Analyzing Attraction- Part 2

This is the second part in my most recent series on Attraction. It will be short, as will most posts in this series. You can find Part 1 here.

Why Are We Talking About This?

My various posts on sexual attraction have led many to ask, either in comment or via e-mail, two questions that relate to one another. The first:

Isn’t this supposed to be a Christian blog?

Which is invariably followed by:

If so, why are you talking about sexual attraction?

Both are good questions, and despite having answered them before many times, I will take the time to answer them yet again.

Yes, this is a Christian blog. I am a Christian (a Traditionalist Catholic, to be precise), and that background impacts this blog. And the reason I am talking about sexual attraction is because it matters to Christians. Especially those who want to marry. You see, despite the proclamations of some neo-Gnostics in the last few generations, devout Christians do not suddenly become asexual creatures. With the exception of those with the charism of singleness, humans are sexual beings. Becoming a Christian doesn’t change this. What it does do is require us to control our nature, and to channel it towards righteous ends- aka, marriage.

The thing is, sexual attraction plays a significant role in the marriage marketplace. Even as Christians we are still drawn to those whom we find sexually attractive, whether we realize it or not, and whether we admit it or not. Unfortunately, there have been a lot of lies told about sexual attraction in the past few generations. And Christians have been the ones peddling them more than any other group. Sadly, these lies have taken a considerable toll on many good Christian men and women.

What are the lies I’m referencing? While there are plenty, the greatest set of them have to do with what women find sexually attractive in men. Note that I said sexually attractive, and not simply attractive. As was discussed in the previous post in this series, attraction is a broad enough term to include many different things, including general traits that women like men to have. But those traits are not the kind that arouse women. And whether something arouses a woman or not matters. Because women, just like men, are sexual creatures. Yes, even Christian women. Thanks to their hypergamous nature and strict filters, among other things, women will “overlook” men who are not sexually attractive to them. Such men just won’t show up on their “radar.” Furthermore, Christian women have the exact same tendencies and triggers towards attraction and arousal that non-Christian women possess. As Deep Strength has explained, there are good reasons why women are drawn to them. This problem is compounded by the fact that most women don’t even understand their own attraction filters, or will deny what they know about them.

Christian women will not see sexually unattractive men as husband material (at least, not until they reach the Epiphany phase, but that’s a discussion for another time). Which means that a Christian man looking to marry who isn’t sexually attractive is going to be ignored/rebuffed by the Christian women around him (And that’s assuming that the women have healthy and realistic filters, which is often not the case). Those women who set sexual attractiveness aside are almost certainly bad risks for one reason or another, so they aren’t a real alternative. Those women who are marriageable filter men based on their sexual attractiveness, whether they realize it or not.

If Christian men want to marry, and more importantly, to marry well, they need to learn what women find sexually attractive in men, and what they don’t. They need to know what arouses women, and what turns them off. Without this knowledge Christian men are basically resigned to groping in the dark. In the present MMP that means they have next to a zero percent chance of marrying well. This is, needless to say, a recipe for disaster. We have already seen the effect of this in the last generation or so. Christian marriage rates are plummeting, and the divorce rate is… well the fact that I’m talking about a Christian divorce rate shows the magnitude of the problem.

Towards that end, this blog has explored, and will continue to explore, sexual attraction/arousal in women, so as to help devout Christian men marry virtuous Christian women. As I am one of those men, this is quite self-serving on my part, and I don’t deny my own selfish motivations for exploring this subject. Yet I hope to help other Christian men as well. First, because I consider it my duty as a Christian to do so as a form of loving my neighbor. Second, because in helping others I may well help myself. Third, if I should marry and have children one day, I want my children to be able to find spouses of their own- which means that those good Christian men out there, who will make for good fathers, need to marry and have children as well.

So expect to hear more on this subject well into the future. Which probably means later this week.

Advertisements

63 Comments

Filed under Attraction, Blue Pill, Christianity, Churchianity, Courtship, Desire, God, LAMPS, Marriage, Marriage Market Place, Masculinity, Men, Red Pill, Sex, Sexual Market Place, Sin, Temptation, The Church, Women

63 responses to “Analyzing Attraction- Part 2

  1. mdavid

    lgrobbins, What keeps those together in serious LTR?

    LTR is merely the new marriage. Nothing “glues them together”. Just the best one can do at the moment.

  2. trugingstar

    Donal, I see what you were trying to say now, with those last points, except for the part about my experience with older men as a young woman. It makes sense, because young women are notoriously prime PUA (and general icky guy) targets, due to their naivety and attractiveness. They can’t usually tell the difference between guys like you and guys like them.

    I can’t remember if this is the forum board I’ve read, but the PUAs of attractionforum say not to bother with either Evangelical “Brainwashed Fundamentalist” women or Catholics. They say it’s a dead-end and a lot of work for nothing. However, their general “church girl” is easy and has a past. That verifies the Barna polls with lower divorce rates among Catholics and Evangelicals (their divorce rates are the same as that of marriages, wherein the wife never had sex). It also tells you where the virgins are. http://www.theattractionforums.com/18-21-forum/42237-church-girls.html

    Here’s a statistic about both technical and otherwise virginity. Obviously, there are reasons to doubt its varity, but there is some truth to it.
    http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2012/02/28/hookinguprealities/sexual-statistics-review-session/

    Men and women are roughly equal @age 25-29. That’s probably due mostly to religious convictions. Anyone who waits that long is doing so for a reason, minus ugly fat engineers of both genders. I’ve heard somewhere else it was 5% for both genders at that age.

    Going by this, most virgin women settle down earlier in life, and a big chunk of virgin men settle down later. It also shoes that when a virgin woman hits her thirties, she has about a 50% chance of WGTOW and giving-up on marriage. This makes sense, for biological reasons.

    The national average age for men and women is 28 for men and 26 for women. I’ve also seen 29 and 27. http://www.foryourmarriage.org/factsfigures/

    However, the with Mormons ( who don’t have sex until marriage), the female median age is 22 and the male median age is 24. That shaves four years off the national average. However, they notoriously encourage young marriage. So, there’s only the rough guesstimate of 22-26 for Evango/Catholic women and 24-28 for E/C men. At any rate, the age difference will be the same: two years + for men. So, I’ll wager 23-24 for women and 25-26 for men, as the average. This lines-up with the statistic that most virgins get married by 25.
    http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/2011-04-22-mormon_dating_21_ST_N.htm

    Sadly, this also demonstrates just how difficult it is for an older virgin to marry. Yes, there is a bad bug going around churches and telling people not to marry and take their time. The change from 25 to 30 y.o. women (N=0 to N=1)? 0.9%. This also does not seem to be intentional, as 50% of those women WGTOW. 😥

    I presume that if a man is 30-34 and has not yet had sex, there is likely something wrong, and that’s the same something that’s led women to WGTOW, rather than marry those fatties. I’ve speculated about this before. Now, the gross total of male virgins also includes fat ‘n’ nasty atheists with MLP collections. To a lesser extent, it includes ugly, nasty women. So, more E/C women are able to “last” at that age (thanks to different sex drive) than men, meaning that there is competition for any reasonable fellow left, among that age bracket.

    What I speculate is wrong with the 30-34 male age bracket:

    * Social issues/ mental issues/ obesity/ unfitness
    * Lack of knowledge concerning dating (which we’d like to fix)
    * Too picky
    * No job

    At any rate, they are lingering for a long time remaining untouched, which is a curious thing for a man to do. An older virgin woman would generally rather quit than marry one of them. Either that, or they can’t marry them somehow.

    The difference between male virgins Table 2 and Table 3 demonstrate that women don’t consider age to be more attractive, despite common myth. They consider the sexual experience associated with age to be more attractive. It could be that that none of these men are employed, and that dampers their alpha. However, I think that it’s likely that age – experience is a deterrent. That makes sense. If I wanted a good time, I would get it from a guy whose been in the sack since age 15, accumulating sexual partners at whatever pace as he goes, until he reaches a sweet spot. The better he was, the more likely I’d want to marry him. Even if we never had sex before the wedding, he’d know how to push my buttons and get me attracted, based on the sheer number of women he’s done that with.

    However, the older virgin does not have this experience. If I had to choose between two less-attractive men, personality-wise, who would I pick? The younger one, based on looks. However, I’ve seen statistics that indicate that women tend to value intelligence over looks, although looks make up a good part of it. I think the smart, handsome guys (nature’s alphas) get to marry younger anyway.

    I’ll admit, I don’t know what the dating world looks like to men, even with all this. I don’t know how men see me or evaluate me. I tend to think it goes something like, “She seems pretty decent, but I could do better.” I’m a seven looks-wise, in terms of how I was rated on here. I’m ever so slightly past my prime (26). I dress well, but I don’t go all-out. I don’t have friends shooting my professional pictures for Facebook. I don’t have loads of friends, am not a groupie, and most of my friends are scattered across the country. Although I’m fun and engaging, my personality doesn’t fall into the mainstream (E/ISFJ, IQ 100-110), but specifically filters-out certain people (ENFP, high IQ). (I’m sure a lot of you have high IQs and unusual personalities and that heavily preselects people. The world of dating’s not set-up for people with filters.)

    I probably come across as “pretty decent” to a lot of people. That’s not good, when you account for age. That’s a good thing to be when you’re 23 or 24.

    I’m not going to get into a numbers war, in terms of IQ, but when I’m standing in a room of one or two hundred people, I’m the smartest one there. So, only one in 200-400 guys is going to meet the basic criterion of being my smartness or higher, for respect in marriage. And this doesn’t account for attractiveness or age. So, he might be fat or younger or married (read: not going to date older).

    So, it’s easily a one in two thousand chance that a given fellow *at a given church* is going to be a good match for me. That doesn’t mean that he’s going to like me or that I’m going to like him.

    I also have the additional factor of wanting a virgin. This seems impossible. The odds for that are more like 1 in a million. The best I can probably do is to marry a man with a past, who did not have a good upbringing. There’s still a high likelihood that our marriage would do well, especially if the fellow was convicted upon his conversion. I could accept that: family was heathen, raised in a heathen home, finally met Jesus, totally changed. I can’t accept: went to church, raised in a loving, Christian home, “fell away” in college, got a number, wanted a wife, found Jesus. Why? Because that’s an apostate, aka, not my religion.

    So, yes, I’m open to marrying a guy with any number of a past n-count. No, I’m not open to marrying an apostate. This gives me some options. I’m also not ruling-out younger guys entirely, as there are more virgins among them, nor older guys.

    The game-plan is to hop from young adults group to young adults group. That way, I’ll get more ground covered. What’s a *stupid* idea, is to stay in one spot for a long period of time, hoping for someone new to come in.

    I think the people on here with a high IQ, they should be church-hopping. A large group of average people is sufficient for average people. We can’t expect the one guy or the one girl that is a good match to be into us. Look around at different churches. Say that you’re trying to find a good group. No one will even notice. No one cares when you attend, if you aren’t a regular. The good thing about going to church on Saturday, is that it frees me up to look at other places on Sunday (in fact, a lot of people in my congregation do this).

    There are also activities outside of a church where E/Cs go. Swing dancing is notorious. I’m going to try Sacred Harp singing. These are some examples. The best strategy is to be *in* the church group, but not *of* the church group. People should have a general impression of who you are, but don’t get sucked-into the environment if it’s not your main place. You go to one spot for a few weeks, if you want, and revisit, if you want, but constantly be searching-out new places. You “love checking-out new places!”

    For us women who are smart (well, that’s all of you), you have to do this quickly, because the smart guys legit get taken off the market first. There’s only a few left. Don’t worry about job as much. Make enough money to look hot.

    For the men, keep an open-mind to younger women, and maybe the occasional slightly (1-2 years) older than you woman, but plan on your age-two years younger as realistic. Get a pretty good career plan started. Focus on something practical, and have a time-frame wherein you’ll complete it. Have a reasonable distant future reasonably planned. If you have any grandiose dreams of becoming the President or Kurt Cobain, don’t mention them.

    The End

  3. trugingstar

    * “Even if we never had sex before the wedding, he’d know how to push my buttons and get me attracted, based on the sheer number of women he’s done that with.”

    I’m the biggest Freudian-slipper. ^That’s not what I meant. :/

  4. trugingstar

    * Also, if my last post doesn’t make sense (I’m currently still waiting for it to pass through moderation, as it’s long), it was 98% me thinking through the problem, 2% me caring about phrasing it in a smart-sounding way. The post was mostly based on the hookingupsmart statistics about sexuality.

    The basic point is that I’m trying to draft a basic game-plan for currently virgin women who are trying to find spouses, including what you look for and where/how you find them. For men, I only have kind of an incomplete gameplan. I don’t have the ability to enter into the male mind and perceive that reality, so I can’t draw that gameplan.

    Anyhow, my post is on my page.

  5. @ trugingstar

    For us women who are smart (well, that’s all of you), you have to do this quickly, because the smart guys legit get taken off the market first. There’s only a few left. Don’t worry about job as much. Make enough money to look hot.

    Really? I suppose this might be the case in church. Certainly not the case in the secular market.

  6. trugingstar

    In the secular marketplace, the guys who can afford to be choosey are good-looking enough and smart enough to get women. I’ve noticed that the smarter the guy, the greater their harem capacity, but you’re probably right, in that the smart guy does not necessarily get a harem. If you’re going to gain in the secular market, you have to play by its rules. A smart earner is a provider beta, always. A provider beta for the secular market, which is based in casual sex; a provider for casual sex.

    Otherwise, you’re a provider for a marriage. Generally speaking, a provider beta in the church is a provider for the church’s rules, (which should be) marriage; a provider for (your) marriage.

    And the only churches that matter are Evango and Catholic churches, because regular churches are part of the secular marketplace. The trick is, and Evangelical church could be nearly any church. It could be Lutheran, Charismatic, Bible, Baptist, although none of these churches are explicitly Evango. “Fundies” are basically church Gypsies. We know each other, marry each other, and tend not to stay in one place too long.

  7. Tru:

    When men talk about being “smart” they mean raw intelligence; brain power; analytical ability. If you mean these “smart” men always get women, then you’re wrong, whether we’re talking about religious men or in the secular marketplace. Intelligent men don’t tend to display outwardly the arousing/attractive characteristics women like: Power, Status relative to other men, Athleticism, and so on. Intelligence actively works against those displays in most cases, unless a guy is specifically training himself not to conceal his attractive traits.

    If in your last comment you are talking about “smart” in terms of social intelligence, adept at social interactions, and popularity, then I agree, those men are able to clean up with women. And these highly socially intelligent men do well with women wherever they are, whether in churches or in the secular world.

    This is so because women are, first and foremost, women – they are attracted to the male characteristics women are attracted to. This holds true whether we’re talking about Christian women or nonChristian women. A woman’s religion in no way affects what she finds attractive in men. It might affect any number of other things, most notably the sorts of men available to her and the men she can reasonably attract. But it will NOT affect what she likes.

    You’re also misusing the terminology here, which isn’t important for most purposes, but it does cause some lack of clarity when reviewing and addressing what you’re trying to say. I don’t know what you mean by “provider beta for casual sex”. A man does not “provide” casual sex. He has casual sex with women who want sex with him.

  8. trugingstar

    No, I didn’t say smart guys always got the girls. Smart guys sometimes get the girls. Dumb guys generally don’t.

  9. J

    deti is correct – social intelligence is the only kind that is visible to women, in terms of attraction.

    That said, I would gladly have traded 20 IQ points for a few inches in height. That would have probably given me a better chance to be a husband and father.

  10. What does not enough sexy men to go around mean in real terms? Bad marriages for most men…. Already happening most marriages are failures whether said failure ends in divorce or not; women being more open to sharing the sexy men. Also pretty well established pattern of behavior right now. So more of what we got?

    So basically tru wants to see a “lets you and him fight” deal go down against Christian men who are certainly not armed for the battle. Strange beasts these church girls

    E’s nephew pulling it off proves nothing really. Folks win the lottery too. Its still long odds to win and counting on such luck isn’t much of a plan

    Younger girls in their 20’s will line up for older men if the man is accomplished/ Alpha enough. Though it does take some calibration on the man’s behalf

  11. mdavid

    J, I would gladly have traded 20 IQ points for a few inches in height…given me a better chance to be a husband and father.

    I disagree. Those 20 IQ points should enable a man to understand how female attraction works. Of course, as said man learns about modern women and modern marriage…he necessarily becomes less enamored about marriage. Problem solved.

    I would argue any man willing to give up 20 IQ points to increase his attraction to women would make a terrible husband and father. As bad as women these days are, they deserve a husband who can lead with some level of outcome independence.

  12. have you ever looked into the research about height and the SMP? being short is a killer and requires a lot to over come.

    and I doubt we are talking about a man dropping from100 to 80 on the IQ scale. 100 will do just find to see you through this world

  13. Pingback: Analyzing Attraction- Part 3 | Donal Graeme

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s