Woman looking for a husband encouraged by ‘advice’ columnist to continue sleeping around

“Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the bling, both shall fall into the ditch.”

While scanning the news this morning, I came across a “Dear Abby” type column, in which a 29-year-old woman asked the “expert” about whether or not she needed to stop sleeping with men on the first date in order to find a husband with whom she could start a family; the conflicted woman had reached out after a friend had suggested that perhaps her inability to find a man pursuing her as a wife was because of her willingness to jump in the sack at every perceived “connection.” Here’s her initial inquiry, from the article:

I’m a 29-year-old woman and I’ve been dating for most of my 20s in the hope of finding a husband to have a family with.

…

However, my friend says that the reason I’m not finding a husband is because I’m too sexually available – she says I need to ‘keep the men wanting more’ and not sleep with them until at least 10 dates in. Surely this is an old-fashioned way of thinking? It’s 2024 after all!

Yes, it is 2024 after all, where feminism has reached a new level of chaos and nonsense, but still… I, like any reasonable person, expected a gentle “yes” from the so-called relationship “expert,” so I was genuinely shocked to read that the advice this young woman received actually encouraged her lifestyle choices of easy-riding (with the “expert” even referring to the suggestion that she wait for sex as “old-fashioned” and “misogynistic”), and I was quickly reminded of how unreasonable people can be, especially when these people are neo-feminists.

What I find so nonsensical is that traditional Western marriage, or the idea of one man and one woman in an exclusive and committed intimate relationship (which is what this woman apparently desires), is an “old-fashioned” institution, one that is often labeled as “patriarchal” or even… “misogynistic.” How in the world can this “therapist” decry certain ideas as antiquated, while trying to help someone achieve the antiquated status of “married woman”?

Furthermore, for the West, this sort of relationship was born in Judeo-Christian history and from its morality so obviously, the best sort of advice would come from people who subscribe to this worldview; instead of tapping a tantric sexologist (who by all accounts appears to be unmarried and childless) for relationship guidance, find a couple who’ve been married to each other for decades, and ask them what they might suggest, which I guarantee wouldn’t be racking up notches on the bedpost.

What other advice does this expert have for young ladies? Does she encourage them to keep their maiden names when entering into a marriage? Does she suggest that children should have hyphenated names? Does she propose separate bank accounts and 50/50 financial responsibility so the XX partner (“wife” is just so “old-fashioned”) mainstains a sense of “equality” and “independence”? Does she encourage divorce at that first speedbump, because above all, “happiness” comes before commitment? Does she suggest third-party lovers and pornography to spice things up when dry spells occur?

Lastly though, the therapist’s suggestion just defies common sense, for several reasons. First off, sleeping around invites sexually transmitted diseases, which can often be earth-shattering, and opens the door to unplanned pregnancies, which often leads to abortion (again, earth-shattering). It’s a route littered with minefields, so encouraging someone to take a risky path, for something as cheap as a dopamine hit, is categorically unwise—and then, how does that dopamine hit in the moment compare to the rejected aftermath when the lover “ghosts” the girl wanting a husband?

This also comes to mind: “Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?” Like I said, blind leading the blind. Thomas Paine once said this:

What we obtain too cheaply we esteem too lightly; it is dearness only that gives everything its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom should not be highly rated.

Now, replace “freedom” with “fidelity,” “purity,” or “marriage,” and the aphorism remains true—and why is that? Well, because reality, and morality are in fact objective, non-contingent upon time or culture, to the woe of anyone being advised by the “expert” in question.

Image generated by AI.