The Sound Of Inevitability

[Fair Warning: This post is my attempt to delve into philosophy, political philosophy and other “deep” matters. These are not fields where I have any special knowledge/training, or have an in-depth education, and it will show. Please excuse the (overly) amateur nature of this post.]

I.

For some time now I have been of the opinion that the present outbreak of rebellion in women against male authority, a problem with many names but which can be encapsulated best by the appellation “feminism”, was inevitable in the West, and in the United States in particular. Several different factors are at play right now in the United States, any one of which would create the present crisis (which I believe it so qualifies as). Working together they have created an unstoppable juggernaut which has reshaped the culture over the last century or so to a breathtaking degree. What we have now would be largely unrecognizable to someone who lived at the turn of the 20th century. The social order which we might refer to as “Patriarchy” is now entirely gone. Whatever appears to be left of it is in fact a hollow shell, devoid of substance or meaning.

Two comments stand out in convincing me to write this post. Both took place in my post One Body, where I discussed unity within the church. However, both commenters used the opportunity of division within the church to point out greater divisions within the whole of society. The first comment comes from Denise:

I’ve thought for a while that one of the ironic things about the Christian part of the manosphere is the emphasis on authority, but limited to the need for women to submit to the authority of men. At the same time, there is a general denigration of the authority of church leaders (of whatever denomination). The need for authority permeates our lives, and wherever people are unwilling to submit themselves to the right authority over them, there will be problems.

This comment elicited a response from reader mdavid:

I’ve never really thought about things this way, but the more I reflect it’s pretty dang amusing. Think about it this way: individualistic men of the West, each claiming to be their sole spiritual authority to interpret the bible…get exactly what we ask for: division. And our women, following us, soon become a perfect reflection of their men, indeed made from our very (disobedient) rib to continue the analogy.

In this light, it’s sort of funny to complain about women being disobedient to the very men who are themselves repulsed by earthly spiritual authority. Hey, I don’t want to obey imperfect earthly authority (even though Jesus demanded it) so I’ll follow Christ directly! Well, then, why shouldn’t my wife say exactly the same thing to me? I sure can’t claim perfection for myself nor my earthly spiritual leaders. So the modern western wench is a pretty damn appropriate punishment, the more I think of it. God is clever but never malicious. He is merely giving us what we demand…earthly freedom for us and ours. Ouch.

Both of them touched on one aspect of the problem of female rebellion- the overall dislike of authority in the West. But so much more is at play. I am writing this post in order to examine some of the reasons why Patriarchy was doomed centuries ago, and to show that what is happening now is merely the fulfillment of a destiny set in place long before our time.

II.

Right now there are three major factors, or impulses, that are driving the current trend of female rebellion within the West. I use the term impulse because they are actively pulling society/the culture along; they are not reactive in nature. Each of these impulses is tied to the dominant ideology and political philosophy of the West, which has many specific flavors but overall can be summed up as “liberalism” (note the small ‘”l”). All three are linked to one another to different degrees, as while they manifest differently and have varying effects, their ultimate point of origin is the same.  The three impulses are:

• The Anti-Authoritarian Impulse
• The Egalitarian/Equality Impulse
• The Freedom/Liberty Impulse

Each of these impulses has worked on its own to stoke the fires of female rebellion, each in its own unique way. While the paths they have trodden may be different, the final destination is the same: the destruction of Patriarchy. Now to explain all three in a little more depth.

A.

The Anti-Authoritarian Impulse derives from the liberal opposition to authority and the exercise thereof. This is especially true for “imposed authority,” that is, authority that comes down from above where the person below has no say in the matter. One of the driving forces in the creation of what we can call liberalism was a hostility to this kind of situation. It is principally applied to matters of state, and expressed most commonly in the idea that “just government comes from the consent of the governed.” Liberalism believes that authority cannot be imposed unilaterally from above; it is only valid when assented to by the governed.

As one might guess, this particular impulse manifests as a direct rebellion against authority. It is the most forward of the impulses, and the easiest to understand in its effect (subtle it ain’t).

Also, this impulse is nothing new. Its origin is as old as Man himself, for it is born of the spirit of rebellion that lurks in the heart of every man and woman. The story of the Fall in the Book of Genesis contains the perennial example of the rebellion against authority. So its no surprise that liberalism adopted anti-authoritarianism into its official “plank.” The Reformation also had a huge impact on the development of liberalism, as liberalism was strongest and germinated soonest (from what I recall of my history lessons) in those regions/nations that embraced Protestantism. [This post isn’t aimed to fight that particular conflict over again, merely to show the ideological consequences of the Reformation. So lets keep it topical here.]

B.

The Egalitarian or Equality Impulse is a fairly broad one, as it encompasses both the liberal belief that everyone is equal to some degree or another, as well as the belief that everyone should be equal. Some expressions of this include ideas such as “political equality”, “equality of opportunity” and “equality of outcome.” Ultimately it comes down to treating people the same in some form or fashion, and recognizing them as being the same. Each plays off the other. After all, if everyone “is” the same, then they should be treated the same. And if everyone is treated the same, then they will “be” the same.

Its origin in liberalism is interesting. It has ties to classical philosophy, especially the polis of ancient Greece, where in many instances the citizens of a city-state were considered equal brothers (Sparta is an interesting example of this). Another pagan connection would be various Anglo-Saxon and Viking traditions, which hewed to a sort of “band-of-brothers” belief that fellow warriors were equal to one another. The notion of trial by your peers is an example of this, as it has a history tied to this tradition, dating back to when Germanic tribes first invaded what we now call Britain and Ireland.  There was also a Christian connection as well, owing to the thought of some famous Christian theologians who emphasized the equal worth of human beings in the eyes of God. There is more, but it is beyond the scope of this post.

All of these sources flowed together into the thinking of the Enlightenment, where liberalism was born, and emerged as the idea we now call “Equality.” While it has, even now, many flavors, the Egalitarian Impulse carries a lot of weight in the liberal West.

C.

The Freedom or Liberty Impulse is, stated simply enough, the liberal belief that everyone should be free to act how they wish as much as possible. Usually it is explained as the ability of a human being to act in whatsoever manner they wish, so long as they don’t intrude on the rights of a fellow human being. Otherwise, so long as someone else isn’t directly affected, you are free to do whatever you want.

Much of its origin can be traced to the English Enlightenment, which drew heavily on the centuries old tradition of “English Liberty.” That itself drew on even older traditions dating back to the Norman conquest of England, when certain individuals were granted special privileges based on service to the crown, blood ties and the like. Originally (to the best of my musty knowledge of history) it mainly manifested itself as a list of rights to be free of certain obligations. Freedom from certain taxes and duties, for example. A freedom “from,”, if you will. Over time it morphed into a freedom “to” do certain things. As a matter of political philosophy, this was actually a huge shift, and helped lay the groundwork for the impulse as we understand it today.

III.

The United States in particular is a product of all three liberal impulses. One can look through American history and be bombarded by different ideas and beliefs that all had their origin in one or more of these impulses. Perhaps no document is a better example of liberalism’s core tenets than the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

You can see all three impulses at work here-

• “all men are created equal” is the Egalitarian impulse
• “certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” is the Freedom impulse
• “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed” is the anti-authoritarian impulse
• “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government” is also the anti-authoritarian impulse

You will find similar influences in pretty much every major American political document or speech. The three impulses pervade everything; they are so commonplace we pretty much take them for granted at this point. An interesting question would be if they are more prominent in the US than they are elsewhere. My personal belief is that the Anti-Authoritarian and Freedom impulses are more pronounced in the US, whereas in the rest of the West the Egalitarian impulse is dominant. That is not to say that the US lacks the Egalitarian impulse, it clearly doesn’t. But it isn’t as strong, and takes a somewhat different form than it does in, say, Europe.

The reason for this is that liberalism has had several different variants over the years. The US has long been a haven for what political philosophers call “classical liberalism”, which is the form of liberalism that developed during the Enlightenment. It is marked by a strong resistance to authority, a preference for Equality of Opportunity over Equality of Outcome, and a strong believe in “individual rights, i.e., “freedom.” Europe, on the other hand, has been influenced far more by “socialist liberalism”, which is a post-Enlightenment variant of liberalism which was a product of the Romantic era. It is marked by a strong preference for Equality of Outcome, which drowns out to some degree the other impulses. However, despite the different flavors they represent, both expressions of liberalism lead to the same place, as the next section will explain.

IV.

This leads me back to the original point of this post- how the rise of “feminism” in the West was inevitable. Liberalism, as the dominant ideology in the West, made sure that all three impulses exerted a great deal of influence on Western culture and thought. They are everywhere. Their influence and effect is inescapable. And each was capable by itself of encouraging female rebellion. How did they do it? Let us examine each in turn.

A.

The Anti-Authoritarian impulse

This is easy enough to understand. This impulse has, over time, encouraged all segments of society to rebel against any form of authority, and it has weakened the authority that can be exercised. Male authority over women is treated like any other kind of authority- it is opposed on principle and tolerated only when those over whom it is exercised consent (stated another way, consent must be had for authority to be exercised). Naturally enough, most women don’t consent to men exercising authority over them. And why shouldn’t they? Individually they often benefit from rebelling, even though society as a whole will suffer.

Left unchecked, this impulse will expand its scope and reach.  And there is no checking it, as it is a core belief of the ideology of liberalism. To check the anti-authoritarian impulse would be to renounce a part of liberalism itself, which it would not, could not do. No form of authority can escape its grasp accordingly.

The authority that a husband  can exercise over his wife in marriage would be one such authority. It was always scheduled to be on the chopping block, no matter what. After all, if the authority of the state and the church has been rejected, why not the authority of the husband over his wife? Compared to the first two, the authority of the last is trivial. Christianity, as we have learned, does not provide an immunity to this. The same thought processes which affect secular thinking affect religious thinking. An example- “so what if the Bible says that wives are to submit to their husbands… there is no reason you have to follow it anyways.”

What has happened in the West over the last many centuries is that the authority of the state and the church has been reduced and limited to an incredible degree (although it should be noted that the rise of socialist type policies and practices runs counter to this- the subject of the impulses competing with one another is a matter for another post, however). The authority of the husband over his wife, and of men over women, would always be targeted because any authority would eventually find itself a target. And no defense could be raised against it, because those elements of society which could mount it had already been neutered.

 

B.

The Egalitarian Impulse

Again, this has two components, one that stresses that everyone is equal, and a second which emphasizes that everyone should be treated equally. Both work together towards the same end.

If women are equal to men, then it follows that men cannot exercise authority over them. After all, authority is exercised by a superior over an inferior, not by one equal over an another. Also, if women are equal to men, than they should be treated the same. It isn’t logical or consistent to treat those who are the same any differently, hence women and men must be treated the same. And if women and men are to be treated the same, then there is no room for male authority over women.

The problem with the Egalitarian impulse is that it could never be easily limited. Once the concept of Equality was acknowledged as an ideal, there was no stopping it. Anyone and everyone would claim the mantle of its power for themselves. How do you distinguish one group as worthy of equality, and not another? As long as it held value in the minds of the populace, people would be hesitant to argue against its further application to another “worthy” group. In holding up Equality as an ideal, liberalism provided a ready made tool to hammer male authority with. The two are incompatible, something had to give. With liberalism being the dominant ideology, the loser was inevitably going to be male authority.

C.

The Freedom Impulse

Male authority over women necessarily entails restrictions on female liberty. That is the nature of authority- it’s exercise limits what you can do. Here we had another inevitable conflict in the making. Again, the idea behind this particular liberal belief is that you should be able to do what you want to do. Support of any kind of restriction on liberty, of anyone, carries with it the charge of hypocrisy (again, with some exceptions based on the other impulses interacting). Whether or not it is true, people don’t like to be called hypocrites. Defending against that charge would require showing that restricting female liberty was of greater social value than promoting greater liberty. The problem with that defense is the fact that liberalism never had as a core component of its ideology the belief that men needed to exercise authority over women. Rather, it was inherited from previous ideological systems as a kind of “leftover”, a tradition that was preserved because it made sense. Some philosophers made stronger arguments in favor of it, but those ideas were never part of the core ideology of liberalism. They were dressing, in other words.

All of this means that when push came to shove, the liberty impulse was destined to win. People in the West have been conditioned to believe that more liberty is inherently a good thing. Indeed, liberty itself is seen as a good of the highest order, so of course the more of it, the better. If you oppose greater liberty for, say, women, why then… the question is raised about what kind of person are you? Only someone opposed to liberty, such as a fascist/national socialist, would oppose liberty. After all, that is what liberalism has essentially taught people in the West. Because liberty was more highly valued by liberalism than any exercise of authority by men over women, it was inevitable that women would seek and be granted the freedom they so desired.

V.

In conclusion, this was always going to happen. The seeds of female disobedience and rebellion were planted centuries ago. Men, in their desire to acquire more liberty for themselves, to level the playing field, and to escape the church and the state exercising any authority over them (without their say so) created an ideology to suit their ends. But in their individualistic pursuit of greater self-actualization and power, they failed to appreciate that they were paving the road for women to follow right behind them. And follow they did.

Churchianity is the natural result of these liberal tendencies allowed to run their course. Notions of Equality, Freedom and a hostility to Authority are so deeply engrained in our minds by the surrounding culture  they incline us to undermine core tenets of the faith. Despite clear teaching to the contrary, wives are not submitting to their husbands, women are preaching and exercising authority over men, and marriage and divorce are treated flippantly. Those are just a small sample of what Churchianity offers. And it is only going to get worse.

In their haste to get what they wanted, our forefathers blindly tore down the barriers that kept our inner demons at bay, and undermined the foundation of Western Civilization. As many around these parts have argued for some time, that foundation was Patriarchy and Patriarchal marriage (for a good explanation of how that is the case, see here). When the present system collapses, and it most certainly will, it will not be because people the people running it were incompetent. Or because they didn’t try it hard enough or long enough. No, everything will fall apart because there could be no other outcome. The liberal order was destined to collapse.

So the next time you hear a woman complain that there are no good men left, the next time you hear a father bragging about his careerist daughter, the next time you hear a man lamenting how his wife blew up his marriage and ruined the lives of their children, the next time a preacher tells the men of the church to “man up”, the next time you hear a story on the news about more and more children being born out of wedlock, know well that you are hearing:

Complex and Reflected

I.

One of the subjects that has interested me for a while is the so-called “Madonna/Whore Complex.” A number of male bloggers have covered it in the past, including me, in large part because it connects with a number of “red pill truths.” Several recent discussions that I’ve had with a few “red pill” aware individuals has made me wonder about its origins or source, and if it has a female counter-part. Some further discussions has led me to believe that there is indeed a female counter-part, and it is surprisingly similar in its origin to the male equivalent. Before I talk about the female version of the complex, I will explain some thoughts on how men develop it.

II.

One of the striking things about the Madonna whore complex is how it strictly divides women into two camps: one sexualized and one de-sexualized. It is striking in that there isn’t really any room for a grey area- women are mentally forced into one category or the other. I think this binary division is connected to the natural male filter for determining the investment quality of a woman.

Men have an innate instinct to divide (attractive) women into two groups: (attractive) women who are worthy of long-term investment, and (attractive) women who aren’t. Now, neither group is de-sexualized in either way- rather, it is that the women in the second group, while regarded as possible sexual partners, are not considered worth investing time or resources in. To use the vernacular of the modern day Pick-Up Artist, they are only good for a “pump’n’dump.” For men, sex may be cheap, but investment/commitment is not. Hence the need for an ability and inclination to assess women as being commitment worthy or not.

What I theorize, and others may have done the same before me, is that the Madonna/Whore complex involves a corruption of this natural filter. Whereas the normal filter includes women who are possible sexual partners on both sides, the filter is distorted so that you get sexual women who aren’t worthy of commitment on one side, and non-sexual women who are worthy of commitment on the other. I believe that this complex develops as a result of environmental triggers, specifically involving a man’s interaction with women. The Madonna/Whore complex seems to develop the most frequently amongst cultures and environments where men spend a long time unmarried and around loose women. It can occur in other situations, but that seems to be the most common.

What I think happens is that men who spend a long time with loose women come to associate female sexuality with unworthiness of commitment. This is because slutty behavior is one of the hallmark indicators that a woman isn’t worthy of commitment. Over time, men will be conditioned to associate them together, and eventually they will become inseparable. Since loose women tend to be fast paced and “exciting”, this association is intensified and exacerbated because of the strong emotions that men will develop during their time with such women. Men will have a fun, exciting time, and yet the filter doesn’t go away. It will be sending constant messages to these men that the women they are with are unworthy of commitment. For men, this manifests in a feeling of disgust and repulsion hinders the development of any lasting emotional bond. Over time, this disgust and repulsion will probably take on moral qualities, and so men will see loose women as disgusting (and maybe even evil) harlots.

Commitment worthy women, on the other hand, will be mentally associated with the opposite kind of emotions and sentiments. They, not being harlots, will be good and pure and wholesome. Men will instinctively assign to them all the positive traits that loose women lack, and none of the negative traits that loose women have. The problem for such women is that men will instinctively de-sexualize them. Partly this is because “good women” don’t act the same way as loose women do, and so don’t generate the same kind of excitement and “fun” that men with the complex associate with loose, and thereby sexual, women. The other part of it is that men instinctively recoil against thinking of “good women,” Or “Madonna’s,” as sexual. This is because their minds associate female sexuality with a whole host of traits that make women unworthy of commitment. So when a man considers a good women in a sexual way, it threatens to shake his mental image of her as a good or commitment worthy woman. Since he know she isn’t like that, he is apt to react by rejecting any sexual behavior or attitudes on her part. In fact, it is likely that if she acts that way he will react forcefully, in an angry or possibly even violent manner. His own sense of security and order and mental image of the woman in question would demand as much.

III.

This brings us to the female counter-part. I think that the basis is much the same, although the mechanic is a bit different. This is because women don’t divide men into the categories of commitment worthy and non-commitment worthy. Of course, women don’t give commitment in the way that a man does (via resources/time), but rather receive those. Instead, female commitment is expressed by having a man’s children. The primary characteristic women use to assess a man as a mate is whether a man is attractive or not, not whether she will give commitment, or even receive it from him. In fact women seem to be inclined to try and receive as much investment from as many men as possible (sensible in terms of helping her offspring survive). Certainly any man who she considers attractive is one that she would want to receive commitment from. This would seem to suggest that women wouldn’t fall into their own version of the complex.

Things get somewhat complicated, though, when we consider the phenomenon known as “Alpha F—s, Beta Bucks”, or AFBB. This seems, at first glance, to be a female behavior wherein women will sleep with one sort of man and seek commitment from another. However, this isn’t a full picture of what AFBB is. AFBB is a strategy that women adopt as a result of male behaviorisms; it is reactive in nature. It isn’t what women really want, at least, not as their first choice. What they want is commitment from the guys that they sleep with (and want to sleep with). However, the simple fact of the matter is that  without significant social pressures the most attractive male members of a social group (“Alpha’s”) will not offer exclusive commitment to a woman. Instead, because of the copious attention they receive from women, such men have the power position in any relationship and will offer little to no commitment to women.  Thus women, if they want to have a relationship with such men (which they do), have to comply with their rules. However, women still need male commitment in order to support themselves (especially during pregnancy) and their offspring. So they will seek out men who are more likely to offer commitment (“Beta’s”), and offer a relationship with them in exchange for commitment in return. Such relationships are merely a matter of convenience, though, on the part of women.

AFBB is a coping mechanism, if it were. I think the fact that it is reactive, and not active like the male binary perception of women means that it has less of an impact on female behavior. However, the same kind of environmental factors which might precipitate a man acquiring the Madonna/whore complex might also create a similar effect in women, even without that kind of base.

For example, take women who spend a lot of time in the company of exciting, handsome men, with whom they have sexual relationships. Have this last a number of years, the length of which is determined by how well the women age and what their relative beauty is. Over time, their minds will associate positive (as in desirable) male sexuality with men who display those traits. These impressions will be very potent, because the female brain is more emotionally connected than the male brain. With enough time and conditioning, women will only be able to associate male sexuality in a positive way coming from these kinds of men. Less exciting, “safer” men won’t generate the same kind of emotional responses in women with this kind of background, and so women will de-sexualize them. And if the men do act sexual, then because it isn’t associated with a positive form of male sexuality, women will see it in a negative light, which we around these parts refer to as “creepy.”

I was originally planning on calling this the Bad Boy/Nice Guy complex, but that isn’t really accurate. After all, it isn’t a binary division because the men who aren’t Bad Boys fall into two groups themselves: sexual and therefore creepy, and non-sexual and therefore safe. The latter are basically resource dispensers in the eyes of affected women, sad to say. So its more of a Stud/Creep/Drone complex than anything else. Not a great name, I know. If someone can think of a better one please feel free to mention it.

 IV.

I’m curious what some of my readers think of this theorizing on my part. Taken together, both versions of this problem stem from prolonged lifestyles that are hedonistic and promiscuous. Over time the brain is re-wired to the point where healthy long-term relationships become difficult, if not impossible.

Something I didn’t talk about in this post, but am curious about, is the reaction that people have to those who live these kinds of lives. What kind of impact is there on good women and nice guys living in a system where this is commonplace?

One thing that I am sure of is that this kind of sickness in society is what we can expect when sexual immorality is the norm.  Now, if only we have some kind of guide-book which would help us as a society to avoid perils like this….

Wearing Thin

[This post was one that I was working on before Easter but had to put on hold because of a lack of time. I’m finishing and uploading it now, roughly a month later.]

I.

Elspeth posted a satirical video a few weeks back which advises women to “Put it on“, and in this case “it” happens to refer to clothing. Stingray “stole” the video to use with a post over at Girls Being Girls called “Tweezing Out Femininity.” A small sample:

We’ve all written about how, as women, we should strive to be pretty, wear modest makeup, but wear it well, have long hair, dress well and so forth.  But as we all know, femininity encompasses so much more than that and trying to write about all it entails in one or two posts is nigh impossible.

With this in mind, I thought it best to simply just pick one small aspect of femininity and write about it.  My hope is that it will inspire questions, comments, and further ideas for myself and the other writers here to spin off of and therefore continue the conversation of what it means to be a feminine woman.  It’s not a simple thing and it goes very deep.  However, the outer covering is a very good place to start in one’s journey to becoming more feminine.  It’s why I love the video above so much.

Women today seem to go to either end of the spectrum, even in the course one day, in their dress.  For the day it might be sweatpants and sneakers and for the night heavy makeup with a very skimpy dress or skirt.  There is little in between.  It is in this in between that we start to find what is feminine.

I think that my female readers would enjoy the rest of the post, and I would recommend it to them. In addition, those men who are fathers of daughters might also find some value there as well. And since I’m on the topic of female attire, I should also mention that TempestTcup has two new somewhat recent posts up concerning Corsets and Tight-lacing. You can find part 1 here, and part 2 here.

However, the primary subject of this post is modesty. I haven’t touched on it in a while, so I thought I would give a few thoughts on the matter. A major impetus is a post titled “Against the ‘Modest Swimsuit'” over at a blog called The Catholic Lady (whose tagline I very much like). A comment in that post stated this:

To really know what is modest when swimming, I think we’d probably have to ask truly virtuous men for guidance.

Now, I won’t be so arrogant as to claim to fit that description. But I do have a few thoughts I would like to mention when it comes to modesty, although extending beyond just swimsuits.

II.

When we talk about modesty, we need to understand that there are really two components to it. The most obvious one concerns lust and sexuality- this is the modesty that most of us think of when the subject is brought up. For swimsuits especially, this is what modesty entails. The other kind of modesty involves envy and jealousy; this is modesty in the sense of being humble and not showing off wealth and status. I explained this a while ago in my fifth Selected Sunday Scriptures posts:

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.

The thing to keep in mind about modesty is that its purpose is to avoid inciting sin in others. Whether that sin is lust, or avarice, we are not to become stumbling blocks for our brothers and sisters. When we talk about modesty, it is important to remember that.

This particular observation is important because there are a number of people out there who “believe” in modesty, and preach it, but don’t get it quite right. One of the more common manifestations of this is when people say they don’t want to wear “too modest” of clothing, otherwise they would draw attention to themselves. This sentiment demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of modesty, and especially how it relates to the world. Modesty is not simply about not drawing attention to oneself, it is about not drawing particular types of attention to oneself. Specifically, sexual attention and jealous attention. Remember, we as Christians are supposed to be noticed. People are supposed to recognize us: by how we dress, by how we act, and by what we say.

¹⁴ “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hid. ¹⁵ Nor do men light a lamp and put it under a bushel, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. ¹⁶ Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.

(Matthew 5:14-16)

If people notice a Christian, especially a Christian woman, because she is wearing modest clothing that is far afield from what other women are wearing, then guess what? That is a good thing! Yes, really, it is! As Christians we are called to not conform to the world; that will invariably result in us standing out. So the lesson of all of this is that when it comes to whether a particular outfit is modest, the question isn’t whether it draws attention to us or not. The question is whether it draws the wrong kind of attention towards us. With that out of the way, I will turn to what I suppose we can call “chaste modesty.”

III.

While there are certainly immodest outfits that men can wear, when the topic of modesty is concerned female attire is what is talked about 99% of the time. Towards that end I will be addressing only modesty when it comes to women. A post on male modesty might be worthwhile later, although I think it would be relatively simple.

There are two components of “chaste modesty”, which I call skin and shape. The first refers to just how much bare skin an outfit shows, and where it shows it. It also includes any transparency effects in the clothing. The second refers to how much of the woman’s body shape or form is highlighted and emphasized by the outfit. An outfit might be perfectly acceptable in one area but fail utterly in another. An example would be a skin-tight black leather outfit that shows very little skin, but hugs to the body. Men can be tempted by a woman’s body shape just as they can be tempted by bare skin. Both are problematic.

Whether for swimming or another purpose, the amount of skin shown by an outfit cannot go too far without being immodest. Some areas it is easy to draw a bright line, while others can be a bit hazy. The following is my personal thoughts on it, based on my own nature and inclinations as a man, as well as what I understand about other men.

Overall I feel fairly confident in saying that most of the torso down to just above the knees should be covered up. Personally, I don’t think that bare shoulders are a problem, for me at least they don’t incite lust, and I don’t think they do for most men in general. But dipping too much below the collar bone does get to immodest territory, although the exact location where it becomes immodest depends on the body shape of the woman wearing it. Coverage would then extend down through the midriff, as skin showing there directs a man’s gaze to that location, which is between two area’s on a woman’s body quite apt to incite lust. The upper legs and thighs would need to be covered as well, because they also have a strong sexual correlation to them.

The problem with swimsuits is that their nature lends them towards showing a lot of “shape”, even if they don’t show a whole lot of skin. They tender to be tight fitting, as that makes for better hydrodynamics. So even if they cover up all of the torso, they still tend to hug the skin and show off any curves that a woman might have. Thus they are still in many cases immodest, even when they don’t show a whole lot of skin. The key to making a swimsuit more modest, in my opinion, is not simply to cover up skin but to break up the woman’s body shape. This means an outfit that uses some kind of ruffling or loose fabric that would cover up her curves, at least when she isn’t swimming (as when swimming shape is less of an issue).

That same line of thinking applies to other clothing as well- whether dresses or skirts or blouses. If something is tighter on the skin, then something to break up the pattern is required. A second layer or something similar can achieve that effect. Looser clothing will probably need to cover a bit more, though, in order to not show off as much skin when bending over or being in a position other than standing up.

The funny thing (to me at least) is that what I’m describing fits clothing that existed decades before. Old-fashioned swimsuits and dresses alike both tended to show less skin and less of a woman’s curves at the same time. The thing is, they did/can still look very good on a woman; they just don’t look as sexy on her, that’s all. But that is the entire purpose of most of the modern attire- to emphasize a woman’s sexual appeal in order to draw male sexual interest and attention towards her.

At this point I should note that I understand the practical advantages of a two piece swimsuit to women when it comes to using the restroom. But there is no reason you couldn’t have a two-piece that is also modest along the lines I’ve described above. It simply would need to have some overlap, that is all.

IV.

Those are my quick thoughts on modesty in female attire. If anyone has any other suggestions or thoughts to add, please feel free.

 

Update: Deep Strength has added his thoughts to the subject in this post here. I recommend reading it, as he goes beyond the external aspects of modesty, which is all that I have covered, to address the internal ones as well.

“Don’t forget this fact – you can’t get it back…”

Ace at 80 Proof Oinomancy examines the idea of “the one who got away” from the male perspective and takes the idea back to its Genesis…

80-Proof Oinomancy

 

 

 

 

I’ve said it a million times.

I’ll say it a million more:

I don’t care if you’re a theist, agnostic or atheist.

The Book of Genesis is the greatest work ever penned.

 

 

I’ve always wanted to do a break-down of it.

Call it:

Deconstructing Genesis.

But I’m getting off topic, ever so slightly.

 

 

Have you wondered why the women with whom you “click”, women you really “get” at a deep level, women with whom you feel a True and deep connection never seem to want you back?

Go ahead, lie to me.

Lie to the mirror.

But you, in the darkest recesses of your being, know exactly what I mean.

 

 

Sure, there have been girls with whom you’ve shared a fair amount of interests/attitudes/opinions in your time on earth.

There may be ones [or one] to whom you commit…

View original post 100 more words

Ongoing Discussion Concerning Men, Masculinity, Women And Femininity

This post is a continuation of an ongoing discussion that started in my Questions or Suggestions page between myself and commenter Nathan. Rather than fill up that page’s comments with a continuous discussion, I have decided to move it over here. That page is best used for single comments and responses, rather than replies in depth. As for this post, besides using it as a medium to answer Nathan’s questions, I think it could also serve as an excellent place to ask and answer ongoing questions about men/masculinity and women/femininity. I will recreate the conversation here to provide context for everyone, so that my next set of responses will make sense. I invite anyone with their own answers, or deeper ones, to contribute their thoughts in the comments. Also, if you have questions along a similar vein, feel free to add them in the comments as well.

Nathan first asked:

How much would you agree that women simply/merely want a man (and thus are attracted to men) who “tries/shows effort at” having a good job vs. a man who “is obsesively driven to excel at/improve” his job/career income/status. Will they commonly accept/show grace towards men who “at least show effort” or will they mostly be merciless and have zero acceptance/graceless towards men who don’t have ideal jobs/career and appear outwardly like they are very driven/successful?

Where is this line of acceptability/willingness to show grace towards men (who outwardly appear “attractive enough” to them)?

I responded:

My suspicion/belief is that women are result oriented, not process oriented. They don’t care how hard you work so much as you get results. They don’t care if a man tries to get a good job, they care if he has a good job. Although in the present environment a man’s job means very little to his attractiveness unless it is a high status one. While I think that they like a “driven man”, It is as much because they see it as a sign of future potential as anything.

I’m afraid I don’t quite get your last sentence, could you explain it a bit?

Nathan then continued:

Donal, thanks for answering my question. My intention for the last line was this: What is the common minimum threshold that women expect men to be or to accomplish before they begin to see a man as attractive? My understanding is that women only show forgiveness, grace, and mercy to men that they are already attracted to, and that any men below this minimum threshold of attractiveness don’t and will not ever receive similar forgiveness, grace, and mercy. What are your thoughts on this?

What more can you tell me about how to be “driven” and how/why that is seen as attractive to women?

My response to him:

I don’t think that you can really quantify that minimum threshold. It will vary from woman to woman. However, you can still be attractive to women even though you haven’t accomplished anything of note. That is what Bad Boys do, after all. Accomplishments (in this context) probably would fall under the Status attribute of LAMPS. You can get around having them by boosting your other attributes.

My understanding is that women only show forgiveness, grace, and mercy to men that they are already attracted to,

I’m not really convinced about this, to be honest. I think that women can be raised to show those attribute to all men. They just aren’t these days as a general rule. In fact, most modern women in the West are feral or one step above it. So unless you find a real gem of a woman, don’t expect much from her unless she is attracted to you.

How to be driven? I’m not sure that’s something that I, or anyone else, can teach. Its something you have to acquire for yourself. What advice I can give is that you need to find a purpose, a cause, a mission, other than women, to dedicate your life towards. Then, push yourself towards it and don’t let other things, especially women, distract you. Be relentless and unwavering. Women are attracted to this “drive” because it is one of the most potent expressions of Masculine Power. Women are drawn to conquerors, and that is what a driven man is.

Nathan’s next set of questions:

I was always categorizing “driven” into the money section as “easily identifiable, potentially high-income earner,” and not the Power section as “easily identifiable, masculine power demonstrator.”

I also struggle with the whole dynamic of “you must be passionate about your job and simultaneously have a high-status, high-income job,” which to me sounds really convenient if my passions were law or medicine, but what I’m passionate about is very expensive and doesn’t always pay well, and doing something else can quickly become a slow, mind-numbing death which kills all passion.

Maybe you could discuss this in a post at some point.

At present, my only solution is to either be poor and passionate or work a non-passionate job and treat my real passion as a part-time hobby or ministry on the side.

Also, I wonder if God calls some men to lucrative jobs that draw women and other men to low-earning jobs that often repel women. How do men make sense of that when they want to follow God’s direction and hopefully become married one day.

My final set of responses:

Money is fairly abstract and objective, something like Driven just doesn’t fit well there.

I don’t think it is necessary to be passionate about your job and have it be high status. The latter is more important than the former.

Remember, your job isn’t really that important for attracting women, unless you have a really high status one. Lawyer and doctor don’t really cut it there like they used to. Thanks to feminism, it takes a lot more to get a woman’s attention in that way.

As long as you can support a family, then don’t worry about your job as much. Instead, improve yourself in other areas. Ultimately, that will count a lot more. Also, Status doesn’t have to be purely job related. You can gain it from community involvement, church involvement, etc.

And yes, some men just have it easier when it comes to drawing in women. It isn’t simply about jobs, but in every facet of life. Life isn’t fair, so learn to accept it (and yes, I know how hard that is) and move on. Improve yourself in other areas and you can still come out on top.

This brings us to Nathan’s final set of questions, which I hadn’t answered yet:

In order for good Christian men to learn game or how to become more like a “reformed bad boy,” do they need to treat women more as a “meh” tag-along accessory to their life and daily plans? As in, “I’m going to fulfill my will and plans independently, no matter what you think, and I honestly don’t care what you think, and you’re welcome to tag-along with me, but I’m not interested in hearing any negative talk or complaining out of you. If you have a problem with that, then you can take a hike! (But then also make sure to fulfill your plans and push yourself to new challenges, and keep all of your emotions like fears and hurts to yourself)”

And any other ideas you might add!

I’m frustrated that the “helpmeet” women seem more like burdens than helpers. Maybe that changes if we do all the stuff above?

Do you have any posts about self-respect and self-worth as a Man/Man of God, and perhaps also where those overlap and/or contradict one another?

Now, to respond to Nathan’s latest set of questions:

I’m not sure that treating women like an accessory, especially a “meh” type of accessory, is the right move to make. A quality Christian woman, one who would make a good wife, would likely find that view of her worth as offensive. And for good reason, because a wife is man’s greatest possession. A better approach I think is to internalize the Captain/First Officer mindset. This helps keep women off of a pedestal, which is critical. Also, it sets up the right frame of reference in your mind. A good XO is a great asset to have in your life, but not absolutely necessary.  Instead, you have in your mind the idea that “I’m in charge of this household and of the mission that God appointed me to. You can join me in the mission if you like, but only if you are willing to follow orders (and without grumbling), to be responsible for what I assign you, to manage the household while I’m gone and otherwise add value to my life/contribute to the mission. If not, then the job isn’t for you.”

As for “helpmeet” women, I don’t think being any more “Alpha” will make as much of a difference as you think. It really is up to the woman in question to determine if she can/will be an able helpmeet or not. If you are more attractive, she might grumble less and oppose you less, but that doesn’t mean she will be less of a burden and more of a help. That’s all on her and her willingness to live up to her duties to the Lord and to her husband.

Lastly, I don’t recall having any posts which specifically address the concepts of self-worth and self-respect as a Man/Man of God. I’m sort of working on one now, but it only covers one aspect of this dynamic. It is worth exploring, and I will think on it some once I finish that post. Until then Nathan I recommend that you read Deep Strength’s new blog, as he touches on some similar matters. Mind you, much of his work is of a fairly advanced level, but if you can understand it you will find it to be of a great benefit.

And that finishes this post. Once again, if anyone has any thoughts/questions/answers/concerns to add, feel free to mention them in the comments.

Evaluating The Intangible

I.

This post is a sequel to and expansion upon my post Settle(ment). In that post, I delved into transactional thinking and whether or not people should “settle” when looking for a spouse. Interestingly enough, the concept of settling drew little discussion compared to transactional thinking. Given that evaluating potential spouses drew more response, it was worth exploring further. [Warning: this post doesn’t really do a great job of that.]

I have two goals with this post. First, I would like to respond to some points raised in Settle(ment), to mention a few comments that I thought were especially insightful and to clarify a few things. Second, I would like to provide a little insight into my evaluation process when looking for a wife.

II.

Before I address anything specific, I would be remiss if I failed to mention that Deep Strength has written a post which is something of a response to my previous one. His post, Life is Transactional, can be found here.

Commenter Ev had a good line when the sacredness of matrimony was brought up: First be savvy, then be loyal.

Maeve mentioned a bit of her marriage story, which can be found here and here. Her story is probably a typical one- two young people meet, get to know each other, fall in love, and then marry. [That is overly simplistic, of course, but carries across the main point.] I found her story to be fascinating because she wasn’t looking specifically to marry, but still had two criteria that she required in a husband. Without intending to be rude by singling her out, I would point to her story as an example of how not to do things. Christians should be deliberative when the subject of marriage is concerned, and should not act aimlessly.

Now to clarify a few matters. First off, a lot of folks seem to be confused by the concepts of SMV and MMV. Lauratheringmistress left a comment which provides an example of this, plus some other misunderstandings. Her beginning paragraph is a good starting off point:

I think I am getting distracted by the SMP valuation model. Fundamentally, what a man values for a purely physical, short term interaction is different from what he values for a long term relationship. Same for a woman.

This is incorrect. I suspect the confusion arises because many people (Laura included) believe SMV and MMV are two entirely different things. They aren’t. Rather, SMV is folded into MMV, so that it is part (but only a part) of MMV. Remember, SMV is based solely on attractiveness. And men are always attuned to the attractiveness of women. This means that what a man looks for in a woman in a physical sense in a short term interaction is still what he values in a long term relationship. The difference is that when evaluating for long term relationship material a man also looks for an additional set of attributes. This is where a woman’s character and other “intangible” qualities come into play.

For women, the process is not entirely dissimilar. Male SMV is based off of the LAMPS/PSALM set of attributes, which are sometimes referred to as “Alpha traits.” These are critical for short term interactions.  Male MMV includes all of those factors, in addition to a number of other character traits (like loyalty, stability, compassion, etc.) which are sometimes referred to as “Beta traits.” These are crucial for long term relationships. The problem for men and women alike these days is that men seem to have either the one, or the other. Not both.

What all of this means is that we cannot ignore the role that SMV plays with MMV. I mention this because I have noticed that women seem to downplay the importance of “looks” when offering advice about marriage. The phrase I hear most often is “looks aren’t everything.” I’ve heard this in many different forms, and Laura herself contributed an example of it:

To put it bluntly, you would be a fool to wife up a 9 unless she was also superior to all other candidates in relevant areas like virtue, good sense, overall femininity, domestic skills, etc. And you might miss a gem of a woman whose appearance is only average but is ideally suited to you temperamentally.

Now, before I go on, I want to point out that Laura is not necessarily wrong in her comment. Marriage is a total package deal. Having said that, reading that paragraph told me that there seems to be a general misunderstanding on the part of women in how men value the importance of attractiveness in women.  So let me clear this up for my female readers: we value it a lot. It is really, really important to us on an instinctual, primal level. And yet, at the same time, we also have much broader filters than women do when it comes to attractiveness. The result is an interesting situation where men value physical appearance far more than women, and yet have such broad filters that we tend to find more women attractive than women do the other way around. That does not mean, of course, that we men are slaves to this instinct. We aren’t. We can and should judge a potential wife on criteria other than just how attractive she is.

But women need to keep in mind that for them, “looks” is just one criterion amongst many when judging a man’s attractiveness. But for men, it is everything when evaluating female attractiveness. It is not something that we can just set aside without a lot of mental discipline and self-control. This desire for attractiveness is deeply rooted in our unconscious mind, and our happiness as men is actually determined in part by how attractive our wife is.  Also, with only a few exceptions, most other attributes can be trained or acquired by women/wives over time, but attractiveness is pretty much fixed without resorting to plastic surgery. I’m telling you this in an attempt to convey just how much we give up when we downgrade attractiveness compared to other attributes in potential wife candidates.

III.

With all of that taken care of, I thought I would provide a brief window into my thought process when it comes to evaluating a woman as a potential wife. Some of the attributes that I am going to cover are easy to measure, they aren’t really intangible. But plenty of them are. How do you measure someone’s faith, after all? Or give it a value? It is often a guessing game, and comparisons are often the only way you can measure some of these. Because none of this is an “exact science”, this whole section is going to be rather incoherent. As I write it out, I realize it is a continuation of what I started with this post.

The Big Four-

This is the name I give for the four most important attributes and qualities that evaluate in a potential wife. These are the “make or break” attributes, or “screening criteria.” A “failure” here removes a women from the pool of candidates. The first two, Chastity/Sexual History and Age, are immutable, that is, they cannot be changed. Then there is Attractiveness, which can be affected to some degree through dieting and exercise, although only plastic surgery can significantly improve it. Last is Religious Devotion, which is mutable. One thing I would like to note about the first three is that they are “core” criteria for all men. Whether they realize it or not, all men consider a woman’s age, her sexual history and her attractiveness when evaluating her qualities as a long-term prospoect. Men are hardwired, for want of a better term, to consider these factors.

Chastity/Sexual History: As a screening criteria, this one is relatively simple. A woman with any kind of real sexual history is out. I am looking to marry a virgin, and unless I transgress myself this is not going to change at any point (barring divine command). [If I had fornicated in the past, this would be a more complicated evaluation process. I would look at the number of partners a woman had, the nature of the relationships, how long they lasted, when the last one was, etc. Also, I would try and evaluate whether she had genuinely repented and whether she was an Alpha Widow.]

Age: This is an especially important attribute for several reasons. For one, a younger woman is more likely to be able to have children, can have more children, and the children are likelier to be healthy. Age also significantly impacts female attractiveness and how long a woman has left at her present level. In addition, the older a woman is, the more likely she is to be set in her ways, and the more negative behaviors she is likely to have picked up. Unlike some men, I don’t draw a line in the sand when evaluating a woman by her age, except when it comes to being older than me. For many 25 seems to be that bright line, after which they won’t consider a woman for marriage. Myself, I use a sliding scale. The younger a woman is, the higher her overall value. Just because a woman is in her mid to late twenties doesn’t mean I will rule her out. Instead, I evaluate women more critically in all other areas the older they are. In terms of how this might play out, what it means is that I might rate a “6” who is 18 and is deficient in feminine virtues to be roughly equal to an “8” who is 28 and has more of those virtues. It is about tradeoffs- the younger the woman the more children she can have and the longer I will be married to her at her present attractiveness. Overall, a younger woman will have a larger margin to work with in other fields. All of which goes to show why women should try to marry when they are younger.

Attractiveness: As far as attributes go, this is pretty straightforward. While it might be fleeting, it is important to help establish “wife googles”, and as the study I linked earlier suggests, affects a man’s mental well-being. I cannot really offer any insight into how I evaluate this attribute, because beauty is one of those things which is easy to point out and difficult to explain. Something which does sort of relate to this though is how well a woman takes care of herself. A woman who eats right and exercises regularly will score higher in this regard than one who doesn’t, even if the latter rates higher on the “1-10” scale. This is because the woman who takes care of herself will age better and maintain her looks for longer.

Religious Devotion: What I am looking for is a devout Christian woman who is committed to living a biblical marriage. I will consider non-Catholic women, but they must be willing to convert. It isn’t enough in my view for the children to be raised as Catholics, I have seen the tension that occurs in mixed-religion marriages. That is something I intend to avoid. As far as measuring devotion, I will look at a number of different things, including: was she born to the faith or did she convert later? How involved is she in Church and in church related activities? Does she spend time on her own accord trying to improve her faith? What I am trying to judge is if she is serious about her faith, or whether she is just in “autopilot”, and is a Christian because she was born one and her faith has never been challenged. Basically, I am trying to evaluate the Fruit of the Spirit to get an idea of the depth her faith. Needless to say, this is very important to me; it is a matter of protecting myself from divorce, as well as ensuring my children are raised well and that I have a positive influence in my life. I haven’t forgotten what happened to Solomon.

Here are some of the “lesser” qualities that I look for in a potential wife. It isn’t so much that they are important, but they tend to be easier to change/fix. These are evaluation criteria, the kind of attributes that would “add value” to the marriage. They are in no particular order.

1) Femininity- How feminine a woman is overall.

2) Temperament- How easy a woman is to get along with.

3) Personality type- Whether she has a personality type that will match well with an INTJ (me).

4) Cooking abilities- Can she cook? How well, and what?

5) Cleaning aptitude- Can she maintain a home, and do so without much prompting?

6) Mothering capacity- Very intangible. Whether she would make a good mother or not. Measured by how well she gets along with children, her overall interest in having children, openness to homeschool, etc.

7) Submissiveness- How accepting she is of her place in the marriage hierarchy.

8) Intelligence and curiosity- Would impact whether or not we could have engaging conversations with each other. Also important for children, both directly and through homeschooling.

9) Earning capacity- An overall measure of her ability to earn money for the household. Can include work at and away from the home.

10) Initiative/Entrepreneurial spirit- Slightly different from above, but measures a woman’s overall ability to improvise, to save, and to think up new ideas to benefit the household.

I could go on and on, so I will stop there.  The key thing to understand is that I am looking for a woman who adds value to my life, a helpmeet. I expect to be able to make most ends meet myself when it comes to finances, so what I want is a woman who fills in other gaps. Someone to provide solace; someone to warm my heart and my bed. Applying the Captain/XO analogy, I am going to be leading the household much of the time, so I am looking for someone to help manage it.

When I evaluate a woman, I will be trying to discern not only where she is in each of these categories, but also her capacity and willingness to improve in areas that need work. In many respects her willingness to improve is the most important attribute she can have. Everyone needs work in at least some areas, and everyone “slips” in their standards over time. I don’t know what life will be like in ten years, so a woman who is willing to make necessary changes is a woman with value.

All of this comes out to a balancing game in the end. As I alluded to earlier, a very young woman who is less attractive, but is willing (eager even) to improve will be high value, just as a woman somewhat older who has perfected the feminine arts and takes care of herself will be high value. Thinking on this, unlike SMV, MMV is very much a matter of comparison when women are concerned. Unlike SMV, I’m not sure now if you can assign it an arbitrary numerical value. While a woman’s beauty can be measured against some abstract ideal (and is thus unaffected by the beauty of the woman next to her), a woman’s value as a wife and mother can only be measured when you have multiple women to compare. During the evaluation process, I will be comparing any potential wife to the other women I know, including both female family and friends to get an idea of her value. And I rather suspect that she will be doing the opposite with me.

IV.

This post ended up being less focused and less informative than I intended. I seem to be making a habit of that lately, and I apologize. Hopefully at least a few of you  found this helpful. My next few posts over the coming week should be better, although I make no promises.

Thoughts on Pair Bonding

TempestTCup has a new blog post up exploring “The Making of an Alpha Widow.” Her post covers (naturally enough) Alpha Widows, a subject that I have covered before, and also does some theorizing about pair bonding in general. The essence of her position can be summed up in these two paragraphs:

Dana and I both think that the Alpha Widow is caused by very strong feelings associated with sex and the breakup. These strong feelings might come from a woman being infatuated with a guy for a while and then finally having sex with her infatuation. If this leads to a longer relationship, she has other memories of him and if the relationship putters out, no Alpha Widow is made.

But, if a man and woman start dating and she develops strong feelings for him, and then at the height of her emotions towards him, he dumps her or quits talking to her, this is what creates an Alpha Widow: The one who got away.

Before I address Tempest’s theory I would like to briefly cover pair bonding in general. I have never really devoted a post to it specifically, so I would say it is about time.

The exact nature of female pair bonding is unknown right now, and I don’t see that changing anytime soon. For one, I rather doubt you will see scientists delve into the topic, given how politically charged it is. In addition, brain scan technology is still developing, and at the moment very expensive. An effective and detailed study will require a broad sample size of women with varying levels of N’s, which further complicates matters. So for now I think it will be up to amateurs here in this part of the web to provide any thoughts and theories on the matter.

I should mention that while the exact cause is unknown, the results of broken female pair bonding are known. The most commonly cited reference is here. As for the mechanisms that create this kind of effect, here are some potential candidates:

1) The Alpha Widow Effect- This theory states that the results the Social Pathologist has uncovered are solely as a result of women becoming Alpha Widows. The reason why the risk of divorce increases the higher a woman’s N is because the odds of her becoming an Alpha Widow increase the more partners she has. Under this theory, a woman’s pair bonding mechanism doesn’t break, rather she simply has set the bar so high few men can ever hope to reach it. It is important to keep in mind that it isn’t a man’s placement (which N he is) that matters in whether he becomes the “one that got away”, it is the strength of the emotional connection that he establishes in the woman. This is the theory which Tempest and Dana advocate.

2) The Battery Effect- This theory states that woman have a certain amount of emotional attachment that they can establish with a individual man. The first man she mates with gets the full amount of attachment, or a 100% “charge”. After him though, she must “recharge” her emotional battery for every other man that she sleeps with. Unfortunately, each time she recharges the battery doesn’t go back to full capacity. Instead, the maximum amount of emotional bonding she can experience/provided diminishes, with the first “recharge” being the most dramatic.  So her first lover might get 100%, and the 2nd 80%, and the 3rd 75%, and so on. Eventually, the battery “breaks” and she can no longer emotionally connect with a man.

3) The Canvas Effect- This theory operates as something of a mix of the two previous theories. It treats the female pair bonding ability as a sort of canvas upon which men can “paint” themselves.  The skill and vigor with which the man paints himself upon the canvas determines the strength of the bond. The canvas has a limited ability to hold paint, however, and the more “painters”, the worse and worse each picture gets. This leads to a weaker ability to bond. Eventually the canvas simply no longer works as such. Furthermore, a painter who uses especially bright, vivid colors and bold strokes will leave such an impression that those who come after will not be able to paint the picture they want.

I suppose there might be other theories out there, but I have either never seen them or have forgotten about them. As for which one is right, well, they all have flaws with them. Women like Sarahsdaughter, who had very high N’s, but are still able to pair bond with their husbands, would seem to support the first theory. SD has said that she never really bonded strongly with the men before her husband, and thus never established the kind of emotional attachment which leads to Alpha Widowing. On the other hand, you have the fact that there is an obvious effect of a high H upon women, such that it is noticeable for those who know what to look for. The so-called “Thousand Cock Stare” (which involves a term I wouldn’t use in normal conversation) is an example of how women seem to “break” after enough sexual partners.

Personally, I am inclined towards the third theory. The Alpha Widow effect clearly exists, so we know that mechanic is in play. And there is enough evidence of a “number” effect to suggest that it can’t be Alpha Widowhood alone which affects female pair bonding. I should note that each theory has its advantages and disadvantages if true. The first theory is good news for women with high N’s, as it means they can still bond if their previous partners didn’t “leave a mark.” On the other hand, it also means that a man should be wary of a woman with an N of one, if that previous partner was a type likely to strongly imprint on the woman. The second theory has the opposite result: its awful for women with high N’s and far, far better for women with very low N’s. These advantages and disadvantages are important to keep in mind, if only because when women support different theories, their own personal experiences might incline them towards a theory which has a better outcome for them.

Lastly, I wanted to address Tempest’s final paragraphs:

Whereas I do believe that PUAs are creating a lot of Alpha Widows, I also believe that if you can make a woman feel those incredible highs and lows early on in a relationship, in accordance with all of the bonding chemicals of sex, you can become the exciting alpha that she ultimately bonds to.

You can become her new emotional high water mark and therefore cause yourself to replace the alpha she was widowed to. There have to be emotional highs and lows: a veritable roller-coaster of emotions. She needs the soaring highs and the depths of despair to make her bond fully if she is an Alpha Widow.

Sure, it would be great to stumble upon a nice fresh-faced woman with no previous experience or emotional distress, but these days of sex with and without relationships, it might be good insurance against the possibility of her inability to pair bond. This all sounds like a pain in the butt, but if it could possibly save a world of hurt in the future, it might all be worth it.

Also, women shouldn’t give men advice about women, so YMMV

Fortunately for Tempest, she ends her post with a reminder that a man shouldn’t listen to women for such advice. Otherwise, I would point out that she is engaged in a popular female tactic- shifting the burden of bad decision made by women from women onto men. As it is, her “suggestion” is worth addressing. Much of the way that society is structured now is set up to do just that: to shift the burden of errors and a lack of personal responsibility onto men. So my advice to men is to not let them get away with it. You are not responsible for the poor choices made by women. If a woman has gone and messed up her pair bonding ability, that is her problem, not yours.

I Feel Like I Forgot Something

[Slight change of plans. The post I alluded to on Sunday is being pushed back, to accommodate this shorter post and a future one on Game. Not sure when I will finish it.]

One of the various proverbs that sometimes appears around the Manosphere is that “Women are True to Themselves.” I prefer a slightly different take:

Women are True to their Feelings

Given what is known about female nature, I think this more accurately conveys the scope of the female psyche. Women are guided by, and defined by, their feelings. This extends to every aspect of their lives. Including their memories.

In his latest post, Ace over at 80 Proof Oinomancy talks about how social media sites like Facebook help women develop a special type of amnesia:

An electronic Lethe, in which the constant immersion imparts forgetfulness that there are many more reading their confessions, rages, demands, diatribes, attacks and cuts than they believe.

I think that this phenomenon goes further than just social media though. Or that men might be watching.  It is my belief that the centrality of feelings to the female mind lets them forget nearly anything.

What do I mean by this?

Simple: A woman’s memory is largely tied to her feelings at the time of that memory. A woman will actively remember something if she feels an emotional connection or stimulation similar to what she experienced when the previous event took place. Furthermore, it is the emotions connected to the event that resonate the most with her, and the two are inextricably linked in a woman’s mind. If a memory is forced to her mind, but her present emotional state differs greatly from that in the memory, then something special happens. The woman develops a unique form of amnesia that conveniently allows her to “forget” that memory, or at least, the important parts of it.

This explains why women are true to their feelings, and not their word. Especially in the context of a promise. Or a vow.

A married woman who decides to blow up her marriage because she is unhaaaaaaapy doesn’t really remember her vows, at least, not in the sense that a man would. This is because her present feelings (unhappiness, discontent, unease) do not match the emotions that were associated with her wedding (happiness, joy, excitement, contentment) when she gave those vows. So when someone reminds her of her vows, the disparity in feelings between now and then are such that she forms a mental barrier to that past memory. Amnesia clouds her mind, and those sacred vows just fade away into the mist of forgetfulness.

Thankfully I have not seen that particular example myself. But I have seen others.

I have had women make promises to me, promises born of feelings. And then, when those feelings were long gone, the promises were too. They disappeared into the rabbit hole of their minds. Of course, I can remind women of these promises. Sometimes I do. But they only remember the words they said, not the intent behind it, because that is wrapped up in a feeling long gone. Unless I keep harping on them, they will continue to forget. No matter how “important” those promises were at the time.

Because it was never the promise that was important. It was the feeling the promise imparted in them.

[This seems especially common when the promise was made when the woman wanted to feel good about my feeling bad. Or to be more accurate, when she felt bad about my feeling bad. ]

Truth is, if you want a woman to actually remember something, to really remember it…. Fully…. Clearly…. Then you must not only remind her of what was said or done, but how she felt.

She is a creature of feelings.

Recreate the feeling… and you recreate the memory.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMAe31FFHbo

Update: Elspeth has an post that touches on managing emotions in marriage which is relevant: Managing our Emotional “Needs”. Another post can be found here.

Ace also touched on something similar in a different post as well.

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.

The Thankfulness Project- 2013 Edition

A number of female bloggers who sometimes associate with this part of the web engaged in what I hope will be a tradition: they took this Thanksgiving season to thank their husbands for everything they do. This Gratitude project, or “Brag-a-thon” was originally suggested by Velvet, although yours truly did play some role in it. I am going to use this post to compile a list of the bloggers who participated in this project, plus the posts that they wrote for it. I am sure that I missed some bloggers who participated, so let me know and I will update this post accordingly.

Velvet at Turtle and compass:

The Common Good

Christmas Shopping in Laredo

I am exhausted

Under His Banner

Respect, Reverence, and Heartfelt Deference. Oh, and Post Fail

Elspeth at Loving in the Ruins

Let Me Count the Ways

Hearthie at To Be Lovely

Thankful for my hubby: A blog party

Thankful for my hubby: Blog Party Day 2

Thankful for my hubby: Blog Party Day 3

Thankful for our hubbies, blog party day 4

Blog Party: Thankful for our hubbies: Day Five

Sunshine Mary at Sunshine Mary and the Dragon

How to Change Your Man