Pages

Monday, June 16, 2014

The Interview For Young Women Who Want to Date My Sons

Empath at FeminismIsEmpathalogical linked to a couple of e-mailers from FamilyLife recently; one of them was Mr. Rainey's proposed interview for those young lads would would like to date his daughters. It read:
I wrote yesterday about an interview I've conducted numerous times with young men who have wanted to date our daughters. Lots of parents have asked me to share some of the things I cover when I meet with these young men. Here's a "high fly by" list:
1. A woman is God's creation, a beautiful creation, a fine creation. You've certainly noticed that my daughter is pretty, is attractive and has a cute figure, haven't you?

2. The attraction of a young man to a young lady is both normal and good. I'm glad you like her and want to be with her.

3. I understand and remember what the sex drive of a young man is like. Believe me, I've been there, I know what you're dealing with.

4. I'm going to hold you accountable for your relationship with my daughter. Expect me to be asking to see if you're dealing uprightly with her.

5. I'm challenging you to purity. I want you to guard her innocence, not just her virginity.

6. I want you to respect and uphold the dignity of my daughter by keeping your hands off of her. Keeping this one precaution in mind will help keep you from getting into further trouble.

7. Do you understand all of what I've just said to you? Are we clear on what I'm expecting and what you can expect from me?

8. When you're a dad someday, I hope you will challenge your own children to abide by these standards and will interview your daughter's dates. My prayer is that you will never forget this conversation.
One of the greatest privileges God has given me is to stand alongside our four daughters and honorably and gently attempt to protect their innocence. Meeting with these young men has been one of the highlights of being a dad.
While I encourage readers to read what Empath had to say about this list over at his site, I will add a couple of my thoughts here. First, I must say that I respect Mr. Rainey deeply for all that he and FamilyLife have done to strengthen the institution of marriage. Few have been out there like he and his wife have been, attempting to make the lives of marrieds and pre-marrieds more full, more satisfying, and more Godly. That is not to say I do not have my quibbles with the advice that Mr. Rainey and FamilyLife dispenses, mostly stemming from the experiential difference between Boomers and subsequent generations. The world has changed on old-school patriarchal Boomer men--and one of those ways in which it has changed is that it's not just men who knock around their spouses anymore--male-on-female IPV was a huge theme at a 2008 Weekend to Remember conference Mrs. Wapiti and I attended--but women do as well, committing spouse abuse at rates closely mirroring, and in some cases, exceeding that of men (links here and here and here, for starters).

Likewise, the world has changed significantly since the 1970s--for that matter, since the 1990s when I matriculated--and both eras, the male was generally the initiator of the relationship. "Good" girls never called boys; it was the other way around. "Good" girls never picked up on boys; passivity was their gender role and sexual assertiveness was the hallmark of the slut. Female sexuality was restrained then in ways that it is not today. Young women now think nothing of asking young men out, of coming on to them, perhaps even initiating sexual activity ranging from heavy petting to partner masturbation to oral and/or anal sex (don't worry, she may still consider herself a "virgin" because she hasn't had penis-in-vagina intercourse yet). Thus I'm wondering if the Raineys, specifically Mrs. Rainey, the mother of two sons herself, has ever counseled administering the following interview to today's liberated young women interested in dating hers or others' sons. Probably not, but the present zeitgeist certainly calls for it:
1. A man is God’s creation, a handsome creation, a fine creation. Made first in his image. You’ve certainly noticed that my son is handsome, strong, mature, ambitious, and has many leadership qualities that make him very attractive, haven’t you?

2. The attraction of a young lady to a young gentleman is both normal and good. I’m glad you like him and want to be with him.

3. I understand and remember what the drive to obtain a long-term relationship, maybe even a commitment, from a young man such as my son felt like. Believe me, I’ve been there, I know what you’re dealing with.

4. I’m going to hold you accountable for your relationship with my son. Expect me to be asking to see if you’re in proper submission to his leadership and being a supportive helpmeet to him.

5. I’m challenging you to purity. I want you to guard his innocence, not just his virginity.

6. I want you uphold the dignity of my son by wearing modest clothing when you're around him and keeping your hands and other body parts off of him. Keeping these two precautions in mind will help keep you from getting into further trouble. While we're at it, I want you to show respect to my son by paying your own way on dates, and not prematurely enjoying the benefits of the lifelong commitment that you haven't yet made.

7. Do you understand all of what I’ve just said to you? Are we clear on what I’m expecting and what you can expect from me?

8. When you’re a mom someday, I hope you will challenge your own children to abide by these standards and will interview your future son’s dates. My prayer is that you will never forget this conversation.
Pretty heavy stuff to lay on a girl who just wants to hang out with your son. But a necessary one, I think, given that the old-school technique of dads "laying down the law" on young men who want to date their daughters addresses at most half of the issue these days.

18 comments:

newrebeluniv said...

Why is Mr. Rainey letting his 8 year old daughter date anyone?

Because those are rules written for an 8 year old. Points 1-3 are just preamble. The only thing that is a concrete controllable behavior is "keep your hands off her". But if you aren't going to have chaperonage, that is a pointless "rule" too.

The only real control he has is to raise HIS DAUGHTER to not be such a little tramp.

de ti said...

My impression wasn’t so much that this was geared for prepubescent elementary schoolers. My first thought was that a father giving this speech doesn’t trust his daughters at all. It’s also a “blame the man” speech and a demand that the boy take on responsibilities that aren’t his.

That man shouldn’t be talking to a boy about sex drive. And “hold you accountable for your relationship with my daughter”? That boy isn’t accountable to the girl’s father for ANYTHING. He might be accountable to HIS parents. He is accountable to the law. But he is NOT accountable to the father of some girl he takes out on a date or two.

“I'm challenging you to purity. I want you to guard her innocence, not just her virginity” That boy’s “purity” is not the business of the girl’s father. And it is HER responsibility to guard her own innocence and virginity.

“I want you to respect and uphold the dignity of my daughter by keeping your hands off of her..” I’m hard pressed to understand why the daughter can’t uphold her own dignity.

A man giving a speech like this to some snot nosed punk taking his daughter out hasn’t done his job. He thinks his daughter has no agency; that she’s not a moral actor, that she is incapable of making decisions for herself. Believe me – when she gets with the badboy, it’s because she wants to and she’s decided to. It’s because those bad boys turn her on. No girl gets with a badboy unless she wants to.

It’s not that he doesn’t trust the boys; it’s that he doesn’t trust his daughter. He should be telling her not to date bad boys and dickbags who turn her on. He should be training her to recognize that being treated like a slut turns her on and what to do about it. He should be telling her that badboys will light her up like a Christmas tree, and how to address that.

CM said...

I thought it was a little too shallow, but I don't have the same quibbles with the "agency" bit that deti and ray have.

Encourage a man to safeguard a girl's innocence boils down to "don't seduce my daughter"... and should have added "don't treat her as inferior, lowly, 2nd rate, and unworthy of your attention when she expresses a desire to remain pure."

For the boy's list, same first bit -don't seduce my son, but for the girl, I'd add "don't put pressure on, manipulate, or become a 'victim', obsessed with your own vanity if my son turns down your advances in an attempt to keep you both pure."

My oldest brother had so many girls break up with him because he wouldn't have sex with them. Their attitude was "you don't love me, your not attracted to me." They think if a man exhibits self control, than they aren't really interested.

CM said...

Correction - not ray, doc (been so long since your old handle, I don't remember it :p)

CM said...

It’s not that he doesn’t trust the boys; it’s that he doesn’t trust his daughter. He should be telling her not to date bad boys and dickbags who turn her on. He should be training her to recognize that being treated like a slut turns her on and what to do about it. He should be telling her that badboys will light her up like a Christmas tree, and how to address that.

The only girls who go after bad boys are the ones who haven't been taught the consequences of sex and the importance of fathers.

If you never give yourself permission to <3 the alpha baddies, the good boys become attractive.

The sexual revolution and birth control hurt the landscape more than anything else because it divorces consequences from sex. Deal with that in young girls and you'll have it made.

My daughter loves her babies (and cars and dinosaurs). I will encourage her to embrace motherhood. With that foundation, looking for stable men should be a byproduct.

Eric said...

Wapiti:
I'd be more inclined to give a son a checklist of 'toxic women.'

1. Does she hate men?

2. Is her mom a single mom with a history of dating thugs?

3. Is she taking any psych drugs?

4. Does she have an STD?

5. Does she think abortion is a right and motherhood a form of oppression?

In all probability any American female between 12 and 52 are going to score at least 4/5 on this quiz.

Solution: send your send abroad to finish his schooling and then you don't have to worry about lists! lol

Mann Fuga said...

If I had a son, I'd go to divorce court with him and narrate all that was happening.

Then I'd take him to visit the men in jail that got laid off and couldn't keep up with their exorbitant alimony and child support payments.

Then, I'd sit outside the homes of ex-wives collecting alimony and child support so that he could see what the wives boyfriends looked like.

Then, I'd take him to meet some of the men that escaped imprisonment but nevertheless had their lives destroyed for false accusations of rape, DV, molestation and harassment.

Then, I'd take him to meet some of the women that falsely accused men of rape, molestation, DV and harassment.

After all of that, I'd take him to Arlington cemetery and ask him to count the number of female names on the headstones. I'd also introduce him to sites like gynocentrism.com and mgtow.com.

In short, if I had a son, I'd raise him to be aware of the way this world can easily destroy him.

Elusive Wapiti said...

I think get what Mr. Rainey's trying to do here, but yes it does come off as very condescending. OTOH, young people are famously short on both judgement and the ability to resist the tingelz, so perhaps there is some utility in reminding potential young suitors that someone's watching.

But as pointed out by PH and Deti and CM, the far better alternative is to school up the daughter about her own not insubstantial sexuality and to make better choices in the boys they court.

I see this 'talk' happening once, and the young daughter never again bringing subsequent boys home to be AMOGed by dad.

de ti said...

@ CM:

“The only girls who go after bad boys are the ones who haven't been taught the consequences of sex and the importance of fathers.

“If you never give yourself permission to <3 the alpha baddies, the good boys become attractive.”

I respectfully disagree. I’ve been around long enough to see many a nice girl, from good upstanding families, with intelligence and savvy, get taken in by the archetypal Frank Fratboys, Harley McBadboys, and F*ckbuddy Rockbanddrummers of the world.

Girls like bad boys. ALL girls like bad boys. Bad girls, good girls, nice girls, bitches, virgins, sluts – doesn’t matter. They ALL like bad boys. And they all like bad boys because they’re the ones who don’t care about convention, decorum or rules. Bad boys have the sack to approach the girls. Bad boys don’t get shot down day after day or if they do, they don’t care about it. Bad boys won’t bear societal sanction for even the tiniest of infractions, like good boys do.

de ti said...

And by the way:

"Good girls" are only "good" (i.e. compliant, rule-following) as long as an authority figure is watching. The moment Daddy looks the other way, and she's with a man she's attracted to, that "good girl" can unleash a sexual desire that has to be seen to be believed.

"Good girls" get with bad boys becuase they want to. They also get with bad boys because the bad boys are the ones who approach them and ask them out. "Good boys" have their parents, pastors, churches and everyone else fall on them like a ton of bricks, much like Mr. Rainey here.

Does anyone think a bad boy is going to care one whit about what Dennis Rainey says? That's what makes him attractive to girls, good and bad alike.

de ti said...

Something else that occurs to me too is this.

Rainey’s pontification and AMOGing is more evidence of how Churchianity views male and female sexuality.

Male sexuality is violent, predatory, criminal, evil, base, perverted and sinister.

Female sexuality is pure, good, well intentioned, normal, restrained, and holy.

If there is sexual conduct going on, it is ALWAYS the man’s responsibility. A single man is responsible not only for his own decisions and sexuality, but also for that of his date. So if she comes onto him, it must be HIS fault. It couldn’t possibly be because she made a decision to have sex, or because she wanted to have sex, or because she has sexual desire. No, it is always because he took advantage of her; he tricked and duped her into it.

Rex said...

WTG man, stick it right back to these White Knights. No where in there did he say what his daughters had to offer in return. That's because no young man will ever be good enough for his little princesses. In turn the two pure as the wind driven snowflakes will be riding the cock carousel all the way up until they hit the wall where none of the formerly not good enough nice guys won't want them.

CM said...

I respectfully disagree. I’ve been around long enough to see many a nice girl, from good upstanding families, with intelligence and savvy, get taken in by the archetypal Frank Fratboys, Harley McBadboys, and F*ckbuddy Rockbanddrummers of the world.

You know, screw that. I turned out quite well, thank you very much. And for all the reasons i've highlighted. I went with the good boys. I ran away from the bad ones. And while i didn't make it to marriage, i did it with a man who would have made a good father, reliable, and supportive. Not a bad boy and certainly not an alpha.

Given I have a daughter, I would sure as hell like to think there is something I can do before she is 12 that doesn't force me to lock her in a tower through her teenage years for her to turn out as well as I did.

So screw the defeatest attitude. I'm not giving up on coming up with a way to raise my daughter that gives some reliable results. And yes, her father is involved and yes, I know his role is important.

Its a good thing y'all don't have daughters. You'd be locking them in a convent because the "can't control themselves".

CM said...

Deti,

Just in case EW deems my last comment too emotional and not well thought out -

You accuse Rainey of not giving his daughters moral agency and believing they are incapable of making a wrong decision. So any mistake made is all the man's fault.

Then you come in and claim that it is IMPOSSIBLE to teach a girl to make good choices. Isn't that you taking moral agency away from the woman? That is the crux of the insanity defense, isn't it? So it is then... MAN'S fault for not keeping tight enough control on women's behavior.

My position puts moral responsibility where it belongs, each responsible for his or her actions. If a woman can not be taught how to make sound choices in regards to sex, children, and marriage, then she is little more than a child, and her guardian (father or husband [once married]) DOES bear full responsibility for his charge's incompetent behavior.

Is that how you really want to play this?

ray said...

Looks like Medea and her Doggie-Daddy enablers are loyal EDub fans!



https://shine.yahoo.com/parenting/-feminist-father--shirt-worn-by-nj-dad-goes-viral-163733847.html



These cowards are so afraid of ONE MAN who communicates the truth, they had to gin up an entire MSM Propaganda Special just to respond to ONE of his 'obscure' posts. lol


LOL!


(Of course they didn't 'respond' to him. That would show actual manliness, honesty, and directness. No instead they passive-aggressively (and deniably!) produce their sad, lame anti-EDub feminist reply, sold as more Protecting Pore Princesses. The foundation of our Femarchy.


It's comforting to know that U.S. Intel and its Medea satellites are close attendees of this site's contents. And it's good practice, as EW and others like him will be telling these traitors what to do after this little rebellion is over.


That relationship will be permanent.



Anyway, thanks again to the GynoGulag for the fast turnaround time (four days!) responding to this piece. Shit another few hundred millennia, you people might actually be good for something.


Cheers.

Elusive Wapiti said...

" If a woman can not be taught how to make sound choices in regards to sex, children, and marriage, then she is little more than a child..."

Precisely.

And as I look around and survey the socio-sexual landscape, I personally am not encouraged by the developmental maturity on display.

Pick your indicator: frivorce, extramarital sex, infanticide...all suggest some serious lack of maturity.

Whole lotta folks out there whose behavior either demonstrates a childlike arrested development, or who claim lack of agency when it suits them (i.e., when convenient to shift responsibility to another).

Elusive Wapiti said...

@ Ray,

"Looks like Medea and her Doggie-Daddy enablers are loyal EDub fans!"

Did someone link to this blog in the comments to that Yahoo article? I'm not seeing it.

Also, the comments to that article are encouraging in that the dudes (and a few gals) are bringing the reality-bomb to that discussion.

ray said...

No, sorry, I didn't mean to imply your site was linked.

But yes this site is pretty popular with certain sectors of govt. and interested others.

Nothing to concern about of course, they are godless not stupid.

Cheers.