The Boundless blog is a collection of unique voices addressing the issues young adults care about right now – everything from dating and faith to current events.
In today's featured article, "The Most Powerful Force in the World," author Glenn T. Stanton writes,
"Of all the human-driven forces in the world — business, industry, education, wealth, political regimes, the arts, militaries, entertainment, social movements — there is one clear power that's greater than each of these and actually drives them all.
"It is simultaneously simple, but complex; soft, but strong; reserved, but highly influential; subdued, but controlling.
"This one unsuspecting thing — hardly recognized as anything important — drives humanity, forecasts and shapes its future and that of the world.
"What is it?
"The most powerful and consequential human force in the world is a woman's prerogative to say 'yes' or 'no' to a man's sexual interest in her."
I invite you to read Stanton's article in its entirety and share your thoughts here. What surprised you? What statements or ideas in the article do you agree or disagree with?
You must be logged in to comment.
Sign In or
-- Wow, this was a really interesting article. In a lot of ways, the idea that a woman holds power through her virginity or refusal to engage in a sexual encounter/relationship seems to be hearkening back to the days of chivalry, but Glenn makes a strong point for how that power still exists today. To be honest, his final point about the low price of a woman's sexuality today - and how that affects those of us who say "no" before marriage - is very true. I am definitely interested to hear some responses from men about this article.
-- "Universally, the man must approach the woman, and women alone give the red, yellow or green light to the world of sexuality"
Not necessarily, at least in the culture of the Ancient World. In the days of arranged marriages, the woman (and man in many cases) had little to no say on whom they would marry and implies that the woman would have little or no say on whom they would sleep with.
"However, after the marriage is entered, the control over sexual access is democratized between the husband and wife. She no longer controls the market...While his wife might get the occasional "headache," both do indeed realize they have a responsibility toward the other’s desires and each has a proper expectation of (regular, but not absolute) sexual fulfillment from the other."
Although I understand what the author is saying (e.g. 1 Cor 7:3-5) there should've been a qualifier that marital rape is not acceptable under any circumstances, and is still an issue in some marriages.
The negotiation aspect is interesting and shows the differences in what men and women want. Men are attracted to young, hot, fertile women (scholars speculate Isaac was around 40 years old and Rebekah was an early-mid teenager--and we talk about creepy). And women tend to be attracted to tall, rich, powerful men. These naturally are a fit and have been for almost all of human history.
In the last part of the article, it states how women have lowered their standards and men have been able to benefit from it (and other perks like companionship). However, I'd argue in part that since the access to sex has been separated from marriage, the primary "winners" are not all men, but only the "alpha males". They can monopolize most of the women for sex because most women naturally want to sleep with them. The beta males unfortunately, are left with involuntary celibacy (through marriage or not). I wish he would've addressed this issue as many men have difficulty finding dates and who would marry them. And who cares whether women are happy with having sex more often or not. From a guy's point of view, he often doesn't care how she feels (esp from alpha males since they know that there is a line of women willing to give their virginity away to him).
Finally, keep in mind that in terms of sexual behavior, Christian men and women are not that much different than the secular world. Many Christian men and women lost their virginity long before marriage. For the value of sex through marriage to work, women need to guard access to their bodies and not give away their most valuable bargaining chip. Until that occurs, you're not going to change things.
-- Women today do not understand the power they have given up for the lies of "strength, power, independence" by following the siren song of feminism.
Feminism has turned women into little more than sexual objects. Listen to men. Hear them say modern women have nothing to offr but sex -because that is all they are offring a man. Some will say"I have a degree/career/money!" So does he and if he wanted more of that he could get into acivil union.
I have come to believe feminism hates women moe than it hates men. But hey, I've been told I simply hate all women. Sure seems obvious, doesn't it?
So you go girl, sex up the football team tonight. For power and freedom. And stick it to oppression.
-- As MikeTime said, there should have been a qualifier against marital rape. Also, the article seems to assume that men never say no to sex acts, either before or after marriage. There is some small percentage of men who want to be abstinent until marriage, sometimes the woman has a higher sex drive than the man, and everyone has times when they do not want sex right now.
-- "there is one clear power that's greater than each of these and actually drives them all"
And I thought it was compound interest
-- The reason for the cheapened traditional female power over men (sexuality) in the eyes of men is because traditional male power over women (security) in the eyes of women has been cheapened as well as women now have widespread access to traditional male power: they can now obtain financial independence apart from a man. This should really be no surprise. Both genders' traditional roles have been cheapened significantly in the past few generations.
That being said, the title is pretty ridiculous: "the most powerful force in the world." Come on, really? If I were a woman (especially one pushing for equality on all power fronts), I would feel extremely patronized.
-- Interesting article. Overall, I agreed with most of what Glenn Stanton said, so I won't comment point-by-point. One thing that sort of kept coming to mind, though, was that this "powerful force" has the potential to be used in a very manipulative way by women. I know Stanton mentioned more than once that in a marriage, both people have to learn to control sexual access, but even before marriage, a girl can taunt a more, shall we say, "willing" man with the hope of sex in exchange for something...whether or not she actually intends to give him that or not. Not sure where my mind is going with that train of thought, but it was something that came to mind.
-- From all the human driven forces, sex rules the world? Ridiculous!
How denigrating and dishonoring for all humans - not only Christians - to be reduced at animals - maybe in biology, the most powerful driven force is the perpetuation of the species, ie. reproduction. but for humans, this is the most powerful driven force in the world?
That's a mocquery of an image both for the man who beggs for sex and would do anything for it, and for the woman;s ""power"" within her sexuality.
Not sure anything from this ""article"" would be worth being kept.
-- <p><p>MissC1, you are describing the woman who has beta orbiters who are just there to listen to her cry about her jerk boyfriend andhelp her until he makes abooty call and she goes running back. Or the beta orbiter who helps her move furniture or whatever because her boyfriend is in jail. He is sexually frustrated and she gets free labor and psychological support. No, this is not what happened to me. Women bring me gifts.</p></p>
-- <p><p>"And no one needs to be taught to have an interest in or desire for it. It is our most natural drive. All must be taught how to control and protect it."</p></p>
<p><p>Around one percent of the planet's human population begs to differ on this statement, and I am one of them. And if you add us all up, that is quite a large number of humans who have no interest in (or are disgusted by) sex.</p></p>
-- Can we please move past this whole idea of labeling guys as alpha males and beta males? It's ridiculous.
The world doesn't break down into forever alone nice guys and jerks drowning in a sea of women. There are plenty of great guys out there who treat others with respect but are also confident and enjoyable to be around who don't fit in either camp.
Being nice is not something that you deserve to be rewarded for. It's basic human decency. Being respectful is not something you deserve to be rewarded for. It's basic human decency. Do you really think a woman is going to be attracted to you just based on the guarantee that you won't beat her, cheat on her, or rape her? No. Those things are basic human decency. If you're a nice, respectful, trustworthy, Christian guy, congratulations. You have now officially met the most basic criteria for being a decent human being.
Those "jerks" and "bad boys" that every single woman in the world supposedly swoons over with no exception have negatives that you don't have. So how do they attract women? They have positive qualities that outweigh their negatives, at least in the short run. Nobody buys an Aston Martin because of how practical and reliable it is. They buy it because despite the fact that replacing the tires will cost them at least $1000 each time, the impractical size, and the general unreliability, when it is working, driving it is amazing.
You can't expect to attract women simply by not repelling them. You have to give someone a reason to want to date you.
"Can we please move past this whole idea of labeling guys as alpha males and beta males? It's ridiculous."
"You can't expect to attract women simply by not repelling them. You have to give someone a reason to want to date you."
Full disclosure : female "betas"= wallflowers, are just as prevalent. I am/was one of them. I've come to realise that the friendzone isn't something that bad people do to you. You friendzone yourself. I put myself there. And I'm getting myself out. So guys don't find me attractive, don't make me feel attractive... Well I can start working on making myself more attractive to....myself. It's beginning to work. All the years I spent bemoaning the fact that guys didn't want a v dedicated Christian worker like me, I could have used to work on the insecurities, prickly self-deprecation, bad hair and wardrobe choices and dull time-killing activities I prioritized, so I wouldn't have to judge men for not picking me because they would. Of their own free will.
-- Yes, GrinandBarrett, the alpha/beta classification can be restrictive. I prefer the alpha/beta/delta/gamma/omega/sigma/lambda system.
Bad boys provide danger,excitement,sexual tension,confidence, dominance and sexual attraction. Women like those things.
-- You know, I just really don't get why women supposedly swoon over the "bad boys." I've never been attracted to that type of guy, and honestly don't know any girls who are. Why would I be interested in guys who, as Greg says, "provide danger, excitement, sexual tension, confidence, dominance and sexual attraction." The attraction thing is important, I suppose, but danger? Sexual tension? Confidence (which usually seems to come across as cockiness)? Dominance (which often means control)? Nope. Not for me. Give me a nice guy who provides stability, kindness, adventure, butterflies-in-the-stomach attraction, gentle guidance, and commitment. Add to that the characteristics of humility, meekness (not to be confused with weakness), a servant's heart, and spiritual strength, and that's my type of guy. (Lol...I don't ask for much, do I?)
-- Pro Tip: Life goes a lot more smoothly if you treat people as individuals instead of trying to lump them all into classification systems.
made with ♥ by Boundless