Lighting the Fire

This post is a response to Sunshine Mary’s thread titled Is it possible to generate sexual attraction in a marriage where there has never been any? I’m going to try and answer that question, and hopefully clear up a few things in the process. Here is the central question that she asked:

But let’s say there is a situation, however rare, where a woman has married a man to whom she is not sexually attracted at all.  Is there anything that can be done by either the husband or the wife to create attraction where there was none to begin with?

I would say that the answer is yes. Both the husband and the wife can help “create” attraction where there was none before. It is possible to create a spark in order to get the fire started.  Although I would say that only the husband can generate attraction. Before I explain further, some clarification is required.

Clarifications-

I noticed there was a lot of confusion over the meaning and use of words like attraction and arousal. I’m sure that other manospherians have their own definitions of these terms, so I’m going to briefly explain how I use the words in order that the rest of this make sense.

Attraction- Refers to sexual attraction. A good description would be sex appeal.

Attractive- Short for sexually attractive. Signifies an individual whom a member of the opposite sex would be willing to have sex with.

Arousal- A state of sexual excitement.

Desirable- An attractive individual who also possesses certain character and personality traits that members of the opposite sex want in a mate.

See here for ideas on what men find attractive and desirable in a woman.

The Goal

There are two different approaches here: the women making her husband more attractive in her eyes, and the husband making himself more attractive in his wife’s eyes.  The LAMPS formula provides some guidelines on how either process would work, as it explains what features women find attractive in men. Raising the value of one of those categories increases a man’s overall attractiveness to women.

In order to “create” attraction where there was none before, a man needs to move from “unattractive” in his wife’s eyes to “attractive.” In my post Romantic Architecture I provided a graphic showing how this might look:

1-10 Scale of men- Hypergamy doesn't care

The goal is for the husband to move from below his wife’s attraction floor to above it. That means increasing his effective LAMPS “score” in his wife’s eyes to a level where she will be sexually attracted to him. Athol Kay’s MAP is one example of how a man can go about this. Working out, getting a higher status, better paid job and becoming more masculine are all critical steps in a man becoming more attractive.

Something from Nothing

Some of the commenters at Sunshine Mary’s blog seem to think that you can’t create attraction from nothing. But this is what happens with every man that a woman encounters. He starts off as a blank slate to her, and as time passes she will evaluate his attractiveness and decide how he measures up. Given the hypergamous nature of women, it doesn’t make sense to presume that men start off attractive in the eyes of a woman. No, the only logical conclusion is that they start off unattractive indifferent[NSR has pointed out that the word Indifferent is a superior choice here, and I agree] and then are rated upward.

The problem that an unattractive husband faces is that his wife has a highly developed evaluation of where he fits on her “scale” of male attractiveness. Essentially, his position has hardened over time. Even if he raises his LAMPS values, he will be fighting against that deep seated impression of him that she holds. This means that he will have to work harder to raise his attractiveness in his wife’s eyes than would be the case for another woman who doesn’t know him as well.

Of course, that assumes there was no attraction to begin with. In the graphic above  there was a very clear line separating attractive from unattractive. I’m not convinced that the line is actually like that in real life. It could be that in reality there is no distinct point separating the two, but instead a blurry region of uncertainty where a man might be somewhat attractive. At such a point he might or might not be able to arouse a woman, with outside environmental factors making the difference (alcohol,  where she is in her cycle). Or it could be that it is the man’s position which is uncertain, with him occupying not a discrete point but falling within a certain region that might nor might not cross the line from unattractive to attractive. At this point I can only speculate.

Attraction v. Arousal

I wanted to really quickly distinguish between how attraction and arousal work for men and women.

The male arousal threshold is lower than the male attraction threshold. A man can be aroused by a woman to whom he is not attracted. For a visual understanding:

1-10 Scale of women with attractive and unattractive lines

The “not unattractive” region would be one where a man might not necessarily find a woman attractive, but might still be aroused by her. Since men can be aroused fairly easily by certain stimuli (especially visual and tactile), even a woman who is below his standard attraction floor can arouse him. In fact, I suspect that you could rename the “not unattractive” floor to “arousal” floor without affecting its accuracy.

Women, on the other hand, have an arousal threshold that is higher than their attraction threshold. This means that, barring extreme circumstances, a woman can only get aroused (think Tingles) by a man that she finds attractive. The more attractive the man is, the easier it is for him to arouse her. This plays into why there are two types of duty sex. There is duty sex where the woman is attracted to her husband, and duty sex where she is not. If she is attracted to her husband than it is just a matter of him arousing her during their conjugal relations in order for her to enjoy it. When she isn’t attracted to her husband, I suspect that he cannot arouse her during intercourse, and as a result she cannot enjoy it. In fact, the experience is probably quite unpleasant for her, because any physical pleasure she receives is more than offset by her mental/emotional distress at having intercourse with an unattractive man. This link between attraction and arousal in women is why duty sex is a “hard sell” to wives who aren’t attracted to their husband.

Submission and Attraction

Here is what Sunshine Mary said about submission’s role in attraction:

  If a woman decides that she is going to train herself to see her man as sexually appealing, what she needs to do is view herself as his subordinate in the relationship.  If she sees herself as being owned by him, as having a duty to obey him and serve him in all ways, including sexually, that increases his relative power in the relationship without his having to do anything.  I am not talking about D/s role-playing, either, a subject about which I know very little. I am talking about a radical transformation in how she views herself in relation to her husband.  Feminine submission to masculine authority generates sexual attraction in the same way that game does – by changing the power dynamic in the relationship.

I think that she is on the right track here. When a wife submits to her husband’s authority, she can alter her attraction to him. It is not so much that she (or he) is generating attraction, but that she is recalibrating her attraction filters to him and him alone. Two things are happening: she is changing her status in relation to his, and she is magnifying the effects of his Masculine Power.

The hypergamous nature of women means that a mans Status value depends not only on his overall position in society, but also his position and authority in relation to the individual woman. By submitting to her husband, a wife lowers her position relative to his, and enhances his Status value in her eyes. This makes him more attractive, which makes it easier for her to submit to him in the first place. As for Power, as a general rule the more submissive a woman is, the more feminine her nature will be. This will contrast more strongly with the Masculine Power of her husband, boosting it in her eyes.

By itself I don’t think that this is enough in most cases. While she can magnify her husbands Status and Power in her eyes, he still has to have a certain amount to begin with in order for it to move him from unattractive to attractive. If he is close to the line to begin with, than submission might make all of the difference. Certainly if she has the opposite attitude it stands to reason it would lower his attractiveness in her eyes, and so fixing it might boost him above the floor. I should note that there is also the risk that a wife who doesn’t submit, when faced with a more attractive husband (who will naturally have to be more assertive as well) will rebel against him. The power shift in her relationship threatens her, and fear may induce her to actively fight her husband in whatever manner she can.

Conclusion

Yes, it is possible to generate attraction where there was none before. It isn’t easy, and will take a long time for the husband to chip away at his wife’s impression of him. But it can be done, both by him improving himself and boosting his LAMPS values, and by his wife adopting a submissive attitude.

Update:

Ballista has challenged my “blank slate” idea of how women rate men as attractive. His words:

The issue is not “creating attraction from nothing” as she frames it, but “creating attraction from disgust”. To clarify the definition, disgust is the exact opposite of attraction. Many marriages exist for reasons other than attraction, namely because women can’t have the bull alphas (or apex alphas as you put it).

In other words, this woman didn’t start with a blank slate (and actually women almost never do – their own perceptions color men they deal with from second one with a man). She came to look at the peon beta with disgust because she couldn’t have her very own apex alpha. But her baby rabies, or the need to have status with the herd caused her to settle for this lesser man that repulses her the moment she looks at him.

What Ballista is proposing is a different idea on how attraction works for women. Rather than being a 1-10 scale, it is more akin to the -10 to 10 scale that Deep Strength has discussed at different occasions. Here is a visualization of this:

-10 to 10 scale of male attractiveness

While I think that such a model has merit, I disagree with him that once a man enters the disgust phase, he can’t claw his way back out. However, I must acknowledge that both of us are speculating here. There aren’t any studies which have ever covered this to be the best of my knowledge. And as Deep Strength has pointed out, most marriages that enter the negative territory tend to dissolve quickly. So testing out which of us is correct is something that nigh-well impossible to accomplish.

Perhaps Ballista is correct that women who “come into marriages with bitter hearts and that bitterness comes out in disgust towards the sorry victim of her rage,” cannot change their impression of their husband. I’m not convinced he is correct. But I have to acknowledge that he might be. Which again explains why I am very discerning when it comes to a potential wife.

 

Update 2: Ballista has written a post in response to this thread and its comments.

Advertisements

148 Comments

Filed under Alpha, Attraction, Beta, Desire, LAMPS, Marriage, Men, Red Pill, Women

148 responses to “Lighting the Fire

  1. @ Elspeth

    The reductionism here is unbelievable. Men only marry for sex. Women only marry for money.

    Agreed. Sadly, I don’t expect to see such argumentation disappear any time soon.

    Marriage is more than an exchange of sexual favors and tingles.

    True as well. At least, it should be. But we also need to be honest and accept that sex and attraction plays a huge, central role in marriage. Dismissing this means turning a blind eye to a huge aspect of human nature.

    Not saying that you are doing that, of course. But some of what has been said in this thread has gotten awfully close to that kind of approach.

  2. ballista74

    Maeve: Do all men think that women love so conditionally?

    DonalGraeme: But many men in the manosphere do, because that is what they see all the time.

    One thing I’ve learned is that I believe what I see much more than I believe the protestations of those who pedestalize women. I should start out by saying that conditional love is no love at all. If a woman’s love has “because he does (x)” in it, it’s conditional, especially if that love evaporates when (x) disappears.

    I’ll continue on by saying that women are innately incapable of unconditional love. This has been proven out time and again so completely that men are rejecting the very idea of having anything to do with women. Again, I believe my eyes much more than I believe the woman pedestalizers.

    Also I believe Scripture. Husbands are told to agapao (curses that there aren’t any Greek literal translations) their wives (Eph 5:28), which is the same as Godly love, but wives are not only told to phileo their husbands (“Philandros” – Titus 2:4) but have to be instructed in it by the aged women. Phileo is a friendly affectionate love. Those that are sharp on the exchange between Peter and Jesus will have heard these things before.

    Now note I said “innately incapable”, not merely “incapable”. The notion that women have to be taught to have friendly love for their husbands (i.e. something other than “opportunistic” love) is particularly interesting, especially since the admonition is missing for men. This, coupled with the injunction to agapao their wives says that on some level phileo is something natural to men. That women can be taught is no question since the injunction plainly exists. The problem comes in both men and women thinking this is not the case.

    The fact that women haven’t been taught to truly love their husbands, and that a vast super-majority seem incapable of loving their husbands seems supremely evident. “Many in the manosphere do” because they’ve witnessed it with their own eyes. Or they witnessed on their televisions the room full of women cackling in glee about a woman mutilating her husband (Sharon Osbourne, The View) and got woken up.

    The major mistake that men make when it comes to women are to think that women are capable of anything close to what they are when it comes to love. This frustration usually comes out in the “women want nothing more than children and walking ATMs” thing and in other ways which translate to “innate female misandry” in the minds of true Red Pill men. It comes from a very real observation of the lack of women these days who are capable of phileo love, or in other words standing with a husband or other man in complete brotherhood and friendship. In other words, men want to have a human connection in fellowship with their wives. This is a minimum bar that men have who haven’t been sucked into the Feminine Imperative (and therefore have enough self-dignity to not tolerate the abuse of women), and sadly one that a majority of women have fallen short in. This is why men are rejecting marriage these days – they expect women to have real love for them, and are finding that it isn’t happening.

    While this is a foreshadow of what I wanted to go into with Elspeth, one of Barbarossaaaa’s more recent videos (humanity, first and foremost) touches this topic as well.

  3. ballista74

    In other words, men want to have a human connection in fellowship with their wives.

    And to put it in a Scriptural way, this bar is in Genesis 2:18, wrapped up in “It is not good that the man should be alone”. In fact, the desire to have this fellowship is wrapped up in every man, for this woman was taken out of man. God’s answer was “I will make him an help meet for him.”

    The problem is that man still is alone after he has this thing called “woman” in his life in many cases these days.

  4. Interesting discussion! I think what Velvet said here sums things up nicely:

    **”Let me conjugate for you: AWALT, but NAWA *only* LT. “**

    Having read a lot in the manosphere, I can see the truth in some of the theories about female nature, but the reality in how that nature expresses itself is different for various women. Although I understand Deti’s arguments, they are too one-dimensional and don’t allow for enough differences in women. I could have been one of the two women he’s describing as nice girls who got caught up with bad boys, but I didn’t, and not for lack of opportunity. I am certain I’m not a unicorn.

    As to whether nerd-types are attractive, I absolutely think they are!! In high school, my only boyfriend was a nerd who was validictorian and got a full scholarship to Penn State to study…meteorology. I guess I would think they are attractive because I am rather nerdy myself!

  5. Donal, I’m being totally serious. Wendall was my unrequited high school crush, looked just like Max Keiser. Lucky Stacy. That smirk! My husband still teases me about the heart drawn around Wendall’s high school picture in my yearbook.

    I don’t think you understand just how rare a woman like you really is.

    I think we’re not as rare as all that, just so few are the right age. Too young and too old for you. My husband is rare, to be sure, and I am a product of his influence, as Elspeth is a product of her husbands, etc. It’s not me I’m interested in, though, it’s my daughters. I worry that there are good men in your marriage generation, a hair too old for them, considering they’re still children, probably, and not many others downline. It’s not like the last ten years of full court press feminism has left boys untouched.

  6. And she is smarter and more mature than me anyway.

    Ha! That’s funny right there, I don’t care who you are.

  7. @ Velvet

    I think we’re not as rare as all that, just so few are the right age. Too young and too old for you.

    So basically I was born in the wrong generation? Being a Millenial was just bad luck? Makes sense, I suppose. Some Gen-Xers might have still benefited from traditionalist parents, while the newest generation is benefiting from Christian counter-culturalists, especially the homeschoolers.

    I worry that there are good men in your marriage generation, a hair too old for them, considering they’re still children, probably, and not many others downline. It’s not like the last ten years of full court press feminism has left boys untouched.

    Your eldest is what, 10? Yeah, that is a nearly twenty year age gap by the time she gets to marriageable age.

    As for the downline men… its not just feminism. Its the economy, its the legal system, its everything. More and more men are checking out in one form or another. And its hard to blame them, given the high costs and limited benefits that goes with making yourself marriageable as a man.

  8. theshadowedknight

    I think Ballista got it best. Women are not trained to love. They have reverted to an almost completely feral state as a result. To make it worse, men have to work even harder to get a woman that does not especially care for him. More demands and less reward, including the most important parts. No one wants to be alone.

    You women have not the slightest inkling of how horrifying it is to hear stories like the ones on that thread at SSM about injuries. Those are the kinds of things that men fear more than anything.

    Women need to be trained to love men, or men will be trained to hate women.

    The Shadowed Knight

  9. ballista74

    You women have not the slightest inkling of how horrifying it is to hear stories like the ones on that thread at SSM about injuries. Those are the kinds of things that men fear more than anything.

    Not only “hear” but experience as well. From what I notice, I think most men who reject women do so for this reason alone: They experienced (via divorce or whatever else) literally how incapable of love women are towards men.

    Women need to be trained to love men, or men will be trained to hate women.

    Tagline wisdom here.

  10. Women need to be trained to love men, or men will be trained to hate women.

    Perfect. The Bible says that first part quite plainly.

  11. Now, regarding sexual attraction.

    I do not believe there is such a thing as Utilitarian tingles. I have never seen that happen before. I have seen intense gratitude and relief from a woman toward the man who provides for or protects her. Separately from that relief and gratitude, she may or may not experience sexual attraction to him.

    My OP was not about what makes a good marriage or even why people marry. My OP was about one thing, and one only: can sexual attraction be generated after marriage if it was not there before marriage? The potluck we attended was rather dull, so I have been pondering this all evening to distract myself from death by boredom. Here is what I have come up with:

    1. Sexual attraction is sometimes present immediately, from the first moment you lay eyes on one another and regardless of whether pursuing that would be wise or not. In fact, it seems like the less wise a choice a man would be, the more intense the attraction is (i.e. thugs).

    I actually have personal experience with this. I recall going to a cafeteria-style restaurant when I was around 19 with several friends. As I was pushing my tray along, the guy at the grill turned around to see if I wanted anything. He was a total, absolute thug. He looked like he’d probably just gotten out of prison or something. He was in NO way signaling, “I would be a good mate,” given the tattoos and little paper hat he had to wear. But my body went crazy the minute he walked over to me. He looked me up and down in the most obvious way and I felt like I was going to pass out. It was ridiculous; I had this flash image of him dragging me behind the counter by the hair and…you know. I didn’t get anything from the grill; I basically fled because I was so freaked out by my reaction to him.

    It was pure biological sexual attraction, and that is what I believe Rollo is talking about when he says attraction cannot be influenced or negotiated. But paper hat guy was clearly a terrible person, the sort of guy who might bang you behind the dumpsters or maybe strangle you and store you in the walk in cooler. So no matter how attracted I was to him, there was no way I was going to hang out at the grill to see if he made a pass at me.

    2. Sexual attraction may also develop after a couple begins to interact if he displays masculine power/dominance (game?); this is the tingle-generating stuff that you find written about at Heartiste.

    I thought my husband was handsome the first time I saw him, but until I interacted with him, he was just another handsome face in a sea of many other reasonably attractive men. One I got to know him a little bit, my initial impression of him as handsome turned to teh tingelz.

    3. And then my hypothesis: sexual attraction may be forced to bloom the way a tulip bulb can be forced to bloom in winter if you put in the freezer for a month or two in the fall, then plant it in a pot. It’s unnatural and won’t be as healthy as a tulip that comes up naturally in spring, but you can force it if you are willing to do the work. However, it’s not always successful. Sometimes the flower doesn’t bloom for some reason. And the way to force it is what I spoke about in my post, and which Donal speaks about here: dominance and submission.

    Except I have no experience with #3. I have experience with #1 and #2 but not #3, so I can’t prove that it’s true. It’s just my hypothesis at this point. I would really like to meet a woman who tries to become extremely submissive (preferably with commensurate displays of dominance by her husband) to find out if this really works.

    Also, having to resort to #3 means that something went awry during courtship. In this age of hedonic marriage, it is ill-advised for most people to marry without sexual attraction. Nevertheless, sometimes it happens. And when it does, what can the unhappy couple do? That is what I wrote my OP to explore.

  12. Sorry, that was such a long comment! But I’ve really been thinking a lot about this problem, and my own blog has been such a loony bin the past few days that I don’t really feel like commenting there about this topic at the moment.

  13. Gee, lots of typos in my long comment. Obviously in my last paragraph it should say “ill-advised for most people to marry withOUT sexual attraction”

  14. @ SSM

    I understand. In case it wasn’t obvious, I was avoiding the loony bin as well. Except when I wanted to argue with you, I guess. My thoughts have been elsewhere, but what limited time I have given to it (especially after reading the comments here) convinces me that the real problem lies not in attraction so much as the attitude of the husband and wife. Unless both are willing to work on their relationship through practicing dominance and submission, it will continue to stagnate or fall apart.

  15. Gee, lots of typos in my long comment. Obviously in my last paragraph it should say “ill-advised for most people to marry withOUT sexual attraction”

    I will fix them in a few minutes. Gotta remove something from the oven first.

  16. Deep Strength

    @ Ballista

    That brings up a good point and could be another discussion.

    Are women capable of agapao love or not?

    Titus 2 seems to infer no through using phileo instead of agapao, but can you really make the inference that since a greater form of love was not used that they are incapable?

  17. Pingback: The Reason Why Men Reject Women | The Society of Phineas

  18. ballista74

    That brings up a good point and could be another discussion.

    I reblogged my comments here and elaborated on a few points just now.

    Are women capable of agapao love or not? Titus 2 seems to infer no through using phileo instead of agapao, but can you really make the inference that since a greater form of love was not used that they are incapable?

    Good question, though the absence of reference to it seems to say no. Stronger evidence though is the injunction that they must be taught phileo love towards their husbands (and by extension all men).

  19. @ SSM

    I fixed the obvious typo near the bottom.
    Regarding your first story, part of me wonders if his raw, unrestrained masculinity is what set you off, as what makes a thug a thug is a lack of restraint on masculine impulses. Was that the first time you had ever encountered someone like that? I’m curious what it was that caused such a strong reaction.

  20. Balllista, I’m going to include a link to your new post at the bottom of mine when I get a chance.

  21. ballista74

    Thanks for doing so!

  22. theshadowedknight

    Regardless of whether or not women can be trained to love, at this point it is academic. Perhaps the next generation can be fixed, but who will be the ones that do it? Fathers? They were thrown out, and if they get to see their daughters every other weekend, things are going well. Mothers? They got us into this mess, and they have no idea what to do in the first place. Grandparents? Look at their generations; they have nothing to offer.

    This is putting aside the fact that the next generation is approaching a majority of out of wedlock bastard children. That is going to have serious effects in and of itself, let alone the other issues already covered. I have very little faith in the ability of women to turn this around, and they are the only ones who can at this point.

    I wish them well, but I am not going to get involved. This is no longer my fight. It is on them, now.

    The Shadowed Knight

  23. I’ve seen THE UGLIEST MEN and not rich. Be married to the most beautiful women. When I was a teenager I would tilt my head with a big question mark ?? How?

    All about submission (to his definition of submission and game). A man needs to have a vision that is greater than his wife.

  24. Women need to be trained to love men, or men will be trained to hate women.

    Is hate the right word here? Men are supposed to display agapeo love to their wives; where wives are only expected to achieve phileo love for teir husbands. I would expect that in absentia, men won’t hate women; merely disdain and withdraw from them.

    And speaking of utilitarian views of men. Feminism encourages more than this. It actively discourages women from experiencing gratitude for mens efforts. I was thinking about a story that showed this attitude clearly, and the link is here:
    http://www.mommyish.com/2012/10/18/step-parents-single-mom-468/

    Herein lies the contradiction. What if a man had made a similar statement? What if the man had been an alcoholic, broke, in a flop house, with ongoing problems and no job, and somehow married a virginal young woman with her own home?

    “I’m tired of people keeping on saying I should be grateful for marrying my wife….”

  25. theshadowedknight

    The emotions will span the gamut, from disdain, to hatred, to indifference, to grief, and even fear. I can see a lot of anger, but you are right that apathy towards women is a possibility, and not altogether unlikely.

    Even then, with the feminine consciousness in its current state, while men may not have much of an antipathy towards women, they may grow to hate a woman–or many–as they interfere with their lives. Think of it not so much as generalized hate, but more of a refusal to tolerate bad behavior just because she is a woman, and the resultant negative attitudes towards them as a class.

    If a man tried to pull a tenth of what women do regularly, he would be put in his place–or kicked out of it–in an instant. Women risk learning this at their peril.

    The Shadowed Knight

  26. Therein lies the risk. As the indebted nation states fall apart, feminism may grasp increasingly offensive strategies. Risking exposure of the true disdain for men.

  27. Ton

    Well I reckon the only way to really train a woman is with a cattle prod.

    Not all men Mave, I think women don’t love at all.

    Donal, my friend, never believe the words of a woman. Most especially the words of a woman on the interwebz.

  28. theshadowedknight

    Thank you Ton, for an glimpse of another way that men are changing.

    When men have experienced women enough that they no longer expect loyalty, fairness, honesty, decency, or respect, and so no longer accord them these. When men will have no dealing with women beyond the absolute necessity to avoid the accusations and scandals and limitless drama. When men see women as a dangerous creature to be broken and tamed at best and a savages beast at worst. When men do not care for the welfare of women and do not assist them in their lives. When that day comes and the men are unmoved by feminine wiles.

    On that day, it will be cold comfort for women to know that the men do not hate them; that they do not care about them enough to bother. What is the effective difference between hate and apathy when neither trusts them or wants them.

    The Shadowed Knight

  29. And she is smarter and more mature than me anyway.

    “Ha! That’s funny right there, I don’t care who you are.”

    You were in the chess club.

    Case closed.

  30. I have a couple in my life that is in the ‘can we regenerate this’ situation, except I don’t know if they really want to. It’s difficult to be around them sometimes.
    The wife is the breadwinner, making six figures, mid fifties, and is overweight. The husband is an artist, also mid fifties, sleeps most of the time, works when he gets ready. No longer attracted to his wife sexually, and she isn’t attracted to him, as he cheated on her a few years back. He might still be cheating.
    I think she married him to defy her mother way back when….but he’s proven to be an absolute non-leader to the family. More like a child than a husband.

    So….whatever attraction they both might have felt….I don’t know if they can bring it back. I think they stay together because they doubt anyone else would want either of them if they broke up.

  31. The major mistake that men make when it comes to women are to think that women are capable of anything close to what they are when it comes to love. This frustration usually comes out in the “women want nothing more than children and walking ATMs” thing and in other ways which translate to “innate female misandry” in the minds of true Red Pill men. It comes from a very real observation of the lack of women these days who are capable of phileo love, or in other words standing with a husband or other man in complete brotherhood and friendship. In other words, men want to have a human connection in fellowship with their wives. This is a minimum bar that men have who haven’t been sucked into the Feminine Imperative (and therefore have enough self-dignity to not tolerate the abuse of women), and sadly one that a majority of women have fallen short in. This is why men are rejecting marriage these days – they expect women to have real love for them, and are finding that it isn’t happening.

    This is very well said….and it seems that the consensus is that training is needed, and that is at the core of the Scriptural commands. Men have to get past the shock of the self-centered and rather mercenary nature of female ‘love,’ i.e., the idea that she’s only interested in what you can provide for her.
    I also think that males should be taught this at an earlier age, and the shock of it might be, might be, lessened. The ladies in SSM’s sphere seem to be exceptional, and speak from that experience, but so many more men have seen firsthand the reactions of women that have deemed them unworthy.

    God does say that women are the weaker vessel….males need to understand that we are more capable of God’s sacrificial love than females are; Jesus, after all, was incarnated as a man for a reason. I also would state that this is why males should not have low self-esteem, nor seek the approval of females. You are literally desirous of the approval of someone that can’t even love as divinely as you can as a male.

    With education, I think more men would understand ahead of time exactly what it is you’re signing up for when you seek a LTR with a female. Again, there are clearly exceptions, as many SSM regulars prove, both through their own hearts & choices, and strong male leadership. But again….do we notice that in all but the rarest cases, women have to be taught how to behave?
    What angers so many men is that the media push for the last forty years has been yelling the opposite….that men are dumb, abusive, selfish, inept, non-family oriented, etc. It’s truly a frustrating experience until men get a hold of Red Pill and/or Biblical truths.
    We have to lead them just as God said. I think the truth of this escapes many men, even Christian ones.

  32. femininebutnotfeminist

    @ redpillsetmefree,

    Well said… and this coming from a female.

  33. Je Suis Prest

    On the subject of utilitarian tingles, I’d like to suggest something I’ve been thinking of that may or may not be correct…

    I think there are two distinct things being said on that subject:
    1) that the lack of provision prevents tingles; and
    2) that provision is attractive.

    In general, I buy the first statement. If a woman has spent the day stressing out about feeding the kids and finding enough money for rent, she’s not likely to be interested in procreative-type activities when she gets some time alone with her man. Stress has numerous negative effects including killing the mood for both men and women. Also, if a woman thinks of her husband as being less of a man because he doesn’t have a job, that attitude will definitely move him down on her mental scale.

    At first, I was disinclined to accept the second premise, but then one of my female friends sent me a message about a thankfulness challenge that she’s embarked on. (Bear with me, this does tie in to the main point). She found that the more she looked for things to be thankful for so that she could journal something each day, the more she realized how blessed she was throughout the rest of the day. I’m wondering if when Velvet describes provision as being attractive, she’s experiencing something similar. If a woman is actively looking for attractive aspects of her husband and takes note of how well he provides for her, I can see how that would lead her to think about what a good man he is, how lucky she is to have him, and how many other women would want a man just like him. All of those thoughts could raise his status in her own mind and make him more attractive. I can also see how it would be possible for a woman who is actively looking for positive things about her husband to be warmer and more pleasant to him, which could lead to his interactions with her to be more positive and how that could feed into attraction as well. Could it be that this is what is meant by utilitarian tingles?

  34. femininebutnotfeminist

    @ JSP,

    You just hit the nail on the head… CASE CLOSED!!! 🙂

  35. Deep Strength

    @ JSP

    That would be taking on the attitude of gratitude and thus by extension our actions change to that of “praos” (the greek word for gentleness / meekness / humility) which is a key player in submission. One of the fruits of the Spirit. The very opposite of which is entitlement.

    The reason why we as Christians would willingly submit to God and his commands because we know of the grace and mercy that we are afforded in Him through Jesus. We are forced to accept humility / meekness / gentleness before Him, as all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. That is, we cannot do enough to save ourselves on our own. It is the gift of God. And this is why we willingly do the will of God, even though it cannot make up for the gift that He has given.

    Provision in this sense can be viewed as something to be grateful for, and thus as wife realizes she is grateful for that she willingly can take on “praos” which leads to submission.

    This is why things are not so cut and dry.

    There is power behind the attitude of a person, and thus what thoughts, words, and actions come out of a person.

    A hunched over posture man speaking quickly who cannot make eye contact with a woman tells her in a fast and high tone of voice “let’s go out on a date” is a lot different than a man with shoulders back, makes direct eye contact with a smile, and says in a lower masculine, measured tone of voice “let’s go out on a date.” I would suspect they would often have different results.

    The heart matters to God, as it is out of the heart that the mouth speaks good or evil and that someone does good or evil. We cannot judge the heart of a person, as only God can do that. But as Jesus said, “ye shall know them by their fruits.”

  36. femininebutnotfeminist

    *On the meaning of utilitarian tingles, that is. I’m not sure about the first premise you talked about.

  37. femininebutnotfeminist

    @ deep strength,

    You also hit the nail on the head 🙂

  38. theshadowedknight

    JSP, that is an interesting idea. Looking for reasons to be attracted instead of reasons not to be. In that sense, it would work like wives voluntarily submitting to their husbands to increase his standing and make him more attractive. To be honest, it looks pretty much the same.

    The Shadowed Knight

  39. JSP has, I think, taken us in the right direction. And Deep Strength has provided strong Biblical support for it.

    A wife developing a sense of healthy gratitude for her husband, including his ability to provide, will only enhance her efforts at submission. It also works by elevating his stature in her eyes, and thus his status, which has the direct effect of making him more attraction. So provision alone cannot create attraction, but when coupled with a healthy attitude of gratitude it can make a huge difference.

  40. Ton

    The fly in the ointment is…..when was the last time a man experienced genuine gratitude from a woman……

    What JSP.etc all makes sense but fails at that key concept

  41. Pingback: Truthful dating and relationship advice is terribly sexist. Does that mean reality is sexist, too? | Sunshine Mary

  42. Pingback: Kindling the Fire Through Gratitude | Donal Graeme

  43. @ Donal
    In reference to my story, you asked:

    Was that the first time you had ever encountered someone like that? I’m curious what it was that caused such a strong reaction.

    I'm not sure what caused it. I have not had another experience quite like that, and here's an odd thing: I can remember his face in crystal clear detail, how tall he was relative to me, his coloring, hair, everything. It's very vivid in my memory, and this happened nearly 25 years ago. Yet there are men I actually dated in college whose faces are hazy…

    Because I did not sleep with paper hat guy, I am not an alpha widow, but given how well I remember this man whom I interacted with for about 30 seconds, can you imagine how ruined I would have been had I jumped in bed with him? THIS is why female chastity is so important.

  44. Donal, could I impose on you to close my blockquote?

    [Ed: Fixed]

  45. ballista74

    If there’s any doubts that women don’t marry men that they’re attracted to, this ought to put a stake in the idea that it doesn’t happen:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2507043/Almost-THIRD-married-women-say-havent-Mr-Right.html

    Research revealed that while most women claim to love their husbands, 31 per cent said they were still on the hunt for their ideal partner and were still attracted to other men.

    Add another 15% for “probably not with the right one”. Of course, this is a poll, and while the number of women who are honest about it is very interesting in itself, I would say the number is probably closer to 2/3 of women who are married who would rather be with another man.

  46. ballista74

    Reposted that and saw a confusing sentence. The first one probably would better be: “If there’s any doubts that women marry men that they’re not attracted to, this ought to put a stake in the idea:”

  47. deti

    SSM:

    In your November 16 comment where you described Paper Hat Guy, I thought of this:

    1. Paper Hat Guy = arousal, sexual desire, I want to sex him right now.
    2. HHG = attraction, pulled to him, can very easily become arousal and sexual desire.
    3. Tulip forced bloom = null set, nothing, no attraction whatsoever. With lots and lots of work and effort, might, maybe become attraction, will probably never become arousal or desire. (That’s the argument you’re appearing to put forth. I don’t agree with this because I don’t think you can make the tulip bloom.)

    Most of the people around these parts are in #3.

  48. deti

    Actually most of the men are in #3; most of the women are in #1 and/or #2.

    Most of the women here really, really want #3 to be true. I’ve yet to see it work.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s