This is Part 3 of an ongoing series concerning sexual attraction. Part 1 can be found here, and part 2 here.
Subjective Considerations
In the last post on this subject, Elspeth sought clarification about the objectivity of attraction factors versus their subjectivity. I’ve attempted to cover such subjects before, but not to great success. So here is an attempt to try again.
My original argument was that the LAMPS factors are objective factors, in that each women’s evaluation of a man’s sexual attractiveness is controlled by them. However, a better way of describing them is that they are universal. They apply to all women, regardless of individual characteristics. In that sense it is objective. However, past that point there is a lot of subjectivity involved.
As a general rule, the PSALM model is the arrangement from the most to the least important attributes: Power, Status, Athleticism, Looks and Money. However, even there you will find some variation. Some women are much more focused on a man’s appearance, while others don’t really care much at all. So while generalizations are possible, they are not perfect. Subjectivity matters here.
Furthermore, inside the individual factors subjectivity can play a significant role. Looks and Athleticism are the most subjective of the 5 sets of attributes. Some women prefer men with dark hair, some with light hair. Eye color preferences vary. As do other features. However, there are still certain general masculine features in the Looks category which are almost universally preferred. This is especially the case with facial features. Height is an interesting twist to this. The general preference is for a taller man, however the exact height preferred can differ between women. The ideal range, from what I can tell, seems to be around 6’0 to 6’4. Athleticism also has some variation- some women prefer a man with a swimmer build, others prefer the lean look of a runner, while yet others prefer the bulk of a weight lifter. Yet even in this the overall preference is still towards the ideal of each particular build.
Status and Money are the most objective of the LAMPS factors. Here it is pretty safe to say that the more, the merrier. More money and a greater status are always more attractive. Status might leave more room for subjectivity, in that some positions might be seen as higher status than others for some women. But overall there tends to be a lot of conformity here.
Power is hard to analyze here. There are a lot of subjective factors when personality is concerned, yet certain things (confidence, assurance, dominance) seem to be universally attractive. I’d be curious of folks’ thoughts on this.
Our Ideals Are Not Necessarily Ideal
The Daily Mail, not normally a news source of mine, had an interesting article recently. Essentially, a survey was conducted which asked questions related to sex and attraction. An interesting result of this was that when women were asked to name the ideal female “beauty”, they gave Cameron Diaz (presumably when she was younger). Men, on the other hand, listed Kate Upton. When men were asked to give the ideal male physique, they gave Hugh Jackman, while women listed Ryan Gosling.
What I found interesting about the choice of Diaz was the mention in the article of her “slim, boyish shape.” I’ve heard a few women I know, and attractive women at that, mention that they wish they were possessed of a thinner and taller profile or body shape. I am kind of curious why women would prefer this. While I have a few ideas of my own, I would like to hear what my readers think.
As for the men, I think I understand why men picked Hugh Jackman over Ryan Gosling. Since men are primarily driven by physical appearance, they selected a high-status man who seemed to best fit the peak masculine physical look. However, as the PSALM model points out, both Power and Status are of greater significance to a man’s sexual attractiveness than his Athleticism or Looks. Which makes me wonder if Gosling is considered higher Status right now. Or perhaps, if not necessarily purely higher status, if he is considerable more desirable by women right now. Which ties into my next point.
A Short-Cut To Status
Pre-selection is a feature of female behavior wherein women find men more attractive in relation to how many other women find that man attractive. The greater the number of women who seem to be attracted to a man, the more attractive he will tend to be in female eyes. This behavior is tied to Status and is a “short-cut”, women use it to quickly and easily gauge a man’s position in the overall market.
It is a behavior that gets quite a lot of play in Game circles, as it can be truly potent in driving attraction. While I’m not really interested in their particular “trade”, the behavior has an impact in the Marriage Marketplace just as it does in the Sexual Marketplace. As more than a few Christians have attested to before in this particular section of the internet, if a man in church manages to “invoke” this female behavior it can almost completely shut out other men.
In his latest post Rollo quotes from an earlier piece by Heartiste explaining an “experiment” which relied on this phenomenon:
Basically, the guy had a few friends follow him around the mall, one guy filming him and the other two guys (I can’t tell if any of his hired guns were women) acting as his “groupies” or entourage. He goes around identifying himself as “Thomas Elliot” when people, mostly women, ask him his name. Eventually, he begins to pile up admiring and gawking female attention, which only snowballs into more female attention. Apparently, not one of these starstruck chicks thought to question if Thomas Elliot was a real celebrity. That’s the power of preselection and fame; so powerful, it can disengage a woman’s neural logic circuitry.
[For those who want the link to the original post, go to Rollo’s post- as a general rule I don’t linke to Heartiste.]
Rollo then comments on how pre-selection plays the dominant role in the insanity which we know as “teen idols”:
Preselection is a very powerful motivator of women’s hypergamous decision making process. Even the perception of fame (or even the potential for it) is a prime motivator and incentive to lock down a man who presents the hypergamous optimal ideal – a guy who satisfies the sexiness her Alpha F—s hypergamous needs require and the long term security of provisioning potential from status-confirmed Beta Bucks.
Whether this “famous” guy actually embodies this ideal is irrelevant to a woman’s Id-centric psyche. When women are younger, tweens and teens, this self-convincing is much easier since girls lack any real world experience to reference with respect to what the guy really represents. A capacity for abstract thinking is something that develops as we mature, but the desire to optimize hypergamy is a limbic, instinctual drive for girls and no amount of reasoning can compete with the fantasy of a pre-fabricated idealized Hypergamy.
They want to believe it.
[DG: I wonder if this might be the female counter-part to men pedestalizing women. Thoughts?]
Thus we have hordes of girls and young women willing to go to behavioral lengths they would never consider with the mundane men they’re familiar with in order to just brush with the possibility of that hypergamous ideal. They will literally climb over one another to realize this.
The thing is, many older women can experience this behavior as well. They tend not to be as extreme about it, but I’ve seen it expressed before. SO it definitely seems to be an innate female behavior. Perhaps experience tempers it, as Rollo implies. Or maybe a woman’s drop in SMV, and her knowledge of his, makes her realize that she doesn’t have a real chance of pulling off this kind of “coup.”
Naturally, many Game practitioners and PUAs try to find ways to capitalize on pre-selection. I’ve heard of some hiring escorts to provide the appearance of female attention. Others will use female family members or co-workers for this purpose. It can be a huge card to play, and frankly any man looking to attract women should keep it in mind. If not for his own use, but to be wary of other men using it.
What I am curious about is how, or if, this could be ethically used by Christians within the confines of a church. Assuming that you cannot, or should not use it, what steps might be taken to counter-act its effects? Or is that even really possible? From what I’ve seen, the only thing that can surmount a man with pre-selection is another man with an even greater perception of pre-selection. I invite my readers to chime in with their thoughts on this subject, and all the others broached in this post.
Donal Graeme 
I’ve thought about the query you presented concerning social proof in regards to the Christian, Donalgraeme, and then I asked myself, “What would Jesus do?” Well, we know he had an entourage, seeing as how he preached sermons and performed miracles and generally challenged the religious status quo. He was obviously an alpha in that regard. For that matter, he said he IS the Alpha (and the Omega).
He didn’t do any of it to draw attention to himself, though. He was simply doing his job as the Son of God, and we know his society’s culture was pretty hung up on status itself. (e.g. Matthew 18: “Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”) Of course, as we also know, God calls us to be humble and not to do things for our own glory, so I think we need to keep that in mind, even (especially?) when we’re trying to attract the opposite sex.
My goal is to serve Him (seeking first the Kingdom of God), and hopefully a wife will be added to me. That’s not to say that there’s any excuse to be lazy in seeking a wife but that I can’t let myself get too hung up on certain frustrations, like when women say they want a humble man, but by all indications, they actually want a prideful man who’s full of himself. I can’t help what they like. They’re not my providers, anyway. Only God is.
I think that if we’re doing our thing for God and truly to His glory and not our own, then God will take care of the rest. Even if we don’t get married, at least we’ll have had the right goals in mind. Everything should be to God’s glory and not ours, anyway, right?
because the ambient culture influences *everyone’s* attraction standards.
A large part of beauty standards is what one is exposed to. Thus, visual has an enormous effect. Nobody talks about this, but a woman (or man) not watching TV is an important part of selecting a spouse, if one is bold enough to go that route.
I cannot speak to the physical attributes men find attractive because I have a wide set of filters. I like petite blondes, Black chicks etc etc but attitude is something else
I have found so called dumb chicks much more pleasant then so.called smart chicks….unless said smart chick is actually smart like phd in chemistry smart. I have found the better looming the chick the more pleasant she is. The more she tries to let guys down easy and the more pro masculine she is. Kind of the opposite of what women like to think.
Nova nailed it on pretty etc vs hot.
If you must know Turn I have been reading and commenting here for a goodly while. I would not say me and DG are pals but we aren’t strangers either. Question is why do women want to read and muddy up the waters on a masculine blog?
A large part of beauty standards is what one is exposed to. Thus, visual has an enormous effect. Nobody talks about this, but a woman (or man) not watching TV is an important part of selecting a spouse, if one is bold enough to go that route.
A good point, but it needs to be a much broader blackout. TV. movies, popular magazines, the internet. All of it is filled with images.
By the way this:
like when women say they want a humble man, but by all indications, they actually want a prideful man who’s full of himself.
was only meant in the cases for which it is true. It wasn’t meant to apply to all of my dealings with women. I guess I’ve been fortunate in that I’ve known plenty of good girls who are virgins until marriage and truly want just a good guy to marry. A lot of these types of girls were homeschooled in my experience, too.
I have never complained when men commented on my blog.
And Donal has welcomed women commenters. This site I had pegged as more religious than gender focused.
If he wants a site void of female voices, I am capable of honoring that.
Nova, …it needs to be a much broader blackout. TV. movies, popular magazines, the internet. All of it is filled with images.
It’s not “images” so much as “push” media in general. I think radio and TV are equally bad, because they keep shoveling things. “Push” media creates an attraction agenda for both men and women and it’s never just images; ideas are powerful agents for attraction standards, especially for women…think of the romcom.
I don’t find “pull” media to be necessarily bad (say the internet, books, or carefully chosen movies) as long as one has a strong standards pre-entry and is quick to bail if it crosses any lines.
I don’t know why the men here are so dismissive of female experiences. It’s not all that surprising that chaste women also have a hard time in this SMV.
They’re likely to come off as much less approachable, in addition to being much more awkward when interacting with men. On top of that, many will appear frigid (and some indeed are frigid).
In addition they’ll also share a problem in common with chaste men – namely, successfully chaste members of the opposite sex will tend to be less attractive than average. This is not because chaste people are inherently ugly, but because attractive people who attempt to be chaste face much more temptation and are thus more likely to succumb to temptation; thus, those who’re successfully chaste tend to have less temptation due to being less attractive.
I’m not dismissive of female experiences. I’m not dismissive of anyone’s experiences. I simply give less persuasive weight and credence to the experiences of outliers, because they aren’t representative of general or workable known principles in the SMP and the MMP.
I agree that chaste women will have a harder time in the SMP. I do not, however, believe the notion that all young women –including young chaste women — want marriage or are serious about seeking husbands. If anything, it’s clear the opposite is true — most young women under age 25 are NOT serious about seeking husbands and don’t want to get married, at least not yet.
So I don’t give a lot of weight or credence to the experiences of young women who claim to be seeking marriage, since today, their experiences and views are not the norm and are so unusual as to be useless for prediction or generalization.
deti, I agree that chaste women will have a harder time in the SMP
Chaste women don’t, by definition, even exist in the SMP. They only play in the MMP.
I don’t agree that chaste women have a harder time in the MMP. They actually do better than their non-chaste peers; virginity has value. Their problems:
1) unrealistic standards for men who are stupid enough to risk marriage
2) not aggressive enough chasing the few men left in the MMP (chaste = inverted)
3) becoming frigid over time; women were meant to marry young or not at all
Tru, here I was about to ask for your number and you had to go and say you don’t dig blonde men. I am disappoint.
As someone familiar with the bohemian world, I have to say that when marriage and family aren’t a factor, there are still broader standards of attraction than “hot”. People want those things in any form, however distorted, so there’s still selection for non-sexual or non-physical characteristics in romantic or quasi-romantic relationships. While it tends to end disastrously, the “friends as your family” brigade are still looking for people with homemaking/hospitality skills, people with strong maternal or paternal instincts, etc.– they want their friends to play those family-roles and spouse-roles even if they believe real marriage and real family are not something to pursue.
^ He’s not married. See what I mean?
^ Yep. I come off as frigid. I am not frigid, but I look frigid. You can’t spell sexy without “sex.” It would probably take a couple months of concentrated effort to get me to go to first base. I don’t know, though, I’ve never been.
Maybe this is why a lot of smart girls fall for the cheap tricks. They watch too much Gilmore Girls . For real, though. They love that show.
I was raised this way, actually. The only way out is if the girl falls in love and the guy is really forward. Like in a Rom Com. Because then, it’s “destiny” and “God’s Will.” If this specific scenario does not play-out exactly, it’s “not God’s Will.” Most women want to be married at that age, but they feel guilt from their family and social circle if they do.
One thing I was taught is that I kind of have to earn marriage. I was told that I need a career so that I could “be in a strong position.” The implication is that without a career, my spouse would be abusive to me. Of course, I could quit the job once I have kids, but I need to know how to provide for myself. When questioned as to why, I was told “just in case.” Just in case I get divorced or can’t find a spouse. So, I wasted most of my 20s on life insurance.
I honestly can’t tell if this is a neg, flirting, or an outright insult. Thanks for that. There’s a really good Boundless article by Josh Rogers that shames virgins for their excessive pride. It was about the time to knock me down a few more pegs, so I didn’t get any idea that I was special.
I’ve never been called “Turn” before. If you hate women, whatever. Some people actually just hate women because they just do. Some days, I feel that way too. But I’m just on here trying to figure out how honestly to meet a good guy who I won’t divorce, put through the ringer, publicly ruin, and so forth. I get enough raspberries from the rest of the world for my efforts in saving marriage. I honestly don’t need to be told that I’m stupid by some person who doesn’t even have any relevance to this blog. You aren’t religious or looking for a wife. I don’t care how much you’re in on the Good Old Boys Club: why are you here? There’s nothing here for you but to make me feel bad about myself. Why do so many on here think that by tearing me down that’s somehow solving their unhappy marriage or dating problems? I’m not a voodoo doll.
Please solve you own unhappiness, pride issue, jealousy issue, or whatever, and be kind to people. That’s not my job. We’re none of us completely happy. Why does it have to be this big battle? I don’t even own a blog anymore, okay? I’m just here for answers. Do you all want me to throw in the towel or something? Do you want me to stop being a virgin now? Is that really what you want? I’m thinking it is! Some of you are doing a fantastic job discouraging me.
Trugin:
I for one (and I’m sure there’s more) really enjoy your commentary. You are clearly very intelligent and if you are being honest (and I believe you actually are) you have quite a unique perspective that I want to continue to absorb. Part of this fallen world of fallen broken people is the inevitability of having to put of with all kinds of negative crap from others. I’ve had my share. I hope you don’t become too discouraged with blogging as I want to continue to “observe” your progress.
@ trudgingstar
It’s the kind of ribbing that is usually only used on male friends, but here in the manosphere, men tend to rib women as well.
Fantaaastic. I’m one of the guys. 😥
Fringed: I just saw your comment. Thank you! Means a lot. 🙂
trugingstar
^ He’s not married. See what I mean?
No, what do you mean?
Fringed
Trugin:
I for one (and I’m sure there’s more) really enjoy your commentary. You are clearly very intelligent and if you are being honest (and I believe you actually are) you have quite a unique perspective that I want to continue to absorb. Part of this fallen world of fallen broken people is the inevitability of having to put of with all kinds of negative crap from others. I’ve had my share. I hope you don’t become too discouraged with blogging as I want to continue to “observe” your progress.
I agree. I’m glad to see women in the conversation. I haven’t seen any personal attacks here, and I welcome other viewpoints, even and maybe especially, if they differ from my own. I don’t think we’d learn much if we all happened to share the same perspective.
Especially differing Christian perspectives. I found the church atmosphere mostly devoid of tolerance of the exchange of perspectives. How then can iron sharpen iron?????
LOL you go girl but fair warning your shaming antics have no impact/ no affect
Best shift fire or try a new tactic.
“Most women want to be married at that age, but they feel guilt from their family and social circle if they do.”
I would argue that they feel shame for this. Young women are discouraged from getting married early by their family and friends as well as the culture at large. As a result, most don’t make it a priority until it is almost too late. I believe that this is in part a failure on the part of parents who understandably want their daughters to have a good life, but simply think that this can best be accomplished by steering them in the direction of higher education rather than marriage. This puts them in the position of having to either remain chaste longer than would be necessary if they were to just get married or becoming sexually active before they find a husband.
Ann, …parents who understandably want their daughters to have a good life, but simply think that this can best be accomplished by steering them in the direction of higher education rather than marriage.
Color me harsh, but I don’t find this attitude “understandable” at all. Beauty is fleeting. Ideas have consequences. Justice doesn’t limp. Everyone involved – daughters and parents – get exactly what they deserve.
MDavid, people don’t know what they’re doing. Obviously, they know what they’re doing when they fornicate, but they don’t know what they’re doing, in terms of telling women to not marry until late in life.
There are a couple of reasons for this.
People, as a whole, aren’t tuned into what’s actually going on. They’re tuned into what they’re told is going on. People are stubborn. They do not consider information they believe to be untrue. People use altruism to control other people to the best of their ability. If they believe an idea to be true, they will do the best they can to enforce that idea.
Say a woman came from a fat family. Say she had a bunch of friends who weren’t all of them fat. Now, this woman is sad, because all of her friends are getting married and she wants to be the bride, not always the bridesmaid.
She starts working-out at the gym. She’s losing weight and Instagraming her progress. At first, all of her friends like her pictures and share weight-loss secrets. She feels good about her diet and exercise regimen. It feels weird having all that weight off, but she’s looking better and everyone’s cheering for her.
She drops a size, goes shopping. Lookin’ good!
She keeps it up. Drops another size. Some of her friends stop talking to her and don’t return her calls. But it doesn’t matter. She looks good and is at the point where she’s only a little overweight now. She buys a new dress and looks good in it.
Then, her mom gives her a call on the phone. “Hi, dear, this is your mother. I hope you’re doing alright. I miss you!”
“Yeah, I’m doing just fine! How’s it going?”
“I just wanted to make sure that you’re not taking this dieting and exercise thing too seriously. I don’t want you to develop a problem. Go out and get yourself some Olga’s every once and a while! Don’t forget what I always told you: you’re beautiful just the way you are .”
Then she’s in the normal range. Her friends start acting bitchy to her. She has to find a whole new set of friends. Her female relatives complain that she’s become self-centered, are “afraid for her health,” and on top of that, just slam her for no reason. Now, she’s a lame duck, so any disdain they have for this newly skinny woman can be expressed without fear. Christmas cooking is, “I had to make a whole other casserole for Brittany, because she’s ‘low fat’ now.” or “What are you bringing? A salad or something? I probably won’t eat it.”
Here’s the deal with my hypothetical story: this person was made to feel shame and ostracized for her healthy decision. Ostracized by those closest to her. Cut off from her social network, in a sense. On a purely female psychological level, put in a position of danger. But what would be the consequences of not doing the right thing? Early death and health problems. Never marrying. Not living the life she wanted. The people closest to her were not on her side. They were out to ruin her, whether or not they’d admit it.
You can’t say that she deserved to die alone at a young age because she was fat. Life’s more complicated than that. This woman had to choose between the lesser of two evils. Even now, life’s a risk for her. She looks good enough to marry, but will anyone wife her? She’s in a bad position. She has family problems, caused by her dieting, no support, no friends, no connections, and is in a bad position to objectively find a husband. There were consequences to her doing the right thing.
I personally feel that any decision that I make, in regards to looking for a husband, must be done in secret. My family doesn’t seem to be gung-ho about their life script for me, but they are. When it comes down to it, they won’t tolerate me going off of their life-script. They have means to enforce that. Their life-script happens to be damaging to my future. Perfect wife material doesn’t just spring out of the ground. It’s way more difficult for a woman to become red pill than for a man to. All men have to do is follow the life-script with a few socially acceptable modifications. They won’t get the flack for marrying a nice young girl or MGTOW-ing or anything, and they’re biologically wired to handle flack better than women anyway.
In terms of bad information, here’s a good one: happiness.
Everyone acts like happiness is a sign of Christianity. So, if it’s a debate between one meaning of scripture and another, the incorrect answer will be the unhappy one. Or, maybe in your case, Catholic doctrine. Like that sermon in your church that made you uncomfortable. So, if something might make people unhappy, that’s not the correct interpretation or teaching.
Happiness looks like a good thing. “God wants us to be happy, ” right? How can you argue with that? How about “Worship should make you happy, so if you’re not happy, something’s wrong. It’s either what you believe or you .” Convincing argument, no? So now, “unhappiness” is a symptom of someone’s unholiness or a church’s lack of good teaching. It’s not a symptom of unhappy circumstances, especially those we face for doing the right thing.
But… such a convincing argument. And it’s so easy for any of us to feel ashamed when we’re unhappy.
Agreed. Everyone makes choices, and we do get what we deserve.
It’s like when people say “there’s freedom in the blood of Christ.” What they mean is “there’s happiness in the blood of Christ.” They’re going after the feeling of freedom, not the meaning of freedom. How does being free make you feel? Happy!
What is real freedom? When I was younger, I was at a camp of entitled brats. We had a wilderness survival activity where we had to make a shelter. My idea was for everyone to share their ideas, and I could share a couple of mine. I didn’t have a clear idea of what we could do, because my team didn’t listen to my advice and picked the wrong equipment, but I thought the best bet would be to hear other people’s ideas in full and come up with the best plan possible.
Instead, it was a huge alpha competition. Everyone was yelling over each other. The big, loud oaf won. He still had no idea how to make a shelter.
One of the camp councilors saw what was going on. She said, “You don’t have to do this.”
That’s freedom. If this were real-life, those people would have died. Instead of dying with the rest of the world, Christians are out of the game. We don’t have to do that. Sorry for the rambling.
Tru, Everyone acts like happiness is a sign of Christianity. So, if it’s a debate between one meaning of scripture and another, the incorrect answer will be the unhappy one. Or, maybe in your case, Catholic doctrine. Like that sermon in your church that made you uncomfortable. So, if something might make people unhappy, that’s not the correct interpretation or teaching.
Catholics don’t have this issue. Some sermon or personal biblical interpretation is irrelevant to the constant 2000+ year teaching that without suffering and sacrificing like Christ to become holy (either now or in purgatory) we cannot be saved. Thus, joyful suffering, not happiness, is actually the only authentic sign of Christianity.
Once one rejects the “dunghill covered with snow” and “once saved always saved” heresies, this “happiness” chase becomes superfluous. Once one understands how joy can only found in suffering (in becoming a saint, in eliminating sin, in pleasing others) all the happiness illusions vanish. Marriage and relationships? They exist for suffering. That’s what we were saved for, to have the opportunity to become holy through suffering like Jesus.
Heb 12:10 He disciplines us for our good, so that we may share His holiness.
Col 1:24 I rejoice in my sufferings…in my flesh I do my share on behalf of His body, which is the church, in filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions.
Luk 9:23 “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross daily…whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake…will save it.
We have two people here named “Tru” now… this will get confusing, fast!
Something I meant to address before but forgot to was the part of the original post about why women would want to have a “thin boyish shape”. I figure the “thin” part is obvious, but the “boyish” and “tall” parts of it are not. That body type is what is required in order to be in the running to be a sought after model, which is what young girls (at least by the time of becoming a teenager) are told (indirectly, at the very least) is the pinnacle of physical female beauty. And models are to be tall (like around 5’9″ or so) with a size zero waist (a combination which is *almost* impossible to obtain unless you have an eating disorder or an extremely high metabolism). For example, I remember (in my teens) seeing my Dad give praise to a cousin of mine who actually was 5’9″ with a size zero waist (and even had a D cup to go with it) when she was only around 13 or 14 years old, telling her that she could grow up to be a model with those proportions, which was praise that he never gave me (being several inches shorter and not as curvy, though I was always very thin -size 2 to 4 waist-, and have even been accused by many people that I simply must be bulimic (not true) because it’s not possible to eat as much as I can and be so thin). Despite what any woman says, we have a deep seated desire to be beautiful, and we internalize every message we hear growing up about what it takes to be such. And unfortunately, those messages aren’t always accurate, or perceived accurately by us. So, many of us start wanting to look the wrong way. I personally would rather have more curves than to be tall, but not everyone wants that I guess. Hope that answers your question, Donal.
@ mdavid
I would write a lengthy response to your comment about chaste people having no trouble in the MMP, but will refrain so as not to go off topic, per Donal’s wishes. I *might* write my own post about it instead. I will say though that SirNemesis has the right of it.
Mdavid:
“Thus, joyful suffering, not happiness, is actually the only authentic sign of Christianity.”
This is the first time I’ve heard the phrase, “joyful suffering”. This is definitely a true Godly concept. Thanx for sharing this.
Donal, Great blog!
[DG: Thanks!]
@ Fem
They’ve got to be the same person. Same name (almost), and the exactly same intelligence and style. I’d bet Trugingstar’s first born that both are the same.
truginstar
^ He’s not married. See what I mean?
So…no clarification on this?
Fringe
They’ve got to be the same person. Same name (almost), and the exactly same intelligence and style. I’d bet Trugingstar’s first born that both are the same.
Wow, I didn’t even notice that the names were different. I guess if Tru G is different from truginstar, I wasn’t being patient enough in asking again about the above, because I thought truginstar had posted again already.
[DG: I believe that it is the same person.]
FBNF, I would write a lengthy response to your comment about chaste people having no trouble in the MMP, but will refrain so as not to go off topic, per Donal’s wishes. I *might* write my own post about it instead. I will say though that SirNemesis has the right of it.
I hope you do; I would enjoy reading it.
Btw, I never said chaste people have “no trouble” in the MMP. Everyone has a tough time today in the MMP, since marriage itself is dying. Attraction, no matter how strong, cannot correct for the legal risk of marriage to men. I just don’t think chaste girls have it worse than sluts (chaste men do, though).
To me it seems that if a man is chaste due to his choice, then perhaps he would have a high value MMP, or perhaps not. But if a man is a virgin due to no women wanting to engage in sex with him, then his MMP would be quite low.
If a woman is chaste and slender and cute and not noticeably mentally ill, then she would have a very high MMP. If she is chaste, but fat or otherwise physically undesirable, then of course her MMP would be quite low.
Soon us fallen humans won’t have to deal with our curse of fallenness. Jesus Christ is going to save us via faith in Him. We ourselves won’t suffer any longer and we won’t be witness to fat folks or others suffering any longer either.
I’m better than trugingstar. I’m like a rickarickaremix.
TRUGINGSTAR 2: Locked ‘n’ Loaded
You can just call me “G.” Or “G-doody.”
I just came out with my new album: “G-mix: The Remix.” It includes my one one hit wonder “Bein’ Cool” and other songs like, “I Touched the Butt,” “I Know It!” and “Drank that Kool-aid.” Just remixed this time.
To me it seems that if a man is chaste due to his choice, then perhaps he would have a high value MMP, or perhaps not. But if a man is a virgin due to no women wanting to engage in sex with him, then his MMP would be quite low.
If a woman is chaste and slender and cute and not noticeably mentally ill, then she would have a very high MMP. If she is chaste, but fat or otherwise physically undesirable, then of course her MMP would be quite low.
Right, which is why I say hot is what matters — to *everyone*. The people looking for chaste are looking for “hot chaste”, not “incel chaste”. “Hot” being defined as people who are sexually attractive by definition, therefore their chastity is meaningful (a choice, as you say, rather than an imposed situation). Either way, people are going to screen for hot. Just is so. People looking for chaste are going to screen for hot, too (and not just for this reason … all things being equal, like everyone else they’d prefer a hot spouse — that’s called being human).
I started desiring marriage more when I realized that the female sex is inferior to the male sex in the natural order. I could then imagine a connubial existence in which costs didn’t always ultimately outweigh benefits. It also gave me a litmus test to measure women by: “Does she understand that she’s inferior in the natural order and will she live with that in mind, or will she deny that and, like feminists, use politics and activism in the relationship to effect “equality”?
Nova, “Hot” being defined as people…sexually attractive by definition
In my circle “hot” is extremely sexually attractive (8+)
cute is decent (6.5)
“doable” is minimum (5+).
Numbers fudged for one’s personal level to protect the ego.
People target “hot”, holds out for “cute”, but finally settle for “doable”.
And I agree hotness forgives a lot. For men, hotness + confidence + money forgives everything (except an age gap over 15 years).
@ mdavid
Btw, I never said chaste people have “no trouble” in the MMP.
Sorry… I went back and re-read your comment and I see now. I tend to have selective hearing when people deny that chaste women have any trouble at all to the point that I hear “no trouble”. I really should pay better attention to what people *actually* say. I’m still probably gonna write that post though (maybe next week or so; there’s another one I want to put up first).
@Patrick ““Does she understand that she’s inferior in the natural order and will she live with that in mind, or will she deny that and, like feminists, use politics and activism in the relationship to effect “equality”?”
This is what is so maddening with feminism in general. They don’t realize that the natural order reflects the beauty of order itself. Differences in the natural order, when considered in whole as a working unit, rather than just the individual parts, reflect the beauty of God. God desired to make inequalities and that which God desires to make is good. The inequalities are not indicative of defects or sin, but rather they are a necessity to reflect who God is in the best possible way. To disdain the diversity of the natural order is to disdain that which God desired to create and communicate with humanity.
The other thing that isn’t recognized is that the natural order is not the “end all, be all.” The natural order will be but dust and ashes. It’s the supernatural order that is our ultimate end. Differences in the natural order all but disappear in the supernatural order, in that each individual regardless of gender, is capable of attaining greater heights of glory based on cooperation with God’s grace and the love one has for God. Gender has no basis in ability to grow in holiness or to attain spiritual perfection. The Blessed Mother is the perfect example of this in that in the natural order her sex is inferior to the male sex and also as a human being, inferior to the angelic order, however, that had no bearing on her excelling all men and all angels in glory through God’s grace.
You are wise in searching for a woman who knows this. She will see the beauty in order rather than creating chaos by calling what God desires to reveal about Himself, evil.
Could you give a little greater detail what you meant when you said ” I could then imagine a connubial existence in which costs didn’t always ultimately outweigh benefits.”?
Sorry, Hank: What I’m saying is, why aren’t you with one of those women?
I can’t figure out why virgin women aren’t receiving a ton of attention. We receive attention, but it doesn’t usually go to date one for me.
In the world, I could get dates easily. Nice dates. In church, not so much.
I think the women filter-out less-than-greater-betas kind of without thinking about it. We might say, “wah, there’s no one!” but there are probably at least three betas who would be happy to be with us, and any number of omegas. But men do the same for fat women. Maybe there are like eight fat women who are in love with a given Christian guy and just want to have all their babies. But during the end times, they’ll stop suffering.
There’s always a potential “mistake” for a virgin girl within five feet of where she stands. But we also filter than out, and it tends to bounce off. Unless it’s your professor or something, in which case, forget all your makeup on class day and wear a burlap dress.
On the other side of it, there’s hardly a guy worth/ available for marrying who’s greater beta or better. Those who find themselves in this position tend to be pickier. I tend to think that the ratio of “cute” men to cute women is really skewed in the favor of men. I’m not sure what doable means, in terms of men. Is that like you’re not attracted to them, and you probably wouldn’t enjoy it, but you’ll still have sex with them just to have sex with someone? If that’s the case, at church, it’s mostly doable and non-doable guys. A few “cute” guys sprinkled in there and in hot demand. One to zero hot guys.
I think the “cute” guys tend to be picky. Every other beta male orbits any and every girl +5. Fat people tend to pair off with fat people. Hot people tend to pair off with hot people, but not always; hot people aren’t super picky. Omegas generally get told to go away. You have to be rude to them, or they’ll act like they’re your boyfriend. They’re like betas without social skills. I wouldn’t even want one in my friendzone.
Something that I now realize is that as a younger girl, I had a few greater betas approach me. I should have gone out with them. Younger girls are more picky: it’s alpha or nothing. If it’s a virgin, she won’t have any experience to draw from. So basically, the cute guys and the young girls are picky.
It makes sense, if you look at in terms of the Heartise test. At a young age, my value would have been higher than greater beta’s, even though greater beta was the best option. A cute girl who’s also young equals a girl at my age who’s hot.
Anyway, because a man’s attractiveness does not deteriorate as quickly with age, older is probably better, in terms of finding a greater beta. Unattractive personality quirks can be solved with age. So, a typical beta can be converted into a greater beta with a few extra years.
_____________________________
Also, yeah, men don’t like skinny. I’m more skinny myself. I have a decent body, but a lot of men seem to prefer a little bit of stockiness, and of course, b ‘n’ b. It’s typically short, stocky-ish brunettes or any kind of blonde. Not fat on the arms or face, but anywhere else. Unless blonde.
Tru G
What I’m saying is, why aren’t you with one of those women?
Good question! Seriously, though, either I was attracted to them, and they weren’t attracted to me or vice versa. However, in the cases in which they were attracted to me, and I wasn’t interested in them, almost every one of them went on and found themselves husbands. They did just fine without me, and I don’t have any regrets about not getting with them when I had the chance. I just wasn’t feeling it and still don’t. For the ones who have rejected me, most of them are married now, also, and while I was disappointed by being rejected at the times, I typically feel like things worked out OK and for the best there, too. These days, I’m just like ‘OK, Lord…maybe now? Maybe this one?…’
“I can’t figure out why virgin women aren’t receiving a ton of attention.”
How would any of the eligible men know who is a virgin and who is not. We all kinda assume that all single women over the age of 19ish are not virgins any longer; although a few might claim.
“In the world, I could get dates easily. Nice dates. In church, not so much.”
I believe it is like this for both men and women.
“One to zero hot guys.”
Perhaps I should go back to church for the purpose of increasing the ratio to ‘2 to 1 hot guys’. Haha
“Also, yeah, men don’t like skinny.”
I wonder if this is accurate for most men. I much prefer very skinny, but that is me.
@ Mrs. C:
That was well articulated wisdom.
How would any of the eligible men know who is a virgin and who is not. We all kinda assume that all single women over the age of 19ish are not virgins any longer; although a few might claim.
Interesting. I had a hunch that this was the case, but wasn’t 100% sure. So, when one of us does “claim” to be a virgin, are we even believed by the average Christian man? If not, why?
Also, I believe it was Deti that said something up-thread about the experiences of outliers (which likely includes virgins) not being useful or something (I forget off the top of my head how it was worded and don’t want to look for it since I should be going to sleep right about now). Well, I propose that the experiences of (virgin) outliers (both men and women) could be used to help us learn how to recognize each other more easily out IRL. I’m not sure how exactly, but it’s worth a thought or two, I think.
Oh, and I agree with Fringed ~ that was a wonderful explanation, Mrs C. 🙂
Patrick, …the female sex is inferior to the male sex in the natural order.
I’m ignorant here, but I always assumed males and females merely filled different roles and one was not “inferior” to the other, the male merely had headship responsibility. Perhaps I’m not using the words right; one could even claim men are “inferior” to women because they can’t bear children, or that they are obligated to work to provide for women and children. I’m probably just using the word wrong.
C, …as a human being, inferior to the angelic order…
I always assumed baptized Christians in a state of grace were if anything beyond to the angelic order…but I know nothing about it. Are angels considered superior to a saint?
“Could you give a little greater detail what you meant when you said ” I could then imagine a connubial existence in which costs didn’t always ultimately outweigh benefits.”?”
Women didn’t seem to be offering anything that was worth a marriage commitment. Most of them still aren’t, in my opinion. But when I came to that realization it just made think “well, now that’s interesting…” My friend married in college. He married a feminist. Now he wishes he had an obedient,
old-fashioned wife, who would cook and clean and look pretty, etc. He’s putting everything into the marriage that men have always put in and then some. She’s doing less than any common wife of the past, and she’s more ungrateful. And she’s not a bad wife at all by today’s standards. So he has feminist equality ideals he can’t give up, but he wants obedience from a woman. The best plan he can come up with so far is a recurring two-year marriage evaluation, where they both can discuss what they want and decide whether to go forward for another two years. He thinks he can get her to be more of an old-fashioned wife that way. Long story short, in my view, the costs outweigh the benefits in that situation. He might be able to get the upper hand if he ever follows through with his idea, but that doesn’t seem worth it to me. Attractive women want to fit test and make you prove yourself, but what are they really bringing to the table? Are they offering anything much more than sex? I don’t really think so. For someone playing the field, that’s worth going to the effort of dates, etc. For someone constrained by religion, so sex is only for marriage, that’s not enough of a motivator, or that’s the case for me anyway. I’m going to commit my whole life to degrees of shrew just to get laid? I don’t think so.
“Gender has no basis in ability to grow in holiness or to attain spiritual perfection.”
That’s true, but it’s a completely unrelated topic. Usually people bring it up as a way to subvert or mitigate it obscure the natural order. But I think it’s precisely the natural order that I find viscerally attractive. The same goes for the complementarity gambit. It’s not objectively a gambit; it’s true. But it only gets brought up as a way to neutralize or obscure the natural order and play politics or activism.
“I’m ignorant here, but I always assumed males and females merely filled different roles and one was not “inferior” to the other, the male merely had headship responsibility.”
No, the male sex is objectively superior in the natural order. It’s the reason why women are uniformly subordinate to men everywhere, all through history, in every society. That isn’t oppression, it’s the natural order.
@Patrick: So I guess the women are going to be the greatest in the Kingdom of God, because the least will be made greatest.
@Mdavid, do you believe that people can command the angels? Because that’s how a lot of Charismatic congregations end up… erm… unclean…