Monthly Archives: January 2014

Ongoing Discussion Concerning Men, Masculinity, Women And Femininity

This post is a continuation of an ongoing discussion that started in my Questions or Suggestions page between myself and commenter Nathan. Rather than fill up that page’s comments with a continuous discussion, I have decided to move it over here. That page is best used for single comments and responses, rather than replies in depth. As for this post, besides using it as a medium to answer Nathan’s questions, I think it could also serve as an excellent place to ask and answer ongoing questions about men/masculinity and women/femininity. I will recreate the conversation here to provide context for everyone, so that my next set of responses will make sense. I invite anyone with their own answers, or deeper ones, to contribute their thoughts in the comments. Also, if you have questions along a similar vein, feel free to add them in the comments as well.

Nathan first asked:

How much would you agree that women simply/merely want a man (and thus are attracted to men) who “tries/shows effort at” having a good job vs. a man who “is obsesively driven to excel at/improve” his job/career income/status. Will they commonly accept/show grace towards men who “at least show effort” or will they mostly be merciless and have zero acceptance/graceless towards men who don’t have ideal jobs/career and appear outwardly like they are very driven/successful?

Where is this line of acceptability/willingness to show grace towards men (who outwardly appear “attractive enough” to them)?

I responded:

My suspicion/belief is that women are result oriented, not process oriented. They don’t care how hard you work so much as you get results. They don’t care if a man tries to get a good job, they care if he has a good job. Although in the present environment a man’s job means very little to his attractiveness unless it is a high status one. While I think that they like a “driven man”, It is as much because they see it as a sign of future potential as anything.

I’m afraid I don’t quite get your last sentence, could you explain it a bit?

Nathan then continued:

Donal, thanks for answering my question. My intention for the last line was this: What is the common minimum threshold that women expect men to be or to accomplish before they begin to see a man as attractive? My understanding is that women only show forgiveness, grace, and mercy to men that they are already attracted to, and that any men below this minimum threshold of attractiveness don’t and will not ever receive similar forgiveness, grace, and mercy. What are your thoughts on this?

What more can you tell me about how to be “driven” and how/why that is seen as attractive to women?

My response to him:

I don’t think that you can really quantify that minimum threshold. It will vary from woman to woman. However, you can still be attractive to women even though you haven’t accomplished anything of note. That is what Bad Boys do, after all. Accomplishments (in this context) probably would fall under the Status attribute of LAMPS. You can get around having them by boosting your other attributes.

My understanding is that women only show forgiveness, grace, and mercy to men that they are already attracted to,

I’m not really convinced about this, to be honest. I think that women can be raised to show those attribute to all men. They just aren’t these days as a general rule. In fact, most modern women in the West are feral or one step above it. So unless you find a real gem of a woman, don’t expect much from her unless she is attracted to you.

How to be driven? I’m not sure that’s something that I, or anyone else, can teach. Its something you have to acquire for yourself. What advice I can give is that you need to find a purpose, a cause, a mission, other than women, to dedicate your life towards. Then, push yourself towards it and don’t let other things, especially women, distract you. Be relentless and unwavering. Women are attracted to this “drive” because it is one of the most potent expressions of Masculine Power. Women are drawn to conquerors, and that is what a driven man is.

Nathan’s next set of questions:

I was always categorizing “driven” into the money section as “easily identifiable, potentially high-income earner,” and not the Power section as “easily identifiable, masculine power demonstrator.”

I also struggle with the whole dynamic of “you must be passionate about your job and simultaneously have a high-status, high-income job,” which to me sounds really convenient if my passions were law or medicine, but what I’m passionate about is very expensive and doesn’t always pay well, and doing something else can quickly become a slow, mind-numbing death which kills all passion.

Maybe you could discuss this in a post at some point.

At present, my only solution is to either be poor and passionate or work a non-passionate job and treat my real passion as a part-time hobby or ministry on the side.

Also, I wonder if God calls some men to lucrative jobs that draw women and other men to low-earning jobs that often repel women. How do men make sense of that when they want to follow God’s direction and hopefully become married one day.

My final set of responses:

Money is fairly abstract and objective, something like Driven just doesn’t fit well there.

I don’t think it is necessary to be passionate about your job and have it be high status. The latter is more important than the former.

Remember, your job isn’t really that important for attracting women, unless you have a really high status one. Lawyer and doctor don’t really cut it there like they used to. Thanks to feminism, it takes a lot more to get a woman’s attention in that way.

As long as you can support a family, then don’t worry about your job as much. Instead, improve yourself in other areas. Ultimately, that will count a lot more. Also, Status doesn’t have to be purely job related. You can gain it from community involvement, church involvement, etc.

And yes, some men just have it easier when it comes to drawing in women. It isn’t simply about jobs, but in every facet of life. Life isn’t fair, so learn to accept it (and yes, I know how hard that is) and move on. Improve yourself in other areas and you can still come out on top.

This brings us to Nathan’s final set of questions, which I hadn’t answered yet:

In order for good Christian men to learn game or how to become more like a “reformed bad boy,” do they need to treat women more as a “meh” tag-along accessory to their life and daily plans? As in, “I’m going to fulfill my will and plans independently, no matter what you think, and I honestly don’t care what you think, and you’re welcome to tag-along with me, but I’m not interested in hearing any negative talk or complaining out of you. If you have a problem with that, then you can take a hike! (But then also make sure to fulfill your plans and push yourself to new challenges, and keep all of your emotions like fears and hurts to yourself)”

And any other ideas you might add!

I’m frustrated that the “helpmeet” women seem more like burdens than helpers. Maybe that changes if we do all the stuff above?

Do you have any posts about self-respect and self-worth as a Man/Man of God, and perhaps also where those overlap and/or contradict one another?

Now, to respond to Nathan’s latest set of questions:

I’m not sure that treating women like an accessory, especially a “meh” type of accessory, is the right move to make. A quality Christian woman, one who would make a good wife, would likely find that view of her worth as offensive. And for good reason, because a wife is man’s greatest possession. A better approach I think is to internalize the Captain/First Officer mindset. This helps keep women off of a pedestal, which is critical. Also, it sets up the right frame of reference in your mind. A good XO is a great asset to have in your life, but not absolutely necessary.  Instead, you have in your mind the idea that “I’m in charge of this household and of the mission that God appointed me to. You can join me in the mission if you like, but only if you are willing to follow orders (and without grumbling), to be responsible for what I assign you, to manage the household while I’m gone and otherwise add value to my life/contribute to the mission. If not, then the job isn’t for you.”

As for “helpmeet” women, I don’t think being any more “Alpha” will make as much of a difference as you think. It really is up to the woman in question to determine if she can/will be an able helpmeet or not. If you are more attractive, she might grumble less and oppose you less, but that doesn’t mean she will be less of a burden and more of a help. That’s all on her and her willingness to live up to her duties to the Lord and to her husband.

Lastly, I don’t recall having any posts which specifically address the concepts of self-worth and self-respect as a Man/Man of God. I’m sort of working on one now, but it only covers one aspect of this dynamic. It is worth exploring, and I will think on it some once I finish that post. Until then Nathan I recommend that you read Deep Strength’s new blog, as he touches on some similar matters. Mind you, much of his work is of a fairly advanced level, but if you can understand it you will find it to be of a great benefit.
And that finishes this post. Once again, if anyone has any thoughts/questions/answers/concerns to add, feel free to mention them in the comments.


Filed under Femininity, Masculinity, Men, Red Pill, Women

A Word Of Advice… or An Inadvertent Admission

Today’s post is inspired by an article that was linked over at Dalrock‘s blog. The article, found at a website called Girls Ask Guys, is a real gem. Without further ado:

I see a TON of guys on here who are so depressed over not having a girlfriend and are so pissed at the guys who seem to get all the girls. the reality is, you will find some one, most of you are young and you have SO much time before you actually find “the one.” Also, the guys you are all jealous of are generally not good guys. I have generally dated “bad boy” types that I am always attracted to because they’re really attractive, exciting, and don’t fawn all over me. Unfortunately, the majority of them have lied, cheated, and manipulated the shit out of our relationships. I have no doubt that I will end up with a “nice guy” and I can tell you with a fair amount of confidence that most girls will because no girl with self respect sticks around with a “bad boy” in less he reforms himself. I have to say I hope for the reformed bad boy, but he is a rare bird and once he’s reformed, who’s to say he’ll be exciting anymore? Anyway, keep hope alive you guys, most of you sound like very caring, kind, and interesting guys who have a lot to offer.

Update: update: you guys are hard to please. I am trying to say girls make mistakes with ‘bad boys” but the good guys win out in the end. I thought that got through, but for some of you I guess it didn’t and I’m sorry. I was trying to encourage you to be good to women.    3 days ago

Update: I really hit a nerve! I apologize! I would also like to clarify though: I am not a gold digger, I am not a liar, and I am not trying to change any guy that I date from the person who he is. I guess I am drawn to guys who are a little edgy and that can be tough, but hopefully I’ll end up with a guy who suits that and is also a mature and loving human being.    2 days ago

Update: YIKES.    Yesterday

I must admit, my initial reaction was pleasant surprise. It is rare to see such honesty these days, especially from a woman in the context of relationships. Even though I am revolted by her actions and her philosophy, I have to respect the chutzpah that leads her to pull back the curtain and let guys know what is really going on. One of the chief problems with women playing the AFBB (Alpha F—-, Beta Bucks) game is that they usually deny doing it. That kind of deception can sucker in and deceive naive but otherwise good men who think that these women really care for them. Honesty like this can save a lot of men from making what would probably be the worst decision of their life by marrying a former carousel rider. She is doing a public service by warning men about what is really going on in the “dating” world.

On a related note, women like this put me in a difficult position. As Denise noted here, we should be careful about confusing subjective evaluations into objective statements about another person’s worth. I believe in repentance and redemption. I believe, no, I know that people can turn their lives around. Yet I don’t see how I could ever recommend that any man ever marry this woman. As in ever. The risks associated with this woman, and those like her, are astronomical. Yes, I know she could honestly and earnestly repent. But how can any man ever know this to any reasonable degree of certainty? When a woman’s avowed life strategy is to dupe some “nice guy” into marrying her after the Bad Boys are done with her, I don’t see how she could ever be trusted in this respect. At least, not in the present environment. Perhaps a “reformed Bad Boy” would fare alright, but given her statement about him possibly no longer being exciting, even that is suspect.

So, how out of line is my thinking here? Am I being too fearful? Does it make me a hypocritical Christian? Or is this just a necessary precaution in today’s world?


Filed under Alpha, Alpha Widow, Attraction, Beta, LAMPS, Masculinity, Men, Sex, Uncategorized, Women

Selected Sunday Scriptures- #10

My current Old Testament reading is the Second Book of Kings, which is the source of the first passage in today’s post. It is the story of the Shunammite woman:

One day Eli′sha went on to Shunem, where a wealthy woman lived, who urged him to eat some food. So whenever he passed that way, he would turn in there to eat food. And she said to her husband, “Behold now, I perceive that this is a holy man of God, who is continually passing our way. 10 Let us make a small roof chamber with walls, and put there for him a bed, a table, a chair, and a lamp, so that whenever he comes to us, he can go in there.”

11 One day he came there, and he turned into the chamber and rested there. 12 And he said to Geha′zi his servant, “Call this Shu′nammite.” When he had called her, she stood before him. 13 And he said to him, “Say now to her, See, you have taken all this trouble for us; what is to be done for you? Would you have a word spoken on your behalf to the king or to the commander of the army?” She answered, “I dwell among my own people.” 14 And he said, “What then is to be done for her?” Geha′zi answered, “Well, she has no son, and her husband is old.” 15 He said, “Call her.” And when he had called her, she stood in the doorway. 16 And he said, “At this season, when the time comes round, you shall embrace a son.” And she said, “No, my lord, O man of God; do not lie to your maidservant.” 17 But the woman conceived, and she bore a son about that time the following spring, as Eli′sha had said to her.

18 When the child had grown, he went out one day to his father among the reapers. 19 And he said to his father, “Oh, my head, my head!” The father said to his servant, “Carry him to his mother.” 20 And when he had lifted him, and brought him to his mother, the child sat on her lap till noon, and then he died. 21 And she went up and laid him on the bed of the man of God, and shut the door upon him, and went out. 22 Then she called to her husband, and said, “Send me one of the servants and one of the asses, that I may quickly go to the man of God, and come back again.” 23 And he said, “Why will you go to him today? It is neither new moon nor sabbath.” She said, “It will be well.” 24 Then she saddled the ass, and she said to her servant, “Urge the beast on; do not slacken the pace for me unless I tell you.” 25 So she set out, and came to the man of God at Mount Carmel.

When the man of God saw her coming, he said to Geha′zi his servant, “Look, yonder is the Shu′nammite; 26 run at once to meet her, and say to her, Is it well with you? Is it well with your husband? Is it well with the child?” And she answered, “It is well.” 27 And when she came to the mountain to the man of God, she caught hold of his feet. And Geha′zi came to thrust her away. But the man of God said, “Let her alone, for she is in bitter distress; and the Lord has hidden it from me, and has not told me.” 28 Then she said, “Did I ask my lord for a son? Did I not say, Do not deceive me?” 29 He said to Geha′zi, “Gird up your loins, and take my staff in your hand, and go. If you meet any one, do not salute him; and if any one salutes you, do not reply; and lay my staff upon the face of the child.” 30 Then the mother of the child said, “As the Lord lives, and as you yourself live, I will not leave you.” So he arose and followed her. 31 Geha′zi went on ahead and laid the staff upon the face of the child, but there was no sound or sign of life. Therefore he returned to meet him, and told him, “The child has not awaked.”

32 When Eli′sha came into the house, he saw the child lying dead on his bed. 33 So he went in and shut the door upon the two of them, and prayed to the Lord. 34 Then he went up and lay upon the child, putting his mouth upon his mouth, his eyes upon his eyes, and his hands upon his hands; and as he stretched himself upon him, the flesh of the child became warm. 35 Then he got up again, and walked once to and fro in the house, and went up, and stretched himself upon him; the child sneezed seven times, and the child opened his eyes. 36 Then he summoned Geha′zi and said, “Call this Shu′nammite.” So he called her. And when she came to him, he said, “Take up your son.” 37 She came and fell at his feet, bowing to the ground; then she took up her son and went out.

There is a great deal of depth to this story, so I will cover only a few points of interest. The first thing I found noteworthy is that the husband of the Shunammite woman plays a minor role here. The faith of this woman comes from within, and should serve as a reminder that women are not aimless creatures incapable of demonstrating fidelity and true devotion. There are some around these parts who seem to believe that women aren’t moral agents, or that their faith is a lie. Passages like this give proof to the fact that their belief is not founded on sound doctrine or teaching.

Second, this story shows how faith in the Lord is tied to the giving of Life. It was the Shunammite woman’s faith, manifested in her works of charity and hospitality towards Elisha, servant of the Lord, that led to life in the form of her conceiving a son. Whether it be in the form of new children or in a restoration to health, life and faith are linked. Another example of this is found in the Gospel of Mark:

25 And there was a woman who had had a flow of blood for twelve years, 26 and who had suffered much under many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was no better but rather grew worse. 27 She had heard the reports about Jesus, and came up behind him in the crowd and touched his garment. 28 For she said, “If I touch even his garments, I shall be made well.” 29 And immediately the hemorrhage ceased; and she felt in her body that she was healed of her disease. 30 And Jesus, perceiving in himself that power had gone forth from him, immediately turned about in the crowd, and said, “Who touched my garments?” 31 And his disciples said to him, “You see the crowd pressing around you, and yet you say, ‘Who touched me?’” 32 And he looked around to see who had done it. 33 But the woman, knowing what had been done to her, came in fear and trembling and fell down before him, and told him the whole truth. 34 And he said to her, “Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace, and be healed of your disease.”

The phrase that always fascinates me in this passage is “Jesus, perceiving in himself that power had gone forth from him….” It was not the intention of the Lord to heal that woman, yet she was healed. Why? Because her faith was so strong that it drew power forth from Jesus. Frankly, I find this astounding, the idea that our faith can seemingly compel God’s power to manifest itself. And yet, that isn’t really what is happening. We aren’t compelling God to manifest His power, because God already wants to manifest His presence in our lives. God is always sending his power forth, but it is only when our faith is strong, like this woman or the Shunammite woman, that we can feel it in our lives.


Filed under Christianity

So Apparently I’m Crazy

A drive-by Troll going by the name “Blue” decided to leave a comment on my most recent post a few hours ago. I’m going to keep the comment itself under the ban, but will provide the contents in this post. As far as Trolls go, this one was ridiculously pathetic, and I wanted to share my amusement with you. [I’m going to break up the comment to address the individual components.] He or she had this to say in response to my post Evaluating The Intangible:

So she has to be a Thin Virgin who is younger than you.

This blog is absolutely hysterical!!!

Close, but not quite. She doesn’t necessarily have to be thin, but rather have a healthy body weight. Body type will make a difference here; a more voluptuous woman can get away with a higher weight than a more athletic body type. Now that I’ve clarified that, would someone care to explain to me what is objectionable about my preferences? I mean, really, what kind of sad personality is offended by something as simple as those three requirements?

After those two lines, “Blue” left this little gem:

And BTW Donald, since this is the only time I will be leaving a comment, you had NO RIGHT to “compliment” the retail clerk in the beautiful skirt for not being dressed like a “slut.” The store should have called the police.

Let me begin by admiring “Blue’s” poor spelling. With a troll like this, you can never be quite sure if he or she is deliberately misspelling my pseudonym, or just can’t read and write properly. As for the compliment that “Blue” references, he or she was referring to my post Positive Feedback. In that post I complimented a young woman who was acting as a greeter in a retail outlet for having worn beautiful and feminine clothing. I have to ask, what kind of person is offended by hearing a story like that? How pathetic and insecure do you have to be? Especially since the young lady was very much pleased by the compliment. Suggesting the police should be called is just par for the course at that point.

Finally, the closing argument offered by “Blue”:

Please…tell your parents…check into a psychiatric hospital for an extended period of time – like a year. And an enormous part of your recovery will depend on you staying off the Internet.

Trust me “Blue”, I’m not the one who should be looking for help here. For you to be offended this greatly by something someone else wrote on the internet (and what I wrote in particular), well, lets just say the word projection doesn’t only refer to a movie theater…

Part of me wonders what type of Troll “Blue” happens to be. My initial reaction was to suspect an overweight feminist who likes to dress like a harlot. But as I thought on it, part of me wondered if it was a male feminist “White Knight” instead. Of course, there is also an outside possibility that it was a joke, and that Blue was merely pretending to be a feminist troll. Not being certain myself, I give my readers the opportunity to vote on who they think “Blue” really is.


Filed under Men, Red Pill, Women

Evaluating The Intangible


This post is a sequel to and expansion upon my post Settle(ment). In that post, I delved into transactional thinking and whether or not people should “settle” when looking for a spouse. Interestingly enough, the concept of settling drew little discussion compared to transactional thinking. Given that evaluating potential spouses drew more response, it was worth exploring further. [Warning: this post doesn’t really do a great job of that.]

I have two goals with this post. First, I would like to respond to some points raised in Settle(ment), to mention a few comments that I thought were especially insightful and to clarify a few things. Second, I would like to provide a little insight into my evaluation process when looking for a wife.


Before I address anything specific, I would be remiss if I failed to mention that Deep Strength has written a post which is something of a response to my previous one. His post, Life is Transactional, can be found here.

Commenter Ev had a good line when the sacredness of matrimony was brought up: First be savvy, then be loyal.

Maeve mentioned a bit of her marriage story, which can be found here and here. Her story is probably a typical one- two young people meet, get to know each other, fall in love, and then marry. [That is overly simplistic, of course, but carries across the main point.] I found her story to be fascinating because she wasn’t looking specifically to marry, but still had two criteria that she required in a husband. Without intending to be rude by singling her out, I would point to her story as an example of how not to do things. Christians should be deliberative when the subject of marriage is concerned, and should not act aimlessly.

Now to clarify a few matters. First off, a lot of folks seem to be confused by the concepts of SMV and MMV. Lauratheringmistress left a comment which provides an example of this, plus some other misunderstandings. Her beginning paragraph is a good starting off point:

I think I am getting distracted by the SMP valuation model. Fundamentally, what a man values for a purely physical, short term interaction is different from what he values for a long term relationship. Same for a woman.

This is incorrect. I suspect the confusion arises because many people (Laura included) believe SMV and MMV are two entirely different things. They aren’t. Rather, SMV is folded into MMV, so that it is part (but only a part) of MMV. Remember, SMV is based solely on attractiveness. And men are always attuned to the attractiveness of women. This means that what a man looks for in a woman in a physical sense in a short term interaction is still what he values in a long term relationship. The difference is that when evaluating for long term relationship material a man also looks for an additional set of attributes. This is where a woman’s character and other “intangible” qualities come into play.

For women, the process is not entirely dissimilar. Male SMV is based off of the LAMPS/PSALM set of attributes, which are sometimes referred to as “Alpha traits.” These are critical for short term interactions.  Male MMV includes all of those factors, in addition to a number of other character traits (like loyalty, stability, compassion, etc.) which are sometimes referred to as “Beta traits.” These are crucial for long term relationships. The problem for men and women alike these days is that men seem to have either the one, or the other. Not both.

What all of this means is that we cannot ignore the role that SMV plays with MMV. I mention this because I have noticed that women seem to downplay the importance of “looks” when offering advice about marriage. The phrase I hear most often is “looks aren’t everything.” I’ve heard this in many different forms, and Laura herself contributed an example of it:

To put it bluntly, you would be a fool to wife up a 9 unless she was also superior to all other candidates in relevant areas like virtue, good sense, overall femininity, domestic skills, etc. And you might miss a gem of a woman whose appearance is only average but is ideally suited to you temperamentally.

Now, before I go on, I want to point out that Laura is not necessarily wrong in her comment. Marriage is a total package deal. Having said that, reading that paragraph told me that there seems to be a general misunderstanding on the part of women in how men value the importance of attractiveness in women.  So let me clear this up for my female readers: we value it a lot. It is really, really important to us on an instinctual, primal level. And yet, at the same time, we also have much broader filters than women do when it comes to attractiveness. The result is an interesting situation where men value physical appearance far more than women, and yet have such broad filters that we tend to find more women attractive than women do the other way around. That does not mean, of course, that we men are slaves to this instinct. We aren’t. We can and should judge a potential wife on criteria other than just how attractive she is.

But women need to keep in mind that for them, “looks” is just one criterion amongst many when judging a man’s attractiveness. But for men, it is everything when evaluating female attractiveness. It is not something that we can just set aside without a lot of mental discipline and self-control. This desire for attractiveness is deeply rooted in our unconscious mind, and our happiness as men is actually determined in part by how attractive our wife is.  Also, with only a few exceptions, most other attributes can be trained or acquired by women/wives over time, but attractiveness is pretty much fixed without resorting to plastic surgery. I’m telling you this in an attempt to convey just how much we give up when we downgrade attractiveness compared to other attributes in potential wife candidates.


With all of that taken care of, I thought I would provide a brief window into my thought process when it comes to evaluating a woman as a potential wife. Some of the attributes that I am going to cover are easy to measure, they aren’t really intangible. But plenty of them are. How do you measure someone’s faith, after all? Or give it a value? It is often a guessing game, and comparisons are often the only way you can measure some of these. Because none of this is an “exact science”, this whole section is going to be rather incoherent. As I write it out, I realize it is a continuation of what I started with this post.

The Big Four-

This is the name I give for the four most important attributes and qualities that evaluate in a potential wife. These are the “make or break” attributes, or “screening criteria.” A “failure” here removes a women from the pool of candidates. The first two, Chastity/Sexual History and Age, are immutable, that is, they cannot be changed. Then there is Attractiveness, which can be affected to some degree through dieting and exercise, although only plastic surgery can significantly improve it. Last is Religious Devotion, which is mutable. One thing I would like to note about the first three is that they are “core” criteria for all men. Whether they realize it or not, all men consider a woman’s age, her sexual history and her attractiveness when evaluating her qualities as a long-term prospoect. Men are hardwired, for want of a better term, to consider these factors.

Chastity/Sexual History: As a screening criteria, this one is relatively simple. A woman with any kind of real sexual history is out. I am looking to marry a virgin, and unless I transgress myself this is not going to change at any point (barring divine command). [If I had fornicated in the past, this would be a more complicated evaluation process. I would look at the number of partners a woman had, the nature of the relationships, how long they lasted, when the last one was, etc. Also, I would try and evaluate whether she had genuinely repented and whether she was an Alpha Widow.]

Age: This is an especially important attribute for several reasons. For one, a younger woman is more likely to be able to have children, can have more children, and the children are likelier to be healthy. Age also significantly impacts female attractiveness and how long a woman has left at her present level. In addition, the older a woman is, the more likely she is to be set in her ways, and the more negative behaviors she is likely to have picked up. Unlike some men, I don’t draw a line in the sand when evaluating a woman by her age, except when it comes to being older than me. For many 25 seems to be that bright line, after which they won’t consider a woman for marriage. Myself, I use a sliding scale. The younger a woman is, the higher her overall value. Just because a woman is in her mid to late twenties doesn’t mean I will rule her out. Instead, I evaluate women more critically in all other areas the older they are. In terms of how this might play out, what it means is that I might rate a “6” who is 18 and is deficient in feminine virtues to be roughly equal to an “8” who is 28 and has more of those virtues. It is about tradeoffs- the younger the woman the more children she can have and the longer I will be married to her at her present attractiveness. Overall, a younger woman will have a larger margin to work with in other fields. All of which goes to show why women should try to marry when they are younger.

Attractiveness: As far as attributes go, this is pretty straightforward. While it might be fleeting, it is important to help establish “wife googles”, and as the study I linked earlier suggests, affects a man’s mental well-being. I cannot really offer any insight into how I evaluate this attribute, because beauty is one of those things which is easy to point out and difficult to explain. Something which does sort of relate to this though is how well a woman takes care of herself. A woman who eats right and exercises regularly will score higher in this regard than one who doesn’t, even if the latter rates higher on the “1-10” scale. This is because the woman who takes care of herself will age better and maintain her looks for longer.

Religious Devotion: What I am looking for is a devout Christian woman who is committed to living a biblical marriage. I will consider non-Catholic women, but they must be willing to convert. It isn’t enough in my view for the children to be raised as Catholics, I have seen the tension that occurs in mixed-religion marriages. That is something I intend to avoid. As far as measuring devotion, I will look at a number of different things, including: was she born to the faith or did she convert later? How involved is she in Church and in church related activities? Does she spend time on her own accord trying to improve her faith? What I am trying to judge is if she is serious about her faith, or whether she is just in “autopilot”, and is a Christian because she was born one and her faith has never been challenged. Basically, I am trying to evaluate the Fruit of the Spirit to get an idea of the depth her faith. Needless to say, this is very important to me; it is a matter of protecting myself from divorce, as well as ensuring my children are raised well and that I have a positive influence in my life. I haven’t forgotten what happened to Solomon.

Here are some of the “lesser” qualities that I look for in a potential wife. It isn’t so much that they are important, but they tend to be easier to change/fix. These are evaluation criteria, the kind of attributes that would “add value” to the marriage. They are in no particular order.

1) Femininity- How feminine a woman is overall.

2) Temperament- How easy a woman is to get along with.

3) Personality type- Whether she has a personality type that will match well with an INTJ (me).

4) Cooking abilities- Can she cook? How well, and what?

5) Cleaning aptitude- Can she maintain a home, and do so without much prompting?

6) Mothering capacity- Very intangible. Whether she would make a good mother or not. Measured by how well she gets along with children, her overall interest in having children, openness to homeschool, etc.

7) Submissiveness- How accepting she is of her place in the marriage hierarchy.

8) Intelligence and curiosity- Would impact whether or not we could have engaging conversations with each other. Also important for children, both directly and through homeschooling.

9) Earning capacity- An overall measure of her ability to earn money for the household. Can include work at and away from the home.

10) Initiative/Entrepreneurial spirit- Slightly different from above, but measures a woman’s overall ability to improvise, to save, and to think up new ideas to benefit the household.

I could go on and on, so I will stop there.  The key thing to understand is that I am looking for a woman who adds value to my life, a helpmeet. I expect to be able to make most ends meet myself when it comes to finances, so what I want is a woman who fills in other gaps. Someone to provide solace; someone to warm my heart and my bed. Applying the Captain/XO analogy, I am going to be leading the household much of the time, so I am looking for someone to help manage it.

When I evaluate a woman, I will be trying to discern not only where she is in each of these categories, but also her capacity and willingness to improve in areas that need work. In many respects her willingness to improve is the most important attribute she can have. Everyone needs work in at least some areas, and everyone “slips” in their standards over time. I don’t know what life will be like in ten years, so a woman who is willing to make necessary changes is a woman with value.

All of this comes out to a balancing game in the end. As I alluded to earlier, a very young woman who is less attractive, but is willing (eager even) to improve will be high value, just as a woman somewhat older who has perfected the feminine arts and takes care of herself will be high value. Thinking on this, unlike SMV, MMV is very much a matter of comparison when women are concerned. Unlike SMV, I’m not sure now if you can assign it an arbitrary numerical value. While a woman’s beauty can be measured against some abstract ideal (and is thus unaffected by the beauty of the woman next to her), a woman’s value as a wife and mother can only be measured when you have multiple women to compare. During the evaluation process, I will be comparing any potential wife to the other women I know, including both female family and friends to get an idea of her value. And I rather suspect that she will be doing the opposite with me.


This post ended up being less focused and less informative than I intended. I seem to be making a habit of that lately, and I apologize. Hopefully at least a few of you  found this helpful. My next few posts over the coming week should be better, although I make no promises.


Filed under Alpha, APE, Attraction, Beta, Christianity, Courtship, Desire, Femininity, LAMPS, Marriage, Men, Red Pill, Women

Thoughts on Pair Bonding

TempestTCup has a new blog post up exploring “The Making of an Alpha Widow.” Her post covers (naturally enough) Alpha Widows, a subject that I have covered before, and also does some theorizing about pair bonding in general. The essence of her position can be summed up in these two paragraphs:

Dana and I both think that the Alpha Widow is caused by very strong feelings associated with sex and the breakup. These strong feelings might come from a woman being infatuated with a guy for a while and then finally having sex with her infatuation. If this leads to a longer relationship, she has other memories of him and if the relationship putters out, no Alpha Widow is made.

But, if a man and woman start dating and she develops strong feelings for him, and then at the height of her emotions towards him, he dumps her or quits talking to her, this is what creates an Alpha Widow: The one who got away.

Before I address Tempest’s theory I would like to briefly cover pair bonding in general. I have never really devoted a post to it specifically, so I would say it is about time.

The exact nature of female pair bonding is unknown right now, and I don’t see that changing anytime soon. For one, I rather doubt you will see scientists delve into the topic, given how politically charged it is. In addition, brain scan technology is still developing, and at the moment very expensive. An effective and detailed study will require a broad sample size of women with varying levels of N’s, which further complicates matters. So for now I think it will be up to amateurs here in this part of the web to provide any thoughts and theories on the matter.

I should mention that while the exact cause is unknown, the results of broken female pair bonding are known. The most commonly cited reference is here. As for the mechanisms that create this kind of effect, here are some potential candidates:

1) The Alpha Widow Effect- This theory states that the results the Social Pathologist has uncovered are solely as a result of women becoming Alpha Widows. The reason why the risk of divorce increases the higher a woman’s N is because the odds of her becoming an Alpha Widow increase the more partners she has. Under this theory, a woman’s pair bonding mechanism doesn’t break, rather she simply has set the bar so high few men can ever hope to reach it. It is important to keep in mind that it isn’t a man’s placement (which N he is) that matters in whether he becomes the “one that got away”, it is the strength of the emotional connection that he establishes in the woman. This is the theory which Tempest and Dana advocate.

2) The Battery Effect- This theory states that woman have a certain amount of emotional attachment that they can establish with a individual man. The first man she mates with gets the full amount of attachment, or a 100% “charge”. After him though, she must “recharge” her emotional battery for every other man that she sleeps with. Unfortunately, each time she recharges the battery doesn’t go back to full capacity. Instead, the maximum amount of emotional bonding she can experience/provided diminishes, with the first “recharge” being the most dramatic.  So her first lover might get 100%, and the 2nd 80%, and the 3rd 75%, and so on. Eventually, the battery “breaks” and she can no longer emotionally connect with a man.

3) The Canvas Effect- This theory operates as something of a mix of the two previous theories. It treats the female pair bonding ability as a sort of canvas upon which men can “paint” themselves.  The skill and vigor with which the man paints himself upon the canvas determines the strength of the bond. The canvas has a limited ability to hold paint, however, and the more “painters”, the worse and worse each picture gets. This leads to a weaker ability to bond. Eventually the canvas simply no longer works as such. Furthermore, a painter who uses especially bright, vivid colors and bold strokes will leave such an impression that those who come after will not be able to paint the picture they want.

I suppose there might be other theories out there, but I have either never seen them or have forgotten about them. As for which one is right, well, they all have flaws with them. Women like Sarahsdaughter, who had very high N’s, but are still able to pair bond with their husbands, would seem to support the first theory. SD has said that she never really bonded strongly with the men before her husband, and thus never established the kind of emotional attachment which leads to Alpha Widowing. On the other hand, you have the fact that there is an obvious effect of a high H upon women, such that it is noticeable for those who know what to look for. The so-called “Thousand Cock Stare” (which involves a term I wouldn’t use in normal conversation) is an example of how women seem to “break” after enough sexual partners.

Personally, I am inclined towards the third theory. The Alpha Widow effect clearly exists, so we know that mechanic is in play. And there is enough evidence of a “number” effect to suggest that it can’t be Alpha Widowhood alone which affects female pair bonding. I should note that each theory has its advantages and disadvantages if true. The first theory is good news for women with high N’s, as it means they can still bond if their previous partners didn’t “leave a mark.” On the other hand, it also means that a man should be wary of a woman with an N of one, if that previous partner was a type likely to strongly imprint on the woman. The second theory has the opposite result: its awful for women with high N’s and far, far better for women with very low N’s. These advantages and disadvantages are important to keep in mind, if only because when women support different theories, their own personal experiences might incline them towards a theory which has a better outcome for them.

Lastly, I wanted to address Tempest’s final paragraphs:

Whereas I do believe that PUAs are creating a lot of Alpha Widows, I also believe that if you can make a woman feel those incredible highs and lows early on in a relationship, in accordance with all of the bonding chemicals of sex, you can become the exciting alpha that she ultimately bonds to.

You can become her new emotional high water mark and therefore cause yourself to replace the alpha she was widowed to. There have to be emotional highs and lows: a veritable roller-coaster of emotions. She needs the soaring highs and the depths of despair to make her bond fully if she is an Alpha Widow.

Sure, it would be great to stumble upon a nice fresh-faced woman with no previous experience or emotional distress, but these days of sex with and without relationships, it might be good insurance against the possibility of her inability to pair bond. This all sounds like a pain in the butt, but if it could possibly save a world of hurt in the future, it might all be worth it.

Also, women shouldn’t give men advice about women, so YMMV :D

Fortunately for Tempest, she ends her post with a reminder that a man shouldn’t listen to women for such advice. Otherwise, I would point out that she is engaged in a popular female tactic- shifting the burden of bad decision made by women from women onto men. As it is, her “suggestion” is worth addressing. Much of the way that society is structured now is set up to do just that: to shift the burden of errors and a lack of personal responsibility onto men. So my advice to men is to not let them get away with it. You are not responsible for the poor choices made by women. If a woman has gone and messed up her pair bonding ability, that is her problem, not yours.


Filed under Alpha Widow, Attraction, Femininity, Marriage, Pair Bonding, Red Pill, Serial Monogamy, Sex, Women



One of the more frequent areas of discussion/debate in the ‘sphere as far is marriage is concerned is “settling.” While the subject rarely is the chief topic of any post, it does seem to come up an awful lot (One example of this phenomenon can be found here). Usually, although not always, it is a question that drives this. Some of the most common include:

– Should someone “settle” when they marry?

– When is “settling” acceptable in marriage?

– Is “settling” better than the alternative?

All of these are good questions, and worth thinking over. I think it is about time that I addressed this topic on my blog; actually, I’m surprised I haven’t really covered it directly before.


But rather than addressing those questions, I would like to direct my readers to this post by Denise over at Love the Possibility (which I have recently added to my blogroll). The post, “Singles- What’s Your BATNA?” examines the question of “settling” in terms of a business negotiation, and I think really helps to frame how the issue should be addressed.  The previous questions fold into her analysis and so don’t need to be answered separately. Here is a sample:

“BATNA” is a concept used by legal and business negotiators to figure out the point at which they will no longer compromise and will walk away from the table.  It stands for “Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement.”  Essentially, different parties face one another at the table with an idea of what they want the outcome of their negotiation to be.  They need something from the other and know that they might have to compromise to get it, but don’t want to compromise too much.  They want to get as much as they can without giving up more than they’d like.  To figure out the point at which they will no longer compromise, they think about what their best alternative would be if no agreement were reached and everyone went home with empty hands.  Then, they compare the other side’s offer to that alternative.

I encourage everyone to read the whole post. Denise has provided the best compact yet comprehensive take on the issue that I have seen to date. I would simply re-blog it, except I have a few ideas of my own that I want to contribute in the next section. Since it was her idea, any thoughts specifically on the BATNA model should probably be left over at her blog.


After I read Denise’s post, and thinking back to the post at Hearthie‘s blog which I linked earlier, something clicked. The discussion over at Hearthie’s had swirled around what was “ideal” and whether people strove for it or not. The framework that Denise has provided has helped me see that “ideal” in the context of what people are looking for, what they can get and what they think they can get. A model formed in my mind over how such a “negotiation” might work inside someone’s head. All of the terms I have below are my own. I’m sure that there is some technical or professional language which covers the same thing, but I decided to keep it simple (and on my own terms). Here is how I see it:

At the top you have the Ideal. This is what someone secretly hopes for, the potential spouse they would ask for if the stars and moon aligned to give them everything and anything they wanted. Of course, while this is what everyone wants, they also know that it isn’t realistic to shoot for. So its mostly just hopes and dreams.

Below this you have the Goal. This is the best potential spouse that someone believes is attainable for them. It is based on what the individual person believes that they can realistically attract/gain commitment from. The Goal is something that a person will actually aim for and actively try to achieve. A person who finds a potential spouse at the Goal “point” is likely to either offer or accept commitment from them, knowing that they will find better.

Even lower than that you have the Break. This is the point where someone starts to question the value of the deal. They might hesitate before going lower than this point, and will certainly investigate other options. I suspect that when most people talk about “settling” here in the ‘sphere, they mean accepting as a spouse someone lower than the Break.

At the bottom you have the Limit, or BATNA point that Denise talks about. This is the absolute lowest “value” in a spouse that someone is willing to accept. If they can’t find anything above this, they are likely to “opt out” of marriage.

Also, between the Goal and the Break is an area I call the Standard. This is where Denise’s explanation on material alternatives is helpful. Potential spouses who fall in this region  point are neither immediate acceptances or immediate rejections. Instead, they are evaluated against what is actually available as an alternative, what might be available as an alternative, and the perceived value of the potential candidate.

Here is an model I made a while ago to represent the 1-10 system of female SMV, although I think it can be applied (number wise) to MMV as well. I’m using it as an example of how this model might play out.

1-10 Scale of women with Ceiling and FloorsThe Ideal would be the 10, which is, as this model points out, “out of my league” or unattainable save in fantasy. At 9 we have the Goal, which is a value that a man might feel is attainable for him. Should he attract a 9 that would accept his proposal, a rational man would “wife her up” knowing that he couldn’t do any better. All of the women from 9 down to 6, the “attractive” range, would fall in the Standard region. At the boundary between 6 and 5 we have the Break, where a man would hesitate before going lower. And finally at the 4/3 boundary you have the Limit.


Before I wrap up, there are a couple of ideas I want to throw around.

The first is that hypergamy creates much higher Goals and Limits for women than is the case for men (yes, I know, obvious). What seems to be one of the more common complaints, especially in the Christian part of the ‘sphere, is that many of the “Daughter of the King” types elevate their Goals and Limits to stratospheric levels, with the Limit often being the same as the Goal.

The second is that both men and women have trouble with the Limit. Some men really do have too high of a Limit, just like women. However, another problem that often comes up around here is that some men have too low of a Limit, and will “wife up” women they should have nothing to do with.

Third, everyone probably has a clear idea of what their Limit is. And it is something that, with some discernment, can be realistic. But a Goal involves a lot of guesswork, as it is difficult to estimate the best spouse you can get, and so people risk setting it too high or too low.

I’m sure that folks have their own observations and thoughts to add, so feel free to mention them in the comments. I will be around infrequently over the next few days, so don’t expect to see me comment or reply to anyone (although I will try and keep an eye on things to mod as needed).


Filed under Attraction, Courtship, Marriage, Men, Women