Compatibility And Failure

A two topic post today. The first topic is this post over at Deep Strength’s blog. In his post Biblical prescriptions with no bible, DS examines an ostensibly Christian article which discusses sex and marriage. As DS points out, actual scripture doesn’t show up very often in the article, and the most important parts (at least of the New Testament) are missing. The key part I want to talk about is his response here:

One would think that those who burn with passion and get married would have “great sex,” especially with lots of practice. If they’re burning with passion, they’re going to have lots of sex. Of course, it’s not guaranteed there will be “great sex,” but if the each spouse is focusing on the needs of the other, then it will definitely improve significantly over the course of time.

Then you have garbage like “sexual incompatibility” which is just a “lack of practice” and “lack of focusing on the other’s needs” and/or “lack of attraction.” In other words, selfishness.

Given how it is used, “sexual incompatibility” is a concept which means both everything and nothing at the same time. It is a catchall term that means whatever the user intends it to mean at any specific point in time, without necessary reference to how it is used elsewhere, or even before by the same person. Thus, it is basically worthless.

The way I see it, most sexual problems in marriage are rooted in one of these problems:

• One or both spouses is not sexually attracted to the other spouse
• One or both of the spouses has some sort of mental hangup with sex
• One or both of the spouses has some sort of medical condition which is tied to sex (perhaps something that causes pain during the conjugal act)

Now to talk about each.

Sexual Attraction is one of those elephants in the room that most Christians will just ignore. And I suspect most “compatibility” issues are tied to this. I’ve written on the subject numerous times before, but it never hurts to repeat myself here. Unless the situation is truly extraordinary, a couple should NEVER marry unless they share at least some sexual attraction towards each other. It is never certain that this will change in a positive direction after marriage, and even then, it won’t make for a fun wedding night. Solutions to a problem here are for another post, but this is definitely a problem.

Mental hangups can come from a number of sources. Perhaps one of the spouses was the victim of sexual abuse in the past, and this has colored his/her view of sex. Maybe one or both of the spouses engaged in sexual sin in the past, and this has interfered with their ability to be one flesh with their spouse (say, because of a lack of bonding or an inability to be aroused normally). Or maybe one or both spouses was raised and taught an improper view of human sexuality which has had a lasting impact on them. For example, maybe they were taught sexuality was inherently “dirty” or evil, and thus they tried to repress their sexuality (rather than discipline and control) it in the past. Finally, there are issues of heart and attitude- normally based in how one spouse views the other. This is mostly a female problem, as it is tied to attraction, which is based in part on how a woman views a man.

Medical conditions are another possibility. Some might not have solutions, but many do. As so many commercials say, see your personal physician about the matter.

---

The second topic has to do with failure, and relies on this post over at Alpha Game. Vox uses the example of a “Gamma” to explain this important point:

What [the “Gamma”] has to do is adopt the philosophy “fail faster”. The more you try and fail, and the faster you can speed up that process, the more likely it is that one or more of your future endeavors will meet with success.

This is a tough thing for some men to accept. We can grow up with a sense that failure is to be avoided at all costs. That was me growing up (I definitely had Gamma tendencies). But failure is a necessary part of life. Without failure there can be no growth. Everyone fails at some point. Everyone. If you aren’t failing, it means you aren’t really trying. And if you aren’t really trying, you won’t ever get anything of important done in your life.

This is especially true, and especially difficult, when women are concerned. Rejection and failing with women isn’t easy for a man. At least at first. But it is part of the process of becoming good at interacting with them. A man just has to learn to deal with the frustration and feeling of failure. Like death and taxes, it is just part of life.

And yes, I know it is easier said then done. I flopped recently, and it was damned frustrating for a while. But I got over it. And I am still going forward. Self-pity of self-loathing might appear to feel good at the time, but you always regret them in the end. Remembering that helped me overcome any sense of failure, and instead try to look at it as a learning experience. It is always good to remember what Vox has to say in his closing lines:

Don’t be afraid to fail. Don’t be afraid to be seen to try. Even the most successful people fail, badly, most of the time.

Splitting Eros Leads To Disaster

One of Dalrock’s recent posts examines the consequences of the elevation of romantic love to a moral force:

The simple fact is the moment you attribute moral value to romantic love you are creating a rival to biblical sexual morality.  In biblical sexual morality it is marriage that creates a moral space for sex and romantic love (with romantic love not separated from sexual passion).  We have overturned God’s order here, and are now claiming that romantic love is the moral space for marriage and sex.  This is deceptively subtle, and at the same time demolishes the moral meaning of marriage.

…

Passionless duty sex was for marriage, and passion was for adultery.  Courtly love built upon this idea with a twist.  It added a new concept of romantic love, separating out the emotional aspect of sexual passion.  This newly separated concept of romantic love was worshiped and seen as sanctifying.  CS Lewis summed up the concept of courtly love as (emphasis mine):

“The sentiment, of course, is love, but love of a highly specialized sort, whose characteristics may be enumerated as Humility, Courtesy, Adultery, and the Religion of Love.”

What Dalrock is examining here is a situation where Eros has been split in two. As a reminder/refresher, the ancient Greeks believed in several different concepts of  “love.” The three principal loves were:

• Eros- sensual love associated with the body
• Philos- love in the form of friendship that is associated with the soul
• Agapos- the self-sacrificing love that comes from God and is thus associated with the Spirit

Now, Eros is a bodily love. However, emotions are as much of the body as the actual “rubbing together of bodyparts.” Which is my way of saying that Eros properly contains both Romance as well as the actual physical acts of intercourse. Passion and Romance go hand in hand, if you will. Dalrock is making a mistake by calling it “Romantic love.” It is really just the emotional aspect of the love we know as Eros. It is not something separate.

What has unfortunately been going on for centuries now is an attempt to split Eros up into a “dirty” part, sex, and a “pure” part, “romance.” However, no matter how many games you play with this, it cannot be done. Eros encompasses both. Any attempt to separate the two is inherently insane. We should expect that craziness will follow from it. Thus, to me it is no surprise that efforts to separate Eros have helped “break” marriage in the west. We have gone against God’s plan for human beings- disaster is to be expected.

God created Man as a union of body, soul and spirit. Marriage, as an institution/sacrament coming from God, relies on a healthy state of that union. If they are unhealthy, or there is discord, then marriage will suffer accordingly. Marriage encompasses each of these loves, because marriage affects and is affected by all parts of that union. Trying to remove the physical component of Eros from marriage effectively breaks that unity and creates disorder in that man or woman- and thereby brings disorder into the marriage. It affects both husband and wife because in marriage the two become one.

Remember, Man was made for marriage. And by marriage I mean what God intends by marriage. Trying to fit man into anything other than what God intended is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. It doesn’t work. Alas, we are seeing the proof of that all around us in the West right now.

Update: I should make it clear that the mistake that I think Dalrock was mistaking was calling it “Romantic Love.” I don’t think he failed to grasp the other parts of my post. One of his older posts in fact notes that courtly love is always sexual.

Random Musings and Links- #8

Been preoccupied lately, and so blogging has slacked. Here are some links and thoughts in the interim.

Deep Strength has had several good posts lately. One is a story about a Real Life Ruth. The second discusses how to approach the topic of attraction with Christians. Principally how to explain the subject to Christian men who are “Blue Pill.”

Ace of Spades returns for two short but important posts. The first deals with when to speak and when not to speak on the internet. The second concerns how a man should act when he no longer trusts his woman.

Mrs. ktc talks about NFP gone horribly wrong.

Zippy talks about Whitewashing and “pastoral mercy.”

Dalrock points out, once again, that divorce is meant to provide Cash and Prizes to women.

Free Northerner discusses “Virtue Signalling.” Not sure I exactly agree with his view, but it is an interesting discussion all the same.

Cane Caldo continues to shred the “Pro-Life” movement.

Now for some random musing…

I was thinking recently about how I would react if someone tried to match me a
“reformed bad girl.” It’s been a while, and I don’t remember how I reacted last time. So I am curious how my readers in a position similar to mine would react. And by react, I mean what would you think/feel, and also what would you say or do in response? Would the person conducting the match-making make a difference in your response?

In addition, I was struck by how easily men will lap up the rather consistent lie that women are “taken advantage of” by unscrupulous men all the time. Why do we soak up this lie so easily? Is this some cultural thing? A genetic component of being a man? I’m curious, because it is so obviously ridiculous when you actually confront the lie. Yet we do it all the time. I am curious what my readers think.

 

 

Mirrored Appeal

In responding to the errors of the secular world, Christians, if they are not careful, can make errors of their own. The dominant message of the secular world right now, as far as men and women are concerned, is that they/we are the same- albeit with slightly different plumbing. Christians who have not fallen for this lie, or who have escaped it, rightly understand that rather than being interchangeable, men and women are complementary. We are made to “fit together.” A common approach to understanding this complementarity is use a mirror analogy- rather than being the same, men and women mirror each other and have opposing tendencies. For example, if men value X, and C is the opposite of X, then women value C.

Simple enough, yes? And in many instances it happens to be true. But not all. Sometimes, when men and women are different, we are really different. We need to be careful and not try and fit men and women into neat cookie cutter pieces, a tendency not solely restricted to most segments of the secular world.

Over at The Thinking Housewife, the authoress features a comment concerning “Why Women Seek “Bad Boys” – and Men Seek “Bad Girls.” Setting aside the notions expressed about “bad boys”, I want to examine this particular paragraph:

For the same reason sensitiveness and thoughtfulness in a woman reduce her sex appeal. These qualities make her appear weak, and… human. The godless individual resents nothing more than humanity. He cannot desire someone who reminds him constantly of his own mortality. A nonchalant demeanor (originating in vacuousness) is much more desirable to him.

The first sentence in that paragraph is, to use a scientific phrase, total bunk. A woman’s sex appeal is not reduced by “sensitiveness and thoughtfulness.” Even under the worst possible scenario, those character traits have zero affect on a woman’s perceived sex appeal. They just don’t. In this respect men are largely visual creatures. A woman’s sexual appeal is based on her physical characteristics, not her personality. Her personality may affect how a approaches and interacts with her, as well as her long term goals, but not her sex appeal.

Reading through the whole comment, I get the impression that the author has let his philosophical or theological pondering trample over empirical reality. He is trying to make reality fit how he thinks things are- at least, that is how he perceives it. But in truth he is trying to make reality fit how he thinks things should be. This is a tendency we all possess, to some degree or another. And it can be a dangerous one. Much of “Churchianity” is nothing more than a vast, wide-scale expression of the tendency to make reality fit how we think things should be.

All of which leads to the purpose of this post: as a reminder, if only to myself, not to let my own preferences blind me to reality. I know I’ve done it before, and will probably do so again. This was a chief failing, perhaps even the chief failing, of the Pharisees. They could not let go of their own preconceived notions of who the Messiah would be, and so could not see Him when He walked amongst them. Let us, like the Psalmist, pray for the Lord to open our eyes.

Analyzing Attraction- Part 4

This post is a continuation of my series on attraction. The most recent post in the series can be found here, and the first can be found here.  Today’s post is going to focus on a specific feature of female attraction, commonly referred to as “Hypergamy.” This post is by no means meant to be exhaustive- there is a lot to cover and I won’t attempt to do so in this single post.

An Inaccurate Name for an Accurate Observation

Merriam-Webster defines Hypergamy as “marriage into an equal or higher caste or social group.” For anyone familiar with how hypergamy is used in the ‘sphere, you will realize that this definition is not what most people mean when they use that particular word. In fact, it is hardly ever used in conjunction with castes or social groups. Unsurprisingly, this trips more than a few people up. Those individuals who come across this part of the ‘net, and who upon seeing the word “Hypergamy” look it up, will quickly become confused. This often leads some people (mostly but not always women) to reject any “Red Pill” concepts which are connected with hypergamy.

Here is an example of a post where a woman “rejects” hypergamy. A quick review of her post will reveal that she has a better understanding of the subject than most who come to that conclusion. She knows that it is about more than just “marrying up” to a higher social group.  However, her understanding is still imperfect (more might be said about her post but I’m keeping this narrowly focused here). To help her out, and to help out anyone else whose knowledge of this area is lacking, I will (try to) explain what “Hypergamy,” as used in the ‘sphere, actually means.

The thing to understand is that hypergamy is not about “marrying up.” And by that I mean its not about marrying, and not necessarily about “up” in a social status sense. No, hypergamy is about maximization.

Hypergamy means the female drive to maximize a woman’s access to a man, or men, who can meet her demand for the best genetics, provision and protection possible.

This “drive” breaks down into two specific drives, both of which can be (and often are) independent of one another. As Rollo has explained in the past (and I’m sure he can include a post or two in the comments below as examples), women want “Good Genes” and “Good Dads.” In other words, they have a drive to mate with a man with the best perceived genes, which will be passed on to their children. And they have a drive to secure or “lock down” or get “commitment” from a man who they perceive will be the best possible “dad.” Such a man will protect and provide for a woman and her children. Arousal (or sexual attraction) is tied to “good genes”, and (non-sexual) attraction is tied to being a “good dad.” Often, attraction and a man’s skills or ability as a provider/protector are tied to his social status, but not always.

The female ideal is to get both “needs” met in the same package. Essentially, a man with (perceived) good genetics who will also stick around and care for the woman and her children. However, it is not common (at least in this day and age) to find a man with both sets of qualities. And its even rarer to find that kind of man who is free and is interested in settling down. This is where things get more complicated.

You see, women are more than willing and able to seek out different men to meet each individual “need.”  In fact, I would argue that women who cannot get both in the same man will naturally employ this strategy unless they are reared not to. This strategy entails sleeping with men with (perceived) good genes, and then trying to get men who are perceived as good providers/protectors to take care of them. It is called by some “AF/BB”, or “Alpha F—s, Beta Bucks.” Potiphar’s wife, whom I mentioned in my latest Sunday Scriptures post, was likely trying to employ this strategy. Bathsheba, on the other hand, was (assuming she was trying to get David’s attention) trying to get David to carry out a “relationship coup”- that is, to remove Uriah from the picture so that she could marry David. David, after all, was an upgrade from Uriah as far as both drives were concerned.

My suspicion, which seems borne out by evidence all around us, is that women primarily focus on “good genes” when they are younger, and as they get older and have children, “good dads” take preeminence (Rollo refers to this as the Epiphany phase). This, along with some things I will explain in the next few paragraphs, will explain why a stable-hand might draw the attention that a banker doesn’t.

Now, I’ve used “perceived” at several points in the last few paragraphs because it isn’t always clear which men have “good genes” and which men would be “good dads.” Usually the latter is easier to figure out than the former. Women use various shortcuts to try and determine how well a man rates on both. The primary tool that women use to determine “Good Genes” (aka, arousal) is a man’s LAMPS/PSALM score. The higher a man ranks in LAMPS value, the more sexually attractive he is to women and the more he will arouse them. The stable-boy, who is somewhat mocked in the post linked above, is an example of a man whose LAMPS score is high, at least compared to the banker. The banker’s decent Status value helps him, but if he has a lower Power value then it doesn’t matter, ultimately. Likewise, the reference to rogues and pirates all showcase men with high LAMPS scores, primarily focused on the Power attribute. These are all men who can arouse women, and since young women are primarily looking for arousal (rather than non-sexual attraction), that is why they garner such attention.

Something else tied to all of this is the behavior of “trading up.” This is a natural outgrowth of the drive to maximize access to “good genes” and “good dad” in a man. If a better man is found, then women will subconsciously want to “trade up.” That they don’t all the time is because of a number of factions: socializing, a sense of morality, a lack of opportunity and social penalties. Investing in a man over time can also reduce this likelihood. Remove these and women will often leap at a chance to trade up. Only, their idea of trading up may vary, depending on what particular drive they are trying to maximize at the time. Also, their perceptions of what constitutes “higher value” may not always be crystal clear.

One additional note: hypergamy is one drive among many that women possess. Albeit a powerful drive. But for women who are raised properly, its nastier effects can be limited, or even controlled. Unfortunately this is no longer the case for most modern women.

Hopefully this provided at least a half-way understandable explanation of hypergamy, as it is used by people in the ‘sphere. It is an inaccurate use of a word, that much I will grant. A better term needs to be invented, I think, to really encompass everything that falls under this umbrella. But until then hypergamy remains an inaccurate name for an accurate observation of female behavior.

Good Enough v. The Best

As mentioned above, hypergamy is about maximization and a desire for the best. Its arousal component means that a woman will be drawn, sexually, to the men around her who she perceives as meeting her drive’s demand for “good genes.” More specifically, she will be drawn to the best among them- those men with the highest LAMPS values. However, this isn’t the only behavior in play.

Women also have what is called an “Attraction floor,” which is a point below which they won’t consider a man as a viable sexual partner. This means that in a population where none of the men are above this point, women won’t be able to satisfy their “good genes” hypergasmic impulse (that one never gets old). If they do pick a man, it won’t be based on arousal. Rather, it will be based on his being perceived as a “good dad” candidate, aka, (non-sexual) attraction.  There is no guarantee that they will pick such men; some women would rather do without (just as some men will choose to do without if they can’t find any candidates they consider acceptable/worthy).

What this means for a man is that he needs to make sure that he isn’t simply the best. He also needs to be sure that he is above a woman’s attraction floor. The problem is that there is no clear indication where this floor is. The fluid nature of the LAMPS model makes it difficult to pinpoint values. Furthermore, each women values each attribute somewhat differently, and also has her own floor for that matter. All of which makes it next to impossible to know where this floor is. It is much easier, on the other hand, to know where it isn’t. If a man arouses a woman, he is above the floor. If he doesn’t, then he is likely below it. Consequently, a man should always endeavor to build his LAMPS values as high as possible, to ensure that he is not only the best, but that he is good enough as well.

Toxic Hypergamy

One subject that comes up from time to time around these parts is Toxic Hypergamy. This refers to the notion that some women’s hypergamy “filter” has become so warped that they can no longer (realistically) meet it their hypergamic requirements. In other words, what they find acceptable or worthy in a man is at such a high level so as to be unattainable by all but a few men (or in extreme cases no man alive could ever be acceptable). Naturally enough, there aren’t enough of these men to go around. And often such men won’t have anything to do with women exhibiting this behavior. Further, the women who have this often aren’t high enough value themselves to justify having such standards. In many (most?) instances they are often quite bad at estimating their own SMV.

Toxic Hypergamy seems to be especially prevalent in Christian circles. More than a few posters and commenters around these parts can attest to personal stories of Western Christian women who demonstrated this particular condition. EAPs, or Entitled American Princesses, often have Toxic Hypergamy, and can turn down countless men while they wait for a “worthy” man to show up. This has only exacerbated the problems inherent in the American Church.

What I find interesting about this phenomenon is that it serves as further demonstration that a woman’s hypergamy can be influenced by her surroundings and by how she was raised. In the present age this is a cause of sorrow. But at the same time there is some hope for the future. Parents who raise their daughters right, either now or in the future, can account for this and hopefully take steps to help their daughters rein in their hypergamic instincts.

A Debased Currency

Rollo’s post Loyalty & Hypergamy is an article that I think some of my male readers would find illuminating (I guess women might find it interesting, but it is less likely to be illuminating for them, and would be a difficult read). It delves a bit into the concept of loyalty and how that intersects a bit with hypergamy.

Analyzing Attraction- Part 2

This is the second part in my most recent series on Attraction. It will be short, as will most posts in this series. You can find Part 1 here.

Why Are We Talking About This?

My various posts on sexual attraction have led many to ask, either in comment or via e-mail, two questions that relate to one another. The first:

Isn’t this supposed to be a Christian blog?

Which is invariably followed by:

If so, why are you talking about sexual attraction?

Both are good questions, and despite having answered them before many times, I will take the time to answer them yet again.

Yes, this is a Christian blog. I am a Christian (a Traditionalist Catholic, to be precise), and that background impacts this blog. And the reason I am talking about sexual attraction is because it matters to Christians. Especially those who want to marry. You see, despite the proclamations of some neo-Gnostics in the last few generations, devout Christians do not suddenly become asexual creatures. With the exception of those with the charism of singleness, humans are sexual beings. Becoming a Christian doesn’t change this. What it does do is require us to control our nature, and to channel it towards righteous ends- aka, marriage.

The thing is, sexual attraction plays a significant role in the marriage marketplace. Even as Christians we are still drawn to those whom we find sexually attractive, whether we realize it or not, and whether we admit it or not. Unfortunately, there have been a lot of lies told about sexual attraction in the past few generations. And Christians have been the ones peddling them more than any other group. Sadly, these lies have taken a considerable toll on many good Christian men and women.

What are the lies I’m referencing? While there are plenty, the greatest set of them have to do with what women find sexually attractive in men. Note that I said sexually attractive, and not simply attractive. As was discussed in the previous post in this series, attraction is a broad enough term to include many different things, including general traits that women like men to have. But those traits are not the kind that arouse women. And whether something arouses a woman or not matters. Because women, just like men, are sexual creatures. Yes, even Christian women. Thanks to their hypergamous nature and strict filters, among other things, women will “overlook” men who are not sexually attractive to them. Such men just won’t show up on their “radar.” Furthermore, Christian women have the exact same tendencies and triggers towards attraction and arousal that non-Christian women possess. As Deep Strength has explained, there are good reasons why women are drawn to them. This problem is compounded by the fact that most women don’t even understand their own attraction filters, or will deny what they know about them.

Christian women will not see sexually unattractive men as husband material (at least, not until they reach the Epiphany phase, but that’s a discussion for another time). Which means that a Christian man looking to marry who isn’t sexually attractive is going to be ignored/rebuffed by the Christian women around him (And that’s assuming that the women have healthy and realistic filters, which is often not the case). Those women who set sexual attractiveness aside are almost certainly bad risks for one reason or another, so they aren’t a real alternative. Those women who are marriageable filter men based on their sexual attractiveness, whether they realize it or not.

If Christian men want to marry, and more importantly, to marry well, they need to learn what women find sexually attractive in men, and what they don’t. They need to know what arouses women, and what turns them off. Without this knowledge Christian men are basically resigned to groping in the dark. In the present MMP that means they have next to a zero percent chance of marrying well. This is, needless to say, a recipe for disaster. We have already seen the effect of this in the last generation or so. Christian marriage rates are plummeting, and the divorce rate is… well the fact that I’m talking about a Christian divorce rate shows the magnitude of the problem.

Towards that end, this blog has explored, and will continue to explore, sexual attraction/arousal in women, so as to help devout Christian men marry virtuous Christian women. As I am one of those men, this is quite self-serving on my part, and I don’t deny my own selfish motivations for exploring this subject. Yet I hope to help other Christian men as well. First, because I consider it my duty as a Christian to do so as a form of loving my neighbor. Second, because in helping others I may well help myself. Third, if I should marry and have children one day, I want my children to be able to find spouses of their own- which means that those good Christian men out there, who will make for good fathers, need to marry and have children as well.

So expect to hear more on this subject well into the future. Which probably means later this week.

Analyzing Attraction- Part 1

This is the first in a series of new posts on the subject of attraction. My life is quite busy at the moment, and I’m deliberately restricting the time I spend online right now as a result. So most of the posts in this series will be shorter rather than longer. Today’s post is mostly review.

I. Back to Basics

Attraction was a principal focus of this blog in the beginning, with a special focus on male attractiveness. Even before this blog was created I wrote a guest post for Sunshine Mary wherein I set out what I perceived to be the different categories that women evaluated men for in terms of their attractiveness. And by attractiveness, I mean sexual attractiveness. More about this clarification later. This was my original LAMPS formula:

• Looks
• Athleticism
• Money
• Power
• Status

As I noted in that original post, not all categories (which I called vectors then) are equal. Some were valued more highly than others by most women, and individual women could vary in their preferences as well. In terms of overall importance, they are (in descending order of importance) Power, Status, Athleticism, Looks and Money. This is sometimes referenced as PSALM. I often refer to them together as LAMPS/PSALM. A man with a high LAMPS/PSALM score is attractive to most women, and a man

I later clarified this theory bit by discussing the overall categories that women look at: Appearance, Personality and Externalities (also known as APE). The LAMPS factors all fold into that system, which is even simpler and pretty much catches everything there is to catch.

One of the major components of my LAMPS/PSALM theory and model was that it focused purely on sexual attraction. I deliberately excluded any “comfort” traits from it, because those ultimately have no bearing on female sexual attractiveness for all or nearly all women (possible exceptions to be discussed in a later post). I sometimes reference their effect on women as “creating Desire.” Desirable traits or “Retention” traits influence women in so far as elevating some attractive men over others. But unless a man meets a woman’s high threshold for sexual attractiveness (thank you Hypergamy), they don’t help a man.

Or do they?

II. Attraction v. Arousal

Rollo Tomassi has written plenty about his own views on attraction. So far as I can tell he hasn’t formulated a system or model as specific as mine. What he has done is use different terminology and approach attraction from a different light. Rollo uses the terms arousal and attraction to describe what I call attraction and comfort/security. Here is a sample of his use of those those terms from his post Alpha Tells:

In a social environment where men are conditioned to believe that women are as equal, rational agents as men, the belief men put their faith into is that women will appreciate their intrinsic qualities and base their sexual selectivity upon a man’s virtue, bearing, intelligence, humor, and any number of attractive intrinsic qualities. However, the truth of what women base their sexual selectivity upon (arousal) is far more evident in their instinctual, unconditioned behavior when around Alpha men – as well as men’s instinctual sensitivity to that behavior.

While Rollo uses the term arousal, and I use attraction, I believe that they both get to the heart of the same thing: female sexual affinity for a man. Essentially, a primal urge to want him sexually and to mate with him. Where Rollo and I perhaps differ is Rollo’s use of attractive to describe what I call desirable traits. Rollo gives them far more credit than I do in terms of generating female attention. As I understand his thinking, women are affected by two forms of attraction: sexual (what he calls arousal) and comfort/security (what he refers to when he mentions attraction). What happens is that women start out mostly driven by sexual attraction/arousal. As they get older, comfort/security attraction start to take precedence. This switch roughly coincides with a woman’s Epiphany phase- the point when her SMV starts to drop enough that both she and the men around her notice it, and react accordingly.

What Rollo has argued, and what is different from my original take on comfort/security/desirable traits, is that women are actively attracted to these traits. Women notice them and will seek men out based on them. And they will do so even if a man is not sexually attractive.

My own take on desirable traits was that they didn’t grab attention from women. Women aren’t drawn to them and they were only considered after a woman found a man to be sufficiently sexually attractive.

Having seen Rollo further develop his Epiphany line of thought through his Preventative Medicine series, I am now inclined to agree with his view on comfort/security traits. Women can and do appreciate them irrespective of a man’s sexual attractiveness. However, whether a woman does such a thing is heavily influenced by where she is on her “life script.”

Rollo’s female SMV timeline

Unfortunately, women being attracted to these traits doesn’t really help marriage-minded men much at all. This is because most of the women who are focused more on attraction rather than arousal are looking to settle. They are older and are desperate to cash in what remains of their SMV. This might make them appealing to PUAs and others of their ilk who can use this desperation for their own sexual gratification, but not to men looking to marry. Such women are not apt to make good wives. They are more likely than not to be or to become frigid during marriage. Also, they have lost much of their fertility already. Finally, it should be noted that their looks will have started to deteriorate, else they would still be in their Party Years phase.

So where am I going with all of this? That is for the next post to explain.

Random Musings and Links- #6

It is another one of those posts filled with links and random (and not-so-random) thoughts on my part. Given time restraints, I won’t be able to respond much to comments for the next day or so, but feel free to chime in despite that. I will try and keep things orderly at least.

I’m going to begin by address something that Deti said in my post Meager Options:

In the past, around 60 or so years ago, [what earlier comments said0 describes how it went down. Typically it was the man requesting (P in V) sex after a few months of dating or courtship, and the woman saying “Ok, but marriage first.” And typically he was giving up more and more resources (time, money, etc.) in exchange for more and more “sex” (kissing, making out, petting, oral, but reserving P in V for marriage). (Let’s not kid ourselves – lots of women were doing “everything but” P in V before marriage, for men they were “seriously dating”.)

What Deti is describing is an attitude held by most everyone in the MMP (yes, that’s right, the Marriage Market Place), including most “Christians.” That attitude is one of bending the rules as much as possible to favor one’s interests. The rules are simple: a woman exchanges lifetime sexual access and exclusivity with a man who in turn gives her resources, protection and status (which we might call “commitment”) for life. And the exchange is supposed to be at the same time. But neither men nor women really want that. Men want sexual access (and even better, exclusivity) without having to provide commitment, while women want to receive commitment without having to provide sexual access or in some instance, sexual exclusivity.

This ties in the whole concept of boyfriend/girlfriend. As Dalrock has explained, the terms were invented in order facilitate this bending of the rules. The whole notion of the celibate boyfriend is a means for Christian women who don’t want to provide sexual access to receives the commitment they want from Christian men. Likewise, many Christian men will use their status as boyfriend as a means for sexual gain for themselves. All of which goes to show why devout Christians should reject those ideas and the mindset behind them.

For those of you who haven’t been paying attention, Deep Strength and Ballista have been involved in a spirited debate about headship and authority in marriage. It starts with this post by Ballista and was followed by this post, which Deep Strength responds to here. I don’t exactly agree with either, but I think many of my readers will find them interesting. Here are both sets of posts:

Ballista- Anarchy in the Marriage; Negating Authority in Marriage; Headship in Marriage Implies Authority; Confusing Status with Action- Creating Supplicating Betas

Deep Strength- Headship is not authority in marriage; Headship is not authority in marriage Part 2; Headship is not authority in marriage Part 3

Dalrock explains why women are compelled to take over the Gaming world.

NSR brings the humor. And the beat.

Rollo explains how Yes Means Fear.

As always, Maeve has your baking needs covered. This time, Blueberry Muffins.

Chad discusses Falling on Your Sword.

Dropit delves into the nature of Ambiguity.

Free Northerner hosts a guest post about how men can avoid sex starvation in marriage. He also exposes some of the hypocrisy and ignorance of those decrying the “campus rape epidemic.”

Martel, who is busy writing his book, asks for some help increasing his knowledge of children’s literature and other media directed at them by the popular culture.

Allamagoosa looks at The Time and Place for Hierarchy.

I also want to address this comment left at her blog by someone named Ashley:

I’m in this situation with my significant other. Both of us are in professional school and in our twenties and the way our lives are scheduled, we couldn’t even get married until one of us graduates or after one of us takes our board exams for medical/dental school. But that’s like another 2-8 yrs and we would both be ~30 yrs old. And I want to have children so we’d have very limited time to enjoy each other sexually as a married couple. What is our solution? We don’t really have one. Either we push to get married early on or “foreplay” to relieve sexually tension. I know we aren’t suppose to “foreplay” but its very very unlikely going to lead to sex because besides the whole Christian ideal, an unwanted pregnancy is 100X feared with our schooling.

 First off, “foreplay” is probably not acceptable Christian behavior based on what she is hinting at. The way I look at it, if you aren’t comfortable explaining in graphic detail everything involved to all your friends and family… God probably doesn’t approve (at least, until marriage). This approach is a surefire way to come to sin, and in fact the mindset hints at a sinful attitude already (finding ways to “cheat the system”).

Second, delaying children is not a wise plan. It really isn’t. Mrs. ktc explains why you should Have Children.

Also, she has responded to my post Proposing A Question with her own post, Proposals. This brings me to the topic of marriage proposals on bended knee. I have yet to hear a good reason why men should do them. Mere expectations or custom at this point are not enough. This alone is reason enough for a man not to do it. But even more than that, bending the knee is a sign of supplication and (as those familiar with Game of Thrones will recognize) surrender. For all the talk about how essential it is for a man to start off strong by proposing to a woman, this runs entirely counter to that. Who the woman in question is doesn’t matter- as a custom it just has no merit. I invite my readers who disagree to explain otherwise, of course. But at this point proposing on bent knee is not something I’m ever going to do. And I will tell any woman I court as much. If she cannot accept that, then in my view it demonstrates she wasn’t a good candidate to begin with.

Be Feminine Not Feminist tells women: Don’t rob your children of their Daddy.

At Peaceful Single Girl this post demonstrates the damage caused to children by divorce.

Apparently Sigyn is having some real trouble with depression and could use your prayers.

Stingray explains yet another reason to homeschool.

At the same time, homeschooling isn’t easy, as Elspeth will tell you. Much of the problem is that we aren’t aligned as a community towards supporting homsechooling and mothers who stay at the household. The old support networks are gone, and were an essential part of the process.

Elspeth also discusses the difference between being unmarried and being single. I describe myself as unmarried, not single, and my reasons match up with those expressed at her blog.

Eviscerating the faith through decrying “Paulinity.” I’ve seen some of that applied here in the ‘sphere before. Mostly by men who want to engage in fornication. But I’ve seen a few women argue it as well, often to escape any requirements or duties placed upon them (especially in marriage).

I’ve argued before about the risk associated with women with tattoos, and here is yet more support for my concern.

Update: Red Pill Set Me Free talks about how a woman, any woman, however high-value, can become Ruined.

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.