that he offers.

And its polar opposite corollary, the Fall story is actually about the great battle of the ages between Satanic Marxism and godly Hebraic homeschooling. (Real teaching from Vision Forum.)

The same Vision Forum whose Commander Douggie ESQUIRE was keeboarping his Handmaid?

This sounds a bit like “Looking for Mr. Goodbar” in Christianese.

By the way, let me clarify, I do not intend to suggest that Linda was like the character played by Diane Keaton, taking increasingly outlandish risks, I mean to suggest that the obviously clueless Collin is suggesting that Christian women ought to take such risks “One date out of courtesy”. I wonder if he’d suggest that to his daughter? Good gosh, what a piece of work! Joe reminds me something of the deranged character played by Tom Berringer in the movie “Looking for Mr. Goodbar”, the one who ultimately kills the poor heroine: he comes across as completely unhinged.

The tv ads for Christian Mingle creep me out. People are not looking for a life partner or love or someone to have kids with. they are looking for someone to change the world for jesus.

Ken wrote:

okrapod wrote:
And then …. he buys her a hamburger?
That is just such a romantic thought …

Go Dutch, I say. That way nobody expects anything from the other. That’s equality!

See the GRACE report on Bob Jones University, p. 276

http://www.sccadvasa.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Final-Report.pdf

“an unwritten school tradition that obligates a girl to go on at least one ‘courtesy date’ when invited by a male student”

It’s explained further in a footnote.

Jerome wrote:

See the GRACE report on Bob Jones University, p. 276
http://www.sccadvasa.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Final-Report.pdf
“an unwritten school tradition that obligates a girl to go on at least one ‘courtesy date’ when invited by a male student”
It’s explained further in a footnote.

Just awful. I don’t suppose there was an unwritten rule that guys had to ask out young women they weren’t interested in so that the young women didn’t feel bad. /sarc/

Glad to hear the news, Marie!

Hester wrote:

Sometimes I wonder whether I’m being overly suspicious to not even talk to a guy on eHarmony who says he’s looking for a “Proverbs 31 woman” or something like that. Then I read posts like this one and realize, no, I’m probably not.

Ok, this is going to sound a bit skeptical, but are there really Proverbs 31 women in real life? I’m not talking about the first part of that Proverb, “The heart of her husband trusts in her, and he will have no lack of gain. She does him good, and not harm all the days of her life.” Rather, it’s the occupation of the Proverbs 31 woman that I’m skeptical about in 21st Century USA – actually in any time period when I think about it. I’ve read expositions on that part in which all sorts of interpretive gymnastics must be applied in order for it to make sense as a prescription for how Christian wives should be. But look at all that she does. What woman does all those things? I would collapse from exhaustion if I tried to be that Proverbs 31 woman.

And by the way, as I was looking for the Bible online, I found an interesting article written by a woman who feels pretty much the same way as I do. A Christian woman could very well become disillusioned trying to fulfill all those requirements. Here’s the article:
http://www.relevantmagazine.com/life/stop-obsessing-about-proverbs-31-woman

One morning I was leaving for work when my car wouldn’t start. I called AAA and after what seemed like a long wait their truck showed up. After the man got it started he gave me a funny look and said “my parole officer and my counselor both said it was ok for me to start dating and have a sexual relationship” “Oh crap” I said to myself. I jabbered like an idiot and said some outlandish thing about how my husband (he really was deceased) was insanely jealous etc etc.

What I’m saying is it’s a crazy world. Lots of lonely people and Hollywood would have every one hook up and I don’t have all the answers.

I had lots of dates when I was younger and no interest in getting married and then met someone, it seemed like a good idea at the time and married. A gentle man who was in the military and went to war and came back unwell and died too young. I’ve stayed single because there are so many kooks and crooks and haven’t seen any good ideas for guys out there. I know there are good guys that struggle with all this.

I agree with everyone’s comments which is just to say that friendship, and love, and marriage and opposite sexes are a problem and a puzzle and with all the divorces it doesn’t look to me like there are many answers out there.

I love to see old Christian couples that have been married for 50-60 years and they seem to be the only ones who with Christ figured it out mostly.

God Bless you all and hang in and pray about it

Daisy wrote:

This sounds a little similar to something Ken was saying above in his post – that ultimately, how a guy treats a woman or handles rejection in dating doesn’t really matter, that a woman should go ahead and say Yes to every date she’s asked out on because surely the guy has a great motive …

But Daisy I actually said precisely the opposite!

… surely if a woman says ‘no’ to a date, the loving thing to do is to except it? This is the negation of any idea of male entitlement.

You can ask for a date, but asking by its very nature entails the right to say no.

There it is in black and white.

The defence rests.

The bottom line here is that a woman who said she didn’t want contact continued to receive contact, even in the face of not responding (which always escalates men like this) and CM did not follow their own policy of removing abusive members. Why say “we will remove the profiles of abusive members” and then just say, ” Oh, block them.” That puts the burden on the paying subscriber and not CM to do what they say. No doubt they use this “tough talk” to make women feel safe to sign up.

@ Jerome:

So we weren’t imagining this.
It’s and actual ‘thing’.
Talk about ‘The Traditions of Men”.
Those poor girls applying to Bob Jones. Did they have any idea what they were really signing up for?

Emerging from years of lurk.

“The less said, the better” seems to be the right truism, here, regarding Egalitarian Linda’s post declining Patriarchal Joe’s attention. And also for PJoe, in maintaining a semblance of dignity and at least the appearance of a healthy mental state.

It’s not a female-male thing so much as a Christian thing: we’re continually taught to give a witness to what we believe, in hopes the heart of the witnessee will be converted.

Thus ELinda couldn’t just say, “thanks but no” and PJoe couldn’t just say, “loser” and both of them go on to their next potential matches.

PS: TWW is great – glad the deebs and the posters keep it going.

BC wrote:

I called AAA and after what seemed like a long wait their truck showed up. After the man got it started he gave me a funny look and said “my parole officer and my counselor both said it was ok for me to start dating and have a sexual relationship” “Oh crap” I said to myself. I jabbered like an idiot and said some outlandish thing about how my husband (he really was deceased) was insanely jealous etc etc.

Yikes. I’d like to think that guy just has a weird sense of humor and that was his idea of trying to be funny.

If he was being serious, I hope he realizes that blurting out your history like that can put a woman off, or creep her out.

If he was in prison at some point and has a checkered past, that is something you might want to break to a woman gently on a first or second date over a cup of coffee, not after just meeting her at random while doing your job.

Even though I’ve never married, I related to parts of your post and liked it. 🙂

BC wrote:

he gave me a funny look and said “my parole officer and my counselor both said it was ok for me to start dating and have a sexual relationship” “Oh crap” I said to myself.

That is bad. The worst I ever had – which is, admittedly, not nearly as bad – was a 70-ish neighbour who, one day, complained to me (in my 20s then) about her irresponsible 40-something son who still lives with her, and how docters said her son is a psychopath. A week or 2 later I spoke to her again. She said what a pity it is that a “nice girl” like me is still single, and she could set me up for a date with her son…

No, thanks. I have enough trouble without inviting any psychopaths into my life.

Daisy wrote:

I’m not sure about the rest of your post and how to address it, but I wanted to zero in on that part, the “Maybe not owe, maybe a courtesy” wording.

Upon reflection, I’m not sure what the difference is.

When anyone tells women that automatically bestowing a date on a man she is not keen on is “a courtesy,” it is making a supposed courtesy into an obligation of sorts, so it is in a round about way, in the end scheme of things, it’s still saying all men are owed dates by women, even if the woman being asked is uninterested.

Can women not courteously turn down courtesy dates?

The older I get, I cannot comprehend why so many men perceive women as being obligated to cave in, to stroke their egos, or do other things for them (like go on dates they would rather not).

I found myself thinking back to my teen years just now, and my dad’s advice. He told me I didn’t have to accept a date if I didn’t want to, and I didn’t have to have any other reason than, “I don’t want to.” He did, however, stress how very difficult it probably was for a teenage boy to get up the courage to ask a girl on a date, and so he encouraged me to be kind in my refusal.

That sounds a lot kinder and more reasonable than going out with someone as a “courtesy date” and giving him hope when you couldn’t care less.

Daisy wrote:

Ken wrote:
… surely if a woman says ‘no’ to a date, the loving thing to do is to except it?
I was confused by your wording.
The first time I read your post, it sounded to mes like you were saying this:
‘When a man asks a woman on a date, the loving thing for the woman to do is to accept the date and date the guy, even if she doesn’t want to date the guy and initially wants to tell him “no”‘
If I misunderstood, my apologies.

I had the same impression, Daisy, and almost dismissed the comment without reading further. However, reading all the way through, it appears the commenter is actually saying the opposite of what that first part implies.

@ refugee:
oops, “getter” should have been “better”

Max wrote:

Daisy wrote:
equally yoked …
… to a New Calvinist takes on a whole new meaning in that corner of Christendom. Much has been said on this and other blogs about male dominance/female subordination in the reformed ranks, rather than being “equal” before God.

I’ll tell you one thing… the pool of available mates seems to be shrinking for the YRR male. I can’t tell you how many young women I’ve talked to lately who’ve said they’d rather marry a kind and considerate atheist, than a “biblical manhoody” man.

refugee wrote:

That sounds a lot kinder and more reasonable than going out with someone as a “courtesy date” and giving him hope when you couldn’t care less.

I agree with that and the rest.

I have flirted with guys before and was rejected. It wasn’t pleasant, and it hurts the ego.

Any time guys have flirted or asked me out, I appreciated that it took them some courage (probably), so I was always nice in how I turned them down.

But for guys who have anger issues, can’t handle rejection at all, or who have mental health problems, it doesn’t matter how nice you are about it, they still become unglued and rant.

I also think maybe there’s something to being online the emboldens people to behave worse than they usually would?

That might be why some of these guys go overboard on dating sites when women turn them down. They feel safer making threats over a web site than they would IRL or on the phone?

refugee wrote:

I’ll tell you one thing… the pool of available mates seems to be shrinking for the YRR male. I can’t tell you how many young women I’ve talked to lately who’ve said they’d rather marry a kind and considerate atheist, than a “biblical manhoody” man.

I’m not YRR and never have been YRR, but what you said there applies to me (I was brought up in Southern Baptist, non-Calvinist churches/ theology).

After seeing what I’ve seen of so-called Christian men on dating sites (and read about on blogs like this one), I’d rather take chances on a kind-hearted atheist guy than most Christian guys.

(I’m not arguing that all Non-Christian men are gems, though.
I’ve had female family who have dated or married Non-Christian guys, and some of the NCs can be just as bad as the jerky Christian guys.)

Daisy wrote:

The older I get, I cannot comprehend why so many men perceive women as being obligated to cave in, to stroke their egos, or do other things for them (like go on dates they would rather not).

Years ago while doing sexual assault training in high schools, we were appalled to learn that many young men felt that if they paid for dinner, the girl was obligated to return the courtesy…usually with sex. Yikes! We tried (sometimes in vain I think) to convince them that that belief was dangerous in that it was no longer a caring gesture, but a bribery of sorts and likely to destroy any possibility of a future, healthy, respectful relationship and could lead to a sexual assault accusation by the girl.

Where do these young men get these types of assumptions of entitlement?

About two years ago, I met a woman in church who mentioned she met her boyfriend on Christian mingle. I asked her if she had any reservations about employing online dating services. She said she felt many men were lying and not true Christians. I met this guy once or twice and didn’t think too much about it, until a few months ago when I saw his mug on the Megan’s law sex offender website. Ugh! Ladies, be careful of these dating services. Very careful.

Victorious wrote:

Daisy wrote:
The older I get, I cannot comprehend why so many men perceive women as being obligated to cave in, to stroke their egos, or do other things for them (like go on dates they would rather not).
Years ago while doing sexual assault training in high schools, we were appalled to learn that many young men felt that if they paid for dinner, the girl was obligated to return the courtesy…usually with sex. Yikes!

Are you talking sexual revolution era, maybe 70s? Because there was a time when sex was, for many young people, almost an acceptable alternative to a handshake.

Lisa Moxie wrote:

So I would say “thank you, I don’t think we are compatible, best of luck in your search” and get a vicious email back telling me how lucky I was for them to show interest. One guy wrote, “You’re so pretty, and yet you have birthdays.”

That is really an unacceptable thing for a supposed Christian man to say – I even question to them holding such an attitude let alone giving voice to it.

That sounds like more of something a Non-Christian MRA guy would say to a woman. MRAs are very hung up about women and age. They think women over 25 are too old, and women past 29 are ancient hags not worthy of a second glance.

I did not think that Linda was arrogant in her response to Patriarachal Joe.

I don’t know how to explain my views about it.

Certainly, Linda or any other woman is welcome and free to behave as they wish on these dating sites.

I would rather be un-hasseled and un-attacked on dating sites, and I find maybe it lessens the chance of getting a nasty reply back, if I don’t engage guys, if I keep any rejections polite and brief.

It’s not that I found Linda’s post to the guy arrogant, but that the more you try to explain yourself, or justify your views, or question the other person’s views, the more likely the other person is to become offended, start a fight and keep arguing you about it all day long, especially if the person’s elevator doesn’t go all the way to the top.

I could though put myself in Joe’s shoes.

I would imagine if I sent a wink to a guy on
“DateSite .com,” and his first(?) reaction was to send me a somewhat long reply back critiquing my theological beliefs, I might find that somewhat rude, or strange. I might be tempted to write the guy back to defend my views. I don’t know.

I’m not sure if Linda’s reply above was her first reply back to the guy or not?

But no, I don’t think she was arrogant.

I just personally find it more prudent, when I’m on a dating site, not to get into detailed reasons why I’m not interested in a guy, or else he might get angry and things might escalate. I’m trying to avoid that.

Law Prof wrote:

Are you talking sexual revolution era, maybe 70s? Because there was a time when sex was, for many young people, almost an acceptable alternative to a handshake

No. My employment as an advocate and trainer was from the years 1995-2005.

Ken wrote:

Ultimately this attitude that women exist to be used, especially sexually, is a mark of the fall and is obviously nothing new, but imo the restraints on this have been significantly undermined in more recent decades.

hmmm…we’ve had @6,000 yrs. to overcome some “marks” of the fall. Why does this one persist?

You provided some thought-provoking reasons for the sense of entitlement in men, but you didn’t mention church. I don’t want to debate the issue, but I don’t think we can overlook or deny that influence in forming a sense of entitlement in young men.

@ Ken:
Your entire post gives me the shivers, even the point i agree with (alpha males” leads to Lord of the Flies scenarios).

I wonder sometimes if you are reading 80s Culture War-inspired books, or if your views were developed some time ago and have not changed? Your reference to “the culture” is – whether you realize it or not – a distinctively Culture War-era phrase, and largely abandoned here, except by hardcore evangelicals and fundies. (As in, people who conflate religion and politics.)

@ elastigirl:
Hey, I’ve been truly entertained by watching things I’ve planted do just that! 😉

@ numo:
I still remember the night when I realize that politics and religion don’t mix very well. It was a group of Christians criticizing non-Christians at our political meeting. I announced that it was probably a text not a Bible study and I believe that might have been the last meeting I went to

@ numo:

Those are interesting points.

I have noticed that a lot of American (and some European produced) TV shows or movies, in spite of having casual sex scenes, don’t necessarily endorse casual sex but actually question it or criticize it.

If anyone here ever watched American cable TV show “Mad Men,” you have this slick character (Don Draper) who bedded many women week in and week out, and who had affairs on his two or three wives, but the guy was not happy at all.

Draper kept trying to find meaning or happiness in sex (or alcohol) but always came up way, way short. He was so unhappy that audience members thought he might try to off himself.

There have been more and more movies (American made) in the last several years that have the female leads question casual sex.

One of the more recent ones (I’ve only read about it, have not watched it) is called “Trainwreck.”

The female lead in that film swears off serious relationships, and I think the movie shows her in raunchy situations, and having sex all over the place with different men.

By the end of the movie, though, she questions all that and I think opts for a serious, committed relationship.

The movie ends up having a traditional, old fashioned message about sex (and dating and marriage), as have other several Hollywood movies I have seen in the last few years.

These movies may contain smutty humor and racy scenes, but the message they convey by the end is “casual sex will leave you unfulfilled, hold out for someone and something more.”

@ Daisy:
This is true of pretty much all of the US and European shows that i watch. Casual sex is not glorified – in fact, the complete opposite is true. Characters who do engage i it are very lonely, lost, unhappy – seeking something much greater thsn casual sex (or drinking, drugs, gambling reckless spending, etc.) could ever provide.

Don Draper is the ultimate in “don’t go there”: ultimately, he succeeds in the advertiding world, but at SUCH a tertible cost to sll the people in his life – wives, children, mistresses, co-workers. He has no friends, drove his half-brother to suivde early on in the show’s run… imo, he is a sociopath, unable to connect with other human beings in any meaningful, lasting way. Few of his colleagues are any better.

Ultimately, i found the show so depressing (especially after a scene in which Draper physically abuses a eoman he’s been sleeping with) that I quit watching. I’m not sure that the writers delivered the social commentary that they had hoped for, since there are cohorts of young (and young-ish) men who serm to idolize Don Draper.

@ Dee:
It can be harder to get awy from – in my experience, at least – when it becomes pervasive in a church, and people that you like are getting caught up in it.

A lot of churches excel at propaganda, too. I was in s double bind in a situation back in the 80s, due to the weird mixture of politics and religion in a chur h i attended. On top of that, it was more or less associated (though not formally) with the Ft. Lauderdale Five; Derek Prince in particular. He was a dmart guy, but once he started demon-chasing, he never looked back. Very, very sad.

Btw, there were sll kinds of people who were closely associated with both Reagan and Bush I in this place – also, some were hardcore members of The Fellowship, aka The Family, though i was only dimly aware of it at the time.

From there, i escsped (as i thought) to the “church” that booted me.

Victorious wrote:

Where do these young men get these types of assumptions of entitlement?

It comes from the prostitution and porn mentality that is seeping into everyday lives. Porn teaches men entitlement. Prostitution is paying for sex. Our culture has become a porn culture. So basically these boys see girls as prostitutes even if they don't realize it and don't think in those terms.

Well, actually some use those terms. Bros before hoes, if you know what I mean. Sex is something you pay for. Not something enjoyed mutually.

Mara wrote:

Our culture has become a porn culture

I wish that wasn’t true, but I’m afraid it is. Even in our churches….

Ken P. wrote:

You should be careful about all dating sites, including the Christian ones. There are lots of nutty men and women out there.

You are so right about this!! Thank you for saying it.

maura wrote:

baloney. pure and simple the guy is a stalker.

Exactly!!

@ Dee:
Both sides do it. There are some who think if you are a believer, from the south and own a gun you are an ignorant hick who can’t wait to kill people who are different. The automatic labeling gets old from both sides.

@ numo:

Oh yeah, I loved Peggy! I dug the scene (from the last season) where she swaggered into the new job with the box of office stuff, wearing shades, with the cigarette dangling from her lower lip.

I sometimes felt for Joan. I pretty much liked Joan, though there were times she was catty with other people. I also kind of liked Sally, the daughter.

I liked that some of these ladies stood up for themselves, especially in such sexism environments.

Daisy wrote:

There are Christian guys who actually argue things like a wife always owes a husband sex, for example.

Some of them try to word it a bit nicer than others, but they still argue the same points that secular society does.

There are also many women both ixtian and non who are real pieces of work too. They don’t really like sex in and of itself as a recreational pursuit, but rather it’s viewed as a bargaining chip, leverage, and a way to obtain progeny.

Muff Potter wrote:

There are also many women both ixtian and non who are real pieces of work too. They don’t really like sex in and of itself as a recreational pursuit, but rather it’s viewed as a bargaining chip, leverage, and a way to obtain progeny.

This is true. And with Christian women the situation becomes even more cloudy because Christian women with extremely limited or no sexual experience are considered virtuous by the church and desired by Christian men seeking a virgin for a wife. The sad reality is that the Christian men find out after marriage that his wife doesn’t really like sex.

@ numo:

Oh, I thought maybe he found some amount of peace because he cried and hugged that guy in group therapy, and towards the end, he was sitting on that hillside meditating with a smile, as though he was content at last? That’s just how I perceived it.

I remember that Coke commercial from the 1970s. They usually ran that around the holidays.

Daisy wrote:

The majority of people in American culture, Christian or no, really do not value or respect virginity. They think it’s weird, stupid, or a “hang up” that needs to be cured and gotten rid of as soon as possible.

I’m not aware of any Christian church that teaches virginity before marriage is weird, stupid, or a hang up that needs to be cured and gotten rid of.

Daisy wrote:

@ Victorious:
I don’t want to argue the point all day either, but I do agree with you that some churches and gender complementarianism and patriarchal teachings and beliefs have contributed to a sense of entitlement in men.
You would think Christians would be arguing against male domination and exploitation of women, but no, they often support it.
There are Christian guys who actually argue things like a wife always owes a husband sex, for example.
Some of them try to word it a bit nicer than others, but they still argue the same points that secular society does.

Not just Christian guys. Women as well. I remember hearing the same teaching Michelle Duggar presents here:
https://www.duggarfamily.com/michelles-blog?ID=778dd00f-c069-4517-a8cf-067beea6511d

She says:
“And so be available, and not just available, but be joyfully available for him. Smile and be willing to say, ‘Yes, sweetie I am here for you,’ no matter what, even though you may be exhausted and big pregnant and you may not feel like he feels. ‘I’m still here for you and I’m going to meet that need because I know it’s a need for you.’ ”

I’ve realized the sweetness of that through the years. While I am always joyfully available for him, in turn, he’ll lay down his life in any way. He will sit there and listen to everything I need to tell him because he knows that I’m there for him, too. I’m meeting his needs, he’s meeting my needs.

Perhaps that verse in Ephesians was mistranslated and it really reads, “Wives, put out for your husband at all times, no matter what; husbands, you are commanded to make love to your wives as Christ loves the church (i.e. constantly, frequently, often; gently correcting her when she demurs, and getting the job done).”

Sorry, I’m angry today, and it shows. Those people who preach at women, “sex no matter how you feel because he needs it and has every right to expect it and practically has a right to go out and look for it elsewhere if you don’t provide” really make me feel sick. They never seem to quote the verse where Paul tells husband and wife that it’s okay to abstain “for a season.”

Daisy wrote:

The majority of people in American culture, Christian or no, really do not value or respect virginity. They think it’s weird, stupid, or a “hang up” that needs to be cured and gotten rid of as soon as possible.

Not true for all of us Daisy. I have the utmost respect for all people Christian or non who believe in virginal purity. And no, I do not consider their beliefs stupid at all. Live, let live, and let each be convinced in his or her own mind.

refugee wrote:

She says:
“And so be available, and not just available, but be joyfully available for him. Smile and be willing to say, ‘Yes, sweetie I am here for you,’ no matter what, even though you may be exhausted and big pregnant and you may not feel like he feels. ‘I’m still here for you and I’m going to meet that need because I know it’s a need for you.’ ”

Stockholm Syndrome geared up a few notches?

@ Daisy:
Honestly, though, purity culture has hurt people (and not just in the “hurt their poor little feelings” sense). I am 100% in support of deconstructing all of the harmful and negative aspects of purity culture, but when this goes beyond rejecting purity culture’s excesses and gets into denigrating people who are virgins, the pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction.

@ Daisy:
Nothing conservative Christianity had to offer in the late 90’s could have prepared me for what my development into adolescence brought upon me (i.e. fancying not girls but boys), so I can’t pin my own hangups on purity culture exclusively. But I’ve also read many critiques of purity culture’s obsession with virginity by people who had theirs forcefully taken from them by abuse, so it’s not just married people and liberals. 😉

@ Josh, Doctor of Pulchritudinousness:

To me, the issue revolves around consensual sexual acts. Abuse or assault is an entirely other matter.

There is a fair amount of “virginity / celibacy doesn’t really matter” opinions being tossed around in liberal and conservative Christian articles in regards to consensual acts (not just in discussions of how purity talks can harm someone who was assaulted).

A percentage of stories I see involve ladies who were voluntarily sexually active as teens with boyfriends(or when college aged), and – occasionally -and women in their 20s / 30s who, by their own choice, slept around while single, and/or worked in strip clubs, and/or married women who carried on affairs.

numo wrote:

Something tells me that you either don’t watch much TV (neither do i, actually), or that you’re referring to a limited number of shows (we have those, too), or both.

You’re pretty accurate here, as there is little to watch that is worthwhile on either German or British TV (the way we receive the latter is dodgy, but not illegal!). The portrayal of the current secular culture is not always accurate either – my complaint about sex outside of marriage is more true of films, but hardly unknown in standard TV output. It does seem to be taken as the norm unless the action is situated in the past. In real life though it is not universal, and neither do all marriages end in divorce.

I gave up watching soaps a very long time ago, partly because there are better things to do with the time, and partly because they seemed to go on a downhill spiral of outdoing each other in how nasty people could be to each other. Too negative, and it can rub off on you in a depressing way. In real life, people are sometimes actually nice to each other.

I have a largish collection of British TV output on DVD, mainly from the olden times era before the Internet made this unnecessary. Morse, Lewis, Foyle … far too many involving someone getting murdered, and that can be a source of being negative as well.

At least there is the occasional Jane Austen adaptation, or Downton Abbey which has an uncanny resemblance to the BBC’s Pride and Prejudice of 1995 being eked out over several series.

numo wrote:

I wonder sometimes if you are reading 80s Culture War-inspired books, or if your views were developed some time ago and have not changed? Your reference to “the culture” is – whether you realize it or not – a distinctively Culture War-era phrase, and largely abandoned here

I don’t think I’ve been exposed to much culture war stuff, if only this has not been something UK evangelicalism as a rule has got into. The church should be salt and light, but cannot impose it’s morality on the world around it.

It strikes me from the world of American blogdom that evangelicalism (or at least some branches of it) is more political than in the UK. Take the abortion issue, on an individual basis this would be considered morally wrong by most if not all evangelicals, but there is little distinctively evangelical campaigning to have the abortion laws tightened up or for it to be made illegal again. This might be due to the lack of a realistic chance of getting the law radically changed, but mixing religion and politics is generally frowned upon in the UK. Trying to influence how people should vote is certainly taboo.

I might at one time have been influenced by Hal Lindsay’s writings, but that is a very long time ago!

Muff Potter wrote:

Joe2 wrote:
He was asked what his parish priest thought about his business. I was left with the impression that it was no big deal, or he could be doing worse, or something to that effect.
Actually he could be doing way worse. Let’s say he’s a hedge-fund manager of a big multi-national that grinds third world farmers deeper into poverty and added misery, up to and including denying them even the meager living they wrest from the soil.
So which is the bigger deal, a strip club or even more cruelty done in real space-time to the down-strata of this world?

Well, you have to take into account the significant number of those who work in strip clubs who are there because they were victims of human trafficking. And even those who aren’t are being exploited in other ways. It’s not an either/or question (is cruelty to poor women worse than cruelty to poor farmers?). It’s both/and (both are cruel).