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.

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. DJ

    This is getting frustrating, lets stop with the outward attraction and use some basic sexual biology as the starting point. I think this maybe part of the solution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pheromone_party
    Sexual attraction right off the bat ,no wasted time, and no physical contact required. A nice social get together a little food lots of single Christian Ladies and Gentlemen casual atmosphere and everybody knows what they are doing there.

  2. mdavid

    DG, If Christian men want to…to marry well, they need…

    1) a miracle
    2) a time machine
    3) a passport
    4) very low standards on what “well” means (hint: n<5)

  3. 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.

    *Cough* Asians *cough*

  4. Elspeth

    Those women who set sexual attractiveness aside are almost certainly bad risks for one reason or another, so they aren’t a real alternative.

    See, I thought this was exactly what y’all want women to do. Color me confused. No snark intended.

  5. @ Donal:

    I don’t understand this sentence. It doesn’t make syntactical sense.

    “Those women are are marriageable filter men based on their sexual attractiveness, whether they realize it or not.”

    What are you trying to say there? .

  6. Donal: “ Those women who set sexual attractiveness aside are almost certainly bad risks for one reason or another, so they aren’t a real alternative.”

    Elspeth: “See, I thought this was exactly what y’all want women to do. Color me confused. No snark intended.”

    No Elspeth, we don’t want women to set aside sexual attraction when selecting men for dating, mating and marriage. We can’t expect that. We’ve seen fembloggers try to persuade women to do that. They can’t do it.

    What I would like is the following:

    1. For parents, pastors, churches, Christians, and society to stop lying about what is and what is not sexually attractive. For all of us to accept female nature, no matter how ugly and distasteful it might be, and no matter how shallow and superficial this makes women look.

    2. For women to own up to what they find sexually attractive and talk honestly about it (not going to happen).

    3. For men to learn the truth about what women find sexually attractive (more likely to happen)

    4. For everyone to accept that if sexual attractiveness is going to be the benchmark for marriages for the foreseeable future, there will likely be a lot fewer marriages that get started and that go the distance.

  7. @ thedeti

    I think he meant “Those women who are marriageable filter men based on their sexual attractiveness, whether they realize it or not.”

  8. Nemesis:

    Ah. That makes sense when read with the first sentence. And true, I think.

  9. Elspeth:

    As I’ve said many times, most women are marrying men they are not as sexually attracted to as the men they used to sleep with. As long as women continue engaging in premarital sex with men they have no hope of marrying, this will continue to be an insoluble problem. There are not enough sexy men to go around to all the women who want one.

  10. @ Elspeth

    See, I thought this was exactly what y’all want women to do. Color me confused. No snark intended.

    My memory is far from perfect, but I don’t recall ever having argued such. Unless I am much mistaken, I believe that my approach has always been for men to improve themselves so as to become sexually attractive to women. Asking women to set aside their attractiveness triggers is no wiser than asking men to do the same. I do not think it to be realistic, nor wise to attempt to do so.

  11. @ Deti

    Sir Nemesis was correct. Typo there that has been fixed.

  12. @ DJ

    I’m not sure if you are serious or not. Assuming you are, pheromones are not the ultimate solution here. While they can play a role, and might swing someone one way or the other, they cannot make up for other attraction triggers. And for women, a man’s looks are only part of his attraction. His behavior is far more important, and if he acts unmanly it can undermine everything else attractive about him.

  13. @ mdavid

    I don’t have #2 or #4. #1 is up to God, and something I pray for regularly. I do have #3 though, and might end up using it.

  14. @ Sir Nemesis

    I hadn’t realized it was that bad in Asian communities. Not being Asian myself, I need to rely on others to bring such reports. So thanks for filling me in on that.

  15. Elspeth

    Excuse the curtness of these replies. I’m interested in the convo while not able to elaborate much now:

    1. Not enough “sexy men to go around”. What does that even mean in real terms?

    2. @ Donal: No, you’ve never said that. No one has really, but it is implied strongly.

  16. @ Elspeth

    No, you’ve never said that. No one has really, but it is implied strongly.

    Really? By me? Or by someone else? I’m not sure what I’ve written that implies as much.

    Not enough “sexy men to go around”. What does that even mean in real terms?

    My guess, and its just that, a guess. is that because of high female filters for attractiveness, there aren’t enough sexually attractive men to go around. Whereas men tend to have broad filters, women have narrower ones. As a result, especially in the present feminized environment, there is a deficit of sexually attractive men. Its even worse among devout Christian men, where there are astonishingly few. Thanks in large part to the efforts of Christian leaders, might I add.

  17. Elspeth: “No, you’ve never said that [women should set aside sexual attractiveness]. No one has really, but it is implied strongly.”

    Donal: “Really? By me? Or by someone else? I’m not sure what I’ve written that implies as much.”

    She means me, donal. She means that I’ve strongly implied that women should ignore sexual attractiveness when selecting mates. I haven’t said that, and I don’t mean to imply it, because I know that it’s not possible. What I do believe is that women can get more realistic about their own marriage market values, and not expose themselves to high value men who will never marry them. Easier said than done, I know, but facts are facts, and the fact is that there aren’t enough high value men to go around to every woman who wants one.

    “Not enough “sexy men to go around”. What does that even mean in real terms?”

    E, I really just do not understand why this is so hard for you to grasp. I can only attribute this to the fact that you are highly attracted to your husband and you cannot imagine any woman ever marrying a man to whom she is not highly sexually attracted. But as I’ve told you, and as the evidence continues to mount, this is happening all the time. I hope someday you’ll believe me.

    Donal is correct. There are not enough high value, good looking, high status, high sexually attractive men to go around. What worsens the situation is that most women are having sex before marriage. They are having sex with men they’re really attracted to; and with men who won’t marry them. So they are exposing themselves to high value men, and after doing so, a lower value man just isn’t as attractive. Sure, these women are willing to have sex with them, but only in exchange for resources (dinners, movies, marriage proposals, engagement rings, and promises of lifetime financial support). They don’t really WANT sex with these men; but they’re WILLING to have sex with them.

  18. @ Elspeth

    There are a couple issues.

    First, due to the feminization of men and the promulgation of bad advice to men, the absolute attractiveness of men has greatly decreased compared to the past. The same has happened to women due to obesity and things such as cutting hair short.

    Second, women are now having lots of sexual partners, many of whom are in the top 10-20% in attractiveness. Even if they don’t have multiple sexual partners, they definitely get sexual attention from such men. This warps the baseline of what women will find attractive, resulting in far fewer men being attractive enough for marriage to the women.

    Due to these two factors, there are very few men who will be attractive to women, resulting in one of two outcomes: either (many) women end up marrying men they’re not sexually attracted to or only a small fraction of men and women get married. Both are undesirable outcomes. In this way, one can say that there “aren’t enough attractive men to go around for marriage”.

  19. What exacerbates the female’s narrower filters is premarital sex with men who will never marry them. This increases that woman’s taste for alphas, for high value, sexy men. So, men who ARE willing to marry them just aren’t as arousing. Sure, these men have desirable traits like fidelity, stability, and so on, but they aren’t exciting, fun or sexy; or at least they aren’t AS exciting, fun or sexy as the men she used to have sex with. So that’s what makes it even more difficult for women and their narrow filters.

  20. “Its even worse among devout Christian men, where there are astonishingly few [sexually attractive men]. Thanks in large part to the efforts of Christian leaders, might I add.”

    It is almost as if the Church and Christian leaders are deliberately instructing men on how NOT to be attractive. They are telling these men absolutely everything wrong. They aren’t giving men a shred of accurate information anywhere about what is and is not attractive.

    Yes, yes, I know. Boys should have just figured it out on their own. Their fathers should have formed them up correctly. They should have read “How to Win Friends and Influence People”. They should have defied all the authority figures in their lives and sought advice from others. Since none of those things happened, these men are just out of luck, and there’s nothing that can be done, and they will all just have to suffer.

  21. trugingstar

    I tend to think of unsexy men as being, in some part, lazy. What are turn-offs to women?

    -Doesn’t approach
    -Fat
    -Wants to be a famous _____, but is currently unemployed
    -Emotionally dependent on the woman
    -Doesn’t put effort into appearance
    -Cocky attitude (I’m such a catch, the women will ask *me* out)

    These are churchian boys. They’re mama’s boys. Lol, look around the manosphere, and y’all will find ’em. They’re saying, “I just haven’t met a woman worthy enough for me” and “I want a wife to ‘yes dear’ *ME*!” They literally sit on their butts thinking nonsense like this and evaluating women at a distance.

    Here’s what I think needs to happen. I think the men (not women, it’s not our job) of the manosphere need to mock these guys out of their beta cocoons for their own good.

    I’ve seen these guys go around and pick on someone they don’t like for their grammar. “You don’t know how to make a paragraph!” “You forgot your apostrophe!” They also go around telling women things like, “You write almost as good as a man, but sometimes, you still get emotional.” Their version of game is getting annoyed with women and refusing to show interest.

    If you’re all going to play the “nice” game with other men, they’re never going to be helped. You can go on and say that I’m telling them to man-up, but Red Pill is actually telling men to man-up. Instead of them manning-up and marrying sluts or manning-up and stacking chairs, they need to man-up and act like dudes.

    I always get skeptical when guys on here say things like, “Oh, I’m afraid of gossip in church! What will those girls say about me?? They’ll think I’m a bad guy!” *I* don’t even care about that. That’s so ridiculously beta a thing to worry about, as a *girl* I don’t worry about it. If they gossip about you, find the culprit and tell her to shut her fat mouth.

    So, recap: remove or convert the omega “Christian gamers” of the internet. Don’t rush to defend them. Don’t be on their team or associate with them. Don’t make it a “men v women” thing, they love that. For all you know, some of these “guys” might actually be Feminist trolls trying to make Christian men look weak. You really can’t tell.

    And, I’m out.

  22. trugingstar

    Tl/dr version of my post:

    AFCs have not been initiated into manhood yet. If the other men keep acting nice and tolerant and broly toward them, they will remain uninitiated.

  23. Tru:

    Actually, I think men coming to the manosphere know something’s wrong, and they know that they likely are the ones who have been wrong (at least partly). If they didn’t know something was wrong, they wouldn’t be here.

    Most of the men I’ve known around these parts know what part they played and are doing, or at least trying to do, something to change it, even if that means simply stopping their beta behaviors. Even that little effort – not acting in an unattractive, “beta” manner – is an improvement over what they had been doing.

  24. trugingstar

    Deti:

    What about the guys who are on here for five years with no evidence of game? Those quotes in my post were all taken from various parts of the manosphere. Clearly, something’s not working. Those who get scattered in rocky soil are those that hear the truth and at first receive it with joy, but do not grow, because they haven’t developed any root, because they’re permanent AFCs. Those who get scattered among thorns are those who receive the truth, but then get choked-out by the trivialities of Feminism and Hypergamy, and remain misogynist AFCs. Only he who is planted in the good soil can weather the storm and bear alpha.

  25. DJ

    @ DG Yes I’m serious use the biological part as an icebreaker , it will open up intrest between people who might otherwise never bother to interact. This is just another angle its a possible part of a solution not a be all end all. But if we really want to get people married we Christians must be creative and biology is another tool in our arsenal. There is no ultimate solution because people are the variables its just part of a strategy.

  26. Elspeth

    My very devout nephew is getting married in the spring, just in time for his 20th birthday. No not *that* nephew, but his younger brother. To a lovely (physically and personality) devout girl.

    They’re college sophomores so no real money to speak of, but smitten she is. He has a job and works hard yes, but his parents are prepared to help them while they finish their schooling.

    To say he’s a steady Eddie would be a fair assesment. Besides inheriting Agent Men looks and coming from a very conservative faith tradition in terms of sex distinctions, nothing about him screams “alpha”.

    What draws women is in some senses universal but in others varied. THIS is why I question what is meant by not enough “sexy” men to go around. I just don’t buy that all women require that. Just a strong faithful man with vision will do.

  27. Elspeth

    Typo. I meant younger brother, not younger birthday.

    [DG: Fixed]

  28. E:

    It makes a difference if:

    1. your nephew’s fiancee is a virgin or has had sex only with him
    2. they have known each other since they were in their mid to late teens

    If either of these are true then that limits her sexual frames of reference, and he will likely be attractive to her, or at least attractive enough.

    “Just a strong faithful man with vision will do.”

    What does that mean? Strength might be arousing.. Faithfulness? Vision? No. I’m sure a woman desires those things, but they aren’t sexually attractive. Again, E — you’re confusing and conflating “desirable” with “arousing”. In today’s day and age, a marriage in which she’s just not feeling the tingle is doomed to failure.

  29. And why does a man just have to “do”? Sounds like settling to me. No man wants to be the one to whom a girl holds the attitude, “he will do”, meaning “he’s good enough” or “eh. Guess he’ll just have to do” or “he’s sufficient”.

    No guy wants to be merely adequate. No guy wants to be the one who merely checks off the “Satisfactory” boxes as, say, his first grade teacher did with him. “Deportment? Satisfactory. Plays well with others? Satisfactory.”

    Who wants to just “do” in the eyes of his woman? Does SAM just “do” in your eyes? I think not, based on the reports we hear you give. See, E: The way you talk about SAM around here is the way every man hopes his woman talks about him. Most such women don’t, because when you get all the way down to it, they really don’t feel that way about their husbands. And that is because they aren’t as sexually attracted to their husbands as the men they used to sleep with when they were younger.

  30. Elspeth

    And why does a man just have to “do”? Sounds like settling to me. No man wants to be the one to whom a girl holds the attitude, “he will do”, meaning “he’s good enough” or “eh. Guess he’ll just have to do” or “he’s sufficient”.

    That was not what I meant. Very poor choice of words on my part. Does that sound like something I would advocate? Of course it doesn’t. I want to see wives madly in love with their husbands and dedicate a fair amount of my self to the effort to help them with that.

    I was simply saying that it doesn’t take the level of extreme sexiness or alphaness for a man to inspire that in a woman.

  31. @ Sir Nemesis

    This warps the baseline of what women will find attractive, resulting in far fewer men being attractive enough for marriage to the women.

    I’m not so sure about that. I don’t think that it warps the baseline, rather, it warps a woman’s perceived value. She overestimates her SMV/MMV, and so rejects men that she shouldn’t. Plus it damages her ability to bond with later men, especially men with a lower SMV than her previous sexual partners.

    @ trugingstar

    This post, and my blog, is not aimed to help those who spend all their time bemoaning their present state of affairs. If that is all they want to do, fine. I’ll let them do it. But they are not everyone. There are plenty of other men who I talk to, often through e-mail, who are interested in self-improvement. And they I will work to help.

    @ DJ

    Well then, I’m all for trying it. Certainly would be an improvement over what some churches are doing.

    But if we really want to get people married we Christians must be creative and biology is another tool in our arsenal.

    I’m with you on that.

    @ Elspeth

    I don’t like the term Alpha, for a variety of reasons. But that cousin doesn’t need to scream alpha to be sexually attractive to everyone. Just to his fiancee. This is one of the things I’ve echoed before on this blog. A man just needs to arouse the woman he wants, not all women. Of course, the latter will invariably help with the former.

  32. Elspeth

    But that cousin doesn’t need to scream alpha to be sexually attractive to everyone. Just to his fiancee. This is one of the things I’ve echoed before on this blog. A man just needs to arouse the woman he wants, not all women. Of course, the latter will invariably help with the former.

    I agree but let’s keep it real here Donal. How many times have I read (right her even if you never actually said it) about the objectivity factor that drives what is sexually attractive? And I’m fairly certain I’ve read where you said that a woman should be wary if she encounters a man who evokes a visceral response from her. I’m not knocking that as my own daughter has said to me point blank, “No offense to you and Dad Mom, but I would consider that a red flag and not pursue it.” But I am pretty sure you said it.

    I’m not one of those crazies who logs URL’s and screen shots people’s comments for later reference, so I might be wrong about that. You can correct me as needed.

    My point is that y’all can’t have it both ways. On the one hand claim that a man has to be “sexy” to attract an attractive woman, say that said traits are objective rather than subjective, and then say, “Well he only has to arouse that one woman he wants.”

    The cognitive dissonance inherent in that view simply serves to underscore how messed up things have gotten. That marriage sinks or swims on tingles should sound repellant to anyone who is a serious Christian.

    I have time for one more response after this I think but if I don’t get back to you, Happy Thanksgiving.

  33. E:

    I really don’t know how to reconcile those two statements: “Be “sexy” to attract an attractive woman” and “He only has to arouse that one woman”.

    All I can tell you is that there are universally attractive traits in men: confidence/dominance, status relative to other men; athleticism, looks and money, in that order. And if you have them then you’re golden; if you don’t then you’re out of luck.

  34. How many times have I read (right her even if you never actually said it) about the objectivity factor that drives what is sexually attractive?

    Plenty. I have said that, as a matter of fact.

    And I’m fairly certain I’ve read where you said that a woman should be wary if she encounters a man who evokes a visceral response from her.

    Yes, I have said that. There are several reasons for this, but the biggest is the fact that there are very few devout Christian men who can generate that kind of response these days. A woman needs to be wary, because such a man is more likely a wolf than a shepherd.

    I’m not one of those crazies who logs URL’s and screen shots people’s comments for later reference, so I might be wrong about that. You can correct me as needed.

    Nope, you are in the right about this.

    My point is that y’all can’t have it both ways. On the one hand claim that a man has to be “sexy” to attract an attractive woman, say that said traits are objective rather than subjective, and then say, “Well he only has to arouse that one woman he wants.”

    They are not mutually exclusive. Remember, a man’s sexual attractiveness is determined by a variety of factors. And the most potent of them is is masculine Power. That is entirely behavior and action by the man, which he can control and harness. Which means that a man who knows what he is doing can quite literally control how sexually attractive he seems to women.

    Trust me on this. I’ve adapted my own behavior as needed, and have observed the change in responses from women. In fact, I’ve mostly dampened my “alpha”, if you will, in order to not draw as much interest from unsuitable women.

    There is no cognitive dissonance here. A man can, through effort or luck or any host of reasons, come across as more sexually attractive to one woman than to another. And that even based on objective attraction factors. I’ve written about this before, in fact. About how I had more “success” with women I wasn’t interested in than with women I was.

    That marriage sinks or swims on tingles should sound repellant to anyone who is a serious Christian.

    There are two different ways attraction can matter: getting married, and then staying married. Which are you referring to?

    Oh, and have a Happy Thanksgiving as well.

  35. Elspeth

    There are two different ways attraction can matter: getting married, and then staying married. Which are you referring to?

    I don’t see the difference. Gonna use myself as an example here. Th things that attracted me to my husband initially are the same things that I am attracted to now, but amplified by the fact that he has channeled that into loving me when he could have chosen something else.

    But many of those traits (masculine power you call it?) aren’t always alluring. Mostly they are, but not always 100% of the time. So I stay married because I have vowed to God that I will stay married. It gives me joy to obey God and I am content to follow my husband.

  36. @ Elspeth

    Oh, the triggers are the same, not doubt. Didn’t mean to imply otherwise.

    I asked because “keeping” a spouse, at least for Christians, should be driven by vows. Which is exactly what you follow.

    However, there are no vows before marriage, and sexual attraction does matter there irrespective of whether it should matter after marriage.

    I can be a devout, charitable, wonderful guy… but if I am not sexually attractive to women, they will pass me up. At least, they will until they get desperate and will settle so they don’t end up with cats.

  37. RE the “not enough sexy men to go around” comment—the is one of my criticisms of the red pill women is that they emphasize femininity not just to get a man, but an alpha man, the elusive top 10% or so and those are the men that there are not enough to go around, so I see it as setting women up for failure by making women think if they just do this, that, and the other they will snag a top tier man. And it could be she is the most beautiful, pleasant girl around, but still–supply and demand. And truly there aren’t enough feminine women or virginal women to go around either.

  38. @Donal,
    “I asked because “keeping” a spouse, at least for Christians, should be driven by vows.”

    But how do we ever know if what is making a woman stay is tingles/deep attraction or vows when tingles/deep attraction were very strong from the beginning? It can be convenient to say one is staying because of vows, it gives moral high ground, when really it is something else. To understand how many women really mean their vows, you have to take away the attraction and other incentives that marriage brings.. Same thing for money– a woman can say I am staying married cause of my vows when really its the financial security that keeps her there. I am not saying this to be a PIA, but just to throw out something different.

  39. trugingstar

    Donal, you said that you could control alpha, and then said that you were waiting for the women in your dating pool to turn into cat ladies.

    You’re Catholic. You can walk into any given congregation and they have a set-up for 18-30 year olds. You can hop from congregation to congregation meeting new people.

    My impression of you is that you’re something of a greater beta. I see you and think “marriage material.” You’re not the type of guy that detracts women, but you’re not the type of guy who women are crazy about either. You’re someone who girls have to get to know a little first, but is ultimately a good catch.

    I also wonder if you’re aiming too young and/or too hot. You won’t be able to get hot unless you yourself are objectively hot. There’s also this sort of “that guy” effect that you have if you’re the older guy only targeting younger women in a college+ crowd. I used to be that younger woman, and I was into guys my own age. First of all, I generally didn’t think of older guys as attractive. Second of all, I was targeted by PUAs as soon as I turned 18, so it was a bad idea for me to date older. Early 20s is not a good age for a woman to date older, because she’s an easy target. That’s why the young women huddle-up and call the older guys “creepy” when they express interest. It’s a good strategy.

    You have to be realistic about what you want. If it’s so difficult for you to wait, focus on a short-term plan and get married now. If you want to wait a little longer and try to maximize, calculate how long you think you can wait, in terms of years, and then plan on getting married before your deadline. This is not about “other women” waiting to be cat ladies.

  40. trugingstar

    “they emphasize femininity not just to get a man, but an alpha man, the elusive top 10% or so and those are the men that there are not enough to go around, so I see it as setting women up for failure by making women think if they just do this, that, and the other they will snag a top tier man.”

    I’ve never fallen for this bad advice. I’ve been feminine for years. I take good care of myself. I’ve always been very kind and friendly to people. In fact, I go out of my way to make people feel good about themselves and will self-deprecate to make someone else feel better.

    I don’t recommend it. What the guys are doing here is their version of the female imperative. They’re telling women how they want all women to act. They want all women to be feminine and sweet for them, so that they have options. What they actually want is for their young hottie to be feminine and sweet, specifically toward them. They also want to be circled by a group of women, so that they can score an even hotter woman. I’m always the woman who singles-out someone that no one else seems interested in. I get used as crowd-bait. It’s guypergamy!

    What actually works? If you’re a man, you have to lead the situation immediately with sexual interest, or you can’t bounce back. If you’re a woman, you lose your shot the moment you seem interested. Interest>female jealousy>male popularity/ crowding>guypergamy.

    *Look nice
    *Tease
    *You’re probably covered for femininity

  41. @ LGR

    Yes, reasonable expectations need to be in order. The top men are few and far between. Always has been this way. And indicating to women, in any way, that they are guaranteed one, or perhaps even simply a good chance, is often counter-productive.

    And truly there aren’t enough feminine women or virginal women to go around either.

    True as well, but this is a different problem. It is one based on the present market, not nature. If we had a healthier society this lack of supply wouldn’t be a problem. On the other hand, there is always a cap on how many men fall into the top 10%.

    As for what makes women stay, you are quite right. We don’t know. And if anything, these latest generations have proven that people, man and woman alike, don’t care much for their vows. Which goes to show just how importance sexual attraction is- it provides another glue keeping the marriage together.

  42. @ trugingstar

    Donal, you said that you could control alpha, and then said that you were waiting for the women in your dating pool to turn into cat ladies.

    First, I used “alpha” in quotes because I don’t like the term. I meant it euphemistically, and still do. I can adjust my behavior, yes, and have done so. But it isn’t like I move from a total flub to Prince Charming. If I gave that impression, I want to correct it now. But your behavior/attitude can make a huge difference, and I’m not the only one in these parts whose experienced that.

    And second, I said no such thing about “waiting for the women in [my] dating pool to turn into cat ladies.” The cat comment was directed at women who marry men they aren’t attracted to very much, or at all, so as to avoid being single forever. Honestly, I have no idea where you dredged that up from.

    You’re Catholic. You can walk into any given congregation and they have a set-up for 18-30 year olds. You can hop from congregation to congregation meeting new people.

    Hardly. Catholic churches are awful at this. I can’t begin to tell you how many I’ve gone to that don’t have a group for people in that age bracket.

    I also wonder if you’re aiming too young and/or too hot

    Give me some credit here.

    Early 20s is not a good age for a woman to date older, because she’s an easy target. That’s why the young women huddle-up and call the older guys “creepy” when they express interest. It’s a good strategy.

    All I see here is excuses. Proper vetting will eliminate 99% of the Player population. Very, very few are willing to go the distance, and careful planning can account for all of them. And its not a good strategy, its a moronic one.

    You have to be realistic about what you want.

    See this post:

    https://donalgraeme.wordpress.com/2014/09/11/reality-versus-reason/

  43. What the guys are doing here is their version of the female imperative.

    I’m always the woman who singles-out someone that no one else seems interested in. I get used as crowd-bait. It’s guypergamy!

    If you’re a woman, you lose your shot the moment you seem interested. Interest>female jealousy>male popularity/ crowding>guypergamy.

    I honestly have no idea what you are trying to say here.

  44. trugingstar

    Proper vetting in a young woman is no match for seasoned liars. I’ve seen these guys lead Bible studies.

    DG, you need to man-up. Why aren’t you married? Because. Man. Up. DG. John. Wayne. It.

  45. Elspeth

    But how do we ever know if what is making a woman stay is tingles/deep attraction or vows when tingles/deep attraction were very strong from the beginning? It can be convenient to say one is staying because of vows, it gives moral high ground, when really it is something else. To understand how many women really mean their vows, you have to take away the attraction and other incentives that marriage brings.. Same thing for money– a woman can say I am staying married cause of my vows when really its the financial security that keeps her there. I am not saying this to be a PIA, but just to throw out something different.

    That’s an interesting question, but in every marriage there are (or at least there should be) benefits that both parties receive. Wife yes, but husband also. Marriage is supposed be a source of joy as well as a source of stretching and growth.

    I don’t really know how you can tell if a person is staying for the vows if the marriage is happy. Honor system? You can only know that when times get tough, and there will always be times when the going is tough. If the wife and husband stick it out when it is hard and unpleasant, then it is reasonable to believe that she takes her vows seriously.

  46. DJ

    @Trugingstar No offense but your delivery is confusing, I can tell you have intresting ideas and some good points , but your use of satire, and teasing muddles what your trying to express.
    I am in earnest I want to understand your points.

  47. Novaseeker

    I think that since most people, Christians and otherwise, are entering hedonic marriages these days, remaining hot (to the same relative degree) after getting married is the essence of being a loving spouse to your wife/husband. Again, people are choosing mates based on attractiveness (hotness). The basis for the relationship doesn’t change simply due to marriage. Yes, as Christians we believe marriage is forever and so on, but we are picking spouses based on sexiness and arousal, so if we want our marriages to actually last forever, we need to be focused on remaining sexy and arousing for our spouses as the prime element of marriage, at least as important as anything else, and more important than most anything else, because it will, at its core, ensure that the marriage remains appropriately hedonic, and therefore durable (regardless of their vows, Christians tend to divorce when their marriages become unhedonic — it’s just our culture of marriage currently).

    We live in an age where perhaps the most loving thing you can do for your spouse and your kids is remaining sexy and arousing for your spouse for the long haul of the marriage, whatever it takes. This is why it’s critical for men to understand what that means, and how to do that. If a man fails there, he has let down his children. He owes ot to his kids to remain at peak hotness for his wife, so that he can remain hedonically arousing for her, and avoid the children growing up in the wake of a divorce

    ====

    DG — by the way, I’d recommend trying to avoid being trolled by one poster here. Just saying.

  48. “If the wife and husband stick it out when it is hard and unpleasant, then it is reasonable to believe that she takes her vows seriously.”

    I dunno. The deep attraction I am talking about does not go away during fights or umpleasant times. Its always an undercurrent. If a man is good looking, strong/dominant/masculine (pick your word), then that goes a long way to carrying her through the unpleasant times, the fights, etc., Not to mention the anticipation that builds for “make up” sex. Deep attraction makes you stick it out cause most likely, especially if she has a top tier man, she knows if she leaves she will never get another.

  49. What keeps those together in serious LTR? They don’t have vows, but if its a relationship of manyyears there have been unpleasant times, but something glues them together.

  50. mdavid

    Nova, I think that since most people, Christians and otherwise, are entering hedonic marriages these days, remaining hot…

    Not just “these days”. All times and places. Hotness = Multi-Generational-Fertility (for both men and women). St. Darwin still holds sway.

    What makes “these days” so unique is that resources are so plentiful, the world so safe, and fertility so low that marriage has lost its raison d’être but for the most traditional.

    We are living through a great extinction event. The West has been in relative population decline post-Reformation, relying upon cultural memory to survive. This trend is now in its final stages; trying to negotiate this culture as a Christian moderate is like an American Indian thinking he can spend half his time in a tepee. Laughable. The failure of marriage and relationships today is merely part of a much larger cultural story, and 95% of the flailing about is a waste of time. It’s a new Dark Age, akin to a war zone. Find a tribe, or perish.

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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