Signal to Noise Ratio

I.

Today’s short post is a response to a compound question asked by April (otherwise known as peacefulwife) over at Peaceful Single Girl:

What is it that women can do to signal interest, and what is it that women are doing to prevent signaling interest?

The question, asked in comment thread of this post, was in response to the following comment by myself:

It really isn’t true that men initiate first, or are supposed to initiate first. Women do through signalling a willingness to be approached by a man, or men. And this is where a lot of women, Christian women especially, fail. They send out the wrong signals, and instead of demonstrating that they are willing to be approached, indicate that they want nothing to do with the Christian men around them.

I will probably expand on what I raised in my comment at some later point, but today I will focus on the two questions which April asks. Fortunately, they lend themselves well to easy organization.

II.

The key thing for a woman to understand is that she needs to maintain a positive signal-to-noise ratio. Life is full of distractions, or noise, that will interfere with a man’s ability to detect a woman’s interest in him. The more distractions, the more powerful her signal will have to be. Which translates into her needing to be more overt in making her feelings clear.

Additionally, women face several problems when it comes to signaling interest. The first is that it can be difficult to determine how much noise there is. What may be distracting to a man may not phase a woman. Another problem is that some men don’t like it when a woman is too overt. Myself, I don’t have a problem with this, but for some guys this seems to be a real bother or turn-off. Lastly, men and women communicate in very different ways, so a man may completely miss what a woman thinks is obvious.

Given all of this, I suggest a strategy of slowly ratcheting up signaling interest to a man. So, what ways can a woman signal her interest? Here are a few that I have thought of:

1) Smile. Smile a lot. This may seem simple, and it is. But smiling is a good way of showing a man that you don’t mind his presence.

2) Compliment him. Find something you like about him and let him know.

3) Ask him what his favorite color is, or if he likes a particular color pattern. Then, wear a dress or outfit with those colors or that pattern to an event that you know he will be present at.

4) Serve him. When you are at a dinner or other event where food will be served, ask him if if you can bring him anything.

5) Flirt. That’s right, flirt. There is nothing wrong with some light-flirting and teasing with a man. It is one of the surest ways to express interest.

III.

Now to address the second question. What things should a woman avoid which interfere with her signaling interest to a man? Some thoughts:

A) A cold demeanor. A woman who isn’t pleasant and shows no warmth will come across as uninterested in a man. Smile and have a welcoming expression on your face. Make it clear that talking with you won’t be a painful experience for a man.

B) Rigid body language. A lot of our communication isn’t in what we say, but how we say it. If your body language is closed and rigid, you are sending a message that you don’t want to be approached. Relax and let your motions flow. Don’t give the appearance of not wanting to be there.

C) Nuclear rejections. If you are approached by a man who doesn’t interest you, don’t blow up on him. Reject him politely and quietly. Don’t make a scene. And don’t gossip or talk about it. Your goal is to make it so that men don’t see approaching you as a costly endeavor. This way, any man you are signalling will think to himself that even if he is wrong about your feelings, he won’t regret approaching you.

IV.

Those are a few ideas that I have to answer the peacefulwife’s question. As I think of more I will update the post. In the meantime, I invite my readers to offer their own thoughts on what women should and shouldn’t do to help signal their interest.

Selected Sunday Scripture- #5

The first passage from scripture today comes from the First Letter of St. Peter:

³ Let not yours be the outward adorning with braiding of hair, decoration of gold, and wearing of robes, ⁴ but let it be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable jewel of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious.

This is a very popular passage around these parts, as it provides a valuable insight into the kind of character that a Christian woman should develop. However, that is not what interested me in my latest read-through of this part of the New Testament. Instead, I was intrigued by the notions of modesty that it presented. As I thought on it, I realized that there are really two different forms of modesty, one in harmony with chastity and the other in harmony with humility. To be somewhat clearer, one form of modesty is about dressing and acting in such a way so as to not call unnecessary sexual attention upon oneself. The second form of modesty is about not dressing and acting in such a way so as to flaunt one’s influence, wealth and station in life. Part of me recognized this already, although I never fully digested it. I think that it is not uncommon for many Christians to fail to appreciate the differences between the two, despite the fact that many dictionaries recognize the two modes of modesty. Certainly this confusion seemed to manifest itself in this thread over at Cane Caldo’s blog. Both types of modesty are similar, in that they both involve flaunting to some degree, but the nature of what is showcased, and how this is done, can and often does differ greatly.

The modesty that St. Peter is referring to in his letter is the second type of modesty, the type which centers on flaunting station and authority. He is advising Christian women to not be show-offs, because their focus on outward appearance through clothing, jewelry and makeup is inherently tied up with worldly concerns. I would venture that in most cases this showing off is not in any way connected to something holy, such as a wife providing a good face for her husband. Instead, it is about impressing others (especially other women), and so to be avoided. This concern about showing off one’s station appears many times in scripture, especially the New Testament. And a common theme seems to be protecting something holy from being tainted by worldly concerns. The Gospel of Matthew has another example of this kind of twisting of what is holy:

“Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by them; for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven.

² “Thus, when you give alms, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by men. Truly, I say to you, they have their reward. ³ But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, ⁴ so that your alms may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

Here it is Charity that is being twisted into something it was never meant to be. It was not meant as a means of demonstrating wealth or station, but of trying to helps us to show concern for our fellow man. And in the process hopefully teach us a valuable lesson about love. But instead the hypocrites (probably Sadducees here) perverted God’s purpose, thwarting what could have been something that would have helped them store rewards for heaven. Let Jesus’ message here serve as a warning, attention is a reward all right, but not one that is going to truly last.

The final reading today is from, you guessed it, the Book of Sirach:

⁹ A daughter is a secret anxiety to her father,
and worry over her robs him of sleep;
when she is young, for fear she may not marry,
or if married, for fear she may be disliked;
¹⁰ while a virgin, for fear she may be seduced
and become pregnant in her father’s house;
or having a husband, for fear she may go astray,
or, though married, for fear she may be barren.
¹¹ Keep strict watch over a headstrong daughter,
or she may make you a laughingstock to your enemies,
a byword in the city and the assembly of^[a] the people,
and put you to shame in public gatherings.^[b]
See that there is no lattice in her room,
no spot that overlooks the approaches to the house.^[c]
12 Do not let her parade her beauty before any man,
or spend her time among married women;^[d]
13 for from garments comes the moth,
and from a woman comes woman’s wickedness.

Sadly, this is another part of Scripture that seems to be overlooked these days. Many fathers don’t appear to have the appropriate level of worry for their daughter’s well-being. Or any, really.  Rather than worry about their daughter’s not marrying, they push their daughters to get an education and then get the right career afterward, with no concern for how those paths might impact their daughter’s chance for a good marriage.  Since the “fear of being disliked” here probably references divorce, many Christian fathers do seem to fear this. They fear it so much they push their daughters towards paths that increase the chance of divorce. And of course, in many most cases it is the daughters, not the husbands, who file for divorce.

As for fear of seduction, father’s don’t seem to be concerned about that terribly much these days. After all, they have no problem sending their daughters off to college, far away from the kind of moral support and strong masculine presence they need resist “Alpha” males. Oddly enough, it seems like many fathers are more willing to support their daughters when they fornicate and became single mothers, than support them and their husbands as newlyweds. As for preventing daughters from parading their beauty in front of other men, do I really need to say anything? Have you see what many young women wear to church these days?

When it comes to spending time with married women, well… to be frank spending time with most nearly any woman who isn’t an immediate family member (and one of good character at that) is tantamount to child abuse, given the negative influences young women will likely pick up. I suppose I should also point out that Ben Sir knew about “The Herd” over two thousand years ago, so once again we see how the ancients understood so much we are now finding out. Ours is a mission of rediscovery, not of boldly going where no man has gone before. Perhaps if more Christians actually read the Bible, and spent less time singing “worship” music that resemble love songs about Jesus, we wouldn’t be taken for fools so often.

Why Does My Boyfriend Pressure Me For Sex?

[Note to my regular readers: the first part of this post is aimed for newcomers. The second section will contain material aimed more towards my regulars.]

The short answer to the above question: Because most women these days will give it up when pressured, or even without being pressured.

The first part of this post is aimed at young women interested in marriage (and primarily Christian women, although it is still valuable to non-Christians) who have asked that question before or are frustrated by the constant pressure for sex by most men in the dating scene. The long answer to that question, which follows this paragraph, is more complete and provides an explanation of why things are like this right now. I’ve broken it into segments for ease of understanding. The first segment deals with men, the second with women, and the third ties it all together. The second part of this post is designed for my regular readers, although it might interest newcomers at well. It covers some of the implications and wider impact of this paradigm, plus personal anecdotes. Expect to see some “insider language” in the post and in some of the discussion to follow. If you have questions feel free to ask in the comments below. Now, on to the long answer:

I. The Long Answer.

A. Men

While trying to fit people into neat categories is usually problematic at best, it can really help with a general understanding of people’s motivations. Towards that end, I think it is helpful to break men into five different categories based on their attitude towards sex and marriage in order to understand male behavior in the dating environment.

1) Men who aren’t interested in marriage

2) Men who are interested in marriage but won’t marry a woman they haven’t slept with

3) Men who are interested in marriage and will push for sex before marriage but won’t insist on it

4) Men who are interested in marriage and won’t push for sex before marriage but will happily accept it if offered

5) Men who are interested in marriage and won’t push for sex before marriage and will not accept it if offered

Before I talk about the different categories, it is essential that female readers of this post understand how powerful the male sex drive is. Even at the peak of their cycle and with all of the right environmental factors in play, the female sex drive never gets to be as powerful as the male sex drive. To put it another way for the women reading this: Think of when you were the most sexual excited, the most aroused in your entire life. Then realize that feeling doesn’t come near to what men experience every minute of every day from the time they hit puberty until the time they die of old age. While it isn’t the only thing that men look for in women, sex is by far the most important need that women can meet for men.

For the purposes of this post, the men in category 1 are mostly irrelevant. They aren’t interested in marriage, only in sex. The problem they represent in the dating system is that it isn’t always easy to distinguish between them and men who are interested in marriage but push for sex.  Before “dating” became the norm such men were both less common and easier to spot because their attention was directed primarily at prostitutes and “loose” women. They are more common now than in the past for a variety of reasons. Among them are changes in the family law system, the diminished respect for marriage and husbands/fathers in society and the greater availability of of sex outside of wedlock.

The next two categories, 2 and 3, are both very similar. The only difference is that men in category 2 insist on a “try before you buy” model of dating. I suspect, though cannot prove, that they are far, far less common than men in category 3. The most important thing to understand is that the overwhelming majority of men fall into category 3 2 [In the past category 3 was the most common, but with talk in the culture of “sexual compatibility, and concerns of frigidity, category 2 is probably the most common now]. And this has almost certainly always been the case.  These men want sex and marriage, but they want sex more than marriage. If they can get sex without marriage, then great. Otherwise, if they have no choice, they will marry.

Categories 4 and 5 are, for the practical purposes of this post, nearly the same. The only difference is that only the men in category 5 are truly chaste (which is as much about thought as deed). Understand that the men in category 5 are the rarest by far, and this has probably always been so. Men in category 4 are  more common, but not by a whole lot. At least, not these days.

With all of this in mind, it is important to understand that the majority of “Christian” men fall into category 3 as well. Despite clear commands in the Bible against fornication, most Christian men see no problem in ignoring them. When it comes to sex, men are very capable of rationalizing away nearly anything. And most men exercise this ability as often as they can.

Now on to women.

B. Women

These days the vast majority of women are willing, and often more than willing, to have sex prior to securing commitment from a man. But this wasn’t always the case. Before the “sexual revolution” (which actually started decades before the 60’s), most women were far more circumspect in their sexual activity. As a general rule women wouldn’t have sex with a man prior to his committing to her. This was because of the high cost of sex at that time. In an age before effective contraceptives and wide scale use of abortion, sex could easily lead to an “inescapable” pregnancy, which if it happened out of wedlock was social death for a woman. Even if pregnancy didn’t result, the social costs to a woman were still significant if it was discovered that she was having sex out of wedlock. The major effects of these costs was to severely curtail a woman’s chances of marrying, much less marrying well. Considering the limited work opportunities available to women back then, this meant a abysmal standard of living for all but the highest class women.

Because of this, most women (outside of the lowest classes) insisted that a man commit to her before she would have sex with him. I say commit and not marry for two reasons. The first is that in the past there were a large numbers of “shotgun” weddings, perhaps even a majority of marriages involved the first child being born before nine months had passed since the wedding. As for the second reason, in the past engagement actually was a form of commitment on the man’s part. A man who broke an engagement with a woman was potentially subject to a civil action known as Breach of Promise to Marry. Couple that potential financial liability with a social penalty to a man who unjustifiably broke an engagement, and most men really were committed when they became engaged. This protection is largely gone now, as the social penalties are pretty much non-existent and Breach of Promise only exists in a handful of jurisdictions these days. The only kind of secure commitment that exists now is found in marriage itself.

With the above in mind, you can see that the reluctance of women to sleep with men prior to commitment was mostly based on self-interest. Some women might have been influenced by morality or religion to not have sex until marriage, but not all given the common occurrence of shotgun weddings. Certainly it wasn’t because women didn’t want sex; they do, provided it is with the right man. It is just that women wanted commitment, and the security that went with it, more than sex. All of this has changed. Women have far more job opportunities than they did in the past, and can rely on government support to cover what they cannot meet themselves. The social costs of sex out of wedlock and even children born out of wedlock are pretty much gone at this point. Not to mention contraception and the widespread availability of abortion further reduces the costs to women of sex.

C. Then Versus Now

Now to combine all of this together.

In the past, men, just like now, wanted sex. A lot. And so they pressured women for it. But most women would not give in until they secured commitment from the man. Essentially men demanded sex and women demanded commitment. The category 3 men were thus faced with a choice: either accept the woman’s terms and propose to her, or “dump” her and court (there was no “dating” back then) another woman. However, the odds were not in his favor, because most women would make the same demands. Thanks in large part to this solidarity amongst women those men who pushed for sex had to play by the rules women set. Since men valued sex more than they valued withholding their commitment the women won out.

This brings us to today. Men are the same as ever. But the vast majority of women have changed. They no longer insist on commitment before sex. Or at least, real commitment. They still want attention and validation and material resources if they can get them. But their security is not tied up to commitment like it was before, and so they are far freer to indulge their passions. And men know this. When a man from category 3  faces a woman who won’t sleep with him until they are married, he faces the same choice as before: accept her terms or move on. But the math is different this time; unlike before, the majority of women are more than willing to sleep with him before securing commitment. This means the odds are in his favor now. If he leaves the woman holding out, the odds are good that the next woman he dates will give him what he wants, without making him commit first. Because the old solidarity amongst women no longer exists, men no longer have to play by the rules that women set.

This brings us back to the question which started it all: why does my boyfriend pressure me for sex? The long answer is that he not only wants sex more than anything, but he expects to get it. Personal experience and/or the culture has told him that most women will sleep with men before they marry. Men want sex more than pretty much anything. They want it now. And nearly all don’t want to have to pay for it with commitment if they can help it. Truth is, most men have always pressured women for sex, and they always will. What has changed is how women act.  So long as the majority of women are willing to give men what they want without demanding commitment first, men will pressure women for sex and leave if they don’t get it.

If you are looking to blame anyone for this present situation ladies, don’t blame the men. Blame the women who are empowering them.

II. Further Thoughts

This section is aimed at my regular readers. For those curious as to why I wrote the part above, and why I did it in that manner, I had a couple of reasons. The first is that I wanted to create a post that I could link in the future to provide female newcomers to the ‘sphere when they had a question along this vein. Over time expect to see more of these types of posts. The second reason is because I wanted to reply to one female commenter over at Peaceful Single Girl who asked this question in this thread. As for the title, I have seen it pop up on search inquiries that lead people to my blog in the past, so it seemed appropriate. While the answer itself seems obvious, I thought that there was some depth worth exploring there, plus it might help out younger women trying to come to grips with the SMP/MMP.

A. The Good Guys

There are a number of commenters in the ‘sphere who insist that there are a lot of “Good Christian Men” out there whom women ignore. That if only women would give those men a chance then they would find someone to respect them and treat them right. However, the truth is that a large number of these Christian “nice guys” fall into category 3. They are not chaste, and would gladly leap at an opportunity for fornication if it should become available. It is not a stretch to realize that if Christian women engage with them romantically then these “Good Christian Men” are just as prone to pushing them for sex as the bad boys are.

I know this because I know men like this. Guys who aren’t even nominal Christians, but seem to take their faith seriously. Except when it comes to sex. In that one particular field they are no different than their secular counterparts. Let me back this up with a personal anecdote.

When I was younger I went on a road trip with a friend of mine back from high school. He was an Evangelical Christian, and was more fervent in his faith than I was at that point. We arrived at one of our stops, which happened to be a rather fancy hotel that we got a great deal for. Basically a mini-resort kind of place. Well, after we check in and drop our bags inside our room we find out the hotel has an attached night club. We investigate and find out that it is a “happening” place most nights because there aren’t any other spots like it nearby (the hotel was kind of out of the way). Upon discovering this, my friend turns to me and tells me that if he lucks out that night I would be sleeping in the car. I was so surprised by this all I could respond with was a hesitant ok, while my mind tried to wrap itself around my friend’s words. Here was a guy who had “found Jesus” during high school and was very active in Christian activities, and yet had no qualms with the sin of fornication. Though the memory faded in significance over time, I never really forgot it.

And so when I read accounts from female readers of my blog via e-mail, and read comments by Christian women on various blogs all talking about how most Christian men don’t respect their desire for chastity, I didn’t dismiss them out of hand. The story I mentioned above, and others like it (and yes, I have more like it), all remind me that male chastity is a rare thing, perhaps even rarer than female chastity. Good Christian Men swim in the same sewer of modern culture that women do, and pick up the same messages about sex. And they are still men, with the corresponding male sex drive. While the female Rationalization Hamster is more active than the male version, men have a Hamster too. And sex is the one thing guaranteed to get the male Hamster spinning that wheel at full power. The truth is that only a handful of men have the discipline and the devotion to pursue a chaste life.

B. Looking In From The Other Side

I feel a lot of sympathy for chaste women out there who are trying to make their way through this mess of a Sexual Market Place. They don’t even want to be there in the first place, but the Marriage Market Place and Sexual Market Place are both basically existing in the same space. Chaste  women are as much losers in this present system as are men who are looking for a chaste/virgin wife. For women, if they stick to their values there is a very good chance that most men they date will leave them and look elsewhere. It can take a very long time to find a man willing to respect their chastity. For men, we can spend a very long time looking for a woman who has been chaste and not find her. Or even if we do, we find that we are incompatible in some way.

The only way to turn this system around is to make the cost of sex significant again for women. Going after men won’t work for a variety of reasons, but the past has proven that if you convince women that being promiscuous is against their best interests then most women won’t be promiscuous. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to convince other people, even (or maybe especially) Christians of the importance of punishing promiscuity in women. Here is a quick story to help explain why.

I was talking with a female Christian acquaintance a few weeks back and mentioned the impact that other women’s behavior has on Christian women who desire to maintain their chastity. When I explained to her how I knew women who had trouble finding a husband because the men they dated kept on dumping them when they refused to have sex, she was flabbergasted. She had trouble believing this, not understanding how a man could fail to appreciate them. What she couldn’t grasp is that women with Marriage Market Values close to average (either just above or just below) don’t have the kind of value to keep a man around if they won’t put out. The woman I was speaking with did have a high MMV, on the other hand. Very few women match her value, and most any man who thought about dumping her because she wouldn’t sleep with him prior to marriage had to know that he really couldn’t do any better for a wife. But other women, women aren’t aren’t as good looking and don’t necessarily have all the other traits that make for a high MMV, they can’t rely on that. There are plenty of other women out there just like them, and they know it and men know it. The lower the woman’s MMV, the worse this system is for her.

As this story indicates, men and women with very high MMVs are less affected by the present MMP/SMP. Their value gives them the leverage they need to either find a chaste wife or to maintain their chastity. They don’t really feel the effects of the overall dysfunction. And because of this they don’t feel the same pressing need to change the system. Those from more protected backgrounds are probably the same way, because they never felt the full effects of the SMP/MMP they don’t see it as a problem worthy of what they are apt to call extreme measures. All of this makes it difficult to convince even those who should support a change culture to endorse the methods necessary to bring about change.

[I may include a part C here at some point if I can somehow collect my thoughts.]

The Shrinking Gap- The Conundrum of Female SMV and Marriage

My latest post, which examined how male attractiveness increasing with age is thwarted by the current nature of the marriage market, prompted a female reader of mine to contact me. She agreed with my assessment of the state of the MMP for men, and then offered her thoughts on how things worked for women. I thought they were excellent points, and she graciously allowed me to integrate them into a post. The first part of this post will be quotes from the two of us, mostly hers, with some of my replies. The second part will be an analysis and summary of the points raised earlier.

I.

My reader, who wishes to remain anonymous, said this:

[As a woman it] may be, or rather, it is simple enough to attract a man in your age bracket that displays good overall LAMPS simply by being young and in shape while dressing and acting in a feminine manner. But that only gets my foot in the door. Once the serious talks begin, then there is a completely different set of things that I have to consider.

I think one of the more common situations I have encountered is a man who, nearing or in his early 30s, is ready to settle down with a woman younger than himself. But similarly to situations Red Pill men encounter with various women, he has already “lived his life,” so to speak. He has had numerous “relationships,” ONS’s and everything in between with various women usually starting from high school moving forward and he may have been heavy into the party/club scene which typically means he was also probably heavy into drugs/alcohol. Add a kid or two to put the icing on the cake. Then finally at some point in his late 20s/early 30s he “grows out of that phase” and wants to settle down and take his life and faith seriously. Now keep in mind, these are men in the age bracket to which I am directed to open my search. This search can continue well into my mid to late 20s where by then, my overall [SMV] and fertility are beginning their decline.

When I remarked that she was one of the few women who seemed as cautious of a man’s history as (aware) men tend to be of a woman’s history, she added this:

It’s common Red Pill knowledge what a fast lifestyle in ones twenties can do to woman, ranging from poor overall health, an inability to bond to one man, an overall jaded worldview and the list goes on. But I view it as more of a general thing: one’s past, man or woman, effects your future for better or worse. And speaking from a strictly Christian perspective, I’d be mistaken to attempt to hitch my wagon to a man that had his share of pump and dumps before deciding to settle down in the same way a man would avoid a woman with the same history. A lot can be said for forgiveness and repentance, but a man’s past still counts. At least for me, anyway. That goes equally for sinful misconduct outside the sexual arena, as well. These things can often times be clear markers of different character or personality flaws that may show up further down the road and should I be married to such a man and these patterns or behaviors rear their ugly heads… what can I do?

I responded with these observations:

You make a great point that there are really two different searches someone is conducting. The first is to search for someone who wants to marry, and the second is to search among those who want to marry for someone worth marrying.

…

I suspect that the reason why the kind of men you describe are common is because those men who never engaged in the party or hook-up have “checked out.” They eschew dating in general, most likely because they were burned one too many times by women.

…

It seems to be a general conundrum that both men and women face: those who are willing to marry are not worthy, and those who are worthy don’t want to marry.

Those were the most relevant parts of our conversation. This brings us to part 2.

II.

In my previous post, I explained the dilemma that men faced:

The older we get, the more attractive we become to women, but at the same time, there are less marriageable women available to us.

Women face a different situation, one that on its face seems quite a bit worse: Their SMV decreases over time, and there aren’t necessarily any more marriageable men available to them over time.

Women have the advantage of starting off in a better position than men, and that is a considerable advantage, to be sure. But in the current MMP it isn’t so much of an advantage as it could/should be. Younger women who want to marry young find that men their age don’t tend to want to marry. At least, that is what I have heard from my younger female readers, including the one who inspired this post. In this sense, younger men and women are alike; both eschew marriage for the time being. This is unfortunate for young women looking to marry, because younger men tend to have less baggage (just as younger women tend to have less baggage). Those younger men who do want to marry tend to be less attractive, and often are poor choices in other ways as well.

Once you start to look at the older cohort of men you find that they are more attractive, and more eager to marry. On the flip side, they oftentimes have a lot of baggage from their wild and crazy years. While most men don’t build up the same amount of baggage that women do on the carousel, it can and will affect them nonetheless. Most of the men who don’t have baggage fall into two camps: those who chose not to accumulate baggage, and those who couldn‘t accumulate baggage. The first group is a small percentage of the population, and hard to find (at least, that is what I’ve heard from my female readers). The second group are often poor choices for marriage, because their lack of baggage is largely a result of deficiencies on their part. Also, many of them might not be interested in marriage to begin with, and the absence of baggage arose from the fact that they have left the field and no longer play the game (think MGTOW).

So all in all, for a woman looking for a good man without baggage to be her husband, the pickings look slim indeed. Much the same as it is for men. To repeat myself, those who are willing to marry are usually not worthy, and those who are worthy usually don’t want to marry. And this seems to be the case for men and women.

Thus we get the conundrum that marriage minded women face in the present age: They start out near the peak of their attractiveness, but are in a race against the clock to find marriageable men before their attractiveness fades so much they no longer interest those men.

 

Update: In case it wasn’t clear enough in the main post, this post is written from the perspective of some of my female readers. I don’t necessarily think that all of the observations are correct, but I assumed them to be true for the sake of argument in this post. It was either that, or call them liars. Despite that, I think the ultimate conclusion is still accurate.

Mind the Gap- The Conundrum of Male SMV and Marriage

Over the course of my time blogging here in the manosphere I have noticed what seems like a pattern whenever I mention my age and growing older. Fairly consistently, whenever I express alarm at my age and how it will impact my ability to marry well, a Red Pill aware woman will speak up and say that I’m needlessly worrying. She will point out that my SMV is increasing over time and that I have yet to hit my peak. I’ve seen the same directed towards other men as well.

Now, none of what these women said was incorrect. According to Rollo‘s interpretation of SMV, I  am getting more attractive over time. And my personal observations certainly match up with this, although I don’t know if that is simply because I am getting older or because I have unlearned a whole slew of unattractive behaviors. All of that is besides the point, however, because these women are confusing an increase in SMV, which corresponds to the Sexual Marketplace, with the ability to marry well, an entirely different matter.

Before I continue in depth I think it best to re-post the graphic representation that Roll made of male and female SMV, interposed:

…

While I have some minor disagreements with it, I think that Rollo has managed to aptly convey how male and female SMV develop over time. There are a couple of key things to take away from his graph:

1) The numbers that Rollo provides on the side are better understood as a percentage, specifically of the maximum level of attractiveness that an individual man or woman can achieve.

2) Under this assessment women “peak” at 23, and men at 38. That creates a gap of about 15 years.

3) The critical point, where male and female SMV achieve rough “parity”, is at the age of 30. This age, interestingly enough, roughly corresponds with the point where women start to hit The Wall.

With these observations in mind, lets turn back to the intersection of age, male SMV and marriage. The key flaw in the thinking of those Red Pill women is that they confuse the Sexual Marketplace and the Marriage Marketplace.

In the SMP, the only thing that really matters is SMV, or attractiveness. If your only intention is to establish a sexual relationship, then its a game of competing with your peers for the most attractive members of the opposite sex available. The higher your SMV, the higher the SMV you can get in the opposite sex. In this sense, things are definitely looking up for me. My ability to “pull” women for the purpose of sex is only getting better over time. But this isn’t what men like myself are looking for.

In the MMP, there are a large number of factors which determine relationships other than SMV. Attractiveness does play a role, of course, but must compete with other criteria. Age is one of these. It doesn’t matter in the SMP, because most relationships are temporary things, sometimes not even lasting a single night. But marriage is (supposed to be) a long term, for life endeavor, and so a potential spouse’s age makes a huge difference. For men in my position, the central problem is that the closer we get to our “peak”, the greater the age gap between us and the women we want (who are at their peak or before it). And this age gap matters because women these days aren’t necessarily going to marry a man significantly older than themselves.

They might be concerned about being widowed early, and having to take care of children by themselves. Or even widowed late in life, but still having to face a decade or more alone. Also, they could be concerned about the criticism they might face from friends and family from marrying a man significantly older than themselves.  In addition, there is also the significant, perhaps overriding fact that many women these days don’t want to marry when they are young. So marrying a woman near her prime is difficult enough.

If you think I might be off base here, I suggest you ask yourself this question: How many 18-23 year old women do you know who want to marry as soon as possible?

Follow that up with this question: How many 18-23 year old women do you know who want to marry and would be willing to marry a man in, say, his early to mid thirties?

The answer to both questions is precious few. And this small pool of women becomes even smaller when you factor in other criteria to decide if such women are marriageable. I’ve explained my criteria before about what I look for in a potential wife, and I image most other men in a similar position have similar criteria.

When taken together, every day that passes takes men in my age group further and further away from the ideal age range of women that we want to marry. Giving up on younger women and focusing on those closer to our age isn’t a terribly great strategy either. As you look at progressively older age groups of women, fewer and fewer women in each age bracket meet our criteria for marriage (mine already rules out the majority of women by the time they turn 18).

Thus we get the conundrum that marriage minded men face in the present age: The older we get, the more attractive we become to women, but at the same time, there are less marriageable women available to us.

The Dreaded “List” Again

Rollo Tomassi left the following link at Sunshine Mary’s blog so that she could use it as source material for a post, but since she is busy right now I decided to snag it for my own use: The Husband List: 12 Non-Negotiables. The website itself is a real piece of work, one of the most puffed up examples of Princess syndrome (of the EAP variety) run amok that I have ever seen. A sample:

Every woman you meet may seem one way at first. But as you peel the layers by taking the time to talk with her, you realize she is much more than meets the eye. One by one, she is discovered to be more than enough. She has been uniquely gifted in order to carry out a purpose. Her value is rare and precious. The problem is, there is an epidemic of women who do not believe in themselves. Due to the exposure of various negative forces, young women are selling out and settling every day. They have bought into the lie that they are not worthy of a joyous, peaceful and bold life.

Part of me wants to believe that this is a parody site, because it seems too good to be true. I mean, it almost reads like something that Deti would write. Alas, this is no parody. Women really do believe such nonsense, and peddle it all the same. Surprisingly, the “husband list” itself is not nearly so bad. In fact, much of it is quite good. I will reprint it below, with some editing (mostly of scripture) for brevity’s sake:

1. He is a practicing believer.
Issues and conflict are bound to rise in marriage, so it is crucial that there is a common foundation on which to hold the marriage accountable. The last thing you want to be fighting about is your faith, whether or not to pray and your viewpoints on religion. Believe me, I’ve been there before. It is exhausting.

2. God is the center of his life.
He seeks God’s wisdom in all the decisions he makes.

3. He has integrity and does not put himself in tempting situations.
He guards you against harm and protects the relationship.

4. Seeks mentorship and counsel.
It is important that your man is wise in realizing he can’t carry the weight of the world on his shoulders. When he is surrounded by men who are older than him who can offer advice, prayer and mentorship, he can be a better husband to you.

5. He is slow to anger.
There is peace in knowing your man holds an even temperament even when he is provoked. A man who allows his feelings, emotions and anger to determine his actions typically has tarnished relationships and is not a healthy place for you or a family.

6. He holds strong conviction on the sacredness of fidelity.
A man is wise when he understand that infidelity and looking for pleasure outside of the marriage only brings strife. God actually calls him to rejoice over you all of his days.

7. He is honorable of your heart and emotional well-being.
I hated when a guy I was dating exposed my embarrassing moments or the private matters of our relationship with his friends. Picking on you may seem cute and funny at first, but it will get old after a while. You should feel honored and safe knowing you can always trust your husband to cover and speak well of you.

8. He is disciplined in living a life of integrity.
Watch how he handles temptation or sticky situations that test his character. Does he choose to do what’s right even when no one is watching? It is imperative to observe these things because it will indicate if you can trust his decision making. When you’re married, almost all of his decisions impact you.

9. Has solid work ethic.

10. He pursues and loves you passionately.
The man you marry should make you feel loved like you’ve never felt before. Safe, accepted, desired, nurtured, protected and comforted. Jesus loves us deeply, he loves us so fiercely, that he willingly gave up his life to save us.

11. Romances you.
I know women who feel guilty or wrong for desiring romance in their relationship, as if they don’t deserve it. But God desires for your heart to be romanced, just as He longs to romance us.

12. He is humble and can admit when he is wrong.
There is nothing worse than a petty conflict blowing out of proportion because your partner refuses to admit they were wrong. Taking responsibility for his actions and apologizing for his mistakes is the sign of a real man.

Again, much of the list is not bad at all. Points 1, 2 and 3 are all rock solid, indeed, I would consider them essential criteria that a Christian woman should look for in a man. Points 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 are also commendable as well. Problems arise with points 7, 10, 11 and 12, however. I will briefly address each in turn.

Point 7– While facially this appears sound, the fact that it covers feelings makes it suspect in my eyes. “Emotional well-being” is a fairly vague term, so without clarification this would be a potential problem area. Otherwise, any man must necessarily be a captive to the woman’s feelings, which would be disaster as many would tell you, especially Empath.

Point 10– Two problems here. The first is the comparison to Jesus. With the toxic hypergamy out there, this is just asking for trouble. No man can possibly compare to Jesus, much less His love. Bringing up that kind of comparison invites men to always fail. Second, all of those feelings are inherently tied into the attractiveness of the man in the woman’s eyes. No matter his other qualities, an unattractive man cannot generate them. And an extremely attractive man full of flaws will provide those same feelings regardless. This point could just as well have been replaced with “Attractive”, and the result would be the same.

Point 11– The real problem with this point is the second sentence. But the first is essentially another version of Point 10, aka, attention from an attractive man. I guess this one could be expanded to include that the man have “Beta” traits in addition to “Alpha” traits (see here for more). As for the second sentence, this is Churchian nonsense (perhaps even to the point of heresy). God does not “romance” us. “Romance” implies Eros, which is fine in the context of marriage, but the love that God holds for us is Agape.

Point 12– Again, on its face not necessarily bad. But when combined with the kinds of attitude displayed at the website, it hints at a desire for a man to debase himself in front of the woman. Not exactly a great thing if you want a healthy relationship.

So, that  is the list. I’ve seen worse, but then again, I’ve seen better. What I think is more troublesome than a list like this is the attitude behind it. Reading through this website, you get a sense of entitlement and expectation which is not healthy and will probably ensure a lifetime of misery for most women. The author of the list might have been able to get away with it, but not every woman looks like this. We, men and women both, must temper our expectations and keep in mind that we are not perfect. So we cannot expect perfection in turn. As for anything further, I will leave that to my married readers to fill in.

Reader Book Plug: A Christian Man’s Guide to Love and Marriage in the 21st Century

Today’s post is a bit of a break from my usual sort. I was contacted a few weeks back by a long-time reader of my blog, who wanted to alert me to the fact that he had created a book in response to his experience with taking the Red Pill. The title is “A Christian Man’s Guide to Love and Marriage in the 21st Century: Why Everything You Think You Know Is Wrong.”

I was busy at the time, and so it took me a while to finally read through the book (which is actually quite short). It was a pleasant surprise: a good summation of manosphere teachings in a Christian context. While not perfect, it is certainly a far cry from other books like it out there, and so I think it deserves some attention and recognition. The author, Don Riefstahl, has provided a brief bio so that folks can understand where he is coming from and why he felt compelled to write the book. Here is his story:

My name is Don and I’m a happily married computer technician living in central Georgia. I was raised in a Christian home with both parents present and actively involved in my life. Like most young men raised in the modern church, I was solidly Blue Pill with a big romantic streak. My biggest goal in life was to settle down and get married, and I worked hard to prepare myself for this eventuality. I paid careful attention to what women said they wanted in a man and tried my best to conform to their ideal. I carefully molded my interests to sidestep traditionally male activities and, instead, became a Sensitive New Age Guy.

I began to read Christian books about marriage and attended marriage seminars to get a head start on the competition. In time, I saw myself as more evolved than those other guys. They were loud, they were obnoxious, and they *shudder* watched football. Heck, they were practically cavemen! I, on the other hand, was in touch with my feminine side and unafraid to explore my feelings. Yep, I was on the fast-track to the marriage of my dreams. All I needed to do was strut my stuff and the ladies would descend on me like a pack of starving wolves.

Only that’s not what happened. To my utter amazement, women consistently chose to date those masculine jerks instead of me. So I re-doubled my efforts and started to orbit most of the the young women I knew. I had learned from the books I’d read that the secret to a strong marriage was a solid platonic friendship, so I became good friends with the women around me. The FriendZone would surely be my ticket to marital bliss. Once they saw firsthand how sweet and sensitive I really was, I would be in like flint.

But, of course, that didn’t work either. Woman after woman would call me up at three in the morning so that I could rush over and let her cry into my shoulder about what a jerk her boyfriend was. Inevitably, she would end up telling me what a great guy I was and how happy I was going to make some lucky woman someday. Just not her and not then.

 

By the time I was 23, I was at my wit’s end. I had done everything I was told to do and it had gotten me nowhere. Alone and disenchanted, I decided that the problem had to be me. I came to the conclusion that I must be so inherently flawed that, despite all the effort I had put into preparing myself for marriage, I was just not worthy of love. This was the only answer that made logical sense. It simply never occurred to me that everything I thought I knew about inter-gender relations could be wrong. I had read books by reliable sources, after all.

A poster Don created before he took the Red Pill

In the interest of brevity, I will end my narrative here even though there is plenty more to tell. Suffice it to say that a crippling case of Oneitis, nearly marrying a woman I didn’t love just to ease the pain of my loneliness and consuming copious amounts of pornography all contributed to a life of deep and unshakeable depression by my mid-20’s. There were times when I seriously considered suicide as a viable option because the pain was so hard to bear.

Thankfully, this story does have a happy ending. I am, as I said before, now married to a wonderful woman and finally living the life I always wanted. The Red Pill has played a huge role in all of this, not only in shaping my current life but also in healing the wounds of the past. I now realize that most of the pain I experienced was due to my incorrect assumptions about what women were attracted to, and not, as I believed for so many years, because I was inherently unlovable.

Which brings us to the book. My life may be on the right track now, but I know that there are other men out there who are in the same position I was in just a few short years ago. They need the Red Pill desperately. The problem is that the Manosphere is an ongoing conversation between many writers and not an organized archive of information. When I first discovered it in late 2011, I was overwhelmed by the sheer volume of things to learn and the disorganization inherent in such a system. I felt like I was seated at a table heaped high with thousands of puzzle pieces, trying to put them together without knowing what the picture was even supposed to look like when it was done. I dug through the archives of dozens of blogs and pored over hundreds of entries before I really started to grasp the big picture.

When I finally got it sorted out, I realized that we really need a short book that covers the major bases and gives beginners an overview of the topics being discussed. A field guide to the Manosphere, so to speak. Something you could hand a young man who has no idea what the Red Pill is, that’s short enough he might actually read it and interesting enough that when he’s done he will will want to learn more.

 

Since no one else had done this, I decided to give it a go. A year later, the result is a 98 page summary of the Red Pill, written by a Christian man for Christian men. It’s short, bitter, and politically incorrect. That means you’ll probably never see it in a Christian bookstore near you. Nevertheless, it’s full of truth that will hopefully lead young men to a better understanding of their own masculine nature and the God who created them that way.

Don’s book is named “A Christian Man’s Guide to Love and Marriage in the 21st Century: Why Everything You Think You Know Is Wrong.” You can purchase it from Amazon here. Hopefully other members of the manosphere will follow suit and write their own books on their experiences, as well as guides for men and women. I know that I sure could have used something like this a decade (or two) ago; my life would likely be very different now if I had been exposed to the truth at a much younger age. Hopefully Don’s book, and those that follow, will enable the upcoming generation to avoid the pitfalls that I and those like me have experienced.

Some Assembly Required

Margery, of Margery and The Man, left this comment earlier today:

I was just reading your ‘about’ and saw that you are very, for lack of a better term, picky about your prospective mates (no judgement! I completely understand why!). You then listed some things you wish to see in a woman. This brought to mind the idea of “training” a woman. What I am asking is- do you have to have the woman already “as is” or are you open to having a woman that wishes to be those things and would like to be trained up in it? What would the process look like do you think?

This isn’t a proposition and my question isn’t just for you but in general I have to wonder if it wouldn’t be more prudent for men to be open to “good wives” in the making and be educated in how to aid in their training as our society is not the place currently that automatically puts out these sorts of women. Certainly this could be an option?

For those who are curious, the section of my About page she was referring to was this:

At this point I am unmarried, but (despite the considerable risks inherent in what is left of the institution these days) hope that I will marry in the near future. However, I am very discriminating when it comes to whom I will consider for marriage.

[In case there are any marriage-minded young women who are curious about what I am looking for, here is an idea: devout, chaste, feminine, at least somewhat pleasing to the eye, and a combination of sweet, gentle and respectful in attitude and behavior.]

I thought that Margery’s questions were good ones, and deserving of a post so that they might be addressed in detail. As I see it, there are three questions that are being asked here:

1) Does a woman have to meet all of my criteria before I would consider her wife material?

2) Assuming that I was open to “training” a woman in the qualities that I am looking for, how would that process work?

3) Would it be more advisable to me to be open to wife candidates for whom “some assembly is required” instead of focusing only on women who already meet my criteria?

I know that Margery indicated that her questions were directed at men in general, and not specifically me. But I feel that it would be necessary, and more appropriate, for me to answer them in relation to myself first before providing any general thoughts on the matter. In fact, it might be better if others voiced their thoughts first.

1. Ready Made

Margery’s first question asks whether a woman would have to meet all of my criteria before I would consider her as wife material. This depends on the trait or quality in question. The qualities I mentioned before that I was looking for in a wife were “devout, chaste, feminine, at least somewhat pleasing to the eye, and a combination of sweet, gentle and respectful in attitude and behavior.” Looking at it again, I think that feminine and the character traits that I listed at the end probably could be collapsed together. Pleasing to the eye essentially translates as attractive (see here for an idea of what that means to me). That leaves me with: 1- Devout, 2- Chaste, 3- Feminine, 4- Attractive.

Chaste- This is not a trait that a woman can be “trained” in. Or rather, this is not a trait that I can train a woman in. She has either been chaste, or she hasn’t. Some lines can only be crossed once, and a woman who has been sexually active has crossed one of those lines. Any training here would have to come from her parents and others in authority, and well before I meet her. All of which means that this is something I can’t “compromise” on; either she is (and therefore meets my criteria), or she hasn’t been (and therefore will never be suitable).

Attractive- With only one or two exceptions, this is another trait that I can only train a woman so much in. A woman’s value on the “1-10″ scale” is pretty much set at birth. Physical appearance is nearly all genetics, with some early environmental factors also playing a role. One exception would be if a woman was overweight, but otherwise had good features such that if she lost the weight she would be pushed up to the attractive range. For an example of such a woman, see here. Which does raise the question: assuming everything else about her was ideal, would I be willing to consider a woman who was overweight?

My answer would be a tentative Yes. But with some big caveats (no pun intended). For one, I would definitely not marry her until after she had lost all the weight and kept it off for a while. I would probably not even propose until she had made significant progress already and I had every reason to expect that she would continue with her weight loss. And until I actually proposed, I would not be “exclusive” either, both because I despise the concept until engagement and because it would serve as a bit of “dread” to encourage her to keep up her efforts. Oh, and I would need to have some assurance that these efforts would pay off to begin with (such as photos of her when she was younger without the fat).

Devout- This is an interesting trait/quality. In many ways it is linked to Chastity, because I think it would be highly unlikely to find a chaste woman who isn’t also devout (although not impossible). If she isn’t devout, then what I would look for in a woman is whether she wishes she were more devout, that is, a genuine desire to deepen her faith and embrace my beliefs if hers and/or her faith tradition and background were different.

Feminine- I confess that this quality is one that has been bugging me for a while. For some time I have thought about writing a post on the subject of femininity and my association with it, because exposure to actual feminine women has left me repulsed at the unfeminine women around me. On an intellectual level I know that this is the easiest of these qualities for a woman to be trained in, and so I am inclined to be accommodating here. On the other hand, I am also very wary about a woman who has been infected by popular culture, and the risks that it poses to marriage, and unfeminine behavior is a major sign of this. But yes, if everything else were met, I would be willing to accept a woman who fails in this quality but is willing to work on it.

2. Warning: Men at Work

This leads to the second question which Margery asked, which inquired about the sort of process necessary to “train up” a woman to match my required qualifications. Again, with each of the qualifications the process will be different.

Unfortunately, there is nothing really to be done about Chastity. Women who fail this qualification will need to look elsewhere.

As for Attractiveness, any changes that need to be done here, and that can be done here, will probably involve weight loss. That means physical fitness and careful dieting. As a potential suitor, the role I would play would be a mix of gym instructor and nutritionist. I would oversee the woman’s exercise regime, setting what days would involve which workout, as well as ensure accountability and track progress. For dieting it would be somewhat similar. I would expect to set a menu for the week, including meal times. Most likely it would involve some sort of low or no carb Paleo diet. In many respects this is perhaps the easiest of the processes, but also the most time intensive and longest-term. Being a source of encouragement and support would likely be vital here, given how easy it is to slip and revert to your old ways.

[For other men I imagine the process would be quite similar.]

With regards to Devotion and faith, it would probably be a mix of personal instruction and observation by me alongside more formal teaching. As a Catholic I would insist that if she isn’t a Catholic already that she convert if we are to marry. Too many problems would result from a mixed-faith marriage. If she would need to convert, or she never advanced very far in her faith, this would include her attending RCIA (adult religious education essentially). My role in this would be to gently guide her and encourage her along. I would observe her and question her to see if this is something she is truly invested in, or if she is just playing along for some reason.

[For other men this would depend on their faith tradition, although I suspect that matters would be very similar as well.]

Lastly we come to Femininity, which is the area where I can do the least to help. Here I would be relying on outside help the most, especially other women who can hopefully guide this potential wife in her quest to become more feminine. Sadly, I don’t know a whole lot of truly feminine role models, so I will probably have to rely on those I know online. Peaceful Single Girl and Girls Being Girls come to mind when I think of older role models. Embrace Your Femininity would probably work for a younger one as well. I can’t really teach much here at all, as I know nothing about feminine hygiene, dress or anything of that sort. The biggest role that I would play would be to correct and encourage. By that I mean I would point out, and rebuke if necessary, any unfeminine behavior I see in the woman, and compliment her when she acts especially feminine.

[Other men might have it easier if they personally know women in their lives who could act as a role model, whether it be a family member or a friend. But otherwise, the male role will essentially stay the same.]

3. What Choice Do I Have?

Margery’s third, and final question, was whether men should be more open to women who could be “trained” rather than hold out for a woman who could meet all four criteria. Frankly, I don’t think that I have much choice, and I suspect most other men don’t either. I can count on one hand the number of women I know or have met in my whole life who meet all four criteria. Margery is quite right when she states that “our society is not the place currently that automatically puts out these sorts of women.” This is an understatement of epic proportions. Western Civilization has, by all appearances, adopted policies, practices and mores which are aimed to ensure that as few women as possible meet these criteria. Instead of the Godly, feminine women who were commonplace a century ago, we now have a population of creatures who strain the imagination to be called women in many instances.

What Margery calls an option, I call a necessity. Western Civ is, in my opinion, falling apart around us. I’m not sure that it can be saved at this point. And to be honest, I’m not sure it deserves to be saved. Which means that those of us who care about such things are going to have to approach courtship as a salvage operation. The odds of me ( or men like myself) finding a woman who is marriageable off the bat are diminutive, and drop every day. And even if I were to find such a woman, there is sadly no guarantee that she will be open to marrying me. All of which leaves me, and those like me, forced to make do with what is available.

As I think on it, the actual process of “training” a woman is not the real difficulty. It will be challenging, yes, but overcoming challenges is my purpose as a man, it is what I was designed to do. No, the real trouble lies in find those women who are willing and able to be trained in such a way. At this point I’m not entirely sure how to discern such women. Ever since I took the Red Pill I’ve been trying my best to hone my skills in terms of finding worthy women, and sadly have had little success. Or perhaps they really are as rare as I perceive. Either way, this is a subject that requires further examination in the future. Hopefully some others will chime in with their thoughts and advice on the matter, because I fear that I have little to offer.

Romantic Architecture

In this post I am going to discuss the subject of attraction floors and ceilings. While some of my posts have alluded to the subject before, I’ve never addressed it head on.  If I had to guess, this post is likely to generate at least a small measure of controversy. The natures of male and female attraction and preferences are bound to do that. Plus these topics are really touchy for some folks. Because, and lets be honest here, the system is broken and a lot of men and women, good men and women, have been hurt by that. So, without further ado…

Introduction: The Nature of Male and Female Attraction

Before I can go into depth about ceilings and floors, I need to clarify a few things about attraction. For my regular readers, this will be a short recap and summary of everything I have discussed on the subject before, so you can skip ahead to the next part.

Men and women are attracted to very different things. As I have explained before, men are attracted to beauty:

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.

An example of this 1-10 scale, with my own thoughts on what each number means, is found below:

A few notes on this:

One thing to keep in mind is that a woman’s “score” is somewhat subjective. One man might rate a woman a 7, another a 6, and another an 8. Each man has his own preference in what he wants in a woman. But if you average together enough men, you will get a fairly accurate measure of how attractive any given woman is.

Also, there is a difference between a woman being attractive and a woman being unattractive. Anything “6” (cute) and up is attractive. Anything below a “4” (homely) is unattractive. So a “Plain” woman, or a “5”, is not attractive, but also not unattractive. [At least, that is how I use the system] This will be relevant later.

Matters are somewhat different for men:

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.

For a more detailed explanation, see here.

Unfortunately, a similar 1-10 chart for men doesn’t really work.  At least, not quite in the same way as it does for women. There are several reasons for this:

1) Assessing male attractiveness is much more difficult than assessing female attractiveness. Because Money, Status and Power aren’t visual in nature, you can’t really assign hard values to them on the fly. Perhaps the best measure of male SMV is the SMV of women that the man can regularly “pull.”

2) Male attractiveness is on weighted curve, while female attractiveness is not. A female “7” is a “7” no matter how the other women around her look. But male attractiveness is measured against the attractiveness of other men, because Status varies for each man. As men are added or removed from any given population, their respective Status in the group will shift. And with it, their attractiveness.

3) Context can impact male attractiveness. Because Status can shift depending on where the man is, his attractiveness is fluid. This makes it impossible to assign him a universal number like you can with a woman.

One possible attempt to create a male 1-10 scale might look something like this:

Its not exactly great, as you can see.

And that wraps up the differences in Male and Female attraction.

Boundaries

While this should surprise no one, people react differently to individuals of the opposite sex depending on how attractive they are. And those reactions differ depending on whether someone is looking for a short term relationship (STR), a one-night stand (ONS), or a long term relationship (LTR), which for the sake of this post I will equate with marriage.

The Floor

One significant manifestation of this is the so called “Attraction Floor.” The general concept is that people won’t choose as a (either sexual or marriage) partner someone who is below a certain rank. As with most interactions involving sex, attraction and desire, individual preferences vary wildly. In addition, men and women are each quite different in where their floors are located.

Lets begin with men. As I mentioned earlier, a woman is not necessarily “unattractive” if she doesn’t happen to be “attractive.” There is that grey zone of “not unattractive” where a woman may not repel a man like a “2” would, but neither does she excite him like an “8” would. Here is a visualization of this dynamic:

To describe the zones more completely:

1) Attractive means that a woman has no unattractive features and a number of attractive features, or that her many attractive features more than offset her few unattractive features.

2) Not Unattractive means that a woman either has no major unattractive and attractive features, or she has some attractive features which are balanced by some unattractive features.

3) Unattractive means that a woman has no attractive features and a number of unattractive features, or that her few attractive features are more than offset by her unattractive features.

Now, how might this “Attraction Floor” work in practice? An example of this might be a man who would not be willing at all to sleep with a woman who is not attractive (which under my system means someone below a “6”). Another man might be willing to sleep with a woman how is “not unattractive”, but only as part of a ONS, and would insist on an “attractive” woman for his wife. A desperate man or a man with a low SMV himself  might be willing to go so far as a “2”. And then you could have an Apex Alpha who wouldn’t associate with a woman who isn’t an “8” or higher. It all depends on the man in question.

So what about women? Well, it has long been argued that women are much more “discerning” when it comes to attraction thanks to Hypergamy. Some manospherians like to bandy about 20% as the percentage of men that women can/do find attractive. Personally, I have no idea if that percentage is right or not, but I do agree that far fewer men fall into the category of attractive than women. An interesting question though, is whether or not there is a similar category of “Not Unattractive” for men. I’m not sure that there is, but the toxic hypergamy which is the norm for most women these days makes an accurate appraisal of the baseline female attraction filter impossible. Be that as it may, here is a graphic representation of the traditional interpretation of the female “Attraction Floor” interposed on my male 1-10 scale:

I need to be honest and admit that my choices about names and where to place the line are completely arbitrary. That applies to all of the graphics, really. But they do serve a valuable purpose of providing a visualization of the discernment that is going on inside people’s minds.

Note: For women looking to marry, they need to understand that unless they can make it above a man’s “Attraction Floor”, they won’t be considered for a relationship. No amount of personality, character or other traits will change this. The same applies to men as well.

Settling Down

One idea that I have been exploring lately is that people might have more than one “floor,” at least when it comes to marriage. There is a “hard floor”, below which someone won’t consider anyone as a potential spouse. Then there is a “soft floor”, above which someone would perhaps agree to marry the first acceptable candidate who came along. In between there is a “Maybe” range, where someone wouldn’t dismiss anyone found there as a marriage partner, but wouldn’t immediately agree to marriage. Rather, it would take either a disproportionately large number of Desirability attributes and/or a belief that a better candidate is unlikely to be found to spur him or her to agree to marriage.  A visualization of how it might work for a man would look like this:

Assuming there is something to this theory of mine, I further speculate that the ranges to this phenomenon are not fixed. My suspicion is that people are more discriminating earlier in their lives, and as they age the ranges drop.  So a man who would have immediately “wifed up” a “9” or “10” when he was twenty years old would be willing to immediately wife up a “7” or higher when he is thirty-five. This certainly seems to be the case with many women, who by most accounts and appearances will focus their efforts only on male “8”s or above when they are younger, but once they approach or hit the Wall will marry a male “6” or “7”. The problem of course is that the woman’s “hard floor” has dropped below her attraction threshold, which means that she ends up marrying a man whom she isn’t attracted to. I don’t think it necessary to remind everyone just how disastrous that turns out to be.

A Ceiling?

I can’t recall having seen someone suggest the idea of an “Attraction Ceiling” before, so it might well be an original thought on my part. But the general idea is this: there might a certain attraction threshold above which someone won’t focus their attention, because they believe that those above it are “out of their league.”  While they might be attracted to someone with that rank, they won’t pursue them because they know they don’t have a chance. Here is how it might look:

This “Attraction ceiling” would be a “soft ceiling”, in that it might flex as a person’s perspective on who they can attract fluctuates.  Also, I suspect that this is something that is more likely to be a male behavior than a female behavior. Hypergamy would tend to drive women towards the top to begin with, and the current brutal nature of the SMP/MMP tends to cure men very quickly of any thoughts of “landing” a woman above their rank.

I haven’t really had time to flesh this idea out, but I wanted to mention it to see what other people think. Perhaps I missed it when another blogger covered this subject before. If so, that would no doubt impact my thinking.

Conclusion

That concludes my thoughts on Attraction ceilings and floors for the time being.

Girl Game Tip #1: Be Available

This post’s title is somewhat tongue in cheek, as I rather doubt that I will be offering “Girl Game” tips in the future. For those looking for such advice, Girls Being Girls is your best bet. But I was inspired to write about the subject by some recent events in my life, as well as reading someone relate a story where she received some truly awful “Girl Game” advice, which thankfully was not followed. Before I get into the advice, I will relate two brief stories about girls I met recently.

Girl #1

Last week I attended an evening Mass at my local church (many Catholic churches will hold services, which we call Mass, during the week), something which I hadn’t done for a long time. When I arrived at church I noticed a young woman, perhaps mid-twenties, sitting in one of the pews. My seat didn’t provide me much of an opportunity to get a good look at her, but she seemed pretty enough at first glance, not to mention thin. Her clothing appeared fairly modest as well, which, coupled with her body language, made her seem somewhat demure. I didn’t recognize her, as I hadn’t seen her at any of the normal masses at my church before. Naturally all this intrigued me, and I wished that I had an opportunity to speak with her before Mass. During the service I was struck by her voice, which had a sweetness and clarity to it that I found thoroughly enjoyable. While I was still concentrating on the Mass (something I became quite skilled at years before thanks to the Sunday Morning Nightclub), I resolved to speak with her afterward. While I couldn’t be sure, I wasn’t able to observe any rings on her fingers, so I guessed that she was unmarried. Unfortunately, as soon as Mass ended I saw her leave quickly and rush out of church, before I even had a chance to leave my pew.

Girl #2

A few days later I was at Saturday vigil Mass (seriously, there is no making an excuse about not being able to attend Church as a Catholic), which is the usual service that I attend. I was already seated, and Mass was about to begin, when I observed a young woman sit several rows ahead of me. She appeared to be of Hispanic descent, and was either very early twenties or late teens. She was clearly pretty and had a feminine figure as well. Like the previous girl, I had never seen her before at Church, which made me wonder if she normally attended one of the Spanish language Masses. Interestingly enough, I thought that she might have been giving off some IOIs during Mass (which was rather distracting, actually) by playing around with her hair, which was a long and lustrous black. Furthermore, she also sat in her pew in such a way so that she didn’t face straight forward, but instead facing somewhat sideways, which meant that she could see me out of the corner of her eye. The thought of not speaking with her after Mass never entered my mind. But this time, Mass wasn’t even fully over before the young woman left her pew and hastily exited church.

The Tip

Now, it is likely that both young ladies had somewhere to go after Church. Perhaps even something important. And it is also possible that neither was “single” in the sense of not having a man in her life. And of course, one could question if Church is the proper place to make an approach (but if not Church, then where? Especially if you are looking for a devout spouse). Whatever the situation, neither girl made herself available for an approach.

And this is the crux of the matter. If a good, high-value woman wants to be approached by men, she needs to make herself available. Rushing about from place to place makes this next to impossible. If you have time, linger for a few minutes. Give any men who might be interested the opportunity to evaluate you and decide to make an approach. You can help them by moving somewhat away from any other action going on, to give a slight amount of privacy between the two of you. Men can feel somewhat vulnerable during an approach, so we feel less pressured when it is just us and the woman in the vicinity.  Also, it is essential to maintain a pleasant or even cheerful demeanor if you can manage it. This makes it much more likely that a man will approach you. Men are drawn to cheerful women, and are repulsed by angry or unpleasant ones.

So, to summarize:

Girl Game Tip #1: Be Available

1) Let yourself linger for a few minutes to give me a chance to approach

2) Place yourself in a somewhat private place

3) Display a pleasant or cheerful attitude

Thus endeth the lesson.

 

Update 1: Girl #2 wasn’t present at the vigil Mass yesterday. Something tells me that I will probably never see her again.