Junior Ganymede
We endeavor to give satisfaction

Man and Woman

February 25th, 2011 by Adam G.

John C. Wright has an excellent and characteristic essay on marriage and courtship and la difference. The gist is that women want *men,* not male persons, and vice versa. But the gist doesn’t do it justice. You’ll want to read it.

The Church is quite good at this, by the way. The priesthood gives males manhood. What we preach and practice about modesty, on the other side of the gender divide, is very much alive to the truth that men want women, so females either have to dress in a way that emphasizes their sex (i.e., immodestly), or else there need to be conventions in dress and behavior that are distinct to that sex. That’s just the tip of the iceberg. Whatever else the Church is (which is quite a bit), its also a highly successful social model.

The best part of Wright’s essay–again, go read it–is his meditation on St. Paul’s counsel that wives should submit and husbands should love their wives like Christ loved the Church.

Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it

The interesting thing here is that Paul uses the past tense. Paul knows that Christ lives and still loves the Church. But he tells husbands to love their wives the way Christ loved the church. Why the past tense? What can Paul mean? The obvious answer, Mr. Wright’s answer, is that Paul is using the past tense because he wasn’t just talking about Christ’s feelings, he was talking about something that Christ did. The something that Christ did. He means the atonement and crucifixion, and in fact he says so.

Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it

Christ did the ultimate heroic sacrifice for the church, so ultimate that all other sacrifice finds meaning in it. So what Paul means is we should carry the cross for our wives, should walk up that hill for our wives, should take the nails if need be, and die. Our commitment to marriage is deadly earnest. (Let me be clear–its not the affect or tone of our marriage that is deadly earnest. Good marriages will wear quietly at times and often have laughter.)

From the earliest times the essence of manhood was the making and keeping of oaths. In temple marriage we make the most solemn of oaths. Keeping it doesn’t domesticate us as men. It makes us men.

I am a keeper of vows, I am not forsworn.

Comments (6)
Filed under: Birkenhead Drill,Deseret Review | No Tag
No Tag
February 25th, 2011 16:07:03
6 comments

Vader
February 25, 2011

Normally a widower my age might be expected to remarry, but the women don’t seem all that interested since I’ve become more machine than man.


Zen
February 28, 2011

Actually, in this case, it is just the dating market that has become significantly more difficult since the last time you were on Naboo. And while I quite agree with the John C Wright, truth is, in practice this means outward external markers for masculinity are favored above actual manhood.


Johnna
April 20, 2011

The link moved slightly. Here’s the current URL:

http://www.scifiwright.com/2011/03/youve-come-a-long-way-down-baby/

This is also why I don’t think Kevin Barney’s Reciprocity Resolution would result in more marriages.


Zen
April 20, 2011

What is Barney’s Reciprocity Resolution ?


Johnna
April 20, 2011

Kevin Barney thinks Mormon women should be able to ask men out on dates, and ask men to marry them, without any social stigma or damage to the relationship.

http://bycommonconsent.com/2011/04/09/the-reciprocity-resolution/

I didn’t comment on the thread, coward that I am. And the dating issues are pale trivialities compared to the commitment and care of a married man.


Zen
April 20, 2011

If we take the axiom of gender equivalence seriously, then that is the only sensible solution. But the testing ground of theory is experiment and dating science experimentalists have conclusively determined that women like masculine men and men like feminine women.

I am going to have to take a look at this thread.

Leave a Reply