Boundless gets a lot of hits from more traditional members of the "Game" community for being ignorant of contemporary women and circumstances. I used to post a lot of links to Boundless because I thought courtship was a better model than dating, and so on. But I haven't done so for some time; the website doesn't interest me as much as it used to, and I have come to have doubts about whether it gives sufficient counsel for American Christians.
While scrollling through FB updates, I saw this: Calling after the first date. "He's just not that into you" is probably spot on, but the rest of it? The author assumes that the woman has nothing else to change about herself, but is that a good assumption to make for an advice columnist? There's too much unwarranted cheerleading in his advice. At the very least he could refer to other posts discussion what women need to do to prepare themselves for marriage.
This might be even worse: Confirmed Bachelor: Why Good Men Stay Single. Are there Catholic men out there who are deliberately postponing marriage? If so, how many of them are actually "fervent" or "pious"? I would think that those who are fervent or pious but not yet married may be having difficulty finding a good Catholic woman. As for those who are postponing, both Catholic and non-Catholic, I am now a bit more reluctant to label them as immature, though it is the case that many of them are living licentious lives. Others may have good reason not to get involved with Marriage 2.0.The author also embraces the false modern ideal (as does Dr. Laura) that men should marry women who are the same age or close.
It's been a while since I've paid attention to Catholics who talk about dating and marriage (and chastity) like Jason Evert. Many of them use the language and concepts of Theology of The Body. How much of Catholic dating advice, though, has to be emptied of feminism and reconsidered as a result? Family Life Center seems to acknowledge patriarchy; what about St. Joseph's Covenant Keepers?
1 comment:
Post a Comment