Kindling the Fire Through Gratitude

My post Lighting the Fire led to a spirited debate over what causes/maintains/builds attraction inside of Marriage. During the debate Velvet suggested that there was such a thing as “utilitarian tingles,” deriving from a man’s provision. Naturally, this evoked a considerable amount of opposition from male commenters, as well as the author of this blog. Elspeth instead suggested that there was a sort of “negative tingling” in play when a man can’t provide. This made sense to me, as a man’s ability to provide is tied to his employment, which is tied to his Status.

Matters went back and forth, and a number of other topics were addressed, including how nerds are clueless about women, how men shouldn’t take relationship advice from women, and why so many men seem to think that women can only love conditionally. Fortunately, just as the thread was dying, Je Suis Prest left this comment:

On the subject of utilitarian tingles, I’d like to suggest something I’ve been thinking of that may or may not be correct…

I think there are two distinct things being said on that subject:
1) that the lack of provision prevents tingles; and
2) that provision is attractive.

In general, I buy the first statement. If a woman has spent the day stressing out about feeding the kids and finding enough money for rent, she’s not likely to be interested in procreative-type activities when she gets some time alone with her man. Stress has numerous negative effects including killing the mood for both men and women. Also, if a woman thinks of her husband as being less of a man because he doesn’t have a job, that attitude will definitely move him down on her mental scale.

This is a good explanation of the “negative tingles” concept arising from a lack of ability to provide. But the real gem of her comment is this:

At first, I was disinclined to accept the second premise, but then one of my female friends sent me a message about a thankfulness challenge that she’s embarked on. (Bear with me, this does tie in to the main point). She found that the more she looked for things to be thankful for so that she could journal something each day, the more she realized how blessed she was throughout the rest of the day. I’m wondering if when Velvet describes provision as being attractive, she’s experiencing something similar. If a woman is actively looking for attractive aspects of her husband and takes note of how well he provides for her, I can see how that would lead her to think about what a good man he is, how lucky she is to have him, and how many other women would want a man just like him. All of those thoughts could raise his status in her own mind and make him more attractive. I can also see how it would be possible for a woman who is actively looking for positive things about her husband to be warmer and more pleasant to him, which could lead to his interactions with her to be more positive and how that could feed into attraction as well. Could it be that this is what is meant by utilitarian tingles?

[I put those parts that I think were most relevant in bold.]

I think JSP is definitely onto something here. Gratitude has a profound effect when a wife shows it to her husband. It affects them both in a positive way, and binds the two of them even closer together. The way I see it, when a wife develops a healthy sense of gratitude for everything her husband does for her, she is elevating him in her eyes. This increases his Status relative to hers, which has the double effect of both satisfying her hypergamy and making him more attractive. Increased gratitude can only be a net gain.

Commenter Deep Strength then followed up her comment with his own:

That would be taking on the attitude of gratitude and thus by extension our actions change to that of “praos” (the greek word for gentleness / meekness / humility) which is a key player in submission. One of the fruits of the Spirit. The very opposite of which is entitlement.

The reason why we as Christians would willingly submit to God and his commands because we know of the grace and mercy that we are afforded in Him through Jesus. We are forced to accept humility / meekness / gentleness before Him, as all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. That is, we cannot do enough to save ourselves on our own. It is the gift of God. And this is why we willingly do the will of God, even though it cannot make up for the gift that He has given.

Provision in this sense can be viewed as something to be grateful for, and thus as wife realizes she is grateful for that she willingly can take on “praos” which leads to submission.

He has kindly provided a missing link here, connecting gratitude to submission. This allows us to see that in a wife with a respectful attitude and a warm Christian spirit we get this:

Provision—>Gratitude—>Submission—>Attraction—>Everyone Wins!

When we see things in this light, we can understand that everything a wife does is connected to her attraction to her husband. While his dominance and overall masculinity is important, it is only part of the puzzle of ensuring a healthy relationship between the two. She must also clothe herself in “the lasting beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in God’s sight.” (1 Peter 3:4). A good place to start is with being grateful for all that her husband does for her, because every act of gratitude just adds more kindling to the conjugal fire.

Here are some other discussions on gratitude:

Sunshine Mary-

Be a low-maintenance wife

Women’s arrogance and the downfall of assortive mating

Elspeth-

Transforming my mind as a Christian wife

If anyone knows of any other good posts on gratitude, let me know so that I can include them here.

Rethinking the Scale and Testing Subjectivity

One of the things that really surprised me when I dug into the utility of the “1-10 scale” in my post Should a Woman Know Where She Ranks On The “1-10 Scale”? is how varied male evaluations of a woman’s attractiveness could be. I always knew that there would be some disparity, but I was not expecting to hear multiple tales of women being rated both 5’s and 9’s, all by different men. I concluded that the answer to the question was No, but I was unsatisfied with this. So, after some further thinking on the subject, as well as some prompting by a few readers, I have decide to delve once more into this subject.

Categorization

Briefly I want to talk about an idea that I bounced back and forth with a reader concerning a more accurate, or at least, more streamlined system than the 1-10 scale. In it I divided women into quartiles, ranging from: Very Attractive in the first quartile, Attractive to Plain in the second quartile, Plain to Unattractive in the third quartile, and Very Unattractive in the fourth quartile. The reader indicated to me that a woman who fell into the Attractive to Plain category might feel offended, as being called “plain” could be considered an insult. Being a cold and unfeeling man, and an INTJ to boot, I wasn’t terribly moved by this. However, I did realize that the line/region between Plain and Attractive was far more significant than that between Very Attractive and Attractive.

A quintile system was proposed as an alternative, with the categories of Very Attractive, Attractive, Plain, Unattractive and Very Unattractive. This seemed an improvement to me, because it allowed for some of the elasticity that you find near women of “Plain” features. But then I realized that it was just a condensed version of the 1-10 scale. Very Attractive equated with 9-10, Attractive equated with 6-8, Plain was 5, Unattractive was 3-4 and Very Unattractive was 1-2. The real advantage of this system, or the quartile system,  is that it replaces an arbitrary value like a number with a clear descriptor. Each man might have a different idea what a “6” represents, but with a descriptor like “Attractive” you are more likely to see agreement on what it means.  Also, because it creates just a few broad categories, you are more likely to see consistent results in terms of what women are rated as being.

Another idea I had concerns the notion of “Plain” women. It is generally accepted in the manosphere that men tend to find what is attractive in women, rather than what is unattractive. Otherwise stated, men may be picky, but they have a much easier time identifying what is attractive in a woman and basing her overall “rank” off of that, rather than what they find unattractive about her [Obesity being a glaring exception to this].  What I think may be a consequence of this is that men are not apt to label a woman plain for long. Given enough exposure to a woman, a man will probably begin to rate her upwards, out of the plain category. So the only women who really rate as “Plain” and stay that way are those who have nothing positive or negative about their appearance. Since this isn’t likely to be terribly common, you tend to end up with a distribution curve that looks less like a bell curve and more like this:

I am curious to see if any of my readers have thoughts on these ideas. Is the quartile/quintile system just another folly like the 1-10 scale, fraught with subjectivity and lacking in precision? Or does it have merit? And is “Plain” less common than would be expected?

What kind of Divergence?

Now that I have my thinking out loud done with, I want to move into the heart of this post: trying to figure out just how subjective male evaluations of female attractive happen to be. My last posts on the subject touched on this and I think it is time I addressed it head on. We know that men have individual preferences that manifest themselves in what they are looking for in women. But how diverse are the preferences? Essentially, what is the spread? Answering this via anecdote is ineffective in my view. Something with a little more depth to it is required. You really need to test it, by comparing a large sample of male opinions about a woman’s attractiveness.

When I first started this post, I wasn’t sure if someone had tested this before, but reader The Shadow Knight clued me in that Heartiste had explored some of this ground before. Several times, in fact. CH’s original post is gone, but he did leave up the re-cap/analysis post written in replay to this original. There are a couple of points in his post I think worth highlighting.

Nevertheless, despite the justifiable criticisms of the methodology listed above, and the specter of Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem, there was considerable agreement on each girl’s ranking. Plus or minus one point and a few wiseguy outliers, most men share the same opinions about where women fall on the 1 – 10 looks scale. Beauty is not an artifact of individual male minds. It is an objective reality. That this should be so and that men are wired with preferences for the more beautiful over the less, proves that men exercise some choosiness when deciding on a mate, just like women do. Pickiness is not gender specific, though women are pickier than men in general.

This paragraph sums up a lot of my views and expectations. I always thought that a large enough sample size would get you a fairly accurate view of female attractiveness, and the data (found in the linked post) seems to support that. Furthermore, CH and I agree that there is an “objective reality” when it comes to beauty. This leads to an interesting paragraph about mid-range values:

As I predicted, there was stronger agreement at the tails of the beauty distribution and more fussiness agreeing on the middle rankings. Every man knows a 3 and an 8 when he sees one, but one man’s marginal 6 could very well be another man’s solid 7. Looking at the bar graphs, this observation is confirmed by the wider spread (heh) of the votes for the 4-7 group.

I have a theory about why there is so much divergence in rankings for women towards the middle of the 1-10 scale. The reason they tend towards that point is because they possess a few markers of attractiveness, but only those few. Since they have so few, men who rate those features highly will tend to give them a higher score, while men who don’t care for those features or don’t like them will rate those women lower. Their physical features essentially demonstrate how men value certain features more, and those women who are most attractive, and consistently rated as attractive, tend to have all of those features.

When a reader/commenter proposed a simpler three tier system to categorize women (I system which I considered and rejected swiftly), Heartiste had this to say:

This is mostly correct. I’d separate the middle tier into two subgroups: Lower middle (4,5) and Upper middle (6,7). The distinction is important, as there is a critical and abrupt change between the two groups that has important implications for how men treat these women.

In other words, CH was suggesting a tier system which was a near match for the quartile system I had proposed earlier in this post. Although he treats 5’s a little differently than I do (by suggesting they are in the lower middle tier, the general structure is the same.

Conclusion

I originally was going to host a series of videos with attached polls to gauge the attractiveness of various women, but I have decided against it. At this time I am unable to discern a moral basis for carrying out the study, and that gives me pause. Plus my gut instinct says that I shouldn’t do it. So for the time being I will hold off conducting any kind of social experiment on female attractiveness. Instead, I will rely on Heartiste’s studies and be satisfied that there is at least some evidence that you can get an objective measure of female beauty.

Quote of the Day- November 8th, 2013

The quote of the day comes courtesy of Zippy Catholic:

Every man should go deep within himself and get in touch with his feminine side. Then he should strangle the bitch.

His quote may be found in this thread at Sunshine Mary’s blog.

Turning the Tables on “The List”

In my previous post, The Dreaded List Again, I examined one of those “husband lists” which so many women seem fond of creating these days. Actually, examination is too soft of a word, excoriation is more like it. Either way, I wasn’t exactly gentle.

As I see it, there are two principal problems with such lists. The first is that they are not grounded in reality, and create unrealistic expectations in women. Very, very few men can ever meet the requirements on most of those lists, even assuming that most men tried their hardest. Second, those lists are almost never accompanied by a counterpart list of what the woman has to offer to a potential husband. This dynamic, sky-high expectations without any concept of reciprocity or need to match performances, leads most women to develop an entitlement mentality. They expect men to give them everything, while they themselves must give nothing. Needless to say, this isn’t exactly a recipe for healthy marriages.

So with this post I have decided to turn the tables, and will try to figure out what a counter-part to the “husband list” would look like. I imagine that many of the points will be the same, but there will be some major additions as well, as they will be driven by scriptural understandings of the role of Christian wives. What I find interesting is that many men do this already, create a list of what they have to offer. Typically they tend to be more “Beta” and less “Alpha” (terms I dislike), or to borrow Vox’s terminology, tend towards “Gamma” tendencies. Less common from men, save perhaps here in the manosphere, is a list of expectations from a future wife. My suspicion is that prevailing feminist tendencies in our culture are responsible for this disparity.

The Log in My Eye

“Judge not, that you be not judged. ² For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. ³ Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? ⁴ Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? ⁵ You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.

(Matthew 7:1-5)

I would be remiss if I didn’t acknowledge that I have my own “List.” Now, I happen to think mine is fairly reasonable, but it would be hypocritical for me not to address my own list and create a counterpart. So before I go over the counter-part to Mrs. Wolfe’s list from my last post, I will examine the log in my own eye.

My “List” has seen a few adjustments since I created this blog, but I think the latest version, elucidated in Some Assembly Required, works well enough: 1) Chaste, 2) Devout, 3) Attractive, 4) Feminine.

1)  Chaste- A woman who has maintained her chastity her whole life. A virgin in the actual sense of the word, not a “born-again virgin.”

[Side note: I am always struck by how vehement some women get when a man qualifies a woman as a potential wife based on her sexual history. I find it especially amusing, in a dark way, when such women say that a woman is entitled to the same thing from the man, and yet are still indignant when the man does meet that criteria. A correspondent of mine happens to think that there is an aspect of Natural Law in women which causes them to know deep down inside that promiscuity is wrong.  If she is right, and I increasingly suspect she is, this reaction could be a sort of projection on their part of their understanding that they have done wrong, and their fear and self-loathing at that realization.]

2) Devout- A practicing Catholic, or a Christian from another faith tradition who is willing to convert.

3) Attractive- At least somewhat pleasing to the eye. Not as difficult as some think, as most young women who take care of themselves can be at least a “6”. Also, it is relatively easy for men to find something attractive in a woman.

4) Feminine- A quiet, gentle spirit who is pleasant to be around and acts very “girly.”

Well, that is what I expect of a woman who wants my ring and my name. Again, I think these very reasonable expectations. But they do not speak of what I have to offer in turn. What does a woman gain by marrying me? I think that the easiest place to start is to flip those factors around:

1) Chaste- I have been chaste my whole life, which in manosphere terms translates into N=0. For PUA types, this makes me an especially pathetic loser, but I frankly don’t care what they think. What it means to a potential wife is that I won’t be comparing her to another woman. She will be the number one lover in my life, because she will be my only lover. This also means that she doesn’t have to worry about catching a STD from me. Or that I have some child born out of wedlock waiting to cause drama.

2) Devout- I am a practicing Catholic who takes his faith very seriously. That includes all of the verses from scripture pertaining to marriage. So a potential wife don’t have to worry about me thinking infidelity to be no big deal. Or that I will frivolously divorce her when she gets older. I will cherish her, honor her and love her as Christ loved the church. And yes, that means die for her and the children if need be.

3) Attractive- Since masculinity is an aspect of male attractiveness, under the Power category of LAMPS, I will fold it here. I am no Brad Pitt or Channing Tatum; I will freely admit that. I’m not really handsome, but on the other hand I’m not ugly either. While I may not be built like a line-backer, I have been working out regularly for a long time, and have a good BMI plus have been building up a good amount of muscle mass. So a potential wife can count on me being in good shape that continues to improve. I may never win a weight-lifting competition, but I won’t be a scrawny weakling either. I’m not rich, and probably never will be, but I’m a hard-worker. My natural talents and educational background mean that I should be able to maintain a stable middle-class lifestyle through much of a marriage. I’ve ditched most of my unmasculine behaviors, and am becoming increasingly comfortable with being unapologetically masculine. Which means that a potential wife can count on me being a bedrock of steady masculinity to rely upon in the turmoils of life. Lastly, I may never achieve fame or stardom, but I have a solid reputation which I have every reason to believe will only increase as time passes. In addition, my career/professional path is respectable and translates into one that is respected in the community as well.

So, that is my counterpart list. I could create a more detailed list if I wanted to spend the time, and risk the chance that I might ruin my anonymity. But it is a good starting point, and enough that I think I can safely move on to flip the script for the original list.

Mirror, Mirror…

Here are the original 12 “non-negotiable” points from Mrs. Wolfe’s list:

1. He is a practicing believer.

2. God is the center of his life.

3. He has integrity and does not put himself in tempting situations.

4. Seeks mentorship and counsel.

5. He is slow to anger.

6. He holds strong conviction on the sacredness of fidelity.

7. He is honorable of your heart and emotional well-being.

8. He is disciplined in living a life of integrity.

9. Has solid work ethic.

10. He pursues and loves you passionately.

11. Romances you.

12. He is humble and can admit when he is wrong.

A counter-part “List” is about what you have to offer, so it is of necessity a different sort of list. Still, many of these can be flipped around and moved into the first person. For Mrs. Wolfe, this will be from the perspective of a woman trying to convince a man to marry her. Combined with some relevant parts of scripture, and you get something workable. Starting with just the original points that can be flipped, you get this:

I am a practicing believer.

God is the center of my life.

I have integrity and do not put myself in tempting situations.

I hold strong conviction on the sacredness of fidelity.

I am disciplined in living a life of integrity.

I have a solid work ethic.

A good starting point, at least. But using some of the other points as baselines, and throw in some “manosphere knowledge,” and you get these:

I keep my emotions in control and don’t let them run my life.

I will never speak about you disrespectfully in front of other people.

I will never deny you my body unless I am seriously ill.

I will never act like I am better than you.

I am loyal and will never seek to undermine you.

Lastly, let’s throw in some Biblical commands about duties of a wife:

I will submit to your authority as the Church submits to Christ.

I will respect you as my husband.

I am kind and have a gentle, quiet spirit.

I will be loyal helpmeet eager to assist you in whatever tasks God has for you.

And that completes the counter-part list. If anyone can think of anything that should be added to the “Wife List”, please mention it in the comments. I believe that the attitude engendered by creating a list of what you have to offer in marriage is one that is beneficial to everyone, even if you don’t necessarily make it or your expectations public. The effect of examining what you have to give is an important step in grounding yourself in what you can or should expect from a potential spouse. Sadly, in our entitlement culture I don’t expect this to be a trend that catches on.

Some Assembly Required

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Ready Made

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Warning: Men at Work

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. What Choice Do I Have?

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

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

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

Should a Single Woman Know Where She Ranks on the “1-10 Scale”?

In my last post, Romantic Architecture, I discussed the fairly common “1-10 scale” that is used to rate a woman’s attractiveness. Lovelyleblanc7 left a comment in that thread, and I found this part particularly interesting:

But I realized this though, it is very hard for most women to figure out an honest answer of how attractive they are, especially if a lot of her peers are female or men who are afraid of being truthful. So, even though women can be picky, we think the men we desire are on our league, so to most women, it would be assortative mating.

As a man, I never gave serious thought to how women would rate themselves and each other. Part of me assumed that women could at least get a rough estimate. But after having read some comments and e-mails, and talking with some women I know, it seems that this isn’t the case at all. Apparently they are quite poor at rating their own attractiveness.

This shouldn’t have surprised me, really, but it did. And I don’t have a good excuse for it. How many posts and threads in the manosphere have discussed how women have completely unrealistic expectations these days? Hundreds at least. While the toxic hypergamy which infects the water supply in the West might be the cause of some of this, it can only work with what is already present. So it should have been obvious to me that women aren’t able, in most cases, to accurately place their own SMV value (which is what the 1-10 scale essentially represents).

One example of such a post is Sunshine Mary’s thread on assortive mating,  which provided a set of possible reasons why women find men marriageable:

1. Due to their modern arrogance, they don’t find the men who are truly their assortive mating equivalents attractive now.

2. Many modern men are less attractive as husbands because, perceiving that they may not ever be able to marry a decent woman in our modern femininistic society, the men have lost the motivation to strive to do those things which make them attractive to women (improving their looks, athleticism, money, power, and status).

3. Feminism has given women a false sense of equality with men, making women believe that they don’t really need a husband; women don’t feel pressure to marry or stay married to less attractive men.

That first factor alone should have clued me in. While arrogance no doubt plays a part in it, there is probably something else as well- older women are no longer providing the kind of helpful advice that younger women desperately need. And part of that advice was probably telling those young women just what they were worth (as in, what kind of man they could ensnare… err, I mean marry). Maybe this didn’t translate into discerning a woman’s “number”, but it did give women an idea of what to shoot for. This advice is essentially gone now. So women are running wild, completely unaware of their SMV value (which is heavily determinative of their MMV).

All of this prompts me to ask this question:

Should a single woman looking to marry strive to find out her respective attractiveness on the 1-10 scale, in order to calibrate her relationship efforts towards men with whom she is roughly matched?

While I hope that my readers will provide their own answers, I have a few additional thoughts and answers related to this:

First off, a woman knowing her SMV value doesn’t necessarily help her direct her attention towards an equivalent male because, as I noted in the last post, discerning male SMV/MMV is rather difficult.

Second off, it isn’t necessarily easy for a woman to find out her “number.” It pretty much requires a brutally honest man whom she can trust to tell her the truth, and who is capable of analyzing her attractiveness in an objective manner. And even then she should get a number of opinions on this to average out the inevitable bias. If her view of her SMV is inaccurate, it could severely impair her efforts to find a mate. I know of at least one blogger who was the unfortunate recipient of a false report on her SMV, which caused her no small amount of distress for a long time.

My third and final thought is that assortive mating isn’t an exact science, either. There is a large subjective aspect to SMV and MMV, and that means a woman who thinks she is a 6 might erect an unnecessary ceiling of men she doesn’t consider for marriage, unaware that some men might rate her MMV higher than others.

And that wraps up this post. I encourage everyone to brutally rip apart my idea in the comments.

What is Intimacy?

A rather fierce debate broke out over at Sunshine Mary’s blog a few days ago over why men marry and what men look for in marriage. Much of the debate centered around the role of sex in marriage. I intruded into the debate to argue that it was intimacy which men sought in marriage, and not purely sex. The idea being that intimacy was a solution to The Void. However, this led to something of a minor disagreement between myself and the blog hostess over the nature/purpose of Christian marriage (the disagreement starts there and continues for a bit). I bowed out after the matter was diffused, in part because I wanted to think over the subject of intimacy more thoroughly.

What I had noticed is that Sunshine Mary distinguished between “physical intimacy” and “emotional intimacy.” I found this fascinating because I don’t make such a distinction. To me, there is only intimacy, although it has a physical and emotional component. But they are just that, components, pieces of a large whole. Here is how I see it:

Sexual intercourse (physical) + Feminine companionship (emotional) = intimacy (a fusion of physical and emotional acts)

As I see it, you cannot have the one without the other. A purely sexual relationship isn’t intimate, it is basically just a lust filled physical release. Whereas a companionship unaccompanied by sexual intercourse is not intimate, but merely a friendship. Perhaps a close friendship, but nothing more.

Clearly we are not on the same page about intimacy. Part of me wonders if we hold different views because I’m a man and she’s a woman. Or perhaps it is something else. So which of us is right?

Merriam-Webster defines Intimacy as: The state of being Intimate… or something of a personal or private nature.

Not exactly a very helpful description there. Which leads me to instead turn towards my loyal readers:

What is Intimacy? What constitutes intimacy in your book? Is is separated between the physical and emotional? Or  are they merely different parts of a larger whole?

Your thoughts are appreciated.

Timeless Advice

Naomi of Embrace Your Femininity has discovered a wonderful letter written by St. Gregory of Nazianzus, a letter that provides timeless advice. It was written by St. Gregory to a spiritual daughter of his who was going to be married shortly, and he used it as an opportunity to provide some sage advice. I am going to give my thoughts on what I think are the more significant parts of the letter. I won’t repeat the letter in full; the whole letter can be found here. Those segments in quotes that are in bold are those which I feel are especially pertinent or (in some cases) those which the Naomi found meaningful. Keep in mind is that this letter is written for a woman who is about to be married, so its full impact is for married women.

Here is part of the first major paragraph:

Listen to me Olympiatha: I know that you desire to be a true Christian. As such, be aware that a true Christian must not only be one but she must also appear accordingly. This is why I ask you to pay special attention towards your personal appearance. You must be simple! Gold, attached to precious stones, does not add any value to women of your stature. This is even more so with make-up. It is very improper for you to alter your face, which represents an image of God, for the sole purpose of attraction and admiration by others. Know that this constitutes vanity that is unbecoming of a young lady of your character. I therefore ask that you overcome the feminine vanity that is abundant among young ladies of our time and remain simple in your appearance.

Something which has been noted around these parts for a while has been the tendency of many married women to use a lot of make-up and wear their nicest clothes when they go out and about, but to dress shabbily and appear unkempt at home. As St. Gregory rightfully notes, these women have their priorities backwards. Their husband is the only one that they need to look good for, and should look good for. He is the only man to whom attraction should matter. Looking good for the sake of other women is pure vanity, and must be rejected.

Of course, this must be balanced with the Christian wife’s duty to submit to her husband. So, if her husband asks her to beautify her appearance when they go out together, then she should. People will judge her husband by how she looks, so it is important that she provide a good impression. If he wishes her elegant, then she should be elegant. If he wishes complete modesty, then she should be modest. This advice by St. Gregory is primarily directed at a woman’s own initiative, not her husband.

What is particularly interesting is the language in the last sentence. While I am sure that the translation has turned it into something which is more akin to modern ways of speaking, that final sentence sounds just like something which could be said today. In that, it should serve as a reminder that vanity is a timeless trait, one that frequently rears its ugly head.

In your marriage, fondness, affection and love must be strong and persistent for him whom God has selected to be your life partner. This man is now the eye of your life and the delight of your heart. And if you ever perceive that your husband possibly loves you more than you love him, do not take advantage of his feeling by attempting to gain the upper had in your marriage. That is plainly wrong as it is totally against the writings of the Holy Gospel!

This warning seems to me to be a hint that pedestalization is not a recent development. Which should surprise no one, really. While one doesn’t necessarily have to agree with Rollo that men love idealistically (and women don’t), men are the same now as they have been throughout recorded history. We make the same mistakes, commit the same follies, and as seems obvious now, we repeat these time and time again. There is something within us as men that makes us (or most of us anyways) want to love women. At least, until we have suffered betrayal at the hands of a woman we loved. Respect is the fuel that keeps men moving. Without it we slow down and slowly fall apart. And there is no greater act of disrespect than betrayal. St. George is warning this young bride that taking advantage of her husband’s love for her will be hugely disrespectful, and may well lead to her betraying him, which could poison the well of love from him forever.

You must respect him and love him unconditionally, as you love God. Be aware that you are a woman and you have an important and great purpose and destiny; however, your purpose and destiny is different than that of your husband who must be the head of your household. Set aside the silliness of equality among the sexes, that some of your contemporaries preach, and attempt to comprehend the obligations of marriage. In the realization of these obligations you will discover the great patience and endurance that is necessary to fulfill your family duties; it is in this manner that you will also discover the great strength that you as a woman possess.

Consider that first sentence. Think of how radical it sounds. Unconditional love and respect? It sounds crazy to us today, but that only goes to show just how far afield Christianity has become. In truth, Christianity has always been, and will always be, a radical religion. God’s commands and Laws are never comfortable, because they are not aligned with our worldly wants and desires. A part of us will always resist what scripture and the Church teaches (or should teach), so we must always strive against this tendency and never forget that it exists.

What really strikes me, however, is the second sentence in bold. Is it just me, or is that not something which you could imagine having been written a few decades ago, when Feminism was making its greatest advances? When we think of our problems, the unhealthiness of the socio-sexual order in our present age, we tend to believe that it is a modern problem. Something which has only existed recently. This letter proves that lie for what it is. Feminism, with its call for “equality among the sexes” is an age old problem, one that has always been with us. There is nothing new under the sun, our present problems are to be found in every age.

You must never criticize, scold or become derogatory towards your husband for something that he has erred. Likewise, you must avoid any contempt towards any inaction or indecision by your husband, even when the outcome is not favorable or something that you greatly desire or consider proper. Be aware that demons are always around attempting to penetrate your household, and break up the couple’s harmonious spiritual cohabitation.

While he never directly uses the word Respect in this paragraph, St. Gregory alludes to it throughout. Everything I wrote about respect applies here. When a wife disrespects her husband, such as through open contempt, it opens a terrible wound in their relationship, one that doesn’t heal easily. While it may provide some instant gratification to prove him wrong, a wife who derides her husband will find that the long term consequences are perilous indeed. Such actions and behavior open a door through which the Adversary may enter, so that he may poison a wife’s mind, and through that bring the marriage to ruin.

Be extremely careful with whom you associate and the company that you keep. Be especially careful of the social gatherings that you may be participating in. Do not allow yourself to enter entertainment centers of questionable background; these represent extreme danger towards your purity and the sanctity of your marriage. These types of social interactions remove the instinct of shame, eyes cross with eyes, and once shame is not there to guard from any impropriety, the demons are able to exercise their influence and give rise to evils of unspeakable magnitude.

St. Gregory is giving more timeless advice here, by warning women (although this applies to men too) that they will be shaped by the company they keep. Oftentimes we won’t even notice this take place, but it does. You can often tell when someone has a new friend, just by the shift in their behavior. So it is essential we choose our associates carefully.

As for entertainment centers… I was struck by just how timely that advice seemed to be. Stories constantly pop up around these parts about wives who go to nightclubs with their friends for a “girls night out.” Such stories rarely end well. While they might be indicative of problems that already exist within the marriage, it is better not to chance such things. Avoiding temptation is essential, and so wives should be mindful of where they go.

Stay away from conceited and ostentatious women whose mind is pre-occupied with external appearances and social circles, all for the purpose of vainglory and public display. This should be the same for any men that you consider respectful and spiritual but whom your husband has not allowed to enter your home, irrespective of how highly you may regard them. For is there anything more precious for you than your good husband whom you love so dearly?

This is something which is very important for married women to understand. Men can perceive things about other men which a woman might be blind to. If your husband has indicated a man is not to enter your home, there is a strong reason for it. While there is always a chance that the husband might be mistaken, both respectful submission and general prudence dictate that a wife should not associate with men her husband wouldn’t want in the household. This advice is especially true in the present age, because there are more than a few men out there who seem to “specialize” in cuckoldry.

And now for your tongue. Your husband will always be your enemy for as long as your tongue is uncontrolled, even if you are to be blessed with thousands of other talents. A foolish tongue often endangers even the most innocent of people. It is preferred to maintain quiet, even in cases that you are correct. This is because you risk the expression of an unintended improper word or characterization. No matter how greatly you desire to say a lot, it is best that you limit your words and instead choose your presence to be a quiet one.

Nagging is nothing new. St. Gregory’s advice here is as good now as it was over 1600 years ago. Few things can erode trust, respect and love between a husband and wife quite like constant nagging. I am sure that it is a most difficult thing, to control your tongue as is required in marriage. But it is essential.

Lastly, this little part, which is the only section of the letter I was uncertain of:

And now pay close attention and be mindful of the following advice: You must never exemplify or maintain an uncontrollable desire for the flesh. Persuade your husband to respect the holy days of the Church and the fasting periods. This is because God’s laws are of much greater importance than the image of God. Be mindful that the institution of marriage was established by the Son of God to aid His creation so that a balance is maintained, as some depart this world while others arrive.

On the face of it, such language is not necessarily problematic. But it is easy to take such advice and use it improperly, towards evil ends. St. Gregory is correct that uncontrolled lust is a sinful thing, but that doesn’t mean that a wife’s passion for her husband is wrong. Far from it. Merely that she need temper it and not let it dominate her. Although I think for most women this is not apt to be likely, it is still advice worth noting. More important, however, is to not use Holy Days and fasts as an excuse to deny your husband. St. Paul was quite clear about the denial of conjugal rights, it should never happen. Abstinence in marriage must be mutual, and only for a limited time.

Other than that last part, this letter is a exemplary. Sadly, as a society we mostly reject the advice and counsel of the past. Too often we fall into the trap of thinking that our present situation is new and unique, and thus the wisdom of the ages is irrelevant. This letter proves otherwise. In our efforts to find a solution to today’s problems, it would behoove use to look into the past. Odds are that our elders have already given use the advice we need to carry us through today’s struggles.

Filling the Void

Background

One of the ideas that I have championed in the past, and one which hasn’t really caught on in the greater manosphere, is that men have psychological need for women. Not feeling especially imaginative, I labeled it The Need, and I delved into this idea in depth with my post The Need and The Void. As I explained therein:

Men need women to provide comfort and reassurance, to be a warm blanket that allows men to forget, for a short while, the horrors of the world. A man runs to a woman to escape the toils of the world.

This is a simplistic explanation, but it works as a metaphor for how men perceive and need women. Women act as a source of release for men, and I don’t mean that in the purely sexual sense. It is far more than that. A good woman can help a man release all of the tension, the stress, the angst which accumulates as a result of the “toils of the world.” As for the consequences to a man without that release:

A man without a woman feels like there is a void in his life. The longer he is lonely, the greater the void becomes. For someone who goes without female companionship for long enough, that void eventually consumes him, leaving a shell of a man behind. By the way, when I say companionship, I don’t merely mean One Night Stands or flings. I mean a serious relationship with a woman. Something lasting during which a man can give attention to a woman, and receive it back.

Unlike the physical need that a man feels for a woman, this psychological need is not something that can be easily alleviated. Further on in the post I explained this in greater detail, and provided a name for this condition:

While the lack of physical contact with a woman (sex) might cause physical symptoms like an ache, the real harm is mental. Instead, I think I will refer to it as The Void, because the lack of femininity in a man’s life leaves him with a terrible emptiness which nothing else can fill. While a man might use porn or “sex-bots” or a Holodeck to satisfy the physical demands of The Need, that is the limit to their capabilities.  The true harm of The Void can only be met by a real, live, flesh and blood woman, although I suspect much time and money will be spent to prove me wrong.

And this takes us to the subject of this post: various methods by which the Void can be filled. The first method, one which is a not infrequent subject in the manosphere, is that of pornography.

The Substitute Product

Cail Corishev has recently addressed the subject of pornography, and how it has changed in the past few years. Cail provides a window in a world that some of us, this author included, don’t know a whole lot about. The main point of his post was to try and convey how Porn has become so much more realistic than it was in the past. As he puts it:

[H]igh-definition video takes it to a completely different level than pictures ever could. With a skin magazine, at least you had to use your imagination a little. But with video, she looks and sounds like she’s right there having sex with you. That’s two of the five senses, and they’re working on the other three. The intensity of that is far beyond anything that came before, and to compare it to pictures and stuff like drawings on cave walls is laughable — no one ever got addicted to staring at naked stick figures.

There is no doubt that Porn has been pushing the envelope when it comes to technology. I seem to recall reading somewhere that the online porn industry was the driving force behind online credit card transactions and streaming video. But the later piece of technology is what is relevant in the context of this post. Because streaming video provides for another technology which carries things even further:

But even beyond videos, now there are live webcams. I can go to a web site right now and do a search for whatever kind of girl I feel like today — maybe one with dark hair, small breasts, librarian glasses, and a southern drawl. Just like on a dating site, it’ll give me a list of women to browse through. I pick one, and there she is on my screen — a real girl, pretty and smiling, sitting in front of a webcam in her home or dorm room, maybe wearing some lingerie or a t-shirt, maybe not.  I can chat and flirt with her in real time.  Her main purpose, of course, is to get me to pay for a private session where she will do whatever I ask her to.  But even if I never pay a dime, she’ll show off the goods, so I get to see a girl naked and talk to her — a girl who will be on her best behavior, because she wants me to stick around and want more.

So now I not only have two of the five senses filled with a woman I picked out to fit my desires, but she’s responding to me in real time, just like a real girl, plus she’s being totally pleasant and fun.  And if I decide to pay for “sex” with her, she’ll respond to me just like if it were the real thing, turning over or moaning louder or whatever on command.  Now we’re getting awfully close to the real thing, and it’s starting to include some of the other comfort factors that you don’t get from pictures or a recorded video.  This girl you can sort of cuddle with and talk to afterwards.

The bolded parts are mine, for emphasis. I added them because what Cail is starting to describe at the end of this quote is something much more… meaningful(?) than mere sexual release. Instead, it is almost sounding like web cam girls can offer a means by which The Void can be filled, because they provide an opportunity for a man to mix sexual release with the psychological need for positive feminine interaction. The responsiveness and interactivity that a web cam provides bridges a gap that was lacking earlier in outlets. I think Cail is right that they really change the game in ways that we are just beginning to realize. In the context of the general Market Failure we are experiencing now, this can have a profound effect on whether men will marry or not. If there are methods to fill The Void without a woman, then I suspect that given the current climate that many men will leap at the opportunity. And speaking of possible methods to fill The Void, this leads to one that I discovered somewhat recently: ASMR.

ASMR

ASMR, or Autonomous Sensory Meridian Response, is something of a novel and recent concept. As described by Wikipedia, it is:

…a neologism for a recently described perceptual phenomenon characterized as a distinct, pleasurable tingling sensation in the head, scalp, back, or peripheral regions of the body in response to visual, auditory, olfactory, and/or cognitive stimuli.

There are a number of videos up on Youtube by various “ASMR artists” who use their videos to try and generate those kinds of responses. Many of them involve whispering or speaking softly and various repetitive noises, including brushing, scratching, chewing and tapping. Some I find to be more effective than others (scratching and tapping, for instance), but the nature of ASMR means that the proper stimulus varies from person to person. A nickname seems to have developed for those who find themselves fans of ASMR: “tingle-heads” (something some manospherians will no doubt find highly amusing).

I don’t recall exactly where I first became familiar with ASMR, although I think it might have been from one of the various bloggers in this part of the internet. [Nightskyradio has clued me in that it is TempestTcup who was the blogger in question, with her post “Pull My Hair.] Either way, in the few months that I have known about it I have discovered that it is a particularly effective method of stress relief. In that time I have listened to, and watched, dozens of different ASMR artists ply their trade. Along the way, I have developed several favorites, whom I will watch and listen to on a regular basis. As I was compiling a mental list of my favorite ASMR artists, I realized that there was a common theme to all of them:

They were all fairly attractive young or youthful women with pleasant voices.

When I first set out to experience ASMR, I didn’t consciously focus my efforts on artists who matched that description. But I naturally gravitated towards them. And what I have realized is that I was unconsciously drawn to them because their efforts were the most enjoyable for me to experience. I had, without setting my mind to it, been attempting to use their videos to fill The Void. Or at least, that is what I speculate has been motivating me. With matters of the unconscious/subconscious it is always difficult to be certain.

What I have noticed is that the videos I enjoy the most involve soft whispering combined with some other kind of repetitive or “white” noise. I theorize that the combination of these noises plus the whispering acts to mimic or parallel the psychological reassurance which women can provide. Essentially, the stress reducing component of ASMR noises plus feminine whispering creates a mental bridge that simulates the effect on the brain of positive interactions with a woman. At least, that is what I think may be going on. [I hope that some of you can provide your own thoughts on the matter.]

And by no means do I think that this is a complete replacement for women. Only two of the five senses are met here. The lack of physical touching (which I believe is essential to filling The Void) is a glaring hole with these videos. And simulating “the warmth of a woman’s touch” is much more difficult than sight, or sound or smell. Still, this is an effect that I think merits close observation, to see what will become of it.

Conclusion

In The Need and The Void I expressed doubt that it would be possible to fill The Void with technology, but now I am no so sure. Web Cam Girls and ASMR vids are only the tip of the iceberg. As science develops new understanding of the human brain, I have to concede the possibility that the particular neutral triggers which satisfy The Void might be located, and methods developed to safely stimulate them. In such an event, men really will be able to Go Their Own Way, and we might see a collapse of the Marriage Market after all. What that will mean for society I cannot begin to predict, but I suspect it will not be the positive impetus for change that some hope for. Truly, we live in interesting times.

Philosophical Ramblings

My mind has been scattered these past few days, likely a result of the fact that I have been in something of a funk as of late. The scatter-brained effect has made it difficult to write anything meaningful and coherent, while the funk has left me pondering deep matters. So all I have been able to write is short snippets that are little more than philosophical ramblings at this point. Or at least, I would like to think that they are worthy of that description, rather than just words thrown at the screen to see what sticks. The probable reason for my current state of mind also happens to be the first subject:

1) I feel like I was born in the wrong time. Part of me is certain that there has to be some kind of mistake, because I don’t feel at ease in this day and age. Something in me is convinced that I was born fifty or a hundred years too late. Whether it is moral restraint, cowardice or something else, I find myself completely unsuited to our current Sexual Markeplace. I long for the days of courtship and feminine women who saved themselves for marriage and a community which would help you find a match. As it is, I feel like a Stranger in a Strange Land. Or just simply Strange…

2) Hard Monogamy forces Men to be pseudo-hypergamous. Hard Monogamy, aka lifetime monogamy or marriage is not the natural sexual strategy of Men (or women either, for that matter). Instead, men prefer to play the field and be polygamous, having as many sexual partners as they can manage. Under this strategy, men don’t mind having coupling with a lower SMV woman so long as it doesn’t impact their future conquests. After all, there is nothing stopping them from going after a better looking woman next time. But under Hard Monogamy this isn’t possible. Faced with this possibility, men will often vacillate (think cold feet). When they know that they have to commit, they will do so to the highest value woman who will accept their proposal. Functionally this seems to me to be nearly identical to female hypergamy.

3) Men are just as susceptible as woman are when it comes to altering their expectations of the opposite sex. The effect of romance novels upon female expectations of male behavior is not a new subject in this part of the web. They set unrealistic expectations of how man act and behave, with the end result that few, if any, men can ever live up to that kind of expectation. Even when women are made aware of this phenomenon, they will often still  feel dissatisfaction with the men in their life. Well, I believe that men can experience something much like this as well. And no, I am not talking about the effect of Porn on the male psyche and beauty expectations. Attraction is biological, and thus hard-wired in; a man with a healthy mind can’t have his attraction filters muddled around with like that.

No, I am referring to an expectation of female attitudes and behaviors. Truth is, ever since I took the Red Pill I have noticed that I have become increasingly dissatisfied with the women around me. That is not to say that I enjoyed their behavior beforehand, far from it. Rather, I have become aware that behaviors which didn’t bother me before I have since grown to actively dislike, and the absence of certain other behaviors (feminine ones) leaves me in a dismissive mood about those women. They have lost much of their appeal to me, I don’t desire them like in the past. Why? Because after viewing old movies, reading older books, and in a few instances, actually interacting with feminine women, I have become jaded. As a whole, American women just don’t seem to cut it for me anymore (it seems like the most feminine ones I know are immigrants or the children of immigrants). I guess in a way I have either become addicted to femininity or acclimated to it so that I react poorly when it isn’t present.  Either way I don’t want to go back, and I’m not sure I can, even if I wanted to. Another instance in which ignorance is bliss; this wouldn’t be a problem if I didn’t know what I would be missing.

That’s all for now. Assuming time permits, I would like to test something this evening…