A Must Read Story

A woman going by the name of Eva has found her way to Dalrock’s blog, drawn by his post Advice to a woman in her 30’s looking to marry (Warning, 1000+ comments, so it can present loading problems). She left her story there, which can be found here. It is worth reading in its entirety.

I’m late to the discussion, but I found this blog today and after reading it and all the comments, I wish I could apologize to the “beta orbiters” I had for how I treated them when I was younger. I’m 4 months into being 30, but I’ve been aware of my impending expiry date as a marriageable woman, partly because of my mother’s training. She got married around 23 to my biological father in their home country, moved to America with him and had me and my younger brother, then divorced and was able to snare another younger man (she being 32, my stepfather 29 at the time) to marry and take care of us all. I grew up envisioning that by the time I was 25 I’d find someone like my wonderful beta stepfather, not because of any sordid incestuous attraction – but because he was a great provider, worked as an educator, and he was a great leader and father). My fantasy husband and I would raise 5(!) children together. Go ahead and laugh, but I’m a hopeless romantic, a 2nd-gen immigrant with ‘old world’ tastes, and I really love and get along with kids! I thought my fantasy was definitely attainable because I’d watched my mother get the same deal with her beauty and agelessness (today she’s 55 but routinely gets mistaken for 35), plus I felt I had the ‘advantage’ of growing up Westernized, being educated, having my youth and her genes, and being much more ‘likable’ than my mother. My mother suffers from narcissism and is quite abusive, even and especially when she’s being worshiped like she demands.

I discovered that it was ‘easy’ for me to attract boys starting in middle school. My stepfather treated me like his own daughter, though, and he was very protective of my virtue – my first date was my senior prom! I was insecure because my mother was constantly belittling me (telling me I was ugly, a closet lesbian, too nerdy), but when I got to college and had to beat the male attention off with a stick, my ego ballooned. I was convinced that I was better than the betas that I used to get along well with in high school, and could get myself an alpha to marry instead of the boys who wanted to discuss Mortal Kombat and Dark Avengers all day. Yet I felt no one would ask me out but the hopelessly-optimistic betas who persisted despite the fact that my stepfather taught at the university I attended, and was around more than ever to guard my every move. I spent/wasted a lot of time flirting and less time caring about the opportunity my stepfather gave me (free tuition). I used to be studious, but dropped my scholarly interests to be one of the popular girls, and stopped taking life seriously – instead hitting up every party and social on campus, playing a game with myself to see which alpha I could get to ‘fall in love’ with me next. My stepfather had connections to help me get summer jobs, as well, and I screwed those up because I didn’t do the work. I’d avoid being at home because my parents were constantly fighting, and I didn’t want to be a housemaiden, taking care of my new 2 young stepsiblings and doing chores, basically being responsible in any way when I felt I was entitled to ‘the college experience’ and had earned it by being a jailed-up late bloomer.

My stepfather was diagnosed with terminal cancer, and it changed my whole college experience. My mother wasn’t willing to give up her job to be a housewife and look after anybody either, my brother had already moved out to escape my mother’s abuse, and I didn’t want my stepfather to have be both father and mother as he was dying, so I dropped out of college and stayed home to help in any way I could. I think my stepsiblings saw me more as a mother than their sister during that period, because I babysat, fixed their meals, made sure they caught the school bus, helped with homework, tried to keep them from understanding how badly their father was doing. My stepfather finally passed away when I was 23, and shortly after the university gave him a funeral (and my stepfather’s will went into effect), my mother kicked me out because she wanted to get married again, and I would be a tip-off to any potential suitors/suckers that she wasn’t as young as she looked. I went out into the world for the first time without ‘Dad’ to help me, and I had no job, no formal education (only some college), no skills, just my looks. I latched onto the first male who would have me, moved in with him, and gave away my virginity at age 24. Then when that guy got tired of me, it was on to another one, an alpha who knew me from college. My third live-in boyfriend raped me at age 27, and again there was another psychological shift. I wasn’t able to get a criminal conviction against the man (charges were filed but dropped by prosecution for ‘insufficient evidence’), but I’m in the middle of a civil lawsuit against him and the church I joined where I met him, since that church actively tried to cover up that he had assaulted me. I feel like ever since I lost my dad, I’ve been wandering in a haze of life where the mist keeps getting thicker as I age and wonder if I’m salvageable.

My thing is – it will sound insane to most people, but I think some my horrible experiences were necessary in some way because they’ve forced me to see that I was no ‘catch’ in my 20s, and I have to race against time if I’m going to have a shot at giving away the love I know I have in me. I realize now that I was entitled, spoiled, and insecure growing up partly because I had nothing to work for or earn on my own. I was so selfish until my father dying while my mother acted like she was being deprived of life made me see that I didn’t want to be like her, but that was where I was going to end up because I was on the path. I spent every dime I touched because I knew my parents would bail me out of trouble when I needed it, and now I’m on my own trying to fix my credit history. I used to get As in school, now I’m uneducated and working as a housekeeper to keep myself afloat, but in a way I appreciate it because it’s reinforcing the ‘old world’ teachings I had growing up that I tried to escape – that a woman should know how to keep house. I’d like to go back to school, but I’m hoping that that can be a part-time thing I’ll do from home while I raise children. I want to be a stay-at-home mother – to this day I get a lot of happiness from checking in on and visiting my younger stepsiblings and bolstering them up as much as I can, especially when my mother decides she ‘quits’ for weeks at a time and drops the children off at my apartment. I’m not suited for alpha males. It has nothing to do with my looks or that I still get mistaken for being an 18-year-old by complete strangers, but rather that I want a man of substance … if that man will have me.

A lot of comments upthread asked the woman to evaluate what she can bring to the table for a man. Hmm … debt? Working-class income? One thing that I think I have going for me is that my experiences haven’t broken me. I believe in and really try to self-improve – reading, researching, praying, etc. to get better at life. I probably do have some psychological work to do still, but I don’t think I’m resentful or angry. I’m always being complimented on my smile, if that means anything – I can’t help that I smile even when I’m talking (most of the time). I’m grateful that in spite of her faults, I had a mother who modeled hygiene, health, and feminine dress and presentation very well, and I keep myself up to look sweet without being slutty. I can cook any dish from my parents’ home country, a lot of American dishes, and I love to experiment with my own recipes. I can make clothing. I’ve learned to show that I’m a giving person and not just convince myself that I’m so, or that because I’m soft-spoken and rather shy it means I’m submissive, when my actions should show that to be the case. My N is 3, and I’m determined to keep it there until I (hopefully) marry – not to be crass, but if my sexual desires get that intense, masturbation is a lot less headache than the guilt I feel after cheating my future husband out of myself little by little. I don’t smoke, drink, do any recreational drugs, have any prescriptions to worry about, I’m 5’3″ and 115 llbs,, no illness in my family that I know of, keep myself healthy. No tattoos. I speak 3 languages. I don’t have a religious affiliation, I was raised Catholic but I think I lean more towards Judaism in my personal beliefs – I read from the Tanakh/’Old Testament’ daily but don’t believe in the writings of the New Testament? (I forget the rest of the list!)

All this goes to say that to read the comments where men trash certain women for being 30+ older unmarried really cut to my heart, but I know no one would be saying anything if there were no problems to speak of. I understand that nobody wants to be anyone’s consolation prize in marriage. It’s a huge step for a man to choose any single woman and say ‘lets do this forever’, much less to choose a woman who gave him the cold shoulder back when she thought she had ‘better options’ than commitment, security, stability, and a purpose for living and loving.

I am sure that everyone here is familiar with the story of the Prodigal Son; if not then you can read it here. The story has many themes: repentance and redemption, the power of forgiveness, a Father’s love for his child, and the importance of embracing those who went astray but have returned. But there is another lesson in the story, one that is sometimes easy to forget in the reassurance of God’s boundless love for us. That lesson is a reminder that the prodigal son lost his inheritance, and doesn’t recover it. It is lost to him. While his Father does bestow some measure of kinds and riches on him, they pale in comparison to what is gone forever. And yet, what is really gone?

The inheritance that is mentioned in Luke’s gospel is not a material inheritance, just as the father here isn’t simply a rich landowner (this is a parable, after all!). Instead, the inheritance which the younger brother squandered is the measure of contentment and happiness that we enjoy in this world as a result of living a holy life. Although it is difficult for us to see when we are younger, following our Father’s commands ensures that we keep our inheritance and avoid the real hardships in life: Guilt, Remorse, Regret and Unfulfilled Dreams. Yes, living in sin is a blast… for a while. But eventually, unless we correct ourselves, we spend all of our inheritance, that is, use up the protections from the misery resulting from sin that we were allotted in life. Some have more protection, and some less. But eventually it is all gone, and the full measure of our sin weighs down upon us. At which point, enduring the burdens of a sinful life,  some will return to their Father, and seek forgiveness. Some wiser ones return before all is squandered. Thankfully, our God is merciful and compassionate, and will forgive us our transgressions.

However, our slate is only wiped clean in our next life, not this one. While we live we must still deal with the consequences of our past actions. The knowledge of God’s forgiveness can ease these burdens for a while (like a certain robe, ring and fatted calf), but that is only temporary relief.

Eva represents an instance of a prodigal daughter, a woman who fell far and has slowly pulled herself back. She has yet to fully return to her Father, and sadly may never complete this journey. But even if she does she will not return as she left. She squandered much of her inheritance, and what is left might not be enough for what she hoped to use it for. She may never find a man who is willing to make her into his wife, and even if she does, it is doubtful that he would be anywhere near the quality of man whom she could have married 10 years before.

Her story is one that should be told to all women are who coming of age, as a lesson to be etched deep in their hearts. They need to be taught that their inheritance is their youth, their beauty, and their virtue. If they squander that inheritance, what they are left with in the end might not be enough to buy them the happiness and contentment they seek.

Setting a Matter to Rest

Just in case anyone was curious, no, this is not me.

[As a side note, Prince Amukamara appears to be a perfect example of a Righteous Alpha. Just think of how high his LAMPS values must be. He seems to be decently good looking, is in great physical shape, must make a decent chunk of money every year, and has a very high status position as a NFL player (for the Jets, true, but still, professional football). The only question surrounds his Power value; the article gives some hints of Beta behavior but its difficult to be sure (and I would have to think he has to be fairly confident in himself considering hi station in life). So you just know that this guy has to have been receiving a huge amount of female attention. In fact, he is at least a male 9 in terms of SMV value. His remaining celibate (for now) is clearly a matter of personal choice based on his faith, and not circumstance. So to those who say that there aren’t male virgins out there, or at least ones who actually choose to stay that way until marriage, I offer this exhibit into evidence.]

Masculine Clothing- Is There Such A Thing?

On this blog and on others I have addressed the subject of feminine clothing. But I don’t think that I have ever addressed the subject of masculine clothing. In fact, I had never really given the subject any thought until I saw this comment by Cellogirl over at peacefulhonestlife:

I have yet to read donal graeme’s blog for anything on how a man should carry himself because there are too many men out here that dress very poorly yet, they want a high-value woman to call their own. No! No! No!

That not how things work a masculine man is very attractive but, a high value masculine man that dresses properly and can be conversational is even more attractive. There are not too many of those out there anymore.

So, how exactly should a masculine man dress? What kind of clothing is appropriate for a man who wishes to establish or demonstrate that he is high-value? Well, I can think of a few examples of clothing that does the opposite:

1) Really short shorts. You know the type. The ones that look more like speedos than shorts.

2) Super tight fitted jeans. Those can look good on women (although I still prefer dresses and skirts), but they look awful on men. For example:

Those are some pretty un-masculine jeans right there. Definitely not something a high-value man should be seen wearing.

3) Wimpy scarves. Scarves aren’t necessarily feminine, but if you want them to be masculine they need to be matched with the proper clothing and be anything but dainty. This doesn’t cut it:

Something like that just screams “PATHETIC” to the whole world.

4) The color pink. A long time ago pink might have been a color used by men. That time is long gone, and long buried. Don’t count on it every coming back. Pink is not a masculine color, so don’t wear it. (Unless you are John Wayne. In which case you can wear whatever you want.)

Ok, those are a few examples of what not to wear. But what makes for masculine clothing for men? Some ideas are easy enough:

1) The Tuxedo- simple but stately, a man who can wear a Tux well is a man who can tell the world that he is high-value. Don’t believe me? Take it up with 007…

2) While not quite as classy as a Tux, a well tailored suit can be nearly as effective. And depending on your profession, something you can wear nearly every day.

3) A uniform. The old saying that “women dig a man in a uniform” has some truth to it, even in this day and age. A good looking uniform can lend a man a sharpness and presence which sets him apart from less men.

To be honest, this topic is one where I am out of my league. Male fashion has never been a strength of mine, and it was pretty obvious to me when I tried to write this post. So I am asking for my readers to provide ideas (whether links, photos, videos or whatever) on what they believe masculine clothing looks like.

Update: Deti has contributed his thoughts on the subject of proper dress for men:

1. Determine your body type and dress for it. Three basic body types: The muscular man (mesomorph), heavy man (endomorph) and thin/skinny guy (ectomorph). Determine yours, and dress for it. Muscular men can wear pretty much what they want. Ectomorphs should wear clothes that widen them; and endomorphs should wear lengthening, tailored clothes and dark colors.

2. Determine the dress level for the occasion, and dress one step up from that (except for formal occasions). The idea is to be one of the better dressed men at the occasion.

3. The tuxedo is appropriate for formal occasions only. However, it is not appropriate to wear a tuxedo to a wedding unless you are in the wedding party.

4. The following should be in every man’s wardrobe, regardless of his age, station and profession:

CASUAL CLOTHES
a. Good quality white t-shirts.
b. Blue jeans, relaxed fit (preferably Levi’s 501s because they fit almost every body type).
c. polo shirts in several colors.
d. long sleeve and short sleeve button down shirts in several colors.
e. slacks: khaki, tan, navy, and black.
f. a short heavy winter coat.

SUITS AND ASSOCIATED ACCESSORIES:
a. at least two 2 piece suits, one navy, one charcoal, medium weight fabric.
b. at least 3 white barrel cuff shirts, one oxford, the others standard point collar.
c. at least one French cuff shirt.
d. at least one set of cuff links.
e. medium width ties of varying colors and patterns. Some of them must be red.
f. one pair of wingtips, black or burgundy.
g. one other pair of lace up dress shoes, black or burgundy
h. a pair of loafers, black or burgundy
(all shoes with leather uppers and frequently shined)
i. a navy blazer with brass buttons. (This is absolutely essential. You MUST get one of these. It will be one of the most versatile, oft worn items in your wardrobe).
j. accessories (ties, cuff links and socks). Understated and conservative is the order of the day. You may have a couple of fun ties — for holidays or depicting some cartoon character. You may not wear your Marvin the Martian tie to work, however.
k. One long, heavy wool winter coat.
l. One long, lighter raincoat/trench coat.

Update 2: Lady Siygn provided a link to site about masculine style. Worth a look, I should think.

The Married Prostitute

No, I am not talking about the wife of Hosea here:

² When the Lord first spoke through Hosea, the Lord said to Hosea, “Go, take for yourself a wife of whoredom and have children of whoredom, for the land commits great whoredom by forsaking the Lord.” ³ So he went and took Gomer daughter of Diblaim, and she conceived and bore him a son.

Instead, I am talking about something else: married women who use sex as a source of power over their husbands. The problem of wives denying their husbands sex is a rather common topic in the manosphere. Some prominent bloggers have asked why Christian women won’t have sex with their husbands. Others have addressed this situation as well recently. I suspect there are several reasons why this topic keeps coming up:

1) Many of the members of the manosphere experience or have experienced it.

2)  Many members of the manosphere have heard of other men being cut off by their wives.

3) Many members of the manosphere are worried that if they marry they too would be the subject of a wife’s sexual denial.

4) This topic is one that is largely ignored by most of society, and when it is addressed the results are not helpful.

Bad advice and commentary is especially prevalent in Christian circles, where husbands are usually advised to love their wives more, as if that will fix the problem. Unfortunately, most Christians in the West have adopted a whole lot of foolish narratives and beliefs about sex and women which get in the way of the truth. This is especially troubling in light of the fact that the New Testament has pretty specific guidelines about sexual denial:

 Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is well for a man not to touch a woman.” ² But because of cases of sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. ³ The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. ⁴ For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. ⁵ Do not deprive one another except perhaps by agreement for a set time, to devote yourselves to prayer, and then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

Of course, this set of guidelines is usually ignored or disregarded in Churchian circles, and even more sound congregations and denominations will often skip over it. However, every now and then you will find those who are willing to call out this sexual denial for what it is: sin. Somewhere in my travels across the internet landscape I came across the websites Acts 17:11. Therein I found a particularly powerful and direct attack on this particular sin. It was so potent that I couldn’t help but blog about it. Bolded parts are mine:

As to frequency, I suppose people differ. But it is not for an outsider to say in any case. If one partner wants sex, then God’s command for marriage is clear enough: “no refusal” is permitted unless mutually agreed to for a time of prayer. That is the command of scripture. Your body belongs to her, and vice versa.

First, search your own heart and see if you have not “destroyed your own household” (Pv 14:1) in terms of normal sexual response and desire. We deal with this in another posting, but for our purposes here you must honestly ask yourself the question if you have contributed to her frigidity. Have you brought pornography into your marriage bed, for example, or thoughts of another woman? Have you been a lover or just a user of your wife’s body? In other words, if you have been sinning and are just reaping the harvest of your ways, then there is no time like the present to repent, ask for forgiveness, and seek God for healing. But if your conscience is clear, and she is sinning by “holding out”, this is also a grievous sin that directly disobeys the word of God, and she must be confronted about it.

Practically, this needs to be worked out some other way than by the letter of the law; but the law has its “ministry” (of condemnation). The law won’t change her, in other words, but will serve to bring proper conviction into her life. Confront her with the word, in private, as commanded by Jesus Himself. If this does not work, bring two or three to confront her of her sin. Hopefully, she will see her sin and repent. Perhaps the shame of having her secret sin exposed will goad her to take seriously her covenantal responsibilities. God has told you what to do if you find your brother (or sister, in this case) in sin (Mt 18:15-17). Go to her, just the two of you, and confront her. If she does not repent, then go with two or three. This is the command of your Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

More than a few women have a problem in this area. Not to be overly dramatic, but these women are prostituting themselves within marriage. For one reason or another, such women like to have their husbands sex starved so they can blackmail them, control them, humiliate them, dole out the favors on their terms, get what they want, etc. They are prostitutes, in other words, who happened to be married. Husbands can do the same thing, and have, as a form of control; but it is more often women who fall into this pathology of sin. Of course, there is always the excuses and contingencies, as with any sin. But God looks to the heart of the matter, to what is really going on. Whenever sex is bartered, it is prostitution; and no money need change hands. Married people belong to each other. A wife in disobedience has become a married prostitute with a single customer. God is not mocked. Such is a great offense and thus the warnings of the scriptures above.

While at first this article seems to possibly go the Churchian route, the impression doesn’t last for long. For one, the author clearly establishes that it is “your” conscience which matters, not hers. This is good, because submitting yourself to your wife’s judgment about your conduct is a sure fire way to always fail to measure up to her standards. Rather than loving your wife, you end up trying to find ways to make her feel loved. This is guaranteed to fail. Thankfully this article avoids that folly. Now, I am not sure about the rest of the site; it could be Churchian everywhere else. But it doesn’t even buy into the servant leadership nonsense.  Instead, it doesn’t pull any punches. Really, there isn’t much to say that it doesn’t already say.

A singular exception might be the unusual awareness of the mercenary nature of women which this article displays. That attitude is something which I suspect comes as a bit of a shock to most men when they first take the Red Pill. The truth depth of it can be both highly disturbing and highly difficult to accept.  Which is why it is rare to see this kind of admission, or something like it, from a Christian perspective. Far more common is the idea that women are all sugar and spice and all things nice. While I hope that this kind of message will become more prevalent as time passes, part of me knows this is unlikely, as the cancer of feminism continues to spread its tentacles throughout Western Christianity.

[I thinking about working on a companion post that addresses this issue from the perspective of the husband, not sure when it will be completed though]

Positive Feedback

I was walking about town today, and while passing a shop my eyes caught sight of something that caused me to stop in my tracks. Near the front of the shop stood a young lady acting as a greeter. That in itself was not what caught my attention. Nor necessarily was it the young lady herself. She was pretty, in good shape, and with a pleasant smile; but nothing truly exceptional. No, it was her clothes that caught my eye. She wore a nice enough blouse, but she was wearing a floral-patterned skirt that was eye-catching in its beauty and elegance. In fact, it was such a lovely skirt that I felt compelled to walk inside the store and let her know how much I admired it. I informed her that I saw so many women these days who wore clothes that made them look like a man or like a slut [Update: I didn’t use that word, but instead tramp and several other descriptive terms which made my intent clear], that it was a real pleasure to see a woman dressing like an actual woman. The compliment caught her off-guard, and it caused her to blush somewhat, but I could tell that it meant a lot to her.

As I walked out of the store, I realized that my words to her would more likely than not influence her decision to wear that skirt again. Indeed, she might even choose clothes similar in nature, in the hopes of garnering the same kind of positive response. Upon thinking the matter over it occurred to me that this is exactly what we men should be doing. If we want women to dress in feminine clothes (and we should want this), we need to make it clear to them that we appreciate it when they do. Positive feedback is important to try and establish good behaviors. Women hear so much fashion “advice” these days which is truly awful it is imperative that those of us who appreciate feminine women dressing the part encourage women to do just that. So I have adopted something of a new policy for myself: assuming I have the time, if I see a woman who is dressed in a pleasant feminine fashion, I will thank her for it.  One relatively easy way to make the world a better place, one step at a time.

Update: Lovelyleblanc7 reminds me that she wrote a post a few days ago which covered Feminine Dress. I would be remiss not to link it.

The Latent Threat: Male Dominance and the Capacity for Violence

The Shadow Knight wrote a guest post for Sunshine Mary which she recently published. Titled “The Stabilizing Influence of Masculine Dominance in Women’s Lives“, it addresses how women have a physical and psychological need for men through dominant sex and a dominant masculine presence in their life. The initial comments are worthwhile too , because many of them try and grasp the extent and nature of masculine dominance. One potential aspect for masculine dominance that is brought up several times, and which sparked my interest, is a man’s potential and ability when it comes to violence. This got me thinking, and re-examining some of what I had previously written on the subject.

Then I read When Women Rage over at Sarah’s Daughter. While the overall purpose of the posts was different, there was a constant theme/idea which showed up in both: the male capacity for violence. Here is what SD had to say:

Fast forward a few years. We were no longer having fights of this nature. I had been reading the Bible and marriage books trying to change the rage within me. It wasn’t completely gone, unfortunately. We were driving to a meeting and again, I don’t remember what our argument was about, I was likely being very disrespectful and snotty and he’d had enough. He said something to me I didn’t like and I threw my coffee at him. He pulled the car over quick, reached across and grabbed my neck, pinned me up against the car door and informed me how I will never do anything like that again.

I haven’t.

RLB can, quite easily kill me with one hand. I learned that that night and have never wanted to incite him in that way again. The realization of his strength and willingness to use it has contributed greatly to my very high attraction to him.

It was the realization of the full measure of his power over her which I believe ultimately changed the way that SD interacted with her husband. SD mentions that she respects her husband now, and that it drives her current behavior, not fear. I must disagree. Fear and respect are joined at the hip, where there is one the other usually resides. SD still fears her husband, but that fear has been trumped or overcome by her respect for her husband. Setting the fear/respect dichotomy aside, one thing is clear: SD became more attracted to her husband based on that encounter; an encounter which not only highlighted RLB’s strength but his ability to commit violence.

I have written before about how men and women need one another in different ways. In The Need and The Void, I explored a bit into how men need women. Here is some of what I have said elsewhere about the female need for men:

Women need men to provide safety and security, to be a warm blanket that protects them from a dangerous and hostile world. A woman runs to a man to escape the dangers of the world.

It is easy for men to forget how much more powerful we are than women. We just take our strength for granted. But because they are the weaker vessel women must approach the world in a very different way. Sometimes they express this consciously, but most of the time subconsciously. Women are fearful because they must be fearful, they can’t defend themselves like a man can. How do women compensate for this?

Well, they act as a herd with other women, for one. You ever notice how oftentimes women will all go to the restroom together? As a group? Myself, I see it all the time. What I’ve never seen is men do the same thing. I suspect the reason for this behavior is because women subconsciously know that when you are relieving yourself you are even more vulnerable than normal, and so for protection women will group up, counting on numbers to protect them. Men, who can both relieve themselves more easily and are more capable of defending themselves, experience no such compulsion.

But the most important way that women compensate for their weakness is by associating with men. But not just men in general. Or any man. No, the Man. The Alpha Male. The big, strong man who can defend her, and her children, from harm. The Man who makes her feel Safe. This is where a man’s capacity for violence is important, even essential. Because a man who has a strong capacity for violence is a man who can keep his woman safe. Of course, sometimes this violence is directed at the woman herself, a perfect example of unintended consequences. Yet even those women who suffer at the hands of their man will often go back to him, perhaps driven by the subconscious belief that while may hurt her, he can also protect her from greater harms at the same time.

One of the most important truths that the Red Pill can teach is what it means when a woman says that she feels unloved by her man. It doesn’t mean that he isn’t cherishing her, or treating her romantically, or anything of the sort. No. What a woman really means when she says she feels unloved by her man is that her man does not make her feel safe. A sense of security is essential to women. The need for security drives all sorts of female behavior. Fitness Tests are one example of this. When a woman fitness tests a man, she is trying to determine if he is man enough for her, if he is capable of protecting her and keeping her, and her children, safe. Dalrock relates some of his experience on the matter:

She knew I loved her, but she didn’t feel it the way she wanted to.  It of course was equally frustrating for her as well because she kept telling me something was wrong and I wasn’t making it better.

Dalrock experienced this because he was failing his wife’s fitness tests. She was challenging him, and he wasn’t up to it. As a result their relationship suffered. But see what happens when Dalrock takes the Red Pill and adopts some of what he has learned:

It wasn’t just my actions and words which changed however, my frame changed as well.  Had I tried these same things from my old more beta frame, they might have backfired spectacularly.  I struggle to define it, but my frame was more of a playful cocky/funny one.  This was actually fairly natural for me, but I had made the mistake of listening to the conventional wisdom on how to please my wife.  The results were as expected more attraction from my wife.  As I mentioned this wasn’t ever a real problem before but I could tell a difference in her response to me.  Then something very startling happened;  she thanked me for finally making her feel more loved!  I had given up on that goal for the time being, and yet along with more attraction I had also inadvertently filled that nagging void which she had been feeling for so many years.

Just by changing his frame to be more “Alpha”, Dalrock managed to make his wife feel more loved. Why did this change of frame make such a difference? Why, if we accept “make me feel loved=make me feel safe”, did his attitude change things? The key relates to what women find attractive in men, and why. Under the LAMPS theory of female attraction, women are attracted to men based on a man’s Looks, Athleticism, Money, (Masculine) Power and Status. If the male capacity for violence is linked to the female desire/need for security and those impulses are connected to what a woman finds attractive in a man, then those traits which relate to a man’s capacity for violence should correlate with the LAMPS categories. And they do, specifically to Athleticism and Power. Because Athleticism relates to the physical capacity for violence, and Power to the mental capacity for violence. By adopting the cocky/funny attitude, Dalrock improved his Power value because he demonstrated that he was unafraid of confrontation, and willing to stand up for himself, which is critical if one is to have the mental capacity for violence. Of course this isn’t what Dalrock’s wife was thinking… but this is what her brain’s subconscious was concluding.

Based on this understanding, I think it is safe to conclude that the male capacity for violence is hugely attractive to women. A man who can demonstrate to a woman that he is dangerous, or capable of being dangerous, will be highly attractive.  This is why Ton’s “Gun Game” works. Women want, no need, a man who is capable of protecting them. They may not understand this at a conscious level,  and they may even consciously oppose it, but beneath the surface it drives much of what they say and do. So the lesson for men is this:

If you want to attract the ladies, it helps to be dangerous.

Going APE- What Attributes do Women Find Attractive in Men? Looks, Athleticism, Money, Power and Status (LAMPS)

PROLOGUE

This post is an attempt to explain a fundamental and long unanswered question: What it is that women find attractive in men? It is a clarification and expansion on a previous attempt to explain male-to-female attraction, known as The Five Vectors of Attraction. It will contain some sections lifted straight from that first attempt, although much of the content will be new or modified from what came earlier. I intend for this post to serve as a basic introduction to male attractiveness to those who are new to the Red Pill, as well as a consistent link source for those who wish to blog about female attraction to men. I will strive to update it over time as needed.

INTRODUCTION

To begin with, it is important to understand that the attributes and features by which men determine if a woman is attractive are not the same as those which a woman uses to determine if a man is attractive.

The principle feature which men look for in women to determine attractiveness is easy enough to figure out: Beauty. Age factors into Beauty, as Beauty will diminish over time as age increase. Now, ideal Beauty can vary depending on culture, but there are still certain physical features in women that carry across most cultures: a feminine face with strong facial symmetry, large breasts, a low waist-to-hip ratio, smooth and unblemished skin, etc. Beauty is essentially a purely visual attribute,  indeed well over 95% of that which men use to determine the attractiveness of a woman falls under visual Beauty.  Therefore it is usually quite easy for a man to quickly gauge a woman’s attractiveness on the standard 1-10 scale. The remaining features which determine attractiveness include how the woman smells, what her voice sounds like, and what her body feels like to the touch.

Male attractiveness is much more complicated. While visual features do play a part, and other physical features have their role as well, there are other things which can make a man attractive to women. It is well established throughout history that money is something which women find attractive in men, along with that undefinable characteristic known as charisma, and women have long been known to be drawn to men of high station. When all of this is analyzed in the context of female behavior like hypergamy, it is possible to discern the triggers for male attractiveness to women, and categorize them based on their nature. There are three principal categories under which male attractiveness is analyzed: Appearance, Personality, and Externalities, or APE for short. Under these three categories are five more specific subcategories which contain the sets of attributes which determine male attractiveness: Looks, Athleticism, Money, Power, and Status, or LAMPS for short.

They are organized in this fashion:

Appearance         |        Personality     |        Externalities

     Looks                   |            Power              |               Money

  Athleticism            |                                      |              Status

APPEARANCE

This category includes those features of a man which are of his outward appearance. It does not include any behaviors or mannerisms, just what the physical senses could determine of the man in a snapshot. Outside of the two main sub-categories, Looks and Athleticism, the other senses would factor in here. This includes the man’s voice, his smells, as well as the feel of his body.

Looks- This includes physical attractiveness, such as facial symmetry and strong masculine features in a man’s face. It can also include healthy skin, healthy and good looking hair, and other external features. Youthfulness is featured here as well, but it is valued far less by women than men, probably because age doesn’t impact male fertility as much as it affects female fertility. Height is included in this sub-category, and is perhaps the single most important aspect of a man’s Looks. As a general rule those aspects of a man’s Appearance which cannot be modified without resorting to surgical procedure fall under Looks; cosmetics allow for temporary attempts to modify Looks.

Athleticism– Here we have the overall physical attributes of a man. His strength, muscle tone, endurance, dexterity and general athletic ability. Weight falls under this sub-category, because it is largely something a man can have a measure of control over. As a general rule, if a man can control an aspect of his Appearance through training, dieting and physical (or mental) effort, it falls under Athleticism.

PERSONALITY

This category includes all of a man’s behaviors and attitudes, his quirks and unique mannerism. It is an entirely internal category, as it manifests itself only by the actions of the man in question.

Power– This subcategory is a short-hand for Masculine Power, or Masculinity. Although in some respects masculinity is power when it comes to attraction and relationships.  As an attribute, Power includes a lot of traits, behaviors and mannerism which are commonly labeled “Alpha” or “Alpha traits” on Game sites. Aspects of a man’s personality such as confidence, assertiveness, self-mastery, dominance, a commanding presence, poise and posture would fall under the Power sub-category. It it important to understand that the power one has from any position of authority doesn’t fall under Power; rather that falls under Status. Power is entirely personal to the man; it is based on his own unique characteristics and charisma. As a general rule, Power cannot be measured except by observing the man in action.

EXTERNALITIES

This category includes those features of a man which are not connected to him directly. In essence Externalities includes anything which is outside of the man’s body which might serve to make him attractive to women.

Money– This sub-category includes a measurement of both the amount of resources that a man can call upon in the present, as well as what he might be able to make or create in the future. This doesn’t necessarily mean just money; real property and other assets can be included as well. Essentially, it includes all resources which belong to the men.

Status– This sub-category includes the social position of the man and is principally based on where he is on the social ladder. It includes how well respected he is by those around him, whether they are above him or below him in station. Any authority that a man can exercise in the community based on his position would fall under Status. Think Big Fish or Small Fish; the bigger the fish, the more attractive a man is. To sum Status up, it is based not on anything inherent to the man, but rather his general position in society relative to all other men (and women).

RELEVANCE

There is no universal female measure of what makes a man attractive. Some women are more attracted to one attribute over the other, just as men are attracted to different women in varying degrees. Each woman has her own set of preferences, so there is no single standard. As a mental exercise, one can view these as a point system, where a man has a certain value from 1 through 10 in each LAMPS subcategory. Then they are added together some sort of weighted average is applied. Theoretically, as long as you have enough in certain areas, it can make up for deficiencies in others. However, based on personal observations, anecdotes and the vast amount of empirical research provided by the PUA community, it is clear that certain attributes/subcategories tend to be more important than others for most women. In general the (not universal) order of importance:

1) Power- Clearly the most important set of attributes, well above the others. Charisma is king.

2) Status- Also extremely important, plays a significant role in interacting with female hypergamy.

3) Athleticism- Of middling importance, perhaps because resources are plentiful, but still something which women like in men.

4) Looks- With the exception of height, this set of attributes provides little bang for your buck; it might get you initial attention but won’t keep it for you.

5) Money- Great wealth is required for this attribute to be meaningful, likely a product of a resource-rich culture where women can easily provide for themselves.

Unfortunately, there is no easy way to measure values for the LAMPS attributes. Whereas it is relatively easy to discern a woman’s Sexual Market Value, the same cannot be said for men, in large part because most of these attributes are extremely subjective.

CONCLUSION

As far as how to use these terms, APE can serve as a quick way of referencing the different categories of attributes which women use to judge male attractiveness. LAMPS, however, serves as a better reference point because it breaks those attributes into more manageable categories which also allows for them to be more easily arranged in order of importance.  Any blogger who wishes to use this system however they like is free to do so, although I do ask for a link back to this post.

News You Can Use

In response to a comment by Matt King over at Sunshine Mary’s, Rollo Tomassi suggested that those Christian men who believed that their virtue would be attractive to women put this belief to the test:

Locate the single (preferably not a single mother) Christian woman you’ve been so patiently trying to become more intimate with (in as non-lust conflicting a way as possible) and, as deftly and as Game savvy as possible, play up your virtuous nature as a ‘value added’ benefit of your character in selling yourself as an intimate proposition to her.

In other words, use Virtue Game. Make sure you pay attention to the subtle hints of her arousal while you expound upon your noble dedication to your virtuous nature. Erect nipples, dilated pupils and a noticeable increase in her spontaneous efforts at kino will all be IOI’s of your new found secret weapon of attraction.

I will admit to having found this amusing, although I agreed with what Sunshine Mary said about Rollo’s suggested “Virtue Game”:

Nota bene – Men don’t have virtue to please women. They have virtue to please God. If you think virtue will get you laid, it won’t. That isn’t the point of virtue in a man.

I have already written about what women find attractive in men in my LAMPS post, and in fact I am writing an update to that post now. Sadly, virtue has no place when it comes to attracting women. Or does it?

Courtesy of US News and World Reports, here is a article about a study that seems to suggest that Devout Catholics Have Better Sex:

Devout, married Catholics have the best sex of any demographic group, the Family Research Council said at an event Wednesday, pointing to a collection of studies from the last several decades.

The socially conservative Christian group relied heavily on statistics from the University of Chicago’s last National Health and Social Life Survey, conducted in 1992, which found the most enjoyable and most frequent sex occurring among married people, those who attended church weekly – any church, whether Catholic or not – and people who had the least sexual partners.

Some of this makes sense from a Red Pill perspective, especially the part about the number of sexual partners. While the exact mechanics of the female pair bonding ability are still not well understood, they do have obvious effects. The article itself is worth reading in full, especially because it isn’t very long. However, the data is somewhat old, and seems to be contradicted by more recent trends. Especially regarding the frequency of sex among married couples compared to non-married couples, because co-habitation has become more common lately. Which means this next part may not be relevant either:

The notion that Catholics have better sex isn’t a new one, especially coming from Catholics. In 1994, Andrew Greeley, a Catholic sociologist and priest, published “Sex: The Catholic Experience,” which released a litany of new statistics: 68 percent of Catholics professed to have sex at least once a week versus 56 percent of non-Catholics; 30 percent of Catholics had bought erotic underwear versus 20 percent non-Catholics; and 80 percent of devout Catholic women approved of having sex for pleasure alone.

Nearly twenty years have passed since Greeley’s work was published, leaving its current applicability questionable. But there are some reasons to believe the various studies are accurate. For one, the Catholic Church opposes birth control, including condoms, and some studies seem to indicate that semen acts as an anti-depressant (more here). It stands to reason that happiness and depression would have strong impacts on the likelihood of sex inside a marriage. Devout Catholics, not using condoms, would therefore be more likely to benefit from this mood-effect and thereby more likely to engage in sex , creating a strong cycle which encourages sexual activity.

In addition, devout Catholics also tend to want, and have, larger families. And in order to have more children, they would need to have sex a lot more often (plus it would by its nature have to be unprotected sex, encouraging the potential anti-depressant factor). This is just speculation, but there might also be ethnic/cultural factors at play as well, with Catholics less likely to come from puritanical traditions which viewed sex with distaste.

So where does all of this lead? Why, it leads to the conclusion that if you want to have the best sex possible, then statistics say that you should be a devout Catholic. Which leads to how to play Virtue Game: as part of the sexual escalation aspect of Gaming a woman, a devout Catholic man could impress any woman with the fact that a marriage with him would be the best route to great sex possible. The pick-up lines practically write themselves:

You think this is great music to get you in the mood? Just you wait till you hear the bells on your wedding day, you won’t know what hit you afterward.

That is a sexy black dress you are wearing… but you know what is even sexier? One in white. Trust me, seeing you in that… I wouldn’t be able to restrain myself from ripping it off you when I got you all alone.

Maybe Virtue Game has a chance, after all?

[I should hope that I don’t have to point out this post is rather tongue-in-cheek.]

The ABCs of Marital Happiness

Several days ago, over at Sunshinemary and the Dragon, the blog mistress asked a question which touches on a lot of Red Pill issues:

Do happy marriages depend on the husband’s status in the socio-sexual hierarchy?

After this she linked to Vox Day’s socio-sexual hierarchy, and posted it for good measure, before continuing to seek to answer the fundamental question. Her closing paragraphs:

I always appreciate other women saying the same thing that I keep trying to say: my marriage isn’t happy because my husband is allegedly an alpha (and I don’t think he fits the personality type of Vox’s alpha category, anyway).  Having a naturally alpha personality and fitting into the social hierarchy as such is not the same thing as having control of your life and having positive masculine power.  A man can score well in all the LAMPS vectors (looks, athleticism, money, power, status) but still be a social beta.  And so what?  That doesn’t make him icky and weird, and it doesn’t mean that he will necessarily have poor success with women.  We don’t really have much control over the personality types that we were born with, but almost anyone can improve at least some areas of their LAMPS vectors, which will improve nearly every aspect of a man’s life, not just his romantic prospects.

In terms of a happy marriage, I agree with Novaseeker’s thoughts on attraction: it is extremely important.  It is more important that the woman be sexually attracted to her husband (and that this attraction be maintained) than that the man be an alpha in the socio-sexual hierarchy.  Keeping her sexually attracted, provided she had natural sexual attraction to him to begin with, almost entirely involves maintaining the proper biblical marital hierarchy of male headship and wifely submission and has almost nothing to do with whether one is an alpha, a beta, or a delta.

I was rather busy at the time, so I wasn’t able to provide my thoughts on the subject. Given that there are well over 400 comments at this point, and another post has followed, I decided to give my answer in a post of its own. So, lets look at that question one more time:

Do happy marriages depend on the husband’s status in the socio-sexual hierarchy?

There are actually several questions inherent in this question, the first of which  is this: do happy marriages depend on the woman’s happiness, the man’s happiness, or both? Scripture, and the nature of the present cultural and legal climate seem to make it clear that the woman’s happiness seems to be more important. So that leads to the next question: What does it take for a woman to be happy in a marriage? Here I have to agree with Novaseeker that attraction is likely paramount for determining a woman’s marital happiness. I’ve already taken a stab at answering what women find attractive in men with my LAMPS theory, so this leads us to the next question: how does a man’s LAMPS value relate to Vox Day’s socio-sexual hierarchy?

After thinking on it, I realized I had trouble answering the question. The reason why is because I don’t exactly subscribe to Vox’s hierarchy. I find it to be a clever, but ultimately inaccurate attempt to try and categorize men. The key to the hierarchy is that it attempts to categorize men by virtue of their interactions with women. However, that is just another way of saying that it categorizes men by their attractiveness to women. Which, when you think of it, means that the Alpha/Sigma conundrum which Vox tries to explain away is merely his best effort to explain why men with very different attitudes and behaviors can still attract a lot of women. This reminds me of how the ancient astronomers created the concept of epicycles in order to explain away the problems with a geo-centric model of the solar system with perfect spheres. In short, it overly complicates a situation because you don’t want to let go of some root assumption. I think it is better to toss aside any notion of alpha, beta or any other letter of the Greek alphabet. Set aside any notions of a hierarchy, or lesser or greater. Instead, get to the root of the problem, attraction.

The question is, do women have to be attracted to the man to whom they are married in order to be happy?

I think the answer is yes. For the marriage, as a marriage (and not some kind of partnership or anything), to be a happy one the woman needs to have her sub-conscious desires met. Those desires, based on her 3 basic drives (Sex with a high-value man, Protection, and Provision), and filtered through Hypergamy, cannot be suppressed. A woman can fight against impulses like Fitness Testing, but there is no way for her to simply over-ride her subconscious. If these needs are not met, then she will not be happy. It is very important that to note that this unhappiness is intentional: it serves to alert the woman that something is wrong with the relationship. And that something wrong happens to be that she is in a relationship with an unattractive man, or said otherwise, she is in a relationship with a man who is not worthy to the be father of her children.

Sunshinemary is correct that the biblical standard of marriage,where the wife is submissive to her husband or subject to his authority, and the husband is head of the household and family, greatly helps with this. Under the LAMPS theory, the P or (Masculine) Power attribute is the most important. And dominant behavior by a man is one of the strongest expressions of Masculine Power. By requiring the man be in a dominant position and the wife be in a submissive position, biblical marriage enhances the Power of the man. This improves his attractiveness, which in turn will make the wife happier in the marriage. Essentially, the purpose of wifely submission and husband headship inbiblical marriage is improve the wife’s happiness, not to oppress her.

[Interesting question: does biblical marriage exist as part of the feminine imperative, as it serves to make things better for women?]

So, to return to the original question, the answer is yes, assuming that “alpha male” equals an attractive man. Otherwise, the answer is no, all that is necessary is that the wife is attracted to her husband.

Pecking Order

Vox Day over at AlphaGame has published a story from one of his readers in China. It provides a fascinating example of  how male-dominated and female-dominated societies differ from one another. The reader, a teacher in China, created something of a social experiment by bringing in snacks and drinks to class and seeing what would happen under two different scenarios: the first involved the girls getting the best snacks and drinks, and the second involved the boys getting them. An  excerpt:

The girls refused to share anything *except* with the two most popular boys in the class. Those two were pretty much free to travel between the desks eating as they wanted from whatever bag the girls had on their desks. The less popular boys either didn’t try or were flatly refused in a not very nice way. The best food here went to the two boys (and one in particular[Ed: the alpha male])who dominated the social scene while the remaining seven sat with their bag of lesser desirable foodstuffs.

Two days later with the same class I declared a boy’s day and broke out snacks again, approximately the same mix as before. This time however I allowed the boys to choose first and same as before, the first crew took the best things leaving the dregs for the rest. However, after everything was distributed the girls, all of them, visited and stuck near the boys with the best snacks. As the boys coming first were random, it wasn’t the two most popular that got to pick first. Overall though there was a far greater amount of mixing, the social scene was much more evenly distributed boys and girls, and moreover, everyone got to eat some of the best food. Even the gamma/delta/omega boys got female attention and begun to act a little more confident. They had something the girls *wanted* which inverted the power structure and made the girls nicer as compared to the observed harpy bitchiness encountered two days prior. There was a lot less snapping (which the girls engaged in on womens day when they had the food and a less popular boy wanted something) and what snapping existed was playful rather than malicious. Even the ugly girls got a share of the good stuff, exactly the reverse of the boys experience. I can easily state the overall happiness of the class was greater on this day then when the girls had first pick. In other words when the girls have the power – they don’t use it well and the whole class suffered. Nothing was even close to fair, and a super majority of the boys are left out doing nothing productive unless you consider sitting alone being resentful productive.

[Bolding mine]

Here we can see how male and female nature will determine societal outcomes. Women will attempt to draw favor with the most desirable, highest value men (in this case, the most popular boys) through whatever means they can. In this instance, by sharing the best food. I cannot help but think that hypergamy is the principal reason for this kind of behavior. Men on the other hand will attempt to draw favor with any available woman, and although they may prioritize for the best looking women, even lower-value, less attractive women will still get something. Because men aren’t driven as much as women to seek the the best, and only the best, they are more inclined to see a more equitable distribution of resources.

Commentator JCclimber left a great comment, involving a similar situation among… you guessed it, chickens:

So, here is a similar experiment. My wife HATES it when I compare women to the dynamics I see in our backyard chicken flock, but then she turns around and uses the examples herself.

Bring out a treat when you only have a flock of hens, and they will all drop whatever they are doing to chase the new treat. They will drop their favorite food if another hen nearby has something in her mouth-if that other hen is being chased by still other hens who don’t have a treat yet.

There are plenty of treats for every hen. But they will ignore the other treats if more than one other hen shows interest in a particular treat. The screeching and chasing all around the backyard is hugely amusing.

Yet, introduce a rooster, and everything changes. If he finds a worm or other treat, instead of eating it, he calls over his hens and shares it with them. He’ll protect them from harm do the point of death. He shows them where to lay eggs. And so on.

None of the hens call him over to share their treats. However, they all submit to him when he comes near. He also doesn’t get involved in their pecking order and inner squables.

Man, don’t get me going on the pecking order….but that is extremely instructive to watch as well. Sometimes I can’t help narrating it with human sentences which cracks up my family.

The parts in bold show an example of pre-selection in action. The hens, if they see that another hen is chasing after something possessed by a third hen, must be assuming that the treat, whatever it is, must be of great value. Hence they drop whatever they are doing to get it for themselves. Human females carry on the exact same process with men. Once they see that other women are chasing after a man, then they too will want to chase after that man.

Incidentally, these two examples support Christian teaching about women in leadership positions. The natural female desire to cater to the best available men may not be malicious in nature, but it does present a danger to the well-being of the community (the woman being trained to support “Team Her Man” is not much better, because she will subconsciously favor her husband, rather than whomever is the highest-value man). And while women can be taught about this danger, they will invariable slip-up from time to time and revert to it. At which point they likely will continue that behavior, until a man calls them out on their favoritism. Given this dynamic, better to simply have men in charge and not risk it coming up in the first place.