Q & A

Tonight’s post is dedicated to answering a few of the questions that I’ve been been asked since this blog started. They have been left as comments, or sent to me via e-mail. Some I’ve answered before, and I will try and include a link to those answers. Others might have been addressed only obliquely, or not at all.

—————–

Question: Is this a Game blog?

Answer: No. This is not, nor has it ever been, a “Game” blog. While I accepted its legitimacy for a while, I’ve come to realize that Game, if it can even be defined, is not something which can be supported.

—————–

Question: Hey, I thought this was a Christian blog, so why are you talking about sexual attraction and the kind of stuff Pick-Up Artists talk about?

Answer: Because sexual attraction matters to everyone looking to get married, Christian or not. In an age where people largely choose their own mates, a person’s sexual attractiveness plays a huge role in determining whether they can get married or not. By ignoring this for so long, the Church has only made the marriage situation worse in the west.

—————-

Question: Wait, I thought this was a Red Pill bog… so what is all this Christian stuff doing here?

Answer: While I cover topics that generally fall under the umbrella of “The Red Pill”, I am also a Catholic Christian. That belief system is not something that I simply set aside when I cover topics which aren’t normally addressed by Christians. As far as I’m concerned many “Red Pill” topics are of great concerns to Christians, and so I approach them from a Christian perspective.

—————-

Question: Why do you hate women?

Answer: Contrary to popular opinion, I don’t hate women. In fact, I happen to like actual feminine women quite a lot. In fact, I find their presence (both virtual and real) to be quite enjoyable. Truth be told, I’m not very good at hating anyone (trust me on this, I’ve tried).

—————-

Question: Well then how come you want to subjugate women in marriage then?

Answer: I don’t want to subjugate women in marriage. I am a Christian, and as a Christian I recognize that wives are called to subject themselves to the authority of their husbands. That is a far cry from subjugation, given that their husbands at the same time are required to love them as Christ loved the Church. If anything women are getting the better end of the deal. Plus that requirement is for their own benefit, as it will help make their husbands more attractive in their eyes.

—————–

Question: But why do you talk so negatively about women?

Answer: It is important to keep in mind that this blog is aimed primarily towards men. Women are welcome, of course, but my principal audience is men. And men talk and interact in a very different manner from women. If that makes women uncomfortable, so be it. I’ve explained this in a more complete fashion in several different posts. Here is one of them.

——————

Question: What is with your name?

Answer: I explained the rationale behind my name in this post.

—————–

Question: You keep using weird terms and words like SMV and FI and Hypergamy- what do they mean?

Answer: I wrote a post defining some of the terms that I use here.

—————–

Question: What do you have against feminism and feminists?

Answer: Feminism is one of the greatest frauds perpetrated upon mankind. It has no foundation in religion, science or reality, and has wrecked countless lives in its long existence. Feminists, at best, are useful fools and at worse callous monsters who don’t care whom they hurt so long as they get the society they want. Never mind the fact that they can never actually have what they want, and the process of bringing it about will bring civilization down around us.

—————–

Question: Why is it that someone as smart as you is a Christian- surely you know it’s superstitious nonsense?

Answer: That superstitious nonsense has done a far better job of predicting our present social devolution that science has. Its explanations of human nature have been proven correct time and time again. Likewise, the moral code and social order that Christianity supports is demonstrably the best means of checking the excesses of human behavior and providing the stability necessary for orderly and non-stagnant civilization.

—————–

Question: How can you call yourself a Christian when you refuse to forgive women who have sinned (sexually) in the past? Don’t you know that God has forgive them?

Answer: To begin with, to forgive someone I would need to be sinned against. If a woman has fornicated with someone else, then besides a general sin against the church community, she really hasn’t sinned against me. So there is nothing to forgive, really. And yes, God has forgiven her for her trespasses. But just because the spiritual consequences of her sin may be gone, the physical/temporal consequences are not necessarily wiped away. The worldly effects of some sins last well beyond the point of repentance. For sexual sins, a woman’s ability to pair bond can be damaged, or she could even be an Alpha Widow.

—————–

Question: How come all of the men here are cold, insensitive and uncaring jerks?

Answer: For the most part, none of the men in this part of the internet wanted to be that way. They were forced to become cold and uncaring, often out of necessity. Some were unjustly divorced by their wives, their marriages and families torn apart by women who cared more about their own enjoyment and “feelings” than their marriage vows. Others have undergone years or even decades of sexual denial at the hands of their wives. Many have hearts of ice as a result of years, decades for some, of rejection by women, who ignored them to chase after bad boys instead. Yet more have become cold as a result of despair arising from an inability to find worthy women to be their wives. The truth is that most men are romantics at heart, including the men around here, but the women in their lives crushed that right out of them.

—————–

Question: If you are a Christian, how come you see marriage as just an exchange of goods and services?

Answer: The short answer is that I don’t. As for a longer answer…. It is important for women to understand that men are able to compartmentalize things in their head in a way that women either don’t or can’t match. We can talk about marriage in transactional terms one minute, and then examine it from a sacramental perspective in another, and then debate its relation to Christ and the Church in a third. I would very much advise my female readers to be wary of projecting female thought processes onto myself, and the men around these parts. Men and women are very different- we think differently, we perceive the world differently, and we react to stimuli differently. So don’t assume that when we say something that it means the same thing it would if a woman said it.

—————–

Question: How come, if this is a Christian blog, you let pick-up artists and their like comment here? Why the hypocrisy?

Answer: My allowing someone to comment here is by no means an indication that I approve their lifestyle or share their beliefs. Sometimes a different perspective can be a valuable thing, if only to illustrate a point I am making. As a general rule, I let most people comment here, so long as they are civil and respectful to other commenters.

—————–

Question: Well then, how come I can’t comment here? Why did you ban me?

Answer: I have banned very few people on my blog. If you cannot comment for some reason, it might be that you are included in my spam filter. Its possible that you ended up there by accident. If you want to comment but cannot, feel free to e-mail me and I will look into it. You can reach me at d0nalgraem3 -at- gmail.com (no spaces or hyphens, just use the @ symbol. Also, that is a zero in the name).

—————–

That is what I have for now. I’m sure I think of more soon, and add them to this post. In the meantime, if my readers have any more questions (preferably ones that can be answer in a paragraph or two), feel free to mention them in this comments of this post.

Need Versus Want

Reader and commenter DJ recently left the following comment in my Questions and Suggestions page:

I’ve been reading and interacting for a while on your blog and one thing I realized isn’t clear in your posts. It often seems like you and others on this page would rather have a wife because they need you your [as] a meal ticket as opposed to they want to be with you. Bear with me on this[,] often there is talk about the good old days when women had limited options, at the same time there is complaining about a lack of sexual enthusiasm in women [with] “duty sex” and how that is hurtful. So I would like your take on this seeming inconsistency.

I have a small amount of free time with which to respond to his inquiry, so here is my hastily written reply. As always, I begin with by noting that I can only speak for myself. Other men around these parts will likely have different opinions on the matter.

From what I can tell, the main question that DJ is asking me is this:

Would you prefer your wife to feel like she needs you, out of material necessity, or would you prefer a wife who wants to be with you, out of sexual desire?

Now, if I had to chose between the two, and could only choose one of the two, then I would definitely choose the latter. If I was to marry, I would want my wife to want me- that is, to be sexually attracted to me.  As a number of bloggers have explained for years, especially Rollo, the female “attraction” (not my use of the term) for a man’s resources is no guarantee that a woman will want him sexually. Marrying a woman who fits the former category is risky- there is no guarantee that she won’t freeze me out, and then what? In the present environment I would have no recourse for a frigid wife. In fact, since she would be a net resource drain on me, I would be worse for marrying her.

Ideally, if I had to choose one thing that I was certain would bind a wife to me, it would be Christian marriage vows and all they encompass. If I could be assured of that, then I (and I suspect many other men) would feel far more secure. Sexual desire, after all, can be a fleeting thing. And as I just mentioned, material necessity is no guarantee of sexual desire.

[Ok, so I sort of lied before. I will claim to speak for others besides myself.]

When men around these parts talk about limiting female options, it is important to understand that we are not talking about some alternative system or method of getting women to desire us. It doesn’t work that way, and we know it. Rather, what we are discussing are possible methods to keep wives bound to their husbands. It is all about ties, really. And no, not the kind you wear.

If a woman feels like she needs a man’s material resources (meal ticket), then that need ties her to that man. If a woman feels sexually drawn to a man, and wants to sleep with him, that ties her to that man. If a woman is married to a man, and the law says she cannot simply leave him for another, that ties her to that man.

What we are advocating is a system where as many different social conventions, laws and other means tie wives to their husbands, as is possible. The more that binds a woman to her husband, the more secure the marriage is likely to be. This won’t necessarily affect her sexual desire for her husband, but it will protect him from divorce or abandonment. All things considered, this is better than nothing. Coupled with a restoration of “standing consent” to the legal system, and men will be much more secure in their marriages. Of course that means more “duty sex”, but from what I hear from many husbands duty sex is better than none at all. And many times what starts as duty sex will morph into enjoyment on her part.

So again, its not like we want one of these things over the others. We want both, and more besides. Women are moral agents, but they, like men, respond to incentives. And the more that is in place which encourages them to stay with their husbands, and to act as proper wives, the better. Of course, the same logic would apply to husbands as well. The overall goal is to incentive marriage, and incentive staying in marriage and upholding your vows, and to discourage the opposite.

Update: A few points of clarification.

1) I wouldn’t want a woman to be my wife only because she needs me to survive. I would want her to want to be with me. I suspect that neither of us would enjoy a marriage based only on material need. Nor would I even deserve a wife if I could only have one by forcing her to choose that path to survival

2) I am not looking for a wife simply to have an outlet for my sex drive. I want a great deal more, and am looking for a great deal more, in any woman I consider as a potential wife. Ideally, I would like someone I could have deep conversations with. Someone that I could relate to. Someone whose company I enjoy throughout the day, not simply when we are alone in the bedroom.

3) Lastly, I wanted to address this comment left by DJ:

It was more because I got the sense that the general feeling is if they don’t need me they will leave.

This sentiment is sparked by the fear that many men have that they will be abandoned by their wives. That they will be divorced, have their assets seized, their children taken from them and their lives ruined. Given the hideously high divorce rate right now, as well as the fact that women initiate most divorces, this is not an unfounded fear. It shouldn’t come as a surprise, then, that they would grasp for any means available to protect themselves from that fate. Since things like “wanting to be with someone” are ephemeral- you can always change your opinion about someone, after all- it only makes sense for them to support means that would work irrespective of what a woman might feel at one particular point in time.

Appearances

[To begin with, apologies for the low level of activity here at this blog, and elsewhere. I am still catching up with comments here. Hopefully I will have time to respond to them today. The next few weeks will be very busy for me, and posting and commenting will be erratic, at best. So don’t be surprised if my weekend, religious themed posts are the only ones I make. Not sure how long this will continue, but into October at the very least.]

Short post today, following up with something I said in my most recent musings post. Therein I said the following:

Something that I want to address as well is the Looks/Athleticism versus Personality debate that seems to show up all the time in the comment section at The Rationale Male. A lot of folks there place too much stock in Looks, as compared to the other LAMPS/PSALM attributes. My suspicion is that the reason why is because Looks and Athleticism are obvious to everyone, whereas Personality/Power can be much more difficult to pick up. Not sure when I will get to writing it, but would love to finish it sometime this month.

To clarify, when I say Looks in that quote I meant the more general category of Appearance, which is used in the simpler alternative to my LAMPS/PSALM formula, APE, to encompass both Looks and Athleticism. I don’t think most of Rollo’s commenters distinguish between the two, so for the remainder of this post I will use Appearance, or A, in lieu of Looks and/or Athleticism.

To quickly summarize what many argue over at Rollo’s blog: Appearance matters more than anything. Good looking men get all the good looking women. Personality and “Game” only gets a man so far. If you aren’t born good-looking, you are just out of luck.

There’s more, but I think I got the heart of it. As for my response, well, I think that argument is bunk. Which should surprise no one, really, since I’ve argued for over a year that the most important part of male sexual attractiveness is a man’s masculinity and personality, which are both tied together. I think there are two reasons why many of the men there have come to that erroneous conclusion.

The first reason is that handsome, good-looking men are also more likely to be confidence and assertive, and those score stronger on their Personality/Power attribute. This comes about because Appearance is the easiest attribute to evaluate. You just need to look at a man to get a fairly accurate reading on where he falls on the scale of Appearance. Since women notice it so easily, they will often direct a lot of attention early on at handsome men, in order to evaluate them more fully (although they may not consciously realize this). Such attention will often, at least initially, be positive. Good-looking men who receive this kind of positive attention are likely to build their confidence more easily, as well as to hone their communication skills with women. This in turn will, over time, improve their Power/Personality scores as well.

So it isn’t simply that handsome men just have their looks going for them, they often will also have their confidence and interpersonal skills going for them as well. But those talents/skills aren’t as visible as a man’s looks. So those who observe the success of handsome men with women don’t realize that a lot more is going on beneath the surface than just looks. This is supported by reports from many in the ‘sphere of conventionally handsome men who were able to get initial attention from women but quickly lose it due to personality defects. Whether that is shyness or feminization leading to an emasculated personality, those men find themselves victims of the fact that Power/Personality is more important than Appearance to female sexual attraction.

The second reason for this disconnect is that women want it all. Women want a man who scores well on all the LAMPS/PSALM factors. If given the choice between a good-looking man “with Game” and an average-looking man “with Game”, women will choose the former (at least, in so far as attraction is concerned). Since good-looking men tend to be confident, they “have Game”, more often than not, it stands to reason that a good-looking man will simply be more attractive all around than a man who isn’t good-looking. Surmounting that hurdle is possible though. Strong External factors, such as social Status or Money, can give an average-looking man an edge. But relatively few men can have that kind of Status or Money. So in the present SMP good-looking men have a significant advantage over men who are only average (or below) in looks. This is only heightened by the fact that women can often achieve decent Status and Money values for themselves, thus raising the bar for men. Personality can compensate for a deficiency in Appearance, but it is very, very difficult to have  Power/Personality score that is high enough to beat out a man with a high Appearance score and a high Power/Personality score.

Taken together, those two factors- good-looking men also have a high Power/Personality score, and women wanting it all, explain the phenomenon that the commenters at Rollo’s blog have observed and described. Of course, my readers are free to disagree and voice that disagreement in the comments.

I should note that I also have another post on attraction which I want to work on, although I have no idea when I’ll have the time for it. I want to explore some alternate theories of attraction, including that which Rollo seems to advocate.

Defining The Problem

I.

The purpose of this post is provide a single space where I define the terms that I use across my blog in ways that might be different in meaning from the common understanding. It is meant to serve as a reference in later posts, and as a place to direct inquiries made via comments or e-mail. I will be updating it over time to add more terms and to clarify and flesh out older terms. This will not be a static post. One thing I should make clear is that these are the terms/words as I used them. My commenters and other blogs might use them differently.

I’ve been meaning to write a post like this for a long time now, but never got around to it. A number of my posts, including my recent post “What qualities should a man look for in a wife?” have involved confusion and misunderstanding because readers and commenters didn’t understand what I meant by certain terms. Having a frame of reference would have helped there. Also, Deep Strength’s recent post, “Attraction, desire, chemistry, arousal and marriage” was another major catalyst in finally getting around to it. Keep in mind that he and I agree on a lot when it comes to definitions, but don’t agree on everything.

II.

So, without further ado, here are the terms I would like to define:

Attractive: When I use this word it generally is in reference to sexual attractiveness. An attractive woman is a woman who is sexually attractive to men, and an attractive man is a man who is sexually attractive to women.  It does not refer to traits which might be valuable in men or women, but do not affect their sexual attractiveness in any way.

Attractive/Attraction Traits: An attractive trait on someone is a feature that is sexually attractive- it generates sexual attraction in men or women. It is not something that might be desirable because it has positive ramifications, but doesn’t affect how sexually attractive he or she is. An example of an attraction trait is a man or woman’s facial structure- this is something that will affect how sexually attractive a man or woman is.

Attraction: When someone wants someone because he or she is sexually attractive to that person.

Desirable: When I use this word it is generally in reference to reasons to be drawn to a person for non-sexual reasons. It applies to those things someone might want in a man or woman, but do not impact their overall sexual attractiveness. Generally come into play only in long-term relationships. A desirable woman is a woman who has many traits that do not make her sexually attractive but otherwise raise her value as a potential long-term partner. A desirable man is a man who has many traits that do not make him sexually attractive but otherwise raise his value as a potential long-term partner.

Desirable/Desirability traits: Those traits which men or women want in the opposite sex that don’t affect sexual attraction but are otherwise valuable to have. Loyalty is an example of a desirable trait- it doesn’t affect sexual attractiveness but is valuable in a potential long-term partner.

Desire: Refers to when someone wants someone else because he or she finds the other person sexually attractive and because that person has a number of positive traits which them them a good long-term partner. Example- If I desire a woman it means that I find her attractive and she has those traits which I value in a potential wife, so I want to make her mine.

AWALT: All Women Are Like That. Often used in conjunction with a broad statement about female nature. Generally means that nearly all women meet whatever standard or possess whatever behavior is being asserted, so it can be treated as though all women are like that.

NAWALT: Not All Women Are Like That. Often used to reject a statement that claims AWALT or implicates as much. Asserts that there are always outliers and exceptions to general female behaviors and actions.

FI: Refers to the Feminine Imperative.

Feminine Imperative: A concept (to the best of my knowledge) first advanced by blogger Rollo Tomassi at The Rational Male. A somewhat difficult concept to explain, I use it to refer to hardwired human biological conditioning which generally favors abstract female interests over abstract male interests in the social group. The general idea is that the FI manifests itself in those policies and rules which favor women over men, even when those rules/policies are illogical or run counter to other policies or beliefs (such as equality under the law). Unless consciously accounted and compensated for, any system over time will be overtaken by the FI and morph into one that favors women at the expense of men.

EAP: Stands for Entitled American Princess most of the time. Occasionally used to refer to an Evangelical American Princess. Both however are essentially the same thing as I used them, with the latter merely being more specific.

Entitled American Princess: Refers to an American woman (usually unmarried) with a massive entitlement complex who earnestly believes that all men should treat her as a real, live princess. That is, defer to her interests at all times. Such women see the overwhelming majority of men as mere tools to be used.

SMV: Stands for Sexual Market Value

Sexual Market Value: Refers to how sexually attractive someone is in the overall environment that they find themselves in. For women, this tends to be objective- a woman is not more or less attractive depending on how attractive the women near her are. Female SMV is usually rated on a 1-10 scale. Male attractiveness is partially subjective- how attractive a man is can be impacted by how attractive the other men in the environment (“market”) are.

SMP: Stands for Sexual Marketplace.

Sexual Marketplace: Refers to the overall “dating” scene between men and women in which both sexes compete with their own sex for the attentions/affections of the opposite sex. Recognizes that attractiveness is the primary driving force in the overall “value” someone has in this system. The primary purposes of this environment, this “market” is sex and sexual gratification, and not long-term relationships or marriage.

MMV: Stands for Marriage Market Value.

Marriage Market Value: Refers to the overall “value” someone has when looking for a potential spouse in the overall environment that they find themselves in. Tends to be correlated with, but not necessarily match, SMV. MMV is a mix of objective factors, such as loyalty, and subjective factors, such as overall place in the job market. Both attraction and desirability traits determine MMV.

MMP: Stands for Marriage Marketplace.

Marriage Marketplace: Refers to overall collection of people seeking marriage in the present environment. At the moment the Sexual Marketplace is dominant, and thus the Marriage Marketplace is forced to operate within it. This creates a great many problems. Based on the understanding that some men and women make (or would make) better husbands or wives, and that men and women therefore compete with one another to get the best possible spouse.

Hypergamy: Refers to the female reproductive impulse which drives female behavior more than anything else. As used here, hypergamy is the female inclination to seek out the highest value (that is the most attractive) man available  and to attempt to secure that male as a mate. Essentially, women are driven to have the best when it comes to men. If a better man comes along, they will want him instead. If a woman feels that she can do better than her present man, it will greatly reduce her attraction to him and her relationship with him may die. Hypergamy doesn’t care- it doesn’t care what a man has done in the past for a woman, it doesn’t care what promises she might have made or what oaths she might have sworn and it doesn’t care who might be hurt so long as it gets its way. However, women are not robots- they can overcame their hypergamous instincts and not be ruled by them… if they chose to.

Churchianity: Refers to a perverted, corrupted form of Christianity which is no longer consistent with basic Christian teaching and doctrine. Does not refer to sectarian splits, or arguments between faith traditions (i.e., Catholic v. Orthodox v. Protestant). Churchianity is heavily infected by modernism/liberalism, and would be unrecognizable to early Christians as representing the Christian faith. In many respects Churchianity is what happens when people attempt to reconcile their worldly views with Christianity. Rather than conforming to God, they conform to the world, and “adjust” their religious beliefs so that their faith is compatible with their worldly beliefs.

Churchian: Someone who practices Churchianity. A churchian is of the world, and not of God. Someone who does not accept that their faith requires rejecting the world and embracing the persecution which results from it.

It Is What Is On The Inside That Counts

Over at the blog JustFourGuys Sir Nemesis wrote a post recently, titled How the Feminine Imperative Backfires. Sir Nemesis, in his examination of how the FI sabotages female interests when left unchecked, delved into “fat acceptance and inner beauty.” His words:

Liberal society has pushed to redefine fat plus-size women as being beautiful. At the same time, traditional churchians have pushed men to not care about looks and not be judgmental about looks. As a result, men find it difficult to voice their preference for fit women, which actually has negative effects on women.

To back this up he quoted a comment from Elspeth in my post Whither Thy Sons? Then he backed up his initial contention with a comment of his own and one by Novaseeker. I mention all of this to provide context for the next part. Elspeth responded to his post with this comment:

Some context to my comments are in order so I’ll offer it without overstaying my welcome, .

First, I was not implying that men marry fat women. I was offering that a woman who is auditioning for a position of a man’s wife should have no problem with making the necessary adjustments if they click in other areas and he makes it clear that fitness is important to him.

Secondly, bear in mind that this conversation took place at the blog of a man who (along with many of his readers) are chaste Christian men looking to marry women equally chaste, preferably with their hymens intact. Unfortunately, most of those women in the pews are unattractive to them primarily because in their loneliness they often snuggle up to a pint of Ben and Jerry’s every evening. But they are chaste, and they are devout, and many might make excellent wives if the attraction issue were addressed.

My point was that it might be worth considering entreating a woman you like who meets the faith/chastity criteria to get in shape, join you on your fitness journey, and see what happens.

My comments were not at all meant as promotion of fat acceptance (I am firmly against that entire movement) or any kind of attempt to shame men into marrying fat women.

[Parts in bold are mine.]

Elspeth was careful to use conditional modifiers in her comment, and so what follows next isn’t a critique of what she said. But I do want to focus on what she said in the sentence that I put in bold-

But they are chaste, and they are devout, and many might make excellent wives if the attraction issue were addressed.

Something that has been pointed out by a few people in these parts, including myself, Cail Corishev and reader/commenter mdavid, is that inner and outer beauty often align. By this I mean that a woman’s exterior often reveals a lot about her inner character. Whether is the clothing she wears, the makeup she uses, or her appearance in such categories as weight, a lot is revealed about her. Jesus taught us that we can know a tree, and a person, by the fruit they bear in life. And a woman’s appearance is an example of one such fruit.

I believe it was mdavid who pointed out somewhere on my blog that gluttony and sloth, the sins which combine in women to lead them towards becoming and staying overweight, rarely travel alone. My personal experience has backed this up. I don’t really think that are very many devout and chaste Christian women who make for good wives if they could only lose some weight. Rather, it is been my experience that they often, if you scratch beneath the surface, have plenty of other sin issues besides sloth and gluttony.

I’ve mentioned before that I attend, whenever I can help it, a Traditional Catholic parish. One of the things that first struck me when I visited that parish was that the average woman there was much thinner than her counter-part at the non-Traditional parishes I’ve attended. Very few women were truly overweight, and I don’t think this is a coincidence. This experience, when combined with other personal experiences, has led me to theorize that you can often (although not always) use weight as a proxy for other marriageable traits in a woman. In particular, a woman’s weight combined with her manner of dress seems to be a fairly accurate indicator of her devotion and other positive traits. Likewise, I think that there is a correlation between a woman’s willingness to lose weight and her overall quality as a wife candidate.

Of course, most of this is based purely on anecdote and personal experience. So I invite my readers to offer their thoughts and experiences on the matter. Am I on track here? Is it just coincidence? Or am I blinded by a woman’s weight such that I’m missing a lot of perfectly acceptable wife candidates who merely need to lose a few pounds?

Missing A Certain Little Something

Over at Morning Sprinkles and Evening Gunfire, Allamagoosa has crafted a Response to “Teen Girls Define a Real Man.” Her post addresses one of those dreaded “lists” that show up not infrequently in Christian Churchian circles. Alla does a superb job taking down this list, exposing its myriad of flaws. Here is how the list begins:

“Lori Hainline & Rebecca Chandler co-authored this list at the respective ages of 19 and 17. Their closing comment: This list is not exhaustive and men like this do exist!”

And here is Alla’s response to that intro:

Well, that’s a great start. Having (presumably) unmarried teen girls describe what a real man is. As opposed to married women or actual men. That said, I do agree with them that men like this do exist. I’ve gone to church and school with men like this, problem is the girls aren’t dating them!

Now, some lists are better than others, and despite problems with subjectivity and doctrinal weakness, this one is better than most. But all of these lists share a common problem, which ties in directly to Alla’s point that girls don’t date “men like this.” [Set aside the fact that Christians shouldn’t be dating in the first place.] That common problem is not found in what they say, it is found in what they don’t say. You see, something is always missing from these lists. A critical- no, essential trait which a man must have to qualify himself with regards to everything that actually makes it on that list. What is that trait, that quality?

That he be attractive, of course.

Nothing else matters if the man isn’t [sexually] attractive. He can be absolutely devout. He can pray up a storm. He can be unafraid to profess his faith in public. He can do all of that and more besides, and yet it will avail him of nothing if he is not also attractive.

Women don’t consciously understand this, as has been documented here and elsewhere many times before. Most will never realize what is going on if someone doesn’t point it out to them. But what seems to be the case is that unattractive men are mostly invisible to women. While women may acknowledge they exist, they don’t exist as men. Instead, they are classified as something else entirely, and are quickly forgotten about unless otherwise required. I believe it was Sunshine Mary who explained that unattractive men are “grey”, while attractive men are “in color.” They show up on women’s radar and are the objects of attention, whereas the “grey men” merge with the scenery and are forgotten.

However it is explained, a list like this that doesn’t include the caveat that a man also be attractive can never work. At best this list will be of some use when dealing with what one commenter referred to as “Righteous Alphas”- those Christian men who are both devout and at the same time attractive to women. But they are few and far between these days.  So they might as well not exist for the purposes of lists like these. On the other hand, there are far more Christian men out there who meet the criteria set forth in lists like this but aren’t attractive to most women. At least, not attractive given the current state of female hypergamy (among other things). So ultimately these lists do nothing to screen for those men, and achieve no positive effect.

Once again, an example of something that seems good in theory but utterly fails in practice. I’m highly tempted to “flip the script” again and create my own counter-part to this list of desirable qualities in Christian women. We’ll see if time permits next week for an attempt at satire.

As a side note, I think that Alla was on to something when she stated a belief that many of these lists exist to make Christian women feel better about themselves, and to make them look better (classier in her words) than they really are. I wouldn’t be surprised if some of this was driven by a desire of women to elevate themselves among the herd.

An R-Rated Subject

Today’s relatively short and hastily written post is going to address a subject that may not be for everyone. I’m sure that more than a few of my readers will not care for it at all. It is bound to generate some heated debate and disagreement.

The subject, of course, is romance.

Recently I was engaged in a conversation with a young woman who reads my blog on occasion and she indicated that she didn’t believe that men cared about romance at all. I disagreed, and asked why she thought that. She pointed towards the manosphere/androsphere  and the fact that most of the men in that community deride romance. Apparently for her discovering the ‘sphere had been something of an epiphany, as it had informed her that men weren’t interested in romance. While cautioning that the ‘sphere isn’t necessarily an accurate cross-section of men, I disagreed with her conclusion that the ‘sphere demonstrates that most men aren’t romantic or otherwise have no sense of romance.

If anything, I explained, the rise and “success” of the ‘sphere owes to the fact that men are the more romantic of the sexes [an area where Rollo and I are in agreement]. The reason why so many men find their way here, in fact the reason the ‘sphere exists, is in large part because many men were romantic for a large part of their lives. And that it didn’t work very well for them.

Men might not be very romantic, but if so then women are even less romantic. For all their talk of romance and its associated trappings- flowers, poetry, letters and the like, women these days sure don’t hesitate to associate themselves with men who display zero interest in romance. And by associate I mean sleep with, if not pursue (and sometimes get) relationships with, such men. As for those men who are interested in romance… well, the word Incel doesn’t exist because some guy got bored and decided to make something up.

If the men in these parts don’t seem very romantically inclined, I would argue it is because their romantic nature was burned out of them. By women. And by extension poor advice from other men. Men can only sustain so many rejections…. they can only watch for so long as women abandon the romantics for the players and cads whose idea of a gift is skittles… and men can only tolerate so much betrayal before their sense of romance collapses in on itself and dies like a red giant turning into a white dwarf.

She disagreed. Instead of believing that most men start as romantics, she argued that most men took to romance only because they thought it would work. That it would get them the female attention they so greatly (and desperately) desired. I started to compose an argument to rebut hers, but then realized that I was basing most of what I would say on just myself. As someone who was (from an early age) and still is, a romantic at heart, I would naturally disagree that most men are just mercenary about romance. The thing is, I don’t actually know that most men are really like that. I’m not exactly an average male in a number of ways, and I know I’m not a representative sample.

So while I understand the sample size is small, I’m hoping my male readers here can chime in. Do you consider yourself a romantic? If you aren’t now, where you a romantic at some point in the past, before the world turned you away from romance? What caused you to lose your sense of romance?

Nice For Me But Not For Thee

A few weeks back, on my Questions or Suggestions page, commenter Nathan asked these questions:

“Is Girl-Game just the female equivalent of being the “Nice Guy?” If so, then why do we praise Girl-Game as a positive virtue while chastising being a “Nice Guy” as a negative vice?”

He then added this:

I’m not suggesting being a “Nice Guy” is a good thing, but then why do we praise women for doing basically the same thing.

Sorry for taking so long to get back to you Nathan, hopefully this post will make up for that somewhat. I will begin by repeating (in a cleaned up format) what I said in reply to your original comment:

Men and women are very different, so what works for one may not work for the other, and vice versa.

As for a longer answer, Vox at AlphaGame has a post up linking to this study. Some snippets:

Scientifically, nice (heterosexual) guys might actually finish last. A study published in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin recently found that while men were attracted to nice-seeming women upon meeting them, women did not feel the same way about men. Researchers from the University of Rochester, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and the Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) Herzliya in Israel investigated a possible mechanism explaining why women and men differ in their sexual reactions with receptive opposite-sex strangers.

…

In the first of three studies, researchers explored whether women or men perceived a receptive opposite-sex stranger as sexually desirable and, if so, whether that “responsive” quality registered as overtly feminine or masculine. The researchers found that men who perceived possible female partners as responsive found them to be “more feminine and more attractive.” Past research suggests that physical cues of femininity stimulate sexual attraction because they suggest higher estrogen levels, better overall mate quality and solid reproductive health.

On the other hand, women didn’t necessarily perceive a responsive man as less masculine, but they also did not find a responsive man more attractive. What’s more, when women perceived their male partner to be responsive, they were less attracted to the man.

In other words, it appeared that in an initial encounter men liked nice ladies; women thought nice guys were kind of lame.

There is plenty more, I suggest everyone read the whole thing. Here is what Vox had to say on the matter:

Men find nice women to be attractive. Women don’t find nice men to be attractive. The Masters of Game have been observing this for years; science is finally beginning to test some of the Game hypotheses, and unsurprisingly, are confirming them. It’s very simple. Being nice to an attractive woman is a display of low value. Being a jerk to an attractive woman is a display of high value. Women are drawn to DHV and repulsed by DLV. Because hypergamy.

Nice does not work for men. It just doesn’t. At the very best it does nothing positive, and at the worst will torpedo a man’s chances with a woman. Being perceived as “nice” lowers a man’s perceived Masculine Power in the eyes of women, rendering him less attractive.

But the opposite is not the case- nice can and does work for women. I wouldn’t exactly say that a nice woman is more attractive, but I would say that she is more desirable. So it won’t be a huge help (although it cannot hurt) to a woman who has otherwise lost the genetic lottery, but for even an average woman it can make a significant difference. This is because men tend to classify women above their attraction floor into two categories: women who are to be used and then discarded, and women who are to be possessed and kept. Begin nice as a woman, in fact “Girl Game” in particular, is all about being perceived in that latter category.

So, in summary, being nice is a bad move for men and a good move for women. It makes a man less attractive and makes a woman more desirable. Women are “praised” for pursuing “Girl Game” because it works for them- we praise success, not failure, which is all that “Nice Guy Game” ever entails.

A Warning And A Lesson

Today’s post is inspired by the comments of this post over at Dalrock’s. It will be divided into two parts, the first of which responds to a comment by “Bee”, while the second features some of my thoughts and commentary concerning a comment left by “stringtheory.”

I.

Here is part of what commenter Bee said in response to Deti talking about the incorrect, inaccurate and often outright deceptive teaching in church on the nature of men and women:

What would you teach a class of teenage, Christian men to give them the correct perspective?

Would you encourage the young men to marry young?

(Link to comment here)

I’m going to address them in order, starting with the question of “What would you teach a class of teenage, Christian men to give them the correct perspective?”

Well, the first thing I would do is advise that they read the Wisdom Books in the Bible. Proverbs, Sirach and Song of Songs especially. I know that most Protestant Bibles don’t have the Book of Sirach, which I think is a tragic loss for those who have never read it. Fortunately there are plenty of online resources where Sirach can be read in several different translations. So if you don’t want to buy a new Bible that would be a viable alternative. Both Sirach and Proverbs mesh well together in terms of explaining positive and negative traits in women. They warn men about the consequences of choosing a wife poorly and can help keep women off a pedestal. Song of Songs is useful for disabusing men of the notion that women are asexual creatures, which can again help keep away the pedestalization. All of that makes for a good, solid foundation.

Other passages in the Bible provide good lessons as well. Genesis has valuable insights of course. Potiphar’s wife’s advances on Joseph provide stark warning about female nature. Samson provides all kinds of object lessons. Both the story of David and Solomon have great value as well. All of these will tie in to what will be taught later about female nature.

Before going any further, I would tell these young Christian men that male sexuality is not inherently evil or twisted or anything of that sort. God created us as sexual creatures (save perhaps those with St. Paul’s gift), and that is a good thing. Teach them that sex is both proper and good inside of marriage- for it unites man and woman together as one flesh and is the avenue by which offspring come about- which is what God desires.

With that taken care of, I would explain to those teenage men what women find attractive in men. Help them understand the differences between Attraction traits and Desirability traits. Then I would explain to them why women find those traits attractive. Make it clear to them that most people out there, Christian or non-Christian, don’t understand this. Consequently, they will need to be suspicious of anything else they’ve been taught before which clashes with this. Inform them that there is a lot of bad teaching out there, and they need to be able to distinguish the truth from lies.

Then I would move on to explain other aspects of female nature. Some important examples include:

• Hypergamy
• The Good Genes/Good Provider dichotomy and how that plays out
• Fitness Tests
• The impact of a woman’s sexual history on marital stability
• The inability to negotiate desire
• The differences in how women communicate as compared to men

The Feminine Imperative (an ephemeral concept if there ever was one) would also be something that would need to be explained to them. While difficult to describe, it has a huge impact on nearly all aspects of our culture, and learning it is critical for men to understand why the present culture (within and without the Church) is what it is.

By the end of all these lessons, these young men should be able to see women for what they are: fallen, sinful creatures… just like men. This brings us to the second question- “Would you encourage the young men to marry young?”

The short answer to this is yes, I would. I’ve explained before why young marriage is a good thing. Young marriage would (or to be more accurate, could) help these young men avoid sexual immorality. However, that would be an incomplete answer. Because at the same time I would also encourage the young men to prepare for marrying young. That means getting serious about their life right away. If they pursue an education, don’t waste time on needless classes. Take what they need, and only what they need. Finish as swiftly as possible, so as to minimize debt and get into the workforce as soon as possible. Consider trade school if not looking at college or university. Also consider community college combined with a full or part-time job.

At the same time, it would also be necessary to encourage the parents of the young men to support their sons marrying young. Most Christians these days, parents especially are opposed to young marriage, on a variety of grounds- none of them really good. Expect a lot of resistance here. And that leads into the real problem with all of this. You see, encouraging young men to marry young is rather pointless unless you can encourage young women to marry young. Right now that isn’t happening, in fact it is the exact opposite. This provides the perfect lead-up to part two-

II.

Commenter Stringtheory left the following comments:

On a recent camping trip, one of the guys was telling us about how his 28 year old son had started taking antidepressants. His son has never suffered from depression but told his dad he was able to say the right things and get a prescription. He’s taking them to try and kill his sex drive because he’s simply tired of pursing women with no success. The dad is upset and angry. His son is reasonably attractive, a working professional with a decent income, but all the girls he asks out turn him down, or if he does go out they want to have sex right away and his son wants to wait until marriage. So instead of being tempted with porn or fornication he’s cutting out the source of his temptation. We were all talking about the morality of this. Is it wrong to kill one’s sex drive to avoid marriage or immorality?

(Link here)

I should correct my above statement. The question wasn’t “Is it wrong to kill one’s sex drive to avoid marriage or immorality?” but rather to avoid immorality. I want to make clear that my friend’s son wants to get married, but he simply can’t find any non-virgins and doesn’t think his prospects are going to get better any time soon. About six months ago he did strike up a friendship with an 19 year old who was (presumably) a virgin and things seemed to be moving along but it got quashed by the girl’s parents and church elders who thought that his interest was inappropriate given the age difference. After that he had had enough and started down the chemically eunuch route.

(Link here)

Most of my regular readers will likely understand why I sympathize with that young man. He sounds like a slightly younger version of myself, trying to clear much the same hurdles. Before answering stringtheory’s question, I want to continue where I left off- how young women are not encouraged to marry young.

I don’t recall if it was Novaseeker or Cail Corishev who once said something along the lines that there are few things that Christians fear these days so much as a young women with potential marrying young. Whether or not that accusation is true (I think it is for many),  stringtheory’s account, and that of other Christians in this part of the web, does demonstrate that many if not most Christians do not want young, attractive virgin women to marry good, virtuous men. They just don’t. If there was no age gap, as there was here, then another reason would have been given for why the relationship should not have been. As for why so many Christians act in this manner, there are two different forces working together here- one relating to women and one relating to men.

When it comes to women, most Christians oppose on principle the idea of a young, (attractive) virgin marrying. Of course, if one or more of those traits is not present, then the opposition tends to melt away. She’s no longer young? Why then, of course she should marry. She’s not attractive? Well, it won’t be such a loss if that man, older or not, marries her (although this is still not favored- its just tolerated more). She’s no longer a virgin? Well, it would be good for that men to marry her and “save her” from her past mistakes.  So for those young men that Bee was asking about… well, it really doesn’t matter if you encourage them to marry young or not. Because everyone else in church is encouraging the women the men want to marry (and should marry) to not marry. At least, not right away. Not until they get more “life experience” and other such nonsense. This really is one of the great tragedies of our age- the Christian women who should marry, and would make (all other things being equal) the best wives- those who are young and virgins, are for the large part essentially commanded that they shouldn’t marry until they are no longer young.

This brings us to the men. Based on what I have seen, and what others have relayed to me, it appears as though many Christians don’t want good, virtuous Christian men to marry well. Oh, they would never admit to it and would instead deny the accusation vociferously. They would protest and say that of course they want those nice men to marry well. But the women they want to marry, those young (hopefully attractive) virgins from the paragraph before, are basically off-limits to them. As for what women they are “allowed” to marry, that is, to court without scandal or reprisal? Yeah….  Honestly, sometimes I get the impression that a lot of Christians see good, virtuous men as janitors or sanitation workers who are expected to pick up the “trash” in church. If you continue to follow stringtheory’s comments in that thread he basically describes that exact phenomenon in action. Undoubtedly it is one of the major reasons why so many men are leaving the church right now. These men are essentially being punished for their virtue, which sure doesn’t help encourage it any, as incentives matter.

Before I close I also want to address the question of “Is it wrong to kill one’s sex drive to avoid [sexual] immorality?” I know that I have read some of the works of the early Church Fathers who discussed physical castration, and they made it clear that it was a sin. One’s body is holy, a gift from God, and is not to be disfigured. I think that the same reasoning would apply to chemical castration as well. Your brain is part of your body, and using chemicals to alter your brain chemistry to suppress, hinder or eliminate certain brain functions is harmful. Yes, the intent might be good, but the action itself is not just or ordered. Jesus was not being literal when he said we should cut off our hand if it caused us to be sin- he was applying a metaphor, as per his usual style. However, reasonable minds might differ and I am curious what my readers think about the subject. Is is acceptable to use chemicals to suppress one’s sex drive so as to avoid sexual immorality? Let me know in the comments.

Incoming Question

Today’s post is my attempt to answer a question posed by reader and occasional commenter Nathan. He left it in my Questions and Suggestions page, which is the perfect place to leave any questions you might have related to my blog or the topics I cover. Here is Nathan’s comment in full:

What is your best info and advice for men to pick and plan their personal missions in life, who are concerned about how the possibly low income and high expense of that mission lifestyle will effect and decrease their odds of marrying a truly godly woman? This seems like picking a mission without any hope for a wife OR picking a wife and trying to make a lot of money, but without any personal mission, and both of those options seem less than ideal.
I’m pissed off that nearly [every] example of married men in the bible is rich, mad that most Christian women are repelled by a lack of high income.
What to do?

Let me begin by noting that while Nathan asks only one question (in a short and long version), there are several possible topics to discuss besides just the question of “what to do?” As I see it, there are three major issues here (along with several sub-issues that I will only touch on):

• How can a Christian man still marry if he is intent on pursuing a life-path/mission that not only doesn’t pay well, but is expensive at the same time?
• What is the significance of the fact that nearly every married man in the bible is rich?
• Why are most Christian women repelled by a lack of high income?

I am going to address the last question first, as I believe it will be relatively easy to cover. The second question is actually worth a post all of its own, as it will require some serious delving into scripture. So that will follow at some point in the future. The first question will be what I will finish with, and devote most of this post towards. I would ask that those who comment keep to the two points that this post covers. [Having finished the post now, I can say that it isn’t my best. But I wanted to respond to him as soon as possible, so I’m posting it right away rather than spend the time to try and smooth the edges. Keep this in mind as you read the rest.]

This brings me to the issue of why it seems that most Christian women are repelled by a lack of high income. The first thing I would like to do is point out that all women, not just Christian women, are attracted to a man with a high income. Money, of which income is a significant component, is one of the attributes that women use to measure the attractiveness of a man. As its position in the PSALM formula indicates, Money is the weakest of these attributes. But it is still something that women pay attention to, at least when high numbers are concerned.

Even with this in mind, a number of men around the sphere have argued for some time that most Christian women are even more materialistic than their secular sisters. Personally, I have no opinion on the matter. In my experience most women who profess to be Christian are no more concerned, and no less, than secular women when it comes to income and wealth in general. But for the sake of this post let us assume that their assessment is accurate. So why would Christian women be more insistent on a man having a higher income than secular women?

One reason that I can think of is the so-called “Prosperity Gospel.” Apparently this is quite prominent in a number of Protestant Christian circles. Since most of those men making these allegations/observations tend to be Protestant, I wonder if there might be a link between the two. Not being familiar with this particular theology, its adherents, or Protestant churches in general, I will leave it to my Protestant readers and commenters to offer their thoughts on this possible cause.

Another factor might be the rampant sense of entitlement that is fostered amongst many Christian women these days in the West, especially in the US. The title of EAP, or Entitled American Princess, is sometimes associated with “good church girls”, who are often called “Daughters of the King.” Given the rampant feminism in most Christian churches these days, it is only natural that unhealthy and unrealistic expectations will be developed in many young Christian women.

There might be other factors at play, but I can’t think of them at the moment. My readers are encouraged to off their own suggestions at what might be behind this.

Something I want to touch on real quickly is that women should be concerned about a man’s income, or his future ability to provide, when it comes to marriage. After all, he will need to provide for a family, especially while his wife is pregnant and they have children. A man who cannot provide for a family, now or in the future, needs to understand that his ability to marry will be severely limited. And there is nothing wrong with this- we men are called to a great responsibility as husbands and fathers, and need to live up to that. What I think that Nathan was getting at, though, is that many Christian women’s perceptions of what an appropriate income is to support a family are heavily skewed to the high end. As a result few men can hope to live up to these unrealistic, and unnecessary, expectations.

Finishing that, we return to the initial question of what a man can do about marrying when pursuing a low-income “mission.” As I just alluded to, men need to understand that they are primarily (but not solely) responsible for supporting their family. This isn’t something that can be escaped from just because a man is serving on “a mission from God.” Unless a man has some means of materially supporting his wife and children in the future, he needs to understand that a family is just not in the cards. It might be a necessary sacrifice (albeit a great one) in order to pursue his God-given mission. Is that a hard road to walk? Well, yes it is. But Jesus warned us as much:

²⁹ And every one who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name’s sake, will receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life. ³⁰ But many that are first will be last, and the last first.

(Matthew 19:29-30)

I think that part of the dilemma faced by Nathan is self-imposed, in the sense that he (perhaps without intending to) rejects a lifestyle that earns a high income as compatible with serving the Lord. While riches make entering heaven difficult, it is not impossible. After all, with God all things are possible. One doesn’t have to be poor to serve God. It just helps keep distractions out of your life.

In addition, our personal missions can be quite varied. For some Christians it might be actual missionary work in Africa or Asia. For others, it might be charity work closer to home. For others it might involve raising funds or foodstuffs or other necessities for those in need (something Saint Paul himself engaged in). For others it might be evangelization, or something as simple and yet as difficult as raising a family of saints. I could go on listing possible paths for a long time yet; there is no limit to the ways we can serve the Lord.

But if you feel called to a specific vocation (to use the Catholic parlance), it might be necessary to give up a wife and family. If you think this might be the case, then I recommend lots and lots of prayer. Combine this with discussions with wise and devout individuals in your life, to discern if that is truly your calling. If it is, understanding that you are giving up a lot in this life, in the hope to gain a hundred-fold in the next.

Another option worth mentioning is to pursue mission style work later in life. One doesn’t have to do it when young. In fact, there are many reasons to do it while older. A man can spend his young working hard, acquiring money, getting married and raising a family, and then once the children are grown up he and his wife can engage in that mission then. At that point in life mission work might be a nice break from what you did before, and you might be better prepared for it as well. You doesn’t have to serve God the same way your whole life- the way we can serve can adjust as we gain experience and wisdom.

A biblical example of a Christian married couple who might fit this bill would be Priscilla and Aquila. Scripture doesn’t mention that they had children with them, nor does it mention their age. But given the way that they moved freely with Paul, I suspect that they were probably without children at the time. This might have been because their children had already grown up and moved to their own household. It is also possible they were infertile and simply couldn’t have children. If the former, however, they provide an example of a married couple who served God in a powerful and memorable way.

My advice to any man is to first discern what vocation he is called towards. Is marriage part of his God-given mission? If so, then he needs to plan and act accordingly. That means being in a position to support a wife, and then later a family. If you feel called towards something else right away, then you need to accept the sacrifice that is asked of you, and make peace with that. Otherwise, you can still plan your mission after you have an empty nest, where you and your wife do the Lord’s work in the manner you are called to. Just be sure and discuss this with potential wife candidates, so that they understand the nature of the mission, and man, they are becoming joined with.

That completes my initial thoughts on the matter. I would encourage my readers to offer their own thoughts and advice to Nathan, and to anyone else contemplating the same situation.

Update: The Unreal Woman has expanded on her thoughts in the comments in a post over at her blog. I highly recommend it.