THIS EXCERPT from Leon Kass’ article The End of Courtship is a partial response to the question, asked in a recent post, of why promiscuity damages happiness:

The supreme virtue of the virtuous woman was modesty, a form of sexual self-control, manifested not only in chastity but in decorous dress and manner, speech and deed, and in reticence in the display of her well-banked affections. A virtue, as it were, made for courtship, it served simultaneously as a source of attraction and a spur to manly ardor, a guard against a woman’s own desires, as well as a defense against unworthy suitors. A fine woman understood that giving her body (in earlier times, even her kiss) meant giving her heart, which was too precious to be bestowed on anyone who would not prove himself worthy, at the very least by pledging himself in marriage to be her defender and lover forever.

“Once female modesty became a first casualty of the sexual revolution, even women eager for marriage lost their greatest power to hold and to discipline their prospective mates. For it is a woman’s refusal of sexual importunings, coupled with hints or promises of later gratification, that is generally a necessary condition of transforming a man’s lust into love. Women also lost the capacity to discover their own genuine longings and best interests. For only by holding herself in reserve does a woman gain the distance and self-command needed to discern what and whom she truly wants and to insist that the ardent suitor measure up. While there has always been sex without love, easy and early sexual satisfaction makes love and real intimacy less, not more, likely – for both men and women. Everyone’s prospects for marriage were – are – sacrificed on the altar of pleasure now.

                                         — Comments —

Bruno writes:

I don’t think I quite agree with you on this opinion of yours expressed here. When you say that “For it is a woman’s refusal of sexual importunings, coupled with hints or promises of later gratification, that is generally a necessary condition of transforming a man’s lust into love.”, although I can see it happening for some, I fear I do not work on that premise. Whenever a girl, any girl, tries tauting me with the promise of sex, I feel disgusted and walk away. As simple as that.

Perhaps it is that I do not understand what you meant by “male lust.” If what you meant was a tendency to chase down any available skirt, I believe I don’t have it. I do not approach girls looking for sex, but for love (that’s why I seek long-term relationships). I hold as demeaning to me the assumption, explicit or implicit, that somehow what I am ultimately looking for is to, well, fornicate.

Laura writes:

I did not write the words you quote. I am in agreement with them, but they were written by the author Leon Kass.

He makes no mention of “taunting.” I agree that taunting a man with sex is not appealing. But a refusal to have sex before marriage is not necessarily a taunt. The purpose is not to solely wave a future reward before a man and get him to follow. In reality, it does work that way with some but that is not the only reason for the tradition of chastity. Once a couple enters a sexual relationship, they embark on a new and different level of intimacy. It’s true that the motivation for marriage at that point lessens for men, perhaps not for you but for many men, but sex makes it difficult for both a man and a woman to have perspective and focus on the whole person. To assume that a woman is simply “taunting” because she refuses to have sex is unfair.

When sex is withheld, courtship involves more verbal interaction, more sentimental gestures which create other forms of delight. Not only does this enrich intimacy, it helps couples understand each other before they marry. Premature sex cuts off other forms of communication.

But the best defense for the tradition of premarital chastity is not utilitarian. Yes, premarital chastity does make for healthier and more natural relations between the sexes. But in the end it is a more genuine reflection of the sacred. It is not useful so much as beautiful.

Y. writes:

Please follow and like us: