Happy to oblige.

a fine lady seeks to separate physical and spiritual love by having her lover sleep with her chambermaid.

When I first read this, I thought "what a dumb thing to do."

I have to say, Maclin, I really enjoyed reading this post and it has meant more to me than you could possibly realise.

Consider the possibility that at least since the Sexual Revolution We Had To Have (and possibly before that) women have not known how to behave like women, with the unpleasant result that men have not known how to behave like men. And then consider the possibility that Christian men and Christian women, while they have similarities, are nevertheless two fairly distinct things b/c men and women are (meant to be) similar but distinct.

Imagine the possibility that perhaps our Western culture is largely made up of men and women who are more angrogynous than anything else (particularly among the under-45s or so).

I can't comment for anyone else here, but I feel as if my whole life I have had to learn how to become more feminine. Unlike my mother and her mother, for instance. And I notice it a lot in the women I know IRL too. No woman can eradicate her femininity altogether, but she can (inadvertently) hinder it quite a bit.

The words you use like "alluring" and "radiate" are exactly right for women. This is knowledge which I suspect is normally instinctively known in both sexes, but has perhaps been obscured since the disaster of '68.

I'm not kidding when I tell you that I have had to consciously learn this stuff, taught intellectually out of books! It's a wonder I was ever feminine enough to attract a husband.

Well, I didn't think I said anything much, but I'm certainly pleased that it meant something to you. That last bit, contrasting Lais and the Britney types, is really something that's been a...well, obsession is too strong, but a persistent thought since I was pretty young. There is a sort of stripper-type raw sexuality that I'm certainly not unaffected by. But there has always been something I saw in some women that was a lot more subtle and not so superficially powerful, but was really more powerful--something really deep and rich and earthy. The first type could turn my head, the second could make me fall in love. I can't say the first type is not feminine, I can't even say it's less feminine. But...hard to explain...it overemphasizes direct sexuality and doesn't seem as deeply feminine in a good way.

Plus the young "hot" actresses etc. frequently come across as having unpleasant personalities.

Actually I think that as a society we are in deep trouble with regard to relations between the sexes, for a whole lot of reasons, too many to go into now.

Here is a related thought. When I dress, I think of such words as "modesty" "elegance" "beauty" "respectful" and so on. Young women and even prepubescent girls these days seem to think in terms of "hot" and "sexy."

Says it all.

I believe I just found it in the spam catcher. Is that it, above the "here's a related thought" one? I don't know why it would have been treated as spam, esp as it let through other comments from the same address. Possibly the fact that it opens with a tag and is pretty long.

I have to eat pizza now. Later...

That's extremely interesting. I've had a long stressful day and can't really think of much useful to say. If I were not so sleepy I might try to articulate what "men"--i.e., I--wish for or think they're getting or whatever when they fall in love and marry. Well, no, on second thought, that's probably not useful--I'm probably too atypical.

Here is some food for thought, from Dennis Prager: men want to be admired, and women want to be loved by a man they admire.

Janet, is Angel in the House a poem we saw posted on this blog not that long ago? If so, I did read it, but might take another look.

Sounds like I might need to read Edith Stein? (I haven't yet).

Louise, I have attempted to send you a paper about E. Stein called "Feminine Nature and Virtues," by way of a Facebook message. I hope it works because it was originally in Word and I don't have Word on this computer, so it looks like it changed it to Wordpad.

We did have part of the poem on the blog a while back but the whole thing is very long. You can find it online.

AMDG

I've heard the men-want-respect/women-want-love idea before, and I think it's pretty much true. Prager's formula is basically the same idea, just made more precise.

Men aren't necessarily less complicated, we just pretend to be that way so y'all won't try to make us talk about it. :-)

Seriously, I think women are often misled in their dealings with men by believing they have us figured out when they really don't. As in the old line about "It ain't what you don't know, it's what you do know that ain't so." Several years ago I heard a dj (female) on the radio running through a list of "men are like..." and "women are like..." jokes. I only remember one of them: "men are like zip-loc bags: they keep everything in but you can see right through them." I thought it was funny, but later I started thinking that women who think that are probably actually getting a good deal wrong.

I recently rewatched a very early Woody Allen movie, Take the Money and Run, for my Film and Theology class (no, don't ask). There is a funny scene where his girlfriend tries to make him discuss their problems in front of the entire gang of robbers.

It is wonderfully funny; though part of my enjoyment is remembering seeing it with my parents in a cinema in NYC in 1969: I still think it is recommendable. I was also pleasantly surprised by how funny Zelig is. I didn't particularly like that one, at the time.