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.

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?

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:

⁸ 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. ⁹ 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.

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.

Evaluating The Intangible

I.

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.

II.

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.

III.

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.

IV.

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.

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

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.

Settle(ment)

I.

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.

II.

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.

III.

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.

The 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.

IV.

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).

Selected Sunday Scriptures- #9

I was reading through the Second Book of Samuel a while ago when I came across this famous passage:

And the Lord sent Nathan to David. He came to him, and said to him, “There were two men in a certain city, the one rich and the other poor. ² The rich man had very many flocks and herds; ³ but the poor man had nothing but one little ewe lamb, which he had bought. And he brought it up, and it grew up with him and with his children; it used to eat of his morsel, and drink from his cup, and lie in his bosom, and it was like a daughter to him. ⁴ Now there came a traveler to the rich man, and he was unwilling to take one of his own flock or herd to prepare for the wayfarer who had come to him, but he took the poor man’s lamb, and prepared it for the man who had come to him.” ⁵ Then David’s anger was greatly kindled against the man; and he said to Nathan, “As the Lord lives, the man who has done this deserves to die; ⁶ and he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity.”

⁷ Nathan said to David, “You are the man. Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, ‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you out of the hand of Saul; ⁸ and I gave you your master’s house, and your master’s wives into your bosom, and gave you the house of Israel and of Judah; and if this were too little, I would add to you as much more. ⁹ Why have you despised the word of the Lord, to do what is evil in his sight? You have smitten Uri′ah the Hittite with the sword, and have taken his wife to be your wife, and have slain him with the sword of the Ammonites. ¹⁰ Now therefore the sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised me, and have taken the wife of Uri′ah the Hittite to be your wife.’ ¹¹ Thus says the Lord, ‘Behold, I will raise up evil against you out of your own house; and I will take your wives before your eyes, and give them to your neighbor, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this sun. ¹² For you did it secretly; but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.’” ¹³ David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.” And Nathan said to David, “The Lord also has put away your sin; you shall not die. ¹⁴ Nevertheless, because by this deed you have utterly scorned the Lord,^[a] the child that is born to you shall die.”

(2 Sam 12:1-14)

Something about this passage tickled my brain at the time, but I couldn’t quite place it. It was only while I was reading the Book of Deuteronomy recently that I realized what had seemed off to me. The following passage in Deuteronomy is not easy to reconcile at first with the account of David:

“The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor shall the children be put to death for the fathers; every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

(Deut 24:16)

David is not punished for his sins, instead it is his family which must pay the price for them. Yet this is the exact opposite of how punishment is supposed to work according to God. Needless to say, I had trouble with this for a while. At first I simply assumed that the restriction on punishment outlined in Dueteronomy was applied only to human justice. God could punish as He willed because it was His right and because He could see in a manner that we humans could not. Eventually I came to a different, deeper (and I hope more accurate) understanding.

The punishment allotted to David’s family is out of line with that principle of justice as a lesson for us. It aims to teach us that when we sin, the consequences of that sin will fall most heavily on the innocent. Indeed, this is one of the central messages of all of Scripture. Because of his sins, Adam was cursed to die, and all of us have shared in that punishment:

⁷ And to Adam he said,

“Because you have listened to the voice of your wife,
and have eaten of the tree
of which I commanded you,
‘You shall not eat of it,’
cursed is the ground because of you;
in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life;
¹⁸ thorns and thistles it shall bring forth to you;
and you shall eat the plants of the field.
¹⁹ In the sweat of your face
you shall eat bread
till you return to the ground,
for out of it you were taken;
you are dust,
and to dust you shall return.”

(Genesis 3:17-19)

Of course, all of us are sinners, which makes us just as guilty as Adam. So it cannot be said that we were not deserving of punishment, indeed even death. For death is the punishment accorded to rebels, and we are all rebels, for to sin is to rebel against God.  However, there was someone who was punished for Adam’s sin even though He was innocent:

³⁹ One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him, saying, “Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!” ⁴⁰ But the other rebuked him, saying, “Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? ⁴¹ And we indeed justly; for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.”

(Luke 23:39-41)

Let us keep in mind this valuable lesson: all too often it is the innocent who pay the price for our sins.

Discerning the Mindkiller

Sunshine Mary’s recent post Discerning Well triggered something of a firestorm in the comment section. The comments quickly developed into  a verbal war of sorts, with men and women mostly taking opposite sides. Overall, the vast majority of the female commenters found the story contained therein to be beautiful and uplifting. On the other hand, most of the male commenters took a different view and considered it something of a tragedy. This reaction surprised the blogmistress, and I think most of the commenters too.

Now it happened that I was one of the male commenters who became involved in that post and the furious debate that broke out (Ok, I was actually sort of the instigator of the debate). As time passed and the debate continued, I eventually bowed out. This post is my attempt to try and explain to my female readers (many of whom read Sunshine Mary’s blog) why it was that her post touched a nerve in so many men. I’m writing it because men and women think very, very differently, and it is easy for us to misunderstand one another. Hopefully I can clear up some of the confusion. While I can’t say that it will put women at ease, I at least hope that it will provide some measure of understanding.

The female commenters were caught up in the joy and happiness of the messages, and so focused on that. Those are natural, understandable emotions. Indeed, appropriate ones for a new marriage. But for the men, something else was at play, something more potent, something more primal:

Fear.

I didn’t figure this out at first. For a while I thought I was being rational in my responses. But eventually I came to realize that emotion was driving me, not reason. So I stepped back to catch my breath and ended up never jumping back in. Eventually, after much discernment, I came to understand how fear was driving my reactions.  This fear wasn’t obvious because most of it was sub-conscious, well below the surface of most of my awareness. But it was still present and affecting me. Now, this fear wasn’t that of outright terror.  No, it was a subtle kind that gnawed at the back of my mind. I could feel the effects, but not really the presence. And I would venture much the same was happening with most of the other men as well.

So what were the sources of this fear? A few, in no particular order include:

– Fear of never finding a wife

– Fear that I might find a wife but it would take me decades

– Fear of living in a marriage marketplace where women have all the power

– Fear that the only women interested in marrying me would be unacceptable to me

– Fear of becoming so full of despair and bereft of hope that I would take any woman who expressed any interest in me

– Fear of never having children of my own

Those are just a few of the fears that I can think of off the top of my head.

Before I go further, it is important, vital even, for women to understand that men have certain biological imperatives programmed into them. And many of these imperatives are bound deeply into our sub-conscious, such that they affect us although we don’t realize it. This is largely what was at play here. Again, set aside whether these fears are rational or not. When the sub-conscious is involved, reason is a rarity. I was doing a lot of projecting.

Lets start with the scenario that if I wanted to marry I would have to settle for a post-Wall woman in her forties. This touches on a fear of not fulfilling one of those core biological imperatives, that of having children. When it comes to procreation, men have two different strategies that are on something of a sliding scale. On one end you have sexual variety, otherwise known as sleeping with as many women as possible. This strategy emphasizes numbers over quality, in terms of possible children. The other end is what I call paternity, where a man focuses on just a few children born of a single mother that he heavily invests in. This is quality over quantity. In marrying such a woman, I would probably be dooming myself to biological death; it would be a step that would all but guarantee that I never have kids and never pass my genes on. Now, because of my faith, I have already repudiated sexual variety as a strategy, thereby forcing myself to the far end of paternity. As a result, I have (consciously and unconsciously) become very much invested in that strategy, it has become a core part of my sense of identity. Thus, marrying a woman who almost certainly can’t have children thereby threatens me at a very deep level. Naturally enough, fear will result.

While I could write in depth about all of these fears, it isn’t necessary and so will limit myself to that one example for now. [I suppose if there is a call for it I could continue my analysis via updates or in the comments.]

Understand ladies that we men have our fears too. Oftentimes they will be different from yours, or we will express them in different ways. What you were seeing in that post were deep-seated male fears manifesting themselves. All of us, men and women alike, will be affected by fears and anxieties that lurk below the surface from time to time. One thing I noted is that pretty much all of the women who posted in that thread were married, many with children. Women have different imperatives than men and some would have been touched by that post as well. But women might feel those imperatives threatened in different ways. Hence, the disparity in reaction. I am curious what reaction unmarried women, and women without children, would have had to that post.

As for myself, once I realized what I was experiencing I sought for a way to calm my fears and let go of my anxieties. I kept in mind the words of our Savior:

“Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Let the day’s own trouble be sufficient for the day.

Towards that end I stepped away from my computer, opened my Bible and read my go-to book, the Book of Psalms:

In thee, O Lord, do I seek refuge;
let me never be put to shame;
in thy righteousness deliver me!
² Incline thy ear to me,
rescue me speedily!
Be thou a rock of refuge for me,
a strong fortress to save me!

³ Yea, thou art my rock and my fortress;
for thy name’s sake lead me and guide me,
⁴ take me out of the net which is hidden for me,
for thou art my refuge.
⁵ Into thy hand I commit my spirit;
thou hast redeemed me, O Lord, faithful God.

⁶ Thou hatest those who pay regard to vain idols;
but I trust in the Lord.
⁷ I will rejoice and be glad for thy steadfast love,
because thou hast seen my affliction,
thou hast taken heed of my adversities,
⁸ and hast not delivered me into the hand of the enemy;
thou hast set my feet in a broad place.

⁹ Be gracious to me, O Lord, for I am in distress;
my eye is wasted from grief,
my soul and my body also.
¹⁰ For my life is spent with sorrow,
and my years with sighing;
my strength fails because of my misery,
and my bones waste away.

¹¹ I am the scorn of all my adversaries,
a horror to my neighbors,
an object of dread to my acquaintances;
those who see me in the street flee from me.
¹² I have passed out of mind like one who is dead;
I have become like a broken vessel.
¹³ Yea, I hear the whispering of many—
terror on every side!—
as they scheme together against me,
as they plot to take my life.

¹⁴ But I trust in thee, O Lord,
I say, “Thou art my God.”
¹⁵ My times are in thy hand;
deliver me from the hand of my enemies and persecutors!
¹⁶ Let thy face shine on thy servant;
save me in thy steadfast love!
¹⁷ Let me not be put to shame, O Lord,
for I call on thee;
let the wicked be put to shame,
let them go dumbfounded to Sheol.
¹⁸ Let the lying lips be dumb,
which speak insolently against the righteous
in pride and contempt.

¹⁹ O how abundant is thy goodness,
which thou hast laid up for those who fear thee,
and wrought for those who take refuge in thee,
in the sight of the sons of men!
²⁰ In the covert of thy presence thou hidest them
from the plots of men;
thou holdest them safe under thy shelter
from the strife of tongues.

²¹ Blessed be the Lord,
for he has wondrously shown his steadfast love to me
when I was beset as in a besieged city.
²² I had said in my alarm,
“I am driven far from thy sight.”
But thou didst hear my supplications,
when I cried to thee for help.

²³ Love the Lord, all you his saints!
The Lord preserves the faithful,
but abundantly requites him who acts haughtily.
²⁴ Be strong, and let your heart take courage,
all you who wait for the Lord!

(Psalm 31)

[For a secular alternative, and to understand the meaning of this post’s name, see here.]

Further Ruminations on Game

I. Introduction

This post is a continuation of my series on Game. It is motivated in part by a desire to continue the discussion started in my previous posts on the subject here and here, and also in response to Deep Strength’s first post and second post on the subject. [In case folks weren’t aware, Deep Strength, a regular commenter here and elsewhere in the ‘sphere, has started his own blog. You can find it here.] This post is going to meander a bit, mostly because I have scattered thoughts and not so much a coherent argument to bring forth on the subject. Everything adds up to reach an overall conclusion, but it won’t be as polished as is my norm. You’ve been warned.

II. What’s in a Name?

One problem that consistently plagues any discussion of Game is what it bloody well means. You know its bad when you realize you’ve said something along the lines of that sentence many times before. Definition is a serious problem, because it sets the scope of debate. It is usually easier to agree on what Game is than what it isn’t. What Roosh does is obviously Game, and no one contests that. I think that most would agree that the various methods employed by Roissy to keep a STR going would also be considered Game. But when someone like Joseph of Jackson adopts some of the things he learned to find a potential wife, is that Game? When Dalrock, Keoni Galt and SAM (Elspeth‘s husband) put their respective wives in their place, is that Game? This is far from clear. Some would argue yes, and others no.

These distinctions are important, because depending on what falls outside the scope of Game, a moral defense of its can become easier or impossible. I think that Deep Strength provided a good summary of some of the different definitions in his first post:

• The first crowd believes that “game” is a specific set of codified techniques that were “pioneered” by the PUAs in order to improve your relative attractiveness to a woman’s in order to use other techniques to get a woman into bed.

• The second crowd believes that “game” is a toolbox insomuch that a tool such as a hammer can be used to do constructive things such as building furniture whereas it can also be used as a weapon to bash someone over the head.

• The third crowd believes that “game” is fundamentally about “charisma” or “self improvement” because masculinity is about building a man who is not just respect by women but by other men, children, colleagues in the workplace, etc. It is the ability to wield influence.

• Finally, there is a fourth depiction of game that Leap has been commenting on which is the one I most agree with having studied the Scripture more in depth. This is the depiction of game that it is inherently worldly in nature, and that masculinity of the positive variety comes from being a masculine man of God as the Scripture define it.

Deep Strength takes the same position as Leap of a Beta, that Game is a worldly thing. My own take has varied since I found the manosphere. For the longest time I held to the “toolbox” view. I saw Game as a series of tools that could be used, like all tools, for Good or for Evil. But Leap’s comments about how Pride is at the heart of Game have caused me to reevaluate this approach.

[I should note that under the first categorization, there are plenty of types of Pick-up Game out there- “fast game” and “slow game”, “day game” and “night game”, “direct game” and “indirect game”, etc.]

In my second post in the series, “Godly Masculinity versus Game”, I considered several different models which tried to explain what Game was. I think that they represented real progress in defining Game, but were still incomplete. My biggest problem was how they treated the base of both systems, “Masculine Frame.” I gave both the same base, but this didn’t set well with me and I explained that I thought there were differences between the two. This is where Leap’s comment on Pride comes into play.

You see, part of the reason why I waited so long before writing this follow-up post is because I wanted to become more familiar with Game. I knew some things about it, but had never really dived into it before in depth. So I did some digging. OK, a lot of digging. And in the process realized that Leap was quite right about the role that Pride plays. Pretty much every Game practitioner that I found, from Heartiste on down, emphasizes the importance of confidence to Game. More than even the importance, the centrality of it. Heartiste has as one of his “16 Commandments” the development of an irrational self-confidence in oneself. And Pride is at the heart of this confidence in self. But past the Pride, past the self-confidence, past even “Frame” you find the real core, the base or foundation of what Game is all about: The elevation and advancement of self above all else.  Or otherwise stated, the Idolatry of Self.

This new understanding leads to another definition of Game: A philosophy grounded in Idolatry of Self that frames itself around prideful self-confidence and revolves around creating a toolbox of methods to advance one’s self-interest in all walks of life.

So Game is not a Toolbox, but rather a toolbox is what Game seeks to go about creating. It is a step in the process of advancing oneself. This leads to a new model for Game:

Idolatry of Self forms the base or foundation of the pyramid, which is the core guiding principle.  This foundation is not visible, you have to dig beneath the surface to find it, which is why many (including myself) fail(ed) to realize it. Above it we find self-confidence, which is the core of the “Frame” that a man carries himself about in. This is visible, and is the basic manifestation of a man’s character. Above that is the Toolkit, a combination of knowledge and skills developed to achieve whatever goal is sought. And at the top is Temptation, the end result of successful Game in a specific endeavor: to bed a woman.

With all of this in mind, the concept of Game being a “way of life” doesn’t seem nearly as far-fetched. When people talks about applying Game to other aspects of their life besides

III. The Placebo Effect

One Game related topic that is getting talked about a lot right now in certain quarters is the “conversion” or success rate of Pick-up Game. A good example of this debate can be found at ZippyCatholic’s blog, in his post How About Earning a Living Playing Slots? His whole post can be summed up as-

Game is a placebo, which is “better than doing nothing at all: there is quantifiable benefit, in general, in just putting in an effort.” The low success rate proves it doesn’t work as advertised.

I agree with Zippy that most Game does in fact provide a placebo effect. Although not quite in the same way that I think he does. The key thing to keep in mind is that a placebo only works when you don’t know that it is a placebo. [Wrong. See here for a better description of the Placebo effect. Thanks to Deep Strength and Zippy for pointing this out to me.]

Most of what Game does for the majority of its practitioners is to bolster their confidence. The various tricks and gimmicks that they use (and they are just that)  to “generate attraction” or “provide comfort” (or the other components of whatever Game system is being used) don’t actually work like that. Let me explain by example: When a PUA thinks up some great new “opener” to approach a woman with that he is certain will work, and it does in fact work, it isn’t the opener that is the reason for his success. Rather, it is his certainty, his confidence that the opener will work that makes it work. This is because the woman isn’t really listening to what he says, but how he says it and the rest of his overall body language.

The placebo effect occurs when the idea is implanted into a player’s mind that if he can use the right moves, then he is guaranteed success. This false impression can give him the self-confidence he needs to act more attractive, rather than generate it through silly gimmicks like clever openers and wearing silly hats.

IV. Lies, Damned Lies and…

This is of course the perfect time to address conversion rates. I’ve seen a lot of people make assumptions when they shouldn’t, and misinterpret the numbers given out by PUAs. So I will take the time to clear a few things up. I will be repeating myself and a few others here, but I think the repetition will be valuable.

When a Player talks about how he has a 2.7% conversion rate, what that means is this: Approximately 2.7% of the women he approached had sex with him. It does not mean that Game works on 2.7% of the female population. It doesn’t even mean that Game works on 2.7% of the women he approached. It means simply that 2.7% of the women that the individual player approached responded by having sex with him.

A different player might have a higher conversion rate. Or a lower one. And he might have success with entirely different women. While female preferences don’t vary as much as male preferences, they do have them.

But why such a low number?

Well, that is just one example. Other PUAs have higher (and lower) numbers. Of course, most of them never really get conversion rates which are terribly high (such as over 10%). There are two main reasons for this, one of which is a short answer that I will get out of the way.

The 2.7% number comes from a guy practicing “Day Game” that sounds pretty direct. Also, he was almost certainly using “Fast Game” as well. For those who don’t understand those terms, a brief explanation: Day Game means using Game on women outside of nightclubs or other hotspots, basically, everyday locations like malls, grocery stores or just walking on the street. This is difficult because women rarely want to be approached in this way while going about their business. Direct Game is where you make your intentions and interest obvious from the very start. Indirect Game, on the other hand, involves hiding or couching your initial interest and attempting to get inside a woman’s comfort zone before escalating. Direct Game is high-risk, high-reward; it is very easy for it to blow up in your face. And “Fast Game” is a technique that includes a very rapid-paced Direct Game that is built towards quickly assessing whether a woman might respond positively to the approach or not.

What this means is that the approaches the PUA was engaging in were difficult, and they were quick paced. So he didn’t actually spend a whole lot of time (or money) to get what he wanted. And apparently he was only approaching very attractive women who were much younger than he was. Under these circumstances, from the perspective of someone wrapped in sin, this isn’t bad at all. I should mention at this point that Cane Caldo has written several excellent responses to Zippy’s various arguments. I would start here, and then read this.

V. A House Built on Sand

²⁴ “Every one then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house upon the rock; ²⁵ and the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat upon that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. ²⁶ And every one who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house upon the sand; ²⁷ and the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell; and great was the fall of it.”

(Matthew 7:24-27)

This brings us to the second reason why most PUA success or conversion rates are so low: they have built their houses on sand.

As I explained above, Game builds up an artificial confidence in would-be PUAs through a sort of placebo effect. As a result of this, their  self-confidence is hollow and unsteady. This, combined with another weakness I will cover shortly, leaves their Frame weak. If something should go wrong with their approach, then their confidence will wane, and their frame will start to fall apart. If that happens often enough or if they make a serious mistake then the whole approach risk collapse.  In which case they get rejected.  Not to mention, many women will see right through the illusion that is their “masculine” frame and turn them down.

The hollowness comes about because many PUA types advocate a “fake it until you make it” philosophy when it comes to confidence and frame. But the truth is that few, if any, ever truly make it. After their initial foray into Game, most of their confidence is founded on their success with women. But if they should have a dry spell where they enjoy little to no success, then they will begin to question themselves. This of course only increases their angst and further weakens their chances.

It isn’t surprising that for many the pinnacle of Game, tempting women into their beds, becomes the center point of their lives. You can see this in statements like “Every man must learn Game” and in the way that many PUAs pull more and more women, just to be certain that they can. Their Frame, the concept of self they present to the world, demands it.

Another reason for this hollowness is found in the often effeminate nature of much of Games. In his latest post Cane Caldo dissects Game and its origins, focusing on how many Game advocates started to drum up the manliness of it over time:

Wounded by the charge of effeminism (as men should be) the PUAs started to respond with more sophisticated evo-psych nonsense about Game being a covert, esoteric, and ancient manliness. Covert so as not to upset PC sensibilities during the performance of Game; esoteric so as to explain why their knowledge about such tactics aren’t common (When they are by all accounts procreationally necessary, and even genetic! How did all those Alphas spawn all these Betas?) ; ancient so as to cast a glamour over those susceptible to the trappings of tradition.

It should be noted that not all Game practitioners are effeminate. But many are, including a lot of the leading lights. I theorize that the reason for this is found in the gimmicks and tricks that they use. Many of them are quite passive-aggressive in nature. Cane’s description of the Neg (as practiced by PUA’s) as “cattiness with plausible deniability” is spot on. Essentially, using these methods to tempt women is to play their own “game” against them. Passive-aggressive tactics are the go-to weapon for women. And Game as practiced by PUAs is full of passive-aggressive tactics meant to get inside a woman’s head.  The way I see it, if a man uses feminine tactics long enough, it starts to effect him. As he practices female techniques, he starts to become more feminine.

Natural players don’t tend to be like this at all. They are also usually more successful than Game using players. Why? It is because the naturals had to build up their own Frame, isolated from the precepts of Game. And that frame is usually very masculine in nature, because that is what women are looking for in a man. Naturals often end up using many of the same tools, but they acquire theirs through trial and error. Game practitioners never develop this sense of masculinity because their Frame isn’t something they build on their own over time. Instead, it is something that is sort of built for them by whomever teaches them Game. With only the concept of irrational self-confidence to guide their Frame, users of Game are themselves susceptible to the manipulative forces they seek to unleash on women.

V. An Alternative

Given what have I said so far in this post, it is obvious that Game is incompatible with Christianity. Christians worship God, not ourselves; yet that is the central premise of Game. So what is a married Christian man, or a Christian man looking to marry, to do then? Free Northerner has just created a post asking for an alternative to Game for Christians. Why? Because there is none at the moment. And one is badly needed.

The current MMP is a disaster for Christians. Good men and women cannot find one another. And even when they do find one another, neither knows how to go about the process of courtship. Women don’t know how to signal and men cannot recognize the signals that do get made. For decades Christian men and women have been fed misinformation about the opposite sex. Married Christian men are in an especially delicate position, because they face a hostile culture and legal system that has empowered and encouraged their wives to detonate their marriages on a whim.

I have some ideas that I want to work out to create this alternative. Others are already trying to figure this out, including Leap of a Beta and Deep Strength. One of my commenters is working on a guest post with his own thoughts and I like some of what I have heard already. My ideas are by no means complete, but I will voice what I have at the moment.

To begin with, I think that the same kind of model that I applied to Game would work to understand this system (which I don’t even have a name for right now). That means a pyramid.

At the base of the pyramid, the Foundation, is masculine Godliness (as compared to Godly Masculinity). Essentially, a deep-abiding faith in the Almighty which also fully embraces the masculine nature that God intended for men to posses and express.

On top of this foundation we have the Frame, which is built around sophroneo, soundness of mind or sensibility (see here for more). This is what Titus 2:6 urges that young men be taught. Self-control is the name of the game here. Rather than suppress our masculine instincts, we learn to control and harness them. The goal is to manifest a certain kind of unflappability  and sense of control in our lives. To be the rock that women naturally want to cling to.

Above the foundation we have the Toolkit. This is similar in many respects to its counter-part in Game, but is not exactly the same. Game teaches three main things: 1) Behaviors and Attitudes to drop because women find them unattractive; 2) Behaviors and Attitudes to adopt because women find them attractive; 3) Specific techniques to use in order to attract women and tempt them. This Christian alternative Toolkit will use most of #1, a good chunk of #2 and very little of #3.

Lastly, at the pinnacle or cap-stone of the pyramid, we have Adoration. This is the sentiment that we want to kindle in God-fearing women. Attraction by itself is nice and good, but the goal is to become the kind of man that Christian women look up to, the kind of man that they would willingly join their lives to.

That is the graphic representation of it. I think that most of the work on this project will be focused on the Frame aspect, what I currently refer to as Sophroneo (thanks to Lyn87 for cluing me in to that). Creating a foundation of Masculine Godliness is mostly a personal venture that will take time and effort, but not be all that difficult. A good understanding of how feminism has corrupted Christianity will go a long way. The Toolkit aspect is mostly combing through Game teaching and the Classics to find out what is valuable and what isn’t when it comes to attracting women, then sifting for what is compatible with Christianity and weaving it all together. Adoration should come naturally enough when everything else is put together.

If done right, this system should help Christian men who are already married, as well as those looking to marry. It should be especially helpful for the former, because Game as a means of keeping a wife attracted/interested in marriage is rife with problems. As Seriouslypleasedropit notes in his latest post, PUAs (and Game itself) is a short term endeavor. It isn’t built to sustain things in the long run. Running Game in a marriage will grow to be a tiring affair that is likely to make a husband question its worth. Not to mention possibly fall apart in the end because of the possible feminizing nature of Game in the long run.

VI. Conclusion

As I warned earlier, not exactly a focused post. But hopefully one that has some merit somewhere, and can keep the discussion moving.