The Latent Threat: Male Dominance and the Capacity for Violence

The Shadow Knight wrote a guest post for Sunshine Mary which she recently published. Titled “The Stabilizing Influence of Masculine Dominance in Women’s Lives“, it addresses how women have a physical and psychological need for men through dominant sex and a dominant masculine presence in their life. The initial comments are worthwhile too , because many of them try and grasp the extent and nature of masculine dominance. One potential aspect for masculine dominance that is brought up several times, and which sparked my interest, is a man’s potential and ability when it comes to violence. This got me thinking, and re-examining some of what I had previously written on the subject.

Then I read When Women Rage over at Sarah’s Daughter. While the overall purpose of the posts was different, there was a constant theme/idea which showed up in both: the male capacity for violence. Here is what SD had to say:

Fast forward a few years. We were no longer having fights of this nature. I had been reading the Bible and marriage books trying to change the rage within me. It wasn’t completely gone, unfortunately. We were driving to a meeting and again, I don’t remember what our argument was about, I was likely being very disrespectful and snotty and he’d had enough. He said something to me I didn’t like and I threw my coffee at him. He pulled the car over quick, reached across and grabbed my neck, pinned me up against the car door and informed me how I will never do anything like that again.
I haven’t.
RLB can, quite easily kill me with one hand. I learned that that night and have never wanted to incite him in that way again. The realization of his strength and willingness to use it has contributed greatly to my very high attraction to him.

It was the realization of the full measure of his power over her which I believe ultimately changed the way that SD interacted with her husband. SD mentions that she respects her husband now, and that it drives her current behavior, not fear. I must disagree. Fear and respect are joined at the hip, where there is one the other usually resides. SD still fears her husband, but that fear has been trumped or overcome by her respect for her husband. Setting the fear/respect dichotomy aside, one thing is clear: SD became more attracted to her husband based on that encounter; an encounter which not only highlighted RLB’s strength but his ability to commit violence.

I have written before about how men and women need one another in different ways. In The Need and The Void, I explored a bit into how men need women. Here is some of what I have said elsewhere about the female need for men:

Women need men to provide safety and security, to be a warm blanket that protects them from a dangerous and hostile world. A woman runs to a man to escape the dangers of the world.

It is easy for men to forget how much more powerful we are than women. We just take our strength for granted. But because they are the weaker vessel women must approach the world in a very different way. Sometimes they express this consciously, but most of the time subconsciously. Women are fearful because they must be fearful, they can’t defend themselves like a man can. How do women compensate for this?

Well, they act as a herd with other women, for one. You ever notice how oftentimes women will all go to the restroom together? As a group? Myself, I see it all the time. What I’ve never seen is men do the same thing. I suspect the reason for this behavior is because women subconsciously know that when you are relieving yourself you are even more vulnerable than normal, and so for protection women will group up, counting on numbers to protect them. Men, who can both relieve themselves more easily and are more capable of defending themselves, experience no such compulsion.

But the most important way that women compensate for their weakness is by associating with men. But not just men in general. Or any man. No, the Man. The Alpha Male. The big, strong man who can defend her, and her children, from harm. The Man who makes her feel Safe. This is where a man’s capacity for violence is important, even essential. Because a man who has a strong capacity for violence is a man who can keep his woman safe. Of course, sometimes this violence is directed at the woman herself, a perfect example of unintended consequences. Yet even those women who suffer at the hands of their man will often go back to him, perhaps driven by the subconscious belief that while may hurt her, he can also protect her from greater harms at the same time.

One of the most important truths that the Red Pill can teach is what it means when a woman says that she feels unloved by her man. It doesn’t mean that he isn’t cherishing her, or treating her romantically, or anything of the sort. No. What a woman really means when she says she feels unloved by her man is that her man does not make her feel safe. A sense of security is essential to women. The need for security drives all sorts of female behavior. Fitness Tests are one example of this. When a woman fitness tests a man, she is trying to determine if he is man enough for her, if he is capable of protecting her and keeping her, and her children, safe. Dalrock relates some of his experience on the matter:

She knew I loved her, but she didn’t feel it the way she wanted to.  It of course was equally frustrating for her as well because she kept telling me something was wrong and I wasn’t making it better.

Dalrock experienced this because he was failing his wife’s fitness tests. She was challenging him, and he wasn’t up to it. As a result their relationship suffered. But see what happens when Dalrock takes the Red Pill and adopts some of what he has learned:

It wasn’t just my actions and words which changed however, my frame changed as well.  Had I tried these same things from my old more beta frame, they might have backfired spectacularly.  I struggle to define it, but my frame was more of a playful cocky/funny one.  This was actually fairly natural for me, but I had made the mistake of listening to the conventional wisdom on how to please my wife.  The results were as expected more attraction from my wife.  As I mentioned this wasn’t ever a real problem before but I could tell a difference in her response to me.  Then something very startling happened;  she thanked me for finally making her feel more loved!  I had given up on that goal for the time being, and yet along with more attraction I had also inadvertently filled that nagging void which she had been feeling for so many years.

Just by changing his frame to be more “Alpha”, Dalrock managed to make his wife feel more loved. Why did this change of frame make such a difference? Why, if we accept “make me feel loved=make me feel safe”, did his attitude change things? The key relates to what women find attractive in men, and why. Under the LAMPS theory of female attraction, women are attracted to men based on a man’s Looks, Athleticism, Money, (Masculine) Power and Status. If the male capacity for violence is linked to the female desire/need for security and those impulses are connected to what a woman finds attractive in a man, then those traits which relate to a man’s capacity for violence should correlate with the LAMPS categories. And they do, specifically to Athleticism and Power. Because Athleticism relates to the physical capacity for violence, and Power to the mental capacity for violence. By adopting the cocky/funny attitude, Dalrock improved his Power value because he demonstrated that he was unafraid of confrontation, and willing to stand up for himself, which is critical if one is to have the mental capacity for violence. Of course this isn’t what Dalrock’s wife was thinking… but this is what her brain’s subconscious was concluding.

Based on this understanding, I think it is safe to conclude that the male capacity for violence is hugely attractive to women. A man who can demonstrate to a woman that he is dangerous, or capable of being dangerous, will be highly attractive.  This is why Ton’s “Gun Game” works. Women want, no need, a man who is capable of protecting them. They may not understand this at a conscious level,  and they may even consciously oppose it, but beneath the surface it drives much of what they say and do. So the lesson for men is this:

If you want to attract the ladies, it helps to be dangerous.


Filed under Alpha, LAMPS, Masculinity, Men, Red Pill, Sex

12 responses to “The Latent Threat: Male Dominance and the Capacity for Violence

  1. The Scolds' Bridle

    The Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.

    Fear is the lowest, most foundational element of respect. It is the last safety catch before one falls into oblivion.

    This is not to say fear is bad or low in its value, rather to say that fear is the final safety. Once fear is gone, respect becomes a matter or feelings or will only.

    The person who hikes far back into the wilderness all alone has – at core – a fear of what nature can do to him if he is careless.

    A thought from out of the blue: I wonder if Muslim women are as unhappy as Westerners assume them to be? (thinking more of “moderate” Muslim nations.)

  2. The Scolds' Bridle


    Another reason women return to abusers is ego. They want to “win the game” and be the only person who can navigate their way to the “safe side” of a violent man’s persona.

    The rodeo cowboy who is the only one who can ride the most dangerous of horses or bulls is a male example of this drive. Or the man who can sail his boat solo into the most dangerous of seas.

    There is a feeling of security (albeit often a false one) in thinking that one has overcome a particular type of threat. This probably leads some people into trying to tame dangerous animals as well.
    “Look, cuddly little Lion/Tiger!!” Next thing you know, they get attacked.

  3. Elspeth

    Women want, no need, a man who is capable of protecting them. They may not understand this at a conscious level, and they may even consciously oppose it, but beneath the surface it drives much of what they say and do.

    I was fully aware of the fact that I chose a man who could protect me. I’d experienced things in my life that made me wary of men who seemed too soft. That my husband had a reputation for being someone to tread carefully with was attractive to me.

    I even admit that the first few years we were married (before Christ saved him), I had a feared him a bit as well. I was not one of those women inclined to “test it” because I was fairly certain I would not like the results. He’s a wee bit more tame now, but I still won’t push it.

    I know some women think that sounds horrible, but I am really well wed and happily so. Thank God.

  4. Lisa in Vermont

    I don’t agree that a man has to be dangerous to attract a woman. I do believe, however, that he should be strong enough (in her eyes, at least) to protect her.

    This has long been a thorn in my marriage. My husband isn’t physically strong at all. I lift weights regularly. He does not. I run to stay in shape. He does not. I skeet shoot for fun. He won’t pick up a gun.

    I take our kids into the ocean because he’s fearful of the water. I take them on the rides at the county fair for the same reason. I also take them camping with my girlfriend b/c he doesn’t like to camp/get dirty.

    As a result, I don’t see him as my protector at all even though he’s taller and bigger than me. I’m sure he’d try to protect me if he ever had to, but I’m not sure how successful he’d be at it. He’s just not strong nor is he interested in any activities that would make him stronger.

    I love him and don’t regret marrying him, but often I feel like I have to be the strong/dominant one in our family, which is frustrating and tiring at times.

  5. I don’t think I was arguing that a man had to be dangerous to attract a woman… I was arguing that it helps. The fact that you are frustrated by having to be the strong one goes to show that protection matters, at least subconsciously.

  6. Elspeth

    I think the word dangerous is tainting a valid idea. Dangerous need not mean potentially abusive. In fact, I sincerely hope that I didn’t send the message that a woman quaking in fear is a good thing. It most certainly is not.

    That said, I do think given the difference in temperament and physical strength of men and women, it is advantageous for a woman (and the couple’s children) when the man is one they feel safe with in most circumstances.

  7. Yeah, dangerous does have connotations which are negative. However, I was sort of going for shock value. There is a line from The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe concerning Aslan which I thought might be appropriate. If I can find it. Something about Aslan being good, not safe. That is where i was aiming.

  8. thehap

    Good post, Donal.

    Regarding Aslan (the Lion):
    “Then he isn’t safe?” said Lucy.
    “Safe?” said Mr. Beaver; “don’t you hear what Mrs. Beaver tells you? Who said anything about safe? ‘Course he isn’t safe. But he’s good. He’s the king I tell you.”

    @Elspeth said: He’s a wee bit more tame now, but I still won’t push it.
    He’s more tame now? That’s terrible! I hope you don’t actually use that word with him. Tame means he has been made docile or submissive. Tame is insulting. You don’t want a tame husband. You want a husband who has self-control, which is much better than tame. I will use Christ as an example. When Christ (God Almighty) got angry at the moneychangers that were defiling his temple, what did he do? He called down His angels from heaven and had them slaughter every single man, woman, and child in all the earth. Then He rent the planet asunder, burning it all in His fiery wrath, created a new earth, and destroyed that one as well, so great was His anger. No, of course that’s not what He did. He restrained His all-encompassing strength and simply threw them out with flair. I am willing to bet He even restrained His human strength. He certainly wasn’t tame. But He was good. He was also dangerous. So it should be with men, especially husbands. Wives and children should fear their husband’s/father’s righteous wrath, but never need fear him lashing out randomly or uncontrollably. Any who would seek to harm his family should fear him to their bones.

    @Lisa in Vermont said: I don’t agree that a man has to be dangerous to attract a woman.

    Perhaps not, Lisa, but it would be better for all concerned if he was. Remember, dangerous does not actually mean bad. It means being able or likely to do harm. Protecting someone usually means doing harm to someone else, or at the very least, threatening it.

    Dangerous is an excellent quality in a man. Ladies, (subtly) encourage your husbands to be strong and dangerous. Don’t tame or domesticate them. You will find it to be both your misfortunes.

  9. Elspeth

    Poor choice of words. Self-controlled is better, He will not be tamed by me. Trust me on that.

  10. Pingback: Lightning Round – 2013/07/31 | Free Northerner

  11. Pingback: Masculine Monday- Defanging The Dragon | Donal Graeme

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s