Erin, your response does indeed make me feel better :) I also have friends with progressive ideals, and it's similarly hard to relate to them. I support same-sex marriage for example, while that ideal seems opposite to the views of those who commonly wait for marriage. They also don't seem to understand the significance of "divorcing" (pun intended) the idea of waiting and religion. If there was a means to converse with you further, I would appreciate it. I don't wish to insult the integrity of this forum by using it to chat, so I'll say I'm on Facebook with the same name/profile pic. And if there's a ton of people with my name... I live in Ontario, Canada. Thanks again, Robin

Just about anything is better than normalizing things like "50 Shades of Grey". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifty_Shades_of_Grey I truly hate that book, and I'm disappointed in anyone who doesn't. * * * I would have dearly wished to have been raised in a world like that, to be able to trust women to preserve themselves and only accept the attention of men who are required to prove their worth, equally chaste. When we know you're waiting for us, it allows us to become the men worthy of you, instead of falling prey to fear and giving up on finding you. Deep down, everyone wishes romance and courtship could be like that of Jane Austen's time. My question, though, is how would women allow men to pursue them and these feelings without feeling pressured, or as some kind of "trophy"? In a crude way, that sort of is what one's [husband/wife] is... since a trophy is a tangible "thing" which is attained and presented to verify merit. But in this case, I kind'a feel having someone in your life like that was the whole point? (since it is their being in your life that perpetuates the reciprocal love) Anywho, sorry for the rant. Just a bit down of late because as one ages, those who wait are farther and fewer between. (and after learning about that book, and it's popularity, I feel like I've just been knifed in the gut) Robin

Shanna, In the interest of not turning this thread into a personal soap-box, I invite you to contact me on Facebook* (I won't share my e-mail on a public page like this). I use the same name and avatar. *and anyone else is welcome to as well However, I sometimes use Socratic method when defending a stance, and I can not guarantee my answers to be pleasant. I could answer in a politically correct fashion, but I would be lying by denying how I felt simply to make [you] happy. I trust you're too good a person to make me (or anyone) do that? With respect, that's all I want to say here.

Monica, First, thank you for being awesome. I've typically only read posts here that from a very religious background, and it was nice to read something that contained very little bias of that variety. Question though. What made you want to wait until marriage? Was it how you were raised, religion, or a "I just want to" thing? Regardless, your words and thoughts are admirable, and one can only imagine the honour a gentleman would have to court such an intelligent young lady :)

Shanna, Tell me, because I am still a (male) virgin, at 26, and waiting till marriage to the best of my ability. What does it matter whether I am a virgin or not? What am I "protecting" by remaining so? I have yet to meet a woman who was waiting herself who would reject a man because he was not a virgin like her. [Males] aren't taught to "protect" their virginity because its not sought after. We also have less compunction against pushing off anyone we feel is a threat to us (indeed, it's expected of us as "men"), so if there was a female "cherry chaser" after us, we wouldn't feel bad about telling them to get lost. At all.

"The Purity Myth", is a myth. I'm pretty sure that Aesop says something similar about a fox and some grapes.

Koni, I respect you. That being said, I also approve of this ad. I watched the ad, as well as a trailer for the game, and the ad is very accurate... about the gruesomeness. However, I need you to consider that my respect for [my] mother is not synonymous with seeking her approval. It's part of what being a man is. At some point, you fully cut the umbilical cord, doing your own things, for your own reasons. Now, if your [mother] did a good job, she trusts you to do what's right, and will leave it at that. Mothering fails when it's employed via imposition rather than respect, which only causes resentment in the end. For a fuller, and qualified explanation of this (though it risks betraying my own gender...), please read this article: http://artofmanliness.com/2011/01/12/blow-up-your-relationship-with-your-mother-and-get-one-step-closer-to-being-the-man-you-want-to-be/ To put the game and its ad into context, try combining that article, with the need to embrace one's (Jungian) shadow* as a guy, and you should come up with something less offensive. *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_(psychology) ... Or simply ask your father how he'd feel about the idea of a momma's boy marrying you. Chances are he'd want your husband to side with you, over his mother "approving" of you.

Geez Emily, where did that come from? Tilting at windmills? Considering the touchiness of the subject for her, would it be too much to ask for a more sensitive approach? You know, some people just need to be heard. It's possible for us to read what she had to say as "I'm assuming that you don't mean biological father, because mine was like...", and left it. Otherwise, there's not much I can say, other than say I also agree with fathers who want to screen the guys their daughters date/marry. It would be an honour to date a girl whose father cared that much about her. And so I think Shanna is too sensical to be compared to Don Quioxté. Myself, however... I am I, Donkey Oté, the [other word for donkey] of La Mancha Capery calls, and I go And the wild winds of whimsy, shall carry me onward Whithersoever they blow Whithersoever they blow... onward to mischief I go! (My version of some lines from "Man of La Mancha") You folks play nice now ;)

To Cady Driver and all other parents reading this: Been there, done that... kind of. My parents are decent people. Not really religious, but not complete atheists either. They generally instilled the ideals of empathy and civillity in me. And usually, I'm a rather understanding person who cares about people besides myself. But I do resent how my respect for women was effectively henpecked into me. There was one occasion I remember particularly, where my mother answers the phone and tells me, "an assertive sounding young lady is on the phone asking for you." Yeah, so I wasn't at the point in my life where I could feel comfortable talking to my parents about having female friends, but... c'mon. Did she really have tell me the voice was "assertive"? Like as an "uninstructed" teengaged boy, I would assume that women shouldn't be respected, and that I needed to be told as such? See, what I don't get is how wonderful, loving parents who set a good example at home, need to go an extra step further and effectively villify their kids' libidos before they even know they have a sex-drive. If you love them, and know they know (and respect) your values, why can't you trust them? You don't have to tell them to avert their gaze, they only need to know that even a magazine model who's effectively just eye-candy... is still a person on the other end. At that point, they'll know whether to look or not on their own accord. Sometimes I get the impression that people on this site like to be proud of defining "black" and "white". But life's not like that. And if it is... dare I say, what are you really going to do about it? Maybe we take the easy road, treat things like porn as a kind of disease, festering in a wound, and cauterize it. But if that's the case, society is made of people, and "cauterizing" becomes like dividing people up, and preserving some (defined by your black and white values) at the cost of others, leaving them as unreconcilable damage. After cutting your losses, you then start your values and modes of reasoning on a new slate. But yeah... that sounds pretty horrible. Because it is. It's why I don't like thinking in an "us and them" way. In the end, really still all "us". And most people get that. That's why I understand the dislike of porn. No one wants to find their sons or daughters taking part in something where those who enjoy it might go, "Yeah, I wouldn't do it, but I sure do like that they would!" However some porn, as Shanna suggests, is not "bad". Of course, I'd label it more as erotica, but in this case, it's more a visualized celebration of human sexual sensuality. No one's being degraded, because it's just exhebitionism, and some people do actually enjoy that. I don't recommend it being available for a child to watch, but for adults who can appreciate making love, and are curious about watching others do so... I would ask, is the concept of witnessing the act of love-making wrong? It's certainly not "modest", but is it "wrong"? My apologies for the all that. But parents, just do me a favour and have faith in your kids. If they can sense that, that's all they'll need. (What they really need you for is to be there for them after they get into trouble, which they enevitably will do, as you can't live their lives for them) And Shanna, I rather admire your ability to have differing views in these forums. You are critical, but also eloquent, I find. Feel free to find me on Facebook under the same name (I'll have the same avatar as my profile pic). I would enjoy further discourse with you :)

Serene, I say there is little to compare between Darcy and Edward, because I am much like Darcy. I have very little tolerance for shameless greed and borishness. Were I in Darcy's position, I would act in a very similar manner... including being being humbled for it later (as I have been before lol). Cullen seems to act in the way young men act when they think they know what they're doing, and act "in charge" to maintain their status... but that only succeeds in that perpetual loop of false emotions, maintaing the "situation" of a relationship. Although possibly unintended, R_Alan also brings up a MAJOR difference, in regards to the "damsel in distress". Lizzie, Darcy's "damsel" pretty much tears him a new one, right after he proclaims his affections to her, because he's so cold to her family. He only "gets the girl" by effectively empowering her by acknowledging her values.

Laura, The idea that women use their words like "sledgehammers" is an interesting one. Transduce the feeling into physical form, and the words become not unlike the physical abuse men give in response to such misandry. Basically, misogyny, while contemptuous, is the very response men give for their being abused. It is the fuel behind the iconic slapping in the face we each give another when someone acts in an unkind/shameful manner-it's felt that this is because something needed to "sink in", that their pain might otherwise be ignored by a woman. Wouldn't it be better if there was no such action to motivate this kind of response? (By the way, I am NOT justifying violence towards women, but rather illustrating one cause.) I'm not saying we need to be treated as "kings", as one poster suggested, but rather, no lower than [you].

Whoa! Whoa now! I take strong issue with Mr. Darcy being compared to Edward Cullen. The reason Darcy's such a jerk is because he can't tolerate anyone acting in a selfish/presuming manner towards him and those he cares about (especially after you find out what happens to his sister). Once he identifies someone who doesn't take others for granted, he (ironically) offers what he has most liberally. Edward's just plain self-centered. If he actually cared about Bella, he would have cleaned up his situation before even getting involved with her (or not getting involved with her at all).

It's true... just be careful of conceit. The statement only works when it's mutually exclusive towards each gender. Good men also bring out the best in women. We both appreciate knowing that we care about/for each other, and need that attitude for it to "work".

Lindsay, My apologies for presuming your assumptions. Although... *searches through wallet, and presents "Fool License"* I'm certainly tempted to debate whether people are all that complex or not, but this is not the place ;)

Robert Patterson is to girls as Megan Fox is to guys. Also, anything that makes crowds of girls shriek in glee is generally found to be the antithesis of credibility. Twilight is successful because it charges the (young female) brain with artificially cathartic serotonin, which is the obsessive-compulsive chemical in your brain associated with "love". (The one associated with the inability to get someone out of your head). http://www.youramazingbrain.org/lovesex/sciencelove.htm (What the characters in that movie feel isn't really that special, but the expected results of their situation, without context to keep them in check.) So you have people getting off on the release of the sense of emotional addiction. It's why [you'll] ignore the abusive behaviour of Edward-to acknowledge it is to cut off that source of release. The girls that like Twilight (possibily unknowingly) for what it is, don't care about the old-fashionedness of Edward, or truly understand what it takes for a guy to be old-fashioned (read: chaste) like him. I'm sure you like old-fashioned guys, and like that a popular novel has one for one of its heart-throbs, but to assume the two are necessarily related seems flawed.

This one of the reasons I don't date actresses. At some point in their careers, they're pretty much required to kiss another guy... and I'll resent her for it. Since some lady I've never met is underseving of such resentment, I've simply made the choice to not date actresses (or other such "performers"... it makes me understand now how acting was considered as low as prostitution once upon a time). It's also why I'm impressed by romantic movies that don't involve any actual sexual activity. Actually, the best "love story" I've ever seen is Pixar's "Wall-E", and highly encourage anyone who hasn't seen it to do so, to understand what I mean.

The book that would do well for men has already been written. It's called The Art of Manliness, by Brett & Kate McKay, which is the result of the website artofmanliness.com. If you want to reach guys (and we're talking general audience, not ones with a scholarly attention span), a modest "how to be a man" book, is what you need. I've been looking for literature on masculinity over the years, and there's scarcely any that deal with things men care about head-on, without extraneous science and philosophy attached to it. However, I liked this book because it teaches men about things that help them be better men (including such things as how to ask for a lady's hand in marriage-it also has a section on how being chaste is indeed manly). It's not manliness in the sense of crude "machismo", but rather in the sense of men's traditional virtues. (Just keep in mind that the book is not a direct reflection of the site's community, which does have its share of a**holes, relatively speaking)

Hi Margaret, I really empathize with you here. I only ever joined Facebook for similar reasons: to keep in touch with class mates. But now that I'm done college... I'm finding the site more and more vapid. I too would rather just spend time doing simple things with genuine friends, instead of going out and getting drunk, to then post the results on Facebook. What really frustrates me is that it begins to suggest to someone that this is what normal people "do", and you feel alienated when you're not like that. You don't have to feel alone, though. I found myself going back to church (not the same one I group up with, though, I wanted something I could relate to for myself), because I just wanted to be around people with good hearts. I'm sure a mindful person such as yourself can find a local group of some nature that will provide you with a sense of kinship. I will say this, though, in defense of Facebook, and other forms of online networks: when a connection isn't local, it does help you stay connected and "involved" in someone's life. I've had friends travel around a bit, and the only way I could say hi to them was online. Sometimes I think even this forum is just that, an online forum (so much is lost to just text on a screen). But it's still the most accessible option for the most part.

I say being an artist is being able to capture a thought or emotion, and being able to transfer it to a medium for an audience. It shouldn't matter what the subject is in order for the artist to have skill-though please don't take that as me meaning that "art" is a justification for depicting exceedingly violent things (as others could/would). I think it would have been funny to have asked your teacher why he didn't do more nude males in explicit poses... it often seems "art" is an excuse for guys to get women to take their clothes off lol

Hey, I remember that band. We played them on 88.3 CJIQ FM for a little bit (threw me for a loop when I announced the band's name as "Hockey". I was mentally like, "What the -bleep-?" Anywho, because kids are addicted to rebellion and sensationalism more than good sense, I'm thinking that being a rebel by marrying young is... stupid. Some people can pull it off, but a successful marriage needs both people to have themselves together. That doesn't often happen early on in life. It's nice to be romantic and say all you need is love, but I don't really love someone if I haven't taken the time to lay the foundation down for a future for us. The merit of the modesty movement decreases when you use the same energies of a culture that the movement is fighting against. Doing the right thing, is simply worth it on its own, without attention.

Thanks, RShapiro. Your response put things into perspective for me. I'll be on the look-out for local creative dating venues (though I'm done college now, so those aren't as viable) :)

Shanna, I'll say that the oxytocin-effect does indeed exist, though it doesn't have to happen from sex, so much as a sense of "intimacy" (often produced through sexual (in the relatioshippy/courtship way) contact like cuddling or even hugging. I'm still rockin' the V-card, but I've been on an oxytocin high before. And losing your virginity may have been easier for you because compared to others, you had a lot of everything already "in place", that is to say you and your bf both loved each other, and were at the same mutual point in your sexual history/experience. Not everyone gets to experience a loving/"innocent" first time like that. Were I in your shoes, it might have been possible for me to have had the same response. Headless Unicorn Guy, Dude, I get it, you're pretty upset. But I kind'a take offense at being called a "Lethal Mutation". I'm pretty sure once I get myself all nice and put together, I'll make a special lady (you know, the kind that also believes in not sleeping around or cheating?) pretty happy. Wendy, I looked at that article, and the comments made after it. One of them reffered to student budget concerns (be it time or money) resulting in more hook-ups. I can't help but agree somewhat: sometimes you just want an easy sense of companionship, more than sexual gratification, but sometimes that companionship comes in the form of sexual gratification. I'm not saying it's "right", I'm just saying it's there. So if you follow traditional dating etiquette of a guy asking a girl out, and paying for most (if not all) of it... you're not going to see a lot of dating happening on campus. And assuming we're not a bunch of otherwise promiscuous louts, wouldn't respectable young women rather see their [future husbands] studying hard for a good future instead of spending time courting (which would require time working more to make the money for dating, taking away from time for school)? Just asking, because I also imagine a lot of young women using that as their own reason for not dating too much in college or university.

My point is that in western society, you'd never tolerate a woman being brutalized for not dressing enough like a "slut", compared to the example in the article, where a woman was brutalized for not being modest enough... and there was nothing to stop it because it was "acceptable" to do that to her. It doesn't matter what the reasoning behind it was. It's simply wrong to beat/lash/etc. someone because they don't uphold a society's standards of dress.

"How I survived 40 Lashes" URL: http://lifestyle.ca.msn.com/real-life/inner-you/hearst-article.aspx?cp-documentid=24117249 I didn't really know where to post this (it is related to fashion, though)... But while possibly the idea that being something like a stripper is the extreme of immodest standards, the opposite extreme of forced (religious) sexual modesty seems much less human. Yeah, you may get offended by scantilly clad people, but if anyone on here thinks what happened to the young woman (or any of the victims) in that story is the least bit okay, you pretty much lose all credibility.

Thanks for everyone for understanding. Shanna, I didn't touch on the issue of porn not being necessarily damaging, though that doesn't mean you're not right. Like any potential vice, it doesn't affect everyone the same way. For example, drinking, drugs, or gambling hold no particular appeal to me (though I do drink socially with friends occaisionally). But then, I know myself what they offer, and know there's little to desire from them, personally. And so, there will indeed be people who aren't going to be as affected by porn, because it's not their sole source of gratification-their relationships give them more emtional nourishment/gratification than any porn can. For single chaste men who are still looking for a meaningful relationship, though, porn can be particularly dangerous. It's already a challenge to keep our intentions in the right place, with our hormones telling us to mate 24/7. So adding in the idea of porn, to someone already feeling occaisionally repressed... well, our resolve is strong, but sometimes we falter (especially if we've received a major emotional wound). That's why affectionate responses from admirable women make the difference-they remind us why we're doing all this. So you're right, not everyone will be devestated by porn (and there are even a few performers who know full well what it means to do porn, do it anyway, and still maintain their self-respect... probably because they stick to the lighter stuff), and simply labelling it as an evil thing to be abhored will probably do more harm than good. My comment was mainly to shed light on what happens when you're vulnerable to it.