Why “play hard to get” is terrible advice for women | Aleteia

Dating Couple

Source: Why “play hard to get” is terrible advice for women | Aleteia

I am, perhaps, the very last person who should be offering relationship advice, as my success in the world of romantic love and relationships has been slim to nonexistent, at least in recent decades.

[Which is a shame, because I think I would make a good husband and father, and would love to have the chance to try! But I digress…]

Nonetheless, this essay – written by a woman, Chloe Langr – strongly resonated with me. I think too many people, of both sexes, treat relationships as a game, a power struggle, or both. Perhaps it’s no wonder that so many fail…?

“When someone plays hard get to get, they’re focused on getting the upper hand and controlling the relationship. ‘When you’re determined to play it cool to impress someone, you lose sight of what you actually want. How are you supposed to develop a genuine connection when you are focused on gaining the upper hand?’ Goldin said. ‘Relationships are built on shared attraction and commitment, which makes pretending not to be interested at odds with what you really want.’ …

“Playing the hard-to-get game is harmful when you actually want to invest in a relationship with someone. The next time you find yourself doing it, take a minute to think about whether you’re truly enjoying the experience. If you’re interested in someone, be direct. You won’t come across as needy, but instead you’ll be showing vulnerability and confidence — and that is much more attractive then waiting an hour before responding to a text.”

Amen.

And by the way, as a man (and one who can be somewhat shy, especially around a woman to whom I’m attracted), I can state categorically to any women who may be reading this that playing hard won’t make me want you more.

It will – depending on the specifics of the situation – either make me think, “ah, she’s gaming me” (in which case it will kill my interest, since that’s not the kind of woman I’m looking for) or it will make me think, “well, darn it, I guess she’s not interested after all… better look elsewhere.”

Just sayin’….

To restate from the linked essay and the excerpts above, “If you’re interested in someone, be direct. You won’t come across as needy, but instead you’ll be showing vulnerability and confidence.” Absolutely.

 

Advertisements

Is It Immodest to Wear Deliberately Ripped Clothes? | The Catholic Thing

Related image
This particular pair of “distressed” jeans is only $19.97 at the website “Zulily“; many are much more expensive. Young women (and some young males) are paying good money for clothing (?) that looks like they rescued it from the dumpster.

Is It Immodest to Wear Deliberately Ripped Clothes? Short answer: yes. Deliberately ripped garments work against the purpose of clothes. They are caricatures of clothing.

Source: Is It Immodest to Wear Deliberately Ripped Clothes?

This article, the link to which appeared in my email in-box this morning, is timely. I had just been thinking, over the last week or so, about the difference in attire between “my generation” in middle and high school, and what I am seeing now, at the high school where I teach driver education.

In some respects, high schoolers are dressing, at least in school – whether voluntarily or due to imposed dress-codes, I do not know – in a way that is less overtly revealing or provocative they they did in my day. (I am addressing primarily female students’ attire, as I have never had, and still do not, any interest in inspecting males or their clothing! But many of the same problems and principles apply equally to popular contemporary male attire.)

At any rate, there are fewer bare midriffs, nowadays; fewer if any camisole tops and not many tank-tops. Shorts (if worn at all) are, for the most part, not particularly short. Skirts of any sort are rare, but I can’t remember the last time I saw a miniskirt (wail and gnash your teeth, women for whom the “right” to wear a miniskirt was a political issue in the 1970s). And while there are “skinny jeans,” there is something decidedly less attractive about the way they hug the form than I recall of the Jordaches and Calvin Kleins of yesteryear!

In that sense, I suppose it could be said that young women are dressing (at least while at school) more “modestly” than they used to, “back in the day.” That is good, to a point. The problem is what they’re replacing it with. Continue reading “Is It Immodest to Wear Deliberately Ripped Clothes? | The Catholic Thing”

“Normies” and rebels

Just one more, and then I promise I will recede back into my self-imposed Lenten sabbatical, at least for a while…!

This came across my news-feed just this morning:

Normie vs Rebel

Nowadays, this is all too sadly true.

Too many young women today are destroying their natural beauty with tattoos and piercings, scrawling all over the masterpiece God made them to be, and dressing to be provocative or shocking rather than in ways that exemplify an objective standard of beauty, such as that expressed by St. Thomas Aquinas:

“Beauty, as St. Thomas says, is objective and has four attributes: truth, goodness, oneness and symmetry.  Beauty, when comprised of these qualities, directs us to God…

Truth can be seen in clothing [and, I would add, other forms of adornment] that identifies the wearer as a man or woman, his status and occupation, even his character and family. Goodness is in the quality of materials and fine workmanship, and in the modesty that respects the natural virtues. Oneness is in the completeness of the ensemble and the way it matches in an ordered way. Symmetry is the proportion, consistency and uniformity that comprise it.

See the images above and to the right, and below, for classic examples! Examples of the alternative are all too easy to find, and need not be dwelt upon.

“This can be applied to everything: music and architecture, furnishings in the home, work and crafts, words and manners, meals and dinner tables, beautiful prayers and good reading. Local traditions sustain cultural beauty in holidays, ceremonies and ways of being that began long ago when people turned to God and received a flow of grace to generations. This realization makes us love and keep alive tradition. Beauty is expressed in many cultures and is diverse since God’s creation is immense. However, beauty cannot go against the natural order.”

Traditionalism, the revolt against the excesses of the modern (and postmodern) age, is indeed the new counterculture. Be counter-cultural! Be a rebel! Vive la révolution nuvelle et ancienne! Ce qui est vieux est nouveau.

Tradition is the new counterculture - revolt against the modern world


Note: the young woman pictured above may be the lovely and talented Marilena – looks a lot like her, but I’m not sure it actually is. At any rate, be sure to click through to the linked video to see an example of how a young woman can be flirty and irresistible, without being degenerate in the process!

On Valentine’s Day, embrace tradition!

Image may contain: 2 people, text

We live in a time in which monogamy and true love – like tradition itself – are counter-cultural. Reject “hook-up” culture. Embrace monogamy. Understand the difference between love and lust. Be counter-cultural: embrace tradition.

Happy Valentine’s Day.

March for Life: Amazing Turnout and Resolve to Stop Abortion | TFP Student Action

Source: March for Life: Amazing Turnout and Resolve to Stop Abortion | TFP Student Action

I occupy what I suppose some might consider a “moderate” position on the abortion issue, in that I believe abortion should be safe (to protect the life and health of women, in the event that it is medically necessary – and yes, that does occur, at times), legal (to ensure that it is safe), and rare (because the taking of a human life should always be a last resort, never ever a first option – and abortion should never be considered a form of birth control). I am resolutely opposed to the reprehensible calls by those on the extreme left for abortion “on demand, without apology” – and expecting the government (and thus, the taxpayers) to fund it.

On the subject of “my body, my choice” – frequently touted by those advocating the pro-abortion position – this is obviously false on its face: a fetus may depend on the woman’s body for its survival, prior to a certain stage of gestation, but from the moment of conception it is clearly a distinct individual, having its own individual genetic makeup (combining genes from both parents), and its own distinct, individual development.

“My body”? As one recent photo of a pro-life poster (which I wish I could find; I apparently failed to save it) put the matter, “since when do we think a woman has four legs, four arms, two heads, two hearts, and two different sets of genes?” It is not (just) a woman’s body; and therefore her sovereignty over it is a shared sovereignty: shared with the father of the child, and with the unborn child itself, who from the moment of conception is a child not only of his or her human parents, but a child of God.

Therefore it is with encouragement and optimism that I greet reports that the March for Life in Washington, DC, which occurred on Friday (18 January 2019) was reportedly the largest to date, with a turnout that may have been as high as 300,000 – many, if not most, of these being young people. Those on the Left who think that time is on their side, that all they have to do is wait for all the “old fogeys” to die off, may be unpleasantly surprised by the conservatism of the rising generation!

These young people have seen the failures and consequences of the “Me Generation,” and of the failed political and social experiments of the Left since the 1960s, and in many cases, want none of it. Indeed, it seems that we are seeing the beginning of a serious and growing backlash… thanks be to God.

The Vocation of Motherhood… and Fatherhood, too.

The text that goes with this picture is a bit hard to make out, so here it is:

“Remember motherhood was God’s plan for women, not men. We all forget that motherhood is the norm and a career is abnormal. Some are compromising and urging our good high school girls to colleges and careers. Mother Teresa’s words are so enduring to our times when she said that, ‘God calls us to be faithful, not successful.’ Anyone who wishes to debate Mother’s words should pray to God for grace and insight to understand these words of wisdom. These words are especially true for the mothers of our day and time. Many mothers are so wrapped up in the ‘media success’ of these times that they see nothing wrong with going out to work. Very few mothers ‘have’ to work outside the home and it is to the detriment of family life.”

—Rosie Gil

As I wrote in response to this at the time, I agree – but I also think we sometimes forget that it was God’s plan for fathers to be at or near home most of the time, too, unless they were on a journey for the benefit of the family, or fighting to protect it.

Whether farmers – as were the majority of people until quite recently in human history – tradesmen, or merchants (the latter two of which usually had their shops or offices downstairs, with the family residence upstairs), most men spent most of their time in relatively close proximity to, and often / usually working together with, the rest of their family, right up until the Industrial Revolution.

I am not trying to detract in any way from the vital role and vocation of motherhood, or the desirability of mothers being able to devote themselves full-time to that vocation, if at all possible, and to the closely allied one of homemaking – literally, creating a home that is worthy of a family to live in.

I am simply pointing out that I believe God’s original plan was for families to be organic, integrated units of relationship, with all members working together for the common good, and supporting one another in daily living – not mom and kids at home, and dad working somewhere else, a long commute away, and only seeing them in the evening and on weekends.

The 1950s, as idyllic a time as it was in some (though not all) respects, was neither the norm nor the ideal, either – nor, certainly, were the “dark, satanic mills” of the Industrial Revolution. We have fallen a long way from the original plan, imho, in many respects!

Peter Jackson’s WWI Footage Underscores Flaccidity Of Today’s Culture

https://anglophilicanglican.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/wwipeterjackson-998x689.jpg

Can any culture raise ‘rough men’ ready to defend it against a ruthless enemy when it cannot even fix in the minds of its youth what their sex is?

Source: Peter Jackson’s WWI Footage Underscores Flaccidity Of Today’s Culture

“‘We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm,’ Winston Churchill reportedly said.

“He knew a thing or two about combat as a young man, and as the leader of a great nation about facing annihilation as an old man. If Winston could only see us now. The contrast between those young people today who stand ready to protect us and those we protect has perhaps never been more stark…

“In the span of 100 years, Britain has gone from producing men who were so eager to fight and die for their country that 16-year-olds lied about their age to enlist when the minimum age was 19, to teaching primary school boys that they can have periods just like girls and offering feminine hygiene products in boys’ bathrooms…

“Can any culture — British, American or any other — raise ‘rough men’ ready to defend it against a ruthless enemy when it cannot even fix in the minds of its developing youth what their sex is?”

A very good – and troubling – question, indeed!