Picky, Picky

This blog post is dedicated to a couple of phenomena that I’ve heard about from some of the female commentators around these parts, and from some of my female readers who reach me via e-mail. The first has been explained to me as a scenario where a man finds a woman objectively attractive, but feels no sense of passion for her, i.e. he doesn’t “burn for her.” As for the second scenario, that involves a situation where a woman receives or picks up Indicators of Interest from certain men, but the men giving them otherwise ignore her and instead direct their efforts towards other women. To quote one commenter, oft times the women receiving male attention are those with a “slut aura.” In this post I will give some thoughts about why these situations might happen, supplying some of my theories on the matter as well of those of a few people I’ve talked with. I’m going to address them in reverse order, starting with the second scenario.

Low Hanging Fruit

There is a very simple explanation why most men will focus on women who exude a “slut aura.” They are making a simple, rational decision, although not a moral one, that they shouldn’t pay full price when they can “have the milk for free.” I explained this more fully in my post “Why Does My Boyfriend Pressure Me for Sex?“, but it essentially comes down to men taking the least costly path that leads towards sex. Most men, if they perceive a woman as not being “easy”, will ignore her because the perceived cost of sex from here will be great. On the other hand, a woman with a “slut aura” is perceived as “easy” and a low cost means of getting what they want more than anything.

Negative Feedback

Another thing that might be hurting women who don’t have a “slut aura” is the fact that their own aura might be pushing men away. Whether you want to call it an “Ice Queen” aura or something else, women can send off vibes that will keep men away. Approaching a woman can be a difficult experience for many men, and if given a reason not to do it, such as cold, rigid body language and behavior on the part of the woman, many men avoid it all together. Women with a “slut aura”, on the other hand, give off the impression of being easily approachable. My suspicion is that many women who don’t adopt that aura will go too far the other way- in their desire to appear modest they actually create an impression of being unapproachable. Much of the problem arises because women aren’t taught the kind of feminine attitudes and behaviors that they were in the past. Part of that included advice on how to both seem modest and yet approachable at the same time. That knowledge is largely forgotten these days, and so women must learn to fend for themselves. For a Christian woman who doesn’t want to give off a “slut aura” or some other brash set of behaviors, it is probably easy to fall unwittingly into the trap of cold modesty. That cold modesty can go beyond behavior, too. Poor dress, short/bad hair and bad makeup skills can also be included here.

Bad Read

There is another explanation, one that is somewhat cruel to say but needs to be acknowledged. It is always possible that women who think they are being passed over because they lack a “slut aura” are misjudging their own attractiveness. They might be misinterpreting men, thinking that they are picking up IOIs, when instead men are merely being friendly. I’ve written a post or two which discussed the trouble women have evaluating their own attractiveness (and whether they should get help for it), and that problem might be manifesting itself here. As cruel as it sounds, a woman who isn’t attractive will be passed up by a lot of men. Of course, she can mitigate this somewhat through healthy diets and exercise, in order to maximize her “physical assets.”  But she will need to understand that the pool of men interested in her will necessarily be smaller, and that she will have to adjust her expectations accordingly. That does it for the second scenario, for the moment at least. Turning now towards the first one again.

Cost/Benefit or Risk Analysis

[This isn’t exactly an explanation for the behavior in scenario one, but is something that I should point out, as it goes along well with the overall purpose of the post. ] Something else that can be at play is that a man might be running a cost/benefit analysis in his head and deciding that a woman just doesn’t rate high enough in looks. That seems kind of callous to say, but it is important to acknowledge the reality right now that marriage is a risky proposition for a man. He is completely exposed during marriage, with essentially no protection any longer. Society and the courts will not only not protect him, but will actively encourage the worst of behavior by women. The church even is of little help at best, and in some instances is as much of a problem as any divorce attorney. With this kind of hostile environment, men will be hesitant to marry. They will want the perceived benefits to be worth the potential costs. And yes, this applies to even Christian men. Perhaps especially Christian men, as Jesus reminded us of the importance of counting costs. As I indicated in my previous post, a woman’s beauty/looks/attractiveness is something that matters a lot to men. Of course, men can easily take this too far. Marriage shouldn’t be a selfish thing, otherwise it just becomes another idol. And beauty alone is a foolish measure of whether a woman is marriageable. But the truth remains that in the present age women who are less attractive might get passed over because a man isn’t sure the reward is worth the risk.

Filter Distortion

Another idea that I have bounced around in my head centers around “floors”- attraction and arousal floors, specifically. I discussed them at length in my post Romantic Architecture, and recommend to those reading this that they review that post before continuing on. Using that post as a baseline, I have basically argued before that normally the male “arousal floor” is lower than the male “attraction floor.” Referencing back to Romantic Architecture, a man’s arousal floor (the point below which women cannot arouse a man) is found at the threshold between “Unattractive” and “Not Unattractive.” Meanwhile, the attraction floor is the boundary between “Attractive” and “Not Unattractive.” The theory I’ve been thinking about revolves around the idea that a man’s arousal threshold might not be fixed. Instead, depending on environmental factors, it might move up or down the “Scale”. In terms of explaining what caused scenario 1, I speculate that a number of different environmental factors might have pushed a man’s arousal floor above his attraction floor. The result of this would be that a man could find a woman objectively attractive, and yet not be immediately/easily aroused by her. What could cause this?

Well, one possibility might be that old Churchian bane, pornography. A man who views sufficient amounts of it might rewire his brain such that he can only be aroused by a high level of sexual conduct by women. Mere sight and normal interaction with a woman who is attractive but not greatly so just might not arouse him like it used to. The same impact can possibly be had outside of pornography, with women that a man encounters in everyday life. If a man has a lot of experience (not necessarily sexual experience, just time spent around) with women who dress and act provocatively, then that might adjust his “baseline” for what to expect from women. If the women are very attractive then this resetting of the baseline might be even more likely.

Under this framework, a woman who dresses and acts modestly may not trigger a man’s passion, even though he can objectively evaluate her as attractive. This meshes well with scenario 2, actually, as men, after sufficient exposure to women with a “slut aura”, might not be able to get easily excited by a woman without. Just like how women can assign a guy to the “friendzone”, and no longer see him as sexually exciting, perhaps men can also lose their ability to view certain women in the same light.

Typing Without a Keyboard

Another possibility, one that was brought to my attention by one of my more astute readers who I communicate with via e-mail, has to do with types. You see, men have certain “types” of women that they prefer. In some of my past post I have referred to archetypes, but this is somewhat different. By “type” I mean that each man has a set of features that he looks for and prefers in women. Some are universal (symmetry, for example), while others vary from man to man. Some features are rated higher or lower, and others a man might not care about at all. As applied to scenario 1, a man might be able to objectively rate a woman as attractive, but if she isn’t his type than he might not feel that immediate passion that he would for a woman who was his type. This is because it is those features he rates highest in his “type” which arouse him. Even though her overall physical appearance might be attractive, if it is sufficiently far from his type it just won’t get his juices flowing. At least, that is the theory.

Another component to this is psychological. A man might not want to commit to a woman who isn’t his type, perhaps because “type” is genetic, or maybe something that he developed as a result of environmental conditions. Either way, because he is so strongly compelled towards his type, he will have trouble committing to a woman who doesn’t fit that. And this mental block might lead a physical block as well.

The present marriage market exacerbates the problem that the male preference for a certain type already adds. For a devout Christian woman, finding a devout Christian man who would make a good husband isn’t enough by itself. You have to be his type as well, or at least attractive enough so that you can overcome that. Likewise for men, the problem is that even if you find a devout Christian woman, who meets most or all of your non-physical criteria, if she isn’t your type then you might have trouble committing to her. In the past this wouldn’t have been as much of a problem, because there were enough marriageable men and women out there that you were likely to find someone who was your type (or whose type you were) while also meeting the other criteria. With so few good candidates these days this may not be the case.

Of course, women have “types” as well, and that might complicate matters from the other end. Then you have personality types and compatibility issues there as well, which makes things even worse on both ends. All of which adds up to the whole situation being a terrible mess right now.


So, that pretty much sums up my explanations/ideas/theories for the time being. I invite my readers to offer their own thoughts and commentary. Feel free to rip them to shreds, goodness knows that I’m in need of an ego check on a regular basis. Oh, and for those who have been participating in my password protected Lenten posts, I will be writing a short one that will act as a counter-part to this post in the next day or so. If you haven’t been participating but would like to, feel free to shoot me an e-mail or leave a comment requesting access.


Filed under Attraction, Men, Red Pill, Women

117 responses to “Picky, Picky

  1. Marietta

    thank you!
    I agree with your comment posted at 7:10am you made some very good points. And also it is nice to know that I’m not the only one who thinks that way concerning kissing.
    Your suggestions on how to show interest are very helpful and not inappropriate at all. A few of those I do already. I’m not a very touchy person (mostly because I’m very shy) but I’ve made it a goal of mine to touch (appropriately) a few people everyday to help overcome my shyness.
    Also I have asked to sit next to a guy(s)while eating…and guess what… he will just pull out his cellphone and text. A lot of people these days don’t seem to understand how incredibly rude that is! After that I just sort of shut down socially since I figure he doesn’t want to talk to me.

  2. @ Denise

    their expectations of self-actualization

    This I think is the key thing. As you relate in the rest of your most recent comment, people are looking for too many specific traits. And to be frank, I find this most often in Christian women, not in men. Some will do it, like the man you described (although you didn’t mention what qualities he was looking for, which I would be curious about).

    Yet I have observed that it is in women where this is most apparent. Now, if a woman wants to devote herself to certain duties or feels herself called to something above anything else, then I will of course respect her right to pursue this path as part of a life of committed celibacy. But the attitudes I have seen- A commitment to X, or Y or Z, and an expressed willingness to marry, but ONLY to a man committed to X, or Y, or Z, is not a proper mindset of a potential helpmeet. As a wife, she needs to understand that she is joining her life to his, and dedicating herself to aid his mission in life. That doesn’t necessarily mean abandoning anything she feels called towards, but it does mean recognizing what is a priority and what isn’t in life. Or as scripture says:

    10 Hear, O daughter, consider and incline your ear;
    forget your people and your father’s house,

    (Psalm 45:10)

  3. @donal | I do agree that personal ambition in women has to be put aside for marriage, but we probably have a slight difference when it comes to the nature/purpose of helpmeet. It seems that it is often described as a woman helping a man fulfill his personal goals, which I don’t see to be the case in Scripture. I started a response post to the one you posted about Mulieris Dignitatem, but didn’t have time to go enough in depth. Alongside Psalm 45:10, it is equally said that the man will leave his father and mother and become one with his wife. But for the moment I would point out that we as men and women really are under no obligation to marry at all. And insofar as our lives are lived to the glory of God and in obedience to his commands, that is all that He requires of us. Selfish ambition is always to be avoided, but if we have decided that it is better to spend our lives in x way than to not do so, and that means we do not marry a certain person, I don’t think that is in itself wrong. I just think that we have to intentionally make those choices so that we understand from the outset that choosing x may mean foregoing or reducing the likelihood of marriage.

  4. @ Denise

    It seems that it is often described as a woman helping a man fulfill his personal goals, which I don’t see to be the case in Scripture.

    Replace “personal goals” with “Divine Calling” or “Mission from God” and I think you are getting somewhere. In this day and age all too often we forget that marriage is a vocation- a divine calling for the purpose of serving God. Everything we do as Christians should be about serving God. In marriage, it is about serving God through the creation and maintenance of a family. There is more to explore here in a later post.

    Selfish ambition is always to be avoided, but if we have decided that it is better to spend our lives in x way than to not do so, and that means we do not marry a certain person, I don’t think that is in itself wrong. I just think that we have to intentionally make those choices so that we understand from the outset that choosing x may mean foregoing or reducing the likelihood of marriage.

    Agree completely. The problem is that many Christians don’t realize that their insistence on a particular path will significantly impair their chances of marriage. And in some instances I believe that the insistence on that path and similar mindsets is founded on sinful thoughts, with pride largely responsible for it. I think that this is more prominent in women now because of feminist influences within the Church, which would certainly inspire that kind of mentality in a lot of women.

  5. Here’s another point I think is relevant to the discussion. I have met a few girls who would probably have described themselves as “looking for marriage,” but whom I would instead categorize as “looking for a wedding.” This is a distinction that is quite important–I will not ask out a woman who has made it clear that what she considers important is a wedding rather than a marriage.

  6. femininebutnotfeminist

    I just now posted a comment on the password protected post that goes with this one. Before anyone makes anymore comments about scenario 1, please go read it. There are a lot of misconceptions floating round on this thread, and as the girl responsible for scenario 1, I’m telling you all that you need to understand some things about what happened prior to continuing…

  7. FuzzieWuzzie

    Would you please expand for those of us that don’t have the password?
    I didn’t ask for it as I am not a frequent commenter here.

  8. @ Fuzzie

    Sorry, but what is talked about over on the password protected threads isn’t to be talked about elsewhere. If she wants to share here, she can, but otherwise there is a wall between that post and the rest of the blog.

    If you like, I can send you the password. You’ve been around these parts long enough that I think you can be trusted.

  9. FuzzieWuzzie

    Donal, I have sent you an e-mail to request the password. My ISP may not let you in should you just send it. I do look forward to seeing what is discussed.

  10. mdavid

    MNM, It is possible to make a Biblical argument for divorce in the case of fornication due to Matt 5:32 & 19:9. That’s the only Biblically justifiable reason.

    Ah, that’s the rub, right? I certainly don’t find your interpretation possible from the Greek (I follow the traditional interpretation which isn’t too rare even today; at least a billion still do). This is precisely my point: claiming “biblical anything” merely confuses and, if used, should always be expounded.

  11. @ mdavid

    Actually, I didn’t state my position. I simply stated the most permissive attitude towards divorce that is possible to claim is Biblical. A Biblically sound argument can be made that divorce is only allowed when the couple has not yet consummated the marriage (i.e. Joseph & Mary), or that it is never allowed. However, any position more permissive than the “except for fornication” position is demonstrably non-biblical.

    Again, why are we on this? When I said that the man might have a non-biblical view of marriage, I clearly was not talking about divorce, and I did expound–“he’s not looking for a wife but rather the mythical ‘soul-mate.'”

  12. Pingback: Bridge the gap | Moose Norseman

  13. Except when those nice pure Christian guys supposedly itching for a good Christian wife pass us up. They seem more willing to give a slut a second chance than a virgin (who was smart enough to not mess up in the first place) a first chance.

    Given the amount of shaming directed towards men who want to marry a virgin, I would guess that men are observing such actions (and the concomitant commentary – e.g. “No good Christian man would turn down a non-virgin for marriage”) and thus opt to marry a non-virgin (perhaps against their preferences) in order to seem more righteous, forgiving, and so forth.

    Part of it falls under game theory.

  14. Pingback: Bellyaches and the burden of the Lord’s message | Moose Norseman

  15. It is interesting watching people trying to rectify modern morality/ marriage with the Bibical kind
    Bibical marriage does not involve dating or courtship. It’s fathers figuring out who their kids should marrying and making it happen. Everything else is a hodge podge of ideas.

  16. Pingback: I’ll pray about it | Reflections on Christianity and the manosphere

  17. Pingback: How to Develop an Attitude of Detachment | Σ Frame

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s